Howard B. - Petroleum Engineers Handbook, Part 3

Click Here To Continue
Chapter 21
Crude Oil Properties and Condensate
Properties and Correlations
Paul Buthod, U. of Tulsa*
Introduction
All crude oils are composed primarily of hydrocarbons,
which are made by the combination of the elements car-
bon and hydrogen. In addition, most crudes contain
sulfur compounds and trace quantities of oxygen,
nitrogen, and heavy metals. The difference in crude oils
is caused by the amount of sulfur compounds and by the
types and molecular weights of the hydrocarbons making
up the oil.
The hydrocarbons found in crude oil range in size from
the smallest molecule, methane, which contains 1 atom
of carbon, to the largest ones, which contain nearly 100
atoms of carbon. The types of hydrocarbon compounds
are paraffin, naphthene, and aromatic, found in raw
crude, and olefin and diolefin, which are sometimes
found in refined products after thermal treatment. Since
any crude oil will have several thousand different com-
pounds in it, it has been impossible so far to develop ex-
act analyses of the actual compounds present. Three
methods of reporting analyses are available-ultimate
analysis, chemical analysis, and evaluation analysis.
Ultimate analysis lists the composition in percentages
of the elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and
sulfur. This tells very little about the type of compounds
present or the physical characteristics of the oil. It is
useful, however, in determining the amount of sulfur
that must be removed. Table 21.1 shows the ultimate
analysis of several crude oils.
Chemical analysis gives composition in percentage of
paraffin, naphthene, and aromatic-type compounds pres-
ent in the crude. This type of analysis can be determined
with fair accuracy by means of chemical reaction and
solvency tests. An analysis of this sort gives an idea of
the usefulness of refined products but does not give any
This author also wrote the tiginal chapter on this topic in the 1962 edation.
means of predicting the amount of various refined prod-
ucts. Table 2 1.2 gives the chemical analysis of several
fractions of four crude oils.
The crude-oil evaluation consists primarily of a frac-
tional distillation of the oil followed by physical-
property tests (for parameters such as gravity, viscosity,
and pour point) on the distillation products. Since the
primary means of separating products in the refinery is
fractionation, this analysis makes it possible to predict
yields of refined products and physical properties studied
in the evaluation. The evaluation curves shown in Fig.
2 1.1 make it possible to predict the physical properties of
the refined products. As an example of the use of evalua-
tion curves, Table 2 1.3 shows product yields and proper-
ties when a refinery is operated for maximum gasoline
yield, and Table 2 1.4 shows product yields and proper-
ties when the objective is to produce lubricating oils and
diesel fuel.
Since the early 1970s, much research has-been per-
formed on the use of the gas chromatograph to generate
simulated distillations. This has the advantage of produc-
ing crude-oil evaluation curves with very small samples
of crude and in a period of about an hour, compared with
about a gallon of crude for a fractional distillation col-
umn and about 2 days for the analysis. The simulated
distillation is called ASTM Test Method D2887. I
Base of Crude Oil
Since the beginning of the oil industry in the U.S., it has
been convenient to separate crude oils into three broad
classifications or bases. These three, paraffin, in-
termediate, and naphthene, are useful as general
classifications but lead to ambiguity in many instances.
Because a crude may exhibit one set of characteristics for
21-2 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
TABLE Pl.l-ULTIMATE CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF PETROLEUM
Specific
Component
Gravity Temperature
WI
Petroleum
-r PC)
C H N 0 S
- - -- -
Pennsylvania pipeline 0.862 15 85.5 14.2
Mecook, WV 0.897 0 83.6 12.9 3.6
Humbolt, KS 0.912 85.6 12.4 0.37
Healdton, OK 85.0 12.9 0.76
Coalinga, CA 0.951 15 86.4 11.7 1.14 0.60
Beaumont, TX 0.91 85.7 11.0 2.61 l 0.70
Mexico 0.97 15 83.0 11 .o 1.7* 4.30
Baku, USSR 0.897 66.5 12.0 1.5
Colombia, South America 0.948 20 65.62 11.91 0.54
Combined mtrogen and oxygen.
TABLE 21.2-CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF PETROLEUM, %
Grozny Grozny (Paraffin- Oklahoma California
(High Paraffin) Free Upper Level), (Davenport), (Huntmgton Beach),
Fraction
45.3% at 572OF
(0
Aromatic Naphthene Paraffin
140 to 203 3 25 72
203 to 252 z 30 65
252 to 302 35 56
302 to 392 14 29 57
392 to 482 18 23 59
482 to 572 17 22 61
40.9% at 572OF
Aromatic Naphthene Paraffin
4 31 65
8 40 52
13 52 35
21 55 24
26 63 11
35 57 8
64% at 572OF
Aromatlc Naphthene Paraffin
5 21 73
7 28 65
12 33 55
16 29 55
17 31 52
17 32 51
Base
paraffin
paraffin
mixed
mixed
naphthene
naphthene
naphthene
34.2% at 57ZF
Aromatic Naohthene Paraffin
-A
i 31 46 65 46
11 64 25
17 61 22
25 45 30
29 40 31
TABLE 21.3-EVALUATION WHEN OPERATING PRIMARILY FOR GASOLINE
Material
Gas loss
Straight-run gasoline (untreated)
Catalytic charge
V&breaker charge or asphalt
Crude oil
Percent Distilled
Gravity
Basis Range Midpoint Yield (OAPI) Other Properties
~-
0 to 1.3 1.3
54.5 octane number 1.3 to 32 16.6 30.7 56 390DF ASTM endpoint7
900F cut 32 to 80.5 56.2 48.5 28.8 165OF aniline point or 47.5
diesel index
remainder 80.5 to 100 19.5 6.4$ 110 penetration
100.0 32.0 11.65 characterization factor
Topping follwed by YaWUrn flashing to produce a gas 011 for catalflic cracking. The Cycle stcck IrOm catalytic cracking is thermally cracked along wtth the asphalt or vis-
breaker chargestock.
Average gravity from instantaneous curve of API gravity.
?At about 400aF endpoint the truebOiling.pCint cut point is about 2PF higher than the ASTM end point
*By a material balance.
TABLE 21.4-EVALUATION WHEN OPERATING PRIMARILY FOR LUBRICATING-OIL STOCK0
Percent Distilled
API
Material
Viscosity,
Basis Range Midpoint Yield Gravity SUS Other Properties
Gas loss 0 to 1.3 -13
Light gasoline (untreated)
300 EPb 1.3 lo 21.0 10.5 19.7 61.2C 63.8 octane numberd
Reforming naphtha
445 EPb 21 .O to 38.5 29.7 17.5 41.3e 0.16% sulfur
Diesel fuel
156 aniline point 38.5 to 56.5 47.5 18.0 32.1
Light lube or cracking stock
41 (estimated) 50 diesel Index; 0.82% sulfur
remainder 56.5 to 74.9 65.7 18.4 25.9 145 at 100F 1.49% sulfur
Lube stock (untreated)
100 Ws viscosity at 2lOOF 74.9 to 80.9 77.9 6.0 19.1 100 at 210F
Asphalt
100 penetration 80.9 to 100.0 19.1 100 penetration at 77OFg
Crude oil 100.0 32.0
CRUDE-OIL & CONDENSATE PROPERTIES & CORRELATIONS 21-3
TABLE 21.5-BASES OF CRUDE OILS
API Gravity Approximate UOP* *
at 60F Characterization Factor
Low-Boiling High-Boiling Key Fraction Key Fraction Low- High-
Part Part 1 2 Boiling Boiling
paraffin paraffin 40+ 30+ 12.2+ 12.2+
baraff in intermediate
paraffin naphthene
intermediate paraffin
intermediate intermediate
intermediate naphthene
naphthene intermediate
naphthene paraffin
naphthene naphthene
USBM, Repon 3279 (Sept. 1935).
Universal Oil Products Co.. Chicago
40+
40+
33 to 40
33 to 40
33 to 40
33-
33-
33-
its light materials and another set for the heavy-lube frac-
tions, the USBM has developed a more useful method of
classifying oils.
Two fractions (called key fractions) are obtained in
the standard Hempel distillation procedure. Key Fraction
1 is the material that boils between 482 and 527F at at-
mospheric pressure. Key Fraction 2 is the material that
boils between 527 and 572F at 40 mm absolute
pressure. Both fractions are tested for API gravity, and
Key Fraction 2 is tested for cloud point. In naming the
type of oil, the base of light material (Key Fraction 1) is
named first, and the base of the heavy material (Key
Fraction 2) is named second. If the cloud point of Key
Fraction 2 is above 5F, the term wax-bearing is add-
ed. If the pour point is below 5F, it is termed wax-
free.
Thus, paraffin-intermediate-wax-free would mean
a crude that has paraffinic characteristics in the gasoline
portion and intermediate characteristics in the lube por-
tion and has very little wax. Table 21.5 shows the
criteria used in establishing bases of oil by the USBM
method.
Several attempts have been made to establish an index
to give a numerical correlation for the base of a crude oil.
The most useful of these is the characterization factor K
developed in Ref. 2,
3%
K=-
Y
in which TB is the molal average boiling point (degrees
Rankine) and y is the specific gravity at 60F. This has
been used successfully in correlating not only crude oils,
but refinery products both cracked and straight-run.
Typical numerical values for characterization factors are
listed in Table 2 1.6.
In addition to the relationship between the
characterization factor and the specific gravity and boil-
ing point defined above, a number of other physical
properties have been shown to be related to the chamc-
terization factor. Among these properties are viscosity,
molecular weight, critical temperature and pressure,
specific heats, and percent hydrogen.
Table 21.7 shows characterization factors for a
20 to 30
20-
30+
20 to 30
20-
20 to 30
30+
20-
12.2+ 11.4 to 12.0
12.2 + 11.4-
11.5 12.0 to 12.2+
11.4 12.1 to 11.4 to 12.1
11.4 12.1 to 11.4-
11.5- 11.4 to 12.1
11.5- 12.2+
11.4- 11.4-
TABLE 21.6-TYPICAL CHARACTERIZATION
FACTOR VALUES
Product
Characterization
Factor
Pennsylvania stocks (paraffin base) 12.1 to 12.5
Mid-Continent stocks (intermediate) 11.8 to 12.0
Gulf Coast stocks (naphthene base)
Cracked gasoline
Cracking-plant combined feeds
Recycle stocks
Cracked residuum
11 .o to 11.6
11.5 to 11.8
10.5 to 11.5
10.0 to 11.0
9.8 to 11 .O
number of worldwide crudes and products and typical
hydrocarbon compounds that have the same character-
ization factor as the oil in question.
Physical Properties
Fig. 21.2 shows the relationship of carbon-to-
hydrogen ratio, average molecular weight, and mean
average boiling point as a function of API gravity and
characterization factor. The API Technical Data Book3
has published a number of correlations for physical prop-
erties of petroleum. For the most accurate data, this
reference should be consulted.
When oil is heated or cooled in a processing operation,
the amount of heat required is best obtained by the use of
the specific heat. Fig. 21.3 shows the specific heat of
liquid petroleum oils as a function of API gravity and
temperature. This chart is based on a characterization
factor of 11.8, and if the oil being studied is other than
that, there is a correction shown at the lower right side of
the chart. The number obtained for the specific heat
should be multiplied by this correction factor. Certain
paraffin hydrocarbons are also shown on the chart. No
correction need be applied to these.
If vaporization or condensation occurs in a processing
operation, the heat requirements are most easily handled
by the use of total heats. Fig. 2 1.4 gives total heats of
petroleum liquid and vapor, with liquid at 0F as a
reference or zero point. This eliminates the necessity of
selecting a latent heat, specific heats of both vapor and
liquid, and deciding at what temperature to apply the la-
tent heat. Certain corrections must be applied for
characterization factor and for pressure.
TABLE 21.7-CHARACTERIZATION FACTORS OF A FEW HYDROCARBONS, PETROLEUMS, AND TYPICAL STOCKS
Characterization
Factor Hydrocarbons Typical Crude Oils Miscellaneous Products
14.7
14.2
13.85
13.5 to 13.6
13.0 to 13.2
12.8
12.7
12.6
12.55
12.5
12.1 to 12.5
12.2 to 12.44
12.0 to 12.2
11.9 to 12.2
propane
propylene
isobutane
butane
butane-l and isopentane
hexane and tetradecened
P-methylheptane and tetradecane
pentene-1, hexene-1, and cetene
2,2,4-trimethylpentane
hexene-2 and 1.3-butadiene
2,2,3,3tetramethyl butane
2,l l-dimethyl dodecadiene
11.9
11.8 to 12.1
11.85
11.7 to 12
11.75
11.7
11.6
11.5 to 11.8
11.5
hexylcyclohexane
butylcyclohexane
octyl or diamyl benzene
11.45 ethylcyclohexane and 9-hexyl-l l-methylheptadiene
11.4 methylcyctohexane
11.3to 11.6
11.3 cyclobutane and 2,6,10,14tetramethyl hexadiene
Cotton Valley (LA) lubes
Pennsylvania-Rodessa (LA)
Big Lake (TX)
Lance Creek (WY)
Mid-Continent (MC.)
Oklahoma City (OK)
Fullerton (W. TX)
Illinois; Midway (AR)
W. TX; Jusepin (Venezuela)
Cowden (W TX)
Santa Fe Springs (CA)
Slaughter (W. TX); Hobbs (NM)
Colombian
Hendrick and Yates (W. TX)
Elk Basin, heavy (WY)
Kettleman Hills (CA)
Smackover (AR)
Lagunillas (Venezuela)
Gulf Coast light distillates
12.66 (range 12.1 to 13.65) calculated lrom factors of raw and dewaxed lube stocks
\ / (YIELD1
94.5 API adsorption gasoline
Four Venezuelan paraffin waxes
paraffin wax*: MC. 82.2 API natural gasoline
CA 81.9 API natural gasoline
debutanized E. TX natural gasoline
San Joaquin (Venezuela) wax distillate
Panhandle (TX) lubes
Six Venezuelan wax distillates
paraffin-base gasolines
Middle East light products
cracked gasoline from paraffinic feeds
E. TX gas oil and lubes
light cycloversion gasoline from M.C. feeds
Middle East gas oil and lubes
cracked gasoline from intermediate feeds
E. TX and IA white products
cracked gas oil from paraffinic feeds
catalytic cycle stocks from paraffinic feeds
cracked gasoline from naphthene feeds
Tia Juana (Venezuela) gas oil and lubes
naphthenic gasoline: catalytic (cracked)
gasoline
catalytic cycle stocks from MC. feeds
cracked gasoline from hrghly naphthenrc feeds
high-conversion catalytic cycle stocks from
parafbnic feeds
typical catalytic cycle stocks
liaht-ail coil thermal feeds
catalytic cycle stocks from
11.7~characterization-factor feeds
gasoline from catalytic re-forming
*.- , , 1 I I I I ,
IO 20 30 40 50 60 i-0 80 90 100
+
PERCENTAGE DISTILLED
I I
Ftg. 21 .l-Evaluation curves of a 32.0API intermediate-base
crude oil of characterization factor 11.65.
CRUDE-OIL 8 CONDENSATE PROPERTIES & CORRELATIONS
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
21-5
9.0
8.0
7-o
6.0
IO
20 30 40 50
Fig. 21.2-Petroleum properties as a function of API gravity and characterization factor. Note: the parameters in the curves refer to
the characterization factor.
21-6
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
m
7
/
L
o-
o-
o-
o-
9
3-
34
0
I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I
0 200 400 600 000
TEMPERATURE,F
Fig. 21.3-Specific heats of Mid-Continent liquid oils with a cor-
rection factor for other bases of oils.
1,.,!,,,,,,.,
K =CHARACTEklZATION FACTOR =
3MOLAL AVG. BOILING POINT,R
- / SPEClF(C G.,ilTYf~
/
I I I I
I 000 900
, OF
1,000 1,100 1,200
Fig. 21.4-Heat content of petroleum fractions including the effect of pressure.
Gravity, API
Sulfur, %
Viscosity, SUS at lOOoF
Date
Characterization factor
At 25OF
At 450F
At 550F
At 750DF
Average
Base
Loss, %
Gasoline
% at 300F
Octane number, clear
Octane number, 3 cc TEL
% to 400F
Octane number, clear
Octane number, 3 cc TEL
% to 450F
Quality
Jet stock
% to 550F
API gravity
Qualitv
TABLE 21.8-TRUE-BOILING-POINT CRUDE OIL ANALYSES
Location
Kerosene distillate
%, 375 to 500F
API gravity
Smoke point
Sulfur, %
Quality
Distillate or diesel fuel
%, 400 to 700F
Diesel index
Pour point
Sulfur, O/O
Quality
Cracking stock (distilled)
%, 400 to 900F
Octane number (thermal)
API gravity
Quality
Cracking stock (residual)
% above 550F
API gravity
API cracked fuel
% gasoline (on stock)
% gasoline (on crude oil)
Lube distillate (undewaxed)
% 700 to 900Fc
Pour point
Viscosity index
Sulfur, %
Quality
Residue, % over 900F
Asphalt quality
Atlanta,
Smackover, AR
AR
20.5
2.30
270
413139
11.62 11.82
11.48 12.05
11.47 12.08
11.55 12.25
11.53 12.05
I IP
0 1.5
6.0
73.2a
a9.0a
11 .o
66.0b
25.2d
14.4
good b
39.2d
48.5b
45.3d
24.1
41.9
good
56.3d 6.1 d
57.4 29.5b
9.5
38.0
16.0b
0.29b
15.0d
46.0
27.0b
0.06b
excellent
29.2 35.0d 19.7d 23.8 38.4d 28.0d
43.0b 76.0d mob 33.0 33.0b 48.5
Ob high - 30.0b - 3.0 -25.ob 20.0b
0.82 b 0.15b 0. 8b 2.56 0.35b 0.W
48.2 51.4d
71.4b 64.5 b
25.7 35.5
75.9 42.2d
14.7 27.1
4.8 9.6
35.5 54.9
27.0 23.2
19.0 16.4d 22.2d
37.0b
2.45 b
40.8
good
113.0b
0.8b
excellent
7.9d
1.5b
57.0d
excellent
(limestone)
44.5
0.48c
35
Kern
River,
CA
10.7
1.23
6,000 +
11.13
11.15
11.15
N
0
0
1.2d
2.P
2.7d
32.5d
13.0b
0.38b
41.8d
7.5.6b
20.0
good
93.9d
9.1
a Simply aviation gasoline, not always 300-F cut point
Esbmated from general cotrelat~ons.
Sour oils (1.e.. oils containing more than 0.5 cu ft hydrogen sulfide per 100 gal before stabilization.)
dApproximat.+d from data on other fractions of same oil.
Research method Octane number
Santa
Maria,
CA
15.4
4.63
368
812154
Coalinga
(East),
CA
20.7
0.51
178
Coalinga,
CA
31.1
0.31
40
11.90
11.42
11.29
11.11
11.48
IN
0
11.28
11.20
11.23
N
3.0
11.5
11.53
11.59
11.72
11.58
I
1.1
7.0 1.2d 21 .6d
72.ob
13.2
59.8e
70.30
17.0
9.6d 31 .6d
67.0 b 66.7b
15.6d 35.6d
good b excellent b
25.0
43.0
good
8.5
34.5
1.8d
29.3d
36.9
46.2d
46.0d
good
16.0d Il.Od
34.0d 37.0
14.5b 17.0b
o.ub 0.06b
39.8
75.6d
22.8
59.46
22.3
excellent
45.6d
70.4b
28.0
good
75.0
i::
15.0
11.0
16.0
67.7d 52.P
11 .o 18.2
4.2 5.0
27.5 42.2
18.6 22.2
13.06 17.6d
0.67b
56.0b
0.43b
47.0 28.0d 21.7d
excellent excellent good
Sampling pressure
Sampling temperature
Total fluid mol wt
Liquid/gas ratio,
bbl per million scf
Gas mol WI
Gas analysis, mol%
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
i-butane
n-Butane
i-pentane
n-Pentane
Hexanes
Heptane plus
Liquid gravity, OAPI
Llquld mol wt
Liquid analysts
Light gasoline
Naphtha
Kerosene dtstlllate
Gas oil
Nonviscous lube
Residuum and loss
TABLE 21.9-ANALYSIS OF CONDENSATE LIQUID AND GAS FROM SELECTED TEXAS ZONES
Chapel Hill
Palusy
Zone
645
Carthage
Upper
Carthage Old Ocean Old Ocean
Pettite Lower Pettile Chenault Larson Seellgson Seeligson
Zone Zone Zone Zone 21 D Zone 21 A Zone Saxet
607 632- 752 702 810 410 1087
82 70 67 85 85 80 85
25.03 19.62 20.19 20.76 20.51 20 64 20.63
88
21.34
88.74 16.23 29.28 29.33 28.71 29.88 24.48 41.33
20.18 18.25 18.25 18.70 18.17 18.42 18.69 18.89
0.794 0.695 0.646 0.448 0.468 0.130 0.200 0.299
1.375 1.480 1.967 0.370 0.414 0 075 0.253 0.281
76.432 89.045 88.799 87.584 90.162 89.498 88.731 86.733
7.923 4.691 3.363 5.312 4.067 4 555 5.224 4.816
4.301 1.393 1.536 2.302 1.616 1 909 1.795 2.873
1.198 0.401 0.335 0.584 0.464 0 465 0.488 0.836
1.862 0.394 0.583 0.630 0.390 0 493 0.452 0.788
0.937 0.283 0.302 0.416 0.274 0.286 0.172 0.583
0.781 0.191 0.254 0.207 0.123 0209 0.241 0.256
1.415 0.379 0.574 0.505 0.418 0 385 0.414 0.633
2.992 1.098 1.641 1.642 1.604 2015 2.032 2.102
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 00 100.00 100.00 10000
71.8 61.0 64.8 54 0 47.6 52.7 52.1 60.0
68.64 91.51 81.55 85.93 110.07 94.49 103.22 68.73
Vol % OAPI Vol % OAPI
---__
55.1 82.9 29.1 74.8
37.2 60.5 48.4 59 2
21.1 50.8 18.2 48.1
5.6 4.3 4.4
Vol % API
40.7 76.6
47.0 59.3
7 9 47.6
Fig. 21.5-Approximate relation between viscosity, tempera-
ture, and characterization factor.
Vol % =APl Vol % API Vol % OAPI Vol % API Vol % OAPI
---
21.2 71.2 14.7 70.9 22.6 70.1 20.7 68.4 35.7 73.6
55.3 52.9 36.9 52.2 47.7 53.4 49.5 53.1 47.6 55.9
15.0 42.6 17.4 42.1 15.9 43.8 16.1 43.0 10.0 44.9
3.8 37.8 21.3 36.6 7.3 37.4 7.2 37.0 2.4 38.2
7 4 29.8
4.7 2.3 6.5 6.5 4.3
An important physical property of petroleum
necessary in studying flow characteristics is viscosity.
Viscosity of petroleum is often reported in Saybolt
Universal Seconds (SUS), derived from one of the com-
mon routine tests for oils. For engineering calculation,
however, the viscosity should be obtained in centipoise.
The relation between these two systems, according to the
U . S Bureau of Standards, is
149.7
5 =0.219ts --,
Yo tsu
where
FL0
= viscosity, cp
Yo
= specific gravity of oil at measured
temperature, and
tSU = Universal Saybolt viscosity, seconds.
An accurate correlation for viscosity is difficult,
especially for viscous oils, but an estimate of viscosity
may be obtained from Fig. 21.5. Four characterization
factors are given, and interpolation must be made for
other factors.
True-Boiling-Point Crude-Oil Analyses
A number of true-boiling-point crude-oil analyses are in-
cluded in Table 21.8. In addition to the gravity, viscosi-
ty, sulfur content, and characterization factor, there is a
breakdown of typical products made from each crude.
This table may be used either to estimate the value of the
products listed or to plot and evaluate any set of products
obtained (see Fig. 21.1). The table is separated first ac-
cording to state, and within each group according to
gravity.
When the quality of a product is indicated as good or
excellent, it means not only that the quality is good but
that it is present in normal amounts and that a salable
product can be made without excessive treatment.
Table 21.9 shows the analysis of the gas and liquid
phases after a stage separation of several condensates.
Nelson4 gives a compilation of 164 crudes and lists
the gravity, characterization factor, sulfur content, and
viscosity of each. Those tables include yields of typical
refined products, along with their physical properties and
an indication of their quality. A true-boiling-point curve
can be generated by plotting the end points of these prod-
ucts against the cumulative volume percent yield. If the
characterization factor is plotted on the same graph, the
characterization factor at any instantaneous boiling point
can be calculated. When instantaneous temperatures and
characterization factors at different percents are known,
specific gravity, API gravity, and viscosity curves may
be estimated. Thus, evaluation curves such as those in
Fig. 21 .l may be produced for any of the 164 crudes
listed. A typical page of these data is shown in Table
21.8.
More recently, a series on evaluations of non-U.S.
crude oils was published. 5 The format is similar to those
in Nelsons compilation, 4 but the physical properties are
usually more complete. An example of an analysis from
this series is shown in Table 21.10.
The USBM in Bartlesville, OK, began making distilla-
tion analyses before 1920. This laboratory [U.S. DOE
Bartlesville Energy Technology Center (BETC)] has
continued to evaluate crude oil up to the present time and
has two publications6,7 that show the distillation data
along with gravity and viscosity of the distilled fractions.
They also show the percentage composition of the frac-
tions in terms of paraffins, naphthenes, and aromatics.
This set of tables uses the correlation index rather than
characterization factor as a correlating number. In
general, low correlation index (1,) numbers indicate
highly paraffinic (pure paraffin hydrocarbons, I, =O).
High numbers indicate a high degree of aromaticity
(benzene, I,. = 100). The correlation index is defined as
follows.
1,=413.7 y-456.8+87552/T~,
where y is the specific gravity of the fraction at 60F and
T, is the average normal boiling point in degrees
Rankine .
All U.S. DOE analysis data have been built into the
BETC Crude Oil Analysis Data Bank.8 The data
retrieval system, Crude Oil Analysis System (COASYS),
is available by telephone hookup, and customers may
search, sort, and retrieve analyses from the file. More
than 30 keywords are available for searching; for exam-
ple, YEAR, APIG, LOC, GEOL and SULF, allow a search on
year analyzed, API gravity, location by state and coun-
try, geological formation, and percent sulfur in the oil,
respectively. Table 21.11 shows the type of information
obtained in a typical analysis retrieved from a computer
search by COASYS.
Bubblepoint Pressure Correlations*
In the study of reservoir flow properties, it is important
to know whether the fluid in the reservoir is in the liquid,
The rematnder of this chapter was written by M.0 Standing in the 1962 editon.
TABLE Pl.lO-TYPICAL CRUDE OIL EVALUATION,
EKOFISK, NORWAY
Crude
Gravity, API
Basic sediment and water, vol%
Sulfur, wt%
Pour test, OC
Viscosity, SUS at lOOoF
Reid vapor pressure, psi at 1 OOF
Salt, lbm/l,OOO bbl
Nitrogen compounds and lighter, ~01%
Gasoline
Range, OF
Yield, VOWI
Gravity, OAPI
Sulfur, wt%
Research octane number, clear
Research octane number, - 3 mL tetraethyl
lead per gallon
Gasoline
Range, OF
Yield, ~01%
Gravity, OAPI
Paraffins, ~01%
Naphthenes. vol%
Aromatics, ~01% (0 + A)
Sulfur, wt%
Research octane number, clear
Research octane number, + 3 mL tetraethyl
lead per gallon
60 to 400
31.0
60.1
56.52
29.52
13.96
0.0024
52.0
76.0
Kerosene
Range, OF 400 to 500
Yield, ~01% 13.5
Gravity, OAPI 40.2
Viscosity, SUS at lOOoF 32.33
Freezing point, OF -38
Aromatics, VOW (0 + A) 13.1
Sulfur, wt% <0.05
Aniline point, OF 146.2
Smoke point, mm 21
Liaht Gas Oil
Range, OF 500 to 650
Yield, ~01% 15.7
Gravity, OAPI 33.7
Viscosity, SUS at lOOoF 43.83
Pour point, OF -25
Sulfur, wt% 0.11
Aniline point, OF 164.3
Carbon residue, Ramsbottom, wt% 0.08
Cetane index 56.5
TopPed Crude
Range, OF
Yield, ~01%
Gravity, OAPI
Viscosity, SUS at 122OF
Pour point, OF
Sulfur, wt%
Carbon residue, Ramsbottom, wt%
Nickel, vanadium, ppm
650 +
38.8
21.5
80.25
-85
0.39
4.0
5.04, 1.95
36.3
1 .o
0.21
+20
42.40
5.1
14.5
1.0
60 to 200
10.7
77.2
0.003
74.4
90.0
TABLE 21.11-ADAPTATION OF BETC COMPUTER SEARCH PRINTOUT
Crude Petroleum Analysis: BETC Sample-B75008
lndentification
Webb W Field, Grant County, OK
Red Fork, Des Moines, Middle Pennsylvanian-4,464 to 4,482 ft
General Characteristics
Gravity, specific [OAPI]
Sulfur, wt%
Viscosity, SUS
at 77OF
at 1 OOF
Pour point, OF
Nitrogen, wt%
Color
0.820[41.1]
0.24
42
39
<5
0.054
brownish-black
Distillation. USBM Method (First droo at 79OF)
Stage l-Distillation at Atmospheric Pressure 746 mm Hg
Gravity at
Fraction Cut Cumulative
6OOF
Refraction Viscosity Cloud
Correlation Index Specific at lOOoF point
wwo
Number (OF) Vol% VOW0 Specific API Index at 20C Dispersion
(SW
(OF) Residuum Crude
-122 -1.5
~~-
1 1.5 0.639 89.9
79.7 7 1.38560 126.3
67.2 17 1.39755 131.1
60.2 21 1.41082 133.0
55.4 22 1.42186 134.0
51.6 23 1.43039 134.7
48.8 22 1.43770 135.2
45.8 23 1.44415 135.5
42.8 24 1.45102 137.6
40.4 25 1.45771 138.0
2 167 2.2 3.7 0.670
3 212 5.5 9.2 0.712
4 257 7.4 16.6 0.738
5 302 5.8 22.4 0.757
6 347 6.7 29.1 0.773
7 392 6.0 35.1 0.785
8 437 59 41.0 0 798
9 482 6.8 47.8 0.812
10 527 5.1 52.9 0.823
Stage 2-Distillation continued at 40 mm Hg
11 392 7.2
12 437 6.2
13 482 5.6
14 527 4.8
15 572 5.1
Restduum
Carbon
Sulfur
Nitrogen
17.0
Approximate Summary
Light gas 9.2
Gas+ Naoh 35.1
Kerosend
Gas oil
Non viscous
lub
Med viscous
lub
Viscous lub
Restdue
Loss
17.8
11.6
10.3
6.0
1.3
17.0
1.0
60.1 0.842 38.6
66.3 0.851 34.8
72.1 0.863 32.5
76.9 0.874 30.4
82.0 0.887 28.0
99.0 0.934 20.0
0.690 73.6
0.743 58.9
0.311 43.1
0.845 35.9
0.854 to 0.875 34.3 to 30.3
0.875 to 0.890 30.3 to 27.4
0.890 to 0.894 27.4 to 26.8
0.934 20.0
vapor, or two-phase state. With crude oils, the fluid may
be subcooled liquid, but with some dissolved gas. Upon
reduction in reservoir pressure, a point where the gas
starts to come out of solution, called bubblepoint
pressure, is reached. At this point the flow
characteristics change. Some of the earliest work in this
field was done by Lacey , Sage, and Kircher. 9
Several empirical correlations have been developed to
predict the bubblepoint pressure, and some of these arc
presented later.
Dewpoint-Pressure Correlations
The dewpoint, like the bubblepoint, is characterized by a
substantial amount of one phase in equilibrium with an
infinitesimal amount of the other phase. At the dew-
30 1.46481
30 1.47017
33 1.47736
35
38
141.2 40 14
145.6 148.4 i: ii
96 76
179 98
7.1 1.4
0.67
0.235
5oto 100
loot0 200
>200
point, the liquid phase is at its minimum. In general,
petroleum-reservoir systems that involve dewpoint
behavior at reservoir conditions are characterized by (1)
surface gas/oil ratios (GORs) greater than 6,000 cu
ft/bbl in most instances; (2) lightly colored tank oils,
usually straw-colored to light orange for reservoir
systems at 3,000 to 5,000 psi but grading to brown for
systems at 7,C00 psi and greater; (3) tank oil gravity
usually greater than 45API; and (4) methane content
usually greater than 65 mol% .
Few dewpoint-pressure correlations of reservoir
systems have been published. Sage and Olds pub-
lished a very general correlation of the behavior of
several San Joaquin Valley, CA, systems. A correlation
developed by Organick and Golding I1 is discussed in
TABLE 21.11-ADAPTATION OF BETC COMPUTER SEARCH PRINTOUT (continued)
Hvdrocarbon-tvpe Analvsis for Crude Petroleum Analvsis 875008
Fraction
Number
1
2
3
4
5
a
7
a
9
10
11
12
vow0 of Specific
Crude Gravity
1.5 0.639
2.2 0.670
5.5 0.712
7.4 0.738
5.8 0.757
6.7 0.773
6.0 0.785
5.9 0.798
6.8 0.812
5.1 0.823
72 0.842
6.2 0.851
Analvsis of Naotha Fractions
Fraction
Vol% of P-N
Number Naphtha Paraffin
A
2 7.1 92.9
3 23.7 76.3
4 38.6 61.4
5 44.0 56.0
6 43.6 56.4
7 43.6 56.4
Summarv Data for Blends
Correlation
Index
-
7
17
21
22
23
22
23
24
25
30
30
Aromatics P-N *
(VOW0 of (vol% of
Fraction) Fraction)
0.0 100.0
2.4 97.6
5.9 94.1
7.5 92.5
9.1 90.9
10.2 89.8
10.6 89.4
10.7 89.3
11.5 88.5
10.4 89.6
13.0 87.0
16.2 83.8
Correlation Gravity
index of P-N of P-N
-
0.639
5 0.665
13 0.702
16 0.727
17 0.746
17 0.761
16 0.772
16 0.784
17 0.796
18 0.809
22 0.825
21 0.831
Vol% of Fraction
Fraction Number Aromatic Naphthenes
Naphtha Paraffin Number of Total Rings per mol
6.9 90.7 12 1.4 0.3 1.1
22.3 71.8 14 1.7 0.6 1.1
35.7 56.8
40.0 50.9
39.2 50.7
39.0 50.4
Naphtha Blend Gas/oil Blend
(Fractions 1 (Fractions 8
through 7) through 12)
VOW of Crude in Blend
Aromatic, VOW of Blend
Paraffin-Naphthene, vol% of Blend
Naphthene, ~01% of Blend
Paraffin, ~01% of Blend
Naphthene, ~01% of P-N in Blend
Paraffin, vol% of P-N in Blend
Naphthene Ring, wt% of P-N in Blend
Paraffin + Side Chains, ~1% of P-N in Blend
35.1 31.2
7.9 12.5
92.1 07.5
32.6
59.5
35.3
64.7
20.0 28.3
80.0 71.7
Parafbn-Naphtha
detail. Calculation of the dewpoint pressure by means of
the composition and equilibrium ratios is discussed in
Chap. 23.
Sage and Olds Correlation
Laboratory studies on five San Joaquin Valley systems
resulted in the correlation shown in Table 21.12. The
basis for the 160F data presented in this table is shown
in Fig. 21.6. Although the five systems correlate within
themselves, it is not known how representative the cor-
relation is of systems from other fields. The data are
reproduced here more as a guide to dewpoint-pressure
behavior than as a means of estimating precise values of
dewpoints.
primarily conditions that pertain to dewpoints, and it is
in this capacity that they will be discussed. The reader
should be aware, however, that the charts also may be
used to estimate critical pressure and temperature of the
more volatile systems. The correlation has limited
usefulness as a bubblepoint-pressure correlation because
it covers primarily high-volatility systems.
system. The short-cut method suffices for most
calculations.
Calculation of Ts. The molal average boiling point of
the system is defined as
Organick and Goldings Correlation
TB=CyxTa, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(l)
where y is the mole fraction and T, the atmospheric boil-
ing point.
This correlation relates saturation pressure of a system Boiling points of the pure compounds (methane,
directly to its chemical composition by geans of two ethane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.) are listed in
generalized composition characteristics TB, the molal Chap. 20. The boiling point of the CT + fraction is taken
average boiling point, and W,, a modified weight as the Smith and Watson I2 mean average boiling point
average equivalent molecular weight. The saturation (MABP). The MABP can be calculated from the ASTM
pressure may be either bubble-point pressure, dewpoint distillation curve, the procedure being first to calculate
pressure, or the very special case of critical pressure. the ASTM volumetric average boiling point (VABP, F)
The 15 working charts (Figs. 21.7 through 21.21) cover and then to apply a correction factor to obtain the
TABLE Pl.lZ--RELATION OF DEWPOINT PRESSURE OF
CALIFORNIA CONDENSATE SYSTEMS
Tank-Oil
Gravity
(API)
lOOoF
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
16OOF
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
220F
GOR (cu ft/bbl)
15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
4,440 4,140 3,000 3,680
4,190 3,920 3,710 3,540
3,970 3,730 3,540 3,390
3,720 3,540 3,380 3.250
3,460 3,340 3,220 3,100
3,290 3,190 3,070 2,970
3,080 3,010 2,920 2,840
4,760 4,530 4,270 4,060 3,890 3,650
4,400 4,170 3,950 3,760 3,610 3,490
4,090 3,890 3,690 3,520 3,380 3,270
3,840 3,650 3,470 3,320 3,200 3,110
3,610 3,430 3,280 3,150 3,040 2,960
3,390 3,240 3,100 2,990 2,090 2,810
3,190 3,060 2,930 2,820 2,740 2,670
54 4,410 4,230 4,050 3,890 3,750 3,620
56 3,990 3,780 3,600 3,440 3,300 3,180
58 3,700 3,480 3,280 3,110 2,970 2,850
60 3,430 3,210 3,030 2,880 2,760 2,660
62 3,150 2,970 2,800 2,670 2,570 2,480
64 2,900 2,740 2,590 2,470 2,380 2,300
35,000 40,000
-~
3,530 3,420
3,410 3,310
3.280 3,180
3,140 3,060
3,010 2,930
2,880 2,800
2,770 2,700
TABLE 21.14-VALUES OF
EQUIVALENT MOLECULAR
WEIGHTS FOR NATURAL-
GAS CONSTITUENTS
Methane 16.0
Ethane 30.1
Propane 44.1
i-butane 54.5
n-Butane 58.1
i-pentane 69.0
n-Pentane 72.2
Hexanes 85
Ethylene 26.2
Nitrogen 28.0
Carbon dioxide 44.0
Hydrogen sulfide 34.1
MABP. The VABP is the average of the temperatures at
which the distillate plus loss equals 10, 30, 50, 70, and
90% by volume of the ASTM charge, that is,
y, = TlOW + T30% + Tsox + T70% + T90%
5
) . . . .
(2)
where TI/ is the ASTM volumetric average boiling point.
The correction to add to TV to obtain the mean average
boiling point is given in Table 2 1.13 as a function of TV
and the slope of the ASTM curve between the 10 and
90% distilled points. In the correlation, r, is in degrees
Rankine (i.e., F+460).
Calculation of W,. The modified weight average
equivalent molecular weight, W,, is a more complex
function to evaluate. It is defined as the equivalent
molecular weight multiplied by the summation of the
weight fractions. The equivalent molecular weight of a
paraffin hydrocarbon compound is its true molecular
9
2
hi 4500
5
z 4000
E
; 3500
z
x 3000
i
x
GAS-OIL RATIO, CU FT/EEiL
Fig. 21.6-Influence of gas/oil ratio and tank-oil gravity on
retrograde dewpoint pressure at 1 60F.
TABLE 21.13-CORRECTION TO ADD TO ASTM
VOLUMETRIC AVERAGE BOILING POINT TO OB-
TAIN MEAN AVERAGE BOILING POINT
Slope of ASTM
Curve (OF/%)
ASTM VABP (OF)
10 to 90% points 200 300 400 500
2.0 -13- -11.5 - 10.5 -9.5 _._
2.5 -17 - 15.5 - 14 -13
3.0 -22 -20 - 18.5 -17
3.5 -27 -25 -23 -21.5
4.0 -33 - 30.5 - 28.5 -26.5
4.5 - - - 34.5 -32.5
TABLE 21.15-CORRECTION TO ADD TO
ASTM VOLUMETRIC AVERAGE BOILING
POINT TO OBTAIN CUBIC AVERAGE
BOILING POINT
Slope of ASTM
Curve (oF/%)
ASTM VABP (OF)
10 to 906/o points 200 400 600
2.0 - 5.0 -4.0 -3.5
2.5 - 6.5 - 5.5 -4.5
3.0 -8.0 -7.0 - 5.5
3.5 - 10.0 -8.5 - 7.0
4.0 - 12.5 -10.0 - 8.5
4.5 - 15.0 -12.5 - 10.0
weight. For other than straight-chain paraffin com-
pounds (isoparaffns and olefins), the equivalent
molecular weight is defined as the molecular weight that
an n-paraffin would have if it boiled at the same
temperature as the isopamftin or olefin in question.
Values of the equivalent molecular weights for natural-
gas constituents are given in Table 21.14.
The equivalent molecular weight of the C 7 + fraction
is determined by calculating the Watson characterization
factor, Kw , and using Fig. 21.7. Use of the
characterization factor permits some account to be taken
of the paraffinicity of the heavy-end material.
Kw= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3)
where Tc is the cubic average boiling point, R. The
cubic average boiling point (Fc) is obtained by adding
the corrections in Table 21.15 to the ASTM TV, F.
CRUDE-OIL & CONDENSATE PROPERTIES & CORRELATIONS
21-13
SLOPE OF ASTM DISTILLATION CURVE
lo%-90%, OF/%
TEMPERATURE.F
Fig. 21.7-Equivalent molecular weight of C, + fraction.
Organick and Golding dewpointlpressure
correlation.
Fig. 21.10-Saturation pressure vs. temperature at W, =80.
Parameter T,
POOC
TEMPERATURE.F
Parameter Ta.
TEMPERATURE, F
Fig. 21.9-Saturation pressure vs. temperature at W, = 90.
Parameter Ta
TEMPERATURE, F
Fig. 21 .ll-Saturation pressure vs. temperature at W, = 70.
Parameter T,.
Fig. 21
v
3
E 5000-
a \
6 4000-
-
;: 3000-
2
2 2000-
TEMPERATURE,F
.12-Saturation pressure vs. temperature
Parameter Ts.
at W, =60.
8000
$ 7000
g 6000
4
g 5000
a
5 4000
F
i
3 3000
&
m 2000
0 100 200 300
TEMPERATURE.F TEMPERATURE.F
Fig. 21.16-Saturation pressure vs. temperature
Parameter T,
Parameter T,
TEMPERATURE.F
Fig. 21.14-Saturation pressure vs. temperature at W, =50 Fig. 21.17-Saturation pressure vs. temperature at W, =35.
Parameter T,. Parameter T,.
TEMPERATURE.F
I I
O-50 0 100 200
TEMPERATURE,F
C
Parameter i;,
Fig. 21.18-Saturation pIessure vs. temperature at W, =X.5.
Parameter T,.
at W, =40.
L I
O-50 0
I I I I I I
100 200 300
TEMPERATURE, OF
10
CRUDE-OIL & CONDENSATE PROPERTIES & CORRELATIONS
21-15
TEMPERATURE, OF TEMPERATURE, F
Parameter T,.
Fig. 21.20-Saturation pressure vs. temperature at W, = 27.5.
Parameter 1,.
Example Problem 1. The dewpoint pressure at 200F
for a well effluent having the composition shown in
Table 21.16 is predicted as follows.
1. Calculating first the properties of the separator liq-
uid CT+, we have
TV=
232+260+313+383+497
=337F
5
and
497 -232
lo-90% slope=
=3.31.
80
From Table 21.13, MABP is 337-22.5=315F or
775R. From Table 21.15, CABP is 337-8.3=329F
or 789R, giving
3vTiG
Kw= = 12.3.
0.7535
From Fig. 21.7 the W, for the CT + material from the
separator liquid is estimated to be 142.
Properties of the C 7 + material from the separator gas
are assumed to be equal to those of n-octane (i.e.,
Tg=718R, W, = 114).
2. Calculating values of TB and W, for the well ef-
fluent, we obtain the results shown in Table 2 I. 17.
3. Having calculated Ts and I@, for the well effluent,
we can now determine the desired dewpoint pressure at
200F by interpolation between Figs. 21.14 and 21.15.
At TB =240F, the dewpoint pressure is
w, =50 w, =45
nw
2 4000
9
g 3000
6
c 2000
2
2 1000
:: 0 130 200 300
TEMPERATURE,OF
Parameter Ts
Accuracy of Organick-Golding Correlation. About
50% of the 2 14 points that form the basis for the correla-
tion were in error less than 5 % and 82 % were in error
less than 10%. Standard deviation of all points is about
7.0%.
Total Formation Volume Correlations
The total formation volume factor (FVF) defines the
total volume of a system regardless of the number of
phases present. Vink et al. I3 have shown that it is possi-
ble to have more than two hydrocarbon phases in
equilibrium when the system contains an excessively
large amount of one component. Naturally occurring
systems usually exist in either one or two phases. For
this reason, the term two-phase formation volume has
become synonymous with total formation volume.
The relationship of specific volume and density to the
total formation volume is the same as indicated in the
preceding section for the oil-formation volume.
4,850 4,ooO
Total Formation Volume Factors
and the calculated dew point (at W, =49) is 4,680 psia.
of Gas-Condensate Systems
It will be noticed that at 4,680 psia and 200F the Total formation volume factors, specific volumes, and
material is about 200F and 900 psi above the critical densities of gas-condensate systems may be calculated
temperature and pressure of the system. (From Figs. by use of the ideal gas-law equation with the proper com-
21.14 and 2 1.15, the locus of critical states line gives pressibility factor applied provided that the liquid phase
Tc=OF and pc=3,800 psia.) present does not amount to an appreciable fraction of the
TABLE 21.16-WELL EFFLUENT COMPOSITION
Separator
Component Gas
co* 0.0060
N2 0.0217
c: 3
0.8986
0.0461 0.0131
i-C, 0.0043
n-C 4 0.0043
i-C 5 0.0019
n-C 5 0.0017
C6 0.0019
c,+ l 0.0004
c,+ l *
-
1 .oooo
Mole Fraction
Separator
Liquid Effluent
-
-
0.0988
0.0350
0. 0381
0.0201
0.0382
0.0495
0.0313
0.1284
-
0.5606
1 .oOOo
Properties of C, +
*separator gas C, + mOfeclar we,gtlt= 114
Separator liquid C, +
Molecular weight = 139
Density= 0.7535 g/cc=56.3API
ASTM distillation
BP (%) 21WF
10 232
20 245
0.0056
0.0204
0.8498
0.0454
0.0146
0.0053
0.0064
0.0048
0.0035
0.0096
0.0004
0.0342
Example Problem 2. The specific volume of a gas-
condensate system at reservoir conditions given the
system molal analysis shown in Table 21.18 is calculated
as follows, assuming 1 pound mole of system.
460 + 199
Tpr =
370.7
=1.78,
2,500
-=3.75,
Ppr= 666.0
1 .oooo z=O.885 (from Fig. 20.2)
30 260
40 269
50 313
60 349
70 363
60 416
90 497
95
Endpoint
tEffluen1 composition calculated on the basis of separator liquid/gas
ratio 3.0 gal/lo3 cu H.
system volume. Usually, at reservoir pressures and
temperatures and for systems whose composition can be
expressed as having a surface GOR greater than 10,000
cu ft/bbl, the presence of 10 ~01% liquid phase will not
cause errors greater than 2 or 3% when the two-phase
mixture density is calculated as though the mixture ex-
isted in only a single phase. This comes about because
the partial volumes of components in the liquid phase are
substantially the same as the partial volumes of the same
components in the vapor phase.
Calculations from Composition of the Condensate
System. As outlined previously, the formation volume
(total or single phase) can be calculated from the relation
Mm vro
B=-
L M,,v,, .,,.,..................~ . . .
where
Example Problem 3. The total formation volume of a
gas-condensate system at reservoir conditions given the
parameters in Table 21.19 is calculated as follows,
assuming 1 bbl of stock-tank condensate.
M, = molecular weight of reservoir system,
RJ
= specific volume of reservoir system,
M,, = molecular weight of stock-tank oil,
VSI
= specific volume of stock-tank oil, and
L = moles of stock-tank oil per 1 mole of
3,700x0.65+170x1.20
Yg
=0.675
reservoir system.
3,700+170
L can be calculated by use of equilibrium ratios and
and 1 bbl condensate per million cubic feet is
the methods outlined in Chap. 23.
To use the pseudoreduced-temperatuatureipseudoreduce-
d-pressure/compressibility chart in the calculation of
vrO, it is necessary to determine suitable pseudocritical
temperature and pressure values for the heptanes and
325
3.70+0.17
=84,
where yp is the gravity of total surface gas.
heavier components. These values can be obtained by
the chart shown in Fig. 21.22. The following example il-
lustrates the calculation of M, and v, .
and at 2,500 psia and 199F
vro _ zRT 0.885 x 10.73~659
-
MP
19.39x2,500
=O. 129,
where Tpr is the pseudoreduced temperature, ppr the
pseudoreduced pressure, z the compressibility factor,
and v,
the specific volume (cu ftilbm) at reservoir
conditions.
In the above solution, two phases ale present at 2,500
psia, as the dewpoint pressure calculated by the method
of Organick and Golding is 2,690 psia at 199F. Pro-
bably no correlation will indicate directly the amount of
liquid present at pressures less than the dewpoint
pressure, although it can be calculated by use of suitable
equilibrium-ratio and density data.
Calculations from GOR and Produced Fluid Proper-
ties. A second method of calculating specific volume or
formation volume on the basis of the gas-law equation
was developed by Standing. I4 This method uses a cor-
relation (Fig. 21.23) to obtain the gravity of the well ef-
fluent (or reservoir system) from the condensate liq-
uid/gas ratio, gas gravity, and the stock-tank-oil gravity
of the surface products. The effluent gravity is then used
to obtain values of pseudocritical temperatures and
pressures and, by means of these, to evaluate com-
pressibility factors for the entire effluent. The conden-
sate curve of Fig. 2 1.24 should be used when employing
this method.
TABLE 21 .17-CALCULATED VALUES OF 7, and W,
Fig.
Component
co2
F2
c:
C3
i-C 4
n-C,
i-C 5
n-C,
c6
C, + separator gas
C, + separator liquid
Fraction
0.0056
0.0204
0.8498
0.0454
0.0146
0.0053
0.0084
0.0048
0.0035
0.0096
0.0004
0.0342
Boiling
Point
(W
350
139
201
332
416
471
491
542
557
600
718
1 .oooo
Fraction
Times Boiling
Point
(W
2.0
2.8
170.8
15.1
6.1
2.5
3.1
2.6
1.9
5.8
0.3
26.9
7s = 239.9
Fraction
0.0107
0.0244
0.5831
0.0586
0.0274
0.0133
0.0158
0.0150
0.0107
0.0356
0.0019
0.2035
1.0009
Weight Fraction
Times
Equivalent Equivalent
Molecular Molecular
Weight Weight
44 0.47
28 0.68
16.0 9.33
30.1 1.76
44.1 1.21
54.5 0.72
58.1 0.92
69.0 1.03
72.2 0.77
85 3.03
114 0.22
142 28.90
w, = 49.04
TABLE 21.18-CALCULATION OF SPECIFIC VOLUME OF GAS-CONDENSATE SYSTEM
Critical Critical
Temperature of Pressure of
Mole Molecular Weight, ybf Components, 7, yT, Components, pc
Component Fraction, y Weight, M
Ubm) vu (OR) (wia) YPC
co2
N2
Cl
c,
C,
i-Cd
n-C,
i-C 5
n-C,
C6
c,+
0.0059 44.0 0.26 548 3.2 1,072 6.3
0.0218 28.0 0.61 227 4.9 492 10.7
0.8860 16.0 14.18 344 304.8 673 596.3
0.0460 30.1 1.39 550 25.3 709 32.8
0.0134 44.1 0.59 666 8.9 618 8.3
0.0045 58.1 0.26 733 3.3 530 2.4
0.0048 58.1 0.28 766 3.7 551 2.6
0.0026 72.1 0.19 830 2.2 482 1.3
0.0021 72.1 0.15 847 1.8 485 1 .o
0.0037 86.2 0.32 915 3.4 434 1.6
0.0084 138 1.16 1,090. 9.2 343 2.9
Reservoir iemperature = 19&F
Molecular weight of C, b = 138.
Specific gravity of C, f = D 7535.
*Pseudocrttical values from Fig 21.22
ri
$ Id0 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
F
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
1
d BOOM.&+--+ SPkIFIC:GRAVliY 60&O -j
hw J
1 lo3 120 140 I60 180 hxl 220 240
iz
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
k
19.39
21 .Z?-Pseudocritical temperatures and pressures
heptanes and heavier.
for
370.7 666.0
1.5
060
GAS GR
1.4 0.70
GAS GR.
CFB
20 40 60 El0 ICC
Sbl Condensate per IO C ft
Fig. 21.23-Effect of condensate volume on the ratio of
surface-gas gravity to well-fluid gravity.
TABLE 21 .l g--DATA FOR CALCULATING TOTAL
FORMATION VOLUME OF A GAS-CONDENSATE
SYSTEM
Reservoir pressure, psia 3,000
Reservoir temperature, OF 250
Stock-tank-condensate production, B/D 325
Stock-tank condensate gravity, OAPl 45
Tank vapor rate, IO3 cu ft/D 170
Tank vapor gravity (air = 1) 1.20
Trap gas rate, lo3 cu ft/D 3,700
Trap gas gravity, (air = 1 .O) 0.65
0as1s 1 bbl of stock-tank condensate
TABLE 21.20-DATA FOR CORRELATION FOR
OBTAINING TOTAL FORMATION VOLUME FACTORS OF
DISSOLVED GAS AND GAS-CONDENSATE SYSTEMS
SHOWN IN FIG. 21.25
Pressure, psia 400 to 5,000
GOR, cu ft/bbl 75 to 37,000
Temperature, OF 100 to 258
Gas gravity 0.59 to 0.95
Tank-oil gravity, OAPI 16.5 to 63.8
From Fig. 21.23, at 45API
~&~~=1.367
and
yl,,=1.367x0.675=0.923,
where
Ylw
= well fluid gravity,
ysr = trap gas gravity,
and
Ylwr
= well fluid reservoir gravity.
From Fig. 21.24,
Tpc =432
and
ppc =647.
At reservoir conditions of 3,000 psia and 250F,
460+250
Tpr =
432
=1.64,
3,000
PPr
=------4.64,
647
and from Fig. 20.2
z=O.845.
By using 350 lbm/bbl for water, the weight of stock-
tank condensate per barrel is
350x 141.5
=281.
131.5+API
TABLE 21.21-DATA FOR CALCULATING TOTAL
FORMATION VOLUME OF THE GAS-CONDENSATE
SYSTEM DESCRIBED IN EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4
Reservoir pressure, psia 3,000
Reservoir temperature, OF 250
GOR (condensate total), cu ft/bbl 11,900
Gas gravity (total) 0.675
Tank-oil gravity, OAPI 45
TABLE 21.22-DATA USED TO CALCULATE TOTAL
FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR IN EXAMPLE
PROBLEM 5
Reservoir pressure, psia
Reservoir temperature, OF
GOR, cu ftlbbl
Separator
Tank
Total
Gas gravity
Tank-oil gravity, OAPI
1,329
145
566
37
603
0.674
36.4
From Fig. 21.23 the molecular weight of stock-tank
condensate, M, , is 140, moles of stock-tank condensate
per barrel is 281/140=2.00, moles of surface gas per
barrel of stock-tank condensate is l/325 x (3,870x 103)
x l/379=31.4, and total moles per barrel of stock-tank
condensate is 2.00+31.4=33.4.
From gas law,
n*T 33.4~0.845~ 10.73~710
y=-=
=71.7
P 3,000
and
71.7
V=-=
5.615
12.8,
where the first value of V is in cubic feet and the second
in barrels, giving a formation volume B, of 12.8 bbllbbl
of stock-tank condensate.
Total Formation Volume Factors
of Dissolved Gas Systems
A suitable correlation for obtaining total formation
volume factors of both dissolved gas and gas-condensate
systems was developed by Standing. t5 This correlation
is shown in Fig. 21.25, and the graphical chart for
simplified use of the correlation is given by Fig. 2 1.26.
The correlation contains 387 experimental points, 92%
of which are within 5% of the correlation. Range of the
data comprising the correlation is given in Table 2 1.20.
Example Problem 4. The total formation volume of the
gas-condensate system described in Example Problem 3
is calculated as follows, given the data in Table 2 1.2 1.
675
a
4 650
aw
2 2 625
i 600
2
u 575
t
5
g 550
3
; 525
4
a 500
F. 475
E
: 450
2
f 425
:
-
2
400
z 375
8
2 350
I
a 325
I I I I I I I
I
3oo ~ ~ j / 1 / 1 I I
060 080 100 120 140 160 160
Fig. 21.24-Pseudocritical properties of gases and condensate
well fluids.
Fig. 21.25-Formation volume of gas plus liquid phases from
GOR, total gas gravity, tank-oil gravity,
temperature, and pressure.
Fig. 21.26-Chart for calculating total formation volume by
Standings correlation.
21-20
141.5
Yo=
=0.802
131.5+45
and
=11,90() (250)o5 x~~~~~~~~.~X~-~ooo27x~wo
(0.675) o.3
15.8
=11,900 -
0.877
x(O.802).O
=1.72x105
where y0 is the tank-oil specific gravity.
From Fig. 21.25, B,=13+bbl/bbl oftank oil.
From Fig. 21.26, B, = 13.7 bbl/bbl of tank oil.
Example Problem 5. The total formation volume of
well production at reservoir conditions given the data in
Table 21.22 is calculated as follows.
From Fig. 21.26, B,= 1.72 bblibbl of tank oil. Ex-
perimental value calculated from PVT test results is
1.745 bbl/bbl of tank oil.
Nomenclature
B=
I, =
K=
L, =
L, =
M=
Mm =
Mst =
n=
PC =
Ppr =
R=
tsu =
T=
T, =
Tpr =
Ta =
TB =
formation volume, m3 (bbl)
correlation index
characterization factor
moles of stock-tank condensate per barrel
moles of stock-tank oil per 1 mole of reser-
voir system, kmol/m3 (lbm moligal)
molecular weight
molecular weight of reservoir system
molecular weight of stock-tank oil
total moles
critical pressure, psia (lbflsq in.)
pseudoreduced pressure
universal gas constant
Universal Saybolt viscosity, seconds
temperature, F
critical temperature, C (F)
pseudoreduced temperature
atmospheric boiling point, K (R)
molal average boiling point, K (R)
Tc =
cubic average boiling point, K (R)
Tm =
mean average boiling point, K (R)
Tm =
mean average boiling point, K (R)
TV = volumetric average boiling point, F
vro =
specific volume of reservoir system
-vst =
specific volume of stock-tank oil
w, = modified weight average equivalent
Y=
molecular weight
mole fraction
z = compressibility factor
Ye
= gas specific gravity
ygt = trap gas gravity
Ylw
= well fluid gravity
Y lwr
= well fluid reservoir gravity
Yo
= tank-oil specific gravity
p = viscosity, Pa. s (cp)
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
ASTM Standards on Petroleum Products and Lubricants, Part 24,
ASTM, Philadelphia (1975) 796.
Watson, K.M., Nelson, E.F., and Murphy, G.B.: Charactetiza-
tion of Petroleum Factions, Ind. and Eng. Chem. (Dec. 1935)
1460-64.
Technical Data Book-Petroleum Refining, API, Washington,
D.C. (1970) 2-11.
Nelson, W.L.: Petroleum Refinery Engineering, fourth edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (19X3), 910-37.
A Guide to World Export Crudes, Oil and Gas J, (1976).
Ferrem, E.P. and Nichols, D.T.: Analyses of 169 Crude Oils
fmm 122 Foreign Oil Fields, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Bartlesville, OK (1972).
Coleman, H.J. et a[.: Analyses of 800 Crude Oils from United
States Oil Fields, U.S. DOE, Bartlesville, OK (1978).
Woodward, P.J.: Crude Oil Analysis Data Bank, Bartlesville
Energy Technology Center, U.S. DOE, Bartlesville, OK (Oct.
1980) 1-29.
Lacey, W.N., Sage, B.H., and Kircher, C.E. Jr.: Phase
Equilibrja in Hydrocarbon Systems III, Solubility of a Dry Natural
Gas in Crude Oil, Ind. and Eng. Chem. (June 1934) 652-54.
Sage, B.H. andOlds, R.H.: VolumetricBehaviorofOiland Gas
from Several San Joaquin Valley Fields, Trans., AIME (1947)
170, 156-62.
Organick, E.I. and Golding, B.H.: Prediction of Saturation
Pressures for Condensate-gas and Volatile-oil Mixtures, Trans.,
AIME (1952), 195, 135-48.
Smith, R.L. and Watson, K.M.: Boiling Points and Critical
Pmperties of Hydrocarbon Mixtures. Ind. and Enn. Chem.
(19j7) 1408.
Vink, D.J. er al.: Multiple-phase Hydrocarbon Systems, Oil
and Gas J. (Nov. 1940) 34-38.
14. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field
Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York Ci-
ty (1952).
15. Standing, M.B.: A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation
for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases, Drill. and Prod.
Prac., API (1947), 275.
Chapter 22
Oil System Correlations
H. Dale Beggs. Petroleum Consukant*
Introduction
Knowledge of petroleum fluids physical properties is re-
quired by petroleum engineers for both reservoir and pro-
duction system calculations. These properties must be
evaluated at reservoir temperature and various pressures
for reservoir performance studies, and at conditions of
both changing pressure and temperature for wellbore
hydraulics calculations.
If reservoir fluid samples are available, the fluid prop-
erties of interest can be measured with a pressure-volume-
temperature (PVT) analysis. However, these analyses
usually are conducted at reservoir temperature only and
the variation of the properties with temperature is not
available for production system calculations. Also, in
many cases a PVT analysis may not be available early
in the life of the reservoir or may never be available be-
cause of economic reasons. To overcome these obstacles,
empirical correlations have been developed for predict-
ing various fluid physical properties from limited data.
The development and application of several of these em-
pirical correlations are presented in this chapter. Methods
for estimating physical properties for both saturated and
undersaturated oils as functions of pressure, temperature,
stock-tank oil gravity, and separator gas gravity are given.
Fluid properties are calculated here only for oil sys-
tems with and without fluid composition known. Methods
for calculating physical properties of gas-condensate sys-
tems are presented in Chaps. 2 I, 23, and 30. Therefore,
no correlations for dewpoint pressure are presented, as
the dewpoint pressure can be calculated with the proce-
dures outlined in Chap. 2 1 if the composition of the fluid
is known.
Many of the older correlations were presented in graphi-
cal form only and are therefore not suitable for use in com-
puters or programmable calculators. These graphs are
converted to equation form where possible.
The generally accepted definitions of the fluid proper-
ties correlated in this chapter are as follows.*
Oil density, p,, , is the ratio of the mass of the oil plus
its dissolved or solution gas per unit volume, which var-
ies with temperature and pressure.
Bubblepointpressure, P/), is the pressure at which the
first bubble of gas evolves as the pressure on the oil is
decreased. It also is frequently called saturation pres-
sure, as the oil will absorb no more gas below that pres-
sure. The bubblepoint pressure varies with temperature
for a particular oil system.
Solution gas/oil ratio (GOR), R,, , is the amount of gas
that will evolve from the oil as the pressure is reduced
to atmospheric from some higher pressure. It is usually
expressed in units of scf/STB. The gas is frequently re-
ferred to as dissolved gas.
Oilformation volume factor (FVF), B,, , is the volume
occupied by 1 STB oil plus its solution gas at some elevat-
ed pressure and temperature. It is usually expressed as
bbl/STB. It is a measure of the shrinkage of the oil as
it is brought to stock-tank conditions.
Total FW, B,, means the volume occupied at some
elevated pressure and temperature by 1 STB oil, its re-
maining solution gas, and the free gas (R,i -R,) that has
evolved from the oil. It is also expressed as bbl/STB.
Oil viscosi@, po. measures the oils resistance to flow,
defined as the ratio of the shearing stress to the rate of
shear induced in the oil by the stress. It is usually meas-
ured in centipoise and is required for both reservoir and
piping system calculations.
Inferfacial tension (IFT), co, is the force per unit
length existing at the interface between two immiscible
fluids. This property is not required in most reservoir cal-
culations but is a parameter in some correlations for pip-
ing system calculations. It is usually expressed in units
of dyne/cm.
General terms are deftned I the Glossary at the end of this chapter
Fig. 22.1-Pseudoliquid density of systems containing
methane and ethane.
Oil Density Determination
Oil density is required at various pressures and at reser-
voir temperature for reservoir engineering calculations.
The variation with temperature must be calculated for pro-
duction system design calculations. An equation for oil
density is
PO =
350y,+O.O7647,R,
, I.. . . . . . 5.6158,
where
PO =
oil density, lbmicu ft,
Yo =
oil specific gravity,
YK
= gas specific gravity,
R,y = solution or dissolved gas, scf/STB,
B, = oil FVF, bbl/STB,
3.50 = density of water at standard conditions,
lbm/STB,
0.0764 = density of air at standard conditions,
lbmlscf, and
5.615 = conversion factor, cu ft/bbl.
If the pressure and temperature conditions are such that
all of the available gas is in solution-i.e., the pressure
is above the bubblepoint at the temperature of interest-
increased pressure will merely compress the liquid and
increase its density. For the case of p> p,, . the oil den-
sity is calculated from
p. =poh exp[c,(p--ph)], . . . .(2)
where
PO
= oil density at p, T,
poh = oil density at ph, T,
p = pressure, psia,
pb = bubblepoint pressure at T, psia, and
co =
oil isothermal compressibility at T, psi - .
Correlations for calculating R,T, B,, c, and ~b at var-
ious conditions are presented later.
In the petroleum industry, it is common to express
gravity in terms of the API gravity of the oil, or:
141.5
Yo =
131,5+YAP,, . . . . .
where y. is oil specific gravity, and YAPI is oil gravity,
API.
Density From Ideal Solution Principles-
Composition Known
The principle of ideal solutions states that the volume of
the total solution is the sum of the individual component
volumes. The principle applies at atmospheric pressure
for fluids in which the components are closely related
chemically, such as petroleum. If the composition of the
fluid is known, the density at standard conditions (14.7
psia and 60F) may be calculated from
c
-
& mi Cm
I
Psc =
- Cmilpi ) . .
5 vi
i=l
(4)
where
m; = mass of the ith component,
Vi = volume of the ith component,
PI
= density of the ith component at standard
conditions, and
C = number of components.
Once the density at standard conditions is calculated,
it must be corrected for compressibility and thermal ex-
pansion if the density at other conditions is required. This
can be accomplished by use of charts presented by
Standing.
When the ideal solution principle is applied to reser-
voir ,oils that contain large amounts of dissolved gas, it
is obvious that the fluid cannot be brought to standard or
stock-tank conditions and still remain in the liquid phase.
This limitation is overcome by calculating a pseudoliquid
density, the value of which depends on the mass or weight
fractions of methane and ethane in the fluid. The pseudo-
liquid density correlation was presented by Standing and
is illustrated in Fig. 22. I,
OIL SYSTEM CORRELATIONS
22-3
DENSITY AT 6OF, 1 ATM, LBKU FT
Fig. 22.2-Density correction for compressibility of hydrocar- Fig. 22.3-Density correction for thermal expansion of
bon liquids. hydrocarbon liquids.
The procedure for calculating oil density at any pres-
sure and temperature when the composition is known is
as follows.
1. Calculate the mass or weight of the ethane and heav-
ier components in the mixture.
2. Calculate the density of the propane and heavier com-
ponents with Eq. 4.
3. Calculate the weight or mass percent of ethane in
the ethane and heavier mixture.
4. Calculate the weight percent methane in the total
mixture.
5. Determine the pseudoliquid density from Fig. 22.1.
6. Correct for compressibility with Fig. 22.2
7. Correct for thermal expansion with Fig. 22.3.
Example Problem 1. Using the known composition of
a reservoir fluid as given in Table 22.1, calculate the den-
Component
Cl
C*
C3
C4
C5
C6
C
T&l
Mole
Fraction.
Y,
0.4404
0.0432
0.0405
0.0284
0.0174
0.0290
0.4011
1 .oooo
10
b-
9
:
G
B
E5
a
7
F 6
4I
b3 5
mu
=\
0-J WC0 4
IL
$ 3
G 2
z
P 1
i?
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
DENSITY AT 60F
sity at the bubblepoint pressure of 3,280 psi and temper-
ature of 218F.
Solution.
1. Weight of ethane plus=130.69-7.046=123.46
lbm.
2. Density of propane plus equals (weight of propane
plus) divided by (volume of propane plus):
130.69-7.046-1.296
=54.94 lbm/cu ft.
2.227
3. Weight percent ethane in ethane plus:
1.296(100)
= 1.05.
123.46
TABLE 22.1- EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1 SOLUTION
Mole Weight of
Components,
M,
16.0
30.1
44.1
58.1
72.2
86.2
297
Weight of Components Liquid Density of
mi =Y,M,
Components,
(Ibm) PI
7.046
1.296
1.766 31.66
1.650 35.77 l
1.256 39.16*
2.500 41.43
115.1 56.6
130.69
Liquid Volume of
Components,
V, =m,lp,
fcu ft\
0.0564
0.0461
0.0321
0.0603
2.032
2.227
at 60F and 14.7 ps,a.
Arithmetic average of is.0 and normal values
22-4
GAS GRAVITY, AIR q 1
Fig. 22.4-Apparent liquid density of natural gases.
4. Weight percent methane in methane plus:
7.046(100)
=5.39.
130.69
5. From Fig. 22.1, psr=50.8 lbm/cu ft at 60F and
14.7 psia.
6. From Fig. 22.2, the correction for pressure is 0.89
lbmicu ft.
Therefore, the density at 3,280 psia and 60F is
50.8+0.89=51.7 lbmicu ft.
7. From Fig. 22.3, the correction for temperature is
-3.57 Ibm/cu ft. Therefore, the density at 3,280 psia and
218F is
51.7-3.57=48.1 Ibm/cu ft.
Density From Ideal Solution Principles-
Composition Unknown
The procedure for estimating oil density outlined in the
preceding section used charts for determing the apparent
gas density, which required knowledge of the total fluid
composition. Katz* extended the apparent density con-
cept to apply to natural gases in general. This results in
a method that can be used when solution GOR stock-tank-
oil gravity, and gas gravity are known. The fluid compo-
sition is not required. The correlation for the apparent den-
sity of the dissolved gas as a function of oil and gas gravity
is shown in Fig. 22.4. The gravity of the produced gas
is calculated as a volume-weighted average of the gas
evolved at the separator and the stock tank.
Application of Fig. 22.4 in estimating the oil density
from limited data is illustrated in Example Problem 2. In
this example, the fluid passed through two separators be-
tween the wellhead and the stock tank.
Example Problem 2. Calculate the density and specific
volume of the oil system at the bubblepoint conditions of
pb =3,280 psia at T=218F. The stock-tank oil gravity
is 27.4API and the quantities and gravities of the pro-
duced gas are given in Table 22.2.
Solution.
1. Average gas gravity, yr. =CI?iy,~iICRj,
r, =
(414)(0.640)+90(0.897)+25(1.540) =. 726
. .
414+90+25
and
141.5
I= 131.5+27.4
=0.89.
2. Molecular weight of produced gas, M,, =y,(M,i,);
M,Y =0.726(28.97)=21.03 Ibmimol.
3. Mass of dissolved gas, m,, is given by
529 scf/STB
379,5 scf,mol (21.03 lbm/mol)=29.32 lbm/STB.
4. Mass of stock-tank oil, m,,, is given by
350 lbm/STB(O. 89) = 3 11.50 lbm/STB.
Fig. 22.4 shows that the apparent liquid density of the
dissolved gas is about 24.9 lbmicu ft at 60F and 14.7
psia. This is used to calculate the volume of the dissolved
gas.
5. Volume of dissolved gas, I,, is given by
mR
29.32 lbm/STB
-=
= 1.178 cu ft/STB.
PK
24.9 lbmicu ft
6. Volume of stock-tank
5.615 cu ft/STB.
7. Pseudoliquid density,
PAL
m, fm,
zz-
04 V,,
is given by
0 - ,
311.50 lbm/STB+29 32 1bmiSTB
-
- 5.615 cu ft/STB+1.178 cu ft/STB
=50.17 Ibm/cu ft.
TABLE 22.2-PRODUCED GAS
CHARACTERISTICS
R
(scf/STB) y9
First-stage separator 414 0.640
Second-stage separator 90 0.897
Stock tank 25 1.540
Total 529
22-5
Correction of the density for compression and thermal
expansion is accomplished with Figs. 22.2 and 22.3.
Fig. 22.2 shows that the pressure correction to 3,280
psia is 0.90 lbmicu ft. Therefore,
p3Z80, 60=50.17+0.90=51.07 lbmicu ft.
Fig, 22.3 shows that the temperature correction to
218F is -3.63 Ibm/cu ft. Therefore,
~32~0, 218=51.07-3.63=47.44 lbmicu ft
The specific volume of the oil is defined as the recipro-
cal of the density. Therefore,
v,, = i =
I
-----0.021 cu ft/lbm.
P 0
47.44
Bubblepoint-Pressure Correlations
Reservoir performance calculations require that the reser-
voir bubblepoint pressure be known. This is determined
from a PVT analysis of a reservoir fluid sample or calcu-
lated by flash calculation procedures if the composition
of the reservoir fluid is known. However, since this in-
formation is frequently unavailable. empirical correlations
for estimating P/, from limited data were developed.
These correlations may be used to estimate bubblepoint
or saturation pressure as a function of reservoir tempera-
ture, stock-tank oil gravity. dissolved-gas gravity, and so-
lution GOR at initial reservoir pressure. That is,
A value for R.,h = R,,i can be obtained from the initial
solution GOR (produced) if the reservoir pressure is above
!I/>, where R,,b is the solution GOR at bubblepoint pres-
sure and R,, is the solution GOR at initial reservoir
pressure.
Three methods for estimating bubblepoint pressure are
presented. The correlations were developed by use of ex-
perimentally measured bubblepoint pressures obtained
from PVT analyses on reservoir fluid samples. Other
correlations were developed for application in specific
reservoirs, but the methods presented here gave good re-
sults over a wide range of oil systems.
Standing Correlations
Standing presented an equation and nomograph to esti-
mate bubblepoint pressures greater than 1,000 psia. The
correlation was based on 105 experimentally determined
bubblepoint pressures of California oil systems. The aver-
age error of the correlation when applied to the data used
to develop the method was 4.8% and 106 psi. The ranges
of data used to develop the method are given in Table 22.3
The gases evolved from the systems used to develop
the correlation contained essentially no nitrogen or hydro-
gen sulfide. Some of the gases contained CO,. but in quan-
tities less than 1 mol%. No attempt was made to
characterize the tank oils other than by the API gravity.
The value for gas gravity to be used is apparently the
volume-weighted average of the gas from all stages of
separation. The correlation should apply to other oil sys-
tems as long as the compositional makeup of the gases
and crudes is similar to those used in developing the
method.
The equation for estimating bubblepoint pressure is
0.83
x IO!v ,
(5)
where
Y<?
= mole fraction gas,
= 0.00091(TR)-0.0125yA~I,
PJ, = bubblepoint pressure, psia,
R ,,b = solution GOR at PLP~, scf/STB,
7,s
= gas gravity (air= 1 .O),
TR = reservoir temperature, F, and
YAPI = stock-tank oil gravity, API.
A nomograph developed from Eq. 5 is shown in Fig.
22.5. The example bubblepoint determination shown in
the nomograph is calculated with Eq. 5 in the following
example.
Example Problem 3. Estimate pl, where R ,,, = 350 scfi
STB. TR =200F, -yX =0.75, and ?,+#I =30APl.
Solution.
y!: =0.0009i(200)-0.0125(30)= -0.193.
0.83
x 10 -0.1Y3
,LJ~ = 1,895 psia.
Lasater Correlation
A correlation by Lasater4 was developed in 1958 from
158 experimental data points, which included the ranges
of variables shown in Table 22.4.
The correlation was presented graphically in the form
of two charts. Equations were fitted to these graphical
correlations to enhance the use of this method with com-
puters or calculators. The graphical correlations are shown
in Figs. 22.6 and 22.7.
The following procedure is used to estimate ph using
Figs. 22.6 and 22.7.
TABLE 22.3~DATA PARAMETERS
AND RANGES
prb. via
130 to 7,000
R, F 100 to 258
Rsb, scf/STB
YAPI~ ApI
yQ (air = 1 .O)
20 to 1,425
16 5 to 63.8
0.59 to 0.95
. BUBBLE-POINT PRESSURE,
Fig. 22.5-Chart for calculating bubblepotnt pressure by Standings correlation.
1. Find the effective molecular weight of the stock-tank
oil from the API gravity using Fig. 22.6.
2. Calculate the mol fraction of gas in the system from
R,yh1379.3
?I: =
R,h1379.3+350y,,lM, ' '.""""..'
(6)
3. Find the bubblepoint pressure factor, phyRITR,
from Fig. 22.7
4. Calculate the bubblepoint pressure ph = [(ph~~)lT]
TR/~,~ where TR is in R.
The following equations can be used to replace Figs.
22.6 and 22.7.
Equations for Fig. 22.6
For API I 40:
M,,=630-lOyAp,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)
For API > 40:
hi,, =73,1 10 (-yAPI) -.56. .(8)
Equations for Fig. 22.7
For ys 5 0.60:
P b Y ,q
-=0.679 ex~(2.786y,~)-0.323. .(9)
TR
TABLE 22.4-VARIABLE RANGES
Tb- Asia I=
R, 48 82 to to 5,780 272
YAPI> oAPl 17.9 to 51.1
yg 0.574 to 1.223
R scf/STB sb, 3 to 2,905
For Y,~ > 0.60:
PhYg
-=8.26y;.56+1.95.
TR
. . . .(lO)
A nomograph that combines Figs. 22.6 and 22.7 is
presented in Fig. 22.8. The example given in Fig. 22.8
is worked with the equations in the following example.
Example Problem 4. Given the following data, use the
Lasater method to estimate P,,
Rch =500 scf/STB, TR=200F=660R, yI: =0.80,
YAP[ =30, and yg =0.876.
Solution.
M,,=630-10(30)=330.
22-7
EFFECTIVE MOLECULAR WEIGHT
OF TANK OIL
Fig. 22.6-Effective molecular weight related to tank-oil
gravity.
5001379.3
= 500/379.3+350(0.876)1330
=0.587
PhYg
- =0.679 exp[2.786(0.587)] -0.323:
TR
Phh
-=3.161.
TR
3.161(660)
Ph=
0.80
=2,608 psia.
Vasquez and Beggs Correlation
Vasquez and Beggs used results from more than 600 oil
systems to develop empirical correlations for several oil
properties including bubblepoint pressure. The data en-
compassed very wide ranges of pressure, temperature,
oil gravity, and gas gravity and inciuded approximately
6,000 measured data points for R,, , B, and pLo at vari-
ous pressures and temperatures. The ranges of the perti-
nent parameters are given in Table 22.5.
It was found that the gas gravity was a strong corre-
lating parameter and, unfortunately, usually is one of the
variables of most questionable accuracy. The gravity of
the evolved gas depends on the pressure and temperature
of the separators, which may not be known in many cases.
The gas gravity used to develop all the correlations report-
ed by Vasquez and Beggs was that which would result
from a two-stage separation. The first-stage pressure was
chosen as 100 psig and the second stage was the stock
tank. If the known gas gravity resulted from a first-stage
separation at a pressure other than 100 psig, the correct-
ed gas gravity to be used in the correlations can be ob-
tained from Eq. 11. If separator conditions are unknown,
5.2
I I I II
II
4.8
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.0
1.6
1.2
1~~~~
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
GAS MOLE FRACTION
Fig. 22.7-Lasaters correlation of bubblepoint-pressure fac-
tor with gas-mole fraction.
the uncorrected gas gravity may be used in the correla-
tions for ph, R,v, B,, and c,.
y,,.=y,[1.0+5.912x 10P5yAP,Ts log(p,Y/l 14.7)]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(11)
where
ync = corrected gas gravity,
7,:
= gas gravity resulting from a separation at
P .5 7 Ts
T,, = separator temperature, F,
p,, = separator pressure, psia, and
-yAPI = oil gravity, API.
Fig. 22.8-Chart for calculating bubblepoint pressure by Lasaters correlation
The correlations are presented in equation form only.
The bubblepoint pressure is calculated from
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(12)
where
pb = bubblepoint pressure, psia,
R
sb
= solution GOR at pb, scf/STB,
= gas gravity,
-,,,: = oil gravity, API, and
TR = temperature, F.
The accuracy of the correlation was greater if the sam-
ples were divided into ranges of oil API gravity. A divid-
ing point of 30API was chosen. The values of the
constants in Eq. 12 depend on API gravity of the stock-
tank oil and are given in Table 22.6.
TABLE 22.5-VARIABLE RANGES
prb psia I= 50 to 5,250
R, 70 to 295
R scflSTB sb, 20 to 2,070
~npl> ApI 16 to 58
YQ 0.56 to 1.18
Example Problem 5. Calculate the bubblepoint pressure
for the oil system given in Example Problem 4 using the
Vasquez and Beggs correlation and the following data.
Use the uncorrected gas gravity. R.rb =500 scf/STB, TR =
220F, yfi =0.80, and YAPI =30API.
Solution.
Eq. 12 and the correct C values from Table 22.1 give:
I
500
Ph=
l-
I.0937
0.0362(0.80) exp[25.724(30)/680]
pb =2,562 psia.
This compares well with the value of 2,608 obtained
in Example Problem 4 with Lasaters correlation. With
Standings Eq. 5, a value of 2,415 psia is obtained.
Accuracy of Bubblepoint Correlations
Comparison of the accuracy with which the measured bub-
blepoint pressures used in each correlation agreed with
TABLE 22.8-CONSTANTS FOR
BUBBLEPOINT EQUATION
OAPI I 30 OAPI > 30
C, 0.0362 0.0178
C2 1.0937 1.1870
C3 25.7240 23.9310
OIL SYSTEM CORRELATIONS 22-9
TABLE 22.7-COMPARISON OF ACCURACY OF BUBBLEPOINT-PRESSURE
CORRELATIONS
Number of points in correlations
Standing Lasater Vasquez-Beggs
105 158 5.008
Data pointswlthin 10% of correlation, % 87 87 85
Data points more than 200 PSI in error, % 27
Mean.error, % 4.0 3.8 - 0.7
values determined from the final correlation shows that
the Vasquez and Beggs correlation is the most accurate,
For 7 < 3.29:
followed by Lasaters and then by Standings This is
shown in Table 22.7.
ys =0.359 In
1.473py,
+0.476
T
(15)
Solution GOR for Saturated Oils
For &?3 29:
Both reservoir engineering and production engineering T
calculations require estimates of the amount of dissolved
gas remaining in solution at oil system pressures below
bubblcpoint pressure. The amount of free gas--that is,
ys =
(
O.l21py,
-0.236
T >
0.!81
,
the gas that has evolved from 1 STB oil as the pressure
is reduced below p(,-IS R,,, -R,,, where R,, is the gas
where T is in R.
remaining in solution at the pressure of interest. In ef-
fect. any pressure below the original bubblepoint pres-
sure is also a bubblepoint pressure, since the oil is
Vasquez and Beggs Correlation
saturated with gas at this pressure. Therefore, the corre-
lations presented in the previous section can be solved for
solution GOR and a value of R, can be obtained at any
R,~=CI~,P~~ exp
pressure less than the reservoir ph. That is, R, =f(p,T,
T+460
.
(16)
(17)
YAP[-Y#).
The nomographs presented in Figs. 22.5 and 22.8 can
where
be used to determine R, by entering the bubblepoint axis
R,, = gas in solution at p and T, scf/STB.
at the pressure of interest and proceeding backward
through the graph to determine R,.
yh
= gas gravity,
p = pressure of interest, psia,
YAP] = stock-tank oi] gravity, API
Standing Correlation
R,=y, ( ],x~o~~) .?04 1
T = temperature of interest. F, and
Cl, Cl. C3 = are obtained from Table 22.6.
(13) Example Problem 6. Estimate the solution GOR of the
following oil system using the correlations of Standing,
Lasater, and Vasquez and Beges and the data: n=765
where
psia, T= 137F, +A~1 =22AF[ and ys ~0.65.
Jr = 0,00091(T)-0.0125(yAP,),
R; = solution GOR. scf/STB,
p = pressure, psia.
ys
= gas gravity,
-yAPI = oil gravity. API. and
T = temperature of interest, F
Standing
765
1
I 204
R,, =0.6.5
18x 1o-O,j
= 90 scf/STB.
Lasater Correlation
Lasater
R,=
132755y,,.vy
M,,(, -r,s) (
(14)
ms
765(0.65)
T-
=0.833.
137+460
where M,, is obtained from Eq. 7 or 8 and ys is calcu-
lated by either Eq. 9 or IO, depending on whether the
value of the pressure factor is less than or greater than
3.29.
.~=0.359 ln[1.473(0.833)+0.476]=0.191 (Eq. IS).
M,,=630- 10(22)=410 (Eq. 7).
22-10
141.5
Y/J =
=0.922
131.5+22
R = 132755(0.922)(0.191)
\
410(1-0.191)
=70 scf/STB (Eq. 14).
If yh is read from Fig. 22.7 rather than calculated from
Eq. IS, a value of approximately 0.25 is obtained. This
gives a value of R,, = 100 scf/STB. In this example, the
graphical value is closer to those calculated from the other
two correlations. The accuracy of the Lasater equation
is much better at higher R,, values.
Vasquez and Beggs
R, =0.0362(0.65)(765)~ exp[ 2~3~4@~] ;
Standing Correlation. Standing used the same oil sys-
tems described in the bubblepoint correlation section to
develop a correlation for B,, at pressures less than ph.
The method was presented in both equation and nomo-
graph form. In equation form,
B~,=0.972+0.000147F~, . . . (18)
where F is a correlating function and is determined from
the equation
F = R,y(y,ly,j)o.5 + 1.25T,
B, = oil FVF, bbl/STB,
R,, = solution GOR, scf/STB,
Yn
= gas gravity,
YO
= oil specific gravity= 141.5/(131.5 +yAPt),
and
T = temperature of interest, F.
R,, = 87 scf/STB.
A nomograph that solves Eq. 18 graphically is presented
in Fig. 22.9.
Oil FVF Correlations
The oil FVF is required for both reservoir and produc-
tion system calculations. The reservoir engineer must be
able to relate stock-tank volumes to reservoir volumes at
various pressures and a constant reservoir temperature.
Production engineering involves converting surface-
measured volumetric flow rates to in-situ flow rates at
various pressures and changing temperatures as the fluid
is produced to the surface.
As defined previously, the oil FVF is the volume that
would be occupied at some pressure and temperature by
1 STB oil plus any gas dissolved in the oil at these pres-
sure and temperature conditions. It is a function of the
composition of the system and the conditions under which
the gas and liquid are separated.
Values of oil FVF at reservoir temperature and vari-
ous pressures can be obtained from a standard PVT anal-
ysis of a reservoir fluid sample. However, this type of
analysis is often unavailable and the engineer must then
resort to empirical correlations that require only limited
data. Two empirical correlations for saturated oil systems
will be presented in this section. Both require values for
solution GOR, R,, which can be obtained by the methods
presented in the previous section.
At pressures above the bubblepoint, the oil is under-
saturated and the liquid expands as pressure is reduced.
Calculation of oil FVF thus requires a value for oil com-
pressibility. Two correlations for estimating the compres-
sibility of an undersaturated oil system will be prcscnted.
Saturated Systems
If an oil system is saturated with gas at given conditions
of pressure and temperature, a reduction in pressure will
allow solution gas to evzolve, thus causing the oil to shrink.
The Ilquid volume is also affected by temperature. Solu-
tion gas increases as temperature is decreased, but the liq-
uid volume decreases as the oil is cooled. The correlations
presented in this section can be expressed as
Example Problem 7. Use both Standings equation and
nomograph to estimate the oil FVF for the oil system de-
scribed by the data T=2009F, R,v =350 scf/STB, Y,~ =
0.75, and YAP] =30API.
Solution.
Yo
= 141.5/(131.5+30)=0.876.
F = 350(0.75/0.876).5 + 1.25(200) =574.
B,, = 0.972+0.000147(574)~75;
B,, = 1.228 bbl/STB.
A value of 1.22 bbl/STB is obtained from the nomo-
graph, Fig. 22.9.
Vasquez and Beggs Correlation. In conjunction with de-
velopment of the bubblepoint and solution GOR correla-
tions, Vasquez and Beggs also presented an equation for
oil FVF for saturated oils. To improve the accuracy of
the correlation. the 600 oil systems were divided into two
groups, those having API gravities 5 30 and those hav-
ing gravities > 30. The gas gravity used in the equation
should be the corrected gravity calculated by Eq. 11 if
the separator pressure is known. If separator conditions
are unknown, the uncorrected gas gravity may be used.
The equation is
+CjR,(T-660)(yAP,/y~:c), . . . . . . . (19)
where
B,, = oil FVF at p and T, bbl/STB
R, = solution GOR at p, T, scf/STB
p = pressure of interest, psia
-),&P[ = stock-tank oil gravity, API. and
-Yv
= gas gravity, corrected, air= I
B,, =f(R,. YAPI. Ys. T).
The constants are determined from Table 22.8.
OIL SYSTEM CORRELATIONS Z- 11
EXAMPLE
FORMATION VOLUME OF BUBBLE-POINT LIQUID, -
Fig. 22.9-Chart for calculating oil-formation volume by Standings correlation.
Example Problem 8. Use the Vasquez and Beggs equa-
tion to determine the oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure for
the oil system described by ph ~2,652 psia, Rsb =500
scf/STB. y,,-=O.SO. YAP] =30API, and 7=220F.
Solution.
B ,,h = 1+4.677x1O-4(5OO)+1.751x1O-5(16O)
~(3010.80)-1.811x10-s(500)(160)
.(30/0.80).
B,,, = 1.285 bbl/STB.
Undersaturated Systems
The oil FVF decreases with pressure increase at pressures
above the bubblepoint. In this case, B, is calculated from
B, =Boh exp[c,,(ph -p)], . (20)
where
B
nh
= oil FVF at pb,
ph = bubblepoint pressure, psia,
p = pressure of interest, psia, and
cc1
= oil isothermal compressibility, psi - .
Values for B,,h can be calculated with the Standing or
Vasquez and Beggs correlation. The oil compressibility
can be determined from a PVT analysis or estimated from
empirical correlations. Two correlations for c,, will be
presented.
TABLE 22.8-CONSTANTS FOR
OIL FVF
OAPI 530 API>30
Cl
4.677 x 10 -4 4.670~10-~
c2
1. 751x10- 5 1. 100x10- ~
c3
- 1. 811x10- 8 1.337x1o-g
Oil Isothermal Compressibility-Trube Method. The
Trube method6 makes use of the following relationships.
and
where
cpr- = pseudoreduced compressibility.
CO
= oil isothermal compressibility.
P,x
= pseudocritical pressure,
T,,, = pseudocritical temperature,
,.,..
\ .i
Fig. 22.10-Variation of pseudocritical temperature 01 reservoir Fig. 22.11-Pseudocritical pressure variation with pseudo-
oils with 60DF bubblepoint pressure; Trubes corre-
lation.
critical temperature and 60F specific gravity of
reservoir oil; Trubes correlation.
PP
= pseudoreduced pressure,
when used to predict the 2,000 measured values of c,
T,,,. = pseudoreduced temperature, from which the correlation was developed. No compari-
p = pressure of interest, and son of the two methods is available using independent
T = temperature of interest.
data. The equation for c, is
The pseudoreduced compressibility is a function ofp,,
and T,,,. Once cpr is obtained, c,) is calculated from
c,=cp/pP. . . . I. . . . . . . . (21)
Three graphs are required to obtain the necessary pa-
rameters to calculate cO. The pseudocritical temperature
Tp,. is obtained from Fig. 22.10 as a function of the spe-
c~fic gravity of the undersaturated liquid at the bubblepoint
pressure and 60F. It also depends on the bubblepoint
pressure of the oil at 60F. Values for these parameters
may be estimated using the correlations for density and
bubblepoint pressure presented previously.
A value for ppc. is obtained from Fig. 22.11 using the
liquid specific gravity at 60F and the value of T,, ob-
tained from Fig. 22.10. Once ppi. and T,,< are known,
p,,,. and T,,, at the pressure and temperature of interest
can be calculated. A value of c,,,. is obtained from Fig.
22.12 using ppr and T,,,. Then c, is calculated by Eq. 2 1.
Application of the Trube method using a computer or
calculator would require digitization of Figs. 22.10,
22.11, and 22.12.
Because of its complexity, no example will be given
illustrating the application of this method. An example
problem may be found in Ref. 6.
Oil Isothermal Compressibility-Vasquez and Beggs
Method. Vasquez and Beggs5 used approximately 2,000
experimentally measured values of c,, from more than
600 oil systems to develop a correlation for c, as a func-
tion of R ,h. T, ys, y,4pI, and p. This method is much
simpler to use than the Trube method and is more accurate
a
C-J
CL
2ooo\
I.84
SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF UNDERSATURATED
RESERVOIR LIQUID AT 60F
co -
5R,b+17.2T-1,180y,+12.61yAP,-1,433
pxlo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(22)
where
co
= oil isothermal compressibility, psi -
Rvb = solution GOR, scf/STB
p = pressure of interest, psia
TX
= gas gravity, and
TAP[ = stock-tank oil gravity, API.
Example Problem 9. Calculate the oil FVF for the oil
system described in Example Problem 8 at a pressure of
3,000 psia. Use Eq. 22 to determine a value for c, where
pb =2,652 psia, Rsb =500 scf/STB, y,? =0.80, YApI =
30API, T=220F, and Bob = 1.285 bbl/STB.
Solution.
co =
5(500)+17.2(200)-1,180(0.80)+12.61(30)-1,433
3.000x 105
c,,=1.43X10-5 psi-.
With Eq. 20,
B,=l.285 exp[l.43x10~5(2,652-3,000)];
B, = 1.285(0.995)= 1.279 bbl/STB
Total FVFs
When material-balance calculations are made for reser-
voir engineering, it is often convenient to calculate the
volume at reservoir conditions that is occupied by all the
material associated with a stock-tank barrel of oil-i.e.,
the volume of the saturated oil and the volume of the
evolved or liberated gas. This can be expressed as a total
FVF, B,.
The total FVF can be calculated if B, and the amount
of liberated gas is known. That is, B, equals volume of
oil plus dissolved gas/STB plus volume of liberated
gas/STB.
In equation form,
B, =B, +B,(R,Th -R,y), . . (23)
where
B, =
B, =
Rsh =
Rs =
total FVF, bbl/STB,
oil FVF, bbl/STB,
solution GOR at Ph. scf/STB,
solution GOR at pressure of interest,
scf/STB, and
B, = gas FVF at pressure and temperature of
interest, bbl/scf.
The gas FVF requires a value for the gas compressi-
bility or zR factor that may be obtained from Chap. 17.
B,=
0.005042, T
) .,.,,.,.................
0
P
where
B, = gas FVF, bbllscf,
ZK
= gas compressibility factor at p, T,
p = pressure of interest, psia, and
T = temperature of interest, R.
A nomogra
by Standing.
P
h for estimating total FVF was presented
The correlation was developed from 387
experimental data points that included the ranges given
in Table 22.9.
The nomograph, on which an example calculation is
worked, is shown in Fig. 22.13.
Oil Viscosity Correlations
The absolute viscosity of a fluid is a measure of the fluids
resistance to flow. The resistance to flow is caused by
internal friction generated when the fluid molecules are
sheared. The viscosity can be quantified as the ratio of
the shearing stress required to induce a particular rate of
shear in the fluid at specific conditions of pressure and
temperature. The absolute viscosity of a Newtonian fluid
is independent of the rate of shear. Only Newtonian fluids
are considered in this section.
22-13
1 2 5 10 20 50 100
PSEUDOREDUCED PRESSURE. p,
Fig. 22.12-Variation of pseudoreduced compressibility with
pseudoreduced pressure and temperature.
Values of oil viscosity are required at various pressures
and temperatures for both reservoir and production engi-
neering calculations. If a PVT analysis is available, meas-
ured values of oil viscosity will be reported at reservoir
temperature and at various pressures. However, as the
fluid flows through the production system, the tempera-
ture also changes. This necessitates correcting the viscosi-
ty for temperature changes, which is usually accomplished
by empirical correlations.
The absolute viscosity, which is usually referred to
merely as the viscosity, can be expressed in various units.
The so-called oilfield unit is the centipoise or poise.
A relationship among various systems of units is given
as 1 cp = 0.01 poise = 0.001 Pa*s = 6.72~ 10m4
lbm/(ft-set).
The kinematic viscosity of a fluid is the absolute vis-
cosity divided by the density, or
CL
Y=-.
P
The most commonly used unit of kinematic viscosity
is the centistoke (cSt), where the conversion to SI units
is 1 cSt=10-6 m*/s.
In addition to absolute and kinematic viscosity units,
the units of Saybolt seconds universal (SSU) and Saybolt
TABLE 22.9-DATA RANGES FOR
STANDING CORRELATION
Pressure, psia
GOR, scf/STB
Temperature, OF
Gas gravity
Oil gravity, OAPl
400 to 5,000
75 to 37,000
100 to 258
0.59 to 0.95
16.5 to 63.6
Fig. 22.13-Chart for calculating total formation volume by Standings correlation.
seconds furol (SSF) are commonly used. An approximate rect this value for dissolved gas. The dead-oil viscosity
conversion between centistokes and the time units can be depends on API gravity of the stock-tank oil and the tem-
made with the following equations. perature of interest.
The dead-oil viscosity can be obtained from empirical
v=0.220tsu- 180/rsU, correlations or, if measured values are available at two
temperatures, the viscosity at any other temperature can
and
be calculated from the equation
v=2.12tsF-- 139/tp, . . . . . (25)
log[log(v+0.8)]=A+B log 7-, . . .(26)
where
v = kinematic viscosity in cSt,
tsu = Saybolt seconds universal, and
tSF = Saybolt seconds furol.
Factors Affecting Oil Viscosity
The principal factors of interest to the petroleum engi-
neer that affect viscosity are composition, temperature,
dissolved gas, and pressure. Oil viscosity increases with
a decrease in API gravity and also increases with a
decrease in temperature.
The effect of dissolved gas is to lighten the oil and thus
decrease its viscosity, while an increase in pressure on
an undersaturated oil compresses the oil and causes the
viscosity to increase.
where
v = kinematic viscosity at T,
T = temperature of interest, and
A,B = constants for a particular oil that can be
determined if two measured values of u
and T are available.
Beals Correlation for Dead Oils. Beal presented a
graphical correlation showing the effects of both oil gravi-
ty and temperature on dead-oil viscosity. The correlation
was developed from measurements made on 6.55 oil sam-
ples. The relationship among viscosity, API gravity, and
temperature is shown in Fig. 22.14.
Oil Viscosity Correlations-Saturated Systems
Effect of Dissolved Gas-Chew and Connally Method.
The decrease in the dead-oil viscosity as gas goes into so-
The most common method for obtaining the viscosity of lution can be estimated with Fig. 22.15, which was pub-
a crude oil that contains dissolved gas is first to estimate lished by Chew and Connally 8 in 1959. The procedure
the viscosity of the gas-free or dead oil and then to cor- for using the chart and an example problem are shown
22-15
0.4
- -_ \
0.3
1.
0.2
I
90
/ I
20 ;0 40 50 60
Crude-oil grwity *API at 60*F ond atmospheric pressure
Fig. 22.14-Gas-free crude viscosity as a function of reservoir
temperature and stock-tank crude gravity.
in the figure. They also proposed an equation for correct-
ing for the dissolved gas:
h
/.lr,,,=upo(j ,...............,..........,..
(27)
where
PO
= saturated oil viscosity,
p,,d = gas-free or dead-oil viscosity, and
a,h = functions of R,, , shown in Fig. 22.16.
Beggs and Robinson Correlation. A method for calculat-
ing both dead-oil and saturated-oil viscosity was present-
ed by Beggs and Robinson in 1975. The correlation was
developed from more than 2,000 measured data points
using 600 oil systems. The range of variables of the data
is given in Table 22.10.
The equation developed reproduced the measured data
with an average error of - 1.83% and a standard devia-
tion of 27%.
The equation for dead-oil viscosity is
j~~>~=lO-~-l.O. . . . . . . . . . . (28)
where
x = T-.16 exp(6.9824-0.04658TpiI),
pod = dead-oil viscosity, cp,
T = temperature of interest, F, and
YAPI = stock-tank oil gravity, API.
To correct for the effect of dissolved gas, an equation
similar to Eq. 27 was developed.
CL 0,
=Ap<,f, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(29)
i II
I Ill
I
Oo304
I
06 08, 2 3 456 810 20 30 40 60 ml00 1
Fig. 22.15-Viscosity and gas-saturated crude oils at reservoir
temperature and pressure; Chew and Connallys
correlation.
where
pLos = saturated-oil viscosity
P,~~, = dead-oil viscosity,
A,B = functions of R,,,
A = 10.715(R. + 100~~s,
., (30)
B = 5.44(R,+l50)p"8. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(31)
where R,v is the solution GOR in scf/STB. No graphs are
required to apply this method.
Example Problem 10. Calculate the viscosity of the satu-
rated oil system described next using the Beal and Chew
and Connally correlations and the Beggs and Robinson
correlation where T= 137F, -yApI =22API, and R,, =90
scf/STB.
Solution-Beal with Chew and Connally. From Fig.
22.14, p,d=20 cp. From Fig. 22.16, a=0.82 and h=
0.9. po,s=0.82(20)09=12.15 cp.
Interpolation was necessary on both Figs. 22.14 and
22.16 to obtain values for pl,d. a, and b. Use of Fig.
22.15 to correct for R,y gives a value of approximately
12 cp for p,,.
Solution-Beggs and Robinson.
x = (137) -1.63 exp [6.9824-0.04658(22)]:
x = 1.2658.
P
Od
= 10.*6* - l.O= 17.44 cp.
A = 10.715(90+ 100) -o.s5 =0.719.
B = 5.44(90+ 150) -o.338 =0.853.
p,,,? = 0.719(17.44)".8"3 =8.24 cp.
22-16
Fig. 22.16-a and b factors for use in Chew and Connallys vis-
cosity correlation.
TABLE 22.10-BEGGS AND
ROBINSON CORRELATION DATA
R,) SCflSTB 20 to 2,070
YAW 3 ,API 16 to 58
7: rg 0 70 to to 5,250 295
>E VISCOSITY OF GAS-SATURATED CRUDE OIL
AT BUBBLE-POINT PRESSURE, CP
Fig. 22.17-Effect of pressure on viscosity of gas-saturated
crude oils; Eeals correlation.
Oil Viscosity Correlations-Undersaturated Systems Solution.
The effect of increasing the pressure on an oil system
From Eq. 12:
above the bubblepoint is to compress the liquid and to in-
crease the viscosity. This effect was measured by Beal
Ph=
and presented graphically in Fig. 22.17. The graph gives
L
532
the viscosity increase in cpi 1 ,OOO-psi increase in pressure
above pb as a function of the saturated or bubblepoint vis-
0.0178(0.745) exp 23.931(31)/(240+460) 1
111.187
cosity, pLob.
Vasquez and Beggs5 extended the Beggs and Robin- ph =3,093 psia.
son correlation for undersaturated oils with the equation
From Eq. 28:
p. =/.~,(p/p~)~, . . . . . . . . . . . . (32)
where
PO
= viscosity at p >ph,
@ob = viscosity at pb,
p = pressure of interest, and
pb = bubblepoint pressure.
The exponent m is pressure dependent and is calculated
from
m=Clpc2 exp(Cj +Cdp), . . . .(33)
where
p = pressure of interest, psia,
C, = 2.6,
C2 = 1.187,
C3 = -11.513, and
C4 = -8.98~10-~.
Example Problem 11. Calculate the viscosity of the oil
system described at a pressure of 4,750 psia, with
T=240F, YApI =31API, yR =0.745, and Rsb =532
scf/STB.
n = (240)-I.163
exp[6.9824-0.04658(31)];
x = 0.4336,
pod = 104336-1.0=1.71 Cp.
From Eqs. 29, 30, and 31:
A = 10.715(532+100-~55=0.387,
B = 5.44(532+ 150) -.338 =0.599,
and
/lob = 0.387(1.71)0.599=0.53 cp.
From Eqs. 32 and 33:
m = 2.6(4,750),87
~exp[-11.513-4,750(8.98x10-5];
m = 0.393, and
PO
= 0.53(4,750/3,093).393 =0.63 cp.
Gas/Oil IFT
The interfacial or surface tension existing between a liq-
uid and gas is required for estimating capillary-pressure
22-17
forces in reservoir engineering and is a parameter in some
correlations used in wellbore hydraulics calculations. The
surface tension between natural gas and crude oil ranges
from zero to about 35 dyne/cm. It is a function of pres-
sure, temperature, and compositions of the phases.
The surface tension of a hydrocarbon mixture can be
calculated if the composition of the mixture at the pres-
sure and temperature of interest is known. The parachor
of each component must also be known. The parachor is
the molecular weight of a liquid times the fourth root of
its surface tension, divided by the difference between the
density of the liquid and the density of the vapor in equi-
librium with it. It is essentially constant over wide ranges
of temperature. An equation for estimating surface ten-
sion is
oo.25=
(34)
where
u = surface tension, dyne/cm.
Pchi = parachor of ith component,
xi = mole fraction of ith component in the liq-
uid phase,
v; = mole fraction of ith component in the
vapor phase,
pi = density of the liquid phase, g/cm,
P,,
= density of the vapor phase, g/cm 3,
ML = molecular weight of liquid phase,
M,. = molecular weight of vapor phase, and
C = number of components.
Parachors for some hydrocarbons, nitrogen, and car-
bon dioxide are given in Table 22.11. A correlation of
the parachor with molecular weight was presented by
Katz and is shown in Fig. 22.18.
Empirical correlations in the form of graphs were
presented by Baker and Swerdloff where surface ten-
sion is correlated with temperature, API gravity, and pres-
sure. The correlations are shown in Figs. 22.19 and 22.20.
Equations that approximate Figs. 22.19 and 22.20 are:
aes=39-0.2571yAP1, . . . . . . . . (35)
and
u,oo=37.5-0.2571y/,~1, . . . . . _. . .(36)
where
068
= IFT at 68F, dyne/cm,
alOO = IFT at lOOF, dyne/cm, and
yAPI = gravity of stock-tank oil, API.
It has been suggested that if the temperature is greater
than lOOF, the value at 100F should be used. Also, if
T<68F, use the value calculated at T=68F. For in-
termediate temperatures, use linear interpolation between
the values obtained at 68 and 100F. That is:
(T-68"F)(u68-LJloo)
07=fl68 - , ,..........
32
(37)
where or=IFT at 68F< T< 100F.
9oc
80C
7oc
600
0 500
Jz
u
0
i 400
300
200
fO0
i
0 400 200 300 400
Molecular weight
Flg. 22.18-Parachors for hydrocarbons. 0, n-paraffins; 0,
heptanes plus; A, gasolines; A, crude oil.
TABLE 22.11 -PARACHORS FOR
PURE SUBSTANCES
Methane 77.0
Ethane 108.0
Propane 150.3
lsobutane 181.5
n-Butane 190.0
lsopentane 225
n-Pentane 232
n-Hexane 271
n-Heptane 311
n-Octane 352
Nitrogen (in n-heptane) 41.0
Carbon dioxide 78.0
The effect of gas going into solution as pressure is in-
creased on the gas/oil mixture is to reduce the IFT. The
dead-end oil IFT can be corrected by multiplying it by
the following correction factor.
F,.= 1.0-0.024p~45, . . . . . . . . . (38)
where p is in psia
The IFT at any pressure is then obtained from
u,,=F,.a7.. (39)
The IFT becomes zero at miscibility pressure, and for
most systems, this will be at any pressure greater than
about 5,000 psia.
P Oil =
dead oil viscosity
PLO\ =
saturated oil viscosity
Y= kinematic viscosity
P=
fluid density
CJ= surface tension, interfacial
Key Equations in SI Metric Units
Most of the correlations presented in this chapter are
included in a calculator program for the HP-41C. The pro-
gram is available from Hewlett-Packard.
PO =
lOOOy, + 1.224y,R,
. . . B,
(1)
Nomenclature
CI = function of R,, in Eq. 27
A = constant in Eq. 26
h = function of R,, in Eq. 27
B = constant in Eq. 26
B,? = gas formation volume factor
B,, = oil formation volume factor
C(, =
I, =
c=
c, .C?.
Cj.Cd =
F=
F, =
where Y,~ =mole fraction gas,
=l.225+0.00164TR-1.769/y<,.
oil isothermal compressibility
pseudo-reduced compressibility
number of components
O.O148R,/,
)I# =
O.O148R,,,, +35Oy,/M,,
(6)
various constants
correlating function in Eq. 18
correcting factor for dead oil interfacial
For y. ~0.825:
M,,=l945-1415/y,,. .
For y. >0.825:
m =
tn ; =
M,, =
P=
PI, =
I), =
I),. =
Pch, =
RI; =
R, =
R
$12 =
fsu =
fSF =
T=
T
/ =
T,,r =
TR =
, =
v; =
x =
?,y =
7
G ,y =
Y=
YAPI =
Y,w =
Y,l =
cI=
CL,,/, =
tension. Eq. 38
pressure-dependent exponent in Eq. 32
mass of ith component
molecular weight of stock-tank oil
pressure of interest
bubblepoint pressure
pseudo-critical pressure
pseudo-reduced pressure
parachor of ith component
free gas/oil ratio
solution gas/oil ratio
solution gas/oil ratio at the bubblepoint
pressure
Saybolt seconds universal
Saybolt seconds furol
temperature of interest
pseudo-critical temperature
pseudo-reduced temperature
reservoir temperature
specific volume
volume of ith component
symbol for various groups of terms,
Eq. 28
symbol for various groups of terms, Eqs.
5, 6, 9. IO, and 13-16
gas compressibility factor
fluid specific gravity
oil API gravity
corrected gas gravity
oil specific gravity
fluid viscosity
oil viscosity at bubblepoint pressure
(
0.109
>
~ I.562
MO =
~-0.101
Y/l
For ys 50.60:
PhY,g
- =8.427 exp(2.78~,Y)-4.01.
TR
For ,vY > 0.60:
I b Y R
-=
102.51~ .6+24.20.
TR
-R
O.O15lT, 3.848
Y,p Yg
YO Yn
-0.OlJT,,3.576) log (G)
where the following constants apply.
(8)
OIL SYSTEM CORRELATIONS 22-19
42
1
40.
38.
SURFACE TENSION OF CRUDE OILS
AT ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
$J 36.
5 34.
E
u 32.
z
; 30.
; x8-
5 26.
24.
Fig. 22.19-Surface tension of crude oils at atmospheric Fig. 22.20-Effect of solution gas on surface tension of crude
pressure. oils.
y. <0.876 y. 2 0.876
Cl 3.204 x 10 -4 7.803~10-~
c2 0.8425 0.9143
C3 1881.24 2022.19
c4 1748.29 1879.28
P
>
1. 204
R, , =yg 3 ..... (13) 519.7x10?F
where
yR = 1.225 +O.O0164T- 1.769/r,.
R,=
23 643y,y,
M,(l -y,) . . .
For a<40 7. . .
T
ys =0.359 In +0.476
>
. . .
For 3 ~40.7:
1784
T 28.1RS+30.6T-1180r,+- - 10 910
(14)
O.O098py,
>
0. 281
?' , q = -0.236 .
T
R.S=ClYg
c, exp($-+), . . . . . .
where the following constants apply
(17)
y. <0.876 y. > 0.876
Cl
3.204x10- 7.803x10-
C? 1.1870 1.0937
c3 1881.24 2022.19
c4 1748.29 1879.28
SURFACE TENSION OF CRUDE OILS
EFFECT OF DI SSOLVEDGAS I NSOLUTI ON
AT VARI OUS SATURATI ON PRESSURES ANO
ATMOSPHERI C TEMPERATURE
B
0
=0.972 -0.000147F~75, . . . .
(18)
where
+2.25T-5.75.
B,=1+C,R,+F(C2+CJR,), . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
where
254.7T 73 580
FZ-....--
-236.7T-- +68 380
Yo Yo
and the following constants apply.
y0 <0.876 y<, I 0.876
Cl 2.622 x 10 -3 2.626~10-~
C2 1.100x10-5 1.751 x 10- 5
c3 1.337 x 10 -9 -1.811~10-~
co =
Yo
px105
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(22)
,A,, = lOx-3 -0.001, . . . . . (28)
where
~=(1.8T-460)-.~~ exp(l3.108-6.591/y.).
A=10.715(5.615R.+100)-0~5.
A
.
(30)
B=5.44(5.615Rs+150) -.338. . . . . (31)
wjhere
B,, is in m3/m3,
C,, is in kPa - ,
M,, is in kg/kg-mole,
p is in kPa,
R, is in m/m,
Tis in K,
p,, is in kg/m 3 , and
pc, is in Pa.s.
Glossary
These are generally accepted definitions, peculiar to reser-
voir engineering phase-behavior work.
Apparent liquid density is the ratio of mass to volume
of a gas when dissolved m a liquid. It normally is calcu-
lated for conditions of 14.7 psia and 60F by correcting
the observed density of the system to that state and sub-
tracting the mass and volume of the liquid component of
the system.
Bubblepoint of a system is the state characterized by the
coexistence of a substantial amount of liquid phase and
an infinitesimal amount of gas phase in equilibrium.
Compressibility factor (gas-deviation factor, supercom-
pressibility factor) is a multiplying factor introduced into
the ideal-gas law to account for the departure of true gases
from ideal behavior (pV=&T: z is the compressibility
factor).
Condensate (distillate) liquids are liquids formed by con-
densation of a vapor or gas. The term usually identifies
a light-colored liquid, usually ofSOAPI gravity or higher,
obtained from systems that exist in the gaseous phase in
the reservoir.
Critical state is the term used to identify the unique con-
dition of pressure. temperature, and composition where-
in all properties of coexisting vapor and liquid become
identical.
Critical temperature T, and/or pressure pC is the ten-
perature or pressure at the critical state.
Dewpoint of a system is analogous to the bubblepoint in
that a large volume of gas and an infinitesimal amount
of liquid coexist in equilibrium.
Dewpoint pressure p(, is the gas pressure in a system
at its dewpoint.
Differential-gas liberation indicates removal of a gas
phase from the system as the gas forms at bubblepoint
conditions. It is generally believed that the differential-
gas-liberation process is the one that predominates in
solution-gas-drive reservoirs during the greater part of
their producing life.
Differential process is a term used primarily in PVT work
to indicate that, as a system is caused to move through
a bubblepoint or dewpoint and as a result forms two
phases, the minor phase is removed from further contact
with the major phase. Thus, during a differential proc-
ess, the system is continuously changing in quantity
and composition.
Dissolved gas (solution gas) identifies tnaterial ordinarily
gaseous at atmospheric conditions but which is part of a
liquid phase at elevated pressure and temperature.
Dissolved-gas drive (solution-gas drive) is a primary
recovery process whereby liquid (oil) is displaced from
the reservoir rock by energy of expansion of gas compo-
nents originally dissolved in the liquid.
Flash gas liberation means that a gas forms from a liquid
(usually on reduction of pressure) under conditions where-
in the total composition of the system remains the same
in time. An example of flash gas liberation occurs during
the steady-state flow of oil and gas through a gas-oil
separator.
Flash process is one in which the composition of the sys-
tem remains constant but the proportion of gas and liquid
phases that comprise the system changes as pressure or
some other independent variable is changed. For exam-
ple. the determination of the PV relations of a reservoir
fluid sample involves a flash process.
Formation volume factor (FVF) is a means of express-
ing a volumetric relation of a system. The volume of fluid,
at formation pressure and temperature. that results in 1
bbl stock-tank oil is, by definition, the formation volutne
B. If the system is in a single condensed state in the for-
mation, the term oil-FVF B,, is used. If two phases ex-
ist, the term used is total-FVF B, or two-phase formation
volume. Oil-formation volumes normally are between 1.1
and 2.0. Total formation volumes may be as great as 200.
depending on the system composition and the pressure in-
volved. Gas-formation volume B,q refers to the volume
in the reservoir (usually expressed as barrels) per 1,000
std surface cu ft of the gas. Water-formation volume B,,.
designates the volume in the fortnation occupied by I sur-
face bbl water and its attendant gases. Water-formation
volumes are usually in the range of 0.99 to 1.07. In all
instances, the reference state is standard surface condi-
tions of 14.7 psia and 60F unless specified otherwise.
Gas gravity is a simple means of expressing the molecu-
lar weight of a gas. The unit of gas gravity is dry air of
molecular weight 28.97. Thus, methane (molecular
weight= 16.04) has a gas gravity of 16.04/28.97=0.55.
Gas-oil ratio (GOR) is a loose expression of system com-
position. Normally, the units involved are cubic feet of
gas per I bbl liquid. both measured at 14.7 psia and 60F.
However. in some instances. local usage calls for tneas-
uring the gas at some pressure other than 14.7 psia.
Further, the barrel of liquid may refer to some pressure
other than the usual stock-tank oil. The units of reservoir
oil and residual oil are encountered quite often in PVT
work. Lastly. several kinds of GOR are used in rescr-
22-21
voir engineering, such as solution (pas solubility in oil)
R, producing R, and cumulative R,, Pressure and tcm-
perature of separation and the number of stages used af-
fect the GOR number obtained for a given system.
Mole is one molecular weight unit of any substance. For
example. 16.04 Ibm methane is a lbm-mol. Likewise.
16.04 p methane constitute a gmol. The Ibm-mole is used
for petroleum engineering work. A Ibm-mol of gas (per-
fect) occupies 370.4 cu ft at 14.7 psia and 60F.
Phase is a portion of a system that differs in its intensive
properties from adjacent portions of the system. An in-
terface exists between phases because of this difference
in properties. Systems involved in petroleum production
normally occur in not more than two phases. gas and
liquid. On occasion and for hydrocarbon systems of un-
usual composition. two liquid phases or a solid phase may
occur.
Properties, Extensive and Intensive. Properties dircct-
Iy proportional to the amount of material making up the
system are termed extensive properties. Examples arc
area, mass, inertia. and volume. An intensive property
is one that is independent of the amount of material. Den-
sity. pressure. temperature, viscosity, and surface tension
are intensive properties. Energy is the product of an in-
tensive property and an extensive property: for example.
pressure times volume is mechanical energy.
Pseudocritical and Pseudoreduced Properties (Tem-
perature, Pressure). Properties of pure hydrocarbons are
often the same when expressed in terms of their reduced
properties. The same reduced-state relationships often ap-
ply to multicomponent systems if pseudo critical tcm-
peratures and pressures are used rather than the true
criticals of the systems. Calculation of the pseudocritical
values from the composition of the system varies depend-
ing on the correlation being used. The ratio of the prop-
erly to the pseudocritical property is called the
pseudoreduced property, e.g., pseudoreduced pressure
Ppr =Ph,x
Reduced properties (temperature, pressure, volume)
are the ratio of the property to the critical property: for
example, the reduced pressure p I =p/~),. .
Relative oil volume is analogous to formation volume ex-
cept that the reference state is other than at standard sur-
face conditions and the oil is other than stock-tank oil.
For example, the term is used often on the basis of I bhl
bubblepoint oil, or saturated oil, as the reference volume.
Relative oil volumes must specify pressure, tcmpcraturc.
and some composition parameter, e.g., relative oil
volume =0.7 (2.520 psia, 185F. bubblepoint oil = 1 .O).
the liquid remaining in a PVT cell at the completion of
a differential process carried out at or near the reservoir
Residual oil is a term common in PVT work to identify
temperature. By analogy. it refers also to the liquid that
remains in an oil reservoir at depletion. General usage
is that residual oil volumes and gravities are reported in
PVT work at 60F and 14.7 psia. Residual OII is to a dif- u/id Pm/. Pmr . API (1942).
ttirential gas-removal process as stock-tank oil is to a flash-
gas process-the end liquid product.
Saturated liquid is a liquid in equilibrium with vapor at
the saturation pressure. Likewise, saturated vapor dcnotcs
equilibrium with liquid. These terms are often used ayn-
onymously with the term bubblepoint liquid (dewpoint
vapor) at the bubblepoint (dewpoint) pressure. Note that
the terms bubblepoint and dewpoint identify, the spc-
cial case where the minor phase is present only III an in-
finitcsimal amount. whereas the term saturated liquid
dots not involve the relative amounts of phases present.
Shrinkage refers to the decrease in volume of a liquid
phase caused by release of solution gas and/or by the
thermal contraction of the liquid. Shrinkage may be ex-
pressed (1) as a percentage of the final resulting stock-
tank oil or (2) as a percentage of the original volume of
the liquid. Shrinkage factor is the reciprocal of FVF ex-
pressed as barrels of stock-tank oil per barrel of rcscr-
voir oil. A reservoir oil that rcsultcd in 0.75 bbl of
stock-tank oil per I bbl of reservoir oil would have a
shrinkage of 0.25/0.75=33%~ under Definition I. a
shrinkage of 0.25/1.00=25% under Definition 2, a
shrinkage factor of0.75. and an FVF of I .00/0.75= 1.33.
Solution gas-oil ratio, R,, . expresses the amount of gas
in solution. or dissolved, in a liquid. The reference oil
may be stock-tank oil or residual oil. On occasion. reser-
voir saturated oil is used as the rcferencc.
Standard conditions (surface) arc 14.7 psia and 60F.
Gas volumes may be specified on occasion at prcssurcs
slightly removed from 14.7 psia.
Stock-tank oil is the liquid that results from production
of reservoir material through surface equipment that
separates normally gaseous components. Stock-tank oil
may be caused to vary in composition and properties by
varying the conditions of gas/liquid separation. Stock-tank
oil is normally reported at 60F and 14.7 psia but may
be measured under other conditions and corrected to the
standard condition.
System refers to a body or to a composition of matter
that represents the material under consideration. The term
system may be defined further as a homogeneous sys-
tem or a heterogeneous system. In a homogeneous sys-
tern, the intensive propertles vary only in a continuous
manner with respect to the extent of the system. A hctcr-
ogeneous system is made up of a number of homopcne-
ous parts, and abrupt changes in the intensive proportics
occur at the interface between the homogeneous parts.
Undersaturated fluid (liquid or vapor) is material capa-
blc of holding additional gaseous or liquid components
in solution at the specified state.
22-22
4. Lahater, J.A : Bubble Point Prcwrc Correlation. Twf\.. AIME
(1958) 213. 379-81.
5. Vasquer. M. and Beep\, H.D.: Correlat~on$ for Fluid Phy\al
Property Prediction, J. PH. Twh. (June 1980) 96X-70.
6. Trube. -A.S.: Compresaihility of Undersaturated Hydrocarbon
Reservoir Fluids. Trw~s.. AIME (1957) 210. X-57
7. Beal. C.: The Viscosity of Air. Water. Natural Gas. Crude Oil
and Its Associated Gases at 011 Field Temperatures and Pre\wre~.
T/-w.\. , AIME (1946) 165. 94- Il5.
X. Chew. J. and Connally, C.A : A Viscwity Correlation for (;a\-
Saturated Crude Oils. Trcmx.. AIME (1959) 216. 23-25
9. Beg, H.D. and Robinson. J.R.: Estimating the Viwwty of Crude
Oil Sysrems. J. Pe. Twh. (Sept. 19751 1140-41.
IO. Katz. D.L . Monroe, R R.. and Tramer. R.R : Surface Tension
(11 Crude Oils Contaimng Dioolved Case\, PH. KY/I. (Sept. 19431
I-IO.
Lacey. W N.. Sage. B.H.. and Kircher. C.E. Jr.: Phnsc Equllihrla
in Hydrocarbon System\,. 111 ~ Solubility of a Dry Natural Ciao 111
Crude Oil. /!I(/. N)/(l Orx. Clwrr. (IY3.l) 26. hS?.
Lcwts. W.K. and Squires, L.: Mechanism ofOil Viwo~ity. Oi/tr,~t/
Cm J. (1934) 33, No. 26. 92.
Nelson. W.L.: How to Handle Viscous Crude Oil. U/i and Co.\ ./.
(1954) 53. No. 28. 269.
Norton. A.E.: L~thnccoirv~. McGmwHill Book Co. Inc.. New York
Cay (1942).
Perry. J .H.: Chrrnic~trl Eqi t wer s Htrwliwok. McGraw-Hil I Bwh Co.
Inc.. New York City (19.50).
I I. Baher. 0. and Swerdloff. W.. Findmg Surface Tcnswn of.
Hydrocarbon Liquids. Uii oni/ Gay J. (Jan. 2. 1956).
Schilthuis. R.I.: Active Oil and Reservoir Enerpy. ~rwn.\. . AIME
IZ. HP-41C Petroleum Fluid!, Pac. Hewlett-Packard. 1000 N.E. Clr-
(1936) 118. 33-52.
cle Blvd.. Corvalhs. OR 97330.
Standing. M.B. and Katz. D.L.: Densq ofCrude 011s Saturated With
General References
Ndtural Gas. Twms., AIME (1941) 136, ISYQS
Borden. G. Jr. and Raw, M.J.: Correlation of Bottom Hole Sample
Data. ~wrcr,~.s.. AlME (1950) 189. 345-48.
van Wijk. W R., devries. D.A., and Thijscn. H.A.C.: Study nf PVT
Relations of Reservoir Flui&. Pro<,. , Fourth World Petroleum Con-
Dodson. C.R., Goodwill. D.. and Mayer. E.H.: Application of Lah-
gress. II, 313.
oratory PVT Data to Reservoir Engineerins Problems. frrras.. AIME
(19.53) 198. 287-98.
Vink. D.J. cf a/.: Multiple-Phase Hydrocarbon System\. Ofi cr,rd
Cm J. (1940) 39. No. 28. 34.
Gosline. J.E. and Dodson. C.R.: Solubility Relations and Volumet-
ric Behavior of Three Gravitler of Crudes and Associated Gases.
Drill. crml Pd. Prtrc. . API (1942) 137.
W+@ns. W.R.: Viscosity-Temperature Characteri\ticsof Petroleum
Products. Scwr7cv of Prrr0/cur,1, 2. 107 I.
Chapter 23
Phase Diagrams
F.M. OTK Jr., New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology
J.J. Taber, New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology*
Introduction
Petroleum reservoir fluids are complex mixtures contain-
ing many hydrocarbon components that range in size
from light gases such as methane, ethane, and so on to
very large hydrocarbon molecules containing 40 or more
carbon atoms. Nonhydrocarbon components such as
nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (HzS), or CO2 also may be
present. Water, of course, is usually present in large
quantities in all reservoirs. At a given temperature and
pressure, the components distribute between whatever
solid, liquid, and vapor phases are present. A phase may
be defined as that portion of a system that is
homogeneous, bounded by a surface, and physically
separable from other phases present. Equilibrium phase
diagrams offer convenient representations of the ranges
of temperature, pressure, and composition within which
various combinations of phases coexist. Phase behavior
plays an important role in a variety of reservoir engineer-
ing applications ranging from pressure maintenance to
separator design to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) proc-
esses. This chapter reviews the fundamentals of phase
diagrams used in such applications.
Single-Component Phase Diagrams
Fig. 23.1 summarizes the phase behavior of a single
component. The saturation curves shown in Fig. 23.1 in-
dicate the temperatures and pressures at which phase
changes occur. At temperatures below the triple point,
the component forms a vapor if the pressure is below that
indicated by the sublimation cuwe, and forms a solid at
pressures above the curve. At pressures and temperatures
lying on the sublimation curve, solid and vapor can
coexist, and on the melting curve, solid and liquid are in
equilibrium. At higher temperatures, liquid and vapor
can coexist along the vaporization or vapor-pressure
curve. If the pressure is greater than the vapor pressure, a
liquid forms, if lower, a vapor. The vapor-pressure curve
terminates at the critical point. At temperatures above
the critical temperature, T,, a single phase forms over
the entire range of pressures. Thus, for a single compo-
nent, the critical temperature is the maximum
temperature at which two phases can exist. Critical
temperatures of hydrocarbons vary widely. Small
hydrocarbon molecules have low critical temperatures,
while those of large ones are much higher. Critical
pressures generally decline as the molecular size in-
creases. For instance, the critical temperature and
pressure of methane are - 117F and 668 psia. For
decane, the values are 652F and 304 psia. (Fig. 23.9
shows additional vapor pressure curves and critical
points for several other light hydrocarbon molecules.)
For many reservoir engineering applications liq-
uid/vapor equilibrium is of greatest interest, though liq-
uid/liquid equilibria are important in some EOR proc-
esses. Solid/liquid phase changes, such as asphaltene or
paraffin precipitation, occasionally occur in petroleum
production operations. Fig. 23.2 shows typical
volumetric behavior of a single component in the range
of temperatures and pressures near the vapor-pressure
curve in Fig. 23.1. If the substance under consideration
is placed in a pressure cell at constant temperature T1
below T, and at a low pressure (Point A, for instance), it
forms a vapor phase of high volume (low density). If the
volume of the sample is decreased with the temperature
held constant, the pressure rises. When the pressure
reaches p,, (T1 ), the sample begins to condense. The
pressure remains constant at the vapor pressure until the
sample volume is reduced from the saturated vapor
volume (V,.) to that of the saturated liquid (V,). With
further reductions in volume, the pressure rises again as
the liquid phase is compressed. Note that small decreases
in volume give rise to large pressure increases in the liq-
uid phase because of the low compressibility of liquids.
At a temperature Tz above the critical temperature, no
phase change is observed. Instead, the sample can be
SOLID
I
i:
MELTING
CURVE
CRITICAL
POINT
VAPORIZATION
SUBLIMATION
VAPOR
CJRVE
T
TC
MPERATURE
Fig. 2X1-Phase behavior of a pure component.
Tc
TC
Tc
I
I I 1
L Vc Vv
VOLUME
Fig. 23.2-Volumetric behavior of a pure component in the
liqutd/vapor region.
compressed from high volume (low density) and low
pressure to low volume (high density) and high pressure
with only one phase present.
Phase Rule
The maximum number of phases that can coexist at fixed
temperature and pressure is determined by the number of
components present. The phase rule states that
F=2+C-P-n,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where F is the number of degrees of freedom, C is the
number of components, P is the number of phases, and
n c is the number of constraints. For a single-component
system, the maximum number of phases occurs when
there are no constraints (n c =0) and there are no degrees
3
z
Pb
k
a
Pd
PV2
A B XE
1.0
MOLE FRACTION COMPONENT I
Fig. 23.3-Pressure-composition phase diagram for a binary
mixture at a temperature below the critical
temperature of both components.
of freedom (F=O). Thus, the maximum number of
phases possible is three. Therefore, if three phases coex-
ist in equilibrium (possible only at the triple point), the
pressure and temperature are fixed. If only two phases
are present for a pure component, then either the
temperature or the pressure can be chosen. Once one is
chosen, the other is determined. If the two phases are
vapor and liquid, for example, choice of the temperature
determines the pressure to be the vapor pressure at that
temperature. These permitted pressure-temperature
values lie on the vapor pressure curve of Fig. 23.1.
In a binary system, two phases can exist over a range
of temperatures and pressures. The number of degrees of
freedom is
F=2-nc, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)
and hence both the temperature and pressure can be
chosen, though there is no guarantee that two phases will
occur at a specific choice of T and p. For multicompo-
nent systems, the phase rule provides little guidance,
since the number of phases is always far less than the
maximum number that can occur. Hence, as the number
of components increases, more component concentra-
tions must be known to determine the system.
Types of Diagrams
Binary Phase Diagrams
Fig. 23.3 shows typical vapor/liquid phase behavior for
a binary system at a fixed temperature below the critical
temperature of both components. Such a diagram is
known as a pressure-composition phase diagram. At
pressures below the vapor pressure of Component 2,
~2, any mixture of the two components forms a single
vapor phase. At pressures between p 1 and p,,~, two
phases can coexist for some compositions. For instance,
at pressure pb two phases will occur if the mole fraction
of Component 1 lies between xE and xE. If the mixture
PHASE DIAGRAMS 23-3
:i
v
PUMP
Pep,, PPd Pr,<P<Pb PPb PPb
Fig. 23.4-Volumetric behavior of a binary mixture at con-
stant temperature
Pd2
Pdl
PVZ
VAPOR
xI K2
MOLE FRACTION COMPONENT I
Fig. 23.5-Pressure-composition phase diagram for a binary
mixture at a temperature above the critical
temperature of Component 1.
composition is xB, it will be all liquid, if it is xE, all
vapor. For 1 mol of mixture of overall composition, z,
between -xE and xE, the number of moles of liquid
phase is
XE --z
L=-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
XE -xB
Eq. 3 is known as an inverse lever rule because it is
equivalent to a statement concerning the distances along
a tie line from the overall composition to the liquid and
vapor compositions; L=ZE/BE, where ZE and BE are
lengths on the tie line shown in Fig. 23.3. Thus, the
amount of liquid is proportional to the distance from the
overall composition to the vapor composition divided by
the length of the tie line. The line connecting the com-
positions of phases in equilibrium is known as a tie line.
In binary phase diagrams such as Fig. 23.3, the tie lines
are always horizontal.
?2!!!%? --- --- ---
MERCURY
PUhlP
ppdl pi pd PZPl P3P2 PPd2
Fig. 23.6-Volumetric behavior of a binary mixture at a
constant temperature showing retrograde
vaporization.
TEMPERATURE -
Fig. 23.7--Regions of temperature, pressure, and composi-
tion for which two phases occur in a binary liq-
uid/vapor system.
Phase diagrams such as Fig. 23.3 can be determined
experimentally by placing a mixture of fixed overall
composition in a high-pressure cell and measuring the
pressures at which phases appear and disappear. For ex-
ample, a mixture of composition xa would show the
behavior indicated qualitatively in Fig. 23.4. At a
pressure less thanpd (Fig. 23.3), the mixture is a vapor.
If the mixture is compressed by injecting mercury into
the cell, the first liquid, which has composition xA, ap-
pears at the dewpoint pressure, pd. As the pressure is
further increased, the volume of liquid grows as more
and more of the vapor phase condenses. The last vapor,
of composition X,R, disappears at the bubblepoint
pRssut& pb.
If the system temperature is above the critical
temperature of one of the components, the phase
diagram is similar to that shown in Fig. 23.5. (See Fig.
23.13 for additional examples of this type of phase
diagram.) At the higher temperature, the two-phase
region no longer extends to the pure Component 1 side of
CRITICAL
<
LOCUS
TEMPERATURE
Fig. 23.8-Projection of the vapor pressure (p,, and pa)
curves and locus of critical points for binary mix-
tures. Points C, and C2 are the critical points of
the pure components.
Fig. 23.9-Vapor pressure curves for light hydrocarbons and
critical loci for selected hydrocarbon pairs.
Fig. 23.10-Properties of ternary diagrams
the diagram. Instead, there is a critical point, C, at which
liquid and vapor phases are identical. The critical point
occurs at the maximum pressure of the two-phase region.
The volumetric behavior of mixtures containing less
Component 1 than the critical mixture is like that shown
in Fig. 23.4. Fig. 23.6 shows the volumetric behavior of
mixtures containing more Component 1. Compression of
mixture of composition x2 (in Fig. 23.5) leads to the ap-
pearance of liquid phase of composition xt when
pressure pDl is reached. The volume of liquid first
grows and then declines with increasing pressure. The
liquid phase disappears again when pressure pm is
reached. Such behavior is called retrograde vaporiza-
tion (or retrograde condensation if the pressure is
decreasing).
If the system temperature is exactly equal to the
critical temperature of Component 1, the critical point on
the binary pressure-composition phase diagram is
located at a Component 1 mole fraction of 1 .O. Fig. 23.7
shows the behavior of the two-phase regions as the
temperature rises. As the temperature increases, the
critical point moves to lower concentrations of Compo-
nent 1. As the critical temperature of Component 2 is ap-
proached, the two-phase region shrinks, disappearing
altogether when the critical temperature is reached. A
typical locus of critical temperatures and pressures for a
pair of hydrocarbons is shown in Fig. 23.8. The critical
locus shown in Fig. 23.8 is the projection of the critical
curve in Fig. 23.7 onto the p-T plane. Thus, each point
on the critical locus represents a critical mixture of dif-
ferent composition, though composition information is
not shown on this diagram. For temperatures between
the critical temperature of Component 1 and Component
2, the critical pressure of the mixtures can be much
PHASE DIAGRAMS
23-5
5
L
Fig. 23.11-Ternary phase diagram at a constant temperature
and pressure for a system that forms a liquid and a
vapor.
higher than the critical pressure of either component.
Thus, two phases can coexist at pressures much greater
than the critical pressure of either component. If the dif-
ference in molecular weight of the two components is
large, the critical locus may reach very high pressures.
Fig. 23.9 gives critical loci for some hydrocarbon
pairs.
The binary phase diagrams reviewed here are those
most commonly encountered. More complex phase
diagrams involving liquid/liquid and liquid/liquid/vapor
equilibria do occur, however, in hydrocarbon systems at
very low temperatures (well outside the range of condi-
tions encountered in reservoirs or surface separators) and
in COz/crude oil systems at temperatures below about
50C. For reviews of such phase behavior see Refs. 2
and 3.
Ternary Phase Diagrams
Phase behavior of mixtures containing three components
is conveniently represented on a triangular diagram such
as that shown in Fig. 23.10a. Such diagrams are based
on the property of equilateral triangles that the sum of the
perpendicular distances from any point to each side of
the diagram is a constant equal to length of any of the
sides. Thus, the composition of a point in the interior of
the triangle is
Ll L2 L3
x, =-) x2 =-) x3 =-)
LT LT LT
where
LT=LI +L2 +L3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Several other useful propetties of triangular diagrams are
also a consequence of this fact. For mixtures along any
line parallel to a side of the diagram, the fraction of the
component of the comer opposite to that side is constant
Fig. 23.12-Ternary phase diagram for the methane/
butane/decane system at 160DF 171 Cl.
(Fig. 23.10b). In addition, mixtures lying on any line
connecting a comer with the opposite side contain a con-
stant ratio of the components at the ends of the side (Fig.
23.1Oc). Finally, mixtures of any two compositions,
such as A and B in Fig. 23. lOd, lie on a straight line con-
necting the two points on the ternary diagram. Composi-
tions represented on a ternary diagram can be expressed
in volume, mass, or mole fractions. For vapor/liquid
equilibrium diagrams, mole fractions are most common-
ly used.
Typical features of a ternary phase diagram for a
system that forms a liquid and a vapor at fixed
temperature and pressure are shown in Fig. 23.11. Mix-
tures with overall compositions that lie inside the binodal
curve will split into liquid and vapor. Tie lines connect
compositions of liquid and vapor phases in equilibrium.
Any mixture on one tie line gives the same liquid and
vapor compositions. Only the amounts of liquid and
vapor change as the overall composition changes from
the liquid side of the binodal curve to the vapor side. If
the mole fractions of component i in the liquid, vapor,
and overall mixture are xi, yi, and zi, the fraction of the
total moles in the mixture in the liquid phase is given by
L= Yi -zi
yi-xi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
. . (5)
Fq. 5 is another lever rule similar to that described for
binary diagrams. The liquid and vapor portions of the
binodal curve meet at the plait point, a critical point
where the liquid and vapor phases are identical. Thus,
the plait point mixture has a critical temperature and
pressure equal to the conditions for which the diagram is
plotted. Depending on the pressure and temperature and
components, a plait point may or may not be present.
Any one tematy diagram is given for fixed
temperature and pressure. As either the temperature or
pressure is varied, the location of the binodal curve and
1000 -
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.S
MOLE FRACTION METHANE
I 1
:
I 0
Fig. 23.13-Pressure-composition phase diagrams for
methane/butane and methaneldecane binary
systems at 160F [71C].
slopes of the tie lines may change. Fig. 23.12 shows the
effect of increasing pressure on ternary phase diagrams
for mixtures of methane (C 1 ), butane (C,), and decane
(COO) at 160F. 4J The sides of the ternary diagram
represent a binary system, so the ternary diagram in-
cludes whatever binary tie lines exist at the temperature
and pressure of the diagram. Fig. 23.13 shows the cor-
responding binary phase diagrams for the C l-C4 and
C 1 -C 1o pairs. The Cd-C 10 pair is not shown because it
forms two phases only below the vapor pressure of C4,
about 120 psia at 160F (see Fig. 23.9).
As shown in Fig. 23.12, at 1,000 psia the two-phase
region is a hand that stretches from the C 1 -C 10 side of
the diagram to the tie line on the C I -Cd side. If the
pressure is increased above 1,000 psia, the liquid com-
position line shifts to higher methane concentrations;
methane is more soluble in both C4 and Cl0 at the
higher pressure (see Fig. 23.13). The two-phase region
detaches from the C ,-C4 side of the diagram at the
critical pressure of the C I -C4 pair (about 1,800 psia).
As the pressure increases above that critical pressure, the
plait point moves into the interior of the diagram (Fig.
23.12, lower diagrams). With further increases in
pressure, the two-phase region continues to shrink. It
would disappear completely from the diagram if the
pressure reached the critical pressure of the Cl-C 10
system at 160F (nearly 5,200 psia).
Reservoir Fluid Systems
Real reservoir fluids contain many more than the two or
three components, so phase composition data can no
longer be represented with two or three coordinates. In-
P
A
,
3
z
i;
1
A
TEMPERATURE
Fig. 23.14-Pressure-temperature phase diagram for a mix-
ture of fixed composition.
stead, phase diagrams, which give more limited informa-
tion, are used. Fig. 23.14 shows one such diagram for a
multicomponent mixture. Fig. 23.14 gives the region of
temperatures and pressures at which the mixture forms
two phases. The analog of Fig. 23.14 for a binary system
can be obtained by taking a slice at constant mole frac-
tion of Component 1 through the diagram in Fig. 23.7.
Also given arc contours of liquid volume fractions,
which indicate the fraction of total sample volume oc-
cupied by the liquid phase. Fig. 23.14 does not give any
compositional information, however. In general, the
compositions of coexisting liquid and vapor will be dif-
ferent at each temperature and pressure.
At temperatures below the critical temperature (Point
C), a sample of the mixture described in Fig. 23.14 splits
into two phases at the bubblepoint pressure (Fig. 23.4)
when the pressure is reduced from a high level. At
temperatures above the critical temperature, dewpoints
are observed (Fig. 23.6). In this multicomponent
system, the critical temperature is no longer the max-
imum temperature at which two phases can exist. In-
stead, the critical point is the temperature and pressure at
which the phase compositions and all phase properties
are identical.
The bubblepoint, dewpoint, and single-phase regions
shown in Fig. 23.14 are sometimes used to classify
reservoirs. At temperatures above the cricondentherm,
the maximum temperature for the formation of two
phases, only one phase occurs at any pressure. For in-
stance, if the hydrocarbon mixture of Fig. 23.14 were to
occur in a reservoir at temperature TA and pressure PA
(Point A), a decline in pressure at approximately con-
stant temperature caused by removal of fluid from the
reservoir would not cause the formation of a second
phase. While the fluid in the reservoir remains a single
phase, the produced gas splits into two phases as it cools
and expands to surface temperature and pressure at Point
A. Thus, some condensate would be collected at the
PHASE DIAGRAMS
surface even though only one phase is present in the for-
mation. The amount of condensate collected depends on
the operating conditions of the separator (or separators).
The lower the temperature at a given pressure, the larger
the volume of condensate collected (Fig. 23.14).
Dewpoint reservoirs are those for which the reservoir
temperature lies between the critical temperature and the
cricondentherm for the reservoir fluid. Production of
fluid from a reservoir starting at Point B in Fig. 23.14
causes liquid to appear in the reservoir when the dew-
point pressure is reached, and as the pressure declines
further, the saturation of liquid increases because of
retrograde condensation. Because the saturation of liquid
is low, only the vapor phase flows to producing wells.
Thus, the overall composition of the fluid remaining in
the reservoir changes continuously. However, the phase
diagram shown in Fig. 23.14 is for the original composi-
tion only. The preferential removal of light hydrocarbon
components in the vapor phase generates new hydrocar-
bon mixtures which have a greater fraction of the heavier
hydrocarbons. Differential liberation experiments, in
which a sample of the reservoir fluid initially at high
pressure is expanded through a sequence of pressures,
can be used to investigate the magnitude of the effect of
pressure reduction on the vapor composition. At each
pressure, a portion of the vapor is removed and ana-
lyzed. Such an experiment simulates what happens when
condensate is left behind in the reservoir as the pressure
declines. As the reservoir fluid becomes heavier, the
boundary of the two-phase region in a diagram like Fig.
23.14 shifts to higher temperatures. Thus, the composi-
tion change also acts to drive the system toward higher
liquid condensation. Such reservoirs are candidates for
pressure maintenance by lean gas injection to limit the
retrograde loss of condensate or for gas cycling to
vaporize and recover some of the liquid hydrocarbons.
Bubblepoint reservoirs are those in which the
temperature is less than the critical temperature of the
reservoir fluid (Point D in Fig. 23.14). These reservoirs
are sometimes called undersaturated because there is
insufficient gas for a gas phase at that temperature and
pressure. Isothermal pressure reduction causes the ap-
pearance of a vapor phase at the bubblepoint pressure.
Because the compressibility of the liquid phase is much
lower than that of a vapor, the pressure in the reservoir
declines rapidly during production in the single-phase
region. The appearance of the much more compressible
vapor phase reduces the rate of pressure decline. The
volume of vapor present in the reservoir grows rapidly
with reduction of reservoir pressure below the bubble-
point. Because the vapor viscosity is much lower than
the liquid viscosity, and the gas relative permeability
goes up markedly with increasing gas saturation, the
vapor phase flows more easily. Hence, the produced
GOR climbs rapidly. Again, pressure maintenance by
water drive, water injection, or gas injection can
substantially improve oil recovery over the 10 to 20%
recovery typical of pressure depletion in these solution-
gas-drive reservoirs. As in dewpoint reservoirs, the com-
position of the reservoir fluid changes continuously once
the two-phase region is reached.
There is, of course, no reason why initial reservoir
temperatures and pressures cannot lie within the two-
phase region. Oil reservoirs with gas caps and gas reser-
r------
23-7
Fig. 23.15~Increase in OAPI gravity with depth: (a) Ordovician
Ellenberger reservoirs in Delaware Val Verde
basin; (b) Pennsylvanian Tensleep reservoirs in
Wyoming.
voirs with some liquids present are common. There also
can be considerable variation in the initial composition
of the reservoir fluid. The discussion of single-phase,
dewpoint, and bubblepoint reservoirs was based on a
phase diagram for one fluid composition. Even for one
fluid, all the types of behavior occur over a range of
temperatures. In actual reservoir settings, the composi-
tion of the reservoir fluid correlates with depth and
temperature. Deeper reservoirs usually contain lighter
oils.j Fig. 23.15 shows the relationships between oil
gravity and depth for two basins. The higher
temperatures of deeper reservoirs alter the original
hydrocarbon mixtures to produce lighter hydrocarbons
over geologic time. 6 Low oil gravity, low temperature,
and relatively small amounts of dissolved gas all com-
bine to produce bubblepoint reservoirs. High oil gravity,
high temperatures, and high GORs produce dewpoint or
condensate systems.
Phase Diagrams for EOR Processes
Phase behavior plays an important role in a variety of
EOR processes. Such processes are designed to over-
come, in one way or another, the capillary forces that act
to trap oil during waterflooding. In surfactant/polymer
processes, the effects of capillary forces are reduced by
injection of surfactant solutions that contain molecules
with oil- and water-soluble portions. Such molecules
migrate to the oil/water interface and reduce the inter-
facial tension, thereby reducing the magnitude of the
capillary forces that resist movement of trapped oil.
Miscible displacement processes are designed to
eliminate interfaces between the oil and the displacing
phase, thereby removing the effects of capillary forces
between the injected fluid and the oil. Unfortunately,
fluids that are strictly miscible with oil are too expensive
for general use. Instead, fluids such as methane or
methane enriched with intermediate hydrocarbons,
CO*, or nitrogen are injected, and the required miscible
displacing fluid is generated by mixing of the injected
fluid with oil in the reservoir.
23-8
b1a.b
O-0-b
SURfACTANl
TYPE II( )
b. TYPE III
SURfACTANl
A
c. TYPE II( + )
/ \
&
BllHE
OIL
DEW POINTS -
75% 50% 2 5 % 5% I
VOLUME PERCENT LIQUID PHASE
Fig. 23.16-Ternary representation of phase diagrams
MOLE PERCENT CO2
Phase diagrams typical of those used to explain the
behavior of surfactant systems are shown in Fig. 23.16.
In those ternary diagrams, the components shown are no
longer true thermodynamic components since they are
mixtures. A crude oil contains hundreds of components,
and the brine and surfactant pseudocomponents may also
be complex mixtures. The simplified representation,
however, has obvious advantages for describing phase
behavior, and it is reasonably accurate as long as each
pseudocomponent has approximately the same composi-
tion in each phase. In Fig. 23.16a for instance, the oil
pseudocomponent can appear in an oil-rich phase or in a
phase containing mostly surfactant and brine. If the oil
solubilized into the surfactantlbrine phase is nearly the
same mixture of hydrocarbons as the original oil,
then the representation in terms of pseudocomponents is
reasonable. The compositions shown in Fig. 23.16 are in
volume fractions. An inverse lever rule similar to Eqs. 3
or 5 gives the relationship between the volumes of the
two phases for a given overall composition, as illustrated
in Fig. 23.16.
Fig. 23.16a is a phase diagram for the liquid/liquid
equilibrium behavior typical of mixtures of brines of low
salinity with oil. If there is no surfactant present, the oil
and brine are immiscible; mixture compositions on the
base of the diagram split into essentially pure brine in
equilibrium with pure oil. Addition of surfactant
causes some oil to be solubilized into a microemulsion
rich in brine. That phase is in equilibrium with a phase
containing nearly pure oil. Thus in the low-salinity
brine, the surfactant partitions into the brine phase,
Fig. 23.17-Typical pressure-composition phase diagram for a
binary mixture of CO, with a crude oil at
temperatures above 120F [49%].
solubilizing some oil. The plait point in Fig. 23.16a lies
close to the oil comer of the diagram. Because only two
phases occur and the tie lines all have negative slope,
such phase is often called Type II( -).
Phase diagrams for high-salinity brines are often
similar to Fig. 23.16~. In the high-salinity systems the
surfactant partitions into the oil phase and solubilizes
water into an oil-external microemulsion. In this case the
plait point is close to the brine apex on the ternary
diagram. For intermediate salinities, the phase behavior
can be more complex, as shown in Fig. 23.16b. Accord-
ing to the phase rule, if the temperature and pressure are
set, then up to three phases can coexist for a three com-
ponent system. If three phases do occur, then the com-
positions of the phases are fixed at a given temperature
and pressure. The three-phase region on a ternary
diagram is represented as a triangle (Fig. 23.16b). Any
overall composition lying within the three-phase region
splits into the same three phases. Only the amounts of
each phase change as the overall composition varies in
the three-phase region. The edges of the three-phase
region are tie lines for the associated two-phase regions.
Thus, there is a two-phase region adjacent to each of the
sides of the three-phase triangle. In Fig. 23.16b, the
two-phase region at low surfac.tant concentrations is too
small to show on the diagram. It must be present,
however, since oil and brine form only two phases in the
absence of surfactant.
PHASE DIAGRAMS 23-9
Fig. 23.18-Pressure composition diagram-Gas 1 system for
Rangely oil: 95% CO, and 5% methane gas
system at 160aF 171 Cl.
Phase behavior of COzlcrude oil systems is often
summarized in pressure-composition (p-x) diagrams
such as those shown in Fig. 23.17. Fig. 23.18 is an ex-
ample of a p-x diagram for mixtures of CO1 (contain-
ing a small amount of methane contamination) with
crude oil from the Rangely field. 8 In such diagrams, the
behavior of binary mixtures of COZ with a particular oil
is reported for a fixed temperature. Thus, the oil is
represented as a single pseudocomponent on such a
diagram. Such diagrams indicate bubble- and dewpoint
pressures, the regions of pressure and composition for
which two or more phases exist, and information about
the volume fractions of the phases. However, they pro-
vide no information about the compositions of the phases
in equilibrium. The reason for the absence of composi-
tion data is illustrated in Fig. 23. 19,3 which gives data
reported by Metcalfe and Yarborough9 for a ternary
system of CO*, Cd, and C 10. Binary phase data for the
CO*-Cd (Ref. 10) and COz-C tc (Ref. 11) systems also
are included. Fig. 23.19 shows a triangular solid within
which all possible compositions (mole fractions) of
COz-Cd-C to mixtures for pressures between 400 and
2,000 psia are contained. The two-phase region is
bounded by a surface that connects the binary phase
envelope for the COz-C ra binary pair to that on the
CO+4 side ofthe diagram. That surface is divided into
two parts-liquid compositions and vapor compositions.
Tie lines (heavy dashed lines in Fig. 23.19) connect the
compositions of liquid and vapor phases in equilibrium
at a fixed pressure. Thus, the ternary phase diagram for
CO2-C4-C tc mixtures at any pressure is just a constant
Fig. 23.19-Phase behavior of CO,-C,-C,, mixtures at 16OOF
[71 Cl.
pressure (horizontal) slice through the triangular prism.
Several such slices at different pressures are shown in
Fig. 23.19. At pressures below the critical pressure of
CO 2 -C 4 mixtures ( 1,184 psia) , both CO 2 -C , c mixtures
and CO2-C4 mixtures form two phases for some range
of COz concentrations. At 400 and 800 psia, the two-
phase region is a band across the diagram. Above the
critical pressure of COz-Cd mixtures, CO2 is miscible
with Cd. and ternary slices at higher pressures show a
continuous binodal curve on which the locus of liquid
compositions meets that of vapor compositions at a plait
point. The locus of plait points (labeled P in Fig.
23.19) connects the critical points of the two binary
pairs.
To see the effect of representing the phase behavior of
a ternary system on a pseudobinary diagram, consider a
p-x diagram for an oil composed of 70 mol% C ,c and
30 mol% CJ. At any fixed pressure, the mixtures of
CO2 and oil which would be investigated in an experi-
ment to determine ap-x diagram lie on a straight line (the
dilution line), which connects the original oil composi-
tion with the CO2 apex. Thus, a P-X diagram for this
23-10
LIQUID LIQUID
L
J
I
-,I
/
/
/
Fig. 23.20-p-x diagrams for mixtures of CO, with Wasson oil, where L, is Liquid Phase 1 (oil-rich
phase), L, is Liquid Phase 2 (COP-rich phase), and V is the vapor phase. Dashed lines
indicate constant volume fraction of L, phase.
system is a vertical slice through the triangular prism
shown in Fig. 23.19. The saturation pressures on a p-x
diagram are those at which the dilution plane intersects
the surface which bounds the two-phase region. Bubble-
point pressures (B) occur where the dilution plane in-
tersects the liquid composition side of the two-phase sur-
face, while dewpoint pressures (D) occur at the intersec-
tion with vapor compositions. Comparison of the phase
envelope on the resulting p-x diagram with binary phase
diagrams yields the following observations.
1. Tie lines do not, in general, lie in the dilution plane.
Instead, they pierce that plane. This means that the com-
position of vapor in equilibrium with a bubblepoint mix-
ture on the p-x diagram is not the same as that of the
dewpoint mixture at the same pressure.
2. The critical point on the p-x diagram occurs where
the locus of plait points pierces the dilution plane. It is
not, in general, at the maximum saturation pressure on
the p-x diagram. The maximum pressure occurs where
the binodal curve is tangent to the dilution plane. The
critical point on the p-x diagram can lie on either side of
the maximum pressure, depending on the position of
locus of plait points on the two-phase surface.
It is apparent from Fig. 23.19 that the composition of
the original oil has a strong influence on the shape of the
saturation pressure curve, and on the location of the
critical point on the p-x diagram. If the oil had been
richer in C4, the critical pressure and maximum pressure
both would have been lower. Thus, it should be an-
ticipated that the appearance of p-x diagrams for
C02icrude oil systems should depend on the composi-
tion of the oil.
Figs. 23.18 and 23.20 illustrate the complexity of
phase behavior observed for COz/crude oil systems.
Fig. 23.18 gives the behavior of mixtures of CO2 (with
about 5 % methane as a contaminant) with Rangely crude
oil at 16OF. The oil itself has a bubblepoint pressure of
about 350 psia. Mixtures containing up to about 80
mol% CO;? (+C 1) show bubblepoints, while those con-
taining more CO2 show dewpoints. At the relatively
high temperature of the Rangely field, only two phases,
a liquid and a vapor, form. At lower temperatures, more
complex phase behavior can occur. Figs. 23.20a, b and c
show the behavior of mixtures of a dead oil from the
Wasson field3 with CO2. At 90F and 105F, the mix-
tures form a liquid and a vapor at low pressures and two
liquid phases at high pressures and high CO2 concentm-
tions. They form three phases, two liquids and a vapor,
for a small range of pressures at high CO* concentra-
tions. The liquid/liquid and liquid/liquid/vapor behavior
disappears if the temperature is high enough. At 120F
(Fig. 23.2Oc), the three-phase region had disappeared.
For the systems studied to date, 120F appears to be a
reasonable estimate of the maximum temperature for liq-
uid/liquid/vapor separations. For detailed discussions of
such phase behavior, see Refs. 2 and 3.
Calculation of Phase Compositions
Calculations of the compositions of phases that occur for
multicomponent mixtures are important for the design of
surface separators and for the design of EOR processes
such as high-pressure and condensing-gas drives and
CO1 floods. There are two widely used methods for
such calculations-K-value correlations and equations of
state (EOSs).
PHASE DIAGRAMS
23-l 1
The use of K-values, also called equilibrium ratios
or equilibrium constants, is based on the behavior of
mixtures of gases at relatively low pressures and
temperatures. According to Raoults law, the partial
vapor pressure phi of component i in a liquid mixture is
equal to the product of the mole fraction of component i
in the liquid and its pure component vapor pressure
p~i=Xjpvj. . . . . . f.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
(6)
In addition, Daltons law states that the partial
pressure of component i in the vapor is
p;j =yjpr, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . .
(7)
where yi is the mole fraction of component i in the vapor
andp, is the total pressure. Rearrangement of Eqs. 6 and
7 gives the definition of K-value for an ideal (low
pressure) system:
PRESSURE,PSIA
Fig. 23.21-Typical equilibrium ratios at 22CPF [104%]
(dashed lines are the ideal ratios).
K.-Y;
I
-pvi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(8)
xi Pr
Thus, for a multicomponent mixture at low pressure,
the equilibrium value can be estimated from the vapor
pressure, which is a function of temperature only, and
the total pressure. The assumption of an ideal gas in
Raoults and Daltons laws is reasonable only if the
pressure is below about 50 to 100 psia. * At higher
pressures, equilibrium ratios are functions of pressure,
temperature, and composition. Fig. 23.21 shows a
typical set of equilibrium ratios for a hydrocarbon system
containing some CO2 at 220F. I3 Also shown (as
dashed lines) are the ideal equilibrium ratios. At high
pressures, the K-values for ethane and heavier hydrocar-
bons pass through a minimum and appear to converge to
a value of one, in this case at 4,200 psia. This observa-
tion is the basis for a widely used empirical correlation
for K-values. K-value charts for a variety of convergence
pressures and a recommended technique for estimating
the convergence pressure are given in GPSAs Engineer-
ing Data Book.
If K-values ate known or can be estimated, then
amounts of liquid and vapor and phase compositions can
be calculated easily. Consider 1 mol of a mixture in
which the overall mole fraction of the ith component is
zi . If the mole fractions of component i in the liquid and
vapor are Xi and yi , and the fraction of the mole of mix-
ture that is liquid is L, then a material balance gives
Zi=Xil+y~(l-L). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
By definition, cXi=Eyi=l, SO cXi-Cyi=O which
gives the nonlinear function f(L):
f(L)= T Ky;;;;)L =o. . . . . . . . . . . (12)
1 1
Eq. 12 can be solved for L by application of a Newton-
Raphson iteration. If Lk is the kth estimate of the solu-
tion, an improved estimate is given by
Lk+l=Lk- pi ) .....,,,...,........(13)
z Lk
where
The iterative calculation is complete when AL) as
given by Eq. 12 and AL=Lk+l -Lk are both smaller
than some preset tolerances. Once the liquid mole frac-
tion has been determined, the Xi and yi are obtained
from Eqs. 10 and 11.
If the mixture is at its bubblepoint pressure, then L= 1
and Czi=l, and Eq. 12 reduces to
Substitution of the definition of Ki=yilXi into Eq. 9
C(ziKi)=l. ...........,.......... . . . . . ..(15)
and rearrangement gives
Thus, if Kis are known as a function of pressure, then
Zi
xj = Ki +(l-Ki)L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
the bubblepoint pressure can be obtained as the pressure
at which Eq. 15 is satisfied. Bubblepoint pressures are
generally most sensitive to the K-values of the lightest
Similarly, Eq. 9 can be solved for yi, giving
components, which axe the largest. If the mixture is at its
dewpoint pressure, then L=O, CZi = 1, and
KiZi
Yi=
Kj +(l-Ki)L. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . -(I I )
c =l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(16)
23-12
Fig. X3.22-Comparison of calculated and measured phase
compositions for ternary mixtures of CO,.
methane (C,), and decane (C,,), at 160F [71C]
and 1,250 psia.
Dewpoint pressures are most sensitive to the smallest K-
values, those of the heavy components, which often are
least accurately known. Thus, there is often more uncer-
tainty in calculated values of dewpoint pressure. The
sums of Eqs. 15 and 16 also are useful for determining
whether the mixture forms one or two phases. If
C(K;z;) < 1, the mixture is all liquid. If C(ziI Ki) < 1, the
mixture is all vapor. If both C(K,zi)> 1 and
C(K;I z,) > 1, the mixture forms two phases.
In recent years, EOSs also have been used extensively
for phase equilibrium calculations. Most of the widely
used EOSs are refinements of the equation proposed by
van der Waals:
RT a
---
p= -b v2, ,,........................
(17)
volume is small enough to be close to the constant h,
then the pressure increases rapidly as the volume is
reduced. Thus, the EOS is qualitatively consistent with
liquid behavior when the pressure is high.
The calculation of phase compositions is based on the
fact that, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the fugacity of
each component must be the same in each phase. The
fugacity of a component in a phase can be calculated if
the volumetric behavior of the phase is known. It can be
shown I4 that the fugacity of component i, fi , in a phase
is given by
RTlnfi=Sm[ (2) TV
Vt
t
3 l,
-$]dV,
t
-RTln
vt
- ) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
niRT
where T is the temperature, p the pressure, V, the total
volume, ni the number of moles of component i, and R
the gas constant. If the relationship between pressure,
composition, and total volume is known from an EOS,
then taPlaniJ T,V ,n
can be obtained and the integral
evaluated. A var!e<y of EOSs have been suggested for
hydrocarbon mixtures. For example, the original
Redlich-Kwong equation has the form
n,RT
2
ntam
P=
V,-0, - t t ,,,
T v (v +nb ) . . . . .
(20)
where n, =Cni is the total number of moles and a,,, and
b, depend on the mixture composition and the critical
properties of the components as follows.
(EyiA; 1/2)2R2T52
am= ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(21)
p
where
where p is the pressure, R the gas constant, T the
temperature, and V the molar volume. The constants a
A, = Qa(PI pci)
, (T,T,i)5,2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
and b can be determined for a particular component from
thermodynamic constraints at the critical point, which
requires that
and
(ap/w)~, =(ap%v*)T, =o,
1
a,= EO.4275. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9(2 -1)
which gives
21 R2Tc2
a=- -
64 PC
b = @Y;BiPT
m
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(24)
P
where
and
b=F, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c
B, = nb(P/Pci)
(18)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (T,T,i) (25)
where T, is the critical temperature and pc is the critical
pressure.
and
van der Waals equation reduces to the ideal gas law if
2* -1
~0.08664. . . . . . . . . (26)
the molar volume is large (low pressure). If the molar
fib=-
3
PHASE DIAGRAMS
In Eqs. 21 through 26, y, is the mole fraction of com-
ponent i in the mixture, and pci and T,; are the critical
pressure and temperature of component i. The constants
Q, and fib arise from the thermodynamic constraints,
cwa v) Tr
=(a2piavl)T, =0, at the critical point. From
Eqs. 19 through 26, an expression for the fugacity of
each component in a phase can be obtained. To calculate
phase compositions, the following procedure is used.
1. Estimate compositions of liquid and vapor.
2. Calculate fugacities of each component in each
phase.
3. Iff,,, =fiL stop. Otherwise, obtain improved phase
compositions and return to Step 2.
Similar calculations can be performed for liquid/liquid
and even liquid/liquid/vapor systems. Because the equa-
tions for fugacities are complex and nonlinear, computer
implementation of this iterative scheme to find phase
compositions is required.
The Redlich-Kwong EOS given as an example here is
by no means the only equation available. Many
modifications to the Redlich-Kwong equation have been
proposed to improve the accuracy of the predictions of
phase compositions, and equations with different
analytical forms are also in use. The Soave modification
of the Redlich-Kwong equation and the Peng-Robinson
equation are among the most widely used. Ref. 14 gives
details of a variety of EOSs, and Ref. 15 is a useful col-
lection of papers relevant to phase equilibrium calcula-
tions for hydrocarbon systems. Computer programs for
such calculations are available. *
EOSs currently in use are quite accurate for mixtures
of light hydrocarbons for which critical properties are
known and extensive phase behavior data are available.
For instance, Fig. 23.22 shows a comparison of phase
compositions calculated with the Peng-Robinson EOS
with measured values for mixtures of CO*, C 1, and C 10
at 1,250 psia and 160F. For this well-characterized
system, the calculated values agreed well with the
measured compositions. For crude oil systems, phase
behavior predictions are less reliable because the
chamcterization of heavy components is less certain. For
such systems some experimental data are required to
tune the EOS to represent the particular hydrocarbon
system. Improvement of the predictive power of EOSs
for complex hydrocarbon systems is an area of active
current research.
Nomenclature
a,
= defined by Eq. 21
Ai = defined by Eq. 22
6,
= defined by Eq. 24
Bi = defined by Eq. 25
C = critical point when liquid and vapor phases
are identical
fir. = liquid fugacity of Component i
fiV = vapor fugacity of Component i
Ki = K-value of Component i
L = total moles of liquid-phase in mixture
Lk = kth estimate of L by Newton-Raphson
iteration
no = number of constraints
Gas Processors Suppliers Assn Tulsa, OK
23-13
p = pressure
PJ,, = bubblepoint pressure
pd = dewpoint pressure
pt = total pressure
PV
= vapor pressure
pVi = vapor pressure of Component i in liquid
mixture
p:i = partial vapor pressure of Component i in li-
quid mixture
PVZ
= any mixture of two components which form
a single vapor phase
pyl = pressure below vapor pressure of Compo-
nent z which may form a single vapor
phase
pv2 = pressure above vapor pressure of Compo-
nent z which may form a single vapor
phase
T,. = critical temperature
T, = constant temperature below T,
T2 = constant temperature above T,.
VL = saturated liquid volume
V, = saturated vapor volume
Zi = overall mole fraction of the ith component
Q, = defined in Eq. 23
Qb = defined in Eq. 26
Subscripts
C = number of components
F = number of degrees of freedom
P = number of phases
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Engineering Data Book, Gas Processors Suppliers Assn., ninth
edition, Tulsa (1972).
Stalkup, F.I. Jr.: Miscible Displacement, Monograph Series,
SPE, Dallas (1983) 8.
Orr, F.M. Jr. and Jensen, C.M.: Interpretation of Pressure-
Composition Phase Diagrams for CO*-Cmde Oil Systems, Sot.
Pet. Eng. J . (Oct. 1984) 485-97.
Reamer, H.H., Fiskin, J.M., and Sage, B.H.: Phase Equilibria
in Hydrocarbon Systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. 41 (Dec. 1949) 2871.
Sage, B.H. and Lacey, W.N.: Thermodynamic Properties of the
Lighter Parafin Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen, Monograph on API
Research Project 37, American Petmleum Inst., New York City
(1950).
Hunt, J.M.: Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, W.H.
Freeman and Co., San Francisco (1979).
Nelson, R.C. and Pope, GA.: Phase Relationships in Chemical
Flooding, Sot. Pet. Enr. 1. (Oct. 1978) 325-38.
Graue, D.J. and Zana, E.T.: Study of a Possible CO, Flood in
the Rangely Field, Colorado, J . Per. Tech. (July 1981) 1312-18.
Metcalfe, R.S. and Yarbomugh, L.: The Effect of Phase
Equilibria on the CO* Displacement Mechanism, Sot. Pet. Eng.
J . (Aug. 1979) 242-52; Trans., AIME, 267.
10. Olds, R.H. el al.: Phase Equilibria in Hydmcarbon Systems,
Ind. Eng. Chem. 41 (March 1949) 475-82.
11. Reamer, H.H. and Sage, B.H.: Phase Equilibria in Hydrocarbon
Systems. Volumetric and Phase Behavior of the n-Decane-CO2
System, J . Chem. Eng. Data 8, No. 4 (1963) 508-13.
12. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field
Hydrocarbon Sysrems, SPE, Dallas (1977). .
13. Allen, F.H. and Roe, R.P.: Performance Characteristics of a
Volumetric Condensate Reservoir, Trans., AIME (1950) 189,
83-90.
14. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., and Sherwood, T.K.: The Properties
of Gases and Liquids, third edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.,
New York City (1977).
15. Phase Behavior. Reprint Series, SPE, Dallas (1981) 15.
Chapter 24
Properties of Produced Waters
A. Gene Collins,* U S. DOE Bartlesville Energy Technology Center**
Introduction and History
Early U.S. settlements commonly were located close to
salt licks that supplied salt to the population. Often these
salt springs were contaminated with petroleum. and
many of the early efforts to acquire salt by digging wells
were rewarded by finding unwanted increased amounts
of oil and gas associated with the saline waters. In the
Appalachian Mts.. many saline water springs occurred
along the crests of anticlines.
In 1855 it was found that distillation of petroleum pro-
duced a light oil that was similar to coal oil and better
than whale oil as an illuminant. This knowledge
spurred the search for saline waters that contained oil.
Using the methods of the salt producers, Col. Edward
Drake drilled a well on Oil Creek, near Titusville. PA. in
1859, He struck oil at a depth of 70 ft, and this first oil
well produced about 3.5 B/D.
The early oil producers did not realize the significance
of the oil and saline waters occurring together. In fact, it
was not until 1938 that the existence of interstitial water
in oil reservoirs was generally recognized. 4 Torrey was
convinced as early as 1928 that dispersed interstitial
water existed in oil reservoirs, but his belief was rejected
by his colleagues because most of the producing wells
did not produce any water upon completion. Occur-
rences of mixtures of oil and gas with water were
recognized by Griswold and Munn,6 but they believed
that there was a definite separation of the oil and water,
and that oil, gas, and water mixtures did not occur in the
sand before a well tapped the reservoir.
It was not until 1928 that the first commercial
laboratory for the analysis of rock cores was established,
and the first core tested was from the Bradford third sand
(from the Bradford field. McKcan County. PA). The
Now with the Natl Ins1 of Petroleum and Energy Research Eartlesv~lle OK
The author of the or!gmal chapter on this topic I the 1962 edlllon was J Wade
W2fk,<
percent saturation and percent porosity of this core were
plotted vs. depth to construct a graphic representation of
the oil and water saturation. The soluble mineral salts
that were extracted from the core led Torrey to suspect
that water was indigenous to the oil-productive sand.
Shortly thereafter a test well was drilled near Custer Ci-
ty, PA, that encountered higher than average oil satura-
tion in the lower part of the Bradford sand. This high oil
saturation resulted from the action of an unsuspected
flood. the existence of which was not known when the
location for the test well had been selected. The upper
part of the sand was not cored. Toward the end of the
cutting of the first core with a cable tool core barrel. oil
began to come into the hole so fast that it was not
necessary to add water for the cutting of the second sec-
tion of the sand. Therefore, the lower 3 ft of the Bradford
sand was cut with oil in a hole free from water. Two
samples from this section were preserved in sealed con-
tainers for saturation tests, and both of them, when
analyzed, had a water content of about 2O%PV. This
well made about IO BOPD and no water after being shot
with nitroglycerine. Thus, the evidence developed by the
core analysis and the productivity test after completion
provided a satisfactory indication of the existence of im-
mobile water, indigenous to the Bradford sand oil reser-
voir, which was held in its pore system and could not be
produced by conventional pumping methods.
Fettke was the first to report the presence of water in
an oil-producing sand. However, he thought that it might
have been introduced by the drilling process.
Munn* recognized that moving underground water
might be the primary cause of migration and accumula-
tion of oil and gas. However, this theory had little ex-
perimental data to back it until Mills conducted several
laboratory experiments on the effect of moving water
and gas on water/oil/gas/sand and water/oil/sand
systems. Mills concluded that the up-dip migration of
oil and gas under the propulsive force of their buoyancy
in water, as well as the migration of oil, either up or
down dip, caused by hydraulic currents, are among the
primary factors influencing both the accumulation and
the recovery of oil and gas. This theory was seriously
questioned and completely rejected by many of his
contemporaries.
Rich I assumed that hydraulic currents, rather than
buoyancy, are effective in causing accumulation of oil or
its retention. He did not believe that the hydraulic ac-
cumulation and flushing of oil required a rapid move-
ment of water but rather that the oil was an integral con-
stituent of the rock fluids and that it could be carried
along with them whether the movement was very slow or
relatively rapid.
The effect of water displacing oil during production
was not recognized in the early days of the petroleum in
dustty in Pennsylvania. Laws were passed, however, to
prevent operators from injecting water into the oil reser-
voir sands through unplugged wells. In spite of these
laws, some operators at Bradford secretly opened the
well casing opposite shallow groundwater sands to start a
watertlood in the oil sands. Effect of artificial
watertloods were noted in the Bradford field in 1907,
and became evident about 5 years later in the nearby oil
fields of New York. Volumetric calculations of the
oil-reservoir volume that were made for engineering
studies of these waterflood operations proved that in-
terstitial water was generally present in the oil sands.
Garrison and Schilthuis gave detailed information
concerning the distribution of water and oil in porous
rocks, and of the origin and occurrence of connate
water with information concerning the relationship of
water saturation to formation permeability.
The word connate was first used by Lane and Gor-
don to mean interstitial water that was deposited with
the sediments. The processes of rock compaction and
mineral diagenesis result in the expulsion of large
amounts of water from sediments and movement out of
the deposit through the more permeable rocks. It is
therefore highly unlikely that the water now in any pore
is the same as that which was there when the particles
that surround it were deposited. White redefined con-
nate water as fossil water because it has been out of
contact with the atmosphere for an appreciable part of a
gcnlogic time period. Thus. connate water is distin-
cruished from meteoric
2
water, which has entered the
rocks in geologically recent times, and from juvenile
water. which has come from deep in the earths crust and
has never been in contact with the atmosphere.
Meanwhile. petroleum engineers and geologists had
learned that waters associated with petroleum could be
identified with regard to the reservoir in which they oc-
curred by a knowledge of their chemical characteristics.
Commonlv, the waters from different strata differ con-
siderably In their dissolved chemical constituents. mak-
ing the identification of a water from a particular stratutn
easy. Howjcvcr. in some areas the concentrations of
dissolved constituents in waters from different strata do
not ditfcr significantly, and the identification of such
waters is difficult or impossible.
The amount of water produced with the oil often in-
creases as the amount of oil produced decreases. lfthis is
edge water. nothing can be done about it. If it is botton-
water, the well can be plugged back. However, it often is
intrusive water from a shallow sand gaining access to the
well from a leaky casing or faulty completion and this
can be repaired.
Enormous quantities of water are produced with the oil
in some fields, and it is necessary to separate the oil from
the water. Most of the oil can be removed by settling.
Often, however, an oil-in-water emulsion forms, which
is very difficult to break. In such cases, the oil is heated
and various surface-active chemicals are added to induce
separation.
In the early days, the water was dumped on the
ground, where it seeped below the land surface. Until
about 1930, the oilfield waters were disposed into local
drainage, frequently killing fish and even surface vegeta-
tion. After 1930, it became common practice to
evaporate the water in earthen pits or inject it into the
producing sand or another deep aquifer. The primary
concern in such disposal practice is to remove all oil and
basic sediment from the waters before pumping them in-
to injection wells to prevent clogging of the pore spaces
in the formation receiving the waste water. Chemical
compatibility of waste water and host aquifer water also
must be ensured.
Waters produced with petroleum are growing in im-
portance. In years past, these waters were considered
waste and had to be disposed of in some manner. Injec-
tion of these waters into the petroleum reservoir rock
serves three purposes: it produces additional petroleum
(secondary recovery), it utilizes a potential pollutant.
and in some areas it controls land subsidence.
The volume of water produced with petroleum in the
U.S. is large. In 1981 domestic oil production was about
8.6~ IO B/D and the amount of water produced with
the oil ranges from 4 to 5 times the oil production.
Therefore, the water production, assuming a factor of
4.5, would be about 38.7~ IO BID.
Secondary and tertiary oil recovery processes that use
water injection usually result in the production of even
more water along with the oil. To inject these waters into
reservoir rocks, suspended solids and oil must be re-
moved from the waters to prevent plugging of the porous
formations. Water injection systems require xepardtors,
filters, and, in some areas, deoxygenating and bacteria
control equipment with chemical and physical methods
to minimize corrosion and plugging in the injection
system.
In waterflooding most petroleum reservoirs, the
volume of produced water is not sufficient to rccovcr the
additional petroleum efficiently. Therefore, supplemen-
tal water must be added to the petroleum reservoir. The
use of waters from the other sources requires that the
blending of produced water with supplemental water
must yield a chemically stable mixture so that plugging
solids will not be formed. For example, a produced
water containing considerable calcium should not be
mixed with a water containing considerable carbonate
because calcium carbonate may precipitate and prevent
injection of the tloodwater. The design and successful
operation of a secondary or tertiary recovery operation
requires a thorough knowledge of the composition of the
waters used.
Chemical analyses of waters produced with oil are
useful in oil production problems. such as identifying the
PROPERTIES OF PRODUCED WATERS
24.3
source of Intrusive water, planning watcrfood and
saltwater disposal projects. and treating to prevent corro-
sion problems in primary, secondary, and tertiary
recovery. Electrical well-lo g interpretation rcquircs a
knowlc$Fc of the dissolved solids concentration and
composltton of the interstitial water. Such information
also is useful in correlation of stratigraphic units and of
the aquifers within these units. and in studies of the
movcmcnt of xubsurfacc waters. It is impossible to
understand the processes that accumulate petroleum or
other minerals without insight into the nature of these
waters.
Sampling
The composition of subsurface water commonly changes
with depth and also laterally in the same aquifer.
Changes may be brought about by the intrusion of other
waters. and by discharge from and recharge to the
aquifer. It is thus difficult to obtain a representative sari--
pie of a given subsurface body of water. Any one sample
is a very small part of the total mass. which may vary
MJidely in composition. Therefore. it is generally
necessary to obtain and analyze many samples. Also. the
samples may change with time as gases come out of
solution and supersaturated solutions approach
saturation.
The sampling sites should be selected, if possible, to
fit into a comprehensive network to cover an oil-
productive geologic basin.
There is a tendency for some oilfield waters to become
more diluted as the oil reservoir is produced. Such dilu-
tion may result from the movement of dilute water from
adjacent compacting clay beds into the petroleum rescr-
voir as pressure declines with the continued removal of
oil and brine.
The composition of oilfield water varies with the posi-
tion within the geologic structure from which it is ob-
tained. In some cases the salinity will increase upstruc-
ture to a maximum at the point of oil/water contact.
Few of the samples collected by drillstem test (DST)
arc truly representative formation-water samples. During
drilling. the pressure in the wellbore is intentionally
maintained higher than that in the formations. Filtrate
from the drilling mud seeps into the permeable strata.
and this filtrate is the first liquid to enter the test tool.
The most truly representative formation-water sample
usually is obtained after the oil well has produced for a
period of time and all extraneous fluids adjacent to the
wellhore have been flushed out. Samples taken im-
mediately after the well is completed may be con-
taminated with drilling fluids and/or with well complc-
tion fluids. such as filtrate from cement, tracing fluids,
and acids. which contain many different chemicals.
Sampling methods are discussed in publications of the
American Petroleum Inst. (API), American Sot. for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), and the Natl. Assn. of
Corrosion Engineers (NACE). I8
Drillstem Test
The DST, if properly made, can provide a reliable for-
mation water sample. it is best to sample the water after
each stand of pipe is removed. Normally, the total
dissolved solids (TDS) content will increase downward
and become constant when pure formation water is ob-
tained. A test that ilows water will give even higher
assurance of an uncontaminated sample. If only one DST
water sample is taken for analysis. it should bc taken just
above the tool. since this is the last water to enter the tool
and is least likely to show contamination.
Analyses of water obtained from a DST of Smackovcr
limestone water in Rains County. TX. show how errors
can be caused by improper sampling of DST water.
Analyses of top, middle. and bottom samples taken from
a SO-ft fluid recovery show an increase in salinity with
depth in the drillpipe. indicating that the first water wa\
contaminated by mud filtrate. I) Thus. the bottom sam-
ple was the most representative of Smackovcr water.
Sample Procedure
No single procedure is universally applicable for obtain-
ing a sample of oilfield water. For cxamplc. inthrmation
may bc desired concerning the dissolved gas or
hydrocarbons in the water or the reduced species present.
such as ferrous or manganous compounds. Sampling
procedures applicable to the desired infomlation must be
used.
Some of the special information and sample location
cases, with appropriate procedures or references cited for
proper sampling. follow.
Sample Containing Dissolved Gas. Knowlcdgc of ccr-
tain dissolved hydrocarbon gases is used in
exploration. OZ
Sampling at the Flowline. Another method of obtaining
a sample for analysis of dissolved gases is to place a
sampling device in a flowline. Fig. 24. I illustrates such
a device. The device is connected to the flowline. and
water is allowed to flow into and through the container.
which is held above the flowlinc. until 10 or more
volumes of water have flowed through. The lower valve
on the sample container is closed and the container
removed. If any bubbles are present in the sample, the
sample is discarded and a new one is obtained.
Sampling at the Wellhead. It is common practice in the
oil industry to obtain a sample of formation water from a
sampling valve at the wellhead. A plastic or rubber tube
can be used to transfer the sample from the sample valve
into the container (usually plastic). The source and sam-
ple container should be flushed to remove any foreign
material before a sample is taken. After flushing the
system. the end of the tube is placed in the bottom of the
container, and several volumes of fluid are displaced
bcforc the tube is removed slowly from the container and
the container is sealed. Fig. 24.2 illustrates a method of
obtalnmg a sample at the wellhead. An extension of this
method is to place the sample container in a larger con-
tainer. insert the tube to the bottom of the sample con-
tainer. allow the brine to overflow both containers. and
withdraw the tube and cap the sample under the fluid.
At pumping wellheads the brine will surge out in heads
and be mixed with oil. In such situations a larger con-
tainer equipped with a valve at the bottom can be used as
a surge tank or an oil-water separator or both. To use this
device, place the sample tube in the bottom of the large
container, open the wcllhead valve, rinse the large con-
tainer with the well fluid, allow the large container to
Valve
74
Sample
I-+
container
Fig. 24-l-Flowline sampler.
fill, and withdraw a sample through the valve at the bot-
tom of the large container. This method will serve to ob-
tain samples that are relatively oil-free.
Field Filtered Sample. In some studies it is necessary to
obtain a field filtered sample. The filtering system shown
in Fig. 24.3 was designed and has proved successful for
various applications.
Fig. 24.2-Example of the method used for obtaining a sample
at the wellhead.
This filtering system is simple and economical. It con-
sists of a SO-mL disposable syringe, two check valves.
and an inline-disk-filter holder. The filter holder takes
size 47-mm diameter, 0.45pm pore size filters, with the
option of a prefilter and depth prefilter.
After the oilfield brine is separated from the oil, the
brine is drawn from the separator into the syringe. With
the syringe, it is forced through the filter into the collec-
tion bottle. The check valves allow the syringe to be used
as a pump for filling the collection bottle. If the filter
becomes clogged, it can be replaced in a few minutes.
About 2 minutes are required to collect 250 mL of sam-
ple. Usually two samples are taken, with the one being
acidified to pH 3 or less with concentrated HCI or
HN03. The system can be cleaned easily or flushed with
brine to prevent contamination.
Sample for Stable-Isotope Analysis. Stable isotopes
have been used in several research studies to determine
the origin of oilfield brines. 22-24
Sample for Determining Unstable Properties or
Species. A mobile analyzer was designed to measure
pH, Eh (redox potential), Oz, resistivity, S=, HCOT,
CO,, and CO2 in oilfield water at the wellhead. When
oilfield brine samples are collected in the field and
transported to the laboratory for analysis, many of the
unstable constituents change in concentration. The
amount of change depends on the sampling method,
sample storage, ambient conditions, and the amounts of
the constituents in the original sample. Therefore an
analysis of the brine at the wellhead is necessary to ob-
tain reliable data.
Sample Containers. Containers that are used include
polyethylene, other plastics, hard rubber, metal cans,
and borosilicate glass. Glass will adsorb various ions
such as iron and manganese, and may contribute boron
or silica to the aqueous sample. Plastic and hard rubber
containers are not suitable if the sample is to be analyzed
to determine its organic content. A metal container is
used by some laboratories if the sample is to be analyzed
for dissolved hydrocarbons such as benzene.
The type of container selected depends on the planned
use of the analytical data. Probably the more satisfactory
container, if the sample is to be stored for some time
Fig. 24.3-Example of field filtering equipment.
24- 5
TABLE 24.1-DESCRIPTION NEEDED FOR EACH OILFIELD WATER SAMPLE
Sample Number Field
Farm or lease ~ Well No. ~ in the
of Section Townshlp Range
County State Operator
Operators address (main office)
Sample obtained by Date
Address Representing
Sample obtained from (lead line, separatory flow tank, etc.)
Completion date of well
Name of productive zone from which sample is produced
Sand Shale Lime Other
Name of productive Names of formations
formation well passes through
Depths: Top of formation Bottom of formation
Top of producing zone Bottom of producing zone
Top of depth drilled Present depth
Bottomhole pressure and date of pressure
Bottomhole temperature
Date of last workover Are any chemicals added to treat well If yes, what?
Well producti on I ni ti al Present Casing service record,
Oil, BID
Water, B/D
Gas, cu ft/D
Method of production (primary, secondary, or tertiary)
Remarks: (such as casing leaks, communication or other pay in same well, lease or field)
before analysis. is the polyethylene bottle. Not all
polyethylenes are satisfactory because some contain
relatively high amounts of metal contributed by catalysts
in their manufacture. The approximate metal content of
the plastic can bc determined by a qualitative emission
spectrographic technique. If the sample is transported
during freezing temperatures, the plastic container is less
likely to break than is glass.
Tabulation of Sample Description. Information such as
that in Table 24.1 should be obtained for each sample of
oilfield water.
Analysis Methods for Oilfield Waters
Analytical methods for analyzing oilfield waters are im-
proving with respect to precision, accuracy, and speed.
There have been at least two groups trying to standardize
methods of oilfield water analysis during the past 20
years. They are the API and ASTM. The API published
Recommended Practice 45 for Analysis of Oilfield
Waters.
The ASTMs Committee D-19 standardizes methods
of analyzing oilficld brines. Methods standardized by
rigorous round-robin testing by several laboratories and
subsequent ASTM committee balloting procedures are
found in Ref. 17.
Table 24.2 illustrates the analyses for various proper-
ties or constituents of oilfield water. Methods to deter-
mine most of these properties or constltucnts can bc
found in Refs. 16, 17, and 25 through 30.
Chemical Properties of Oilfield Waters
Oilfield waters are analyzed for various chemical and
physical properties. Most oilfield waters contain a varie-
ty of dissolved inorganic and organic compounds.
TABLE 24.2-GEOCHEMICAL WATER ANALYSES*
Steam
Produced I nj ecti on Generati on Di sposal
Water Water Water Water
PH
Eh
Speci i l c resi stwty
Speci i tc gravi ty
Bacteri a
Bari um
Bi carbonate
Boron
Bromi de
Calcium
Carbonate
Carbon di oxi de
Chl onde
Hydrogen sul f i de
I odi ne
IlOll
Magnesi um
Manganese
Oxygen
Potassi um
Resi dual hydrocarbons
Sodi um
Si l i ca
Stronti um
Sulfate
Suspended sol I ds
Total di ssol ved sol i ds
X =usual l y requesm
O=somel l mes requested
X
0
X
X
0
X
: :
0
X
: :
X
0
0
X
: :
0
0
X
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
;
X
X
::
0
X
::
X
0
24-6
TABLE 24.3-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM APPALACHIAN FIELDS
Number of
Analyses* System
KentuckyZ3,24
4 Devonian-Silurian
8 Mississippian
5
-
Ohi0 35.36
8 Mississippian
7 Ordovician
8 Mississrppian
10 Upper Devonian
12 Mississippian
Pennsylvania3 38
IO Devonian
7 Devono-
Mississippian
12 Devontan
West Virginia39
29 Mtssisstppian
6 Mississippian
21 Mississippian
44 Pennsylvanian
43 Devonian
Formation
Subsurface
Depth
(fl)
Corniferous 400 to 1,506
McClosky 1,390 to 2,618
Jett 939 to 1,534
Blue Lick
Sub Trenton
Second Water
Big Lime
First Water
Big Lime
Berea
1,843 to 3,263
3,820 to 5,815
2,175 to 3,270
5,175 to 5,300
401 to 1,592
Bradford
Venango
Bradford III
-
-
-
Big lnjun 1,390 to 3,215
Squaw 1,908 to 2,019
Maxton 1,287 to 3,259
Salt Sand 450 to 1,960
Oriskany 3,036 to 8,089
Constituents (mg/L)
Ca Mg Na
1,520 670 9,520
12,160 3,350 44,740
1,700 990 15,700
3,400 2,180 33,600
370 130 1,860
830 320 15,500
1,390 650 10,500
9,230 2,900 33,600
11,000 2,700 39,500
44,000 6,600 58,600
32,300 5,180 36,000
51,200 10,200 60,700
25,900 4.100 21.600
29,600 1O;OOO 861400
4,600 1,500 25,000
11,900 3,000 43,900
40 30 1,600
-
32,400 1,940 39,500
-
7,000 70 3,600
-
82,000 2,020 16,000
-
420 40 300
-
16,900 2,530 39,200
-
30 300 50
1,730 3,910 52,200
630 200 6,300
8,920 2,250 38,100
100 40 3,800
15,300 2,740 35,100
400 340 2,500
20,600 2,650 50,900
2,500 480 34,000
33,600 3,800 98,300
K
120
1,290
ND*
ND
ND
ND
150
1,510
0
2,890
1,950
2,330
270
2,370
120
220
IO
750
290
340
30
660
3,6::
200
6,900
However. oil producers usually are interested in only a
few of the macro properties. This is understandable
because oil producers wish to spend the least amount of
money possible. Therefore, they will look at only the
properties that are necessary to evaluate any treatment
for rcinjection to recover more oil or to dispose of the
oilfield waters.
Composition of Oilfield Waters
, ,,
The composition ot otltteld waters varies from relatively
dilute waters to heavy brines. Several thousand oilfield
water analyses are available on computerized files.
Tables 24.3 through 24. I4 show characteristics of pro
duced waters. and much of the text was taken from the
1962 edition of this book.
The tabulated data on water analyses following arc
lihted alphabetically in order of general oil-productive
areas of the U.S.. Canada. and Venezuela. rather than by
the smaller subdivisions of basins. geologic provinces.
or gcosynclines. An exception to this is the Illinois
basin, a large area not generally otherwise identifiable.
This division has been made arbitrarily for convenience
and because of the lack of a uniform system and is not in-
tended as a precedent for any system of classification.
The states or provinces from which reliable analyses
were available are listed alphabetically in the tables
under each area.
The reader is referred to the original indicated sources
of analytical data for more complete information.
Appalachian Area. The Appalachian area was the first
in the U.S. in which petroleum was produced commer-
cially and is one of the best known and studied geologic
features of North America. Table 24.3 gives the
characteristics of some waters produced from Ap-
palachian fields. F--~,
Petroleum and associated water are produced from
more than 50 strata in systems from the Cambrian to the
Permian. Most of the productive strata are sandstones,
although some limestones are productive. Many of the
PROPERTIESOF PRODUCED WATERS
24-7
TABLE24.3-CHARACTERISTICSOF SOMEWATERSPRODUCEDFROMAPPALACHIANFIELDS (continued)
Ba Sr
Constituents (mg/L)
HCO, SO, Cl
Specific
Gravity
I Br 60/600
TDS
O-ML)
- 0
- 630
- ND
- ND
ND
ND
628:
10 19,600 Trace 120
690 93,900 10 820
60 910 31,700 ND ND
230 3,320 61,000 ND ND
120 50 14,000 ND ND
250 3.200 26.000 ND ND
1.022
1.120
1.036
1.070
1.020
1.039
31,600
158,330
51,060
103,730
16,530
46,100
Trace 110 30 18,200 0 0 1.025 31,030
- 315 380 380 77,600 IO 570 1.089 125,180
- 0 20 150 113,500 10 150 1.150 167,030
- 900 510 490 189,400 30 600 1.224 304,020
- 0 60 30 113,000 ND 580 1.151 189,100
1,240 140 100 216,300 ND 1,900 1.240 344,110
- Trace 30 210 114,200 ND 1,230 1.125 167,540
Trace 230 550 193.100 ND 2,100 1.211 324,350
- 0 20 0 52,700 ND 320 1.063 84,260
- 1,800 20 60 93,400 ND 520 1.115 154,820
-
-
-
-
- -
-
30 30 1,100
- - -
560 1,080 83,200
- - -
0 260 30,900
-
0 1,270 75,300
- - -
0 0 490
- - -
40 1.080 97.600
2,790
158,680
41,830
176,590
1,260
157,350
Trace 10 IO 5 70 Trace Trace 1.001
300 830 70 320 121,000 20 1,750 1.149
0 0 0 0 11,330 2 80 1.010
540 70 40 10 81,130 10 700 1.101
IO 5 10 20 5.830 Trace Trace 1.007
1,500 220 1,680 530 89,900 10 500 1.115
10
2::
10 5 2,500 Trace 5 1.004
870 1,330 400 125.000 10 780 1.159
20 Trace Trace 10 44,300 2 40 1.059
760 1.570 270 900 170,000 30 2,500 1.219
475
191,580
18,832
132,110
9,825
148,090
5,810
206,430
51,552
318,630
sandstones are nonuniform and discontinuous. although
the Big In.jun and Berea sands have been traced across
wide areas. The oil-producing states included in the Ap-
palachian area from which analyses were available arc
Kentucky, Ohio. Pennsylvania. and West Virginia. The
concentrations ofdissolved salts in waters produced Gth
petroleum range from a few hundred to more than
300,000 IllgiL.
California. In different fields of California. oil is pro-
duced from many reservoirs, ranging in age from
Cretaceous to Pleistocene. Sandstones and sands are the
principal productive rocks. Many of the formations arc
of massive thickness. and much folding and faulting are
evident. In general. mineralized water produced with
petroleum from California reservoirs is by no means as
concentrated as that from reservoirs in many other areas.
especially the midcontincnt. Table 24.4 gives the
characteristics of some water produced from California
fields, JO.41
U.S. Gulf Coast. For many years since the Spindletop
dome was discovered in 1901, copious quantities of oil
have been produced from Tertiary and Quaternary for-
mations on the flanks, in the caprock, and in structures
abovle the capmck of massive salt domes. usually con-
sidered intrusive in nature. During recent years. offshore
drilling has focused attention on drilling oft the coasts of
Louisiana and Texas. Some waters produced from gulf
coast fields are quite fresh; others have concentrations of
dissolved salts as high as 170.000 nngit, (Table
24.5). 4L44
Illinois Basin. The Illinois basin. divided roughly into
halves by the LaSallc anticline. comprises much of II-
linois and southwestern Indiana. Oil is produced here
from many fields, principally from Pennsylvanian and
Mississippian sandstones and. to a smaller extent. from
limestones. TDS in the produced waters range from
about I.000 to more than 160,000 mg/L (Table 24.6).j5
24-a PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
TABLE 24.4-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM CALIFORNIA FIELDS
Subsurface
Constituents (mg/L)
Depth
(fi)
Ca Mg Na a
--z- 10
HCO,
1,104 to 1,916 40 50 180
390 340 3,290 480 360
1,495 to 3,250 20 IO 910 0 180
2,890 690 13,250 360 360
2,270 to 3,550 60 20 3,650 0 50
1,280 570 11,650 90 4,270
400 to 3,000 10 10 50 0 20 20 1,550 390 7:
- 200 140 4,770 150 0
220 230 7,640 460 0
- 200 10 1,300 0 4
2,900 1,300 15,015 510 1,020
10 3 2,050 0 1,700
80 140 7,090 340 3,900
so,
190
TDS Number of
Analyses
17
10
System Formation
Tertiary Coalinga
Tertiary Midway
Tertiary Sunset
Tertiary Kern River
Tertiary Lost Hills
Tertiary Maricopa
Tertiary Zone A
Cl
90
2,520
1,010
23,550
4,360
21,420
10
60
FwU
580
7.260 14,640
2,140
42,120
8,145
39,320
80
2,130
13,020
21,120
10
1,380
5
40
5
4
2
26
18
0
20
20
630
2
110
7,740
11,950
1,170
27,100
1,300
9,560
2,686
47,995
5,064
21,200 90
' Upper l i gure i n each col umn I S m~n~murn val ue and l ower f i gure I S maxi mum val ue f or number of anal yses ndl cated ' +I '
Midcontinent Area. The midcontinent oil productive
area is the largest geographically of all oil-productive
areas in the U.S. For purposes of this section, it is con-
sidered to include Arkansas, Kansas. northern Loui-
siana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma. and all of Texas
except the gulf coast fields.
Oil and associated brines are produced from many
sandstones and limestones, as well as from other types of
formations, in geologic systems ranging from the Cam-
brian through the Upper Crctaceous. Waters produced
with petroleum from midcontinent fields have a wide
range of concentration of dissolved salts, from little
more than 1,000 to more than 350.000 mg/L. Tables
24.7 through 24.9 present the characteristics of some
produced waters from the midcontinent fields of Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Texas.36-
Rocky Mt. Area. Petroleum is produced in Colorado,
Montana. New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming from many
fields in the Rocky Mt. area. The principal production is
from rocks of the Cretaceous system, although oil and
associated waters also are produced from Jurassic, Per-
mian, Pennsylvanian, and Mississippian rocks. Pro-
duced waters from Rocky Mt. fields have comparatively
low concentrations of dissolved salts and often are
characterized by comparatively high concentrations of
bicarbonate. Tables 24.10 and 24.11 give the
characteristics of some waters produced from Rocky Mt.
fields of Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. 55m5y
Canada. The principal oil-productive areas in Canada
are the lower Ontario Peninsula, where oil is produced
from rocks ranging from Ordovician to Devonian age,
and the western provinces, principally Alberta, Sas-
katchewan, and the Northwest Territories. Reservoir
rocks in western Canada range in age from Devonian to
Cretaceous. Although many of the waters produced with
petroleum have quite low concentrations of dissolved
salts, others are quite concentrated. Tables 24.12 and
24. I3 present the characteristics of some waters from
Canadian fields in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatche-
wan, hObh5
TABLE 24.5-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM GULF COAST FIELDS (TEXAS)
Constituents ( mg/ L)
Subsurf ace
Depth
u9
2, 579 to 11 400
40610 1 100
1. 305 to 3. 296
FormatIon
or field
Mg
50
Cl
TDS
(m9L)
5 700
116900
353
4 500
10, 860
54480
10. 470
171. 300
18. 900
109. 990
570
1.710
11. 490
36400
Number of
Anal yses' System
42 Teri l ary
5
6 Ol i gocene
6 Upper Eocene
5 Oligocene
Ca Na
2.240
40.600
60
1. 330
3, 800
18, 200
3. 600
61. 000
6. 700
40. 800
340
30
4. 460
12. 730
HCO,
30
990
230
770
70
400
so,
0 3. 180
69. 100
20
2.130
6.300
33. 700
6. 100
105000
Fno
Norm Coastal
Goose Creek
Humbl e
Damon Mound
Barber HIII Dome
Powell-Mexla
1, 000
10
30
110
3
160
120
210
Trace
1. 750
270
3. 010
16
230
10
210
775 to
250to 11 300
63400
110
610
6. 700
21 600
4 Pliocene-Miocene 70
550
30
240
6
24-9
TABLE 24.6-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM ILLINOIS FIELDS
Number of Formatton
Subsurf ace
Depth
Anal yses System of f i el d
( N
12 Mi sswl ool an Wal l ersbura 1. 994
2 437
18 M~ss~ss~pp~an Tar Spri ngs 1. 125
2, 596
57 M~ss~ss~pp~an Cypress 1.045
2.960
17 Ordowcl an Trenton 672 to 4, 000
134 Mwssi ppl an St Geneweve 1.104 to 3. 519
Ca
1. 200
2. 970
960
6. 020
840
6. 600
50
7. 500
1. 900
16. 430
Consti tuents ( mg/ L)
MC!
Na
HCO_,
so,
640 22. 660 30 0
1. 020 32. 220 390 1 620
I O 240 20 0
1. 730 42. 810 1.050 980
510 3. 970 10 10
1, 660 47. 900 1. 660 3.840
40 340 20 30
1. 830 41. 830 960 1. 350
910 8.740 20 30
3. 460 47. 660 1.470 2. 990
Cl
38 300
56 700
700
76 000
25 800
83 200
200
82 400
14000
95 400
TDS
( mgl L)
62. 830
93 920
62 930
i 28 590
31 140
143.940
680
135870
25 600
167. 940
Upper figure in each column IS minimum value and lower llgure IS ma~~rnum value for number of analyses Indicated
Venezuela. The principal productive formations in
oilfield waters are sodium, calcium, and magnesium.
Venezuela are Tertiary sandstones and Cretaceous
The concentrations of these ions can range from less than
limestones. In general. the various waters produced with 10.000 mg/L for sodium, and from less than I .OOO mg/L
petroleum have low concentrations of dissolved salts
to more than 30,000 me/L for calcium and/or
(Table 24. 14).66m69 magnesium.
Inorganic Constituents
Petroleum companies often analyze oilfield waters to
determine their major dissolved inorganic constituents.
The major constituents usually are sodium, calcium,
magnesium, chloride, bicarbonate, and sulfate. The
analytical data are used in studies such as water iden-
tification. log evaluation, water treatment, environmen-
tal impact, geochemical exploration, and recovery of
valuable minerals. 26
Other cations that often are present in oilfield waters in
concentrations greater than 10 mg/L are potassium,
strontium, lithium, and barium. Some oilfield waters
contain concentrations in excess of IO mg/L of
aluminum, ammonium, iron, lead, manganese, silicon,
and zi nc, 26. 70. 71
Anions
Cations
The presence of various cations and anions in oilfield
waters can cause solubility, acidity, and redox (Eh)
potential changes as well as the precipitation and adsotp-
tion of some constituents. The major cations in most
The major anion in most oilfield waters is chloride. The
chloride concentration can range from less than 10,000
to more than 200,000 mg/L. There are exceptions to
this-e.g., some Venezuelan oilfield waters contain
more bicarbonate than chloride.
Most oilfield waters contain bromide and iodide. The
concentrations of these anions range from less than 50 to
more than 6.000 mg/L for bromide and from less than IO
TABLE 24.7-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM MID-CONTINENT FIELDS (KANSAS)
Subsurface
Constituents (nq/L)
Speclflc
Number01 Depth
~ Gravely TDS
Analyses System Formamn
tft) ca blq N.3 Ba HCO, so, Cl I Br (60160~) (mg,L)
-~ 87 Pennsylvanian Kansas C~fy Lansmg 1.228 lo 3.409 2 040 840 16940 4 5 0 34.100 2. 30 1040 53.959
16 DO0 3 950 77.000 70 450 2 160 158.800 15 400 1 159 256.830
8 Ordovlclan WllCOX 3.500 to 3 800 790 5.560 10800 0 20 80 10,870 Trace 80 1015 28.120
14400 68500 142,500 0 530 300 142600 3 x50- 1140 369.180
123 Ordowaan Arbuckle 2.750 lo 3 770 700 240 6 820 0 50 0 12.300 0 Trace ,014 20.180
19 BOO 10.900 34 450 0 640 2 700 79200 Trace 60 1 091 145.060
76 Ordoviaan VIOla 2091 lo 4 14, 620 230 5240 0 IO 20 330 0 5 1012 6,455
11 000 3.110 52000 0 650 1180 112.700 10 90 1116 160.740
27 Pennsylvania Bartlesvllle 625 to 3 200 420 1EO 7550 0 10 1 12.600 2 20 1016 20.782
12 100 3,480 69.800 10 520 750 141 200 10 200 1 141 224.870
20 Mississippian Mississippian 1010 to 4 679 560 220 9 150 0 30 0 14.400 1 2 ,017 24.363
12 900 2.660 59300 20 670 3540 122000 60 3 1140 201.153
8 Basal Pennsylvaman Conglomerate 3320 to 3469 1 000 360 11 600 0 0 0 20.700 0 200 1023 33.850
8 480 2.000 47.000 0 180 700 58,300 Trace 400 1 105 116.660
24 PWlSlWllX Chat 2697f0 3 365 3.120 640 24400 0 30 0 42,700 2 10 1 088 70,902
13480 1.950 66,500 0 130 2.200 137700 3 420 1143 222,383
12 SllUrlan HlO 2 390 to 2 893 230 90 3610 0 70 100 5,300 0 10 1007 9.410
5 220 1.460 36600 3 480 1,230 68.400 2 70 1075 113.460
10 Basal Pennsylvanian Gorham 33ooto 3 854 920 280 6 560 0 160 40 11.300 0 5 1019 19.265
3 960 1.030 17100 10 840 3.010 36,000 0 10 ,045 58,940
9 Pennsylanlan PrUe 1 032 to 2.400 2.310 720 14300 0 20 0 28.000 0 0 1033 45.350
11 300 2.610 68 700 10 330 50 138.900 0 0 1 139 221.900
12 Cambraan Reagan 3175f03609 1 390 310 9 300 0 80 30 14,700 NO ND ,021 26.810
5 250 1.370 43000 0 410 2,570 76,900 ND ND 1088 126.930
Upper fqure I each column IS mlnimum value and lower hgure IS maximum value for number of analyses Ind~caled %+
TABLE 24.8-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM MID-CONTINENT FIELDS (OKLAHOMA)
Subsurl ace
Specl f l c
Depth
~- - ~
_~ Grady TDS
ut1
- ~Ca Mg Na Ba HCO, SO, Cl ( 60/ 600) ( mg/ L)
4. 489 to 5, 524 1. 900 910 12, 100 0 0 0 24 100 1031
3, 436 to 7. 233
1, 240 10 4. 800
542 to 6. 094
1. 48070 5430
1, 800 to 2, 490
1, 837 l o 4. 872
3. 927 10 5. 977
1. 258 to 6. 025
1. 213 l o 6. 495
1, 030 to 4. 567
1. 876 to 2 300
3. 197 l o 5, 021
2. 403 to 4. 650
3. 458 to 5. 004
2. 267 to 3. 587
982 to 3. 163
2 417 to 3, 254
790 to 5. 000
1. 882 to 3. 218
2. 173 to 7, 569
83. 800 730
48. 300 0
80. 230 130
31. 300 0
79. 000 380
14, 000 0
63. 800 110
34. 600 1
51. 500 20
42. 500 1
57. 700 200
43, 600 2
72. 000 30
19000 2. 740
6. 800 1. 400
18500 3300
5. 300 1, 800
18900 4. 300
2. 200 900
18. 800 2, 700
4, 600 1. 400
11. 900 4. 300
5, 900 2. 000
13. 300 2. 600
6400 2000
22, 400 2, 500
4. 600 1. 100
18. 400 3. 200
1 700 600
15. 800 3. 100
5. 600 1. 200
17, 600 3, 000
6. 200 1. 500
18. 700 3. 200
6600 1, 500
12700 2. 500
300 80
28. 900 4, 300
9. 700 1. 700
19. 600 2. 600
200 60
16000 2, 400
8. 500 1. 300
11, 700 3. 100
740 230
7. 300 2, 900
14. 000 2. 200
17. 400 3. 100
10, 900 1, 800
300
20
160
10
80
0
850
0
29, 500 0
76. 000 10
17, 600 10
61. 300 280
310
15
120
10
80
30
24. 400 0
71, 900 2
31, 700 0
I 390 144. 000
0 91. 300
720 163. 000
0 34, 900
510 160. 000
0 33, 000
1. 880 127. 000
0 65, 000
1. 130 113. 500
0 81. 600
200 115. 000
24 84. 200
430 157. 000
60 55, 400
1. 920 156, 000
0 29. 800
2, 750 121. 000
0 50. 900
440 140. 000
30 64, 100
450 139. 000
0 90, 000
110
20
90
67, 400 I O
42, 500 0
56, 500 240
4. 000 0
0
110
I O
130
75. 900 170
42, 800 5
71. 700 220
2900 0
62, 000 10
43, 400 5
5
140
15
660
3
680 117, 000
0 8, 200
7. 010 142, 000
0 101. 000
72, 900 20
10800 0
20. 000 3. 500
5. 500 900
13. 900 2. 000
700 400
22. 400 3. 500
27, 900 50
23800 0
76400 5
43200 2
69, 000 40
32. 000 0
54700 10
11 500 10
80500 450
170
40
940
50
120
20
380
0
50
20
133
50
130
1 175
1 103
1170
1075
1179
1. 034
1 147
1073
1 130
1. 091
I 129
1095
1 173
1. 066
1 173
1. 039
1 134
1059
1. 159
1075
1157
1. 103
1. 131
1012
1155
1115
1 164
1005
1137
1 110
1 158
1022
1076
1 160
1 171
1 109
1 163
1073
1 122
1024
1 183
370 149, 000
0 4, 400
980 122, 000
30 86. 300
480 142. 000
2 18. 600
40 63, 600
130 132, 800
370 156. 200
15 99, 300
260 149. 000
40 45, 500
760 108. 000
0 19, 500
920 167, 000
39. 010
251 460
147. 820
266. 010
73. 310
263. 170
50, 100
214. 140
105 701
182, 660
132, 016
189, 120
136. 212
254440
90, 690
250, 640
49. 730
204. 320
82. 100
233. 042
103, 540
228. 890
141. 050
189. 760
11. 995
258. 948
155. 208
243. 660
7. 600
204. 330
139. 885
230, 320
30. 392
102, 170
172. 930
253, 525
155, 235
241. 930
86. 900
179, 500
32, 110
275, 270
Number of
Anal yses System Formaf l on
Bartl esvl l l e
Wl l COX
Layton
Atbuckl e
Cromwel l
Burgess
Mi ssi ssi ppi
Ml sener
Pennsyl vani an
Sl mpso"
Ski nner
Booth
Hunton
Red Fork
VI ol a
Prue
Heal di on
Tonkawa
Burbank
Dutcher
Bromi de
75 Pennsyl vanEl n
94 Ordovl cl an
25 Pennsyf vanl an
28 Ordovua"
I 9 Pennsyl vani an
12 Pennsyl vani an
22 M~ss~ss~pp~an
18 Ml ssi ssl ppl an
I 7 Pennsyl vaman
10 Ordowan
22 Pennsyl vani a"
22 Pennsylvama
22 Siluro-Devontan
27 Pennsylvania
12 Ordowcl an
20 Pennsyf van, an
13 Pennsyl vani an
15 Pennsyl vani an
24 Pennsyl vani an
15 Pennsyl vani an
14 Ordowuan
TABLE 24.9-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM MID-CONTINENT FIELDS (TEXAS)
Number of
Analyses System
Subsurface Specific
Depth
Constituents ( mg/ L)
TDS _ Grawty
Formation
(ft)
Ca Mg Na
so4 HCO,
Cl (60~160~)
(m9Q
North-Central Texas 50-52
33 Upper Pennsylvanian
El Upper Pennsylvaman
7 Upper Pennsyl vani an
13 Upper Cretaceous
20 5
10, 700 2. 450
1, 884 ! O2, 081 14, 400 2, 440
16. 700 2. 860
2. 540 to 2, 668 10. 200 2, 030
13, 800 2, 440
3. 844 to 4. 446 3. 100 370
7, 900 600
530
48. 200
58, 300
66, 800
52, 500
61, 000
32. 100
62, 900
61;
1
690
0 300
0 520
0 630
10 740
130 250
410 370
460
97, 900
122, 200
139, 800
106, 000
119, 000
57. 500
112, 500
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1, 017
160, 550
197, 640
226. 680
171, 360
196, 990
93, 450
184. 680
160 6. 030 0 I O 10. 000 1. 015 16, 700
3, 000 60, 400 180 400 134, 000 1. 157 221, 080
640 15, 700 10 40 31, 400 1044 50, 010
2, 300 57, 100 650 4, 840 109, 500 1 145 188, 390
350 12, 000 4 20 25, 300 1. 035 39, 374
2, 850 55. 700 1, 840 2. 140 130, 500 1 173 214, 330
810 25, 500 2 2 82, 900 1. 105 112, 414
3, 500 74, 300 710 710 161, 800 1212 262, 320
310 4. 400 210 350 19, 000 1. 033 25, 010
7, 900 67. 000 1. 840 4, 900 140, 500 1 154 241, 940
200 210 0 160 890 ND 1, 710
3, 700 122, 500 0 8, 600 212, 000 ND 356. 600
Dyson
Landreth
Woodbine
North and West Texas5354
21 Pennsylvanian
35 Pennsylvanian
47 Cambro- Ordovci an
56 Pennsylvanian
50 Permian
42 Permian
Cisco
Canyon
Ellenberger
Straw
San Andres
Big Lime
700 I O 1. 950 500
23, 100
2. 200 I O7. 000 2. 200
14. 000
3, 800 to 8. 370 1. 700
22.300
1, 700 to 6, 900 3, 200
21. 300
740
19. 800
- 250
9. 800
PROPERTI ES OF PRODUCED WATERS 24- 11
TABLE 24.10-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIELDS
(COLORADO AND MONTANA)
Constrtuents ( mg/ L)
System
Subsurf ace
Depth
( f t)
Cretaceous Dakota 2. 819 to 5. 830
Cretaceous Frontrer 1, 230 IO 3. 464
Eocene Wasatch 2, 230 to 5. 283
J urasw Morrtson 3, 020 to 4. 395
J urassrc Sundance 4, 564 l o 6, 263
Ca
Mg
0
NC3
co3 HCO3 so,
TDS
Cl
ml / L)
310 0 210 40 40 560
13, 000 160 3, 600 890 22, 100 41, 220
820 0 340 0 820 1, 980
8, 200 240 4. 900 90 12. 800 26. 490
1, 800 0 120 20 2, 000 3. 990
10, 600 150 2, 000 870 18, 900 33, 830
1, 400 0 540 160 260 2. 360
3, 600 120 3, 350 980 5, 000 13, 160
1, 070 0 200 0 260 1, 530
5, 250 0 3, 030 1, 040 8, 060 17. 840
3.900
220
710
6, 200
260
4. 670
1. 110
3, 140
30
1, 390
20
0 140 0 10 4, 050
0 2, 000 1, 850 5, 530 9, 770
0 260 0 280 1, 250
0 1, 400 250 8, 800 16, 900
0 500 0 10 790
0 4, 900 290 6. 000 16. 010
0 1, 670 0 370 3, 150
0 4, 040 820 2. 890 11, 060
0 150 1, 310 10 1. 560
0 400 5. 540 440 8, 470
0 220 trace 10 250
Number of
Anal yses
Col orado5ss6
7
6
6
4
3
Montana5s- s7
J urassi c
Upper Cretaceous
Lower Cretaceous
Upper J urasw
Pennsyl vani an
Upper MI ssI ssi ppi an
Lower Mi ssrssi ppi an
9
10
11
55
22
25
Montana
-
Col orado
-
Kootenar
-
HIS
Quadrant
Tensl eep
Madi son
-
0
1, 180
0
190
30
900
0
80
0
380
0
70
40
410
0
30
0
80
0
100
0
130
0
90
trace
90
60
680
0
0
70
0
120
0
60
0
80
trace
700
0
500 430 2, 330 0 4, 830 2, 110 2,790 12, 990
TABLE 24.11-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM ROCKY MT. FIELDS (WYOMING)
Constttuents ( mg/ L)
-
CO, HCO,
Na
410 trace 280
5, 560 230 1, 900
550 trace 1, 270
20, 000 1, 050 7, 800
200 trace 1, 000
5, 320 320 5. 460
1, 740 trace 890
7, 000 590 6. 950
1, 040 trace 110
6, 210 300 2, 290
180 trace 230
13, 000 280 6, 900
630 trace 1. 000
5. 560 380 3. 680
180 0 480
430 60 980
520 0 410
6, 800 330 6. 850
140 0 210
5, 170 0 1. 690
5 0 30
790 10 1, 000
20 trace 20
580 20 1, 080
630 0 190
1, 670 0 550
Subsurf ace
Depth
( 4
900 to 1, 300
1, 000 to 3. 080
TDS
Number of
Anal vses System Ca
Mg
10
330
so,
0
3, 710
trace
240
trace
60
trace
880
0
110
20
980
trace
60
60
820
40
5, 880
190
5, 790
10
2, 500
50
1, 940
1, 930
3, 870
Cl
@WLl
20 ~ 730
Formatron
Shannon
Fronti er
Fi rst Wal l Creek
Second Wal l Creek
Cl everl y
Dakota
Dakota
Greybul l
Sundance
Embar
Tensl eep
Madtson
Mmnel usa
10
250
24 Cretaceous
7, 670 19. 650
70 1, 890
27, 900 57. 340
220 1, 420
5, 940 17. 230
1, 170 3, 800
6, 600 22. 070
150 1, 300
7, 590 16, 630
20 450
19, 200 40, 750
110 1, 740
1, 930 11. 730
40 760
90 2. 420
140 1. 110
35 Cretaceous
45 Cretaceous
50 Cretaceous
14 J urassrc
22 J urasstc
24 J urasstc
5 J urassrc
60 J urassi c
20 Permi an
50 Pennsyl vaman
19 Mi ssi ssi ppi an
20 Tri assi c
trace trace
220 130
trace trace
30 100
trace trace
40 10
trace trace
110 20
trace trace
230 160
trace trace
60 60
i race trace
40 trace
0 0
400 60
140 30
630 220
40 10
720 250
20 trace
870 180
250 50
450 60
-
1, 400 to 1. 500
4, 050 to 4. 505
4, 353 to 8. 500
-
-
7, 700 28, 020
10 620
3, 930 17, 430
3 98
1, 080 6, 350
4 114
1, 070 5. 740
250 3, 300
610 7, 210
-
-
-
24- 12
PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
TABLE 24.12-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM CANADIAN FIELDS
Number of
AllalySeS System Formalton
Subsurface
Depth
ml
Specl l i c
Constltenls (mJ/L,
GLWy TDS
Ca Mg Na CO, HCO, SO, Cl I Br ~60/60l (mg/L)
215 10 1,890
1.670 10 2 072
2 706 10 2,744
10 10 660 0 320 5
50 10 3.000 80 790 600
70 20 6400 0 580 20
620 230 19.000 60 640 40 29.200
5 60 1 030 0 180 0 670
1.250 190 9.100 410 1250 2500
- -
1.570 to 3 323
2.200 to 2 942
3.000 lo 3 422
870 to 2 060
1,322 lo 2 553
2516fO4604
1.698 to 3 717
980 850 0 100 1 000
67 340 44.900 40 2.140 4,600
240 4.900 0 110 900
2.000 81.400 30 360 4.900
550 21.300 0 80 3900
1 400 72.800 80 780 4.300
200
4.500
6.400
11.000
-
-
-
850
94,900
7.000
149.600
34 900
120 700
740
31 200
530
8.800
7.900
173.500
14.300
154 900
ND ND ND 1 205
NO ND ND 9,030
10 10 1010 13.510
40 620 1 060 64.160
ND ND 1 006 2.145
ND ND 1 032 25.700
0 10 - -
20 460 - -
2 20 - -
20 220 - -
3 90 ~ -
10 110 - -
2 200 - -
20 1.500 - -
- 1010 3.940
- ,089 150 380
- 1016 14.150
- 1157 248.990
~ 1031 62 930
- 1136 203 880
- 1 004 3 150
- 1 033 25 680
- 1 002 1 840
- 1 025 25 780
- 1 025 16.120
- 1180 290.070
~ 1 026 26 760
- 1176 264,300
to more than 1,400 mg/L for iodide. 26 Bromide concen- Physical Properties of Oilfield Waters*
tration is important in determining the origin of an
oilfield brine and is an important geochemical marker
Compressibility
constituent. Bicarbonate and sulfate are present in
The compressibility of formation water at pressures
many oilfield waters. Their concentrations can range
above the bubblepoint is defined as the change in water
from none to several thousand milligrams per liter.
volume per unit water volume per psi change in pressure.
Other anions found in oilfield waters include arsenate,
This is expressed mathematically as
borate, carbonate, fluoride, hydroxide, organic acid
I av
(',,. = --
( >
-
salts, and phosphates. Boron concentrations in excess of
T, _. _. ( l a)
100 mg/L can affect electric log deflections. 26
v ap
This sechon. except for the pH and Eh, was writlen by Howard B Bradley
TABLE 24.13-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM CANADIAN FIELDS, PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
Subsurf ace
Number of Depth
Spectf f c
Anal yses System Formatron
( W Ca Mg Na
Gravrty TDS
CO, HCO, SO, Cl ( 60/ 600) ( ma/ L)
27 Cretaceous Bl af rmore 998 to 3, 713 ~ ~ trace trace
2, 200x- - - -
190 - 2. 800
5
5
25
12
9
11
4
11
Shaunavon 3, 205 to 3. 413
Gravel bourg 3. 290 to 4. 175
Mf ssron Canyon 3, 700 to 5, 785
Ntsku 4, 682 to 6, 927
Duperow 2, 253 to 4, 024
Mi ssi ssi ppi an 4, 487 to 5, 665
Lodgepol e 2. 305 to 4, 470
80 1, 300
- 190
- 300
- 140
- 350
- 60
- 440
- 200
- 2, 350
- 100
- 860
- 120
110 850
- 480
- 600
- 70
- 2, 600
- 40
- 1, 580
- 290
- 1, 320
1 000 6, 190
8
a
Devoni an
Devoni an
Mi ssI ssi ppI an
Mi ssi ssi ppi an
Lower
Cretaceous
Devoni an
J urassi c
Vi ki ng 2, 395 to 3, 026
Devoni an 3, 356 to 6, 605
J urassf c shal e 3, 105 to 4, 325
2, 300 870 20, 300
170 100 8, 800
1, 850 230 t 2, 400
470 220 11, 700
620 370 t 2. 900
100 130 760
7. 100 3, 100 73. 700
740 190 1,000
14, 100 7. 150 73, 000
680 170 940
9, 000 900 17. 700
trace trace 4, 300
5, 600 1, 600 71, 000
730 90 1, 400
2. 800 610 27, 000
trace trace 1, 100
190 100 9, 300
0 0 0
1, 100 1, 200 69, 100
trace trace 4, 300
8, 100 160 10, 900
3, 500
2, 100
3, 100
270
2, 100
3, 200
Trace
2, 500
2, 200
5, 000
340
3, 900
3, 400
3, 900
38,900 1. 048 67, 250
890 1. 007 12. 250
t 3, 800 1. 014 31. 580
14, 500 1 022 27. 300
20, 100 1. 026 36. 440
280 1. 001 1. 330
155, 000 1 093 242. 540
640 1 002 2. 770
142, 800 1 186 242. 600
700 t , 002 4, 790
31, 100 1. 040 64, 560
5, 700 1. 004 10. 460
123, 800 1 150 206, 860
580 1. 004 6, 680
45, 700 1 061 80, 610
0 2, 100 1. 002 3, 270
790 12, 700 1. 014 25, 680
190 4, 800 1. 012 5, 030
2, 400 111. 000 1. 160 185, 380
0 2, 800 1. 002 7, 390
3, 600 15, 400 1. 029 39, 480
Upper ftgure tn each column IS mmmum value and lower figure is maxmum value far number of analyses mdlcafed 65
PROPERTI ES OF PRODUCED WATERS 24- l 3
TABLE 24.14-CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WATERS PRODUCED FROM VENEZUELAN FIELDS
Number of
Anal yses
5
7
6
7
a
8
7
8
10
11
TDS
System Formati on or Ftel d Ca Mg Na CO,
HCO, SO,
Cl
- -
~
( mgl L)
Terti ary Zeta ( Qui ri qui re) 170 100 1, 750 0 3, 050
330 270 5. 150 0 5. 400
Terti ary
Terti ary
Cretaceous
Terti ary
Terti ary
Terti ary
Cretaceous
Eta ( Qui ri qui re)
Cabtmas f i el d,
La Rosa f ormati on
Laguni l l as f i el d,
l ceota f ormatl on
Bachaquero f i el d,
Puebl o Vi ej o mai n sandstone
Mene Grande f i el d,
Pauj i and Mason- Truj i l l o range
La Concepti on f i el d.
Punta Gorda sands and deeper sands
La Paz f i el d,
Guasare f ormati on
70 50
400 300
60 60
10 60
40 60
2: 040 0
12, 360 0
1, 740 0
2, 000 120
4, 610 0
1, 800 100
4, 700 1, 900
3; 050
7. 410
2, 010
5, 260
6, 250
30 20 3, 570
50 20 30
30 20 6, 000 80 1, 230
Cretaceous
Terti ary
S. El Mene f i el d,
El Sal to f ormati on
Of i cma and W. Guard f tel ds
OF, sand
AB, sand
D, sand
Du and Eu sands
F, sand
H sand
L, sand
M sand
P sand
S sand
U sand
30 50 2, 660 0 1, 130
30 40 3, 000 0 1, 130
150 50 9, 000 0 2, 440
50 20 1, 260 0 2, 330
40 30 1, 360 0 2, 780
40 30 3, 080 0 1, 100
40 60 4, 000 0 1, 430
140 70 7, 900 0 3, 500
70 70 8, 400 0 2, 050
160 100 7, 300 0 4, 420
110 30 7, 700 0 2, 100
140 80 7, 800 0 970
330 80 8, 600 0 1, 700
940 180 11, 800 0 1, 100
4 1, 910 7, 190
10 5, 420 16, 260
5 710 6, 900
30 11 , 170 36, 500
0 1, 780 5, 643
0 90 5, 260
5 3, 700 14, 657
0 690 6. 210
0 6, 250 12, 955
0 8, 550 15. 911
0 3, 450 7, 320
0 1, 260 5, 460
0 9, 000 20, 640
140 640 4, 424
60 560 4, 830
130 4, 230 8, 520
0 5, 500 11, 030
150 10, 500 22, 260
10 12, 090 22, 690
trace 9, 260 21, 240
20 10, 900 20, 860
0 11, 600 20, 590
100 13, 050 23, 860
0 19, 800 33, 820
Upper tlgure I each column 1s minimum value and lower figure IS maximum value for number ot analyses mdlcated -
or
1 v*--v,
T,=-
( >
v PI--P2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
01
Bw2 - B, I
c, . = -
B, . ( p, - p2) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(lb)
where
CkV
= water compressibility at the given pressure
and temperature, bbl/bbl-psi,
-cw
= average water compressibility within the
given pressure and temperature interval,
bbl/bbl-psi,
V = water volume at the given pressure and
temperature, bbl,
V = average water volume within p and T inter-
vals, bbl,
PI and
p2 = pressure at conditions 1 and 2 with p r >pz,
psi,
B,,, and
B
4
= water FVF p I and ~2, bbl/bbl, and
B,. = average water FVF corresponding to V,
bbhbbl.
Eq. 2 was fit for pressures between 1,000 and 20,000
psi, salinities of 0 to 200 g NaClIL, and temperatures
from 200 to 270F. Compressibilities were independent
of dissolved gas.
In an oil reservoir, water compressibility also depends Where conditions overlap, the agreement with the
on the salinity. In contrast to the literature, laboratory resul ts reported by both Dorsey 75 and Dotson and Stand-
measurements by Osif 74 show that the effect of gas in ing 76 is very good. Results from the Rowe and Chou
solution on compressibility of water with NaCl concen-
trations up to 200 g/cm3 is essentially negligible. Osifs
results show no effect at gas/water ratios (GWRs) of 13
scf/bbl, at GWRs of 35 scf/bbl probably no effect, but
certainly no more than a 5% increase in the com-
pressibility of brine.
Laboratory measurements 74 of water compressibility
resulted in linear plots of the reciprocal of compressibili-
ty vs. pressure. The plots of l/c, vs. p have a slope of
m r , and intercepts linear in salinity and temperature.
Data points for the systems tested containing no gas in
solution resulted in Eq. 2.
l/c~,=m~p+m~C+m~T+m4, (2)
where
cw
= water compressibility, psi - ,
p = pressure, psi,
C = salinity, g/L of solution,
T = temperature, F,
ml
= 7.033,
m2
= 541.5,
lfl3
= -531, and
m4 = 403.3 X 103.
Fig. 24.4-Specific gravity of salt solutrons at 60F and 14.7
psia.
Fig. 24.5-Density of NaCl solutions at 14.7 psia vs.
temperature.
equation agree well up to 5.000 psi (their upper pressure
limit) but result in larger deviations with increasing
pressure. In almost all cases, the Rowe and Chou com-
pressibilities are less than that of Eq. 2.
Density
The density of formation water is a function of pressure,
temperature. and dissolved constituents. It is determined
most accurately in the laboratory on a representative
sample of formation water. I7 The formation water den-
sity is defined as the mass of the formation water per unit
volume of the formation water. For engineering pur-
posts, density in metric units (g/cm) is considered
equal to specific gravity. Therefore, for most engineer-
ing calculations density and specific gravity are
interchangeable. e
When laboratory data are not available, the density of
fomration water at reservoir conditions can be estimated
(usually to within & 10%) from correlations (Figs. 24.4
through 24.6). The only field data necessary are the den-
sity at standard conditions, which can be obtained from
the salt content by use of Fig. 24.4. The salt content can
be estimated from the formation resistivity (obtained
from electric log measurements) by use of Fig. 49.3 (see
Chap. 49). The density of formation water at reservoir
conditions can be calculated in four steps.
I. Using the temperature and density at atmospheric
pressure, obtain the equivalent weight percent NaCl
from Fig. 24.5.
2. Assuming the equivalent weight percent NaCl re-
mains constant. extrapolate the weight percent to reser-
voir temperature and read the new density.
3. Knowing the density at atmospheric pressure and
reservoir temperature, use Fig. 24.6 to find the increase
in specific gravity (density) when compressed to reser-
voir pressure. Note that for oil reservoirs below the bub-
blepoint, the saturated-with-gas curves should be
used; for water considered to have no solution gas, the
no-gas-in-solution curves should be used. These
curves were computed from data given by Ashby and
Hawkins.
4. The density of formation water (g/cm) at reservoir
conditions is the sum of the values read frotn Figs. 24.5
and 24.6. They can be added directly since the metric
PROPERTIES OF PRODUCED WATERS 24-15
units are referred to the common density base of water (1
g/cm3). The metric units can be changed to customary
units (1 bmicu ft) by multiplying by 62.37.
Also the specific gravity of formation water can be
estimated if the dissolved solids are known. The equa-
tion is
y,*>=1+c,~xo.695x10-6, . . . . . I.. . .(3)
where Csd is the concentration of dissolved solids
(mgfL).
For precise but very detailed calculations, the reader is
referred to a recent paper by Rogers and Pitzer. 79 They
tabulated a large number of values of compressibility,
expansivity and specific volume vs. molality ,
temperature, and pressure. A semiempirical equation of
the same type found to be effective in describing thermal
properties of NaCl (0.1 to 5 molality) was used to
reproduce the volumetric data from 0 to 300C and I to
1,000 bars.
Formation Volume Factor (FVF)
The water FVF, II,., is defined as the volume at reser-
voir conditions occupied by 1 STB of formation water
plus its dissolved gas. It represents the change in volume
of the formation water as it moves from reservoir condi-
tions to surface conditions. Three effects are involved:
the liberation of gas from water as pressure is reduced,
the expansion of water as pressure is reduced. and the
shrinkage of water as temperature is reduced.
The water FVF also depends on pressure. Fig. 24.7 is
a typical plot of water FVF as a function of pressure. As
the pressure is decreased to the bubblepoint, ph. the FVF
increases as the liquid expands. At pressures below the
bubblepoint. gas is liberated, but in most cases the FVF
still will increase because the shrinkage of the water
resulting from gas liberation is insufficient to counter-
balance the expansion of the liquid. This is the effect of
the small solubility of natural gas in water.
The most accurate method of obtaining the FVF is
from laboratory data. It also can be calculated from den-
sity correlations if the effects of solution gas have been
accounted for properly. The following equation is used
to estimate B,,. if solution gas is included in the
laboratory measurement or correlation of P,.~:
H,,=L,..
VW P r
. . (4)
where
V,. = volume occupied by a unit mass of water at
reservoir conditions (weight of gas
dissolved in water at reservoir or standard
conditions is negligible), cu ft,
V,,. = volume occupied by a unit mass of water at
standard conditions, cu ft,
p,(. = density of water at standard conditions,
lbmicu ft, and
prc. = density of water at reservoir conditions,
lbmicu ft.
Fig. 24.6--Specific gravity increase with pressure--salt water
pb
PRESSURE, PSI A
Fig. 24.7-Typical plot of water FVF vs. pressure
The density correlations and the methods of estimating
P,,~ and prc. were described previously.
24-16
The FVF of water can be less than one if the increase
in volume resulting from dissolved gas is not great
enough to overcome the decrease in volume caused by
increased pressure. The value of FVF is seldom higher
than I .06.
Resistivity
The resistivity of formation water is a measure of the
resistance offered by the water to an electrical current. It
can be measured directly or calculated. The direct-
measurement method is essentially the electrical
resistance through a 1 -m cross-sectional area of I m7
of formation water, The fomlation water resistivity,
R ,, $, is expressed in units of Q-m. The resistivity of for-
mation water is used in electric log interpretation and for
such use the value is adjusted to formation
temperature. i (See Chap. 49 for more information).
Surface (Interfacial) Tension (IFT)
Surface tension is a measure of the attractive force acting
at a boundary between two phases. If the phase boundary
separates a liquid and a gas or a liquid and a solid, the at-
tractive force at the boundary usually is called surface
tension; however. the attractive force at the interface
between two liquids is called IFT. IFT is an impor-
tant factor in enhanced recovery processes (see Chap.
47. Chemical Flooding, describing Low-1FT Proc-
CSSCS and Phase Behavior and IFT in the
Miccllar/Polymer Flooding section).
Surface tension is measured in the laboratory by a ten-
siometer. by the drop method, or by other methods.
Descriptions of these methods arc found in most physical
chemistry texts.
Viscosity
The viscosity of formation water, p,, , is a function of
pressure. temperature. and dissolved solids. In gcncral,
brine viscosity increases with increasing prcsaure, in-
creasing salinity. and decreasing tempcraturc.
Dissolved gas in the fomlation water at reservoir condi-
tions generally results in a negligible effect on hater
viscosity. There is little information on the actual
numerical cffcct of dissolved gas on water viscosity.
Gas in solution behaves entirely differently from gas in
hydrocarbons. * In water the presence of the gas actually
causes the water molecules to interact with each other
more strongly, thus increasing the rigidity and viscosity
of the water. However. this effect is very small and has
not been measured to date. In the physical chemistry
literature there is an enormous amount of indirect
evidence to support this concept.
For the best estimation of the viscosity of water. the
reader is referred to a paper by Kestin (11 (11. Their cor-
relating equations involve 32 parameters for calculating
the numerical effect of pressure, temperature. and con-
ccntration of aqueous NaCl solutions on the dynamic and
kinematic viscosity of water. Twenty-eight tables
gcncratcd from the correlating equations cover a
temperature range from 20 to 150C. a pressure range
from 0. I to 35 mPa. and a concentration range from 0 to
6 molal.
Figs. 24.X through 24. IO may be used to approximate
water viscosity for engineering purposes. These figures
show the effects of pressure, temperature, and NaCl con-
tent on the viscosity of water. They may be used when
the primary contaminant is sodium chloride.
Some engineers assume that reservoir brine viscosity
is equal to that of distilled water at atmospheric pressure
and reservoir temperature. In this case it is assumed that
the viscosity of brine is essentially independent of
pressure (a valid premise for the pressure ranges usually
encountered).
The pH
The pH of oilfield waters usually is controlled by the
COfibicarbonate system. Because the solubility of CO?
is directly proportional to temperature and prcssurc, the
pH measurement should be made in the field if a close-
to-natural-conditions value is desired. The pH of the
water is not used for water identification or correlation
purposes. but it does indicate possible scale-forming or
corrosion tendencies of a water. The pH also may in-
dicate the presence of drilling-mud filtrate or well-
trcatmcnt chemicals.
The pH of concentrated brines usually is less than 7.0.
and the pH will rise during laboratory storage. indicating
that the pH of the water in the reservoir probably is ap-
preciably lower than many published values. Addition of
the carbonate ion to sodium chloride solutions will raise
the pH. If calcium is present, calcium carbonate
precipitates. The reason the pH of most oilficld waters
rises during storage in the laboratory is because of the
fomlation of carbonate ions as a result of bicarbonate
decomposition.
The Redox Potential (Eh)
The redox potential often is abbreviated Eh, and also
may be referred to as oxidation potential. oxidation-
reduction potential, or pE. It is expressed in volts. and at
equilibrium it is related to the proportions of oxidized
and reduced species present. Standard equations of
chemical thermodynamics express the relationships.
Knowledge of the redox potential is useful in studies
of how compounds such as uranium. iron. sulfur. and
other minerals are transported in aqueous systems. The
solubility of some elements and compounds depends on
the redox potential and the pH of their environment.
Some water associated with petroleum is interstitial
(connate) water, and has a negative Eh: this has been
proved in various field studies. Knowledge of the Eh is
useful in determining how to treat a water before it is
rein.jected into a subsurface formation. For example. the
Eh of the water will be oxidizing if the water is open to
the atmosphere, but if it is kept in a closed system in an
oil-production operation the Eh should not change ap-
preciably as it is brought to the surface and then rein-
jetted. In such a situation. the Eh value is useful in deter-
mining how much iron will stay in solution and not
deposit in the wellbore.
Organisms that consume oxygen cause a lowering of
the Eh. In buried scdimcnts, it is the aerobic bacteria that
attract organic constituents, which remove the free oxy-
gen from the interstitial water. Sediments laid down in a
shoreline environment will differ in degree of oxidation
24-17
I I191111 I I
1000 10,000
PRESSURE, PSILI
Fig. 24.8-Effect of pressure on the viscosity of water
compared with those laid down in a deepwater environ-
ment. For example, the Eh of the shoreline sediments
may range from -50 to 0 mV, but the Eh of deepwater
sediments may range from - 150 to - 100 mV.
The aerobic bacteria die when the free oxygen is total-
ly consumed; the anaerobic bacteria attack the sulfate
ion, which is the second most important anion in the
seawater. During this attack. the sulfate reduces to
sulfite and then to sulfide; the Eh drops to -600 mV,
H 2 S is liberated, and CaCO 3 precipitates as the pH rises
above 8.5.
Dissolved Gases
Large quantities of dissolved gases are contained in
oilfield brines. Most of these gases are hydrocarbons;
however, other gases such as CO2 , N?. and HzS often
are present. The solubility of the gases generally
decreases with increased water salinity, and increases
with pressure.
Hundreds of drillstem samples of brine from water-
bearing subsurface formations in the U.S. gulf coast area
were analyzed to determine their amounts and kinds of
hydrocarbons. 2o The chief constituent of the dissolved
gases usually was methane, with measurable amounts of
ethane, propane, and butane. The concentration of the
dissolved hydrocarbons generally increased with depth
in a given formation and also increased basinward with
regional and local variations. In close proximity to some
oiltields, the waters were enriched in dissolved
hydrocarbons, and up to I4 scf dissolved gasibbl water
was observed in some locations. A more detailed discus-
sion of this topic is given in Chap. 22.
Organic Constituents
In addition to the simple hydrocarbons, a large number
of organic constituents in colloidal, ionic, and molecular
form occur in oilfield brines. In recent years, some of
these organic constituents have been measured quan-
titatively. However, many organic constituents are pre-
sent that have not been determined in some oilfield
TEMPERATURE , .F
Fig. 24.9-Viscosity of sodium chloride solutions as a function
of temperature and concentration at 14.7 psia.
brines primarily because the analytical problems are dif-
ficult and very time-consuming.
Knowledge of the dissolved organic constituents is im-
portant because these constituents are related to the
origin and/or migration of an oil accumulation, as well
as to the disintegration or degradation of an accumula-
tion. The concentrations of organic constituents in
oilfield brines vary widely. In general, the more alkaline
the water, the more likely that it will contain higher con-
centrations of organic constituents. The bulk of the
organic matter consists of anions and salts of organic
acids: however, other compounds also are present.
; 0.611
I I / I 1
i-
m
0 0.5.
,o
\
TEMPERATURE, F
Fig. 24.10-Effect of temperature on viscosity of water.
24-18
Knowledge of the concentrations of benzcnc. toluene,
and other components in oilfield brines is used in ex-
ploration. The solubilities of some of these compounds
in water at ambient conditions and in saline waters at
elevated tern eraturex
determined. x3.
f:

and pressures have been
However. the actual concentrations of these and other
organic constituents in subsurface oilfield brines is
another matter. It has been shown experimentally that
the solubilities of some organic compounds found in
crude oil increase with temperature and pressure if
pressure is maintained on the system. The increased
solubilitiea become significant above 150C. The
solubilities decrease with increasing water salinity.
Waters associated with paraffinic oils are likely to con-
tain fatty acids. while those associated with asphaltic oils
more likely contain naphthenic acids.
Quantitative recovery of organic constituents from
oilfield brines is difficult. Temperature and pressure
changes. bacterial actions. adsorption. and the high
inorganic/organic-constituents ratio in most oilfield
brines are some reasons why quantitative recovery is
difficult.
Interpretation of Chemical Analyses
Oilfield waters include all waters or brines found in
oilfields. Such waters have certain distinct chemical
characteristics.
About 70% of the world petroleum reserves are
associated with waters containing more than 100 g/L
dissolved solids. A water containing dissolved solids in
excess of 100 g/L can be classified as a brine. Waters
associated with the other 30% of petroleum reserves con-
tain less than 100 g/L dissolved solids. Some of these
waters are almost fresh. However, the presence of
fresher waters usually is attributed to invasion after the
petroleum accumulated in the reservoir trap.
Examples of some of the low-salinity waters can be
found in the Rocky Mt. areas in Wyoming fields such as
Enos Creek, South Sunshine. and Cottonwood Creek.
The Douleb oil field in Tunisia is another example.
The composition of dissolved solids found in oilfield
waters depends on several factors. Some of these factors
are the composition of the water in the depositional en-
vironment of the sedimentary rock, subsequent changes
by rock/water interaction during sediment compaction.
changes by rock/water interaction during water migra-
tion (if migration occurs), and changes by mixing with
other waters, including infiltrating younger waters such
as meteoric waters. The following are definitions of
some types of water.
Types of Water
Meteoric Water. This is water that recently was in-
volved in atmospheric circulation: furthermore, the age
of meteoric groundwater is slight when compared with
the age of the enclosing rocks and is not more than a
small part of a geologic period. I
Seawater. The composition of seawater varies
somewhat, but in general will have a composition
relative to the following (in mg/L): chloride--19.375,
bromide-67, sulfate-2,712. potassium-387. sodium
- 10,760, magnesium- 1,294, calcium-4 13, and stron-
tium-8.
Interstitial Water. Interstitial water is the water con
mined in the small pores or spaces between the minute
grains or units of rock. Interstitial waters are . snl , yc, , t r r i c'
(formed at the same time as the enclosing rocks) or
cyi gcr wr i c (originated by subsequent infiltration into
rocks).
Connate Water. The term connate implies born.
produced. or originated together-connascent. There-
fore. connate water probably should bc considered an in-
terstitial water of syngenetic origin. Connate water of
this definition is fossil water that has been out of contact
with the atmosphere for at least a large part of a geologic
period. The implication that connate waters are only
those born with the enclosing rocks is an undesirable
restriction.
Diagenetic Water. Diagenetic waters are those that have
changed chemically and physically, before. during, and
after sediment consolidation. Some of the reactions that
occur in or to diagenetic waters include bacterial. ion ex-
change, replacement (dolomitization). infiltration by
permeation, and membrane filtration.
Formation Water. Formation water. as defined here, is
water that occurs naturally in the rocks and is present in
them immediately before drilling.
Juvenile Water. Water that is in primary magma or
derived from primary magma is juvenile water.
Condensate Water. Water associated with gas
sometimes is carried as vapor to the surface of the well
where it condenses and precipitates because of
temperature and pressure changes. More of this water
occurs in the winter and in colder climates and only in
gas-producing wells. This water is easy to recognize
because it contains a relatively small amount of dis-
solved solids, mostly derived from reactions with
chemicals in or on the well casing or tubing.
Water analyses may be used to identify the water
source. In the oil field one of the prime uses of these
analyses is to determine the source of extraneous water
in an oil well so that casing can be set and cemented to
prevent such water from flooding the oil or gas horizons.
In some wells a leak may develop in the casing or ce-
ment, and water analyses are used to identify the water-
bearing horizon so that the leaking area can be repaired.
With the current emphasis on water pollution prevention.
it is very important to locate the source of a polluting
brine so that remedial action can be taken.
Comparisons of water-analysis data are tedious and
time-consuming; therefore. graphical methods are com-
monly used for positive, rapid identification. A number
of systems have been developed. all of which have some
merit.
Graphic Plots
Graphic plots of the reacting values can be made to il-
lustrate the relative amount of each radical present. The
graphical presentation is an aid to rapid identification of
a water and classification as to its type. Several methods
have been developed.
Tickell Diagram. The Tickell diagram was developed
using a six-axis system or star diagram. X5 Percentage
reaction values of the ions are plotted on the axes. The
percentage values are calculated by summing the
equivalent proton masses (EPMs) of all the ions.
dividing the EPM of a given ion by the sum of the total
EPMs, and multiplying by 100.
The plots of total reaction values, rather than of
percentage reaction values, are often more useful in
water identification because the percentage values do not
take into account the actual ion concentrations. Water
differing only in concentrations of dissolved constituents
cannot be distinguished.
However, with time and tectonic events plus transgres-
sion and regression of oceans and seas, even these
sediments probably were subjected to marine waters by
infiltration.
In any event. the petroleum, which formed from
organic matter deposited with the sediments, migrated
from what usually is called the source rock into more
porous and permeable sedimentary rock. Petroleum
(i.e., oil and gas) is less dense than water; therefore, it
tends to float to the top of a water body regardless of
whether the water is on the sutiace or in the subsurface.
is an oilfield water.
The question of the origin of oilfield brines is difficult
to answer in a general manner. The water involved and
the constituents dissolved in the water to form the brine
can involve divergent histories. Subsurface water is there
either because it originally was there or because it in-
Therefore, water associated with petroleum in a sub-
surface reservoir is called an oilfield water. By this
definition, any water associated with a petroleum deposit
filtrated to the subsurface from the surface. If it was
there originally, it would be endogenetic, whereas if it
infiltrated from the surface and/or penetrated with sedi-
Stiff Diagram. Stiff plotted the reaction values of the
Reistle Diagram. Reistle devised a method of plotting
ions on a system of rectangular coordinates. 87 The cat-
water analyses by using the ion concentrations. * The
ions are plotted to the left and the anions to the right of a
vertical zero line. The endpoints then are connected by
data are plotted on a vertical diagram. with the cations
straight lines to form a closed diagram, sometimes called
a butterfly diagram. To emphasize a constituent that
plotted above the central zero line and the anions below.
may be a key to interpretation, the scales may be varied
by changing the denominator of the ion fraction. usually
This type of diagram often is useful in making regional
in multiples of 10. However, when a group of waters is
being considered, all must be plotted on the same scale.
correlations or studying lateral variations in the water of
a single formation because several analyses can be plot-
ted on a large sheet of paper.
ment accumulations, it would be exogenetic.
Obviously these two types of waters could meet and
mix in the subsurface and thus the mixture would contain
water of two separate origins. The problem could multi-
ply if more than one exogenetic water were involved.
The chemical composition of an oilfield brine is an end
product of several variables. These variables include (I)
dissolved ions, salts, gases, and organic matter, (2) reac-
tions between these dissolved constituents, and (3) in-
teraction of the brine with the surrounding rocks,
petroleum, etc. There are a number of pertinent reactions
that could cause the composition of a subsurface oilfield
brine to change in composition, including leaching of the
rocks, ion exchange between water and rock, redox,
mineral hydration, mineral formation and/or dissolution,
ion diffusion, gravitational segregation of ions, and
membrane filtration, or other osmotic effects.
Many investigators believe that this is the best method
of comparing oilfield water analyses. The method is sim-
ple. and nontechnical personnel can be easily trained to
construct the diagrams.
Other Methods. Several other water identification
diagrams have been developed, primarily for use with
fresh waters, and they are not discussed here. The Stiff
and Piper diagrams, 87~88 were ada ted to automatic data
processing by Morgan et al .
*B
and Morgan and
McNellis. * The Piper diagram uses a multiple trilinear
plot to depict the water analysis. and this quaternary
diagram shows the chemical composition of the water in
terms of cations and anions.88 Angino and Morgan ap-
plied the automated Stiff and Piper diagrams to some
oilfield brines and obtained good results.
Occurrence, Origin, and Evolution of
Oilfield Waters
The sedimentary rocks that now consist of stratified
deposits originally were laid down as sediments in
oceans, seas. lakes. and streams. Naturally. these
sediments were filled with water. This water is still pres-
ent in the stratified sediments and millions of years later
would be considered truly connate water.
Many large sedimentary strata originally were
associated with oceans and seas. The original associated
water. therefore. was marine in such sediments.
Sediments laid down by lakes and streams would not
contain a marine water during their initial deposition.
It is rather difficult to rank the factors that might be
more important for general consideration. However. two
of the more important factors probably are the original
composition of the water and interaction of that water
with the rocks. If one assumes that the original water was
a marine water and that the associated sediments (subse-
quently sedimentary rocks) were marine, then the
original composition of the marine water could be an im-
portant factor.
However, even the salinity in the various oceans and
seas is not constant. For example. the salinity of the
waters in the major oceans ranges from 33,000 to 38,000
mg/L, about 40,000 mg/L in the Mediterranean Sea, up
to 70,000 mg/L in the Red Sea. about 18,000 to 22,000
mg/L in the Black Sea, and only about I .OOO mg/L in the
Baltic Sea. Some land-locked waters. such as the Dead
Sea. Great Salt Lake, etc., contain waters that are nearly
saturated with dissolved solids.
Studies of formation waters in the western Canada
sedimentary basin indicate that 85% of the strata were
deposited under marine conditions, while 15% were
deposited under brackish-water and possibly under
freshwater conditions. y2 These investigators estimated
that 80% of all the sedimentary strata in Alberta were
deposited under marine conditions. This led to the con-
clusion that one could assume with negligible error that
all sedimentary strata originally contained seawater.
Further, the study indicated that evaporites form an
important volumetric part of several of the stratigraphic
units. Some of the stratigraphic units possibly contain
bitterns subsequent to halite precipitation but preceding
precipitation of potassium salts. They calculated an
average formation water salinity of about 46,000 mg/L
TDS. which indicated a net gain of dissolved salts. Of
the major and some minor components, all showed a net
gain with the exception of Mg and SOa.
Factor analysis was used in interpretation of the
analyses. and the following factors were considered to be
major controls: composition of the original seawater,
dilution by freshwater recharge, membrane filtration,
solution of halite. dolomitization, bacterial reduction of
sulfate. formation of chlorite. cation exchange on clays,
contribution from organic matter, and solubility
relationships.
It was concluded that (I) the formation waters of
western Canada are ancient seawaters in which the
deuterium concentration was changed because of mixing
with infiltrating fresh water, (2) oxygen-18 was ex-
changed with carbonates in the rocks, and (3) dissolved
salts are in equilibrium with the rock matrix subsequent
to their redistribution by membrane filtration and/or dilu-
tion by freshwater recharge. Equilibrium was attained by
such processes as dissolution of evaporates, new mineral
formation. cation exchange on clays. desorption of ions
from clays and organic matter, and mineral solubilities.
The majority of the published research studies seem to
agree that all these controls and/or reactions are involved
in establishing the composition of oilfield brines. Fur-
ther. most investigators agree with the assumption that
marine water usually is a part of the original material
from which formation waters evolve. Opinions,
however, are not unanimous with respect to how they
evolved. The major disagreements are related to the
membrane filtration theory and to other modes of con-
ccntrating the dissolved solids such as seawater
evaporation.
It is possible to reconstruct the evolution of some
oilfield brines in sedimentary basins if one reasons that
they are genetically related to evaporites. For example.
geochemical and geological studies of some very con-
centrated brines indicate that in deep quiescent bodies of
water. strong bitterns can persist for long periods of time
under a layer of near-normal seawater. As a result, car-
bonates can precipitate from the less saline water and fall
through the bittern at the bottom, and. as compaction
proceeds. the pore spaces remain filled with bitterns.
Some fossil brines once trapped have not moved very far
or very fast.
A geochemical model can be built to represent the
origin and evolution of this type of brine by using the
relatively simple operations and processes of (I)
evaporation. (2) precipitation, (3) sulfate reduction, (4)
mineral fomlation and diagenesis. (5) ion exchange. (6)
leaching. and (7) expulsion of interstitial fluids from
evaporites during compaction.
Experimental work indicated that about 14% of the
bromide in seawater precipitates with the halite as
seawater evaporates. The average concentration of
bromide in the Smackover brines is 3,100 mg/L.
Therefore. the average degree of concentration of these
brines compared to seawater is 3,100+65 =48. Assum-
ing that seawater is concentrated 50-fold, the approx-
imate composition of a brine can be calculated. 26
Shale Compaction and Membrane Filtration
Some investigators believe that the salinity variations
found in oilfield waters are the result of filtration of
water through shale. The membrane filtration theory
first was suggested by De Sitter. Laboratory ex-
periments indicated that natural shales can act as
semipermeable membranes. ys.y6 This system working in
nature should cause a water to be more saline on one side
of the shale membrane and almost fresh or less saline on
the other side. This follows because the shale membrane
should filter out the dissolved ions on the upflow side.
causing the water on the downflow side to contain few or
no dissolved ions.
Quantities of Produced Water
An analysis was made of the approximate amount of
water produced with crude oil in I4 states. The states and
their percent of total U.S. crude oil production in 1981
are: Alabama, 0.3%; Alaska, 19.9%; California,
I I .7%; Colorado, I .O%; Florida, I .4%; Louisiana.
13.4%; Montana, 1.0%; Mississippi, 1.2%; Nebraska,
0.2%; New Mexico, 2.3%; North Dakota, 1.4%;
Texas, 31.2%; Utah, 0.8%: and Wyoming, 4.2%.
Fig. 24.1 I indicates the crude oil and water production
from wells in the 14 states. The figure indicates produc-
tion of about 4.3 bbl water/bbl oil. Fig. 24.12 is a
similar graph for 13 states excluding Alaska. This figure
indicates production of about 5.2 bbl wateribbl oil. Fur-
ther. it can be shown that oil wells produce more water
as cumulative oil production increases. In other words,
the older the well, the higher the WOR.
Recovery of Minerals From Brines
Extraction of minerals from oilfield brines should be
considered in production planning (I) to recoup explora-
tion and development costs, (2) to prevent environmental
damage from brine, (3) to produce potable water. and (4)
to conserve all valuable minerals and energy.
Precipitation is the most common separation process
used in separating minerals from any type of brine.
Minerals recovered from brines in the U.S. include com-
pounds of iodine, bromine. chlorine, sodium. lithium.
potassium, magnesium, and calcium.
Evaporation of a saline water or brine will cause the
precipitation of calcium carbonate. calcium sulfate,
sodium chloride, magnesium sulfate, potassium
chloride, and finally magnesium chloride. These are the
major chemicals in most brines, and this is the sequence
order in which these compounds will precipitate. Mere
preclpltation will not produce a very pure chemical from
a brine; therefore, other chemical or physical processes
arc used.
For example. iodine, which is in the foml of iodide in
a brine. is recovered by these steps: (I) the iodide is ox-
idized to iodine, (2) the iodine is stripped from the brine,
(3) the iodine then is reduced back to iodide, (4) the
iodide is oxidized again to iodine, (5) the iodine is
D 2700C
2
6
6
2 2600C
E
ZSOOC
BOO<
700(
6OOt
H---L,-
--4
,/ Crude
I I I I
1975 76 77 78 73 80
YEAR
Fig. 24.1 I-Crude oil and water produced ( x 1,000 B/D) from
wells in 14 states including Alaska.
crystallized and filtered, and (6) the iodine crystals are
purified further.
Bromine is recovered by a similar though, of course,
different process. It is present in a brine as bromide. The
U.S. Bureau ofMines Yearbook9 contains information
on general recovery technology, domestic production,
consumption and uses, prices, stocks, etc., of minerals
recovered from brines as well as minerals recovered
from other sources.
The first plant in the U.S. in more than 40 years built
solely to produce iodine from brine went on stream in
1977 near Woodward, OK. It has a design capacity of 2
million lbm iodineiyr or about 30% of the annual U.S.
demand. Some smaller-scale operations to recover
iodine started in 1982 near Kingfisher, OK.
Several plants recover bromine and other constituents
from brine near El Dorado, AR. The brine is produced
from the Smackover formation.
Magnesium and other chemicals are recovered from
lake brines, well brines, and seawater in plants located
near Ogden, UT; Ludington, MI: Freeport, TX; and
Port St. Joe, FL. Lithium is recovered from brine near
Clayton Valley, NV. 98
Economic Evaluation
It is true that market demand fluctuates with supply;
therefore, any company considering an enterprise to
30000
29000
27000
g
o 26000
z
I
25000
c
7000
6000
5000
I!
13 Stclcs (ercludlng Aiasio)
5 76 77 70 79
YEAR
80
Fig. 24.1 P-Crude oil and water produced ( x 1,000 B/D) from
wells in 13 states excluding Alaska.
recover minerals from brines should make an in-depth
study of the current and potential economics. Some of
the factors that must be determined are (1) concentm-
tions of valuable minerals in a brine, (2) amount of brine
available, (3) costs of gathering the brine, (4) costs of
recovering the minerals from the brine, (5) present and
potential market demand for the recovered minerals, and
(6) costs of delivering the minerals to the market. 26
References
1. Rogers, W.B. and Rogers, H.D.: On the Connection of Thermal
Springs m Virgin& with Anticlinal Axes and Faults, Am. GPO/.
Rep. (1843) X-47.
2. Howell, J.V.: Historical Development of the Structural Theory
of Accumulation of Oil and Gas, W.E. Wrathcr and F.H. Lahee
(edi.). AAPG, Tulsa (1934) l-23.
3. Dickey, P.A.: The First Oil Well, J. Pet. Tec~h. (Jan. 1959)
14-26.
4. Schilthuis. R.J.: Connate Water m Oil and Gas Sands, Trtrnr.,
AIME (1938) 127. 199-214.
5. Torrey. P.D.: The Discovq of Interstitial Water. Prtrd.
Mmh/\ (1966) 30, 8-12.
6. Griswold, W.T. and Munn, M.J.: Geology of Oil and Gas
Fields in Steubenville. Burg&&town and Claysvllle Quadrangles,
Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, Bull., USGS (1907) No.
318. 196.
7. Fettke, C.R.: Bradford Oil Field, Pennsylvania. and New
York, Bull , Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Fourth Ser. (1938)
M21, l-454.
8. Munn, M.J.: The Anticlinal and Hydraulic Theories of Oil and
Gas Accumulation, Icon. Gee!. (1920) 4. 509-29.
Mills, F. van A.: Experimental Studies of Subsurface Relation-
ships in Oil and Gas Fields. Econ. Geol. (1920) 15. 398-421.
Rich, J.L.: Futther Notes on the Hydraulic Theory ofOil Migrd-
tion and Accumulation. Bull AAPG (1923) 7. 213-25
Torrey. P.D.: A Review of Secondary Recovery of 011 in the
United States. Secondary Recovers of Oil in thy United Statr.r.
API, New York City (l9iO) 3-29.
Garrison, A.D.: Selective Wetting of Reservoir Rock and Ita
Relation to Oil Production, Dri(!. bnd Prod. Pruc.. New York
City (1935) 130-40.
Lane. A.C. and Gordon. W.C.: Mine Waters and Their Field
Assay, Bull., Geologx Sot. of America (1908) 19. 501-12.
White, D.E.: Magmatic, Connate, and Metamorphic Water,
Bull., Geologic Sot. of America (1957) 68. 1659-82.
Wallace, W.E.: Water Production from Abnormally Pressured
Gas Reservoirs in South Louisiana, J. Pet. Tmb. (Aug 1969)
969-82.
Rrcovmended Pructice j?v Anulyi.~ oj Oilfieid Wuters. API
RP-45, API, Dallas (1968).
24-22
9
IO
11
I2
13
I4
IS
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Salme and Brackish Waters, Sea Waters and Brines, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Annucd Book of ASTM Sm-
r/c&~. Part 3l-Water. Section VII. Philadelphia (1982).
Ostroff. A.G.: Introduction to Oilfield Water Technology.
NACE. Houston (1979) 394.
Noad. D.F.: Water Analysis Data, Interpretation and Applica-
tion, J. C&z. Pet. Tech. (1962) 1, 82-89.
Buckley. S.E.. Hocott. C.R. and Tanean. M.S. Jr.: Distribution
of Dissolved Hydrocarbons in Subsurface Waters. Hubrtrrr o/
Oil, L.C. Weeks (ed.). AAPG, Tulsa (1958) 850-82.
Zarrella. W.M. et ol. Analysis and Significance of Hydrocar-
bons in Subsurface Brines. Geochim. Cosmochirn. Arm (I 9b7)
31. 1155-66.
Bailey. N.J.L. ef al. : Alteration of Crude Oils by Water and
Bacteria-Evidence from Geochemical and Isotope Studieh.
Buli.. AAPG (1973) 57, No. 7, 1276-90.
Carothers. W W.: Aliphatic Acid Anions and Stable Carbon
Isotopes of Oil Field Waters in the San Joaquin Valley, Califor-
nia. Masters thesir, San Jose (CA) State U. (1976).
Sunwall. M.T. and Pushkar, P.: The Isotopic Composition of
Strontmm in Brines from Petroleum Fields of Southeastern Ohio,
Chem. Geol. (1979) 24. 189-97.
Hoke, S.H. and Collins, A.C.: Mobile Wellhead Analyzer for
the Determination of Unstable Constituents in Oil-Field Waters.
ASTM STP 735 (1981) 34-48.
Collins. A.G.: Geochemisr~ of Oil&/d Wafers, Elsevier Scien-
tific Publishing Co.. New York City (1975) 496.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Beestecher, E : Petroleum Microbiology-on Inmroducrion to
Microbiological Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co..
New York City (1954) 375.
Davis. J.B.: Prrrdrum Microbrology, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Co., New York City (1967) 604
Patton, C.C.: Oilfield Water Swtems, Campbell Petroleum Series.
Norman. OK (1974) 65.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Postgate, J.R.: The Sulfate Reducing Bacteria, Cambridge U.
Press, New York City (1979) 151.
Bright, J.: Oil&Id Water Analysis Data Bank, DOE/EC/
10116-2, U.S. DOE (1983).
Watkins, J.W.: Properties of Produced Water. Perroleum Pro-
duction Handbook, T.C. Frick and R.W. Taylor (eds.). SPE,
Richardson, TX (1962) II, 21.1-21.20.
McGrain. P. and Thomas. G.R.: Preliminary Report on the
Natural Brines of Eastern Kentucky, Kenluck?/ Geol. Sur~je>
Report (1951) 3.
McGrain, P.: Miscellaneous Analyses of Kentucky Brines.
Kentucky Geol. Survey Report (1953) 7.
Lambom. R.E.: Additional Analvses on Brines from Ohio.
Ohio Grol. Surveys Report (1952) li.
Stout, W., Lambom. R.E., and Schnaf, D.: Brines of Ohio.
BUM., Ohio Geol. Survey, 4th Series (1932) 37.
Barb, C.F.: Oil-field Waters of Pennsylvania. Penn. Slate.
Cdl. BUU. (1931) 8.
Torrey, P.D.: Composition of Oil-Field Waters of the Ap-
palachian Region, Sidney Powers Memorial Volume. AAPG
(1934) 84-53.
Price, P. er al.. Salt Brines of West Virginia, Wrsr Virginra
Cd survqv (1937) 8.
Rogen. G.S.: Chemical Relation of the Oil-Field Waters in San
Jaaquin Valley, Calif., Bull.. U.S. Geol. Survey (1917) 653. 5.
41
42
43
44
4s.
46.
47
48
49.
50.
51
.52,
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
12.
73.
Jensen. F.W and Rolshausen. F.W.: Water\ from the Frio For-
mation, Texas Gulf Coast. Trms.. AIME (1944) 155. 23-38.
Rogen, G.S.. Some Oil-field Waters of the Gulf Coast, Buil.,
AAPG (1919) 3. 310-31
Minor. H.E.: Oil-field Waters of the Gulf Coast Plain, Siciner
Pmers Memoriul Volume. AAPG (1934) 89 I-905.
Meents. W.F. er ul. : Illinois Oil-field Brines. Illinois Geoi.
Survq Div., I//. Per. (1952) 66.
Schoewe. W.H.: Kansas Oil-field Brines and Their Magnesium
Content, Bull., U. of Kansas Publ. (1943) 47, pt. 2.
Rail. C. and Wright. J.: Analyses of Formation Brines in Kan-
sas. RI 4974, USBM (1953).
Survey of Oklahoma Formation Waters. Mid-Continent
District Study Comm. and the U. of Tulsa (1957).
Wright, J. ef al. : Analyses of Brines from Oil-productive Forma-
tlons in Oklahoma. RI 5326. USBM (1957).
Plummer. F.B. and Sament. E.C.: Underzround Waters and
Subsurface Temperature; of the Woodbme Sand in Northeast
Texas. Bull.. U. of Texas Publications (1931) 3138.
Plummer, F.B.: Texas Water Resources. Bull.. U. of Texas
PublIcationa (1943) 4301. 301-12.
Barnes, V.E.: Eanh Temperatures and O&field Waters of
North-Central Texas, Bull., U. of Texas Publications (1943)
4301. 313-57.
Bergcr. W.R. and Fash. R.H.: Relation of Water Analvseh to
Structure and Porosity in the West Texas Permian Basin. . 10 -5. I I<\
Pon,ers Mmorial I/oiunte. AAPG (1934) 869-89.
Beeler. H.S., McKinney, O.B.. and White, V.C.: The Chemical
Analyses of Brines from Some Fields m North and West Texas.
Petroleum Branch. AIME (1953).
Coff-in. C.R. and DeFord. R.K.: Waters of the Oil and Gas
Bearing Formationr of the Rocky Mountains. Sidnev Povert
Memoriul Volume, AAPG (1934) 927-52.
Crawford. J.G.: Waters of Producing Fields in the Rockv Moun-
7rcm.x 1 AIME (1948) 179, 26486. . tain Region,
Crawford, J.G.: Oil-field Waters of Montann Plains. Blrll..
AAPG (1942) 26. pt. 2. 1317-74.
ROSS, J.S. and Swedenborg, E.A.: Analyses of Waters of the
Salt Creek Field Applied to Underground Problems. Trmx..
AIME (1929) 82. 207-20.
Cmwford. J.G.: Oil-field Waters of Wyoming and Their Rela-
tion to Geological Formations. Bull., AAPG (1940) 24, pt. 2.
1214-1329.
Campbell. W.P.: Oil-field Waters of Alberta and Saskatch-
ewan. Trans. 1 Cdn. Inst. Mining Met. (1929) 32. 316-32.
Elworthy, R.T.: A Field Method and Apparatus for the Deter-
mination by Means of Electrical Conductivity Measurements of
the Character of Waters Leaking into Oil and Gas Wells. Cdn.
Dept. Mines Summary Rept. No. 605 (1922) 58-70.
Hitchon. B.: Formation Fluids, Gw/o#d H/srory of Wesrem
Cnnrrda, R.G. McCrossan and R.P. Glaister (eda.). Alberta Sot.
of Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, Alta. (1964) 201-17.
Harris, W.E. et al.: Viking Formation Waters of Alberta, Alto.
SK Per. Geol. (July 1957).
Analyses of Formation Water Samples. Dept. Mming
Resources, Mmes Branch, Province of Manitoba. Canada.
Analyses of Formation Water Samples, Dept. Mining
Resources, Mines Branch, Provmce of Saskatchewan. Canada.
Borger, H.D.: Case History of Quniquire Field. Venezuela.
Bull. , AAPG. 31, 229 I-2330.
Oil Fields of Royal Dutch-Shell Group in Western Venezuela,
Bull., AAPG (1948) 31. 517-623.
Suter. H.H.: El Mene De Acosta Field, Falcon, Venezuela.
Bull.. AAPG, 31, 2193-2206.
Hedberg. H.D., Sass. L.C., and Funkhouser, H.J.: Oil Fields of
Greater Olicma Area, Central Anaoategui. Venezuela, Euli.,
AAPG (1947) 31, No. 12, 2089-2169.
Rittenhouse, G. et al.: Minor Elements in Oilfield Waters,
Chem Gee/. (1969) 4, 189-209.
Krejci-Graf, K.: Data on the Geochemistry of Oilfield Waters,
Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe KJ (1978) 3, No. 174, 21-25.
Bockmeulen. H., Barker, C.. and Dickey, P.A.: Geology and
Geochemistry of Crude Oils, Bolivar Coastal Field?, Venezuela.
Bul/. , AAPG (1983) 242-70.
Collins. A.G.: Geochemistry of Some Tertiary and Cretaceous
Age Oil-Bearing Formation Waters, Environmental Science and
Tec,hnologv (1967) 1, 725-30.
74
7s
76.
71.
78
79
x0.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
0\1f. T.L.: The Eftccth of Salt. Gar. Temperature. and Pre\>urc
on the Comprewhdtty of W&x-, paper SPE I.1 174 pre\cnttd at
the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Houston. Scpt I6- 19.
246.
Dotaon, C.R. and Standing. M.B.: Pressure. Volume,
Temperature and Soluhility Relation5 for Natural Gas-Water MIX-
turcs: Drill. t/d Prod. Prw.. API (1944) 173-79.
Rowe, A.M. Jr. and Chou. J.C.S.: Pressure-Volume-
Temperature-Concentration Relations of Aqueous NaCl Solu-
tion\. J. Chw~. Dutcr (1970) 15, 61-66.
Ashhy. W.H. Jr. and Hawkins, M.F.: The Solubility of Natural
Gas in Oil-Field Brines. paper presented at the 1948 SPE Annual
Meetmg. Dallas. Oct. 4-6.
Roger\. P.S.Z. and Pitzer. K S.: Volumctnc Propcrtlc5 of
Aqueous Sodium Chlonde Solutions. J. Ply.\. Clrtwr. Rcf: D~rt<r
(1982) 11. No. I. 15-81.
Wy II ie. M. R.J.: 77w F[rn~~~rr,lrnr~r/s of WC,// Lo,q //lrc,rpn,ta/i/,/r,
wcond edstnn. Academx Press [nc.. New York CQ (1954) ret.
1957.
Amyx. J W.. Bass. C.M. Jr.. and Whiting, R.L.: Pcrrolrwi
Rccr~~vir Fqi,wcv%,q. McCrdw~Hill Book Co. Inc., New York
City (1960).
K&in. J.. Khahfa. H.E.. and Co&a, R.J.: Tables of the
Dynamic and Kinematic Viscosity of Aqueour NaCl Solutitrn\ in
the Temperature Range 2Ol5OC and the Pressure Range 0 I-35
MPa.J. fhrs. Chcwr. Rrf Dmtr (1981) 10. No. I, 71-87.
McAuliffe. C.D.: Solubiiity in Water of Paraffin, Cycloparatiin.
Olefin. Acetylene. Cycle-olefin and Aromatic Hydrocarbons, J.
Phy. C/w,,,. ( 1966) 70, 1267-75.
Prince, L.C.: Aqueous Solubility of Petroleum as Applied IO Its
Ongin and Primary Migration. &t/l.. AAPG t 1976) 2 13-44
Tickell, F.G.: A Method for Graphical Interpretation of Water
Analy\i\. Co/,/: Sfrw Oil Gr~r Suprrv. (1921) 6. 5-I I
X6.
x7.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
44.
95.
96.
97.
9x.
Reistlc. C.E.: ldentlticatwn of Oilficld Water\ bp Chcnwal
Analysi\. U.S. Bur. Min. Techmcal Paper, 404 (1927).
Stllf. H.A. Jr.: The Intcrprctntion of Chemical Water Analysis
by Mean5 of Patterns. J. Pet. Twh. (1951) 192. 15-17.
Piper. A.M.: A Graphic Proccdurc m the Geochemical Inter-
pretation of Water Analyw. U.S. Geol. Sun: Ground Water
Note 12, (1953).
Morgan. C.O.. Dingman, R.J.. nnd McNelli\. J.M.: Digital
Computer Methods fur Water-quahty Data. Griwrcl wow,
(1966) 4, 35-42.
Morgan. C.O. and McNellis. J.M.: Still Diapraut~ ul Wnter-
quality Data Programmed for the Digital Cumputer. Kanses
State Geol. Sun,. Spec. Dtstrib. Publ. 43 (lY6Y)
Angino. E.E. and Morgan. C.O. Appllcotlon of Pattcm
Analysi\ to the Classification of Oilfield Brine\. Kanw Slale
Cc01 Sure. Comput. Contrlb. 7 (1966) 53-56.
Hitchon. B.. Billings. G.K., and Klovan. J E.: Geochemlwy
and Origin of Formation Waters in the Western Canada Sedimcn~
tary Basin-Ill. Factors Controlling Chemical Compovt~on.
G<w/?i/,~ Cmr,wc~hi~,~. Am, ( I97 I ) 35. 567-98.
Clayton. R.N. ct r/l. : The Origin 01Snline Fomwion Waters. I.
Isotopic Composition. J. G~qdi,u Rc.\. (1966) 71. 3869-112
De Sitter, L.U.: Diagene\ir of Oil-field Bnnes. &f/I. AAPG
( 1947) 2030-40.
Kharaka. Y.K. and Berry. F.A.F.: Simultaneous Flou of Water
and Solutes Through Geological Membranes 1. Experimental In-
vestigations. Geoc~hiul. Co.\r,?oc~/iil,i. AC ICI. ( 1973) 37.
2.577~260.7.
McKelvey. J.G. and Milne. J.H.: The Flow of Salr Solution
Through Compactrd Clay. in Clays and Clay Mmen~l\. 9th Natl.
Conf. Clays and Clay Mineral\ (1962) 24X-59.
U.S. Bwwrrc c~f h4i r w. s Mi ner t r l c Yr wr hd. Ah/ d\ . Mi wn~l ~. mr l
Fwk. U.S. Bureau of Mine\. Washinztcm. D.C. (Yearlv).
Vine. J.D.: Lithntm Resources and Requirements by the Year
2000. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1005, U.S.
Gwemment Printini Office. iahhingtun D.C. t i976)
Chapter 25
Phase Behavior of
Water/Hydrocarbon Systems
Riki Kobayashi, Rice U. *
Kyoo Y. Song, Rice U.
E. Dendy Sloan, Colorado School of Mines
Introduction
The occurrence of water with hydrocarbons both in the
reservoir and in the produced states represents the norm.
Even though streams saturated with water enter the pro-
ducing tubing, subsequent cooling generally produces
separate phases of low mutual solubilities. Nevertheless,
the mutual solubility of water and hydrocarbons is ex-
tremely significant in the processing of produced fluids.
In the reservoir, their mutual solubilities increase as the
temperature increases, either as a result of reservoir
depth or external heating, as in the case of a
steamflooding operation. Thus, the definition of the
saturated water content in the equilibrium phases is the
subject of this chapter. The coexisting phases may be
gas, G, hydrocarbon-rich liquid, LHC, water-rich liquid,
L,, or hydrate, H, although the coexisting phases are
seldom pure. The advent of EOR processes that use CO 2
gives rise to the occurrence of a CO*-rich liquid phase,
which we designate Lco2 .
General Hydrocarbon/Water Phase
Diagrams and Equilibrium Data Sources
For a given mixture of oil, water, and gas, the definition
of the phases in equilibrium at any given pressure and
temperature is of importance to the reservoir engineer.
The prediction of the extent, composition, and other
equilibrium properties of the phases in equilibrium is the
objective of thermodynamic calculations. Given the
number of components in the mixture and the number of
coexisting phases, the number of independent variables
t hat must be specified to describe the system (thcr-
modynamically) is given by the phase rule of Gibbs.
Authors of the onginat chapter on this topic in the 1962 edltwn were John J McKetta
and Albert H Wehe
which states that the degrees of freedom or number of
independent variables required to define the system, F,
equals the number of components, C, minus the num-
ber of phases, P+2, or F=C-PC2. A few examples
given this important relationship are summarized in Ta-
ble 25.1.
The phase rule is essentially a rule of algebra ap-
plied to equations of equilibrium and as such does not
specify which phases are in equilibrium or their
equilibrium concentrations. Nevertheless, its value in the
organization of knowledge regarding phases in
equilibrium and their relationship is important and
always should be respected and used.
The pressure-temperature projection of the univariant
coexistence lines of binary hydrocarbon/water systems
represents a unique way of summarizing the phase
behavior of the system. The methane/water system is
one in which the critical point of the gas falls far below
the ice point. With high pressures, even at moderate
temperatures, solid hydrates are formed. The pressure-
temperature projection of the system is given by Fig.
25.1 .2 Of particular interest to petroleum production
engineers is the precise location of the L,.-H-G line or
the initial hydrate formation condition. Since natural
gases vary in composition, the L,-H-G line is usually
compositionally dependent.
Fig. 25.2 shows a constant-pressure trace of the
saturation conditions of the methane/water binary system
at a constant pressure exceeding the critical pressure of
methane. Among the important features of this diagram
are the dissolved gas concentration of the water-rich liq-
uid phase (e.g., at Point 4), the equilibrium dewpoint
locus, the initial hydrate formation temperature along the
horizontal line 7-2-5-6, and the equilibrium and
25-2
TABLE 25.1-SUMMARY AND MEANING OF
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
Number of Equilibrium
Comoonents Phases
Number of
Independent
Variables
Required To
Represent each
Locus of States
metastable dewpoint locus (Line 7-8) below the initial
hydrate formation temperature and below the stable dew-
point line. The definition of the equilibrium dewpoint
water content for methane has been determined by Olds
et al. 3 and the initial hydrate formation condition by
Villard,4 Deaton and Frost, 5 Kobayashi and Katz, and
Marshall et al. 6
The definition of the gas-hydrate equilibrium locus, as
distinguished from the metastable equilibrium locus er-
roneously reported in most dewpoint charts, has been
reported by Sloan et al. The measurement of the gas
hydrate compositions or hydrate numbers for methane
was conducted successfully by Galloway et al. 8 and
found in essential agreement with the statistical
mechanical theory of van der Waals and Platteeuw, as
applied by Saito et al. O as well as Panish and
Prausnitz, and other subsequent workers.
The second type of pressure-temperature projection
presented is for the propane-water system in which the
critical temperature of the hydrocarbon exceeds the ice
point. Since the aqueous and hydrocarbon-rich phases
exhibit low mutual solubilities, a three-phase H-L,-G
condition occurs in the neighborhood of the vapor
pressure of condensable hydrocarbons such as propane.
Fig. 25.4 presents a constant-pressure trace of Fig.
25.3 at a pressure less than the critical pressure of pro-
pane (Kobayashi t t ), The principal qualitative difference
between Figs. 25.2 and 25.4 is the existence of the
LHC-G region in the latter that is absent in the former, at
least at moderate temperatures. Note that in the LH~-G
region of Fig. 25.4, the water concentration of the gas
phase is larger than in the equilibrium liquid phase at the
same temperature. On the contrary, in the G-L,,, region,
the water concentration in the saturated gas is rather less
than in the equilibrium water-rich liquid phase.
Owing to the differences in the molecular sizes of
methane and propane, the hydrate structures of methane
hydrate (Structure I) and of propane hydrate (Structure
II) are quite different.
By using phase diagrams such as Figs. 25.2 and 25.4,
it is possible to trace the phase transitions one would ex-
pect to encounter for various composition mixtures as the
temperature of the system is lowered. It is important to
note that hydrates can form directly from the fluid
hydrocarbon phase (i.e., in the absence of free liquid
600
KEY
TEPPERATURE, F
- Tw C@+MENTS
- - @i E CCh' FOdEM
- - - - - - CRI TI CAL LrK"S
0
~TVANE CRI T~L
-300
El WATERCRI TI CAL
c.
- 9
QsLwPLE Pol Nl
v
THREE PHASE CRI TI CAL
G - L,
I
_ ,;
- HETASTABLE DEW PT. ' - %
$: I i
LOCUS
I
03)
N-H
PURE METHANE IERCENT t' LI RE WATER
Fig. 25.1-Pressure-temperature projection of univariant Fig. 25.2-Constant-pressure trace of the methane/water
heterogeneous equilibrium in the methane-water system at a pressure greater than the methane
system. critical pressure.
PHASE BEHAVIOR OF WATER/HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS
-400 0 400 ml
TEWERATLUE, F
Fig. 25.3-Pressure-temperature projection of univariant
heterogeneous equilibrium in the propane-water
system.
water at low water compositions) provided that the
temperature is sufficiently low and turbulence is present
or the equilibration times are large, as shown by Cady *
The metastable dewpoint line shown in Fig. 25.2 (Line
7-8) rather than the true equilibrium state may be at-
tained under certain situations to give a false or
metastable indication of equilibrium (Kobayashi and
Katz 13).
References for aqueous/volatile-gas systems related to
petroleum production are listed in the references at the
end of the chapter. These are for methane/water system
(Refs. 3 and 14 through 44), natural-gas/water (Refs. 13
and 45 through 52), COz/water (Refs. 31, 44, and 53
through 96). and for nitrogen/water (Refs. 24. 31( 33
through 36. 62. and 97 through 120). References for
other binary and ternary hydrocarbon/water systems are
listed in the general references.
References for hydrate/volatile-gas systems are for
methane/water (Refs. 2,4,6 through 8. and 121 through
129). natural-gas/water (Refs. 126 and 130 through
135). CO?/water (Refs. 5 and 136 through 139), and
nitrogen/water (Refs. 6, 140, and 201). References for
other binary and ternary hydrocarbon/hydrate systems
are listed in the general references.
25-3
P -l-l I
PERCENT WATER
I-lJKt WAlltft
Fig. 25.4-Constant-pressure trace of the propane/water
system at a pressure less than the propane critical
pressure.
As shown in Figs. 25.1 through 25.4 for the
methane/water and propane/water systems, the phase
behavior of such systems is complicated by the existence
of multiphase equilibria, including solid phases such as
hydrate or ice. The former phase is particularly
troublesome in petroleum production since solid
hydrates can form at temperature above the ice point
wherein the concentration of water in the system is quite
low. Fig. 25.5 presents the univariant three-phase loci
for various binary hydrocarbon/water systems and shows
their critical hydrate formation loci (solid lines).
The variability of the water content of hydrocarbon-
rich phases for a condensable system perhaps is il-
lustrated best by Fig. 25.6, which shows the concentra-
tion of water in the propane-rich phases in the pro-
pane/water system. In the low-pressure gaseous region
the water content is determined primarily by the vapor
pressure of water, whereas in the condensed propane
region the solubility of water in the propane-rich liquid
phase is determined by the strong repulsion of water by
the hydrocarbon owing to the thorough hydrogen-bond-
breaking ability of the condensed hydrocarbon phase.
This phenomenon can be illustrated further by Fig. 25.7,
a composite plot of the activity coefficient of water at
25-4
10
50 70 93
TWERAW, F
Fig. 25.5-Hydrate-forming conditions for paraffin hydro-
carbons.
moderate pressures from hydrocarbon molecules vs.
temperature for molecules ranging from propane to li
uids as heavy as naphtha and SAE 20 lubricating oil.
7
-
I4
Fig. 25.7 also shows that at higher temperatures water
becomes increasingly miscible with hydrocarbons, with
total miscibility conditions having been reported for
intermediate-range hydrocarbons. This phenomenon,
which is relevant to high-pressure steamfloods, also is il-
lustrated by Fig. 25.8, which gives their three-phase
miscibility conditions. 14*
In addition to fluid condensed phases, as the pressure
is increased and the temperature decreased, nonpolar
molecules and weakly ionizing molecules of appropriate
molecular sizes form solid gas hydrates. Davidson43
presents the approximate molecular diameters and struc-
ture type of the hydrate formers and their theoretical
hydrate chemical formulas.
Hydrate Stability Conditions
Table 25.2 presents the physical data of the two known
hydrate lattices, the diamond type or structure II hydrate,
and the body-centered type or Structure I hydrate. Owing
to their critical sizes, some molecules, such as
cyclopropane, stabilize both hydrate Structures I and II
at higher temperatures but only Structure II at lower
temperatures with a phase transition temperature in be-
tween (see Sloan l).
1 ax 400 lml 2cm 4col
I%ESSUE, PSIA
Fig. 25.6-Concentration of water in propane-rich fluid phases
in the two- and three-phase regions.
-
\
-
-
-
40
TEJEMTIBE, 'C
\
2
Fig. 25.7-Composite activity coefficient plot for water in
hydrocarbon systems.
PHASE BEHAVIOR OF WATERlHYDROCARl3ON SYSTEMS
25-5
Estimating Initial Hydrate Formation
The estimation for the stability conditions of the hydrates
when liquid water is present, the L,-H-G equilibrium
locus, can be estimated by various means.
Sweet Natural Gas Systems Method. The initial
hydrate formation condition can be estimated for sweet
natural gas systems by using pressure, temperature, and
gas gravity as parameters (see Katz45.46) as shown in
Figs. 25.9 and 25.10. These figures should be confined
for usage when the natural gas mixtures are similar to
those used in developing them, with data taken from
Deaton and Frost, Wilcox ef al., Kobayashi and
Katz, 2 and Katz!45 Typical compositions of natural
gases corresponding to gas gravities of Fig. 25.9 are
given in Table 25.3. It should be noted that no H2S or
CO1 content is tolerated by the correlations.
Vapor/Solid Equilibrium Ratios Method. The second
approach involves the development and application of
vapor/solid equilibrium ratios for gas/liquid/hydrate
equilibrium (Carson and Katz, I47 Unruh and Katz, 39
Noaker and Katz, 48 Robinson, 49 and Robinson and
Ng), as shown in Figs. 25.11 through 25.16. The
development of the vapor/solid K-values involved ex-
perimental hydrate formation conditions for mixtures of
methane with other gas(es) and the hypothesis that
hydrates could be treated as solid solutions, in hindsight
a brilliant hypothesis. The vapor/solid Ki(,.,) values are
used to calculate the hydrate frost point in direct
analogy with dewpoint calculations:
where Ki(,,.rj is the vapor/solid equilibrium values of
component i, yi is the mole fraction of component i in
the vapor phase, and xi is the mole fraction of compo-
nent i in the solid phase, so that
f; yiiKic\ >.n=l.O. . . . . . . . (1)
i= I
An example calculation for a complex mixture is
presented in Table 25.4. 44 As suggested, the K-value of
n-butane is taken numerically as that for ethane.
Statistical Mechanics for Adsorption Approach. A
third method of estimating initial hydration formation in-
volves the application of statistical mechanics (van der
Waals and Platteeuw 15 m well-defined hydrate cages
as determined by X-ray crystallography by von
Stackelberi and Miiller ) 52,53 and others. The theory of
van der Waals and Platteeuw was applied to predict the
initial hydrate formation of pure gases at temperature
above the ice point by Marshall et al. 6 and later to
binary mixtures by Saito and Kobayashi. 54 Nagata and
Kobayashi 55 used the Kihara potential to calculate the
dissociation pressures of hydrates, following the earlier
work of McKay and Sinanoglu. 56 A more convenient
estimation method for hydrate decomposition conditions
1.0 .n -
- HYDROCARBON - WATER SYSTEtlS .
,&iii-
0.4
,
C
Fig. 25.8-Composition of hydrocarbon-rich phase at three-
phase critical conditions.
was developed by Parrish and Prausnitz, lo using the
Kihara potential and the method of van der Waals and
Platteeuw . 9
Computer Method For Hydrate Dissociation Predic-
tions. Pamsh and Prausnitz Development. lo The
method of van der Waals and Platteeuw as developed by
Parrish and Prausnitz is slightly more complex than the
previous method, but it has two considerable advan-
tages: (1) the equations are related to the microscopic
hydrate structure, and (2) the theoretical nature of the
model allows it to be extended beyond the G-L,-H
region.
TABLE 25.2-PHYSICAL DATA OF TWO KNOWN
HYDRATE LATTICES
Water molecules per
unit cell
Cavities per unit cell
Small
Large
Cavity radius, rc
Small
Large
Typical gases that form
in each cavity of this
structure
Small.
Large.
Structure I Structure II
46 136
2 16
6 a
3. 97 3.91
4.30 4.73
methane* propane
ethane l i-butane l
n-butane *
neo-pentane* l
40 60
TDJPERAIIE, F
I
T
Fig. 25.9-Initial hydrate-formation conditions for natural gases
with varying gas gravities.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s the molecular struc-
tures of hydrates, shown in Table 25.2, were studied
through the use of X-ray diffraction. 52,s3 The struc-
tural determination enabled van der Waals and Plat-
teeuw 9 to develop a model for the prediction of hydrate
dissociation pressure at any temperature. Their basic
equation looks complex until one considers it as being
very similar to the basic equation for the chemical poten-
tial of Component I in a mixture of Components 1 and 2.
This equation, which relates the chemical potential of
TABLE 25.3-TYPICAL COMPOSITIONS AND COR-
RESPONDING GAS GRAVITIES OF NATURAL GASES OF
FIG. 25.9
;A
C;H;
I-C,H ,0
n-C,H,,
CsH,z +
Gravity
calcu-
Mole Fraction
0.9267 0.8605 0.7350 0.6198 0.5471
0.0529 0.0606 0.1340 0.1777 0.1745
0.0138 0.0339 0.0690 0.1118 0.1330
0.00182 0.0084 0.0080 0.0150 0.0210
0.00338 0.0136 0.0240 0.0414 0.0640
0.0014 0.0230 0.0300 0.0343 0.0604
0.603 0.704 0.803 0.906 1.023
component i, pi , to the activity of a component is
pj=pjO+RTln a. (, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2)
where
p o = chemical potential of pure component i,
I
R = universal gas constant,
T = absolute temperature, and
ai = activity of component i in mixture.
Van der Waals and Platteeuw used theory to derive a
similar equation for the chemical potential of water in the
hydrate structure as follows.
where
p,,,H = chemical potential of water in filled
hydrate,
pw~r = chemical potential of water in empty
hydrate,
n,i = number of cavities of type i per water
molecule in basic lattice, and
yji = fractional occupancy of type i cavity by
type j molecule.
-
30 43 4) 60 xl
TDQERATU~ F
Fig. 25.10-Initial hydrate-formation condition.
PHASE BEHAVIOR OF WATER/HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS 25-7
Fig. 25.11-Vapor/solid equilibrium constant for methane.
m
1.0 -
<OS6
i
5 0.4
Bi
2
3
0.2
0.1
Fig. 25.12-Vapor/solid equilibrium constant for ethane
0.02
0.01
t
30 40 M 60 70 80
TOYPERITIRE, F
Fig. 25.13-Vapor/solid equilibrium constant for propane.
V v A /A / I
A A /I//I// I
T-W& F TEFPERATUIE, F
Fig. 25.14-Vapor/solid equilibrium constant for isobutane. Fig. 25.15-Vapor/solid equilibrium constants for CO,.
TABLE 25.4-CALCULATION OF PRESSURE FOR
HYDRATE FORMATION OF A COMPLEX MIXTURE
EHA
&I:
I-C,-,o
n-C,H to
N2
co2
Total
Mole
Fraction
in Gas
0.784
0.060
0.036
0.005
0.019
0.094
0.002
1.000
AT 50F
At 300 psia
K
Y/K
2.04------- 0.3841
0.79 0 0759
0.113 0.3186
0.046 0.1087
0.79 0.024
3.:
0
0.0007
0.912
At 350 osia
K
Y/K
1.90- 0.4126
0.63 0.0952
0.085 0.4234
0.034 0.1471
0.63 0.030
cc 0
2.3 0.0008
1.10
The linearly mterpolated anwer is 322 ps~a and the experimentally
observed hydrate formatcn pressure at 5OF was 325 ps,a.
Fig. 25.16-Vapor/solid equilibrium constants for hydrogen
sulfide.
The second term on the right accounts for hydrocarbon
filling of the lattice. The term yii is given by
cjifi
Yii =
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4)
I+ C Cki.fk
k
where Cji is a unique function of temperature for each
guest molecule in each size cavity, fi and fk are the
fugacities of j and k in the gas phase, and k is ordered
from one to the number of components.
The fugacity term is determined by an equation of state
(EOS), such as Peng-Robinson (PREOS). Is7 The Cji
functions may be calculated using the Lennard-Jones-
Devonshire spherical cell model. The interaction be-
tween the guest molecule and a uniform spherical surface
representing the cage commonly is described by a Kihara
potential function. The method is described by Parrish
and Prausnitz. lo The Kihara parameters are determined
from single or binary gas dissociation conditions and
then may be used to predict dissociation conditions for
multicomponent gases. A fit of Cji for common gases is
given in Table 25.5.
To predict hydrate formation conditions from liquid
water and gas, the following conditions must be
satisfied.
p,,,L =p,,,H=pwg, . . . . . . . . . . .
W
TL=TH=Tg, . . . . . . . . . . . .(5b)
and
pL =P,T, =pg, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (k)
where p is the absolute pressure and subscripts L, H, and
g are liquid water, hydrate, and gas, respectively.
25-9
TABLE 25.5-PARAMETERS FOR THE HYDRATE DISSOCIATION MODEL
Structure I* Structure II**
~I,,,(T,,~P~), Jlmol 1297 874
PI,. Jlmol 1389 1624.6
AV,, cm3/mol 3.0 3.4
Parameters for Calculating Langmuir Constant Between 260 K and 300 K
C,, = A/T exp (B/T)atm -
Small Cavities of Large Cavities of Small Cavities of Large Cavities of
Structure I Structure I Structure II Structure II
AxlO B AxlO B AxlO B AxlO 8
CH.4 2.7711 2752.8047 1.4865 2878.0682 2.1778 2713.4259 6.6777 2310.0682
E$; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4071 0.0 3820.7119 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9157 1.3212 3277.9254 4506.9810
n-C,H 1o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0404 2687.9744
i-C,Hlo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0788 3083.9044
N2 17.7986 1931.5130 5.7883 1669.2292 14.8724 2002.6644 15.6182 1319.4734
co2 1.5227 2943.9948 1.0242 3172.6655 1.1620 2837.3018 5.3986 2478.0545
H*S 2.3458 3701.3170 1.3532 3739.3355 1.8306 3671.9126 6.4567 2976.4243
Dharmawatdhana
Weller %
Eq. 5a may be combined with Eqs. 3 and 2 to obtain
APLW- -P~' MT-P~L=-RT C i n,i ln (l- 7 Yji)
+RT In a;, . . . . .(6)
where APT is the difference in chemical potential of
pure water and ai accounts for the normally small
solubility of the guest gas in the aqueous phase. Now
given T, p, and&, one may calculate Ap,., in Eq. 6 by
using Eq. 3 and the Kihara potential. However, the AP,~
obtained are useless until they arc matched to the AfiLM.
from the following equation.
AP~VP) A~WVorpo) Tuh,
RT = RT
s
-dT+ ~pII-dp,
-T RT2 po RT
0
..,__ ___. __ ___ __
(7)
where
T,, = reference temperature.
I0
= reference pressure,
Ah,,. = specific enthalpy difference, and
AI.,, = specific volume difference.
Eq. 7 corrects a chemical potential difference at a stan-
dard T,, (0C) and I>,, (0 atm). ApcL, (T,,.p,,) for the
change in temperature and pressure of the hydrate of in-
terest. The constants .Ip ), (T,, ./I,,) and Al? ,,. (T,,), meax-
ured recently by Dharmawardhana and Weiler. Is
and parameters for Langmuir constants arc fivcn in
Table 25.5.
Procedure for Determining Hydrate Formation
Pressure. The procedure for determming hydrate forma-
tion pressures for a given gas at a given temperature IS as
lhllow\.
1. Estimate a pressure, p.
2. At the estimated pressure, for the given temperature
and gas mole fraction of component j, determine the
fugacity ofj from an EOS, such as PREOS. 15
3. By using Cj; values from the Kihara potential and
yji values from Eq. 4, determine Ap,, from Eq. 3.
4. By using constants from Table 25.5, calculate Ap w
from Eq. 7 at the temperature and estimated pressure.
5. If the A,u, values for Eqs. 6 and 7 are equal, then
the p value is correct for hydrate formation. If not,
estimate a new value of p and return to Step 2.
A computer program that performs the above pro-
cedure has been written by Ng and Robinson and is
available commercially through the Gas Processors
Assn. (GPA). A second hydrate program generated by
Erickson and Sloan I60 at the Colorado School of Mines
is also available through GPA.
That the model predicts the three-phase data accurately
is demonstrated in Fig. 25.17 for the methane/propane
system. The dramatic decrease of dissociation pressure
for a 1% addition of propane is evidence that the hydrate
has changed structure (from I to 11) as mentioned earlier.
In other words, as small amounts of propane are added, a
greater temperature at constant pressure is tolerated for
hydrate formation.
Fig. 25.18 also demonstrates the accuracy of the
model while indicating that hydrates denude the gas of
propane. At 5 atm, while the gas phase has about 8%
propane, the solid phase has 50% propane. From Figs.
25.17 and 25.18 and typical earth temperature gradients,
Davidson 16 proposed the following in-situ, onshore
hydrate conditions.
Going toward the center of the earth, one may en-
counter Structure II hydrate at relatively shallow depths
until the point at which the hydrate denudes the gas of
propane. No more hydrate is encountered until the range
of Structure I stability conditions is obtained. Continuing
downward from the Structure I region no hydrates are
encountered. Finally, a Structure II region is realized for
gases rich in propane.
25-10
m%kCfWE IN
VAFm PHASE
0 DATA OF DEATON
AND FROST5
- cALcuATED
I
40 xl
TEWEFS?~E, F
Fig. 25.17-Hydrate formation conditions for the methane/ Fig. 25.18-Pressure-composition diagram for the methane/
propane/water system. propane/water system.
Determining the Water Content of Gas (or
Hydrocarbon-Rich Liquid) in Equilibrium
with Hydrates
The position of lines G-H and LHc-H in Figs. 25.2 and
25.4 determines the extent to which the hydrocarbon
must be dried to prevent the formation of hydrate from
the gas phase, The water content in this region is
relatively small and difficult to measure. Until recently,
straight lines (log water content vs. l/T from the gaslliq-
uid region were extrapolated into the gas/hydrate region
with only limited experimental justification. However,
as indicated by Kobayashi and Katz, I3 thermodynamics
tells us that such concentration extrapolations across
phase boundaries yield severe errors. This observation,
that straight-line extrapolation into the gas hydrate
region represents gas in equilibrium with metastable liq-
uid water, explains the field data anomalies observed by
l DATA OF VAN DER WAALS
AND PLATTEEUW -
- CALCULATED
T= -3 C
U xl 40 60 El lu.l
mE%PuoPANE
(WATER-PREE BASIS)
Records and Seely . Q Laboratory confirmation that the
water content of gas in equilibrium with hydrate should
be much different from the extrapolated values has been
verified by Sloan et al. 7 for methane hydrates, and Song
and Kobayashi 163 for methane/propane hydrate!:
When one predicts the water content of a singie fluid
phase, such as a fluid, in equilibrium with hydrates, the
basic equation is as follows.
fw.=fwH , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
whemf,,,, is the fugacity of water in the fluid phase and
f WH
is the fugacity of water in the hydrate phase.
In this equation the fugacity of water in the fluid phase
is determined from
fwf=ywKwfp, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
Fig. 25.19-Structure I empty hydrate vapor pressure as a Fig. 25.20-Structure II empty hydrate vapor pressure as a
function of reciprocal temperature. function of reciprocal temperature.
where K,,,, is the fugacity coefftcient* of water (deter-
mined by an EOS) and y, is the mole fraction of water in
the hydrocarbon.
The value y,,, is the solution to this problem, stated as:
given a flowing hydrocarbon at T and p, determine how
much the fluid should be dried to prevent hydrate
formation.
The quantityfWH in Eq. 8 is determined by
fwH =fwMT
exp(-Ap,IRT), . . . . . . . . . . .(lO)
where f,,,HT is the fu acity of water in empty hydrate.
Ng and Robinson
k4
give an expression for fW~r in
both structures, obtained by fitting the vapor/hydrate
data of Kobayashi et al. 7~12i*165 Therefore, their method
may be considered a correlation of existing two-phase
(vapor/hydrate) data.
By equating the fugacity of hydrate to ice in three-
phase data, Dharmawardhanat58 showed that fwMT of
Eq. 10 can be expressed as an empty hydrate vapor
pressure as follows:
P y~Kg exp
Vl(P-Pf)
RT
=P~MTK~MT exp@WW,
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..I.....
(11)
where
pvf = vapor pressure of ice,
Kg = fugacity coefficient of ice,
VI = volume of ice,
pI = vapor pressure of ice,
pvMT = vapor pressure of empty hydrate, and
KIT = fugacity coefficient of empty hydrate.
*In some prior publications, 0 was used as the symbol for fugaclty ccefhcient.
In this equation, all of the ice properties are well known,
the Ap is obtained from three-phase data fit to Eqs. 3 and
4; the only unknown is PMT, which was fit to a number
of hydrates three-phase data below 273 K and found to
be a single function of temperature; Figs. 25.19 and
25.20 show these values for empty hydrate vapor
pressure as determined from a number of hydrates. Re-
cent work at the Colorado School of Mines has shown
the method represented by Eqs. 9 and 10 and Figs. 25.19
and 25.20 to represent the water-in-liquid hydrocar-
bon/hydrate equilibria accurately.
Hydrate Formation on Expansion of Gases
The simultaneous solution of the isoenthalpic (throttling)
expansion of natural gases with initial hydrate formation
conditions, Fig. 25.9 yields a first approximation of the
prediction of permissible expansions. Katz 45 presented
a useful chart for various gas gravities of natural gases.
Definition of the Saturated Water Content
of Natural Gases in Equilibrium With
Aqueous Phases
The saturated water content of natural gases in
equilibrium with aqueous phases generally is presented
in the familiar dewpoint chart. Fig. 25.21 presents a
dewpoint chart for methane-rich gases synthesized from
several sources of data. The upper limit of the dewpoint
chart given in Fig. 25.21 is defined by the properties of
steam. Fig. 25.22 presents a correction to Fig. 25.21
caused by the hydrate formation of methane gas, and a
mixture of methane and propane gas. The water content
at temperatures above the hydrate stability conditions up
to 10,000 psia are based primarily on the data of Olds et
al. 3 At temperatures below the initial hydrate formation
TEMPERATURE, 103/K
IOOC
44 4.2 4.0 30 36 3.4
I I I I I
' I f-1
10303
lo
4
1
lFJT%m F
Fig. 25.21~Dewpoint water content chart for methane-rich
gas.
conditions, the data are primarily those measured by
Skinner. 66 However, below the initial hydrate forma-
tion conditions, as initially observed (in the gas fields)
by Records and Seely , Q Fig. 25.21 presents metastable
values. Using the hydrate theory discussed previously,
and recent measurements on the water content of two
gases (a methanel5.3 1-mol % propane and a pure
methane in the gaseous state in equilibrium with
hydrates), a corrective correlation to Fig. 25.21 in the
gas/hydrate region was developed.
A typical replacement chart is shown in Fig. 25.22. 163
In this figure the high-temperature vapor/liquid-water
region is separated from the low-temperature
vapor/hydrate region by a line representing the three-
phase (vapor/liquid-water/hydrate) boundary. The
isobaric data in the vapor/hydrate region follow
semilogarithmic straight lines when plotted against
reciprocal temperature, but these lines have slopes dif-
ferent from the straight lines in the vapor/liquid-water
region. In addition, the three-phase lines are indicated to
be a function of gas composition, so that the change in
the slope of an isobar from the vapor/liquid region oc-
curs at different temperatures. With the above complex-
ities, a comprehensive water content chart (or series of
charts) for gases of differing compositions would be
cumbersome. Instead, a mathematical method for deter-
mining the water content of gases in the vapor/hydrate
region is used.
c &y/9
oto-C!i4-C~H8(531% mold- Hz0
EXPERIMENTAL
----- CH4-H20
AOYAGI et al.
--*--DEW POINT LOCUS _
CALCULATED FOR
0.01 I I I
CH, - C,H, (5.31%)
-50 -30 -10 14 40 70
TEMPERATURE, F
Fig. 25.22~-Depression of metastable dewpoint below initial
hydrate temperature.
Steps in Determining the Water Content of Vapor
in Equilibrium with Hydrates
The method for determining the water content of vapor
in equilibrium with hydrates, at a given temperature and
pressure, is composed of six steps.
1. Calculate the metastable water content at the
temperature and pressure of interest by using Eq. 12.
2. Calculate the three-phase temperature at the
pressure and gas gravity of interest by using Eq. 13. Ob-
tain the temperature difference (AT) by subtracting the
temperature of interest from the calculated three-phase
temperature.
3. Calculate the displacement from the metastable
water content (AW) at the above Af and pressure of in-
terest using both Eq. 14a for methane and Eq. 14b for a
94.69-mol% methane/5.31-mol% propane mixture.
4. Calculate the AW for the gas composition of interest
by a linear interpolation between the AW for methane
(gravity =0.552) and the A W for the mixture containing
5.31% propane (gravity=0.603), using gravity as an in-
terpolation parameter.
5. Calculate the equilibrium water content by subtrac-
ting the AW value obtained in Step 4 from the metastable
water value obtained in Step 1.
6. Consider the range of data used to tit Eqs. 12, 13,
14a, and 14b, as discussed later, to determine whether
the answer obtained in Step 5 is within the bounds of the
correlation.
TABLE 25.6-COEFFICIENTS FOR ECWATIONS
C,
Eq. 12
2.8910758E + 1
C,
- 96681464E + 3
C3
- 1.6633562E + 0
Cd
- 13082354E + 5
c5
2.0353234E + 2
2
3.8508508E - 2
d
c9
C
10
C,,
Eq. 13 Eq. 14a
2.7707715E - 3 - 1.605505E + 3
- 2.782238E - 3
-
5649288E - 4
- 1.298593E - 3
1.407119E - 3
1.785744E - 4
l.l30284E-3
5.9728235E - 4
- 2.3279181 E - 4
- 2.6840758E - 5
4.6610555E-3
5.5542412E - 4
-
1.472776% - 5
1.3938082E - 5
1.488501 DE - 6
Equations for Determining the Water Content of
Vapor in Equilibrium with Hydrates
In the following equations, the pressure is expressed in
psia, the temperature in degrees Rankine, and the water
content is expressed in pounds of water per million cubic
feet of gas at 1 atm and 60F. A listing of the coeffi-
cients in each equation is found in Table 25.6.
Fit of Methane-Rich Gas (Fig. 25.21). The following
equation, which is a fit of Fig. 25.21, is in the pressure
range of 200 to 2,000 psia, and in the temperature range
of -40 to 120F, for metastable water content, IV,,,, , as
a function of temperature, T, and pressure, p:
W,,,=exp[C1 +C~lT+C3(lnp)+Cq/P
+CS(lnp)lT+Cg(lnp)Z],. _. _. .(12)
where Cl . C6 are obtained from Table 25.6.
Fit of Three-Phase (Vapor/Liquid/Hydrate) Forma-
tion Conditions. The three-phase condition was fit in
the temperature range of 34 to 62F, the pressure range
of 65 to 1,500 psia, and the gas gravity, y. range from
0.552 to 0.9. Only hydrocarbons were used in the fit,
and gases containing CO, and hydrogen sulfide were ex-
cluded specifically.
T=lI[C, +CZ(lnp)+C3(ln +y)+Cq(lnp)*
+cS(]" p)(ln Y)fC6(ln ?)*
+C,(ln pj3 +Cs(ln p12(1n y)
+C9(lnpMln y12+C10Cln Y)"
+C~~(lnp)4+C~2(lnp)'(]ny)
+C,30np)(ln ~)~+C~14(lnp)(ln r13
+C,s(ln -y)4],. . . . .(13)
where CI Cl5 are obtained from Table 25.6.
Fit of Water Content Suppression. The suppression of
the water content from the metastable region, AW, was
8.181485E+2
9.289352E + 2
- 1.578381 E + 2
- 3.899544E + 2
- 2.009926E + 1
1.368723E + 1
5.500387E i- 1
4.068990E + 0
1.517650E + 0
- 4.524342E - 1
- 2.590273E + 0
- 2.465SSE - 1
- 7.543630E - 2
1.034443E - 1
Eq. 14b
2.59097E + 3
-1.51351E+3
- 1.16506E + 2
3.26066E + 2
6.65280E + 1
- 1 .17697E + 1
- 3.05SSOE + 1
- 1.20352E + 1
2.94244E + 0
7.83747E - 1
i.O4913E+O
7.23943E - 1
- 2.94560E - 1
7.087SSE - 2
- 1.24938E - 1
fit as a function of pressure and of the temperature dif-
ference from the three-phase condition, AT, for both
methane and a mixture containing 5.3 1 mol% propane.
The fit for methane was in the pressure range of 500 to
1,500 psia and in the temperature range of -28 to 26F;
coefficients for methane in the following equation are
labelled Eq. 14a in Table 25.6. The fit for the mixture
was in the pressure range of 500 to 1,500 psia, and in the
temperature range of -38 to 40F; coefficients for the
mixture are labelled Eq. 14b in Table 25.6. The general
regression equation for both gases is:
AW=exp[C, +C:!(lnp)+C3(ln AT)+Cq(lnp)*
+ C5 (In p)(ln AT)
+Cg(ln AT)*+c,(ln~)~
+Cg(ln p)2(1n AT)
+Ct2(lnpJ3(ln AT)+C13(lnp)*(ln AT)2
+C,4(lnp)(ln AT)3+C15(ln AT)4]. . .(14)
Example Calculation of Water Content of a Vapor in
Vapor/Hydrate Region. Determine the water content of
a gas whose gravity is 0.575 in equilibrium with hydrate
at 1,000 psia and 8.4F.
1. The metastable water content of the gas is
calculated from Eq. 12 at 1,000 psia and 8.4F as 2.745
lbm/106 scf.
2. The three-phase temperature at 1,000 psia is
calculated to be 60.35F from Eq. 13. The AT value is
51.95F.
3. The displacement from the metastable condition is
calculated for methane to be 0.653 lbm/106 scf from Eq.
14a. The displacement from the metastable condition is
calculated for the mixture containing 5.31 mol% pro-
pane as 1.55 lbm/106 scf from Eq. 14b.
4. An interpolation between the values obtained in
Step 3 (based on gas gravity) is done to determine the
displacement for a gas with a gravity of 0.575. The
resulting displacement is 1.0575 lbm/106 scf.
25-14
. . . .
- - Pf 3STAEJ LEL
LI NE FROMFI G. 21
- STABLE I CE LI NE
mPER4l URE, "F
P-r,
Fig. 25.23-Depression of metastable dewpoint below ice
temperature.
DISXMD XlXE, FM
Fig. 25.24-Correction to water content for natural gas in
equilibrium with brines.
8
0
200
UN
-. PSIA
Fig. 25.25-Water content per cubic feet of volume occupied
by various gases at system pressure and
temperature.
5. The displacement in Step 4 is subtracted from the
metastable value in Step 1 to obtain a water concentra-
tion of 1.687 lbm/106 scf. The 0.575gravity gas must
be dried to less than 1.687 lbm/106 scf to prevent
hydrate formation at 1,000 psia and 8.4F.
6. A check of the conditions of regression of Eqs. 12
through 14 indicates that the correlation should apply for
the conditions of the example.
Fig. 25.23 presents the corrective correlation below
the ice/gas region, Fig. 25.24 gives corrections to Fig.
25.21 from the salinity of the aqueous phase. The work
of Deaton and Frost indicated that the water content of
gases in equilibrium with liquid water fall in the order
where y is the mole fraction of water in each subscripted
gas at the same pressure and temperature as shown in
Fig. 25.25. The water content of nitrogen up to moderate
pressures has been repotted by Rigby and Prausnitz. 34
No data exist, however, on the water content of nitrogen
in equilibrium with hydrates.
The water content of liquid and gaseous CO2 in
equilibrium with hydrates has become increasingly more
important in the development of EOR technology.
Fig. 25.26 presents a pressure-temperature projection
of the univariant loci for the COz/water system. It
defines both the univariant and two-phase regions
presently being studied and the regions over which the
various combinations of binary equilibrium exist. Like
25-15
TABLE 25.7-VAPOR PRESSURE OF WATER
USEDTOCALCULATEENHANCEMENT
OF THE WATER CONTENT OF
THE CO,-RICH FLUID PHASES
T 0 ,.,
( OF)
(psia)
0 0.02215 *
15 0.04352
30 0.08162 *
45 0.1487+
65 0.30a9+
77 0.4641 +
87.8 0.6518%
122 1.789%
Extrapolated lo kwer temperatre from hl9h temperatures Of **
Data from Perry, R.H. and Chtlton, C H. Chemvsal Engineers Handbook, llfth edl-
bon, McGraw-HIV Book Co Inc., New York City (1973). Table 3-4
Data from Tables of Thermal Propertles of Gases, U S Dept of Commerce,
Washtngton DC. (1955) Circular 564, Table 9-9/a
bla from Tables of Thermal Properlles of Gases. U S Dept of Commerce,
Washmgton D C. 1,955) Crcular 564, Table 3-5
propane, the location of the critical point of CO* relative
to the H-L,-G line results in an invariant quadruple
point in which H-L,-LCO, -G coexist, the hub from the
other four univariant three-phase lines emanate.
A second quadruple point involving H-I -L,-G exists
at lower pressure in the neighborhood of the ice point.
The pioneering work of Wiebe and Gaddy provides
extensive data on the solubility of CO2 in wate& and
the vapor-phase composition of CO 2 /water mixtures. s*
The measurements were confined to temperatures ex-
ceeding the initial hydrate formation condition.
Measurement of the water concentration of gas and liq-
uid in equilibrium with hydrates currently is being pur-
sued by Song and Kobayashi. 37,38 By using the vapor
pressure of water or metastable liquid water given in
Table 25.7, the experimental data from several sources
have been presented as enhancement of the vapor
pressure resulting from the CO2 pressure on the system
(Fig. 25.27). In Fig. 25.27, p is the total pressure,p?,, is
the saturation pressure of water, and yw is the mole frac-
tion of water. The water content of coexisting COI-rich
liquid and gas along the three-phase region is shown as a
loop terminating at its three-phase critical point in the
neighborhood of the critical temperature of CO2. Fig.
25.27 shows that the enhancement of the water vapor
pressure is favored by lower temperatures and high
pressure, variables that also favor a substantial increase
in the density of fluid CO*. It is noted that the solubility
of water in liquid CO* is greater than in gaseous CO1 at
the same pressure and temperature, precisely the reverse
of the solubility sequence for liquid and gaseous
hydrocarbons, This phenomenon is related to the ex-
cessive collection of water in the middle of a distillation
column separating a COz-rich feed from its associated
LPG constituents.
Fig. 25.28 presents the water content of CO2 vs. in-
verse absolute temperature along isobars demonstrating
the complexity of the system. The curves show a break
downward at the initial hydrate formation conditions as
methane and natural gases.
ml
T
H-%(1
lEWFMW, F
Fig. 25.26-Pressure temperature projection of univariant loci
for COalwater system.
2m
x0
Fig. 25.27-Enhancement of the vapor pressure of water
caused by CO, total pressure at various
temperatures.
Fig. 25.28-Water content of CO, vs. inverse absolute
temperature along +sooars.
UOll
um
B
I
Kn
lol
0.m o.au O.Dlr 0.01 0.04 0.1
Fig. 25.29-The effect of molecular weight on the water con-
tent in the vapor phase (from Ref. 167).
Quantitative Prediction of Water Content
in Light Hydrocarbon Systems
A systematic study of the effect of molecular weight on
the water content of the vapor phase made by McKetta
and Katz52,167 is given in Fig. 25.29. The effect of
molecular weight is seen to be most pronounced at the
highest temperature of the study, 280F.
The solubility of water in various liquid hydrocarbons
at their vapor pressures is presented in Fig. 25.30.
In recent years estimations of water in both the non-
aqueous and aqueous phases in both the two- and three-
phase regions have been carried out successfully b? Peng
and Robinson, 68 Baumgaertner et al., l6 and
Moshfeghian et al. O In these exercises various EOSs
were used-the PREOS (Peng-Robinson equation of
state), 157 the.Schmidt-Wenzel EOS, 169 and the PFGC-
MES (Parameter from Group Contribution-Mosh-
feghian, Erbar, Shariot) EOS. Collectively, these
correlation procedures are able to describe vapor/liquid
equilibria in systems as diverse as CHd/H*O,
C~H~/HZO through n-CgH,a/H20, Nz/HzO,
C021H,0, CO/H20, 02/H20, H2/H20,
C~H~/HZO, air/HzO, H2S/H20, andNH3/H20. Both
the PREOS and PFGC-MES EOS require temperature-
dependent interaction arameters, while the method of
Baumgaertner et al. I6
8
describes the water structure in
terms of its degree of polymerization in the liquid as a
function of the temperature. Examples of the successful
application of the calculational method to multicompo-
nent systems by Moshfeghian et al. I are reported.
Quantitative Predictions of Solute
Concentrations in the Aqueous Phase
General references are presented for the solubility of
various gases in water, along with other types of data on
aqueous systems. The low-pressure references are in-
cluded because of their contributions to calculational
methods for sour water systems.
5.6
1.6
008
TEFfMTlJRL F
Fig. 25.30-The solubility of water in various liquid hydrocar-
bons at their vapor pressures.
FLg. 25.31-The solubility of methane in water.
Fig. 25.31 presents the volumetric solubility of
methane in water to 10,ooO psia as measured by Culber-
son and McKetta. t7 The solubility of methane increases
monotonically with pressure but shows a relative
minimum with respect to temperature as do the Henrys
law constants. 14* Dodson and Standing,45 on the other
hand, presented the solubility of a typical natural gas in
water and gave corrections for the solubility due to brine
salinity, Fig. 25.32. The relative solubility of gas in
brine relative to its solubility in pure water is given in
Fig. 25.32.
The analytical prediction of the solubility of nonpolar
or low-polarity solutes in water can be used by the ap-
plication of the relationships introduced by Krichevskii
and Kasamovskii I and Wiebe and Gaddy,90 which
were later applied by Kobayashi and Katz 14* and Leland
et al. i7* to condensing light-hydrocarbon systems.
The expression is given as follows.
A
p,p,,s )
(15)
where
f, = partial fugacity of the solute in water at T
and pt,
KH = an empirical constant that is a function of
temperature only but is equal numerically
to Henrys law constant for nonconden-
sable gases and a hypothetical Henrys
law constant for condensable gases,
Xl
= mole fraction of the dissolved solute,
R = gas constant per mole,
^
VA41
= partial molal volume of components in the
solution,
T = absolute temperature,
pt = total pressure, and
P 3
= vapor pressure of the solvent for a non-
condensable gas, but equal to some con-
stant pressure slightly above the three-
phase pressure determined from ex-
perimental data.
The usual absence of values for the partial volume of
the solute P,,, precludes the application of Eq. 15.
However, given a good set of experimental data to
moderate pressures, Eq. 15 provides a good method of
extending the solubility data to higher pressures, par-
ticularly if the solute remains essentially pure at the
higher pressures. Fig. 25.33 gives an application of Eq.
15 to the aqueous phase of the propane/water system. 142
Examples of the agreement in the experimental and
predicted water compositions are
B
iven for the
methane/water38*40 and ethane/water 3s74 and pro-
pane/water 142 systems in Figs. 25.34 through 25.36 by
Peng and Robinson. 16*
Both the Peng-Robinson 16* and the Baumgaertner er
al. 69 methods present successful predictions of the
aqueous-phase concentrations as well as in the nonaque-
ous phase.
TCVbL SOLIDS IN BRINE, PF?l X U3
Fig. 25.32-SoIubilityof natural aas in water with correction for
bnne SalirGy.
6.6
6.4
9
,> 6.2
6.0
0 0.w a.aa o.l.2 0.16 0.20 0.24 o.zB
P/L 2.303 R T )
Fig. 25.33-Solubility of prop≠i water to determine partial
molar volume and Henrys law constant.
Sour Water Stripper Correlations
With the development of a collective environmental con-
sciousness, waste disposal has become an integral part of
W IN LIGlJlD W IN LIGlJlD
- CALmTICN - CALmTICN
1 "
1,O
Fig. 25.34-Experimental and predicted vapor and liquid
phase compositions for methane/water system at
25ooc.
FOWE IN LIQUID
-
I III I Ill
l - REF 173
m.E FRWICN
Fig. 25.35-Experimental and predicted vapor and liquid
phase compositions for the ethanelwater system at
220F.
a
ul
/
- /
s
or
/ vm
0,.- DATA OF KOBAYASHI &
KATZ *
- CALCULATION
I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 lo I2 14
NlEFlWICNWERXld
Fig. 25.36-Experimental and predicted water content of pro-
pane liquid and vapor phases along three-phase
locus.
petroleum production and processing. From an ex-
perimental standpoint the developments have been
spurred by the accumulation of experimental data
typically encountered in sour water processes. 75~178
Meanwhile, basic theoretical work had been laid for the
interpretation of such data. 179-82 Interpretations of
these and other theories are reviewed by Friedman and
Krishnan, 179 Newman, lg3 and Knapp and Sandler. Is4
Thus, predictive methods have been developed to
estimate vapor/liquid equilibria in complex mixtures
containing such components as NH 3 /CO 2 /H 2 S
(Wilsont75), N2/C02/H2S/CH40H (Moshfeghian et
al. O), NH31H2S/H20, NHs/S02/H20, and
NHs/C021H20 (Renonlg5), NH~/COI/H~S/H~O
(Mauererlse), CO~INaClIKClIH20 (Chen et al. lB7),
and many others. tg3 The calculations now enable the
estimation of physical and chemical equilibria from
purely aqueous to strong electrolyte solutions.
Oil and Gas Reservoirs That Exist in the
Gas Hydrate Region
In recent years an increasing number of oil and gas reser-
voirs in the hydrated state have been discovered by
Katz, 18 St011 er al., Is9 Makogon
Dick,19 Verma et al.,
et al., 90 Bily and
19* Holder et a[., 193 and
Trofimuk er al. 194 In fact, hydrate cores have been
recovered from below the ocean floor in the Mid-
American Trench off Central America. 95 A review of
geologic occurrences of hydrates is presented by Kven-
volden and McMenamin. 196
In Feb. 1982 a hydrate core was recovered by the
Deep Sea Drilling Project from the Mid-American
Trench off Guatemala in 1718 m of water. All evidence
to date indicates that these hydrates are of biogenic
origin, since they are composed mainly of products from
anaerobic digestion. These hydrates are of the Structure I
form.
In May 1983 a second hydrate core was recovered by a
Getty drilling operation from the Gulf of Mexico in 530
m of water. These hydrates are thermogenic in origin
with probable prior biogenesis and have substantial
amounts of ethane, propane, and isobutane. These
hydrates are of the Structure II form.
PHASE BEHAVIOR OF WATERIHYDROCARSON SYSTEMS
25-19
Fig. 25.37-Effect of GOR on hydrate formation conditions for
a 46B0API oil in the presence of excess fluid brine.
Fig. 25.39-Crystallization t8matures of aqueous diethyl-
ene glycol solutions
These natural hydrates bring many imphcatlons to
mind; however, only a few will be outlined.
1. The simultaneous solution of hydrate formation for
the ocurrence of hydrates and earth temperature gra-
dients yields possible environments for the occurrence of
hydrates.
2. The potential reserve of natural gas existing in
nature as solid hydrates is probably very enormous.
3. Petroleum reservoirs existing in the hydrate region
may be denuded of a substantial amount of the lighter
constituents and, thus, will be energy deficient for pro-
duction by a gas-drive mechanism.
4. Waterflooding of dissolved gas reservoirs with
near-freezing water may cause hydrate formation in the
reservoir.
5. A tremendous amount of technological develop-
ment will be necessary to unleash hydrocarbons from
hydrated reservoirs.
0
81 100
M
u1
.u- 20
,,I
t
1
I
I I I I
I
c I I
i
I I -I
Hydrate Inhibition
While crude oils may not inhibit hydrate formation per
se, their oils with dissolved gases affect the initial
hydrate formation significantly, as shown in Fig.
25.37. 97
Under some circumstances it may be advantageous to
inhibit hydrate formation rather than dehydrate oil and/or
gas streams. While many ionic and hydrogen-bonding
substances inhibit hydrate formation, the two com-
pounds that are used most frequently for hydrate inhibi-
tion are methanol and ethylene glycol. Natural brines
cause only a few degrees of hydrate depression. 34 Figs.
25.38 through 25.40 present the freezing points of
aqueous glycol solutions showing their eutectics in the
absence of gas. 198 Fig 25.41 presents the freezin . point
depression of diethylene/glycol/water solutions.
8
7
ul
I I
I
I 1
Fig. 25.38-Crystallization temperatures of aqueous ethylene
glycol solutions.
Fig. 25.40-Crystallization temperatures of aqueous trieihyl-
ene glycol solutions.
lo 30 50 70
lElWRMW, F
Fig. 25.41-Effect of dlethy.len@ glycol on conditions for
hydrate fopations.
The inhibition effect of methanol and ethylene glycol
on the hydrate formation condition of a methane/
12-mol% propane mixture is currently under study at
Rice U.
Recently, Ng and Robinson have presented the
hydrate formation conditions of methane, ethane, pro-
pane, COz, hydrogen sulfide, methane/10.49-mol%
ethane, 90.09-mol% methane/9.91-mol% CO2,
95.01-mol% methane/4.99-mol% propane, a synthetic
natural mixture, and a synthetic natural gas mixture con-
taining CO?, each in the presence of methanol solutions
of 10 to 20 wt % methanol in water. With the increasing
amount of oil and gas transmission along ocean floors
prior to dehydration, such data are of increasing
usefulness.
Nomenclature
ai = activity of component i in mixture
Cj; = a unique function of temperature for each
guest molecule in each size cavity
?; = fugacity of j in the gas phase
fl = partial fugacity of the solute in water at T
and pf
fwj = fugacity of water in the fluid phase
A/z,+ = enthalpy difference
K1 = an empirical constant that is a function of
temperature only but is equal
numerically to Henrys law constant for
noncondensable gases and a hypothetical
Henrys law constant for condensable
gases
Kg = fugacity coefficient of ice
KIT = fugacity coefficient of empty hydrate
K;c,,.s, = vapor/solid equilibrium values of
Component i
K
wf
= fugacity coefficient of water
n,; = number of cavities of type i per water
molecule in basic lattice
PO
= reference pressure
pvl = vapor pressure of ice
pb,~T = vapor pressure of empty hydrate
P S
= vapor pressure of the solvent for a
noncondensable gas, but equal to some
constant pressure slightly above the
three-phase pressure determined from
experimental data
To = reference temperature
Av, = specific volume difference
V,l
= partial molal volume of components in the
solution
W
ms
= nkastable water content
Xl
= mole fraction of the dissolved solute
Yji = fractional occupancy of type i cavity by
type j molecule
pi = chemical potential of Component i
pi0 =
chemical potential of pure Component i
&Lw =
difference in chemical potential of water
/J,+,H = chemical potential of water in filled
hydrate
p,,,,+,T = chemical potential of water in empty
hydrate
Subscripts
L = liquid water
H = hydrate
g = gas
References
I. Gibbs, J.W.: The Collected Works of J. Willard Gibbs, Volume
I, Thermodynamics, Yale U. Press, New Haven, CN (1948).
2. Kobayashi, R. and Katz, D.L.: Methane Hydrate at High
Pressure, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 66-70.
3. Olds, R.H., Sage, B.H., and Lacey, W.N.: Composition of
Dew Point Gas Methane-Water System, Ind. Eng. Chum.
(1942) 34, 1223-27.
4. Villard, P.: On Some Hydrates, Compr. Rend. (1888) 106,
1602-03; (1888) 107, 395-97.
5. Deaton, W.M. and Frost, E.M.: Gas Hydrares and Their Rela-
tion fo the Operation of Narural Gas Pipe Lines, Monograph 8,
USBM, Washington D.C. (1946).
6. Marshall, D.R., Saito, S., and Kobayashi, R.: Hydrates at
High Pressures: Part I. Methane-Water, Argon-Water, and
Nitrogen-Water Systems, AIChE J. (1964) 10, No. 2, 202-05.
7. Sloan, E.D., Khoury, F., and Kobayashi, R.: Water Content of
Methane Gas in Equilibrium with Hydrates, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Fund. (1976) 15, No. 4, 318-22.
8. Galloway, T.J. ef al. : Experimental Measurement of Hydrate
Numbers for Methane and Ethane and Comparison with
Theoretical Values, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. (1970) 9, No. 2,
237-43.
9. van der Waals, J.H. and Platteeuw, J.C.: Clathrate Solutions,
Adv. in Chemical Physics, Vol. II, 1. Prigogine (ed.), Inter-
science Publishers Inc., New York City (1959) l-58.
10. Parrish, W.R. and Prausnitz, J.M.: Dissociation Pressures of
Gas Hydrates, hi. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev. (1972) 11,
No. I, 26-35.
Il. Kobayashi, R.: Vapor-Liquid Equilibria in Binary Hydrocar-
bon-water Systems, PhD dissertation, U. of Michigan, Ann
Artxv (1951).
12. Cady. G.H.: Compositions of Clathrate Gas Hydrates 01 38.
CHCIF,. Ccl,, C12:CI0,F, H2S. and SF,. J. P&s. Clwm.
(1981) 85. No. 22, 3225-30.
13.
14.
Kobayashi, R. and Katz, D.L. Metastable Equilibrium rn the
Dew Point Determutation of Natural Gases in the Hydrate
Region. Truns., AIME (1955) 204. 262-63.
Ben-Naim. A., Wilf. J., and Yaacobi, M.: Hydrophobic In-
teractton tn Light and Heavy Water, J. Phys. Chrm. (1973) 77,
No. I, 95-102.
39.
40.
15.
16.
17.
Claussen, W.F. and Polglaae. M.F.: Solubdities and Sttucturcs
tn Aqueous Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Solutions. J. Am. C/w??.
SM. (1952) 74. 4817-19.
Culberaon, O.L. and McKetta. J.J.: Phase Equilibria in
Hydrocarbon-Water Systems. IV. Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
Constants in the Methanc-Water and Ethane-Water Systems.
Trcrn.\. , AIME (1951) 192. 297-300.
Culberson, O.L. and McKetta. J.J.: Phase Equilibria in
Hydrocarbon-Water Systems, III. Solubility of Methane in Water
at Pressures up to lO.tXlB psia, Tiwts.. AIME t 1951) 192,
223-x
41.
42.
43.
44.
18.
45.
19.
Culberson. O.L... Horn. A.B., and McKetta. J.J.: Phase
Equilibria in Hydrocarbon-Water System\. The Solubility of
Ethane in Water at Pressures to 1,200 psi. Truns.. AIME
(1950) 189. l-6.
Davis. J.E and McKetta. J.J.: Solubility of Methane in
Water, Pr/. Rejwr (1960) 39. No. 3. 205-6.
Dutfy. J.R., Smith. N.A., and Nanv, B.: Solubility of Natural
Gases in Aqueous Salt Solutton;~ I. Liquid Sur&cs in the
System CH, -H ? 0-NaCI-CaCl 2 at Room Temperatures and
Pressure\ beloti 1000 Lb.!Sq.in abs.. Gcmilirtl. Co.w~r~c~/~i~t~.
Acrcr (1961) 24, 23-31.
46.
20.
47.
48.
1-I.
22.
23
Eucken. A. and Henzberg. G.: Salting Out Effect\ and Ion
Hydration. Z. P/r!\;,! Clwrrt (1950) 195. l-23.
Feillolay. A. and Lucas. M.. The Solubility of Heltum and
Methane in Aqueous Tetrabutyl Ammonium Bromide Solu~tons
at 25 and 35: J. Phrr C/KVL 11972) 76. 3068-72.
Fischer, F and Zerbe. C: The Solubility of Methane in Water
and Organic Solvents under Prcssurc. Bre,7ft\r,,~Chcfri. ( 1923)
4, 17-I).
49.
50.
24.
25.
51.
52.
53.
76.
Frolich. P.K. er cl/.: Solubilitie\ of Gases in Liquids at High
Pressure. Irrd. G~R. Cltcwt. (1931) 23. 518-50.
Grew. G.. Casaie, C.. and Neuri. G.: Liquid-Vapor
Equiltbrium at Elevated Pressures of One Component in the
Presence of Noncondensable Components, /~r~/~c.~f~~r C/rim
B&y (1955) 20. Spec. No. 251-57.
Harder. A.H. and Holden. W.R.: Measurement of [Methane]
Gas in Ground Water. W~IW Re.\r~urc~c~.\ Re.wcrn h ( 1965) 1,
No. I, 75-82.
27.
28.
2).
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Lannung. A. and Glaldbaek. J.C.: The Solubtltty ot hlethane
in Hydrocarbons. Alcohols, Water and Other Solvents. ,4c,r<r
Chrrn. Swnd. ( 1960) 14. I 124-28.
McAuliffe. C.: Solubility in Water ol C, C, Hydrocarbons.
/Ware (1963) 200, 1092-93.
M)chel\. A.. Grever, I.. and Bijl. A.: The lnlluence of
Prcssurc on the Snlubilities of Gases. PIt~.\iw (1936) 3,
797-808.
54.
55.
56.
Moore. J.C. rt (I/.: Parttal Molar Volumes of Gas at lnftnitc
Dilution in Water at 298.15 K. J. Chrrn Eq. Lkrrcr (1982) 27,
22-24
57.
Mornson. T.J. and Billctt. F.: The Salting Out of Non-
electrolytes. Part II. The Eflect olVariation in Non~electrolyte.
J. Chmr. SM. ( 1952) 3819-22.
Na\one. R. and Fenninger. W.D.: Determinatton o! CH, tn
Water by Gas Chromstography. J. Am Wurer Wwk\ A!.s/x
( 1967) 59, No. 6. 757-59.
OSullivan. T.D. and Smith. N.O.: Soluhility and Partial
Molar Volume of Nitrogen and hlethane tn Water in Aqueous
Sodium Chlortde from SO to 125 dey and I00 to 600 am. J
P/IS\. Chcwr. (lY70) 74, No 7. 1460-66.
Rtgby. M. and Prauwitz, J.M.: Solubdity of Water in Corn-
messed Nitrozen. Arcon. and Methane. J. Phw Clxw. (1968)
72. No. I. 330-34. c
Schroeder. W.: Gas Solubility tn Water, .~~rtlr~l~~i.~.\e,,., ih(lfiPt1
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
(1968) 55. No. I I, 542.
Schroeder. W.: Observations on Solutnms 01 Gavz\ in Ltq
uds: Z. Mlntrfor,vc,l7rt,1r: (1969) B24. 500-0X.
Show. S.K.. Walker. R.D., and Gubbins, K.E.: SaltingOut of
Nonpolar Gase\ in Aqueous Potassium Hydroxide Solutions. J.
Ph\s. Clwni. (1969) 73. 3 12-17
63.
64.
Sultanov, R.G., Skripka, V.G., and Namiot, A.Y.: Moisture
Content of Methane at High Temperatures and Pressutes,
Gazov. Prom. (1971) 16, No. 4, 6-8.
Sultanov, R.G., Skripka, V.G., and Namtot, A. Y.: Phase
Equilibriums and Critical Phenomena in the Water-Methane
System at Increased Temperatures and Pressures, .??I. Fiz.
Khim. (1972) 46, No. 8, 2160.
Sultanov, R.G., Skripka, V.G., and Namiot, A.Y.: Solubility
of Methane in Water at High Temperatures and Pressures,
Gazov. Prom. (1972) 17, No. 5, 6-7.
Wen, W.-Y. and Hung, J.H.: Thermodynamics of Hydmcar-
bon Gases in Aqueous Tetraalkylammonium Salt Solutions, J.
Phys. Chem. (1970) 74, 170.
Winkler, L.W.: The Solubility of Gases in Water, Ber. Dar.
Chem. Ges. (1901) 34, 1408-22.
Yamamoto, S., Alcauskas, J.B., and Crazier, T.E.: Solubility
of Methane in Distilled Water and Sea Water, J. Chem. Eng.
Data (1976) 21, No. I, 78-80.
Gillespie, P.C. and Wilson, G.M.: Vapor-Liquid and Liquid-
Liquid Equilibria, Research Report RR-48, GPA, Tulsa (April
1982).
Dodson. C.R. and Standing, M.B.: Pressure-Volume-
Temperature and Solubility Relations for Natural Gas-Water
Mixtures, Drill. and Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1944) 173-79.
Hall, K.R., Eubank, P.T., and Holste, J.C.: Experimental
Densities and Enthalpies for Water-Natural Gas Systems,
Proc., Gas Processors Assoc. Annual Conv., Denver (1979) 58,
1-2.
Laulhere, B.M. and Briscoe, C.F.: The Partial Dehydration of
High-Pressure Natural Gas, Gas (1939) 15, No. 9, 21-24.
McCarty, E.L., Boyd, W.S., and Reid, L.S.: Water-Vapor
Content of Essentially Nitrogen-free Natural Gas Saturated with
Water at Various Conditions of Temperature and Pressure, Oil
and Gas J. (1950) 48, No. 35, 59.
McKetta, J.J. and Wehe, A.H.: How to Determine the Water
Content of Natural Gases, World Oil (1958) 147, No. 1, 122.
Russell, G.B. et al.: Experimental Determination of Water
Vapor Content of a Natural Gas up to 200 Pounds Pressure,
Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 150-56.
Tsatutyants, A.B., Rachinskii, M.A., and Izabakatov, M.:
Solubility of Water in Natural Gas, Gazov. Deb (1967) 6-10.
McKetta, J.J. and Katz, D.L.: Methane-n-Butane-Water
System in Two and Three-Phase Regions, Ind. Eng. Chrm.
(1948) 40, 853-63.
Coan, C.R.: Solubility of Water tn Compressed Carbon Diox-
ide, Nitrous Oxide, and Ethane. Evidence for Hydration of Car-
bon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide in the Gas Phase. PhD dissetta-
tion. U. of Georgia, Athens (1971).
Coan, C.R. and&g, A.D. Jr.: Solubility of Water in Com-
pressed Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, and Ethane. Evidence
for Hydration of Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide in the Gas
Phase, J. Am. Chem. Sm. (1971) 93, No. 8, 1857-62.
Bartholome, E. and Ftiz, H.: Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in
Water at High Pressures, Chem. Ing. Tech. (1956) 28, 706-08.
Barton, J.R. and Hsu, C.C.: Solubility of Cyclobutane in Alkyl
Carbonylic Acids, J. Chem. Eng. Dora (1971) 16, No. I.
93-95.
Bohr, C.: Method of Determination of Solubility Coefficients
for Gases in Liquids: Carbon Dioxtde in Water and Sodium
Chloride Solutions, Ann. Physik. Chem. (1899) 68, 500-25.
DeKiss, A.V., Lajtai, I., and Thury, G.: Solubility of Gases in
Nonelectrolyte Water Mixtures, Z. Anorg. AIIg. Chem. (1937)
233, 346-52.
Dodds, W.S., Stutzman. L.F., and Sollami, B.J.: Carbon
Dioxide Solubility in Water, Ind. Eng. Chem. (1956) 1, 92-95.
Ellis, A.J.: The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide m Water at High
Temperatures, Am. J. Sci. (1959) 257, 217-34.
Ellis, A.J. and Gelding, R.M.: The Solubility of Carbon Diox-
ide above 100C in Water and in Sodium Chloride Solutions,
Am. J. Sci. (1963) 261. 47-60.
Enns, T., Scholander, P.F., and Bradstreet, E.B.: Effect of
Hydrostatic Pressure on Gases Dissolved in Water, J. Phys.
Chem. (1965) 69, 389-91.
Franck, E.U. and Todheide, K.: Thertnal Properties of Super-
critical Mixtures of Carbon Dioxide and Water up to 750 and
2000 atms, Z. Physik. Chem. (1959) 22, 232-45.
Haehnel. 0.: The Strength of Carbonic Acid at Higher
Pressures, Cenrr. Min. Geol. (1920) 25-32.
65.
66.
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
7s
76
77
78
70
X0
Xl
82
83
x4
85
X6
x7
88
89
00
Hayduk, W. and Malik, V.K.: Density, Viscosity. and Carbon
Dioxide Solubility and Dtffusivtty in Aqueous Ethylene Glycol
Solutions, J. Chem. Eng. Data (1971) 16, No. 2, 143-46.
Houghton, G., McLean, A.M., and Ritchie, P.D.: Com-
pressibility, Fugacity. and Water Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in
the Region O-36 atm., O-100, Chem. ERR. Sci. (1957) 6.
132-37.
Khitarov, N.1. and Malintn, S.D.: Experimental
Characteristics of a Part of the System H ?O-CO? ,- Gwkhimi.w
(1956) 3. 1827.
Khitarov, N.I. and Malinin. S.D.: Phase Equilibrium Relatmn
tn the System H,O-CO2 , Geokhimi.va (1958) 7, 678-79.
Krichevskti, J.1.. Zhavoronkov, N.M.. and Aepelbaum. V.A.:
Measured Solubilities of Gases m Liquids under Pressure. I.
Solutions of Carbon Dioxide in Water and Mixtures with
Hydrogen at 20. and 30C and Pressures to 30 Kg/cm. Z.
lhw. Chum. (1936) A175. 232-38.
Kunenh. W.: Solubtltty of CO> and Hz0 in Certain
Solvents, Phys. Rev. (1922) 19. 512-24
Loprc\t. F.J.: A Method for the Rapid Determination of the
Solubillty of Gases in Liquals at Various Temperature\. J.
Ph\\. Chr,,~ (1957) 61. 112830.
Moss. 0. and Mcnnie. J.H. Aherrationr from the Ideal Gas
Laws in System\ of One and Two Components. Prw. ~ Roy.
Sot.. London (lY26) Al IO. IYX-232.
Malinm. SD. and Savcleva. N.I.: Carbon Dtoxide Solubility
in Sodturn Chloride and Calctum Chloride Solutmnr at
Temprrnturcs ot 25. SO. and 75 deg. and Elevated Carbon Diox-
idc Pre~rum. Gn,khinliw (1072) 6. 643-53.
Malmin. S.D.. The System Water-Carbon Dioxide at High
Temperatures and Prewres. Gcoihi,rliw (19.59) 3. 23555
Malmin. SD : Soluhiliry of Carbon Dioxide in Water at Low
Pattial Pressure\ at High Tempcraturc~. l>r~ri.\ .?~~~w/~r~l~.
L-A.\[J. Tdlr. Miiicrirl. P~W/J,(v. ( 197 I) 8. 229-34
Markham. A.E. and Kohe. K.A.: Soluhility of Carbon Diowidc
and Nitrous Oxide tn Aqueous Salt Solutions. J. Am. Chrw.
.Siu. (IYJI I 63. 44Y-54
Matou\. J (11 rll.: Soluhtlity of Carbon Dioxtdc In Water at
Preswres up to 40 atm.. C,l//CC1. C:ech chcv?l Co!n,riwi.
(1969) 34. No. 12. 3982-85
McCay. R C . Scely. D.H. Jr and Gardner. F.H.: Dtstrthu-
tam of Gaseous Solutes hetwcn Aqueou\ dnd Ltqmd-
H!drocarhon Phases Carbon Diowtde. hid. 01g. c-hrfrr. I 1049)
41. 1377-80.
Murray. C.N. and R&y. J P Soluhility of Gaw\ in Disttlled
Water and Sea Water. 1V. Carbon Dwxtde. Dwp-SW RI,\.
O~cw,,o,~,. 4h.\rr. 11971) 18. No. S. 5.3341
Nczdonninoga. N.A. Soluhiltty of Carbon Dtoxidc in Water.
/:I, ~krrl. htrd Ann. SSSR. Ser. T&. M/rck (19681 21. No. 3.
I I-17.
Pollitzer. F. and Strehel. E.: The lntluence of an lndtlierent
Cd\ on the Saturation Vapor Concentratwn oi a Liquid, Z.
Ph~sii. Chwi. (1924) 110. 768-85
Sunder. W.: The Soluhility of CO, in Water and Other S~>lw
tions at Higher Pressures.Z. Phrsik. Chrw. (19121 78. 513-4).
Stewart. P.B. and Munjal. P.K.: Solubility of Carbon Dtoxidc
m Dtstilled Water. Synthetic Sea Water. and Synthettc Sea-Water
Concentrates. U. otCalif.. S cc, W~rrrr Conwr.~. ( 1969) 69. No.
2. 44.
Stewart, P.R. and Munlal. P.K.: Solubility of Carbon Dioxide
m Pure Water, Synthetic Sea Water Concentrates at -5 deg. to
25 deg. and IO- to 45attn. Pressure. J. Chrwr. EJI,~. Dufrr
(1970) 15. No I. 67-7 I.
Takenouchi. S. and Kennedy. G.C.: The Binary System HIO-
CO, at Hugh Temperatures and Pressure\. Aar. J. Sti. ( IYti)
262. 1055-74.
Todheide. K. and Franck. E.U.. .Two Phase Range and the
Critical Curve in the System Carbon Dmxtdc-Water up to 3500
bar. 2. Ph!~irC Chcv~~. (19631 NF37. 387-401
Vandcrzee. C E. and Haa\. N.C.. Second Vtrial Coefficient\
B II for rhc Gas Mixture (Carbon Dioxide + Water) from 300 to
IO00 K. J. Cbwr. T/lrr7~lor/~,~~,,lir.( (10X I , 13. No 3. 203 I I
Vilcu. R. and Galnar. I.: Soluhtlity of Case\ tn Llqutd Under
Prcswre I. Carbon Dioxide-Water System. Rr,i, Kracar. #tini
(1967) 12. No. 2. 1814.
Wets\. R.F Carbon Dtoxidc m Water and Sea Water.
htrrim, Chrm ( 1974, 2. No. 3. 203m I S
Wiehe. R and Gaddy. V L The Soluhiltty in Waterot Cnrhon
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104
105.
106
107
I08
109.
110.
III.
112.
113.
114.
Dioxide at 50, 75 and 100 at Pressures to 700 Atmospheres. J.
Am. Chem. Sot. (1939) 61, 315-18.
Wiebe. R. and Caddy. V.L.: The Soluhihty of Carbon Dtoxtde
in Water at Various Temperatures from 12 to 40 and at
Pressures to 500 Atmospheres, Critical Phenomena, J. Am.
Chem. Sm. (1940) 62, 815-17.
Wiebe, R. and Caddy, V.L.: Vapor Phase Compositton of Car-
bon Dioxide-Water Mixtures at Various Temperatures and at
Pressures to 700 Atmospheres, 1. Amer. Chem. Sm. (194 I) 63,
475-77.
Wmblewski, S.: Investigation of the Absorptton of Gases in
Ltquids at High Pressure. I. Carbon Dioxide in Water, ARII.
PhyJik. Chem. (1882) 17, 103-28.
Yeh, S.-Y. and Peterson, R.E.: Solubility of Carbon Dioxide,
Krypton, and Xenon in Aqueous Solution, J. Pharm. Sri.
(1964) 53, No. 7, 822-24.
Zawisza, A. and Malesinska, B.: Soiubility of Carbon Dtoxtde
in Ltquid Water and of Water in Gaseous Carbon Dioxide in the
Range of 0.2 to 5 MPa and at Temperature up to 473 K, 1.
Chem. Eng. Dam (1981) 26, No. 4, 388-91.
Zelevskii, Y.D.: The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide under
Pressure, J. Chem. Ind. (USSR) (1937) 14, 1250-57.
Paatella, A.A., and Sagramora, G.: Solubilities of Liqutda in
Gases, Ricerca Sci. (1959) 29, 2605-13.
Adeney, W.E. and Becker, H.G.: The Determination of the
Rate of Solution of Atmospheric Nitrogen and Oxygen in
Water, ScY. Prmc. Roy. Dublin Ser. (1919) 15, 609-28.
Bartlett, E.P.: The Concentration of Water Vapor in Com-
pressed Hydrogen, Nitrogen and a Mixture of These Gases in the
Presence of Condensed Water, J. Am. Chewy SW. (1927) 49,
65578.
Basset, I. and Dade, M.: Solubility of Nitrogen in Water at
High Pressures to 4500 Kg/cm2, Cumpr. Rend. (1936) 203,
775-77.
Benson, B.B. and Krause, D.J.: Empirical Laws for Dilute
Aqueous Solutions of Nonpolar Gases, J. Chem. Phys. (1976)
64: 689-709.
Benson, B.B. and Parker. P.D.M.: Relations among the
Solubilities of Nitrogen, Argon, and Oxygen in Dtstilled Water
and Sea Water, J. Phys. Chem. (1961) 65, 1489-96.
Douglas, E.: Solubilities of Oxygen, Argon and Nttrogen m
Distilled Water, J. Phys, Chem. (1964) 68. 169-74.
Farhi, L.E.. Edwards, A.T.W., and Homma, T.: Determina-
tion of Dissolved N, in Blood by Gas Chromatography and (a-A)
N, Difference, J. Appl. Physiol. (1963) 18, 97-106.
Fox, C.J.J.: On the Coefficients of Absorption of Nitrogen and
Oxygen in Distilled Water and Sea-Water, and of Atmospheric
Carbonic Acid in Sea-Water, Truns., Faraday Sot. (1909) 5,
68-87.
Goodman, J.B. and Krase, N.W.: Solubility of Nitrogen m
Water at High Pressures and Temperatures. tnd. Eng. Chem.
(1931) 23. 401-4.
Klots, C.E. and Benson, B.B.: Solubilities of Nitrogen, Oxy-
gen, and Argon in Distilled Water, J. Marine Res. (1963) 21,
48-57.
Maslennikova, V.Y.: Solubility of Nttrogen m Water, Tr.
Gas. Nauch. -Is&d. Proekt. Insr. Azotn. Prom. Prod. Org. Sin.
(1971) 12, 82-87.
Maslennikova, V.Y., Vdovina, N.A., and Tsiklis, D.S.:
Solubility of Water in Compressed Nitrogen, Zh. Fiz. Khim.
(1971) 45, No. 9, 2384.
Murray. C.N. and Riley, J.P.: Solubility of Gases in Distilled
Water and Sea Water. II. Oxygen, Deep-Sea Res.
Oceanography Abstr. (1969) 3, 31 l-20.
Pray, H.A., Schweickent, C.E., and Minnich, B.H.: Solubility
of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Helium in Water, Ind.
Eng. Chem. (1952) 44, 1146-51.
Saddington, A.W. and Krase, N.W.: Vapor-Liquid Equilibria
m the System Nitrogen-Water, J. Am. Chem. Sot. (1934) 56.
353-61.
Smith, N.O., Keleman, S., and Napy, B.: Solubility of Natural
Gases in Aqueous Salt Solutions. 11. Nitrogen in Aqueous NaCI,
CaCl z. Na,SO, and MgSO, at Room Temperatures and at
Pressures below loo0 Ibisq. in. abs. , Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acra (1962) 26, 921-26.
Suciu, S.N. and Sibbitt. W.L.: Study of the Nitrogen and
Water and Hydrogen and Water Systems at Elevated
Temperatures and Pressures, U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, Washington, ANL (1951) 2, 4603.
I IS Tsiklij, D.S. and Maslenntkwa, V.Y.: Limited Mutual
.Solubtlity ot Gases in the Water-Nitrogen Systent. Doi/. Ahrrd.
,vhh SSSR (1965) 161. 645-47.
116. Wiebe. R.. Gaddy. V L.. and Heins. C.: Solubtltty ofNitrogen
tn Water at 25C from 25 to 1000 Atmospheres. /Ed. En#.
c-/wt (lY32) 24. 927.
117. Wiebe. R.. Gad&. V.L.. and Heins, C : The Solubilitv of
Nttrogen in W&r dt 50. 75 and 100 from 25 to IOOOAt-
mospheres. J. Am. Chem .%K. (1933) 55, 937-55.
I I8 Wilcock. R.J. and Battino. R. Solubiltty of Oxygen-Nttrogen
Mtrturc in Water. /v&w, London (1974) 252, No 5484,
614-15.
I I9 Winkler, L W. The Solubility of Gases in Water. Be!-. I)cirr.)
Chu~r. Cc.\ (1891) 24. 3602~10: 89101.
120. Winkler. L.W.: Measurements of the Abatrrptton of Case< tn
Ltqutd\. z. P/tr.v~. C/wtr. (1892) 9. 171-75.
121 Aokagi. K., 12, II/.: Improved Me~aurements and Correlation of
ths- Water Content ot Methane Ga\ m Equtlibrium wtth
Hydrate. paper prewtted at the 1979 CPA Annual Conference.
Denver
122. Byk. S S.. and Fomina. V I : Water Content ot Hydrater (11
Gases at Different Temperature. Zh. Fi:. Khim. (1978) 52. No.
5. 1306-08.
I23 Falabella. B J. and Vanpee. M.: Experimental Determination
of Ga\ Hydrate Equilibnunt bcluw the Ice Point. /~zd. Gig.
Chcm. hrrrd (1974) 13. No. 3. X8-31.
I24 Frwt. E M and Dcoton. W M.: Gas Hydrate Compositmn and
Equilibrium Data, Oi/ and Gus J (1946) 45, No. 12. 170-78.
125. Glew, D.N.: Aqueous Solubility and the Gas Hydrates. The
Methane-Water S&m, .I. fhys. Chm. (1962) 66, 605-09.
126. Hammenchmtdt, E.G.: Formation of Gas Hydrates in Natural
Gas Transmission Lines, Ind. ERR. Chem. (1934) 26, No. 8,
851-55
127. McLeod. H.D. Jr. and Campbell, J.M.: Natural Gas Hydrates
at Pressures to 10,ooO psia, J. Pet. Tech. (1961) 13, 590-94.
128. Roberts, O.L.. Brownscombe, E.R.. and Howe. L.S.:
Constitution Diagrams and Composition of Methane and
Ethane Hydrates, Oil and Gas J. (1940) 39, No. 30. 37-40.
129. Snell, L.E., Otto. F.D.. and Robinson, D.G.: Hydrates in
Systems Containing Methane, Ethylene, Propylene, and Water,
AIChE J. (1961) 7, No. 3. 482-85.
130. Ballard, D.: How to Operate a Glycol Plant. Hydrocurbon
Process. Per. Refiner (1966) 45, No. 6. 171-80.
131. Deaton, W.M. and Frost. EM.: Gas Hydrates in Natural Gas
Pipe Ltnes, Oil and Gas J. (1937) 36, No. I. 75-81.
132. Hammerschmtdt. E.G.: Preventing and Removmg Hydrates in
Natural Gas Pipe Lines. Gas (1939) 15, No. 5. 30-40.
133. Trebin, F.A. and Makogan, Y.I.: Process of Hydrate Forma-
tion tn Natural Gas. Condttions of Formatton and Decomposttion
of Hydrates, Tr. Mask. Insr. Nefrekhim. i Grrz. Prom. (1943)
42, 196-208.
134. Kobayashi, R., e( ui.: Gas Hydrate Formation with Brine and
Ethanol Solutions, Proc., Nat. Gas Assoc. Am. (1951) 27-31.
135. Wilcox, W.1.. Carson. D.B., and Katz, D.L : Natural Gas
Hydrates, Ind. Eng. Chem. (1941) 33. 662-65.
136. Larson, S.: Phase Studies of the Two-Component Carbon
Dioxide-Water System Involving the Carbon Dioxtde Hydrate,
PhD thesis, U. of Illinois. Urbana (1955).
137. Song, K.Y. and Kobayarhi, R.: The Water Content of
CO?-Rtch Fluids in Equilibrium with Liqutd Water and/or
Hydrate, Research Report, GPA, Tulsa (Sept. 1983).
138. Takahashi. S., Sony, K.Y., and Kobayashi, R.: Availability
and Deficiencies in Thermodynamic Data Needed for the Design
of Glycol Dehydrators for CO.-Rich Fluids. paper 67e
presenied at the 1983 AlChE Summer National Meeting,
Denver, Aug. 28-3 I.
139. Unmh. C.H. and Katz, D.L.: Gas Hydrates of Carbon
Dioxide-Methane Mtxtures, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 83-86.
140. van Cleeff, A., cr ui. : Studies of the Ternary System Ethylene-
Ethanol-Water. II Formation of Ethylene Hydrate. Bwnnstoff-
Chem. (1960) 41, 55-57.
141. Alder, S.B. and Spencer, C.F.: Case Studies of Industrial Pro-
blems, Phase Equilibria and Flutd Properties in the Chemical In-
dustry, Pm-. , Equtltbrium Fluid Properties in the Chemtcal In-
dustw (1980) 465-95.
142 Kobayasht, R. and Katz, D.L.: Vapor-Liquid Equilibna for
Binary Hydrocarbon-Water Systems. Ind. Eng. Chrm. (1953)
45.440-51.
133.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
Sloan, E.D.: Phase Equilibria of Natural Gas Hydratca. paper
67f presented at the 1983 AIChE Summer Natl. Mretine.
Denver. Aug. 2X-3 1,
Katz. D.L.: Prediction of Conditions for Hydrate Formatton m
Natural Gases. Twts., AIME (1945) 160. 140-49.
Katz. D.L. cttrl. : Water-Hydrocarbon Systems. Hu~z&x& o/
Nrrrnru/ GQS En,,e~neurin~. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New
York City (1959) 189-221.
Canon, D.B. and Katz, D.L.: Natural Gas Hydrates. Trtirt.>. .
AIME (1942) 146. 150-59.
Noaker. L.J. and Katz. D.L.: Gas Hydmtes of Hydrogen
Sulphide-Methane Mixtures, Trcins., AIME (1954) 201.
237-39.
Wu. B.-J.. Robinson, D.B., and Ng. H.-J : Three- and Four-
Phase Hydrate Fotming Conditions in Methane-lsobutane-
Water, J. Chrrrr. 77wrmodynomit:u (1976) 8. 461-69
Robinson, D.B. and Ng. H.-J.: Improve Hydrate Predictions.
Htdrocar/m Proc. (Dec. 197.5) 54, No. I?. 95-98.
Platteeuw, J.C. and van der Waals, J.H.: Thermodynamic
Properties of Gas Hydrates. II Phase Equilibnum in the
System, Rpc. Tim. Chirn. (1959) 78, 126-33.
van Stackelberg. M.: Solid Gas Hydrates, Ndrur-
~r,i.~.~[,,2sc,hufrpn (1949) 36. 327-33, 359-62.
van Stackelberg. M. and Mullcr. H.G.: On the Structure ofGas
Hydrates. J. Char. fhys. (I951 I 19. 1319-20
Saito, S. and Kobayashi, R.: Hydrates at High Pressurns: Part
III. Methane-Argon-Water, Argon-Nitrogen-Water Systems,
AIChE J. (1965) 11, No. I, 96-99.
Nagata, I. and Kobayashi, R.: Calculation of Dissociation
Pressures of Gas Hydrates Using the Kihara Model, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fund. (1966) 5, 344-48.
McKay, V. and Sinanoglu, 0.: Theory of Dissociation
Pressures of Some Gas Hydrates, J. Chem. fhys. (1963) 38,
No. 12, 2946-56.
Peng, D.-Y. and Robinson, D.B.: A New Two-Constant Equa-
tion of State, Ind. Eng. Chem. (1976) 15, 59-M.
Dharmawardhana, P.B.: The Measurement of the Ther-
modynamic Parameters of the Hydrate Structure and Application
of Them in the Prediction of Natural Gas Hydrates, PhD disser-
tation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden (1980).
159. Weiler. B.E.: Experimental Determination of the Ther-
modynamic Parameters of Structure II Hydrate Using Propane,
MS thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden (1982).
160 Erickson, D.D.: Development of a Natural Gas Hydrate
Prediction Computer Program, MS thesis, Colorado School of
Mines, Golden (1982).
161. Davidson, D.W.: Thermodynamtc Aspects of Natural Gas
Hydrates, paper presented at the ClC Conference, Ottawa (June
1980).
162. Records, J.R. and Seely, D.H. Jr.: Low Temperature Dehydra-
tion of Natural Gas, Trans. AIME (1951) 192, 61-68.
163. Song, K.Y. and Kobayashi, R.: Measurement and Interpreta-
tion of the Water Content of a Methane-Propane Mixture in the
Gaseous State in Equilibrium with Hydrate, Ind. Eng. Chrm.
Fund. (1982) 21, No. 4, 391-95.
164 Ng, H.-J. and Robinson, D.B.: A Method for Predicting the
Equilibrium Gas Phase Water Content in Gas-Hydrate
Equilibrium, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. (1980) 19, No. 1, 33-36.
165. Aoyagi, K. and Kobayashi, R.: Repon on the Water Content
Measurement of High Carbon Dioxide Content Simulated
Ptudhoe Bay Gas in Equilibrium with Hydrates, Proc., 50th
Annual GPA Convention, New Orleans (1978).
166. Skinner, W. Jr.: The Water Content of Natural Gas at Low
Temperatures, MS thesis, U. of Oklahoma, Notman (1948).
167. McKetta, J.J. and Katz, D.L.: Phase Relationships of
Hydrocarbon-Water Systems, Trans.. AIME (1947) 170.
34-43,
168. Peng. D.-Y. and Robinson, D.B.: Two- and Three-Phase
Equilibrium Calculations for Coal Gasification and Related Pmc-
es, Thermodynamics of Aqueous Systems wirh Indusirial Ap-
plica~ions, S.A. Newman (cd.) Symposium Series 133, ACS
(1980) 393-414.
169. Baumgaertner, M., Mootwood, R.A.S., and Wenzel, H.:
Phase Equilibrium Calculations by Equation of State for
25-24
170
171.
172
173.
174.
175.
176
177
178
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190
191
192.
Aqueous Systems with Low Mutual Solubdlty, 7&r-
modynamics of Aqueous Swrwrs with lndustrral Apphcut~on.~.
S.A. Newman (ed.), Symposium Series 133. ACS (1980)
415-34.
IY.3 Holder, G.D.. Katz. D.L.. and Hand. J.H.: Hydrate FormatIon
in Subsurface Environments, &f/l AAPG (1476) 60. No. 6.
081-X8.
194.
Moshfeghlan, M., Shariot, A., and Erbar, J.H.: Application of
the PFGC-MES Equation of State to Synthetic and Natural Gag
Systems, 7Fwrmodynumic.s <d Aqueous Systems with Inductrio/
Applitutions, S.A. Newman (cd.), Symposium Series 133, ACS
(1980) 333-59.
105.
1%.
Ktichevskli. 1.R. and Kasamovskii, J.S.: Thermodynarrucal
Calculations of Solubihties of Nitrogen and Hydrogen in Water
at High Pressures. J. Am. Chrm. Sot. (1935) 57. 2 168-7 1.
Leland. T.W. Jr., McKetta. J.J.. and Kobe. K.A.: Phase
Equilibrium in I-Butene-Water System and Correlation of
Hydrocarbon-Water Solubility, Ind. Enx. Chern. (1955) 47,
1265-71
197.
198.
100.
Culherson, O.L. and McKetta. J.J.: Phase Equilibria in
Hydrocarbon-Water Systems. 11. The Solubility of Ethane in
Water at Pressures to 10,000 psi. Truns., AIME (1950) 189,
319-22.
Reamer. H.H. et crl. : Composttion of Dew-Point Gas in
Ethane-Water System, Ind. Eng. Chrm. (1943) 35, 790-93.
Wilson, G.M.: A New Correlation of NH,. CO, and H?S
Volatility Data from Aqueous Sour Water Systems, API Data
Eooli, API, Dallas (Feb. 1978).
Otsuka, E.: Measure Vapor Liquid Equilibria of
NH,-CO,-H,, Kogyo Kogcrke Zashi (1960) 63, 1214.
Yasunishi, A. and Yashida, F.: Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in
Aqueous Electrulyte Solution,. 3. Chem. Eng. Data (1979) 24,
11-14.
200.
201.
207.
Trofimuk. A.A.. Cherskii. N.V . and Tsarw. V.P. Ga\
Hydrates-New Sources of Hydrocarbon\. Priodu. Moscow
(1979) 1. 18-27.
Ceo/irnrt (1979) 24. No. 12. 18-10.
Kvenvolden. K.A. and McMenamin. M.A.: Hydrate\ ot
Natural Gas: A Review of Their Geologic Occurrence. Gr,,/.
Sun,. Circ. (1980) 825. 14.
Scauzdlo. F.R.: Inhibiting Hydrate Formatlow in Hydrocarbon
Gases, Chem. Eng. Progr. (1956) 52, No. 8. 324-2X.
Gab Conditioning Fact Book, Dow. Chemical Co., Mldland, Ml
( 1962) 69-7 I.
Ng. H.-J. and Robinson. D.B.: Equilibrium Phase Composi-
lions and Hydrating Conditions m Sy\tcm\ Containmg Methanol.
Light Hydrocarbons. CO? and H: S, Rese,mh Report, GPA.
Tulsa (Feb. 1983).
Salto, S., Marshall. D.R.. and Kobaya\hi. R. Hydrates at
High Preswre Part Il. Application of Swi\tical Mechanic3 to
the Study o( the Hydrates of Methane. Argon. and Nitrogen.
.AIC/rEJ. (1964) 10. No. 5. 734-40.
\an Cl&f, A. and Diepen. G.A.M Gab Hydrate\ olNitrogen
and Oxygen, Rec.. True,. Chim. ( I9601 79, 5X2-86
Kobnya\hi. R. er cri.: Final Rcwrcd Report on the Water Con-
tent of C,lrbon Dioxtde Gas and Llquld Equlllbrlum with Liquid
W&r and with Gas Hydrates. Rcpori to ARC0 Oil and Ga\
C(1.. Dallas (June 1979).
Malinin, S.D. and Kumvskaya, N.A.: Soiubility of CO2 in
NaCI-H,O Solutions at Elevated Temperatures and Pressures.
Go. Chem. Anal. Chem. (1975) 4, 547-50.
Friedman, R.L. and Krishman, C.V.: Water-A Comprehensive
Treatise, Vol. S, F. Franks (ed.) Plenum Press, New York City
(1973) 55-59.
General References
Water/Volatile Gas Systems
Pitzer. K.S.: Thermodynamics of Electrolytes 1. Theoretical
Basis and General Equations, J. Phys. Chem. (1973) 77.
268-77.
Acctylenc/Water
-.
Billitrct-. I.: The Acid Nature of the Acetylcnc\. Z. P/IV\. C/wm
~lY)oZJ 30. 5x-44.
Pitrer. K.S. and Mayorga. G.: Thermodynamics of Elec-
trolytes. Il. Acuvity and Osmotic Coefficients for Strong Elec-
trolytes with One or Both Ions Univalent. J. Phys. Chem.
(1973) 77, No. 19, 2300-08
Pitzer. K.S and Kim. J J. Thermodynamics of Electrolytes.
IV. Activity and Osmotic Coefficxnts for Mixed Electrolytes,
J. Am. Chem. So,. (1974) 96, 5701-07.
Thrrmodwumics of Aqueous System5 wrth hdustnul Appliu-
tions, S.A. Newman (ed.), Symposium Senes 133, ACS (1980)
Knapp, H. and Sandier, S.: Phase Equilibna and Fluid Propcr-
ties in the Chemical Industry. paper presented at the 1980 Sec-
ond Intl. EFCE Conf., West Berlin, March 17-21.
Renon, H.: Representation of NH,-H,S-H,O, NH ,-SO,-
H,O, and NH,-CO?-H?O Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium, Thrr-
modynamics of Aqueous Systems with Industrirrl Applications.
S.A. Newman (ed.). Symposium Series 133, ACS (1980)
173-86.
bled. K.M. and Golynets. Y.F.: Soluhility of Acctylenc I ,Aqueou\
Solutwns ot Electrolytes in Relation to the Tcmpcraturc and Con-
xntration of Salt. /x l+.ct/r. U&/w. Zolr,t/. K/,r,ri. /+c~h,ir~/. ( IYSY 1
2. 173.
HiraoL,l. H.: The Solubilities of Compre\wd Acetylens Ga\ in Li-
quid\. 1. Water. f?c~. Ph!,. C&w ./[xr. (105-l) 24. Ii.
SW also Rel. 30.
EthylcneiWater
Br,IJhul>. E.J. (I (I/ : Soluhility of Ethylene in Water-Ettcct ot
Temperature and Prcssurc. hid. EQ Clw~l. j lY52) 44. 2 I I - 17.
D,lvi\. J.E. and McKetta. J J. Solubdlty of Ethqlcnc in Water. J.
Chetu. Eu,y. Durrr (lY60) 5. 371-75.
Mauerer. 0.: Einnchtung zur Messung des Wasserdampf-
Sonctw. M and Lentr. H.: Phahc Equtlibrium of Water~Propene
anteils in Gasen. Auslegcxhrift DE 2713617 B2. Deutsches
and Wdtcr-Ethcne Sy\~em\ at High Tcmpcraturc\ ,~nd Pw\w~-cs.
Patentamt (1981).
Hiri/ 7iwp -Hi,qh Pre.$ww\ ( lY73) 5. No. 6, 68Y~YY.
Chen. C.-C.. Bntt, H.I., Boston, J.F.. and Evans, L.B.: The
New Actlvlty Coefficient Models for the Vapor-Liqutd
Equilibrium of Electrolyte Systems. Thrrmod~~mtnrc.\s of
Aqueous Systems with lndustriul Applications. S.A. Newman
(ed.) Symposium Series 133. ACS (1980) 61-89.
Katz, D.L.: Depths to Which Frozen Gas Fields (Gas
Hydrates) May be Expected. 3. Pet. Tech. (1971) 23$ 419-23.
Stall, R.D., Ewing, J., and Bryan. G.M.: Anomalous Wave
Velocities in Sediments Contaming Gas Hydrates. J. Geophy.\.
Res. (1971) 76, 2090-94.
Makogon, Y.F. PI ui. : Detection of a Pool of Natural Gas !n a
Solid (Hydrated Gas) State. (in RussIan) D&i. AX&. Awk
SSSR (1971) 196. 203.
See al\o Rcl\ 30. 3 I, and 97
Blly, C. and Dick, J.W.L : Naturally Occumng Gas Hydrates
m the Mackenzie Delta. N.W.T.. Bull.. Cdn Pet. Geol. (1074)
22, No. 4, 340-52.
Venna. V.K et crl.: Dcnudlng Hydrocarbon Liquids of Natural
Gas Conatltuents by Hydrate Formation, J. Per. Tcvh. (Feb.
1975) 223-26.
Dwpcn. G.A.M and Schcffer. F.E.C. The Soluhdltj (11 Water ,n
Supercntul Ethane. R<,c. l>iw C/r;,,, ( IY50) 69. 6OJ~OY.
Gjaldbaek. J.C. and Niemann. H.: The Soluhllity ofh+trogen. Argon PropaneiWater
and Ethane m Alcohol! and W&r. Am Chow. SC mci. (1958) 12.
1015-23.
Chdddock. R.E. : Liquid-Vapor Equilibrium m Hydrocarbon Water
Systems [Propane-Water]. PhD dissertation. U of Michigan, Ann
Murzin. V.I. and Afanaseva. N.L.: Solubility of Water m L~qurf~cd
Arbor (1442).
Ethane near its Cntlcal Point. Zh Fi:. Khim (1968) 42. No. 8.
194245.
DeLoo\, T.W., Wijen, A.J.M., and Diepen. G.A.M.: Phase
Eauilibna and CritIcal Phenomena in Fluid (Pronanc +Wateri at
See alsoRefs. 14. 15. 16. 18. 21, 28. 30, 31.41.42, 53. 54. 173. and High Pressures and Temperatures. J. Chum Ti~~rr~~ntl~ricir,~ic.\
174. (1980) 12. 193-204.
Propylene/Water
Goldup, A. and Wcstaway. M.T.: Detemlination of Trace Quantities
Azamonsh. A. and McKetta, J.J.: Solubility of Propylene in Water.
of Water in Hydrocarbons. Application of the Calcium CarbIde-Gas
J. Chrm. Eng Darrt ( 1959) 4. 2 1 I- 12.
Chromatagraphic Method to Streams Containing Methanol. An&
Chwm (1966) 38. No. 12. 1657-61.
Kazaryan. T.S. and Ryabtsev, N.1.: Solubility of Saturated Pro-
pylene. Iaobutylene. Isobutane, and n-Butane in Water and Aqueous
Hachmuth, K.H.: Dehydrating Commercial Propane. 1.1(1.\1cm Grr.3
Snlulionr. A+. Kho:. (1969) 47, No. IO. 54-S6.
(1931) 8. No 1, 55-56. 62. 64.
Klausutis. N.A.: Phase Equilibrium in the Propane-Propylene-Water
Perry, C.W.: Determining Dissolved Water in Llquetied Case+.
System in the Three-Phase Region, PhD dissertation. U. ofTexas.
M. Eyq. Chm And Ed. (1938) 10. 513-14.
Austm (I 968).
Kre\heck. G.C.. Schneider, H.. and Scheraga. H.A.: The Effect of
LI. C.C. and McKetta. J.J.: Vapor-Liquid Equilibriums in the
D,O on the Thermal Stability of Proteins. Thermodynamtc
Propylene-Water Systems. J. Chetn. Eng. Dutu (1963) 8, 271-7.5.
Parameter for the Transfer of Model Compounds from H ,O to
D,O. J. Phy. Chrm. (1965) 69, 3132
McBam. J.W. and OConnor, J.J.: The Effect of Potassium Oleate
Upon the Solubility of Hydrocarbon Vapors m Water. J. ,4rn.
Pocttmann, F.H. and Dean. M.R.: Water Content of Propane. Ppr.
Chmt. SM. (1941) 63. 875-77.
Rejner (1946) 25. No. 12. 125-28.
McBam. J.W. and Soldate. A.M.: The Solubility of Propylene Vapor
Sanchez. M. and Coil. R.: Propane-Water System at High Pressures
in Water aa Affected by Typical Detergents. J. Am. Chem. Sot,.
and Temperatures. I. Two-Phase Region, Am. Quirn. (1178) 74.
(1942) 64. 1556-57.
No. 11. 1329-3.5.
Oleinikova. A.L. and Bogdanov. M.I.: Solubility of Propylene m
Wehe. A.H. and McKetta. J.J.: Method for Determining Total
Water and Aqueous Sulfuric Acid Solutions. Uch. .X$X. Yaroslav.
Hydrocarbons Dissolved in Water. Am. Chm. (1961) 33. No. 20.
Tekhno. Inst. (1971) 27. 28-31.
291-93.
Petrw. A.N.. Pankov. A.G., and Bogdanov, M.I.: Liquid-Gas
Wetlaufer. D.B. rt crl.: Nonpolar Group Participatwn m thr
Chmmatographic Determinatmn of the Solubility of Hydrocarbon
Gases in Water. Uch. .%p., Yaroslav. Tekhnol. Inst. (1970) 13,
186-90
Desaturation of Proteins by Urea and Guanidinium Salts Model
Compound Studies. J. Am. Chern. Sm. (1964) 86. SO8- 14.
See Propene/Weter: Azamoosh and McKetta.
Slemikova. A.L.. Pctroc. A.N.. and Bogdanov. M.I.: Ther-
modynamic\ of Dwwlution of Unsaturated C,-C, Hydrocarbons in
See also Refs. IS. 28, 30, 31, 41. and 142.
Water. Uch. Zup.. Yaroslav. Tekhnol. Inst. (1971) 26. 35-41.
1.3.ButadieneiWater
See Ethylene/Water: Sanchez and Lentz.
See Ref. 30.
See also Ref. 30.
PropyneiWater
Inga, R.F. and McKetta, J.J.: Solubility of Propyne in Water, J.
Chrm. Eng. Dota (1961) 6, 337-38.
I-Butene/Water
Brooks. W.B. and McKetta. J.J.: The Solublllty of I-Butene tn
Water at Pressures to loo0 pbia. Per. Refinrr (19%) 34. No. 2.
143-44.
Simpson, L.B. and Lovell, F.P.: Solubility of Ethyl, and Vinyl Acety-
lene in Several Solvents, J. Chum. Eng. D&o (1962) 7, 498-500.
Brooks, W.B. and McKetta, J.J.: The Solubiltty ol Water in
I-Butene, Pet. Rejner (1955) 34. No. 4, 138.
Cyclopmpane/Water
Brooks, W.B., Haughn. J.E., and McKetta, J.J.: The I-Butene-
Hafemann. D.R. and Miller, S.L.: The Clathrate Hydrates of Water System in the Vapor and Three-Phase Regions. Prr. /&finer
Cyclopropane. J. Phw. Chem. (1969) 73. No. 5. 1392-97. (1955) 34, No. 8. 129-30.
Imal, S.: Biophysicochemical Studies on Cyclopmpane. 1. Solublhty
Coefticient of Cyclopropane for Various Solutions. ~liartr. I,qclku
Zmshi. (1961) 12, 973-79.
See also Ref. 172.
lsobutaneiwater
Thomson. ES. and Gjaldbaek. J.C.: Solubility of Cyclopropane m
Pertluoro-Heptane, n-Hexane, Benzene, Dioxane. and Water,
Razaryan, T.S. and Ryabtsev. N.I.: Solubility of Saturated Pro-
Dan. Tidsskr. Furm. (1963) 37, 9- 17.
pylene. Isobutylene. Isobutane. and n-Butane in Water and Aqueous
Solutions, Nef. Khoz. (1969) 47. No IO. 54-56.
See also Ref. 30
Black, C., Joris, G.G., and Taylor. H.S: The Snlubility of Water in
Hydrocarbons, J. Chwn. Ph~s. (1948) 16, No. S, 537-43
Cyclopropane/KCI/Water
Nosov. E F. and Barlyaev. E.V.: Solubillty of Hexafluoropropylene
Zerpa, C. of rri.: Solubility of Cyclopropane in Aqueous Solutions of and Isobutane in Water. Zh. Otnhtl~. Khirn. (1968) 38. No. 2,
Potassium Chloride. f. Chern. Enx. Data (1979) 24. No. I. 26-28. 211-12.
25-26
Reed. C.D. and McKetta. J.J.: The Solubtltty ot Isobutane m Methylcyclopentane/Water; 2.4.Dtmethylpentaneiwater; and
Water, Pet. Refiner (1959) 38. No. 4, 159-60.
2.2.4.Tnmethylpentane:Water
See also Ref. 28
Jordan, D. (I a/.: Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium of C, Hydrocarbon-
Furfural-Water Mixtures. Experimental and Theoretical Methods for
Three- and Four-Component Systems. Chem. Eq. Proyr. ( 1950)
46. 601-13.
n-Butane/Water
Brooks, W.B., Gibbs, G.B.. and McKetta. J.J.: Mutual Solubility of
Light Hydrocarbon-Water Systems. Per. Refiner (1951) 30. No
10. 118-20.
LeBreton, J.G. and McKetta. J.J.: Low Pressure Solubilrty of
n-Butene in Water. Hydrocarbon Proc. PEWO. Ref: (1964) 43. No. 6.
136-38.
Reamer. H.H. et al.: Composition of Co-Existing Phases of
n-ButaneWater System in the Three-Phase Region. I&. E~IR. C&w
(1944) 36, 381-83.
Reamer, H.H. er al.: n-Butane-Water System in the Two-Phase
Region, Ind. Eng. Chem. (1952) 44, 609-15.
Rice. P.A., Gale, R.P.. and Barduhn. A.J.: Solubility of Butane in
Water and Soft Solutions at Low Temperatures. J. Chern. Eng.
Dam (1976) 21, 20406.
Tsikiis, D.S. and Maslennikova, V.Y.: Limited Mutual Solubility of
Gases in the Water-Butane System, Pokl. Akad. Nuuk SSSR (1964)
157, 426-29.
See Ethane/Water: Danmel cf al.
See Propane/Water: Goldup and Westaway; Kresheck et al.: and
Wetlaufer er al.
See IsobutaneiWater: Black er ui. and Kazaryan and Ryabtsev
See also Refs. 14. 15. 28, 30, 31. 41, and 55
2-2-Dimethylbutane/Water and Cyclop-entaneiWater
See Ref. 28.
n-PentaneiWater
Connolly. J.F.: Solubility of Hydrocarbons in Water Near the
Critical Solution Temperature, J. Chem. En,q Dora (1966) 11.
13-16.
Fuhner. H.: Water Solubility in Homologous Series, Ber. Dew.
Chrm. Ges. (1924) 5713. 510-15.
Liabastre. A.A.: Experimental Determination of the Solubility of
Small Organic Molecules in Water and Dideuterium Oxide and the
Application of the Scaled Partrcle Theory to Aqueous and Non-
aqueous Solutions. PhD dissertation. Georgia Inst. of Tech.,
Atlanta (1974).
Namiot, A.Y. and Beider. S.Y.: The Water Solubility of n-Pentane
and n-Hexane, Khim. Tekhnol. Top/iv. Masel (1960) 5, 52-55.
See Isobutane/Water: Black et al.
See Ref. 28
2.McthyloentaneiWater and n-Her&me/Water
See n-PentanelWater: Connolly, J.F.
See also Ref. 28.
IsopentanelWater
Pavlova. S.P. er crl.: Mutual Solubihty of C, Hydrocarbons and
Water, Prom. Sin Kauch. (1966) 3. 18-20.
See tsobutane/Water: Black er u/
See also Ref 28
NeopentaneiWater
See Refs 30 and 37
CyclohexaneiWater
Farkas. E.J.. New Method for Determination of Hydrocarbon-in-
Water Solubilities. Am/. Cbem. (1965) 37. No. 9, 1173-75.
Roddy. J.W. and Coleman, C.F.: Solubility of Water m Hydrocar-
bons as a Function of Water Activity. Trr/r~n/n (1968) 15, No. I I.
12X1-86.
Sultanov, R.G. and Skripka. V.G.: Solubility of Water in n-Hexane.
Cyclohexane, and Benzene at Elevated Temperatures and
Pressures, Z/t. Fiz. Khmz. (1973) 47, No. 4, 1035.
See also Ref. 28
n-HexaneiWater
Gester. G.C.: Design and Operation ofa Light Hydrocarbon Distilla-
tion Drier. Chrm. Eng. Pro,yr. (1947) 43, 117-22.
See Cyclohexane/Water: Roddy and Coleman, and Sultanov and
Skripka.
See also Ref. 28
Methylcycloheptane/Water and n-Octane/Water
See Ref. 28.
n-DecaneiWater
Latter, Y.G., Asymyan, K.D., and Skripka, V.G.: The Volume Pro-
perties of the Coexisting Phases of the n-Decane-Water System at
275C. Zb. Fiz. K/rim. (1976) 50. 2171.
MethaneiEthaneiWater
Amitijafari, B. and Campbell. J.M.: Solubility ofGaseous Hydrocar-
bon Mixtures in Water, So,. Per. EUK. J. (Feb. 1972) 12, No. I.
21-27.
Villameal. J.F., Bissey, L.T., and Nielson, R.F.: Dew Point Water
Contents of Methane-Ethane Mixture\ at a Series of Pressures and
Temperatures, Prod. Month!? (1954) 18. No. 7. 15- 17.
Methane/Propane/Water; EthanelPropaneiWater; and
MethaneiEthanelPropaneiWater
See MethaneiEthanelWater: Amirijafari and Campbell
Methane/n-Butane/Water
Anthony, R.G. and McKetta, J.J.: How to Estimate H,O in
Hydrocarbons, Hydrocarbon Proces.s. (1968) 47. No. 6, 131-34.
See also Refs. 28 and 44. See also Refs. 52 and 167.
Methane/n-PentaneiWater Hydrate/Volatile Gas Systems
See Ref. 44
Methane/Brine (NaCl)/Water and MethaneiEtOHIWater
EthyleneiEthaneiWater
Anthony, R.G. and McKetla. J.J.: Phase Equilibrium in the
Ethylene-Ethane-Water System. J. Chem. Eq. Data (1967) 12.
No: 1. 21-28.
See Ref. 134
Ethylene/Water
van Cleef, A. and Diepen, G.A.M.: Ethylene Hydrate at High
Presaurrs, Rec. Trai,. Chim. (1962) 81, 425-29.
Aromatic-Hvdrocarbon/Water
Eganhtruae. R.P. and Calder. J.A.: The Snlubility of Medium
Diepen. G.A.M. and Scheffer. F.E C.: The Ethylene-Water
Molecular Weight Aromatic Hydrocarbon(s) and the Effects of
System, Rec. Truv. Chim. (1950) 69, 593-603.
Hydrocarbon Co-Solutes and Salinity. Geochim. Cmmochim Actu.
(1976) 40, No. 5, 555-61.
See also Ref. 122.
Kerosme/Water and OlliWater
EthylenelEtOH/Water
Griswold, J. and Kasch, J.E.: Hydrocarbon-Water Solubilities at
Reamer, H.H., Selleck, F.T.. and Sage, B.H.: Some Properties of
Elevated Temperatures and Pressures. Ind. Eng. Chrm. (1942) 34,
Mixed Paraffinic and Olefinic Hydrates, Trans.. AIME (1952)
804-06.
195, 197-201.
Groschuff. E.: Solubility of Water in Benzene. Petroleum and Paraf-
See also Ref. 129 and 140.
fin Oil. Nckrrochern. (191 I) 17. 348.
EthaneiWater
Naphtha/Warcr
See EthyleneiEtOHiWater: Reamer er cri.
Amero, R.C.. Moore, J.W., and Capell. R.G.: Design and U&e of
Adaorptwe Drying Units. Chrrn. E~IR. fro$!r. (1947) 43, 349-70.
Set also Refs. 4. 8, 123, 124, 126, and 128.
See Kerosine-Water: Griswold and Kaach
Naiur;ll-GasiGlvcollWarer
Ru\wll. G.F.. Reid. L S., and Huntington. R.L : Experimental
Determinanons of the Vapor-Liquid Equilibria Between Natural Gas
and 95% Dlethylene Glycol up to a Pressure of 2COO psi, Trtrns.,
AlChE (1945) 41, 3 15-25.
GdwlineiWater
Derr. R.B and Willmore, C.B.: Dehydration of Organic Liquids
wth Activated Alumina, Ind. Eng. Chem. (1939) 31. 866-68.
Wachter. A. and Smith, S.S.: Preventing Internal Corrosion of the
Pipe Lmcs-Sodium Nmite Treatment for Gasoline Lines, Azd.
hg. C~PIPI. (1943) 35. 358-67.
Argon/Methane/Water and Helium/Methane/Water
Namiol. A.Y. and Bondareva. M.M.: Solublhty of Helium-Methane
Mixture m Water at High Pressures. N(zuch. Tekhn. SB. PO
Dob~chemf/r lwv. Arfiqw: Nauch h/d. hr. ( 1962) 18, 82-9 I
Nllrogcn/MethanelWater
Maharajh. D.M. and Walkley. J.: Thermodynamic Solubility of Gas
Mixture\. I Two Component Gas Mlxturcs in Water at 25 deg. ,. J.
Chm. SCM.. Fur. Trmc. (1973) 69, No. 5. 842-48.
Mahara.jh. D.M. and Waikley. J.: Lowering of rhe Separation
Solubility of Oxygen by Presence of Another&s, Nutuw. London
(1972) 236. No 5343, 165.
CyclopropaneiWater
Callahan. J.E. and Sloan, E.D.: Heat Capacity Measurements on
Structure I and II Pure Hydrates at Low Pressures and Below Room
Temperature. Research Repon, Gas Research Inst. (Sept. 1982)
Contract No. 5081-360-0487.
Dhannawardhana. P.B., Parrish, W.R. andSloan. E.D.: Experimen-
tal Thermodynamic Parameters for the Prediction of Natural Gas
Hydrate Dissociation Conditions, fnd. Eng. Chrm. Fund. (1980) 19,
410-14.
Hafemann. D.R. and Miller, S.L.: The Clarhrate Hydrates of
Cyclopropane. J. Phys. Chem. (1969) 73, No. 5. 1392-97.
CyclopropaneiKCIIWater and CyclopropanelCaCl z /Water
Menten. P.D.. Pamsh, W.R. and Sloan. E.D.: Effect of Inhibitors
on Hydrate Formatmn, Id En,q Chem Proressrs Des. Dev
(1981) 20. No. 2. 399-401.
CyclopropaneiMethanoliWater
Giussani, A.: Inhibition of Natural Gas Hydrates,. MS thesis, Col-
orado School of Mines. Golden (1981).
See Cyclopropane/KCI/Water: Menten et a/
PronaneiWater
Miller. B. and Strong. E.R. Jr.: Possibilitiesof Strong Natural Gas in
the Form of a SolId Hydrate; a Method for Delerminmg the Ratio of
Hydrocarbon to Water in a Solid Hydrate of a Normally Gaseous
Hydrocarbon. and ita Application to Propane Hydrate, Prot. Anz.
Cu.\ Acroc. (1945) 27. No. 2. 80-94.
See NitropcnlMethanelWater: Maharajh and Walkley.
Hydrogen-Sulfide/Carbon-Dioxlde/Merhane/Wdter
Set: EthyleneiEtOHIWater: Reamer e/ a/.
See also Refs. 5, 122, 126, 134, and I35
Froning. H.R.. Jacoby. R.H., and Richards, W.L.: Vapor-Liquid
Equillhnums of rhe Methane. Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Sulfide.
Water System and Apphcation to the Design of a Water Wash
System for Removing Acid Ga\e\. Pwr., Annual Convention of
the Natural Ga\ A\wc. Am. (I9631 42. 32-39.
lsohutaneiwater
Rouher. O.S. and Barduhn. A.J.: Hydrates of Iso- and Normal
Butane and Their Mixtures. D~.\c/ir/urr/on (1969) 6. 57-73.
See also Refs. 126 and 149.
Hydrogen-SulfideiWater
1 .l-DioxaneiWater and I .3-DloxanelWater
Selleck. F.T.. Cannichacl, L.T.. and Sage. B.H.: Phase Behavior In
the Hydrogen Sulfide-Water System. /mu. E/l,q. Chrru. (19.52) 44. Davidwn, D.W. and Ripmeester. J.A.: Clathrate Ices-Recent
2219-26. Results, J. Glacial. (1978) 21. No. X5. 33-49.
25-28
Methane/Ethylene/Water and MethanelEthyleneiPrcIpylene/Water
See Ref. 129
Methane/Ethane/Propane/COz/Water
See Refs. 164 and 165.
MethanelEthaneiWater
MethaneiEthaneiPropanelIsobutaneln-Butane/Water
Holder, G.D. and Gngoriou. CC.: Hydrate Dissoctation Pressures
of (Methane-Ethane-Water). Existence of a Locus of Minimum
Pressures, J Chem. Thrnnnclwumrcs (1980). 1093- 1104.
See Ref. 127.
See ~1s~~ Rcf\. 5, 127, and 128.
Methane/Propane/Condensate/Water and
Methane/Propane/Crude-Oil/Water
See Ref. 192.
Methane:Propylene/Water
Otto, F.D. and Robmson. D.B.. A Study of Hydrates in the
Methane-Propylene-Water System, AlChE J. (1960) 6. No. 4.
602m05.
MethaneiPropaneiHydrogenSulfideiWater
Schrocter, J.P., Kobayashi, R., and Hildebrand. M.A.: Hydrate
Decomposition Conditions in the System HzS-Methane-Propane.
fnd. Eng. Chem. Fund. (1983) 22, No. 4. 361-64
Carson. D.B. and Katz.. D.L.: Natural Gas Hydrates. Trunc.,
AIME (1941) 146, 150-53.
Verma, V.K., Hand, J.H., and Katz, D.L.: Gas Hydrates from Liq-
uid Hydrocarbons (Methane-Propane-Water Systems), paper
presented at the GVC/AIChE Joint Meeting, Munich, Germany,
Sept. 17-21.
laobutylenelPropane/lsobutaneiWater and
Isohutylene/Propane/Isoheptane/Propylene/Water
See Propane/Propylene/Water: Fomina and Byk.
Cracked-Gas/Water
Byk, S.S.: Experiments on the Conditions for the Formation ol
Hydrates of Cracked Gases, Gaz. from. (1957) 4, 33-35.
See alw Ref\ 5, 127, and 163. Oil/Water
Set Ref. 193
Methane!JsobutaneiWater
Ng. H.-J. and Robinson. D.B.: The Measurement and Prediction of
Hydrate Formation in Liquid Hydrocarbon-Water Systems. lnd.
En,q. Chmi. Fund. (1976) 15. No. 4, 293-98.
See ah Refs. 5. 127. and 149.
Methane/n-Butane/Water
John. V.T. and Holder. G.D.: Improwd Predictions of Hydrate
Equilibria, paper presented at the 1981 AIChE Annual Meeting.
New Orleans
Ng. H.-J. and Robinson. D.B.: The Prediction of Hydrate Formation
in Condensed Systems. AlChE J. (1977) 23. No. 4. 477-82
See also Ref. 127
Methane/Pcntane!Water and MethaneiHexanelWater
See Methane-Propane-Water: Carson and Katz.
EthyleneiEthnneiWater
Koshelev. V.S. CI (I/. : Study ot Hydrate-Gas Phase Equilihrtum m
the Ethane-Ethylene System. Zh. PM. Khirn., Lemgrad (1971)
44, 2573-74.
EthvlenelPmpaneiWater
Fomina. V.I. and Byk. S.S.: Study of Hydrate-Gas Phase
Equtltbrium m the Ethylene-Propane System. Zh. Prilil. Khiw.
Leningrad (1969) 42. 2855-58.
EthanelPropaneiWater and MethanelEthanelPropaneiWater
Holder, G.D. and Hand, J.H.: Multiple-Phase Equilibria in Hydrates
from Methane, Ethane. Propane and Water Mixtures. AlCliE J.
(1982) 28, No 3. 440-47.
Propane/PnlpylcnciWater
Fomina. V I. and Byk. S.S.: Hydrate-Gas Phase Equilthrium m the
Propane-Propylcne~Water System. Go:. Pronr. (1967) 12, Nil. 3.
X-56.
See Ref. 154.
Methane/Nitrogen/Water
Jhavcri, I. and Robmson. D.B.: Hydrates in the Methane~Nitrogen
System, Cdn. J. Chew. Eng. (1965) 43, No. 2, 75-78.
ProoaneiNitrogeniWater
Ng, H.-J., Pettunia. J.P., and Robinson. D.B.: Expenmental
Measurement and Prediction of Hydrate Forming Conditions in the
N,-Propane-Hz0 System. Nuid Phasr Equil. (1978) 1. 2X3-91.
Methane/Carbon-Dioxide/Water
See Ref. 139.
Propane/Carbon-Dioxide/Water
Robinson. D.B. and Mehta, B.R.: Hydrates in the Propane-
CO,-H,O System, J. Cdn. PH. Twh. (1971) 10. 33-35.
Propane/Hydrogen-Sulfide/Water
See Ref. 151.
MethaneiHvdroaen-Sulfide/Carbon-Dioxide/Water
Robinson. D.B. and Hutton. J.M.: Hydrate Formatton m Systems
Containing Methane. Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide. J.
Ch. Per. Tech. (1967) 6. No. I, 6-9.
Set Ref. 197
Natural-Gas/Ammonium/Water
Russell. J.T.: Anhydrous Ammonia to Inhibit Gas Hydrate Forma-
uon, Cur (1937) 13. No. 6. 38-40.
Natural-GaslNaCliWater
See Ref. 134.
Natur&Gas/CaCl ,/Water
See EthyletwEtOHiWater: Reamer 01 o/. SW Ref. 5
Chapter 26
Properties of Reservoir Rocks
Daniel M. Bass Jr., C~hado School of Mmea*
Introduction
This chapter deals with the fundamental properties of
reservoir rocks. The properties discussed are (1) pomsi-
8-a measure of the void space in a rock: (2)
pertneahi/it~-a measure of the fluid transmissivity of a
rock; (3) fluid saturutim-a measure of the gross void
space occupied by a fluid; (4) cupillaryprrssure rek-
rim--a measure of the surface forces existing between
the rock and the contained fluids; and (5) electrical cm-
clucrivity offluid-saturated rocks-a measure of the con-
ductivity of the rock and its contained fluids to electric
current. These properties constitute a set of fundamental
parameters by which the rock may be described
quantitatively.
Typical core-analysis data are presented to illustrate
the description of porous media by these fundamental
properties.
Porosity
Porosity is defined as the ratio of the void space in a rock
to the bulk volume (BV) of that rock, multiplied by 100
to express in percent. Porosity may be classified accord-
ing to the mode of origin as primary and secondary. An
original porosity is developed during the deposition of
the material, and later compaction and cementation
reduce it to the primary porosity. Secondary porosity is
that developed by some geologic process subsequent to
deposition of the rock. Primary porosity is typified by
the intergranular porosity of sandstones and the inter-
crystalline and oolitic porosity of some limestones.
Secondary porosity is typified by fracture development
as found in some shales and limestones and the vugs or
solution cavities commonly found in limestones. Rocks
having primary porosity are more uniform in their
Thts author also Wrote the orlglnal chapter on this topic m the 1962 edition
with coauthor James W. Amyx (deceased] D.M Bass Jr IS currently a petroleum
COnSUltant
characteristics than rocks in which a large part of the
porosity is induced. For direct quantitative measurement
of porosity, reliance must be placed on formation
samples obtained by coring.
Unit cells of two systematic packings of uniform
spheres are shown in Fig. 26.1. The porosity for cubical
packing (the least compact arrangement) is 47.6% and
for rhombohedral packing (the most compact arrange-
ment) is 25.96%. Considering cubical packing, the
porosity may be calculated as follows. The unit cell is a
cube with sides equal to 2r where r is the radius of the
sphere. Therefore, Vh=(2r)3=8r3, where V,] is the
bulk volume. Since there are 8% spheres in the unit cell.
the sand-grain volume, V,, , is given by
4ar
v, = -
3
The porosity, $, is given by
where L,, is PV. Therefore,
8r -413irr3
4=
8r3
X100=(1--&00
=47.6%.
Of particular interest is the fact that the radii cancel and
the porosity of uniform spheres is a function of packing
only.
POROSITY: 47.6 % POROSITY= 25.96%
CuB~~~KXE;IDE
RHOMBOHEDRAL OR
CLOSE PACKED
Fig. 26.1-Unit cells and groups of uniform spheres for cubic
and rhombohedral packing.
Tickell et al. has presented experimental data in-
dicating that, for packings of Ottawa sand, porosity was
a function of skewness of the grain-size distribution (see
Fig. 26.2). Skewness is a statistical measure of the
uniformity of distribution of a group of measurements.
Other investigators have measured the effects of distribu-
In dealing with reservoir rocks (usually consolidated
sediments), it is necessary to define total porosity and ef-
tion, grain size, and grain shape. In general, greater
fective porosity because cementing materials may seal
off a part of the PV. Totalporosity is the ratio of the total
angularity tends to increase the porosity, while an in-
void space in the rock to the BV of the rock, while effec-
tive porosity is the ratio of the interconnected void space
crease in range of particle size tends to decrease
in the rock to the BV of the rock, each expressed in per-
cent. From the reservoir-engineering standpoint, effec-
porosity.
tive porosity is the desired quantitative value because it
represents the space that is occupied by mobile fluids.
For intergranular materials, poorly to moderately well
cemented, the total porosity is approximately equal to
the effective porosity. For more highly cemented
materials and for limestones, significant differences in
total-porosity and effective-porosity values may occur.
-.08 -.04 0 +.04 +.08
SKEWNESS
Fig. 26.2-Variation of porosity with skewness of grain-size
distribution.
Photographs of oilwell cores are presented in Fig.
26.3. 3 The pore configuration of the sandstones shown
is complex, but the pores are distributed relatively
uniformly. Complex pore configurations arise from the
interaction of many factors in the geologic environment
Material having induced porosity, such as the car-
bonate rocks shown in Fig. 26.3, have even more com-
of the deposit. These factors include the packing and
plex pore configurations. In fact, two or more systems of
pore openings may occur in such rocks. The basic rock
particle-size distribution of the framework fraction, the
material is usually finely crystalline and is called the
matrix.
type of interstitial material, and the type and degree of
The matrix contains uniformly small pore
openings that comprise one system of pores. One or
cementation. The influence of these various factors may
more systems of larger openings usually occur in car-
bonate rocks as a result of leaching, fracturing, or
be evaluated as statistical trends.
dolomitization of the primary rock material. Vugular
pore openings are frequently as large as an ordinary lead
pencil and usually are attributed to leaching of the rock
subsequent to deposition. Fractures also may be quite
large and contribute substantially to the volume of pore
openings in the rock.
(b) (d)
Fig. 26.3-Oilwell cores. Consolidated sandstone: (a) wireline core, Lower Frio; (b) whole core, Seven
Rivers. Vugular, solution cavities, and crystalline limestone and dolomite: (c) whole core,
Devonian; (d) whole core, Hermosa.
PROPERTIES OF RESERVOIR ROCKS 26-3
Laboratory Measurement of Porosity
Numerous methods have been developed for the deter-
mination of the porosity of consolidated rocks having in-
tergranular porosity. Most of the methods developed
have been designed for small samples, roughly the size
of a walnut. Since the pores of intergranular material are
quite small, determining the porosity of such a sample
involves measuring the volume of literally thousands of
pores. The porosity of larger portions of the rock is
represented statistically from the results obtained on
numerous small samples.
In the laboratory measurement of porosity, it is
necessary to determine only two of the three basic
parameters (BV, PV, and grain volume). In general. all
methods of BV determination are applicable to determin-
ing both total and effective porosity.
BV. Usual procedures use observation of the volume of
fluid displaced by the sample. This procedure is par-
ticularly desirable because the BV of specially shaped
samples may be determined as rapidly as that of shaped
samples.
The fluid displaced by a sample may be observed
either volumetrically or gravimetrically. In either pm
cedure, it is necessary to prevent fluid penetration into
the pore space of the rock. This may be accomplished by
(1) coating the rock with paraffin or a similar substance,
(2) saturating the rock with the fluid into which it is to be
immersed, or (3) using mercury, which by virtue of its
surface tension and wetting characteristics does not tend
to enter the small pore spaces of most intergranular
materials.
Gravimetric determinations of BV may be accom-
plished by observing the samples weight loss when im-
mersed in a fluid or the difference in weight of a pyc-
nometer when filled with a fluid and when filled with
fluid and the core sample. The details of gravimetric
determinations of BV are best summarized by Example
Problems I through 3.
Example Problem l-Coated Sample Immersed in
Water. Given that the
weight of dry sample in air. A=20.0 g.
weight of dry sample coated with paraffin, B=20.9 g
(density of paraffin=0.9 gicmj), and
weight of coated sample immersed in water at 40F.
C= 10.0 g (density of water= 1 .OO g/cm3).
we can then calculate that
weight of paraffin=&A=20.9-20.0=0.9 g.
0.9
volume of paraffin = - = 1 cm3 ,
0.9
weight of water displaced=B-C=20.9- 10.0
= 10.9 g,
10.9
volume of water displaced = ~ = 10.9 cm3,
1 .o
volume of water displaced-volume of paraffin
=10.9-1.0=9.9 cm3, and
BV ofrock, Vb,=9.9 cm3.
Example Problem 2-Water-Saturated Sample Im-
mersed in Water. Given that
weight of saturated sample in air, D=22.5 g, and
weight of saturated sample in water at 40F,
E= 12.6 g.
we can calculate that
weight of water displaced=D-E=22.5- 12.6
x9.9 g, and
9.9
volume of water displaced= - =9.9 cm3.
1.0
Therefore,
BV rock, If,,, =9.9 cm3.
Example Problem 3-Dry Sample Immersed in Mer-
cury Pycnometer. Given A from Example Problem I
and the following values,
weight of pycnometer filled with mercury at 20C.
F=350.0 g and
weight of pycnometer filled with mercury and sample
at 20C. G=235.9 g (density of mercury=
13.546 g/cm3).
we can calculate that
weight of sample + weight of pycnometer filled with
mercury=A+F=20+350=370 g,
weight of mercury displaced =A+F-G=370-
235.9= 134.1 g. and
134.1
volume of mercury displaced = - =9.9 cm3
13.546
Therefore,
BV of rock=9.9 cm3.
Determinations of BV volumetrically use a variety of
specially constructed pycnometers or volumeters. An
electric pycnometer from which the BV may be read
directly is shown in Fig. 26.4. The sample is immersed
in the core chamber, causing a resulting rise in the level
of the connecting U tube. The change in mercury level is
measured by a micrometer screw connected to a low-
voltage circuit. The electric circuit is closed as long as
the measuring point is in contact with the mercury. The
travel of the measuring point is calibrated in volume
units such that the difference in the open-circuit readings
with and without the sample in the core chamber
represents the BV of the sample. Either dry or saturated
samples may be used in the device.
Sand-Grain Volume (GV). The various porosity
methods usually are distinguished by the means used to
determine the GV or PV. Several of the oldest methods
of porosity measurement arc based on the determination
of GV.
The GV may be determined from the dry weight of the
sample and the sand-grain density. For many purposes,
results of sufficient accuracy may be obtained by using
the density of quartz (2.65 g/cm3) as the sand-grain
density.
For more rigorous determinations either the A.F.
Melcher-Nutting4 or Russell method may be
employed. The BV of a sample is determined: then this
sample, or an adjacent sample, is reduced to grain size
and the GV is determined. In the M&her-Nutting
technique, all the measurements are determined
26-4
Type of sampling
Functions measured
Manner of measurement
Errors
TABLE 26.1~METHODS OF DETERMINING POROSITY
Effective Porosity Methods
Washburn-Bunting
Porosimeter
One to several pieces
per increment (usually
one).
Solvent extraction and
oven drying. Occa-
sionally use retort
samples.
PV and BV.
Reduction of pressure
on a confined sample
and measurement of air
evolved. BV from mer-
cury pycnometer.
Air from dirty mercury;
possible leaks in
system; incomplete
evacuation caused by
rapid operation or tight
sample.
Stevens
Porosimeter
one).
oven drying. Occa-
sionally use retort
samples.
Sand grain volume and
unconnected PV and
BV.
Difference in volume of
air evolved from a
constant-volume
chamber when empty
and when occupied by
sample. BV by Russell
tube.
Mercury does not
become dirty. Possible
leaks in system; in-
complete evacuation
caused by rapid opera-
tion or tight sample.
Kobe Porosimeter
one).
oven drying. Occa-
sionally use retort
samples.
unconnected PV and
BV.
air evolved from a
constant-volume
chamber when empty
tube.
Mercury does not
complete evacuation
Boyles Law
Porosimeter
one).
oven drying. Occa-
sionally use retort
samples.
unconnected PV and
BV.
air evolved from a
constant-volume
chamber when empty
tube.
Mercury does not
complete evacuation
MICROMETER SCALE
ADJUSTING SCREW
OH
INDICATOR
LIGHT
gravimetrically, using the principle of buoyancy (Exam-
ple Problem 2). The Russell method uses a specially
designed volumeter, and the BV and GV are determined
volumetrically. The porosity determined is total porosi-
ty, $r. Thus,
Vb - vs
+r=-
x loo.
vb
From the data of Example Problem 2 and using a sand-
grain density of 2.65 g/cm3,
vb =9.9 cm3,
20
v,=- =7.55 cm3,
2.65
and
9.9-1.55
+r=
x 100=23.8%.
9.9
Fig. 26.4-Electric pycnometer
The Stevens6 porosimeter is a means of determining the
effective GV. The porosimeter (Fig. 26.5) consists of
a core chamber that may be sealed from atmospheric
pressure and closed from the remaining parts of the
porosimeter by a needle valve. The accurate volume of
the core chamber is known. In operation, a core is placed
in the core chamber; a vacuum is established in the
PROPERTIES OF RESERVOIR ROCKS
TABLE 26.1-METHODS OF DETERMINING POROSITY (continued)
Effective Porositv Methods Total Porosity Method
26-5
Core Laboratories, Core Laboratories,
Dry Sample
one).
Saturation*
one).
Wet Sample Sand Density
Several pieces per
increment.
Several pieces for
retort; one for mercury
pump.
overy drying. Occa-
sionally use retort
samples.
PV and BV.
None. Solvent extraction and
oven drying. Occa-
sionally use retort
samples.
Solvent extraction;
then, in second step,
crush sample to grain
size.
Volumes of gas space,
oil, and water. BV.
Sand-grain volume and
unconnected PV, and
BV.
BV of sample and
volume of sand grains.
Weight of dry sample;
weight of saturated
sample in air: weight of
saturated sample im-
mersed in saturated
fluid.
Weight of retort sam-
ple; volume of oil and
water from retort sam-
ple; gas volume and
BV of mercury-pump
sample.
air evolved from a
constant-volume
chamber when empty
sample.
Weight of dry sample;
weight of saturated
sample immersed;
weight and volume of
sand grains.
Possible incomplete
saturation.
Obtain excess water
from shales. Loss 01
vapors through con-
densers.
Possible leaks in
system; incomplete
evacuation caused by
rapid operation or tight
sample.
Possible loss of sand
grains in crushing. Can
be reproduced most
accurately.
system by manipulating the mercury reservoir; the air in
the core chamber is expanded repeatedly into the
evacuated system and measured at atmospheric pressure
in the graduated tube. The Stevens method is an adapta-
tion of the Washburn-Bunting7 procedure, which will be
discussed with the measurement of PV.
Example Problem 4-Determination of Grain
Volume by Gas Expansion (Stevens Porosimeter).
Given that
volume of core chamber, H= 15 cm3
and
total reading, 1=7.00 cm3
where
volume of air (first reading)=6.970,
volume of air (second reading)=0.03, and
volume of air (third reading)=O,
we can calculate
effective grain volume=H-Z=8 cm3,
bulk volume of sample (from pycnometer)= 10 cm3,
and effective porosity, 4, =[(lO-8)110] X 100=20%.
PV. All methods of measuring PV yield effective
porosity. The methods are based on either the extraction
of a fluid from the rock or the introduction of a fluid into
the pore space of the rock.
The Washburn-Bunting 7 porosimeter measured the
volume of air extracted from the pore space by creating a
partial vacuum in the porosimeter by manipulation of the
attached mercury reservoir. In the process, the core is
exposed to contamination by mercury and, therefore, is
PULLEY.
MERCURY -
RESERVOIR
--P
GTOPCOCK
;RADUATED
TUBE
-CORE
:HAMBER
--CRANK
\
BRAKE
CONNECTING
HOSE -
Fig. 26.5-Stevens porosimeter
26-6
Sample
Number Type of Material
Approximate Gas
Permeability
(md)
1 LImestone 1
2 Fretted glass 2
3 Sandstone 20
4 Sandstone 1,000
BZE Semiquartzltic sandstone 0.2
0.x Semlquartzitic sandstone 0.8
61-A Alundum 1,000
722 Alundum 3
1123 Chalk 16
1141-A Sandstone 45
TABLE 26.2-CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLES USED IN POROSITY-MEASUREMENT COMPARISONS
Porosity (O/O)
Average From Average From Value From
Average
17.47
28.40
14.00
30.29
3.95
3 94
28.47
16.47
32.67
19.46
not suitable for additional tests. The previously de-
scribed Stevens method is a modification of the
Washburn-Bunting procedure especially designed to pre-
vent mercury contamination of the samples.
A number of other devices have been designed for
measuring PV; these include the Kobe8 porosimeter, the
Oilwell Research porosimeter, and the mercury-pump
porosimeter. Kobe and Oilwell Research porosimeters
are Boyles-law-type porosimeters designed for use with
nitrogen or helium with negligible adsorption on rock
surfaces at room temperature. The mercury-pump
porosimeter is designed so that the BV may be obtained
as well as the PV.
The saturation method of determining porosity con-
sists of saturating a clean dry sample with a fluid of
known density and determining the PV from the gain in
weight of the sample. The sample usually is evacuated in
a vacuum flask to which the saturation fluid may be ad-
mitted by means of a separatory funnel. If care is exer-
cised to achieve complete saturation, this procedure is
believed to be one of the best available techniques for in-
tergranular materials. Example Problem 5 illustrates the
saturation technique of measuring PV.
Example Problem G-Effective Porosity by the
Saturation Method. From the data of Example Prob-
lems 1 and 2, we can calculate
weight of water in pore space=D-A=22.5-20
=2.5 g.
EXPANSION CHAMBER
KNOWN VOLUME
COMPRESSED
GAS SOURCE
CORE CHAMBER
OF
KNOWN VOLUME
Fig. 26.6-Gas-expansion porosimeter for large cores.
Gas Saturation High
Methods Methods Observation
17.81 16.96 18.50
26.60 27.97 29.30
14.21 13.70 15 15
31.06 29.13 31.8
4.15 3.66 4.60
4.10 3.71 4.55
28.70 28.00 29.4
16.73 16.08 17.80
33 10 32.03 33.8
19.68 19.12 20.2
Value From
Low
Observation
16.72
27.56
13 50
26 8
3 50
3.48
27.8
16.00
31 7
100
2.5 g
volume of water in pore space = ~
1 g/cm3
=2.5 cm3,
effective PV=2.5 cm, and
BV (Example Problem 2)=9.9 cm3.
Therefore,
2.5
~,=~x100=25.3%.
Several methods of determining effective porosity are
compared in Table 26.1.
Precision of Porosity Measurements. A group of ma-
jor company laboratories conducted a series of tests to
determine the precision of porosity measurements. The
method used was either gas expansion or a saturation
technique. Table 26.2 summarizes the results of these
tests. Note that the gas-expansion method is consistently
higher than the saturation method. This undoubtedly
results from the fact that the errors inherent to each tend
to be in opposite directions. In the case of the gas-
expansion method, errors caused by gas adsorption
would cause high values to be obtained while, for the
saturation techniques, incomplete saturation of the sam-
ple would result in low values. The difference in the
average values obtained by the two methods is about
0.8% porosity, which is approximately a 5% error for a
16% porosity sample. However, it is felt that all the
methods commonly used to determine effective porosity
yield results with the desired degree of accuracy if
carefully performed.
Carbonate Rocks. Small samples, such as used in the
routine techniques already discussed, yield values of
porosity that do not include the effect of vugs, solution
cavities, etc. The saturation methods of determining PV
and BV are unsatisfactory because drainage will occur
from the larger pore spaces. Therefore, it is necessary to
use larger core samples and to determine the BV by
measurement of the core dimensions or after coating the
sample. The effective grain volume is obtained by using
a large gas-expansion porosimeter of the type shown in
Fig. 26.6. This porosimeter is based on Boyles law in
26-7
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6CCO
DEPTH OF BURIAL IN FEET
Fig. 26.7-Effect of natural compaction on porosity.
which high-pressure gas is equalized between two
chambers. The porosity may be calculated from the
measured pressures, the volume of either chamber, and
the bulk-sample volume by the use of Boyles law.
Keltont reported results of whole-core analysis. a
method utilizing large sections of the full-diameter core.
The following table of matrix vs. whole-core data sum-
marizes a part of Keltons work. lo
Grollp
1 2 3 4
Matrix porosity, % bulk 1.98 1.58 2.56 7.92
Total porosity, % bulk 2.21 2.62 3.17 8.40
Matrix porosity is that determined from small samples;
total porosity is that determined from the whole core.
Whole-core analysis satisfactorily evaluates most car-
bonate rocks. However, no satisfactory technique is
available for the analysis of extensively fractured
materials because the samples cannot be put together in
their natural state.
Compaction and Compressibility of Porous Rocks
The porosity of sedimentary rocks has been shown by
Krumbein and Sloss to be a function of the degree of
compaction of the rock. The compacting forces are a
function of the maximum depth of burial of the rock. The
effect of natural compaction on porosity is shown in Fig.
26.7. This effect is caused principally by the resulting
packing arrangement after compaction; thus, sediments
that have been buried deeply, even if subsequently
uplifted. exhibit lower porosity values than sediments
that have not been buried at great depth.
Geertsma12 states that three kinds of compressibility
must be distinguished in rocks: (I) rock-matrix com-
pressibility, (2) rock-bulk compressibility, and (3) pore
compressibility. Rock-bulk compressibility is a com-
bination of pore and rock matrix compressibility.
Rock-matrix compressibility is the fractional change in
volume of the solid rock material (grains) with a unit
change in pressure. Pore compressibility is the fractional
change in PV of the rock with a unit change in pressure.
POROSITY-PER CENT
Fig. 26.8-Effective reservoir-rock compressibilities
The depletion of fluids from the pore space of a reser-
voir rock results in a change in the internal stress in the
rock, thus causing the rock to be subjected to a different
resultant stress. This change in stress results in changes
in the GV, PV, and BV of the rock. Of principal interest
to the reservoir engineer is the change in the PV of the
rock. The change in rock-bulk compressibility may be of
importance in areas where surface subsidence could
cause appreciable property damage.
Hall I3 reported PV compressibility as a function of
porosity. These data are summarized in Fig. 26.8. The
effective rock compressibility in Fig. 26.8 results from
the change in porosity caused by grain expansion and
decrease in pore space because of compaction of the
matrix.
Fatt I4 indicates that the pore compressibility is a func-
tion of pressure. Within the range of his data, he was
unable to find a correlation with porosity.
725 Gradient (North
4 Gradient Sand
4 W.M.L(S.W.Tex.1
6
I I I I I I
35 30 25 20 15 IO 5
Formation Compressibility(Microsip1
1
Fig. 26.9-Depth vs. formation compressibility in abnormally
pressured segment of an abnormally pressured
reservoir.
/ I I
l
l \eet
-I
l
l
l
0
J
35
Fig. 26.10-PV compressibility at 75% lithostatic pressure vs.
initial sample porosity for limestones.
I I I I I I
0
initial sample porosity for consolidated
sandstones.
100
I I I I I
I
0
0 0
0 O 0 08 0 0
0 O
0
0 00 0 0
0
00
00
@ OQ
0
0
0
B
0
\ 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
l
CORRELPlTlON \
0
0
H&LLS -- 0 00
Ooo 0
0
@>&.
0 00:
0
0 0 I
0
0
initial sample porosity for friable sandstones.
The additional significance of changes in porosity with
the discovery of oil at deeper depths and new geological
areas resulted in the need for a better understanding of
the changes in porosity with the depletion of reservoir
fluid pressure.
Hammerlindl I5 developed a correlation from
measured field data that indicates the change in porosity
compressibility with depth of burial of an unconsolidated
sand (Fig. 26.9). Similar correlations have also been
presented by others in the technical literature.
Considerable laboratory work has been performed
recently in an attempt to understand better the effect of
formation compaction on porosity. Newman I6 per-
formed measurements on samples of limestone and con-
solidated, friable, and unconsolidated sandstones. He
compared his results with those of Hall I3 and van der
Knaap, as illustrated in Figs. 26.10 through 26.13. As
noted in his data, an approximate correlation may exist
between PV compressibility and porosity for limestones
and consolidated sandstones. Little or no correlation ex-
ists between PV compressibility and porosity for friable
and unconsolidated sandstones. By averaging the PV
compressibility in 5% ranges of porosity, Newman at-
tempted to correlate all four types of porous media. The
results of this averaging technique are presented in Fig.
26.14.
The methods used to measure PV compressibility have
come under discussion. PV compressibility can be
measured in the laboratory by the hydrostatic (same
pressure in all three directions) or the triaxial (different
pressure in the z direction than in the x and y directions)
techniques. The test samples also can be stress cycled
initial sample porosity for unconsolidated
sandstones.
until the strain resulting from a supplied stress is con-
stant, or the sample can be placed under stress and the
strain measured for purposes of calculating PV
compressibility.
Krug I8 and Graves I9 demonstrated that when a for-
mation sample was stress cycled to a stable strain condi-
tion, the sample gave repeatable values of PV com-
pressibility even when the sample was left in an un-
stressed condition for 30 days or more. The data reported
by Newman were for samples that were not stress
cycled.
Lachance* compared PV compressibilities obtained
by the hydraulic and triaxial methods. The reported
results (Fig. 26.15) indicate a large difference in the
magnitude of PV compressibilities obtained by the two
methods. The triaxial data indicate that PV com-
pressibility is essentially independent of the sample
porosity. Newmans I6 data were obtained by the
hydrostatic method, whereas Krugs I8 and Graves I9
data were obtained by the triaxial method.
In summary, rock compressibility is an important fac-
tor in reservoir evaluation. Oil reservoirs with high in-
itial pressures and low fluid bubblepoint pressures are
sensitive to the true value of PV compressibility. Gas
reservoirs with initial reservoir pressures in excess of
6,000 psi are also sensitive to the value of PV com-
pressibility. Newman, I6 Krug, I8 and Graves I9 all
recommend that PV compressibility be measured on
Fig. 26.14-Class averages of PV compressibility vs. initial
sample porosity.
Fig. 26.15-Calculated PV compressibility (porosity 2 8%).
26-10
-- . .
--- Lf
_--
-_-
6
3
II --
---
]
-_-
---I
- _-
---
--_
r/--i
a
t
h,
.--------_
;
h-h,
Fig. 26.16-Schematic of Henry Darcys experiment on flow of
water through sand.
samples from the reservoir in question when the PV
compressibility may be significant in reservoir
evaluation.
Permeability
Introductory Theory
It is the purpose of this section to discuss the ability of
the formation to conduct fluids. In the introduction to
API Code 27, it is stated that permeability is a proper-
ty of the porous medium and a measure of the mediums
capacity to transmit fluids. The measurement of
permeability, then, is a measure of the fluid conductivity
of the particular material. By analogy with electrical con-
ductors, the permeability represents the reciprocal of the
resistance that the porous medium offers to fluid flow.
The following equations for flow of fluids in circular
conduits are well known.
Poiseuilles equation for viscous flow:
d2Ap
v=-
321.LL ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I..........
(1)
Fannings equation for viscous and turbulent flow:
2dAp
$=-
fpL , . . . . . .
(2)
where
v = fluid velocity, cm/s,
d = diameter of conductor, cm,
Ap = pressure loss over length L, dynes/cm2,
L = length over which pressure loss is
measured, cm,
p = fluid viscosity, Pas,
p = fluid density, g/cm, and
f = friction factor, dimensionless.
A more convenient form of Poiseuilles equation is
ar4Ap
4=
, . . . . . . . . . 8clL (3)
where r is the radius of the conduit, cm, q is the volume
rate of flow, cm/s, and the other terms are as previously
defined.
If a porous medium is conceived to be a bundle of
capillary tubes, the flow rate q1 through the medium is
the sum of the flow rates through the individual tubes.
Thus,
qr=s i lljrj4, . . . .
P I 1
where n,, is the number of tubes of radius rj. If
(T/8) $ nj rj 4
j=l
(4)
is treated as a flow coefficient for the particular grouping
of tubes the equation reduces to
qr=c$; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5)
where
k
The pore structure of rocks does not permit simple
classification of the flow channels. Therefore, empirical
data are required in most cases.
In 1856, Darcy investigated the flow of water through
sand filters for water purification. His experimental ap-
paratus is shown schematically in Fig. 26.16. Darcy
interpreted his observations to yield results essentially as
given in Eq. 7.
ht --h2
q=KA- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L
(7)
q represents the volume rate of flow of water downward
through the cylindrical sandpack of cross-sectional area
A and length L. h 1 and h2 are the heights above the stan-
dard datum of the water in manometers located at the in-
put and output faces and represent the hydraulic head at
Points 1 and 2. K, a constant of proportionality. was
found to be characteristic of the sandpack. Darcys in-
vestigations were confined to flow of water through
sandpacks that were 100% saturated with water.
Later investigators found that Darcys law could be
extended to fluids other than water and that the constant
of proportionality K could be written as klp, where p is
the viscosity of the fluid and k is a proportionality con-
stant for the rock. The generalized form of Darcys law
as presented in API Code 27 is presented in Eq. 8.
u,yz-; ($-gp;). . .
where
s = distance in direction of flow, always
positive,
us =
volume flux across a unit area of the porous
medium in unit time along flow path S,
z = vertical coordinate, considered positive
downward, cm,
p = density of the fluid,
g = acceleration of gravity,
- = pressure gradient along s at the point to
ds
which u refers,
p = viscosity of the fluid,
k = permeability of the medium, and
dt
-=
sin 8, where fl is the angle between s and
ds
the horizontal.
u, may further be defined as q/A where q is the volume
rate of flow and A is the average cross-sectional area
perpendicular to the lines of flow.
The portion of Eq. 8 in parentheses may be interpreted
as the total pressure gradient minus the gradient caused
by a head of fluid. Thus, if the system is in hydrostatic
equilibrium, there is no flow and the quantity inside the
parentheses will be zero. Eq. 8 may be rewritten as
kd
u, =--@gz-p). . . . . . . . . .
fib
The quantity d(pgz-p)lds may be considered to be the
negative gradient of a potential function b, where
a=p-pgz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(lO)
The potential function is defined such that flow will be
from higher to lower values.
The dimensions of penmeabilit
P
may be established
from an analysis of Eq. 8 as k=L . In the cgs system of
units, the unit of permeability would be cm*, a large unit
for common usage; therefore, the petroleum industry
adopted the darcy as the standard unit of permeability,
which is defined as follows.
A porous medium has a permeability of one darcy when a single
phase fluid of one centipoise viscosity that completely fills the
voids of the medium, will flow through it under conditions of
viscous flow at a rate of one cubic centimeter per second per
square centimeter cross sectional area under a pressure or
equivalent hydraulic gradient of one atmosphere per
centimeter.
Fig. 26.17-Sand model for rectilinear flow of fluids.
Conditions of viscous flow mean that the rate of flow
will be sufficiently low to be directly proportional to the
potential gradient.
Darcys law holds only for conditions of viscous flow
as defined. Further, for the permeability k to be a propor-
tionality constant of the porous medium, the medium
must be 100% saturated with the flowing fluid when the
determination of permeability is made. In addition, the
fluid and the porous medium must not react-i.e., by
chemical reaction, adsorption, or absorption. If a reac-
tive fluid flows through a porous medium, it alters the
porous medium and, therefore, changes the permeability
of the medium as flow continues.
Flow Systems of Simple Geometry
Horizontal Flow. Horizontal rectilinear steady-state
flow is common to virtually all measurements of
permeability. If a rock is 100% saturated with an incom-
pressible fluid and is horizontal (Fig. 26.17), then
dz/ds=O, dplds=dpi&, and Eq. 8 reduces to
4
-k dp
ux=-=--3
A
tth
which on integration becomes
kA(P I -P*)
9=
cLL , .,....................
(11)
where k is the specific permeability.
If a compressible fluid flows through a porous
medium, Darcys law, as expressed in Eq. 8, is still
valid. However, for steady flow, the mass rate of flow
rather than the volume rate of flow is constant through
the system. Therefore, the integrated form of the equa-
tion differs. Considering steady rectilinear flow of com-
pressible fluids, Eq. 8 becomes
b dp
pux=---, .,..........,,........... (12)
ttb
or, for steady-state flow,
pux=p: =constant.
I
FREE FLOW
II
FLOW UNDER
HEAD h
III
FLOW UNDER
HEAD h
Fig. 26.1 E-Sand model for vertical flow
The density-pressure relationship for isothermal condi-
tions of a slightly compressible fluid may be expressed
as
p=poe(p
and
ap=a, . . . . . .(13)
CP
where c is the fluid compressibility. Thus,
P 0 9 0 -b dp
-k dp
-z--c--
A
P dx
pc dx
where q. is the volume rate of flow of a fluid of density
PO.
On integration,
WP I -02)
PO90 =
. . . . . (14) cLcL
If terms of cp of second and higher order are neglected,
the density can be expressed as
such that Eq. 14 reduces to
k4P I -P2)
40=
d .
The density-pressure relationship for isothermal condi-
tions of an ideal gas may be expressed as
P P PPb
-=- orp=-. . ,(15)
Ph Pb Pb
Thus,
tbqb b dp
-=-_-
A
P dx
where pb and qb are the density and volume rate of flow,
respectively, at the base pressure, ph.
Substituting for p
Pbqb k dp
-=--p-, . . . . . . . . . . . .
A
cl&
which on integration yields
(16)
kA P,*-Pz~
q=G . . . . . . . _. __
(17)
Pb
Define p as (p, +p2)12, and yP as the volume rate of
flow at p such that pqp =pbqh; then
k4PI -P2)
41, =
uL .,.................... (18)
Therefore, flow rates of ideal gases may be computed
from the equations for incompressible liquids so long as
the volume rate of flow is defined at the algebraic mean
pressure.
Vertical Flow. Fig. 26.18 shows three sandpacks in
which linear flow occurs in the vertical direction.
First consider Case 1 (Fig. 26. IS)--when the pressure
at the inlet and outlet are equal (free flow), such that only
the gravitational forces are driving the fluids. Given
dz
dp
S=Z, -=l, and -=O,
ds ds
the flow is then defined by
q&g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.(19)
P
Next consider Case 2-the case of downward flow
when the driving head (difference in hydraulic head of
inlet and outlet) is h (Fig. 26.18). We know that
dz, -ah
z=l and z=-
L
Therefore, from Eq. 8,
. . . . . . . . . . .(20)
26-13
When the flow is upward and the driving head is h,
Case 3 (Fig. 26.18), and z is defined as positive
downward,
and
k
u=+-
P
then
kApgh
4=
. . .._..........................
(21)
Radial Flow. A radial-flow system, analogous to flow
into a wellbore, is idealized in Fig. 26.19. If flow is con-
sidered to occur only in the horizontal plane under
steady-state conditions, an equation of flow may be
derived from Darcys law to be
2akMp, -P,, 1
4=
) . . . .
(22)
~ ln rplr,,
where rI, is the radius at the external boundary at which
pc (pressure at the external boundary) is measured, and
r,v is the radius of the wellbore at which pa, (pressure at
the wellbore) is measured. All other terms are as defined
for linear flow.
Eq. 22 may be modified appropriately for the flow of
compressible fluids. The details of modifying this equa-
tion are omitted because they are essentially the same as
the ones used in the horizontal rectilinear flow systems.
After modification for variations in flowing volumes
with changing pressures, Eq. 22 becomes for slightly
compressible fluids
2xk&, -P,,,)
h = . ,_..................... (23)
cp In r,,lr,,.
where w is the mass rate of flow, g/s, or
2mWpp -pw)
40 =
a~, In TJr,,.,
where q. is defined at the pressure p. where the density
is po.
For ideal gases, Eq. 22 becomes
7rkh(p<,-~,,.~)
4/J =
. (24)
Wb ln r,,r,,
or
2dd-0, -p w)
911 =
, . . . . cL ln r,,ra, (25)
Fig. 26.19-Sand model for radial flow of fluids to central
wellbore.
Conversion of Units in Darcys Law
It is convenient in many applications of Darcys law to
introduce commonly used oilfield units. The following is
a summary of the more common equations with the con-
version factors to convert to oilfield terminology.
Linear-Flow Liquids (or Gases with Volume at Mean
Pressure). Rate, BID, is given by
q=1.1271
kA(p I -p21
. . . . . . . LLL
(26)
Rate, cu ft/D, is given by
q=6.3230
Wp I -~2)
. . . . . . . . . AL
(27)
Radial-Flow Liquids (or Gases with Volume at Mean
Pressure). Rate, liters per day, is given by
q=92.349x 103
Wp, -PM)
. . . .
p In r,/r,
(28)
Rate, cu ft/D, is
q-92.349x 103
kh(p, -p,v)
cc ln r,/r,, . .
(29)
Gases at Base-Pressure, p,,, and Average Flowing
Temperature, Tf. Linear flow rate, cu ft/D. is given by
where q,, is the volume rate of flow at the algebraic mean
pressure (p, +p,,,)/2.
3.1615T,,kA(p, -pz *)
Yb =
, . . . . . . . .
TfW&PlJ
(30)
Pe
Fig. 26.20-Linear flow-parallel combination of beds. Fig. 26.21~Radial flow-parallel combination of beds.
and radial flow rate, cu ft/D, is given by*
19.88T~kh(p,2 -p,,,?)
q/J= -
.,.............
(31)
Tfq.4,~p~ In rplr,,,
where k is in darcies; A is in sq ft; h is in ft; p , , p2, pp,
p ,,.. and Ph are in psia; p is in cp; L is in ft; and re and
T,, are in consistent units.
Since the previous equations describe the flow in the
medium, appropriate volume factors must be introduced
to account for changes in the fluids caused by any
decrease in pressure and temperature from that of the
medium to standard or stock-tank conditions.
Permeability Conversion Factors. Following is a list
of various unit conversions from darcy units to other
systems of units.
kL!E-
A(p/L)
1 darcy (d)= 1,000 millidarcies (md)
(cm3/s)cp
=
cm (atm/cm)
=9.869x 10 -
(cm3/s) cp
,,* (dynIrm*)
=9.869x lop9 cm2
=1.062x IO- sq ft
=7.324x lop5
(cu ft/sec)cp
sq ft(psi/ft)
(cu ft/sec)cp
=9.697x10p4
cm(cm water/cm)
=1.127
WD)cp
sq ft (psi/ft)
= 1.424 x 10 -
(gal/min)cp
sq ft (ft water/ft)
Flow Systems of Combinations of Beds
Consider the case where the flow system comprises
layers of porous rock separated from each other by in-
finitely thin, impermeable barriers as shown in Fig.
26.20. The average permeability k may be evaluated by
Eq. 32.
(32)
C hj
j=l
Fig. 26.21 shows that the same terms appear in the
radial-flow network as in the linear system. The only dif-
ference in the two systems is the manner of expressing
the length over which the pressure drop occurs. Because
all these terms are the same in each of the parallel layers,
an evaluation of the parallel radial system yields the
same solution as obtained in the linear case.
Example Problem 6-Average Permeability of Beds
in Parallel. What is the equivalent linear permeability of
four parallel beds having equal widths and lengths under
the following conditions?
Pay
Horizontal
Thickness Permeability
Bed
(ft) (md)
1 20 100
2 15 200
3 10 300
4 5 400
i: kihj
j&
j=l .
ihi
j=I
k= (100x20)+(200x15)+(300x 10)+(400x5)
20+15+10+5
10,000
=--200 md.
50
AP, AP, AP,
h
Fig. 26.22-Linear flow-series combination of beds.
Fig. 26.23-Radial flow-series combination of beds
Another possible combination for flow systems is to
have the beds of different permeabilities to be arranged
in series as shown in Fig. 26.22. In the case of linear
flow, the average series permeability may be evaluated
by Eq. 33.
Therefore,
j&
250+2.50+500+ 1,000
2.50 250 500 1,000
z+50+100+- 200
L
2,000
k= . . . . . . .(33) = 10+5+5+5
=80 md.
LJ lkj
J ==I
For a radial system,
The same reasoning can be used in the evaluation of
the average permeability for the radial system (Fig.
k=
log 2.000/0.5
26.23) so as to yield
log 25010.5 log 500/2so lop I .000/500 log 2.ooo11 .ooo
+ + +
25 SO loo 200
kc
In r,,/r,,.
In rjlr, -1
= h,
j&l
.I
Example Problem 7-Average Permeability of Beds
in Series. What is the equivalent permeability of four
beds in series, having equal formation thicknesses under
the following conditions?
Assume Bed 1 adjacent to the wellbore (1) for a linear
system and (2) for a radial system if the radius of the
penetrating wellbore is 6 in. and the radius of effective
drainage is 2,000 ft.
=30.4 md.
Permeability of Channels and Fractures
Only the matrix permeability has been discussed in the
analysis to this point. In some sand and carbonate reser-
voirs, the formation frequently contains solution chan-
nels and natural or artificial fractures. These channels
and fractures do not change the permeability of the
matrix but do change the effective permeability of the
flow network.
Circular Channel. Equating Darcys and Poiseuilles
equations for fluid flow in a tube, the permeability may
be expressed as a function of the tube radius.
k=;, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(35)
Length Horizontal
of Bed Permeability
_ @I
Bed
(md)
1 250 25
2 250 50
3 500 100
4 1,000 200
where k and r are in consistent units.
If r is in centimeters, then k in darcies is given by
r2
k=
8(9.869x 10 -9)
I 12.50X 106r,
where 9.869~ 1O-9 is a conversion factor from the
previous list. Then, if r is in inches,
For a linear system,
k= 12.50~ 106(2.54)*r2
k=
k Ljlkj
j=l
=80~10~r*=20~10~d*,
where d is the diameter of the opening in inches.
(PI -P2YL
(0)
~~~~~~
01 03
(p: -Op5:),2L
07 09
fb)
Fig. 26.24-Plol of experlmental results for calculation of permeability-(a) from k/F =qL/
VW, -P~)I; @I from ~~P=~~,P&L~P, 2 -P~*)I.
Therefore, the permeability of a circular opening
0.005 in. in radius is 2,000,OOO md.
Fracture. For flow throu
4
h slots of fine clearances and
unit width, Buckingham- reports that
12pL
Ap=-
h?
such that the permeability of the slot is given by
k=;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(36)
When h is in centimeters and k in darcies. the
permeability of the slot is given by
k=
12(9.869x 10-9)
=84.4x 10h2,
and when h is in inches and k is in darcies, permeability
is given by
k=54.4 x 106h2,
so that the permeability of a fracture 0.01 in. in thickness
would be 5,440 darcies or 5,440,OOO md.
Physical Analogies to Darcys Law
Ohms law as commonly written is
where
I = current, A,
E = voltage drop, V, and
r = resistance of the circuit, Q,
but
L L
r=p- or r= -,
A OA
where
p = resistivity, Q-cm,
u = llp=conductivity,
L = length of flow path, cm, and
A = cross-sectional area of conductor, cmZ.
Therefore,
I&
PL
Comparing with Darcys law for a linear system,
,=!A%.
P L
Note that
4 = 1,
k 1
and
I* P
4 E
-
=-
L L
The Fourier heat equation may be written as
d=k,aF,
where
Q= rate of heat flow, Btulhr,
A = cross-sectional area, sq ft,
AT = temperature drop, F,
L = length of the conductor, ft, and
kh = thermal conductivity, Btu/(ft-hr-F).
A comparison with Darcys law indicates that
s=Q,
k
-=kl,, and
P
Ap AT
-=-
L L
Electrical and heat models (based on these analogies) of
rock and well systems frequently are used to solve fluid-
flow problems involving complex geometry.
Measurement of Permeability
The permeability of a porous medium may be deter-
mined from samples extracted from the formation or by
in-place testing. The procedures discussed in this section
pertain to the permeability determinations on small
samples of extracted media.
Two methods are used to evaluate the permeability of
cores. The method most used on clean, fairly uniform
formations uses small cylindrical samples called perm
plugs that are approximately % in. in diameter and 1 in.
in length. The second method uses full-diameter core
samples in lengths of 1 to 1% ft. The fluids used with
either method may be gas or any nonreactive liquid.
Perm-Plug Method. As core samples ordinarily contain
residual oil, water, and gas, it is necessary that the sam-
ple be subjected to preparation before the determination
of the permeability. The residual fluids normally are ex-
tracted by retorting or solvent extraction. The core is
dried before permeability measurements are taken. Air
commonly is used as the fluid in permeability
measurements. The requirement that the permeability be
determined for conditions of viscous flow is best
satisfied by obtaining data at several flow rates and plot-
ting results, as shown in Fig. 26.24, based on either Eq.
17 or 18. For conditions of viscous flow, the data should
plot a straight line, passing through the origin. Tur-
bulence is indicated by curvature of the plotted points.
The slope of the straight-line portion of the curve is equal
to k/p, from which the permeability may be computed.
To obtain k in darcies, 4 must be in cm3/s, A in cm, p 1
and p2 in atm. L in cm, and ~1 in cp.
A permeameter designed for the determination of the
permeability of rocks with either gas or liquid is il-
lustrated in Fig. 26.25. Data ordinarily are taken from
this device at only one flow rate. To assure conditions of
viscous flow, the lowest possible rate that can be
measured accurately is used.
Example Problem S-Permeability Measurement.
The following data were obtained during a routine
penneability test. Compute the permeability of this core.
1. Flow rate= 1,000 cm3 of air at 1 atm absolute and
70F in 500 seconds.
2. Pressure, downstream side of core= 1 atm absolute;
flowing temperature, 70F.
3. Viscosity of air at test temperature=0.02 cp.
4. Cross-sectional area of core=2.0 cm*.
5. Length of core=2 cm.
6. Pressure, upstream side of core= 1.45 atm
absolute.
PI VI fP?V2 =Pv
where 1 is upstream conditions and 2 is downstream con-
ditions, and
P +Pz
1.45+1
P=-
E-=1.225,
2 2
Fig. 26.25-Ruska universal permeameter.
and
1 x 1,000=1.225 V.
V=816 cm3,
_ v 816
-=1.63,
4=;=500
1.63x2x0.02
=
x 1,000
2 x0.45
=72.5 md.
Assuming that the data indicated were obtained, but
water was used as the flowing medium, compute the
permeability of the core. The viscosity of water at test
temperature was 1 .O cp.
v 1,000
4-50040
t
and
.-
k=!!kx,,)oO=
2X1X2
~ x 1,000=4,450 md.
A AP
2x0.45
Whole-Core Measurement. The core must be prepared
in the same manner as perm plugs. The core is then
mounted in special holding devices as shown in Fig.
26.26. The measurements required are the same as the
perm plugs but the calculations are slightly different.
AIR PRESSURE
-GASKET OPENING
END VIEW
TOP VIEW
SPLT -
TELOWMETER
GASKET1
Fig. 26.26-Clamp-type permeameter for large cores.
In the case of the clamp-type permeameter, the
geometry of the flow paths is complex, and an ap-
propriate shape factor must be applied to the data to com-
pute the permeability of the sample. The shape factor is a
function of the core diameter and the size of the gasket
opening. The shape factor affects the quantity L/A in the
previous equations.
Factors Affecting Permeability Measurements
In the techniques of permeability measurement previous-
ly discussed, certain precautions must be exercised to
obtain accurate results. When gas is being used as the
measuring fluid, corrections must be made for gas slip-
page. When liquid is the testing fluid, care must be taken
that it does not react with the solids in the core sample.
Also, corrections may be applied for the change in
permeability because of the reduction in confining
pressure on the sample.
Effect of Gas Slippage on
Permeability Measurements
Klinkenberg I4 has reported variations in permeability
determined by using gases as the flowing fluid from that
determined by using nonreactive liquids. These varia-
tions were ascribed to slippage, a phenomenon well
known with respect to gas flow in capillary tubes. The
phenomenon of gas slippage occurs when the diameter of
the capillary openings approaches the mean free path of
the gas.
Fig. 26.27 is a plot of the permeability of a porous
medium as determined at various mean pressures using
hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide as the flowing
fluids. Note that for each gas a straight line is obtained
for the observed permeability as a function of the
reciprocal of the mean pressure of the test. The data ob-
tained with the lowest-molecular-weight gas yield the
straight line with the greatest slope, indicative of a
greater slippage effect. All the lines when extrapolated to
infinite mean pressure (l/j=O) intercept the permeabili-
ty axis at a common point. This point is designated as the
equivalent liquid permeability, kL. Klinkenberg and
b CARBON DIOXIDE
I / I I I I 1
0 2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 12 1.4
1
J
RECIPROCAL MEAN PRESSURE (ATM)-
k!
Fig. 26.27-Permeability constant of core sample L to hydro-
gen, nitrogen, and COP at different pressures
(permeability constant to iso-octane, 2.55 md).
others established that the permeability of a porous
medium to a nonreactive homogeneous single-phase liq-
uid was equal to the equivalent liquid permeability.
The linear relationship between the observed
permeability and the reciprocal of mean pressure may be
expressed as follows.
kg
kL=-
1 +blp
=k, -ml, . . . . . . (37)
P
where
kL = permeability of the medium to a single
liquid phase completely filling the pores
of the medium,
k, = permeability of the medium to a gas
completely filling the pores of the
medium,
j = mean flowing pressure of the gas at which
k, was observed,
b = constant for a given gas in a given medium,
and
m = slope of the curve.
Reactive Fluids. While water commonly is considered
to be nonreactive in the ordinary sense, the occurrence of
swelling clays in many reservoir rock materials results in
waters being the most frequently occurring reactive liq-
uid in connection with permeability determinations.
Reactive liquids alter the internal geometry of the porous
medium. This phenomenon does not vitiate Darcys law
but rather results in a new porous medium, the
permeability of which is determined by the new internal
geometry.
While fresh water may cause the cementation material
in a core to swell because of hydration, it is a reversible
process. A highly saline water may be flowed through
the core and return the permeability to its original value.
The effect of water salinity on permeability is shown in
Table 24.3. 25
TABLE 26.3-EFFECT OF WATER SALINITY ON PERMEABILITY OF NATURAL
CORES (Grains/gal Chloride ion)
Field Zone
~ -
S 34
: 34 34
S 34
S 34
s 34
S 34
S 34
S 34
S 34
S 34
S 34
s 34
S 34
T 36
T 36
T
T ;:
T 36
T 36
k
a
4,080
24,800
40,100
39,700
12,000
4.850
22,800
34.800
27,000
12,500
13,600
7,640
11,100
6,500
2,630
3,340
2,640
3,360
4,020
3,090
k
1,000
k
500
k
300
1,445 1,380 1,290
11,800 10,600 10,000
23,000 18.600 15,300
20,400 17,600 17,300
5,450 4,550 4,600
1,910 1,430 925
13,600 6,150 4,010
23,600 7,800 5,460
21,000 15,400 13,100
4,750 2,800 1,680
5,160 4,640 4,200
1,788 1,840 2,010
4,250 2,520 1,500
2,380 2,080 1,585
2,180 2,140 2,080
2,820 2,730 2,700
2,040 1,920 1,860
2,500 2,400 2,340
3,180 2,900 2,860
2,080 1,900 1,750
k
200
1,190
9,000
13,800
17,100
4,510
736
3,490
5,220
12,900
973
4,150
2,540
866
1,230
2,150
2,690
1,860
2,340
2,820
1,630
k
100
k
w
885 17.2
7,400 147
8,200 270
14,300 1,680
3,280 167
326 5.0
1,970 19.5
3,860 9.9
10,900 1,030
157 2.4
2,790 197
2,020 119
180 6.2
794 4.1
2,010 1,960
2,490 2,460
1,860 1,550
2,280 2,060
2,650 2,460
1,490 1,040
Far example. ks means permeablhty lo air, hSoo
means permeablhty 10 iresh water
means permeablllty 10 500.gram/gal chloride solul~on, and kw
Care must be taken that laboratory permeability values
are corrected to liquid values obtained with water whose
salinity corresponds to formation water.
Overburden Pressure. When the core is removed from
the formation, all the confining forces are removed. The
rock matrix is permitted to expand in all directions, par-
tially changing the shapes of the fluid-flow paths inside
the core.
Compaction of the core caused by overburden pressure
may cause as much as a 25 % reduction in the permeabil i-
ty of various formations, as observed in Fig. 26.28.2h
Note that some formations are much more compressible
than others; thus, more data are required to develop em-
pirical correlations that will permit the correction of sur-
face permeability for overburden pressures.
Factors in Evaluation of Permeability From
Other Parameters
,Permeability. like porosity, is a variable that can be
measured for each rock sample. To aid in understanding
fluid flow in rocks and possibly to reduce the number of
measurements required on rocks, correlations among
porosity, permeability, surface area, pore size, and other
variables have been made. The reasoning behind some of
the correlations among porosity, permeability, and sur-
face area is presented here to enable the reader to gain
some understanding of the interrelation of the physical
properties of rocks. Although these relations are not
quantitative, they are indicative of the interdependence
of rock characteristics.
Use of Capillary Tubes for Flow Network. The
permeability of a tube derived from Darcys and
Poiseuilles equation is
k=f
x
If a porous system is conceived to be a bundle of
capillary tubes, then it can be shown that the permeabili-
ty of the medium depends on the pore-size distribution
and porosity. A flow network of tubes would be similar
to layers of different permeability in parallel, such that
the average permeability could be calculated by adapting
Eq. 32 to read
m
C kjAj
J =I
WI
. . . . . . . . ..I..............
(38)
J =l
where kj is the permeability of one capillary tube and Aj
is the area of flow represented by a bundle of tubes of
permeability ki.
lCURVE SOURCE PERMEABILITY POROSITY
-- nr rr.n.- . .^
--l?rruT
ti d 60
zt I t
3 ~WXIERN CALIFORNIA
335 25
:z
4
LOS ANGELES BASIN
2 CALIFORNIA
I10 22
y 50
I I
0 1000
5
2000 3000 4000 5000
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE-PSIG
Fig. 26.28-Change in permeability with overburden pressure.
26-20
The quantities k, and A, can be defined in terms of the Wyllie* derived the Kozeny equation from Poi-
radius of capillary tubes.
seuilles law by using a specified flow network. The
resulting permeability for this flow network is given by
A,=sn r
I I
and
Eq. 43.
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(43)
7
k;+,
where
k = permeability of the porous medium,
F,Y = shape factor,
where n, is the number of tubes of radius r,.
5 A,=$A,,
J=l
L = length of the sample, and
L, = actual length of the flow path.
If
Lo 2
where 4 is the porosity of the flow network and A, is the
( > T
=T= tortuosity of the porous medium
total cross-sectional area of the flow network. By
substitution, Eq. 38 reduced to
and K, =F,Y7=Kozeny constant, then Wyllies equation
will reduce to the same form as Eq. 42.
j&f
,,1
c n/r, 3
j= I
111
( . . . . . . c ,l/r; *
j=l
(39)
where li is the average permeability of the tube bundle.
Note that the permeability of a bundle of tubes is a
function not only of the pore size but of the arrangement
or porosity of the system.
Consider a system that comprises a bundle of capillary
tubes of the same radii and length; k, the permeability,
may be written from Eq. 39 as
7
k=$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(40)
The internal surface area per unit PV, A,,, may be de-
fined in terms of the tube radius by
A,,=?. ,.,.....,.,,.,,_...,..........,
.(41)
r
Combining Eqs. 40 and 41 gives the permeability as a
function of porosity and internal surface area. This func-
tion is
If l/K; is substituted for the constant l/z, the resulting
expression is Kozenys equation wherein K; is defined
as the Kozenys constant.
4
k=-
K,A, ~~~~..........,......___,,,,. (42)
Fluid Saturations
In the previous sections of this chapter, the storage and
the conduction capacity of a porous rock were discussed.
To the engineer there is yet another important factor to
be determined-i.e., the fluid content of the rock. In
most oil-bearing formations, it is believed that the rock
was completely saturated with water before the invasion
of the rock by petroleum. The oil will not displace all the
water from the pore space. Therefore, to determine the
quantity of hydrocarbons accumulated in a porous rock
formation, it is necessary to determine the fluid satura-
tion (oil, water, and gas) of the rock.
There are two approaches to the problem of determin-
ing the fluid saturations within a reservoir rock. The
direct approach is to measure. in the laboratory, the
saturations of selected rock samples recovered from the
parent formation. The indirect approach is to determine
the fluid saturation by measuring some related physical
property of the rock.
Factors Affecting Fluid Saturations of Cores
The core samples delivered to the laboratory for fluid-
saturation determinations are obtained from the ground
by either rotary, sidewall, or cable-tool coring. In all
cases, the fluid content of these samples has been altered
by two processes. First, in the case of rotary drilling, the
mud column exerts a greater pressure at the formation
wellbore surface than the fluid in the formation. The dif-
ferential pressure between the mud column and the for-
mation fluids causes mud and mud filtrate to invade the
formation, thus flushing the formation with mud and its
fyltrate. The filtrate displaces some of the original fluids.
This displacement process changes the original fluid
contents of the in-place rock. Second. as the sample is
brought to the surface, the confining pressure of the fluid
column is constantly decreasing. The reduction of
pressure permits the expansion of the entrapped water,
ail, and gas. Gas. having the greater coefficient of ex-
pansion, expels oil and water from the core. Thus, the
content of the core at the surface has been changed from
that which existed in the formation. Because the invasion
26-2 1
of the filtrate precedes the core bit, it is not possible to
use pressurized core barrels to obtain undisturbed
samples.
Drill cuttings, chips, or cores from cable-tool drilling
also have undergone definite physical changes. If little or
no fluid is maintained in the wellbore, the formation ad-
jacent to the well surface is depleted because of pressure
reduction. As chips are formed in the well, they may or
may not be invaded, depending on the fluids in the
wellbore and the physical properties of the rock. In all
probability, fluid will permeate this depleted sample,
resulting in flushing. Thus, even cable-tool cores
undergo the same two processes as was noted in the case
of rotary coring, although in reverse order.
Sidewall cores from either rotary- or cable-tool-drilled
holes are subjected to these same processes.
In an attempt to understand better the overall effect of
the physical changes that occur in the core because of
flushing and fluid expansion, Kennedy et al. 28 under-
took a study to simulate rotary-coring techniques. The
effects of both invasion and expansion because of
pressure reduction were measured.
Schematics of the changes in saturation resulting from
these two processes for oil- and water-based muds are
shown in Fig. 26.29. For the water-based mud, the
original displacing action of the water filtrate reduced the
oil saturation by approximately 14%. The expansion to
surface pressure displaced water and additional oil. The
final water saturation was greater than the water satura-
tion before coring. With oil-based mud, wherein the
filtrate is oil, the displacing action did not alter the initial
water saturations but did result in replacement of approx-
imately 20% of the initial oil. On pressure depletion, a
small fraction of the water was expelled, reducing the
water saturation from 49.1 to 47.7 % The oil saturation
was reduced by both processes from 50.9 to 26.7%.
Thus, even when high water saturations are involved, up
to approximately 50%, the water-saturation values ob-
tained with oil-based muds may be considered to be
representative of the initial water saturations in the reser-
voir. Hence, it is possible to obtain fairly representative
values of in-place water saturations by using oil-based
muds.
Attempts have been made to use tracers in the drilling
fluid to determine the amount of water in the core that is
caused by mud-filtrate invasion. The theory was that
mud filtrate displaced only oil. Thus. upon recovering
the core to the surface, the salt concentration of the core
water could be determined. Thus, if the salt concentra-
tion in the reservoir water and the tracer concentration in
the drilling fluid were known, the volume of filtrate and
reservoir water in the core could be calculated. Because a
large fraction of the initial reservoir water may have been
displaced by the invading filtrate, the tracer method
results in incorrect values for reservoir-water saturation.
To obtain realistic values of fluid saturation, it is
necessary to choose the proper drilling fluid or to use in-
direct methods of saturation determination.
Determination of Fluid Saturations from
Rock Samples
One of the most popular means of measuring fluid
saturations of cores is the retort method. This method
takes a small rock sample and heats the sample to
SATURATION AFTER
MUD FLUSHING BEFORE
PRE :SSURE REDUC TION
RESIDUAL
SbTUkATlON SATURATION
WATER BASE MUD
(a)
ORIGINAL
SATURATION
T---l
SATURATION AFTER
RESIDUAL
SATURATION
MUD FLUSHING BEFORE
PRESSURE REDUCTION
OIL BASE MUD
(b)
Fig. 26.29-Typical changes in saturations of cores flushed
with water-based and oil-based muds.
vaporize the water and the oil, which is condensed and
collected in a small receiving vessel. The retort method
has several disadvantages as far as commercial work is
concerned. The water of crystallization within the rock is
driven off, causing the water-recovery values to be too
high. The second error that occurs from retorting
samples is that the oil, when heated to high
temperatures, has a tendency to crack and coke. This
change of hydrocarbon molecules tends to decrease the
liquid volume. The fluid wetting characteristics of the
sample surface may be altered during the retorting proc-
ess as a result of the two previous factors. Before retorts
can be used, calibration curves must be prepared for
water and oils of various gravities to correct for losses
and other errors. These curves can be obtained by run-
ning blank runs (retorting known volumes of fluids of
known properties). The retort is a rapid method for deter-
mining fluid saturations and, if the corrections are used,
yields satisfactory results. It gives both water and oil
volumes such that the oil and water saturations can be
calculated from the following equations.
S&,
P
S, +,
P
26-22
and
S,=l-S,-S,,
where
s, =
s, =
s, =
v, =
VP =
v, =
water saturation,
oil saturation,
gas saturation,
The other
extraction
Fig. 26.30Laboratory layout for performlng routine core analysis
water volume, cm
3
,
pore volume, cm
3
, and
oil volume, cm
3
.
method of determining fluid saturation is by
with a solvent. Extraction may be accom-
plished by a modified ASTM distillation method or a
centrifuge method. In the standard distillation test, the
core is placed such that a vapor of either toluene, pen-
tane, octane, or naphtha rises through the core. This
process leaches out the oil and water in the core. The
water and extracting fluid are condensed and collected in
a graduated receiving tube. The water settles to the bot-
tom of the receiving tube because of its greater density,
and the extracting fluid refluxes over the core and into
the main heating vessel. The process is continued until
no more water is collected in the receiving tube. The
water saturation may be determined directly by
S,,=v,;.
VP
The oil saturation is an indirect determination. The oil
saturation as a fraction of PV is given by
so=
w,, - w,, - w,
VP-P* )
where
W II =
weight of wet core, g,
Wtd = weight of dry core, g,
W, = weight of water, g,
VP = PV, cm
3
, and
PO
= density of oil, g/cm
3
.
The gas saturation is obtained in the same manner as the
retort.
Another method of determining water saturation is to
use a centrifuge. A solvent is injected into the centrifuge
just off center. Because of centrifugal force, it is thrown
to the outer radii and forced to pass through the core
sample. The outflow fluid is trapped and the quantity of
water in the core is determined. The use of the centrifuge
provides a very rapid method because of the high forces
that can be applied. In both extraction methods, at the
same time that the water content is determined, the core
is cleaned in preparation for the other measurements
such as porosity and permeability.
There is another procedure for saturation determina-
tion that is used in conjunction with either of the extrac-
tion methods. The core as received from the well is
placed in a modified mercury porosimeter in which the
BV and gas volume are measured. The volume of water
is determined by one of the extraction methods. The
fluid saturations can be calculated from these data.
In connection with all procedures for determination of
fluid content, a value of PV must be established in order
that fluid saturations may be expressed as percent of PV.
Any of the porosity procedures previously described may
be used. Also, the BV and gas volume determined from
the mercury porosimeter may be combined with the oil
and water volumes obtained from the retort to calculate
PV, porosity, and fluid saturations.
Porosity, permeability, and fluid-saturation determina-
tions are the measurements commonly reported in
routine core analysis. A laboratory equipped for such
determinations is shown in Fig. 26.30.
Interstitial Water Saturations
Essentially, three methods are available to the reservoir
engineer for the determination of interstitial water satura-
tions. These methods are (1) determination from cores
cut with oil-based muds, (2) determination from
capillary-pressure data, and (3) calculation from electric-
log analysis (see Chap. 49).
Oil-Based Mud. The obtaining of water saturations by
using oil-based muds has been discussed. A correlation
between water saturation and air permeability for cores
obtained with oil-based muds is shown in Fig. 26.31.
29
26-23
A general trend of increasing water saturation with
decreasing permeability is indicated. It is accepted from
field and experimental evidence that the water content
determined from cores cut with oil-based mud reflects
closely the water saturation as it exists in a reservoir, ex-
cept in transition zones where some of the interstitial
water is replaced by filtrate or displaced by gas
expansion.
Fig. 26.32 shows permeability/interstitial-water rela-
tionships reported in the literature for a number of fields
and areas. There is no general correlation applicable to
all fields; however, an approximately linear correlation
between interstitial water and the logarithm of
permeability exists for each individual field. The general
trend of the correlation is decreasing interstitial water
with increasing permeability.
2 2 4 6 4 6
II t tic: t t ttn
I 20 40 60 100 200 400
AIR PERMEABILITY, MILLIDARCYS
Fig. 26.31--Relation of air permeability to the water content of
the South Coles Levee cores.
Capillary Pressure. Capillary pressure may be thought
of as a force per unit area resulting from the interaction
of surface forces and the geometry of the medium in
which they exist. Capillary pressure for a capillary tube
is defined in terms of the inter-facial tension between the
fluids, a. the angle of contact of the interface of these
two fluids and the tube. 0(., and the radius of the tube,
VI.
vature (these radii touch at only one point), r, and r7 _
and the interfacial tension of the fluids. This relationship
is given in Eq. 4.5.
(45)
This relationship is expressed in Eq. 44.
P,. =
20 cos 8,.
, ,,..,.....................
(44)
rt
Comparing Eq. 4.5 with the equation for capillary
pressure as determined by the capillary-tube method, it is
found that the mean radius U is defined by
where the angle 0,. is measured through the more dense
fluid.
I 1 I 2 cos 0
_=-+-=-.--.-------'
r
rt r2 rf
In a packing of spheres, the capillary pressure is ex-
pressed in terms of any two perpendicular radii of cur-
rir2 rf
y=-=-.---
rl +r2
2cos*,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(46)
0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LEGEND
I = HAWKINS
2: MAGNOLIA
3= WASHINGTON
4=ELK BASIN
5= RANGELY
6: CREOLE
7= SYNTHETIC ALUNDUM
8: LAKE ST. JOHN
C
9= LOUISIANA GULF COAST
MIOCENE AGE-WELL A
IO=DITTO-WELLS BAND C
fil = NORTH BELRIDGE-CALIFORNIA
CORE ANALYSIS DATA
% INTERSTITIAL WATER
Fig. 26.32-Interstitial water vs. permeability relationships.
MEASURING
APPARATUS
Fig. 26.33-Schematic of porous-diaphragm method of
capillary pressure.
It is practically impossible to measure the values of rl
and t-2 ; hence, they generally are referred to by the mean
radius of curvature and empirically determined from
other measurements on a porous medium.
The distribution of the liquid in a porous system
depends on the wetting characteristics. It is necessary to
determine which is the wetting fluid so as to ascertain
which fluid occupies the small pore spaces. From pack-
ings of spheres, the wetting-phase distribution within a
porous system has been described as either funicular or
pendular in nature. In funicular distribution, the wetting
phase is continuous, completely covering the surface of
the solid. The pendular ring is a state of saturation in
which the wetting phase is not continuous and the
nonwetting phase is in contact with some of the solid sur-
face. The wetting phase occupies the smaller interstices.
As the wetting-phase saturation progresses from the
funicular to the pendular-ring distribution, the volume of
the wetting phase decreases and the mean radius of cur-
vature or the values of rl and r2 tend to decrease in
magnitude. Referring to Eq. 46, we see that if r I and r2
decrease in size, the magnitude of the capillary pressure
would have to increase in value. Since r , and r2 can be
related to the wetting-phase saturation, it is possible to
express the capillary pressure as a function of fluid
saturation when two immiscible phases are within the
porous matrix.
Laboratory Measurements of Capillary Pressure
Essentially, five methods of measuring capillary
pressure on small core samples are used. These methods
are (1) the desatumtion or displacement process, through
a porous diaphragm or membrane (restored-state method
of Welge3), (2) the mercury-injection method, (3) the
centrifuge or centrifugal method, (4) the dynamic-
capillary-pressure method, and (5) the evaporation
method. *
Porous Diaphragm. The first of these, illustrated in
Fig. 26.33, is the displacement or diaphragm method.
The essential requirement of the diaphragm method is a
Since the method IS seldom used today, it WIII not be dwzussed The procedure con-
slsts ot continuously monitoring the decrease m weight caused by evaporabon of a
core sample lnitlally 100% saturated wlh a wetltng fluld. See Messner, E S :
Intetsbtial Water Determmation By An Evaporatmn Method. Trans, AIME (1951)
192,269-74
permeable membrane of uniform pore-size distribution
containing pores of such size that the selected displacing
fluid will not penetrate the diaphragm when the pressures
applied to the displacing phase are below some selected
maximum pressure of investigation. Various materials
including fritted glass, porcelain, and cellophane have
been used successfully as diaphragms. Pressure applied
to the assembly is increased by small increments. The
core is allowed to approach a state of static equilibrium
at each pressure level. The saturation of the core is
calculated at each point defining the capillary-pressure
curve. Any combination of fluids may be used: gas, oil,
and/or water. Although most determinations of capillary
pressure by the diaphragm method are drainage tests, by
suitable modifications imbibition curves similar to
Leveretts may be obtained.
Mercury Injection. The mercury-capillary-pressure ap-
paratus was developed to accelerate the determination of
the capillary-pressure/saturation relationship. Mercury is
normally a nonwetting fluid. The core sample is inserted
in the mercury chamber and evacuated. Mercury is
forced into the core under pressure. The volume of mer-
cury
injected at each pressure determines the
nonwetting-phase saturation. This procedure is con-
tinued until the core sample is filled with mercury or the
injection pressure reaches some predetermined value.
Two important advantages are gained by this method: (1)
the time for determination is reduced to a few minutes,
and (2) the range of pressure investigation is increased
because the limitation of the diaphragms properties is
removed. Disadvantages are the difference in wetting
properties and permanent loss of the core sample.
Centrifuge Method. A third method for determining
capillary properties of reservoir rocks is the centrifuge
method.3 The high accelerations in the centrifuge in-
crease the field of force on the fluids, in effect subjecting
the core to an increased gravitational force. By rotating
the sample at various constant speeds, a complete
capillary-pressure curve may be obtained. The speed of
rotation is converted into force units in the center of the
core sample, and the fluid saturation is read visually by
the operator. The advantage of the method is the in-
creased speed of obtaining the data. A complete curve
may be established in a few hours, while the diaphragm
method requires days.
Dynamic Method. Brown3* reported the results of
determining capillary-pressure/saturation curves by a
dynamic method. Simultaneous steady-state flow of two
fluids is established in the core. By the use of special
wetted disks that permitted hydraulic pressure transmis-
sion of only the selected fluid phase, the difference in the
resulting measured pressures of the two fluids in the core
is the capillary pressure. The saturation is varied by
regulating the quantity of each fluid entering the core.
Thus, it is possible to obtain a complete capillary-
pressure curve.
Comparison of Methods of Measurement
Intuitively, it appears that the diaphragm method
(restored state) is superior in that oil and water are used;
therefore, actual wetting conditions are more nearly ap-
proached. Hence, the diaphragm method is used as the
standard to which all other methods are compared. The
mercury-injection test data must be corrected for wetting
conditions before they can be compared with results
from the restored-state method. If it is assumed that the
mean curvature of an interface in rock is a unique func-
tion of fluid saturation, then the ratio of mercury to water
capillary-pressure data is given by
+-+f+6.57. . . . . (47)
M 0,.
DEPTH FEET BELOW SEA-LEVEL
where urn is the surface tension of mercury and u, is the
surface tension of water. Experimentation has shown the
ratio to vary between 5.8 (for limestones) and 7.5 (for
sandstones). Thus, no conversion factor can be defined
Fig. 26.34-Comparison of water saturation from capillary
pressure and electric log.
that will apply to all rocks.
Good agreement of centrifuge data with those from the
diaphragm method was reported by Slobod. 31 Unlike the
mercury-injection method, there is no need of conver-
sion factors to correct for wetting properties. The same
fluids are used in the centrifugal and diaphragm
methods.
Excellent correlation was obtained by Brown3 be-
tween the diaphragm and dynamic methods. The
dynamic data were obtained by simultaneous steady flow
of oil and gas through the porous sample at a predeter-
mined level of pressure difference between the fluids.
Care was taken to maintain uniform saturations
throughout the core as well as to conduct the test such
that a close correspondence to drainage conditions
existed.
If capillary-pressure data are to be used for determin-
ing fluid saturations, the values obtained should be com-
parable with those of other methods. Water distributions,
as determined from electric logs, and capillary-pressure
data are normally in good agreement. A comparison of
these methods is shown in Fig. 26.34. 33 Shown also is
the approximate position of the gas/oil contact as deter-
mined from other test data. In the gas-bearing portion of
the formation there is no significant variation in water
saturation with depth or method of determination.
However, in a thin oil zone, such as that shown in Fig.
26.34. there is a significant variation in the water satura-
tion with depth. Variations in water saturations with
depth within an oil zone must be taken into account to
determine accurately average reservoir interstitial-water
saturations.
Water Saturation from Capillary-Pressure Data. In
oilfield terms, the capillary pressure may be stated as
gas/water or an oil/water system that normally does not
have the same physical properties as the reservoir water,
oil, and gas.
Essentially two techniques, differing only in the initial
assumptions, are available for correcting laboratory
capillary-pressure data to reservoir conditions.
p,..R=
uw><, cos 0,.,,
uwg cos 0,.,
p,., L
or
P,..R=~P& . . . . . . (49)
(JL
where
fJ wo
= interfacial tension water/oil,
UWR
= interfacial tension water/gas,
Ocwo = water/oil contact angle,
e,.,,
= water/gas contact angle,
subscript
R = reservoir conditions, and
subscript
L = laboratory conditions.
Since the interfacial tensions enter as a ratio, pressure in
any consistent units may be used together with the inter-
facial tension in dynes/cm.
Averaging Capillary-Pressure Data. Two methods
have been proposed for correlating capillary-pressure
data of similar geologic formations. The first correlating
procedure is a dimensionless grouping of the physical
properties of the rock and the saturating fluids. This
function is called a J function34 and is expressed as
P,.=+(p, -p2), ....................... (48)
, ...................... .(SO)
where h is in feet and p, and p2 are the densities of
Fluids 1 and 2, respectively, in lbmicu ft at the condi- where
tions of the capillary pressure. S,,, = water saturation, fraction of PV,
P,. = capillary pressure, dyne/cm*,
Converting Laboratory Data. To use laboratory u = interfacial tension, dyne/cm,
capillary-pressure data, it is necessary to convert them to k = permeability, cm*, and
reservoir conditions. Laboratory data are obtained with a
C#I = fractional porosity.
90
The results of the statistical correlation previously
81 z
discussed applied to the capillary-pressure data presented
72 I+
in Fig. 26.35 are shown in Fig. 26.36. The reader should
2
note the linearity of the curves for each value of capillary
63 3
g
pressure and the tendency of all capillary-pressure curves
54 a i:
to converge at high permeability values. This behavior is
3;
what normally would be expected because of the larger
45 2 ,o capillaries associated with high permeabilities.
732
36
gs
To convert capillary-pressure saturation data to height
2, 2 2
saturation, it is necessary only to rearrange the terms in
3-
&
Eq. 48 so as to solve for the height instead of the
I8 z
capillary pressure-i.e.,
3
P,. x 144
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IO8
h,,=-, . . . . . . . . (52)
PW -PO
WATER SATURATION,%
RESERVOIR FLUID DISTRIBUTION CURVES
where
Fig. 26.35~Series of capillary-pressure curves as a function of
hh = height above the free-water surface, ft,
permeability.
P II
= density of water at reservoir conditions,
lbm/cu ft,
PO
= density of oil at reservoir conditions,
lbm/cu ft, and
Some authors alter the above expression by including the
cos f3(. (where 8,. is the contact angle) as follows.
P,. = capillary pressure at some particular satura-
tion for reservoir conditions (it must be
converted from laboratory data first, psi).
Example Problem 9-Calculation of Saturation Plane
From Laboratory Capillary-Pressure Data. If
The J function originally was proposed as a means of
converting all capillary-pressure data to a universal
curve. There exist significant differences in correlation
of the J function with water saturation from formation to
formation such that no universal curve may be obtained,
but the / function may be used to correlate the data from
one formation.
The second method of evaluating capillary-pressure
data is to analyze a number of representative samples and
treat the data statistically to derive correlations that,
together with the porosity and permeability distribution
data, may be used to compute the interstitial-water
saturations for a field. A first approximation for the cor-
relation of capillary-pressure data is to plot water satura-
tion against the logarithm of permeability for constant
values of capillary pressure. A straight line may be fitted
to the data for each value of capillary pressure, and
average-capillary-pressure curves may be computed
from permeability-distribution data for the field. The
resulting straight-line equation takes the general form of
Fluid-distribution curves are reported for several values
of permeability, ranging from 10 to 900 md in Fig.
26.35. These data also may be considered to be
capillary-pressure curves. The ordinate on the right
reflects values of capillary pressure determined by
displacing water with air in the laboratory. The ordinates
on the left include the corresponding oil/water capillary
pressure that would exist at reservoir conditions and the
fluid distribution with height above the free-water
surface.
P<.,L = 18 psi for S,.=O.35,
CJ 110
= 24 dynes.
P M
= 68 lbmlcu ft,
is 8
= 72 dynes, and
PO
= 53 lbm/cu ft,
then, from Eq. 49,
P(.,R = 18(24/72)= 18/3=6 psi,
and
Pc,R x 144 6 x 144
h= =-=58 ft.
P II -PO
68-53
Thus, a water saturation of 35 % exists at a height of 58 ft
above the free-water surface.
To calculate the fluid saturation in the gas zone, it is
necessary to consider all three phases: oil, water, and
gas. If all three phases are continuous, it can be shown
that
where
PC., R
= capillary pressure at a given height above
the free-water surface determined by
using water and gas,
PC, H%)
the free-water surface, using water and
oil, and
pC.O,q
the free-oil surface, using oil and gas.
If the wetting phase becomes discontinuous, then the
wetting-phase saturation takes on a minimum value, and,
at all heights above the point of discontinuity, the
wetting-phase saturation cannot be less than this
minimum value. It is then possible to calculate the fluid
saturations above the free-oil surface by the following
relations.
1. S,. at h is calculated using oil and water as the con-
tinuous phases.
2. SL at h is calculated using oil and gas as the con-
tinuous phases and height denoted by the free-oil
surface.
3. S,=l-SL andS,=SL-S,,
where SL is the total liquid saturation, oil plus water,
fraction.
Example Problem lo-Calculation of Water and Oil
Saturation in Gas Zone From Capillary-Pressure
Data. Let oil-zone thickness, h,, equal 70 ft and
u R
= 72 dynes,
(JOf
= 50 dynes,
(J I,0
= 25 dynes,
P II
= 68 lbm/cu ft
Pn
= 7 Ibm/cu ft, and
PO
= 53 lbm/cu ft.
From Fig. 26.28 for a 900-md sample, let
PI,,L = 54 psi by the method illustrated in
Example Problem 9,
Pc,R = 18 psi,
h fi = height above free-water level= 120 ft, and
S,,. = 16% at a height of 70 ft or greater (read
from curve).
Since the oil zone is only 70 ft thick, the height of 120
ft above the free-water surface must be at least 50 ft into
the gas-saturated zone. The first step is to calculate the
total fluid saturation, SL, using gas and oil as the con-
tinuous phases.
h,,,=h,,-h,=120-70=50 ft;
hj,
Pc,.R = IJ~(PI, -P,h
where h&, is the height above free-oil level, ft.
P<,.R =
50/144x(53-7)=501144x46.
P<,.R
= 15.97,
and
P,.,[, = Pr-,R~=15.97~72!50=23 psi.
0 og
From Fig. 26.35, for a laboratory capillary pressure of
23 psi and a permeability of 900 md, the total wetting
saturation, SL, equals 18 % Therefore.
S,,=SL-S,,,=18-16=2X
)- IOOC
700
500
400
300
__
u-l
$ 200
Q:
8
3
2 IOC
z
2 7c
s
2 50
% 40
3c
2c
I-
)-
I-
I-
IO-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20 40 60 80
WATER SATURATION (%)
Fig. 26.36-Correlation of water saturation with permeability
for various capillary pressures.
and
It must be understood that the relationships used in Ex-
ample Problem 10 for calculating the fluid saturations in
the gas zone were based on continuity of all three phases.
Since this is not normally the case, it might be expected
that saturations somewhat different from the calculated
values exist. Because the capillary pressure for a discon-
tinuous phase could vary from pore to pore, it is impossi-
ble to ascertain the exact relationships that should exist.
Hence, the preceding method of calculating fluid
distributions is not exact but is usually as accurate as the
data available for making the computation.
Electrical Conductivity of
Fluid-Saturated Rocks
Porous rocks comprise an aggregate of minerals, rock
fragments, and void space. The solids, with the excep-
tion of certain clay minerals, are nonconductors of elec-
tricity. The electrical properties of a rock depend on the
geometry of the voids and the fluids that fill the voids.
The fluids of interest in petroleum reservoirs are oil, gas,
and water. Oil and gas are nonconductors. Water is a
26-28
Fig. 26.37-Core-sample resistivity cell
The second fundamental notion of electrical properties
of porous rock is the resistivity index, IK, which is de-
fined as
(55)
where R, is the true resistivity of the rock system at some
particular value of water saturation and Ra is as
previously defined.
Three idealized representations have been introduced
in the literature from which the formation resistivity fac-
tor, FR, and the resistivity index , f~, have been related
to the porosity, 4, and the rock tortuosity, 7.
From Wyllies2 analysis the relations are
F&
4
and
IR =7(,--r-,
SW
conductor when it contains dissolved salts. Current is
conducted in water by movement of ions and therefore
may be termed electrolytic conduction. The resistivity of
a material is the reciprocal of conductivity and common-
ly is used to define the ability of a material to conduct
current. The resistivity of a material is defined by the
F,=d-
following equation.
4
and
where T,, is the effective rock tortuosity at some water
saturation.
Cornell and Katz3 presented an analysis of a slightly
different model. The relationships developed are as
follows.
p=*A. ._.,.,.,,...,...,,.,,_,....,,.,, (53)
L
JR=&&
se
where
p = resistivity.
I = resistance,
A = cross-sectional area of the conductor, and
L = length of the conductor,
Wyllie and Gardner 37 later presented an analysis
based on a probability theory from which the following
relationships were obtained.
FK=;
For electrolytes, p is commonly reported in Q-cm, and
r is expressed in ohms, A in cm, and L in cm. In the
study of the resistivity of soils and rocks. it has been
found that the resistivity may be expressed more conve-
niently in n-m. To convert to 9-m from O-cm, divide the
resistivity in Q-cm by 100. In oilfield practice. the
resistivity in Q-m commonly is represented by the sym-
bol R with an appropriate subscript to define the condi-
tion to which R applies.
Fundamental Concepts
The definition of electrical formation resistivity factor is
perhaps the most fundamental concept in considering
electrical properties of rocks. The formation resistivity
factor as defined by Archie is
4
and
I
IR=--
s,,.
From the analysis of the electrical properties of the
foregoing idealized pore models, general relationships
between electrical properties and other physical proper-
ties of the rock may be deduced. The formation resistivi-
ty factor has been shown to be some function of the
porosity and the internal geometry of the rock system. In
particular, the formation resistivity factor may be ex-
pressed in the following form.
FK=I@ -I, (56)
F/$5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(54)
where K is some function of the tortuosity and VI is a
R \I
function of the number of reductions in pore-opening
sizes or closed channels. It is suggested that K should be
where R. is the resistivity of the rock when saturated I or greater. The value of rn has been shown from theory
with water having a rcsistivity of R,, to range from I to 2.
Both the formation resistivity factor, F,, and the
resistivity index. IR, depend on ratios of path length or
tortuosities. Therefore, to compute the formation
resistivity factor or resistivity index from the relations
derived from models, it is necessary to determine the
electrical tortuosity. Since direct measurement of the
path length is impossible, reliance has been placed
primarily on empirical correlations based on laboratory
measurements. Winsauer et al. 3X devised a method of
determining tortuosity by transit time of ions flowing
through a rock under a potential difference. The data ob-
tained were correlated with the product FR+. The
resulting correlation of formation resistivity factor,
porosity, and tortuosity is given in Eq. 57.
1.67
=F,&
where L, is the actual length of flow path, and L is the
length of the sample, or
$ IO
II: 0
k-
6
T.~? =F&. . . . . . .(57)
4 1 HUMBLE RELATION F= 5 ,t-j&tt-
The deviation from the theory is believed to be an indica-
tion of the greater complexity of the actual pore system
than that of the models on which the theory was based.
Archie suggested that the formation resistivity factor
could be correlated with porosity and have the form
FR=c#-, . . . ., ._.. . . .(58)
where 4 is the fractional porosity and m is the cementa-
tion factor. Archie further reported that the cementation
factor probably ranged from 1.8 to 2.0 for consolidated
sandstones and, for clean unconsolidated sands, was
about 1.3.
Measurement of Electrical Resistivity of Rocks
Laboratory measurements of electrical properties of
rocks have been made with a variety of devices. The
measurements require a knowledge of the dimensions of
the rock, the fluid saturation of the rock, the resistivity of
the water contained in the rock, and a suitable resistivity
cell in which to test the samples. A simple cell is shown
in Fig. 26.37. 39 A sample cut to suitable size is placed
in the cell and clamped between electrodes A. Current is
then passed through the sample and the potential drop
observed. The resistance of the sample is computed from
Ohms law,
E
r=-.
I
and R (the resistivity) is computed from
R,A
L
where A is the cross-sectional area of the sample and L is
the length of the sample. The saturation conditions of the
test may be established at known values before measure-
ment or determined by an extraction procedure after
measurement.
--
5 60
5
2 40
zi
5 20
F
TIXIER S RELATION
FOR UNCONSOLIDATED
2p-M
CONSOLIDATED FORMATIONS
1,
2 4 6 8 IO 20 40 60 80
POROSITY, =/a
Fig. 26.38-Comparison of various formation resistivity factor
correlations.
Empirical Correlation of
Electrical Properties
Archie, as previously mentioned, reported the results of
correlating laboratory measurements of formation factor
with porosity. He expressed his results in the form
FRz4-m.
Winsauer et al. reported a similar relationship based
on correlations of data from a large number of sandstone
cores. This equation, commonly referred to as the Hum-
ble relation, is
FR=0.62q!-2.5. . .(59)
In discussing the theory of the formation resistivity
factor, it was stated that K should be greater than 1 and
that m should be 2 or less. At this time, the discrepancy
between theory and experiment must be attributed to the
possible effect of conducting solids.
Improved correlations should result from considering
other parameters, such as permeability, as variables in
the relations.
A comparison of suggested relationships between
porosity and the formation resistivity factor is shown in
Fig. 26.38.
A COMPARABLE CLEAN SAND I
4
!,
1.0 IO 100
R,-WATER RESISTIVITY, OHM-METERS
Fig. 26.39-Effect of Interstitial clay on formation resistivity
factors.
Effect of Conductive Solids
Investigations by Wyllie4 Indicate that clays contribute
substantially to the conductivity of a rock when the rock
is saturated with a low-conductivity water. The effect of
water resistivity on the formation resistivity factor for
sands containing clay minerals is shown in Fig. 26.39.
The formation resistivity factor for a comparable clean
(clay-free) sand is a constant. The formation resistivity
factor for the clayey sand increases with decreasing
water resistivity and approaches a constant value at a
water resistivity of about 0.1 Q-m. Wyllie proposed that
the observed effect of clay minerals was similar to hav-
ing two electric circuits in parallel-the conducting clay
minerals and the water-filled pores. Thus,
Ro.\/z
1 1 1
FRO=- and -==++
FRR,,, \ . (60)
R, Roslr R,./
where
FRO
= apparent formation resistivity factor,
Rosh
= resistivity of a shaly sand when 100%
saturated with water of resistivity R,,.,
R,., = resistivity caused by the clay minerals,
R,,. = resistivity caused by the distributed water,
and
FR = true formation resistivity factor of the rock
(i.e., the constant value of formation fac-
tor approached when the rock contains
low-resistivity water).
The data presented in Fig. 26.40 represent graphically
the confirmation of the relationship expressed in Eq. 60.
The graphs were plotted by deWitte@ from data
presented by Hill and Milburn.3 The plots are linear
and are of the general form
1 1
-=m-+b, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (61)
Rosh R,i
where m is the slope of the line and h is the intercept.
Comparing Eq. 60 with Eq. 61, note that m= ~/FR and
b= l/R,.[. The curve labeled Suite 1 No. 40 indicates a
clean sand because the line passed through the origin,
thus having a zero intercept b= l/R,.,=O. Then
l/Rosh =m(l/R,,)=(l/FRR,,), or Ro=F,R,,.. The re-
maining samples are from shaly sands, which have a
finite conductivity of the clay minerals, as indicated by
the intercepts of the lines. The linearity of the plots in-
dicates that l/R,, is a constant independent of R,,. This
phenomenon may be explained in terms of the ions ab-
sorbed on the clay. When the clay is hydrated, the ab-
sorbed ions form an ionic conducting path, which is
closely bound to the clay. The number of absorbed ions
is apparently little changed by the salt concentration of
the interstitial water.
Eq. 60 may be rearranged to express the apparent for-
mation resistivity factor in terms of R,., and FRR, .
K
O = R,. +R,.,/FR
and
FRY =
&I
R,, +(R,.,IF,)
As R,,-+O,
I
-+
Rw
Fig. 26.40-Water-saturated rock conductivity plotted against
water conductivity yields these measurements:
(A) Suite 1 No. 40; (X) Suite 1 No. 21; (0) Suite 1
No. 4; (0) Suite 2 No. 13: (II!) Suite 6 No. 2.
RCl
lim FRY =-
R,IIFR
=FR.
Therefore, FRY approaches FR as a limit as R, becomes
small. This behavior was observed in Fig. 26.39.
Hill and Milbum43 evaluated 450 samples from both
sandstone and limestone formations. The formation
resistivity factor was determined at a water resistivity of
0.01 R-m, a value at which the apparent formation
resistivity factor, FRa, approaches the formation
resistivity factor, FR. They designated the formation
resistivity factor as FR,O,oI The data were fitted by the
method of least squares to yield
F R.0,0,=1.4+-.78. . . . . ._ .(62)
This equation conforms to the theory previously dis-
cussed. They also fitted the data with K in Eq. 56
restricted to a value of 1. This yielded FR,P,o, =$ - 93,
which corresponds closely to Archies onginal expres-
sion F=$ -,
In summary, Eqs. 58 (with m=2.0) and 59 have been
used widely to represent the relation between formation
resistivity factor and porosity. Both equations yield
results satisfactory for most engineering purposes.
However, we propose that Eq. 62 be considered as more
valid because the data were taken to minimize the effect
of clays. The selection of a particular relation should be
based on independent observations on the formations or
formations of interest in a given geologic province.
Resistivity of Partially Water-Saturated Rocks
A rock containing both water and hydrocarbon has a
higher resistivity than when fully saturated with water.
The resistivity of partially water-saturated rocks has been
shown to be a function of the water saturation, S,,. . From
theoretical developments, the following generalization
may be drawn.
IR=KS,,/, . . . (63)
where 1~ = R,/Ro, the resistivity index; K is some func-
tion of tortuosity; and n is the saturation exponent.
Archie compiled and correlated experimental data
from various sources from which he suggested that the
data could be represented by
IR =S,,. G. . . . (64)
Wyllie confirmed the suggested relationship for clean
sands but found that the presence of clays [conductive
solids) altered the relationship. A comparison of Ar-
chics relationship and that for a core containing conduc-
tive solids is shown in Fig. 26.41. The change in the
relationship depends on both the amount of clays and the
water resistivity. Therefore. a general correlation for
sands containing conductive solids is not available,
although dewitte has proposed a method of using Eq.
64 for evaluation of shaly sands.
Use of Electrical Parameters in
Characterizing Porous Media
In the section on permeability, the Kozeny equation was
developed as follows.
4
k=- F,A,7, . . . ..~~~~....
(65)
loo
\
60
\
40
I \ I
z 20
2- WITHOUT CONDUCTIVE
k
; IO
m
56
ii
4
SOLIDS
2
I.01 .02 .04 08 .20 40 .80
WATER SATURATION
Fig. 26.41-Effect of conductive solids on the reslstivity-index-
vs.-saturation relationship in Stevens sandstone
core.
where
k = permeability,
C#I = porosity, fraction,
F, = shape factor,
A,v = internal surface area/unit PV, and
r = Kozeny tortuosity.
7 has been shown to be a function of FR+i.e.,
7= (FR#)-, where x ranges between 1 and 2. If the inter-
nal surface area is expressed in terms of the mean
hydraulic radius, rH, by
A,& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(66)
rH
the general form of the relationship may be stated as
or
@H) 2
k
=F. (FR)X
& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.
(67)
~
Eq. 67 perhaps provides an improved basis for the cor-
relation of characteristic physical data of porous media
with the electrical formation resistivity factor.
The electrical properties of porous rocks, as discussed
in the foregoing sections, form the basis of quantitative
evaluation of electrical-logging records. In particular,
the Humble relation (Eq. 59) has been used widely by
service companies in estimating porosity from
measurements made with contact resistivity devices
such as the Microlog. Eq. 64 forms the basis of inter-
pretation of water saturations from deeper-penetration
resistivity devices such as the conventional resistivity
curves of the standard electrical log or from the various
focused electrical-resistivity devices.
Improvements in the statistical correlations of elec-
trical properties of rocks will improve the results of such
analyses.
Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area
A., = area of flow represented by a bundle of
tubes of permeability k,
A, = internal surface area/unit PV
h = constant for a given gas in a given medium
c = fluid compressibility
C = flow coefficient
d = diameter
E = voltage drop
f = friction factor
F, = shape factor
FR = formation resistivity factor
F~ri
= apparent formation resistivity factor
K = acceleration of gravity
h = driving head
I?
to
= height above free-oil level
IT,,~ = height above free-water level
/f, = thickness ofjth layer
I = current
IH = resistivity index
J = J function, Eq. 48
k = permeability of the medium
k,, = permeability to air
k,y = permeability of the medium to a gas com-
pletely filling the pores of the medium
kl, = thermal conductivity
k, = permeability of one capillary tube
kL = permeability of the medium to a single
liquid phase completely filling the pores
of the medium
k,,. = permeability to fresh water
km
= permeability to 500-grain/gal chloride
solution
K = constant of proportionality, Eq. 7
K = some function of the tortuosity. Eq. 63
K; = Kozenys constant
f. = length of flow path or length of the sample
L,, = actual length of the flow path
L.; = length ofjth layer
UI = slope of the curve or cementation factor
n/ -
~ number of tubes of radius r,
p = mean flowing pressure
A~YI = pressure loss over length L
~1~ = base pressure
Pe
= pressure at the external boundary
p,\. = pressure at the wellborc
P,. = capillary pressure
Pc.,l, = capillary pressure. laboratory conditions
P,.,,, = capillary pressure of mercury
pc~.i,,y =
capillary pressure at height above free-oil
surface, using oil and gas
P
c.R
= capillary pressure, reservoir conditions
P,.,,. = capillary pressure of water
P
c I,(,
the free-water surface determined by
using water and gas
P,,,,,, = capillary pressure at a given height above
the free-water surface, using water and
oil
q/, = volume rate of flow at the base pressure
40
= volume rate of flow of oil
q/J
= volume rate of flow at the algebraic mean
pressure (p, +p,, )/2
qr = total flow rate
Q = rate of heat flow
r = radius or resistance
Y = mean radius
r, = radius at the external boundary
TH = hydraulic radius
r 1,
= radius of the wellbore
R,., = resistivity caused by the clay minerals
Rn = resistivity of the rock when saturated with
water having a resistivity of R,,
Ro,I, =
resistivity of a shaly sand when 100%
saturated with water of resistivity R,,
s = distance in direction of flow, always
positive
lTs = gas saturation
SL = total wetting saturation
S,, = oil saturation
S,,. = water saturation
T,f = average flowing temperature
AT = temperature drop
u.,
= volume flux across a unit area of the porous
medium in unit time along flow path s
UY
= volume flux across a unit area of the porous
medium in unit time along flow path x
v = fluid velocity
Vh = BV
V,, = oil volume
VP = PV
V, = sand-grain volume
V,,. = water volume
w = mass rate of flow
WC.I, = weight of dry core
W,.,,. = weight of wet core
W,,. = weight of water
z = vertical coordinate, considered positive
downward
0 = angle between s and the horizontal
19,. = angle of contact of the interface of two
tluids and the capillary tube
Oc.,,,p = water/gas contact angle
fI,.,,i, = water/oil contact angle
p = fluid viscosity
p = fluid density or resistivity
~1, = fluid density at base pressure
P 0
= oil density
u = IFT or conductivity
~I11
= surface tension of mercury
surface tension of water
water/gas IFT
water/oil IFT
Kozeny tortuosity
effective rock tortuosity
fractional porosity
effective porosity
potential function
q=14.696x IO"
k4p I -I+)
, . FLL
y=92.349x IO
MP, -P ,,.I
c1 ]n r,lr,, ,
T/,kA(p, 2 -pz )
qb=23.1454x104 _
TfW<&P/,
, .
4)) = I .4554 x 106
T/,vWp, * -P,, *)
ii.fzj~~pj, In rclr,,
(26)
(28)
where
q is in m/d,
k is in pm2,
A is in m2,
p is in kPa,
p is in Pas,
L is in m,
I7 is in m,
r is in m, and
T is in C.
References
I.
2.
3
4:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
IO.
Il.
I?.
13
14.
15.
Fraser, H.J. and Graton, L.C : Systematic Packing of
Sphere-With Particular Relation to Porosity and Permeability,
J. G4. (Nov.-Dec. 1935) 785-909.
Tickell. F.G., Mechem. O.E. and McCurdy, R.C.: Some
Studies on the Porosity and Permeability of Rocks, Trmv..
AIME (1933) 103. 250-60.
Core Laboratories Inc.. Dallas, TX.
Nutting, P.G.: Physical Analysis of Oil Sands. Buli., AAPG,
(1930) 14. 1337-49.
Russell, W.L.: A Quick Method for Determining Porosity,
B!i//ril.. AAPG (1926) 10, 931-38.
Stevens, A.B.: A Luhoruror~ Munuulfor Perrdrum Eqinrerirzg
308. Texas A&M U., College Station, TX (1954).
Washburn, E.W. and Bunting. E.N.: Determination of Porosity
by the Method of Gas Expansion. J. Ant. Ccram. SW, 5. 48.
Beeson. C.M.: The Kobe Porosimeter and Oilwell Research
Porosimeter. Trms., AlME (1950) 189. 313-18.
Dotson. B.J. et ni.: Pomsity Measurement Comparison by Five
Laboratories.. Trcins., AIME (1951) 192. 341-46.
Kelton. F.C.: Analysis of Fractured Limestone Cores, Truns..
AIME (1950) 189. 225-34.
Krumbein. W.C. and Sloss. L.L.: .Srrcui~rciph~ and .Scdiww~tu-
rim, Appleton-CenturyCrofts Inc., New York City (1951) 218.
Geertsma. J.: Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on Volumetric
Changes of Porous Rocks, Truns.. AIME (19.57) 210. 33 1 and
339.
Hall. H.N.: Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks. Trmn.c.,
AIME (1953) 198. 309.
Fatt. I.: Pore Volume Compressibilities of Sandstone Reservoir
Rocks, Trun;. , AIME (1958) 213. 362-64
Hammerlindl, D.J.: Predicting Gas Reservoirs in Abnormally
Pressured Reservoirs. paper SPE 3479 presented at the 1971 SPE
Annual Meeting, New Orleans. Oct. 3-6.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24
25.
26.
21.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
26-33
Newman. G.H.: PowVolume Comprcshihllity ofConsol~datet1.
Friable. and Unconwlidatcd Reservoir Rock\ Under Hydrostutlc
Loading. J. PH. T~I. (Feb. 1973) 129-34.
Van der Knaap. W.: Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic Porou\
Media. Trcrns.. AIME (1959) 216. 179-87
Krug. J.A.: The Effect of Stress on the Petrophyhical Propcrtics
of Some Sandstones. PhD dissertation (T- 1964). Colorado
School of Mines. Golden. CO (1977).
Graves, R.M.: Biaxial Acoustic and Static Measurement ol
Rock Elastic Properties. PhD dissertation (T-2596). Colorado
School of Mines, Golden. CO (1982).
Lachance. D.P. and Anderson. M.A.: Comparison of Uniaxial
Strain and Hydrostatic Stress Pore-Volume Compre%\ibilitic\ in
the Nugget Sandstone. paper SPE 11971 prcscntcd at the 1083
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Sdn Francirco.
Oct. S-8.
Hubben. M.K.: Entrapment of Petroleum Under Hydrodynamic
Conditions. Bull., AAPG (Aug. 1953) 1954-2026
Croft, H. 0. : Thrnnr)fl~~~crt~li~.~, Fluid NON (UK/ Hotrr Trrr!wri.c-
\io/l, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.. New York City (1938)
129.
Klinkenberg. L-J.: The Permeability of Porou\ Media to Liquids
and Gates. Drill. crrtd Prod. Pnrc.. API. Dallas ( lY4 1 ) 200- 13.
Johnston. N. and Beeson. C.M.: Water Pemrcability of Rcxr-
voir Sands, Trw~s.. AIME (1945) 160. 43-S?
Fatt. I. and Davis. D.H.: Reduction in Permeability waith Ovcr-
burden Pressure, Trtrm.. AIME (19.52) 195. 329.
Wyllie. M.R.J. and Spangler. M.B.: Application of Electrical
Resistivity Measurements to Problem of Fluid Flow in Porow
Media, Bull., AAPG (Feb. 19.52) 359-403.
Kennedy. H.T., VanMeter, O.E., and Jones. R.G.: Saturation
Determination of Rotary Cores. P<,f. Efr~r. (Jan. 1954)
B.52-B.64
Gates, G.L., Morris, F.C., and Caraway. W.H.: f$cr oj Oil-
Bose Drilhg Nuid Fihrurc on Aucr/~sis of Corr v ,frm Sour/~ C&s
Lewe, Crdijimtiu urld Rcmgc/~. C&r&> /G/d, technical report,
Contract No. RI 4716. USBM (Aug. 1950).
Welge. H.J. and Bruce, W.A : The Restored-state Method for
Determination of Oil m Place and Connate Water. Drill. crrrrl
Prod Prm.. API, Dallas (1947) 166-74
Slobod. R.L., Chambers. A.. and Prehn. W.L. Jr.: USC of Ccn-
trifuge for Determining Connate Water. Residual Oil, and
Capillary Pressure Curves of Small Core Samples. Tram..
AIME (1951) 192. 127-34.
Brown. H.W.: Capillary Pressure Investigations. Trms.,
AIME (1951) 192, 67-74.
Owen, J.D.: Well Logging Study-Quinduno Field. Roberls
County, Texas, paper 593-G presented at the 195.5 AIME For-
mation Evaluation Symposium, Houston. Oct. 27-28.
Leverett, M.C.: Capillary Behawor in Porous Solids, Trmv.,
AIME (1941) 142, 152-68.
Wright. H.T. Jr. and Wooddy. L.D. Jr.: Formation Evaluation
of the Borregas and Seeligson Fields, Brooks and Jim Wells Cow-
ties, Texas. paper 591-G presented at the 1955 AIME FormatIon
Evaluation Symposium. Houston. Oct. 27-28.
Cornell, D. and Katz. D.L.: Flow of Gases Through Con-
solidated Porous Media. hi. cd Etzgr. Chew (Oct. 1953) 45.
Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gardner, G.H.F.: The Generalized Kozeny
Carman Equation. World Oil (March and April 1958).
Winsauer. W.O. PI ol.: Rewtiwty of Brme-Saturated Sands in
Relation to Pore Geometry. Bull.. AAPG (Feb. 1952) 253-77.
Rust. C.F.: Electrical Resistivity Measurements on Reservoir
Rock Samples by the Two-Electrode and Four-Electrode
Methods, Trms., AIME (1952) 195, 2 17-24.
Tlxier. M.P.: Porosity Index in Limestone from Electrical
Logs-Part I , Odrmci Cm .I. (Nov. 15. 1951) 140.
Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gregory. A.R.: Formation Factors of Un-
consolidated Porous Media: Influence of Particle Shape and Effect
of Cementation, Truns.. AIME (1953) 198, 103-09.
dewitte. A.J.: Saturation and Porosity from Electrical Logs in
Shaly Sands-Part I, Oil and GNS J. (March 4. 1957) 89.
Hill, H.J. and Mdhum. J.D.: Effect of Clay and Water Salinity
on Electrochemical Behavior of Reservoir Rocks. Tmm., AIME
(1956) 207. 65-72.
Chapter 27
Typical Core Analysis of
Different Formations
R.E. Jenkins. cw Lahoracorie\ ~nc.
Introduction
The early-day analysis of cores was largely an art, a
qualitative matter of odors and tastes, sucking on the rock,
and visual examination. The science of core analysis has
evolved from such early beginnings, using developments
in instrumental methods of chemical and physical analy-
ses as they became available. Electron microscopy, mass
spectrometry, gas chromatography, high-frequency phase
analysis, acoustic wave train analysis, and nuclear mag-
netic relaxation analysis are among the tools being used
in the more sophisticated core testing today.
Many other techniques are available now to assist the
geologist and petroleum engineer in the completion of
wells and the evaluation and operation of oil and gas reser-
voirs, but core analysis still remains the basic tool for
obtaining reliable information on the rock material pen-
etrated. Study of representative core samples of an oil-
or gas-bearing formation provides the only means for
direct measurement of many important properties of the
formation.
The minimum basic measurements made on cores
generally comprise determination of porosity at no con-
fining pressure, permeability at low confining pressure,
and residual fluid saturations. Various supplementary rou-
tine tests such as chloride, oil gravity, directional per-
meability, grain density, and grain size frequently are
made as an aid in interpretation and evaluation. These data
are the subject of this chapter.
Porosity
Porosity is a measure of the void space or storage capac-
ity of a reservoir material. Normally it is expressed as
a percentage of bulk volume (%BV). Porosity may be
determined by measurement of any two of the three
quantities-grain volume, void volume, and bulk volume.
Various generally acceptable methods and techniques for
determining porosity are used by different laboratories.
The void volume may be determined on a previously
cleaned and dried sample by extraction or gas or air con-
tent, by saturation with a liquid, or by calculation from
Boyles law upon compression or expansion of gas in the
pore spaces of the sample. The other widely used method
involves the separate determination of the gas, oil, and
water contents of the sample, and the summation of these
three values to obtain PV.
Most of the porosity data reported in the tables here
were determined by the summation-of-fluids method.
Comparison of porosity values obtained on samples from
several thousand feet of core where measurements were
made by both the summation-of-j&ids method and by a
Boyles law method showed agreements, in general, of
0.1 to 0.5% porosity. Extensive checks of porosity values
by resaturation with brine have shown values slightly low-
er than by the other procedures, indicating approximate-
ly 98 to 99% resaturation.
Permeability
The permeability of a formation sample is a measure of
its ability to transmit fluid. The permeability determina-
tion involves measurement of the rate of flow of a fluid
of known viscosity through a shaped sample under a meas-
ured pressure differential. Air is the fluid normally used
because of its convenience, availability, and relative in-
ertness toward the core material. For many years, air-
permeability measurements were corrected to an equiva-
lent liquid permeability by use of the well-known
Klinkenberg corrections. The permeability values reported
in Tables 27.1 through 27.11 have been corrected to the
equivalent liquid-permeability values, except as not-
ed in the next paragraph.
In the whole-core orfill-diameter core analysis proce-
dures, permeability is frequently measured in two horizon-
tal directions. One measurement is made in the direction
of the major fracture planes and is reported as k. This
value indicates the effectiveness of the fractures as flow
channels. The core sample is then rotated 90 and the sec-
ond measurement is made in a direction of flow perpen-
dicular to the direction of the first measurement. This
(continued on page 9)
TABLE 27.1 -ARKANSAS
Fluid
Production
Range of
Production
Deoth
Average Range of
Production Production
Deoth Thickness
Average
Production
Thickness
(fu
15
20
10
11
17
11
20
12
11
16
16
13
10
15
Range of
Permeability
(md)
1.6 to 8,900
0.6 to 4,620
1.6 to 5,550
1.2 to 4,645
Formation
Blossom C/O 2,190 to 2,655 2,422 3 to 28
Cotton Valley Cl0 5,530 to 8,020 6,774 4 to 79
Glen Rose 0 2,470 to 3,835 3,052 5 to 15
Graves Cl0 2.400 to 2.725 2.564 2 to 26
How
Meakin
3: 145 to 31245
G/:0 l 2,270 to 2,605
31195 12 to 33
2,485 2 to 20
6.5 to 51730
3.0 to 6,525
0.7 to 6,930
5 to 13,700
0.1 to 698
0.1 to 980
0.1 to 12,600
Nacatoch Cl0 1,610 to 2,392 2,000 6 to 45
Paluxy 0 2,850 to 4,690 3,868 6 to 17
Pettit 0 4.010 to 5.855 4.933 4to19
Rodessa+
Smackover*
5:990 to 6;120
Gl:lO 6.340 to 9,330
61050 8 to 52
8,260 2 to 74
Tokio c/o 2,324 to 2,955 2,640 2to 19
Travis Peak c/o 2,695 to 5,185 3,275 3 to 25
Tuscaloosa Cl0 3,020 to 3,140 3,080 4 to 25
0.5 to 11,500
0.4 to 6,040
0.4 to 3,760
Indicates fluid Droduced: G = aas: C = condensate. 0 = oil
Specific zone not identified k&ally
Includes data from Mitchell and Glcyd zones.
Includes data from Smackover Lime and Reynolds zones
TABLE 27.2-EAST TEXAS AREA
Range of
Production
Depth
ffB
Range of
Permeability
fmd)
Average Range of
Depth Thickness
(W (ft)
7,138 3 to 24
8,458 7 to 59
2,356 5 to 8
5,897 3 to 35
6.020 3 to 52
5;928 3to 16
6,010 3 to 43
3,801 4 to 12
743 2 to 21
5.413
1:434
7 to 46
5 to 20
7,173 2 to 23
6,765 4 to 42
4.892 3 to 25
6,551 2 to 30
1,517 6 to 22
4,373 2 to 45
6,261 4 to 33
Average
Production
Thickness
(fi)
11
33
7
19
12
9
21
8
12
27
13
11
17
12
11
13
14
17
Fluid
Production
c/o
C
0
Cl0
GICIO
Cl0
0
0
0
:
G/C/O
Formation
Bacon
Cotton Vallev
6,665 to 7,961
8,448 to 8,647
2,330 to 2,374
4,612 to 6,971
5,976 to 6,082
4,799 to 7,666
5,941 to 6,095
3,742 to 3,859
479 to 1,091
0.1 to 2,040
0.1 to 352
0.1 to 4.6 Fredericksburg
Gloyd
Henderson
Hill
Mitchell
Mooringsport
Nacatoch
Paluxy
Pecan Gap
0.1 to 560
0.1 to 490
0.1 to 467
0.1 to 487
0.4 to 55
1.9 to 4,270
0.1 to 9,600
0.5 to 55
0.1 to 3,670
0.1 to 1,180
0.1 to 9,460
0.1 to 180
0.3 to 470
0.1 to 13,840
0.1 to 610
4,159 to 7,867
1,233 to 1,636
5.967 to 8.379
4,790 to 81756
3,940 to 5,844
5,909 to 8,292
981 to 2,054
2,753 to 5,993
5,446 to 7,075
Pettit*
Rodessa
Sub-Clarksvillet
Travis Peak*
Wolfe Citv
Woodbine
Young
Cl0
0
Cl0
C410
C
Small amount of Navarro data combined with Nacatoch
Data for Pinsburg, Potter, and upper Pettit combined wlfh Peltil
Small amount of Eagleford data combined with subClarksvW
*Data for Page cambmed with Travis Peak.
TYPICAL CORE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT FORMATIONS
27-3
TABLE 27.1- -ARKANSAS (continued)
Range of
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
VW
24 to 55
21 to 43
28 to 50
19 to 34
26 to 34
24 to 63
41 to 70
28 to 43
25 to 44
25 to 38
21 to 50
17 to 43
16 to 48
31 to 63
Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
w
32
35
36
30
27
43
54
35
30
31
31
27
36
45
Range of
Oil
Average
Oil
Saturation
(W
20.1
13.1
21 .o
16.8
19.9
12.9
Average Range of
Permeability Porosity
(md) w
1,685 15.3 to 40
333 11.3 to 34
732 17.3 to 38
1.380 9.8 to 40
Average
Porosity
w
32.4
20.3
23.4
34.9
30.9
31.8
30.5
26.9
15.4
16.5
14.2
32.1
24.3
27.3
Saturation
w
1.2 to 36
0.9 to 37
4.0 to 52
0.3 to 29
2.6 to 56
0.6 to 43
1;975
1,150
14.4 to 41
17.1 to 40
142 9.9 to 41
1,213 15.1 to 32
61 6.2 to 28
0.2 to 52 4.9
7.5 to 49 21.2
9.1 to 29 12.7
0.7 to 26 14.8
0.7 to 41 12.8
135 5.1 to 28
850 1.1 to 34
2,100 13.6 to 42
460 9.4 to 36
506 15.6 to 39
0.9 to 57 25.6
0.5 to 36 14.3
0.3 to 53 14.0
TABLE 27.2-EAST TEXAS AREA (continued)
Range of
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
toa
9 to 22
13 to 32
35 to 43
16 to 45
21 lo 44
23 to 47
Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
to4
16
25
41
31
27
33
29
40
41
30
46
23
23
33
28
46
35
21
Average
Oil
Saturation
Wol
Range of
Oil
Saturation
W)
2.7 to 20.6
1.1 to 11.6
3.3 to 39.0
trace to 24.3
0.8 to 23.3
0.9 to 26.7
Average
Porosity
Pi8
Range of
Porosity
w
1.5 to 24.3
6.9 to 17.7
11.9 to 32.6
8.0 to 24.0
7.0 to 26.2
6.4 to 32.2
Average
Permeability
0-W
113
39
1.2
21
19
70
33
5
467
732
6
65
51
599
42
32
1,185
112
15.2
11.7
23.1
14.9
15.2
15.6
8.6
2.5
20.8
8.2
10.6
12.2
7.2 to 29.0 15.5 1.8 to 25.9 12.5 15 to 47
5.3 to 19.6 14.6 2.8 to 26.6 13.8 29 to 48
13.4 to 40.9 27.1 0.6 to 37.4 14.5 24 to 55
6.3 to 31 .l 21.6 2.2 to 48.7 24.1 22 to 47
16.3 to 38.1 26.8 3.5 to 49.8 12.9 30 to 56
4.5 to 25.8 14.7 0.9 to 31.6 9.8 10 to 35
2.3 to 29.0 14.5 trace to 25.3 5.3 6 to 42
6.2 to 38.0 24.8 1.4 to 34.6 17.9 12 to 60
5.6 to 25.8 15.0 0.1 to 42.8 12.5 17to 38
17.1 t0 38.4 27.9 1.5 to 37.4 15.6 23 to 68
9.7 t0 38.2 25.5 0.7 to 35.7 14.5 14 to 65
4.4 to 29.8 19.7 trace to 4.5 0.8 13 to 27
Formation
Annona Chalk
Buckrange
Cotton Valley a
Eagleford
Fredericksburg
Haynesville
Hosston
Nacatoch
Paluxy
PettitC
Pine Island d
Rodessae
Schuler
Sligog
Smackover
Travis Peakh
Tuscaloosa
Fluid
Production
0
c/o
GlClO
C
G/C
C
Cl0
0
Cl0
c/o
0
G/C/O
GICIO
Cl0
Cl0
c/o
GICIO
TABLE 27.3-NORTH LOUISIANA AREA
Range of Average Range of Average
Production Production Production Production
Depth Depth Thickness Thickness
m (fu vv m
1,362 to 1,594 1,480 15 to 69 42
1,908 to 2,877 2,393 2 to 24 13
3,850 to 9,450 7,450 4 to 37 20
8,376 to 8,417 8,397 9to11 10
6,610 to 9,880 8,220 6 to a 7
10,380 to 10,530 10,420 22 to 59 40
5,420 to 7,565 6,480 5to 15 12
1,223 to 2,176 1,700 6to 12 8
2,195 to 3,240 2,717 2 to 28 16
3,995 to 7,070 5,690 3 to 30 14
4,960 to 5,060 5,010 5to 13 9
3,625 to 5,650 4,860 6 to 52 18
5,500 to 9,190 8,450 4 to 51 19
2,685 to 5,400 4,500 3 to 21 7
9,960 to 10,790 10,360 6 to 55 24
5,890 to 7,900 6,895 7 to 35 18
2,645 to 9,680 5,184 4 to 44 24
iDat. reported where member formatlon of Cotton Valley group not readlfy tdentlflable
Data reported as Eutaw in come areas
Includes data reported es Pettlt. Upper Petilt, and Mid-Pettit. eometlmes considered the same as Sllgo
Sometimes referred to as Woodruff.
; Includes data reported localy for Jeter, HIII. Kllpatrlck, and Fowler zonee
includes data reported focally for Bodcaw, Vaughn, Doris, McFerrin, and Justiss zones.
; Includes data reported as BIrdsong-Owens
Frequently considered the same as Hosston
TABLE 27.4-CALIFORNIA
Formation Area
Production Production Production Production Range of Average
Fluid Depth Depth Thickness Thickness Permeability Permeability
Production
(fi) (ft) (ft) (fi) (md) (md)
Eocene, lower San Joaquin 0
Valley a
Miocene Los Angeles 0
Basin and
Coastal b
Miocene, upper San Joaquin
ValleyC
Los Angeles 0
Basin and
Coastal d
Miocene, lower San Joaquin 0
VaIleye
Los Angeles 0
Basin and
Coastal
Oligocene San Joaquin 0
Valleyg
Coastal h 0
Pliocene San Joaquin 0
Valley
Los Angeles 0
Basin and
Coastal
6,820 to 8,263
2,870 to 9,530
1,940 to 7,340
2,520 to 6,860
2,770 to 7,590
3,604 to 5,610
4,589 to 4,717
5,836 to 6,170
2,456 to 3,372
2,050 to 3,450
7,940
5,300
4,210
4,100
5,300
4,430
4,639
6,090
2,730
2,680
Range of
Permeability
W)
0.1 to 2 5
0.1 to 2,430
0.1 to 7,350
3.5 to 3,040
1.6 to 163
0.1 to 235
0.4 to 1,500
27 to 5,900
0.2 to 3,060
0.1 to 587
0.2 to 1,100
0.1 to 2,190
0.1 to 3,180
0.1 to 1,810
0.1 to 6,190
0.1 to 2,920
0.1 to 5,750
-
60 to 450
10 to 1,200
5 to 1,040
30 to 154
20 to 380
-
-
5 to 80
-
aMainiy dala from Gatchell zone
%zludes Uooe, and Lowe, Terminal. Umon Paclflc Ford. 237. and Sesnon zonee
clnctudes Kernco, Repubhc, and 26R zoee.
d Includes Jones and Maw zOeS
; Includes JV. Obese. and Phamdes zones
Manly data from Vaqueros zone
z Manly data from Oceanic zone
Mmly data fro Sespe zone
lnciudes Sub Mullma and Sub Scaler No 1 and No 2 zones
: Includes Ranger and Tar zone?,
O&based data show high oil ?.at,at,o [average 61%) and low water ( 3 to 54%. average 15%)
O,l-based data show range 27 6 to 52 4 and average of 42.3% not Included I above 011 Saturation Values
-
165
245
130
76 15 to 4,000 700
134 256 to 1.460 842
-
10 to 2,000
-
20 to 400
33 279 to 9,400
100 25 to 4,500
35 to 2,000
IO to 4.000
4 to 7,500
86 to 5.000
518
300
1,000
1.110
528
107
1,250
1,410
TYPICAL CORE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT FORMATIONS 27-5
Average Range of Average Gil Oil - Water
Permeability Porosity Porosity Saturation Saturation Saturation
b-4 -
(O/o) (O/o) -
W) (ON to4
0.7
305
135
595
z;
140
447
490
26
285
265
104
156
220
357
706
14.3 to 36.4 26.8 6.0 to 40 22.0 24 to 40
13.4 to 41 31.4 0.7 to 51 22.6 29 to 47
3.5 to 34 13.1 0.0 to 14 3.1 11 to40
12.8 to 28 22.9 1.6 lo 28 4.3 -
12.8 to 23.1 19.9 1.7 to 4.3 2.7 35 to 49
5.5 to 23.1 13.4 1.1 to 14.5 5.1 31 to 41
8.8 to 29 18.6 0.0 to 35 8.6 18 to 37
25.8 to 40 31.4 2.5 to 33 19.5 45 IO 54
9.6 to 39 27.2 0.1 to 48 11 .a 23 lo 55
4.5 to 27 14.3 0.1 to 59 15.6 10 to 43
8.5 to 27 20.6 13.3 to 37 24.1 16to30
5.1 to 34 19.1 0.0 to 31 2.9 21 to 38
3.6 to 27.4 15.0 0.0 to 24 4.8 8 to 51
7.3 to 35 21.1 0.6 to 27 9.8 12 to 47
3.4 to 23 12.9 1.1 to 22 7.2 9 to 47
7.0 to 27 19.4 0.1 to 35 8.6 26 to 38
10.7 to 36 27.6 0.0 to 37 8.5 31 to 61
Range of Average
Porosity Porosity
(O/o) w
14 to 26
20.7
15 to 40
28.5 6 to 65
17 to 40 28.2
19.5 to 39 30.8
20 to 38 26.4 4 to 40
19 25 to 80 51 14to67 36 15 to 40 34
21 to 29 24.3 13 to 20
15.8 32 to 67 53 27 to 60 37 34 to 36 35
19 to 34 26.3
15to22 19.5
30 to 36 34.8
24 to 41 35.6
TABLE 27.3-NORTH LOUISIANA AREA (continued)
Range of
Range of
Calculated
Average Interstitial-
Range of
Oil
Saturation
to4
8 to 23
9 to 72
10 to 55
12 to 40
6to 17
7 to 43
15 to 80
Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
to4
37
35
24
36
:A
28
47
35
29
22
30
25
31
25
31
43
TABLE 27.4-CALIFORNIA (continued)
Range of Average
Range of Average Calculated Calculated
Average Total Total Interstitial- Interstitial-
Oil Water Water Water Water Range of Average
Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation Gravity Gravity
to4 to4 PM W) co4
(OAPI) (OAPI)
14.1 16 to 51 35 15 to 49 35 28 to 34 31
18.6 25 to 77 50 15 to 72 36 15 to 32 26
32k 20 to 6Bk 5ok 12 to 62 30 13 to 34 23
25 22 to 72 44 12 to 61 30 11 to 33 21
22 2 to 60 43 3 to 45 30 37 to 38 38
11.8 19 to 56 46 15 to 52 42 - 25
24.1 33 to 84 54 10 to 61 34 18 to 44 24
45 19 to 54 38 10 to 40 21 12 to 23 15
TABLE 27.5-TEXAS GULF COAST-CORPUS CHRISTI AREA
Formation
Catahoula
Frito
Jackson
Marginulina
Oakville
Vicksburg
Wilcox
Fluid
Production
0
Cl0
0
C
SO
Range of Average
Depth Depth
(ft) m
3,600 to 4,800 3,900
1,400 to 9,009 6,100
600 to 5,OQO 3,100
6,500 to 7,309 7,800
2,400 to 3,100 2,750
3,000 to 9,000 6,280
6,000 to 8,000 7,200
1,800 to 4,000 3,BOo
Range of Average
Thickness Thickness
(fo m
1 to 18 8
3 to 57 13
2 to 23 9
5to 10 7
5 to 35 22
4 to 38 12
30 to 120 60
3 to 21 7
Range of Average
Permeability Permeability
(md) (md)
45 to 2,500 670
5 to 9,000 460
5 to 2,900 350
7 to 300 75
25 to 1,800 4 to 2,900 z
1 to 380 50
6 to 1,900 390
Includes counties in Texas Railroad Commission Dist. 4 Jim Wells. San Patricia, Webb, Brooks, Nueces, Jim Hogg. Hidalgo, W~llacy,
Starr. Aransas, and Ouval.
TABLE 27.6-TEXAS GULF COAST-HOUSTON AREA
Fluid
Depth Depth Thickness Thickness
Range of Average
Permeability Permeability
Formation
Frio
Marginulina
Miocene
Vicksburg
Woodbine
Yegua
Production
C
0
C
:
0
C
0
C
:
G/C
0
4,000 to 11,500
4,600 to 11,200
7,100 to 8,300
4,700 to 6,000
2,900 to 6,000
2,400 to 8,500
7,400 to 8,500
6,900 to 8,200
5,800 to 11,500
2,300 to 10,200
4,100 to 4,400
4,400 to 8,700
3,700 to 9,700
(fb
8,400
7,800
7,800
5,400
4,000
3,700
8,100
7,400
9,100
7,900
4,300
6,800
6,600
(W uu
2 to 50 12.3
2 to 34 10.4
4 to 28 17.5
4 to 10 5.7
3 to a 5.5
2to 16 7.2
1 to 6 2.0
3 to 18 9.3
5 to 94 19.1
3 to 29 10.0
6 to 13 8.2
3 to 63 11.0
2 to 59 8.5
TABLE 27.7-LOUISIANA GULF COAST
Fluid Depth Depth Thickness Thickness
Formation Production
(fi) (fi) (fi) (fi)
Miocene : 5,208 to 14,900 11,200 3 to 98 20.2
2,700 to 12,700 9,000 3 to 32 11.0
Oligocene C 7,300 to 14,600 9,800 2 to 80 14.6
0 6,700 to 12,000 9,400 2 to 39 8.3
Tuscaloosa G/C 17,533 to 18,906 17,742 15 to 94 61
18 to 9,200
33 to 9,900
308 to 3,870
355 to 1,210
124 lo 13,100
71 to 7,660
50 to 105
190 to 1,510
3.0 to 1,880
9.0 to 2,460
14 to 680
24 to 5,040
23 lo 4,890
Range of
Permeability
(md)
36 to 6,180
45 to 9,470
18 to 5,730
64 to 5,410
1 to 2,000
(md)
810
1.100
2;340
490
2,970
2,140
86
626
96
195
366
750
903
Average
Permeability
Imdt
1,010
1,630
920
1,410
139
Water salurations from logs
TABLE 27.5-TEXAS GULF COAST-CORPUS CHRISTI AREA (continued)
Range of
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
(ON
30 to 44
20 to 59
21 to 70
20 to 40
32 to 48
26 to 54
22 to 65
14 to 48
Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
tow
36
34
45
34
i;t
Range of
Oil
Average
Oil
Saturation
(%I
14
13
15
2
18
7
Range of
Porosity
I%1
Average
Porosity
Range of
Gravity
(=API)
23 to 30
23 to 40
22 to 46
55 to 68
Average
Gravity
(OAPI)
29
41
37
60
fs5
58
32
w
30
27
27
W)
1 to 30
2 to 38
3 to 32
1 to 4
9 to 30
1 to 17
0 to IO
4 to 40
17 to 36
11 to 37
16 to 38
14 to 30 24
21 to 35 28 23 to 26
37 to 65
53 to 63
20 to 40
14 to 32 24
15 to 25 19
22 to 38 29 17
TABLE 27.6-TEXAS GULF COAST-HOUSTON AREA (continued)
Range of Average
Range of Average
Calculated Calculated
Range of Average Total
Oil Oil Water
Saturation Saturation Saturation
VW (04 P4
0.1 to 6.0 1 .o 34 to 72
4.6 to 41.2 13.5 24 to 79
0.2 to 0.8 0.5 33 to 61
8.1 to 21.8 15.3 48 to 68
0.2 to 1.5 0.5 55 to 73
11 .o to 29.0 16.6 45 to 69
0.0 to 1.5 0.2 66 to 76
14.4 to 20.3 15.3 45 lo 55
0.2 to 10.0 1.5 27 lo 62
Total Interstitial- Interstitial-
Water Water Water
w w (%I
54 20 to 63 34
52 12 to 61 33
46 14 to 31 21
59 25 to 47 36
23 to 53
:: 21 to 55 3:
74 53 to 61 56
53 26 to 36 35
46 20 to 54 30
Range of Average
Porosity Porosity
Range of Average
Gravity Gravity
(OAPI) (API)
25 to 42 36
26
25
35
34
27
37
(Oh)
18.3 to 38.4
21.8 to 37.1
35.0 to 37.0
20.5 to 37.3
28.6 to 37.6
23.5 to 38.1
26.5 to 31.0
29.5 to 31.8
14.5 to 27.4
16.2 to 34.0
w
28.6
29.8
35.9
32.6
33.2
35.2
27.1
30.4
19.6
21.9
25.5
30.7
31.6
25 to 30
21 to 34
22 to 37
19 to 42
26 to 28
30 to 46
4.6 to 20.5 9.7 32 to 72 47 20 to 50
10.7 to 27.4 20.1 34.4 to 72.7 46 24 to 59 iz
0.1 to 15.5 1.2 26 lo 74 57 17 to 59 33
3.5 to 21.8 11.4 31 to 73 57 17 to 53 34
23.5 to 26.7
23.4 to 37.8
22.9 to 30.5
TABLE 27.7-LOUISIANA GULF COAST (continued)
Range of Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water Range of Average
Saturation Gravity Gravity
(w
(OAPI) (=API)
35 - -
32 25 to 42 36
32 -
35 29 to 44 38
- 40 to 53 47
Range of Average
Range of Average Cal&ated
Total Total Interstitial-
Average oil Oil- Water Water Water
Porosity Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation
w (Oh) w W) w rw
27.3 0.1 to 4.7 1.5 37 to 79 53 20 to 74
Range of
Porosity
Pw
15.7 to 37.6
18.3 to 39.0
16.7 to 37.6
22.1 to 36.2
5 to 29
30.0 6.5 to 26.9 14.3 30 to 72 51 18to50
27.7 0.5 to 8.9 2.3 33 to 71 51 19 to 57
29.0 5.2 to 20.0 11.1 34 to 70 23 to 60
18 26 to 44 - 36 to 60 55
27-8
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDl3OOK
TABLE 27.8-COMPARATIVE DATA-SIDEWALL (S.W.) VS. CONVENTIONAL (CONV.) ANALYSIS, TEXAS AND
LOUISIANA GULF COAST AREAS
Formation Area
Average Average
Fluid
Type
Depth Permeability
Production Analysis
(ft) W)
Frio Houston
Corpus Christi
Yegua
(includes
Cockfield)
Louisiana
Houston
Corpus Christi
Miocene
(includes
Catahoula)
Louisiana
Corpus Christi
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
SW. 8,945
Cow. 9,037
SW. 7.174
Conv. 8.622
S.W. 4:902
Conv. 6,789
S.W. 5,456
Conv. 6,399
SW. 8.148
Conv. $826
S.W. 8,276
Conv. 8,415
S.W. 7,240
Conv. 7,693
SW. 7,369
Conv. 7,099
SW. 3,861
Conv. 4,194
SW. 2,824
Conv. 3,625
S.W. 10,664
Conv. 11,500
S.W. 8,996
Conv. 10,171
SW. 4,286
Conv. 4,040
S.W. 4,504
Conv. 4,383
second value is normally reported as kw , and it is usually
representative of the matrix permeability. Values for kw
are reported in the following tables for formations that
are normally subjected to the whole-core or full-diameter
core analysis procedures. These values are not corrected
to equivalent liquid-permeability values.
Liquid Saturations
In the coring process, the core is exposed to the drilling
fluid at a pressure greater than formation pressure. If the
core contains oil or gas, some portion of this is flushed
out and replaced by the drilling-fluid filtrate. As the core
is brought to the surface and the external pressure is re-
duced, the expansion of free gas or dissolved gas expels
both oil and water from the core. As a result, the pore
spaces of the cores recovered at the surface contain free
gas, water, and oil if oil is present in situ. The oil and
water contents normally are called residual liquids.
The residual oil and water contents of core samples nor-
mally are determined by retorting, vacuum distillation,
or solvent extraction and distillation. The oil and water
contents are converted to oil and water saturations as per-
centages of PV. The oil and water saturation values report-
ed in these tables represent data obtained by the retorting
or the vacuum distillation procedures.
The water content of the core as recovered is generally
called tofal wafer, and it may include some drilling-
fluid filtrate or invasion water. The water saturation ac-
tually existing at a given interval in a reservoir may be
spoken of as the connate water or interstitial water. This
interstitial-water saturation value, as reported in the ta-
62
813
317
1,895
238
1,496
681
641
75
235
176
791
147
277
302
603
119
558
634
576
312
748
327
1,300
180
578
346
867
Average
Porosity
to4
27.5
26.7
30.8
27.7
27.2
26.5
29.5
28.5
27.3
26.8
27.1
28.7
27.9
29.7
29.9
31.6 58
26.8 68
31 .a 65
33.3 53
31 .a 57
28.2 63
27.4 52
28.2 62
26.6 49
28.5 69
29.0 61
30.4 60
29.8 53
Average Oil
Saturation
(% pore space)
0.7
0.7
14.6
14.6
0.8
1.1
19.5
16.3
4.2
1.9
10.0
7.9
0.2
0.7
10.5
11.7
3.2
1.7
20.9
19.9
2.5
2.1
10.1
14.8
0.5
0.7
17.7
20.0
Average Total
Water Saturation
(O/o pore space)
64
49
56
47
64
53
53
51
69
Et
56
62
55
59
bles, was determined in some cases by an empirical cor-
relation factor applied to the total water value and in some
cases by the use of capillary-pressure data for the specif-
ic reservoirs.
The API oil gravity values reported normally were
measured on the oil recovered in the retorting or vacuum-
distillation procedures. Comparison of gravity values ob-
tained in oil recovered from cores with values obtained
on produced or drillstem test (DST) oil indicates general
agreement to within f2 API.
The liquid saturation data presented in the tables are
from formations interpreted to be hydrocarbon-productive
to some degree. In some cases, it was feasible to make
a distinction between gas-, condensate-, and oil-productive
zone characteristics. Table 27.9 shows core analysis data
for zones identified as transition zones. These repre-
sent intervals or zones where an appreciable water cut is
encountered during the life of a field. Such transition zones
are present in many other areas and fields, but the avail-
able data did not permit a similar breakdown. It should
be pointed out that the relative average depths reported
for the gas-condensate, oil, and transition zones do not
contradict the basic premises that gas overlies oil and that
oil overlies water. The condensate-producing zones in the
major formations in the U.S. gulf coast area, as present-
ed in Tables 27.6 and 27.7, frequently are found at greater
depths than are the oil-producing zones of the same for-
mations. In a similar manner, the gas, oil, and transition
zones shown in Table 27.9 for the extensive geologic
groups and formations in the Oklahoma-Kansas area are
found at different subsurface depths in different parts of
the area.
Percussion Sidewall Core Data
Percussion sidewall sampling is used extensively in the
U.S. gulf coast area, and in other areas where produc-
tive intervals are encountered in relatively soft formations
and where this type of coring has been found satisfacto-
ry. The limited size of the individual samples has made
it necessary to develop special procedures for handling
I nn.%+c...tl- T.6 tl.m.,
names were selected in an effort to represent generally
recognized nomenclature over large areas rather than lo-
cal terminology. Some important producing formations
are not included because of the lack of sufficient data at
this time or because of their proprietary nature.
and measuring the prope&es and fluio LvIIIGIIIJ oI I1lLJti
EQ~~IPO A Im the novoussion-s~pling technic--- -- rL-
:o a small distance fron
Data From Non-U.S. Areas
The data from non-U.S. areas generally are lacking in
pore liquid saturation values because of the formaTion
evaluation practices in general use. The small quantity
of data reported is a result of the problems of data being
released. Data from Australia are presented in Table
27.13. Most of the Canadian data (Table 27.14) were
provided by the Energy Resources Conservation Board
of Alberta. The Middle East data are presented in Table
27.15. The North Sea data (Table 27.16) were published
in the European Continental Shelf Guide. Venezuela
data presented in Table 27.17 were provided by Petrole-
um de Venezuela S.A.
-.ynuu. NUV, LI yvL 1C anu UK
limitation of sampling 1 I the walls
of the wellbore frequently result in questions of the degree
to which sidewall core analysis data compare with data
obtained on conventional wireline or diamond cores. Ta-
ble 27.8 summarizes a study of core analysis results from
more than 5,300 samples where approximately half were
obtained by percussion-type sidewall sampling and the
other half were obtained by conventional coring
procedures.
Data From U.S. Areas
Reference
Data from areas in the U.S. including Alaska, are present-
ed in Tables 27.1 through 27.12. The formation and zone
I. European Continenfd ShelfGuide, Oilfield Publications Ltd., Led-
bury, Herefordshire, England (1982).
27.10
TABLE 27.9-OKLAHOMA-KANSAS AREA*
FormatIon
Arbuckle
AtokaC
Bartlesville
Bois DArc
Booth
Burgess
First
Brom!ded
Second
Bromide
Burbank
Chester
Cleveland
Deese 9
Hoover
Hoxbar
Hut-don
Lansing
Layton
Marmaton
Misner
Mississippi
Chat
Mississippi
Lime
McLish
FluId
ProductIon
G
To
G
0
T
:
T
ci
0
:
T
2
G
0
T
G
0
T
0
T
G
0
L
0
a
0
E
T
:
T
0
T
0
a
0
T
0
G
0
T
E
L
0
T
Range of
ProductIon
Depth
IfU
2,700 to 5,900
500 to 6,900
600 to 11.600
3,700 to 3,800
500 to 4,500
300 to 3,700
700 to 7,400
200 to 5,700
500 to 2,600
4,800 to 5,100
3.700 to 7,800
2,600 lo 3,200
1,000 lo 3.800
2,700 lo 3,300
300 to 2,800
6,800 to 7,600
3,700 to 13,800
6,000 to 13,200
6,900 lo 16,200
4,500 to 11,200
4,400 to 13,300
1,300 to 4,500
2,800 to 3,700
4,200 to 6,700
4,700 to 6,700
4,800 lo 6,100
2,200 to 5,700
300 to 6,400
1,900 to 3,900
4,300 to 11,800
600 to 10,000
2,200 to 6,800
1,800 to 2.100
1,900 to 2,000
3,800 IO 8,800
1,000 to 10,300
2,900 to 3,000
1,800 to 9,600
2,500 to 8,700
1,900 to 5,800
-
700 to 6,100
500 to 6,300
1,800 to 5,700
4,300 to 4,600
8,100
2,600 to 6,500
4,900 to 6,200
1,800 to 5,100
800 to 5,200
1,200 to 5,200
900 to 8,800
600 to 6.600
400 to 7,200
3,600 to 17,000
Average
Production
Depth
(fU
4,500
3,500
3,600
3,700
2,600
2,100
2,600
1,500
1,200
5,000
6,500
2,900
2,600
3,000
1,600
1,800
7,200
8,600
11,500
12,800
9,000
9,700
2,800
3,000
5,700
5,700
5,700
3,500
3,200
3,100
6,500
5,200
4,000
2,000
2,000
6,300
4,200
3,000
4,600
4,900
3,800
3,300
3,900
2,900
3,200
4,400
8,100
4,300
6,000
4,000
3,100
3,900
4,600
4,100
4,000
10,100
1,600 to 11,200 8.100
Range oi
ProductIon
Thickness
(ft)
5.0 to 37
1 .O to 65.5
2.0 to 33
1 .O to 9.0
3.0 to 16
2.0 to to
1.5 to 42
1 .O to 72
4 to 40
4 to 48
2.3 to 50
5 to 8
2 lo 26.5
4 to 5
2.5 lo 9
3.0 10 19.5
2.0 lo 82
15 to 161.3
20 to 53.6
3.0 to 69
5 to 44.5
3 to 48
31019
2 to 45
2 to 23
4 to 20.5
2to17
1 to 70
3 to 22
5 to 55
2 to 60.3
4 to 49
3 to 37
2to17
9to 11
2 to 63
3to13
2 to 77.3
2 to 73
3 to 16.2
-
410 18
1 to 57
3 to 15.5
1.5 to 7.5
3to 14
2 to 56.5
8 to 21
2 to 34.4
2 to 48.1
1 to 43
3 to 27.1
1.5 to 95.3
4 to 70.1
14to58
3 to 42
Average
ProductIon
Thickness
m
18.3
11.8
14.3
4.0
7.8
6.5
11.4
14.0
14.5
19.0
12.5
6.5
8.8
4.5
20
5.8
11.3
18.7
65.1
37.9
16.2
18.4
17.3
9.1
10.9
8.6
10.0
9.0
13.4
7.7
19.3
11.7
16.6
11.9
8.4
10.0
14.4
9.3
14.0
14.7
6.5
22.0
9.3
10.3
7.4
4.7
8.5
10.6
15.8
16.1
12.2
10.9
13.3
12.0
17.4
35.3
12.2
Range of Average
Permeablllty Permeablllty
(mdi (md)
3.2 to 544 131
0.2 to 1,530 140
0.1 to 354 57
1.3 to 609 174
0.3 to 920 144
9 to 166 67.3
0.2 to 36 10.4
0.2 to 537 32.7
0.1 to 83 18.2
0.1 to 43 24.4
0.3 to 664 36.0
1.4 10 6.6 4.0
0.3 to 160 19.3
3.1 to 13 8.0
-
142
0.2 10 104 19
0.6 lo 62 31.3
0.1 to 2,280 175
0.9 to 40 18.3
3.4 to 72 21.4
2.0 to 585 118
0.8 to 42 12.9
0.1 to 226 8.64
0.1 to 4.8 1.53
0.1 to 269 33.0
0.1 to 61 9.11
0.1 to 13 2.38
2.5 to 338 50.6
0.1 to 135 15.4
0.1 to 112 12.9
7.8 to 232 94.1
0.4 to 694 62.8
1.9 to 200 61.8
1.3 to 974 288
55 to 766 372
6.4 to 61 33.7
0.1 to 1,620 277
0.5 to 31 14.4
0.1 to 678 34.5
0.1 to 48 5.3
0.3 to 390 101
-
14
0.2 to 210 26.3
0.3 to 280 54.1
1.1 to 143 23.8
24 to 105 46.4
37 10 171 104
0.1 to 803 89.7
0.1 to 120 41.8
0.4 to 516 33.5
0.1 to 361 21.9
0.2 to 229 21.3
0.1 to 129 22.2
0.1 to 1.210 43.5
0.1 to 135 7.5
12 to 98 48.0
0.7 to 157 39.0
Range of
Permeablllty
k,o
Wi
-
0.1 to 1,270
0.1 to 135
0.6 to 2.8
-
5.5
1.5
0.07
-
0.1 to 2.2
-
-
-
-
22
0.4
0.2 to 7.4
1.40
0.3 to 0.9
-
-
0.9 to 3.5
0 to 0.5
0.1 to 5.0
-
1.4 to 2.3
OYIO
1.10
-
-
-
-
-
0 to 77.0
0.1 to 7.9
0.3 to 162
-
-
0.5 to 162
-
0.20
-
0 to 2.1
-
0.2 to 74
0 to 216
0 to 163
0.1 to 89
0.1 to 185
0.1 to 36
-
-
6.2 to 8.8
27-l 1
TABLE 27.9-OKLAHOMA-KANSAS AREA (continued)
Average
Permeability,
$n?,
-
67.8
21.6
-
1.7
-
5.5
1.5
0.07
-
0.45
-
-
-
22
0.40
2.23
1.40
0.60
-
-
-
-
1.67
0.21
1.18
-
1.65
oio
1.10
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.24
2.04
52.3
6.7
-
23.3
-
0.20
0.62
-
13.9
13.7
14.2
13.2
9.44
4.23
-
-
2.1 lo 24.3
Range of
3.7 to 23.1
8.5 to 17.3
Porosity
5.9 to 28.6
11.9 to 18.6
w
8.4 to 21.1
9.0 10 20.9
8.5 to 25.8
8.5 to 20.1
3.8 to 19.8
1.2 to 19.3
11.9 to 14.8
8.3 to 21.4
16.9 to 18.1
-
8.1 to 22.8
1.5 to 6.5
1.4 to 15.7
1.5 to 10.9
3.5 to 14.5
5.6 to 11.7
5.6 to 11.4
6.4 to 21.6
7.1 to 17.0
2.6 to 20.7
2.3 to 16.0
3.2 to 17.8
9.8 to 23.5
7.4 to 24.6
11.0 to 20.4
9.8 to 22.6
4.7 to 26.4
11.7to23.4
12.7 to 24.1
16.7 to 22.5
13.9 to 18.2
3.1 to 29.7
14.3 lo 22.7
1.6 to 33.6
1.1 to 19.5
8.4 to 16.0
-
5.1 to 25.9
4.6 lo 27.2
14.2 lo 21.3
1 8 lo 21.4
11.0 to 12.1
2.1 lo 20.9
1.9 lo 11.3
6 5 10 37.8
5.7 to 39.3
1 5 lo 38.0
1.5 to 23.6
1.3 lo 34.1
1 1 to 26 1
2.8 to 9 6
5.5 to 16.5
14.4
Average
12.0
9.2
Porosity
12.9
14.5
14.9
VW
15.8
17.6
14.6
12.2
7.2
13.4
15.6
17.5
14.2
13.2
4.0
9.8
6.5
6.8
9.3
7.4
15.7
13.7
12.2
10.1
7.7
16.9
15.2
15.6
16.7
17.4
16.3
19.7
20.5
16.1
16.5
18.5
10.9
7.3
12.2
7.2
14.5
17.8
17.1
140
11.6
11.9
8.1
21 .o
22.3
18.7
10.3
13.4
9.3
6.7
11.0
Range of
Oil
Saturation
PM
0.7 lo 9.4
5.2 to 42.3
0 to 23.6
0 to 8.1
5.1 to 35.1
5.8 to 21 .l
0 to 11.1
3.3 to 60.6
0.9 lo 35.7
0 lo 6.7
3.3 lo 25.8
4.6 IO 8.8
4.8 to 49.7
7.4 lo 7.8
-
16.2 lo 33
0 to 7.6
3.1 IO 24
0.4 to 6.8
0 lo 6.9
2.4 IO 24.2
0 Io 13.6
9.3 lo 26.6
2.0 to 15.7
0 lo 7.5
7.2 lo 35.9
0 IO 11.1
0 lo 7.1
5.8 lo 35.5
0 IO 21.1
2.2 lo 6.3
5.9 lo 46.4
0 to 7.0
126to231
6 6 to 17.1
0 7 to 4.4
3.2 to 48.7
3.3 lo 11.4
1.6 to 34.5
0 to 61.1
6.5 to 28.9
-
Oto78
1.6 to 37.3
0 to 14.3
6.4 to 18.1
2.1 to 2.3
4.1 to 41.6
0 to 8.2
0 to 6.8
1.4 to 30.0
1.1 to 18.3
0 to 9.3
2.1 to 56.5
0 to 41.2
4.0 to 14.7
5 1 to 27.7
Range of Average
Average Total Total
Oil Water Water
w w w
37 34.5 to 62.7
20.6 to 79.3
37.2 to 91.9
36.4 to 65.2
17.1
7.1
2.0
20.7
12.1
47
16.2
12.2
4.3
15.0
8.7
21.5
7.6
8.3
21.5
3.8
11
2.2
4.0
11.5
4.8
15.3
11.2
1.1
19.1
1.2
4.1
13.1
7.8
3.8
20.4
0.8
160
14.5
2.6
21.4
6.8
15.3
10.6
18.1
12.8
2.4
15.3
6.9
11.7
2.2
14.8
4.7
2.4
12.9
7.6
2.8
15.0
6.9
7.8
132
18.4 to 61.5
42.7 to 55.4
23.4 to 70.0
17.4 to 85.2
43.9 to 88.0
32.9 to 82.4
14.6 to 58.5
50.0 to 51.3
15.3 to 60.0
47.3 to 55.2
-
19.3 to 65.4
35.7 to 71.8
12.8 to 67.2
29.5 to 78.6
28.2 to 45.7
8.9 to 44.9
21 .l to 57.6
31.5 to 73.4
45.7 to 80.7
20.9 to 80.7
17.7 to 80.8
40.9 to 89.2
40.0 to 64.4
10.2 to 74.0
32.9 to 77.2
19.1 to 54.9
14.0 to 58.6
41 .l to 77.1
14.6 to 48.5
34.8 to 50.7
40.1 10 40.6
13.6 to 68.5
50.5 lo 69.8
16.7 to 93.4
160 lo 687
37.4 lo 68.6
38.2 to 83.7
28.0 lo 76.3
33.2 IO 69.4
42.8 to 66.4
19.8 to 22.9
16.9 to 86.7
21.4 to 51 7
60.3 to 93 4
27.1 to 94.8
47.4 lo 84.9
22.6 to 93.5
18.9 to 85.3
32 9 to 94.0
19.3 to 76.5
148to522
43.1
52.4
69.2
47.2
36.7
47.0
54.1
44.4
63.5
42.6
32.4
50.7
40.0
51.3
37.3
42.2
53.6
35.4
48.3
37.9
25.1
43.5
47.2
57.8
48.8
42.1
61.7
48.9
48.7
55.3
42.1
37.8
53.8
40.2
42.9
40.4
45.1
57.9
48.6
54.5
51.9
75.5
54.1
45.5
45.9
55.5
21.4
41.5
33.0
76.7
84.0
71.5
63.2
50.7
67.6
43.9
32.1
Range of
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
PM
28 to 62
20 to 79
37 to 91
32 to 65
19 to 61
40
23 to 66
17to72
43 to 67
26 to 62
15to59
50
15to59
44
-
19to58
36to 72
12to87
Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
w
40
47
52
45
37
40
48
40
54
40
32
50
37
44
35
40
54
34
-
28 to 45
8 to 44
40
31 to 73
45to 81
19to81
17to81
40 to 89
30 to 64
IO to 74
32 to 77
19 to 49
13to57
19to76
14to47
31 to 42
34to 39
t3to68
-
32
25
-
43
51
43
33
61
42
44
49
37
33
Liz
35
ii
- -
17to93 46
16to89 48
28 to 69 49
- -
34 to 83 47
23 to 76 41
31 to 69 43
42 to 66 53
18 to 22 20
14 to 87 38
20to 51 32
60 to 93 77
27 to 95 58
43to 85 63
22 to 93 53
16 to 85 46
32 to 94 61
19 to 77 44
14 to 52 31
Range of
Grawty
(OAPI)
-
29 to 44
42
-
31 to 42
-
28 to 42
35
-
32 to 42
-
29 to 42
-
31 to 38
31 to 42
-
42
37 to 42
-
35to 41
-
-
38 to 42
-
-
27 to 56
-
-
17 to 42
-
36 to 42
42
-
29 to 42
-
24to 42
3lto39
-
30 to 42
-
36 to 42
-
36 to 48
-
-
22to 42
-
-
22to 45
-
-
35 to 48
Average
Gravity
(OAPI)
-
37
42
-
38
-
-
34
35
-
40
-
35
-
-
38
-
40
-
42
41
-
39
-
-
40
-
-
42
-
-
32
-
42
42
-
34
-
36
37
-
-
37
-
40
-
42
-
35
-
-
39
-
-
38
FormatIon
Morrow
Oil Creek
Oswego
Peru
Prue
Purdy
Reagan
Redfork
Skinner
Straw
Sycamore
Tonkawa
Tucker
Tulip Creek
Viola
Wayside
First Wilcox
Second
Wilcox
Woodford
FluId
ProductIon
G
0
T
G
0
a
0
T
G
0
T
G
0
T
0
a
0
a
0
i
0
a
0
0
2
T
0
a
0
T
G
0
A
G
0
T
G
0
T
0
Range of
Producllon
Depth
lfli
4,300 to 9,700
4,100 to 7,500
5,500 to 6,900
7,100 to 14,000
5,100 to 11,700
8,400 to 13,700
4,500 to 4,600
300 to 6,300
1,200 IO 5,800
1,200 to 5,300
200 to 3,200
700 to 2,500
3,000 to 6,600
600 to 6,700
3,000 to 5,400
4,200 to 7,400
-
3,500 to 3,600
2.100 to 3.700
3,600'
2,300 to 7,400
300 to 7,600
1,200 to 3,800
1,000 to 5,300
1,000 to 5,800
2,400 10 4,600
1,000 to 7,400
2,600 to 6,700
5.000 to 7,100
2,400 to 5,700
2,300 to 3,100
1,300 to 2,900
2,700 to 2,900
7,200 to 16,700
700 to 16,800
1,400 to 12,900
4,300 to 7,300
2,100 to 11,100
2,600 to 10,300
300 to 2,800
2,800 to 5,400
2.800 to 7,400
3,200 to 6,100
5,000 to 10,000
3,700 to 6,400
4,700 to 7,500
4,100 to 5,000
Average
Production
Depth
m
6,100
5.700
6.100
10,900
8,300
12,300
4,600
3,800
3,300
3,100
1,200
1,500
4,000
3.100
3:700
4.500
4:200
3,800
3,600
3,600
4.300
3,100
3,100
3,700
3,200
3,400
1,100
3,500
4,600
5,600
4,800
2,700
2,200
2,800
13,400
8,000
8,600
5,400
4,900
4,600
800
4,300
4,900
3,900
6,700
6,500
6.000
4,600
Range of Average
ProductIon Producllon
Thickness Thickness
(ff) (fU
2 to 64 11.0
2to37 9.8
3to 30 9.5
14 to 149 46.3
3to 71 12.6
8 to 27 15.0
8 to 9 8.5
3.6 to 34.1 12.3
2 to 21 10.6
4to17 9.8
2 to 42 12.4
4 to 21 10.3
5 to 22 13.6
2 to 81 14.6
3 to 18 11.7
3 to 30 14.8
-
4.8
2 to 13 7.4
t to 32 11.0
5 to 7 6.0
4to 19 7.9
1 to 63 10.5
2 to 9 5.3
4 to 29 11.8
1 to 42.5 9.2
6 to 35.9 11.5
-
12.0
2 to 40.5 12.4
2 to 84 26.4
2 to 27.5 9.8
2 to 28.5 8.7
4 to 9 7.0
2to 14 7.8
8.9 to 16 12.5
21 to 268.4 78. I
2 to 136 15.3
3 to 86.5 20.0
3to 73 39.1
2 to 111.7 17.2
2 to 117 19.6
3.1 to 34 10.8
2 to 35 11.3
2 to 28 10.0
t .9 to 29 7.7
5 to 28 13.4
1.3 to 32 11.3
1.5 to 5 4.4
2.6 to 30.4 16.2
Range of Average
Permeabll~ty Permeablllty
(md) (md)
0.1 to 1,450 115
0.2 to 1,840 117
0.1 to 410 34.4
0.1 to 132 32.0
0.1 to 615 131
0.1 to 87 22.1
2.4 to 151 76.7
0.2 to 296 27.3
0.1 to 117 27.0
3.1 to 42 15.0
0.2 to 264 20.8
1.7 to 804 205
0.7 to 42 18.3
0.1 to 254 22.6
0.5 to 133 42.6
7.4 to 500 182
-
195
1.1 to 173 39.3
0.2 to 2,740 255
19.0 to 37 38.0
0.1 to 160 23.4
0.1 to 668 14.2
0 to 23 6.3
0.1 to 127 27.7
0.1 to 255 20.6
0.3 to 16 6.0
-
71.0
0.1 to 599 58.1
0.1 to 3.1 0.67
0.3 to 283 46.7
1.4 to 278 96.6
1.3 to 406 106
2.1 to 123 36
4.3 to 252 128
0.9 to 24 7.63
0.1 to 1,470 154.0
2.0 to 143 44.6
3.6 to 23 10.8
0.1 to 1,150 52.3
0.1 to 997 45.1
0.2 to 133 22.2
0.7 to 145 72.1
0.2 to 445 91.3
0.3 to 418 84.1
0.2 to 154 76.2
0.4 to 2,960 214.0
0.4 to 756 246.0
1.4 to 250 87.1
Range of
Permeablllty.
k,o
(md)
0.3 to 55
0.1 to 48
-
0.2 to 230
-
-
0.1 to 86
0 to 41
-
-
-
-
51 to 266
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 to 6.6
2.40
-
0 to 1.3
-
8 to 22
-
-
53
0.5 lo 1.0
0.2 to 1.8
0.40
3.40
0.2 to 186
0.03 to 49
-
-
-
0.80
-
-
2.4 to 156
7.5
23.1
28.0
-
75.6
-
-
9.24
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
179
166
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.30
2.40
-
0.50
-
15.0
-
-
53
0.40
0.80
0.40
3.40
18 3
4.38
-
-
0.80
-
-
79.2
4.2 to 24.4
5.7 to 23.2
5.5 to 16.2
6.1 to 13.5
1.8 to 23.9
5.2 to 16.1
12.0 to 17.3
2.6 to 21.6
4.7 to 20.9
12.3 to 17 5
12.7 to 33 8
13.6 to 24.4
13.8 to 22.4
7.6 to 23.8
9.8 to 23 4
12.3 lo 18.8
-
9.3 to 12 7
6.9 to 21.5
10.6 to 12.8
3.8 to 21.2
6.6 to 26 1
10 1 to 16.6
13.3 to 19.6
7.4 to 21.7
11.7 to 19.0
-
8.2 to 23.5
7.2 to 16.4
11.7 to 21.4
13.2 to 22.9
15.4 to 16.9
12.4 to 20.3
11.8 to 19.5
2.0 to 11.9
2.5 to 25.0
0.7 to 26.0
6.1 to 10.1
1 .O to 16.1
0.6 to 18.8
13.2 to 24.9
5.2 to 15.6
5.4 to 20.5
6.8 IO 17.7
5.0 to 15.1
4.2 to 20.6
1.9 10 20.4
1.9 to 6.6
Average
Permeability, Range of Average
Porosity Porosity
w w
Range of
Oil
Saturation
w/o)
148
14.6
11 3
9.0
13 1
10.9
14.7
10.1
8.7
156
18.7
19.2
17.8
17.0
17.5
16.7
17.6
10.8
13.3
11.7
14.5
162
15.3
15.7
15.3
15.5
21.3
16.8
13.3
16.4
18.4
17.1
15.6
15.7
6.1
11.6
11 .o
9.3
8.4
7.1
16.6
10.8
12.0
10.9
11.2
12.4
12.9
4.4
0 to 33.0
0.7 to 44.5
0 to 15.2
0 to 6.5
1.3 to 29.5
0 to 5.6
5.1 to 6.4
0 to 27.1
0 to 14.5
0.1 to 7.9
6.7 to 36.8
2.6 to 25.5
2.3 to 9.1
4.7 to 34 1
3.7 to 34.3
10.1 to 27.2
-
1.1 to 7.9
3.0 to 42.0
1.8 to 10.5
0 to 21.7
5 4 to 30.8
0.3 to 36.3
0 to 9.9
2.5 to 39.7
4.9 to 18.2
-
5.7 10 31.1
9.2 to 33.5
0 to 6.1
7.5 to 16.5
6.9 to 17.3
7.3 IO 29.6
7.1 to 10.9
0 to 6.6
3.0 to 44.5
0.7 to 7.7
1.7 to 9.4
3.2 to 41 0
0 to 33.7
8.1 to 33.8
0.7 to 6.3
3.6 to 40.5
0 to 169
0 to 3.8
2.9 to 19 2
0 to 6.4
8.3 to 16 7
Range of
Average Total
Oil Water
Saturation Saturation
w W)
4.3
15 1
5.0
1.6
13.0
2.6
5.8
15.0
5.0
4.1
14.7
12.0
55
16.9
19.0
20.0
13.6
4.2
14.2
6.2
4.7
16.9
9.9
4.2
20.1
0.5
9.9
15.1
21.1
2.0
12.5
11.4
16.0
9.0
4.1
12.2
2.6
5.0
15.5
8.6
18.6
3.6
11.7
7.9
1.5
10.2
6.1
11.8
29.0 to 77.0
23.9 to 75.5
31.1 to 90.1
12.5 to 40.6
14.2 to 76.4
21.7 lo 74.9
39.8 to 55.5
16.2 to 73.4
41.7 to 89.7
44.3 to 59 4
34.4 to 73.1
38.0 to 60.4
31.4 to 53.4
24.4 to 73.1
40.7 to 60.9
31.4 to 58.1
26 4 to 66.4
17.5 to 72.9
33.3 to 46.7
16.2 to 63.6
29.5 to 57.7
41.4 to 69 7
30.6 to 48
14.3 to 78.7
39.9 to 71 .l
-
28.5 to 61.5
36.0 to 61.6
31.8 to 58.3
36.1 to 78.0
45.1 to 52.6
35.6 to 50.1
58.0 to 64.3
23.7 to 54.8
10.0 to 63.0
15.9 to 82.6
19.7 to 37.2
24 1 to 85.5
39.0 to 90.8
29.4 to 68.0
29 7 to 60.5
15.0 to 58.2
24.6 to 63.6
17.7 to 45.0
19 0 to 56.3
41.4 to 60.5
43.0 to 87.9
Range of Average
Average Calculated Calculated
Total Interstitial- Interstitial-
Water Water Water Range of
Saturation Saturation Saturation Gravity
W) W) (%I
(OAPI)
48.5
42.1
57.2
25.2
39.1
46.6
47.7
41.5
63.4
52.5
50.6
50.7
42.2
41.6
47.1
41.5
56.2
44.4
32.9
40.0
45.8
43.7
52.6
40.8
40.3
52.4
61.8
45.6
45.5
44.5
45.0
49.0
40.7
61.2
33.2
34.9
45.7
30.7
54.4
65.7
51.3
43.9
32.0
41.7
30.9
36.9
42.5
60.1
16 to 77 36
16 to 54 35
31 to 90 38
12 to 40 24
14 to 76 34
21 to 74
-
34 to 55 45
15 to 73 37
42 to 89 57
44 to 56 51
28 to 73 44
36 to 56 51
25 to 49 37
20 to 72 38
32 to 60 36
16 lo 50 29
-
28 lo 68
12 to 72
29 to 45
16 lo 63
27 to 55
41 to 69
26 to 47
14 to 78
39 to 71
-
22 to 56
32 to 62
27 to 56
31 to 78
4-4 to 52
33 to 43
52 to 62
23 to 55
9 to 63
15to82
19 to 37
24 to 88
39 to 90
28 to 67
29 to 80
14to58
40
31
29
39
41
49
38
38
ii
41
43
41
38
45
38
52
2
46
30
El
47
44
31
-
171043
18 to 58
40 to 60
43 to a7
29
34
-
33 to 43
-
-
29 to 42
-
35 to 46
-
25 to 43
-
34 to 46
-
39 to 44
-
41
24 to 43
-
-
32 to 48
-
30 to 46
-
31 to 44
33 to 36
-
40 to 45
-
29 to 40
-
49 5
32 to 50
-
-
28 to 48
-
29 to 42
-
33 to 50
-
-
40
-
-
36
-
-
44
-
-
36
-
-
42
-
41
-
41
38
-
-
37
-
-
36
-
-
40
35
-
43
-
38
49.5
40
-
-
37
35
42
-
34 to 42 40
- -
41 41
Average
Gravity
(OAPI)
a General geologic sections take at dtfferent points I Oklahoma-Kansas areas lndlcate some var!at!os I the properties and a apprec~abfe variate I the occurrence and
relative depths of many of the more m~portanl 011. and/or gas-producing zones. formations, geologic groups, and thelr members The general !detlflcatlo of core samples
from thee producing lntewals reflects local condmons or actlwt~es slgnlflcantly In the development Of average data values. an attempt has bee made to combine data
orlgmally reported for locally named zones Into more generally recognued formatlow or geologic groups In some mstances (I e Deese. Cherokee) data are reported for
a major geologic group as well as for $ome of 11s vndlwdual members The values designated by the maw group name represent areas where the general character~stlcs
permit Identlficatlo as to the gealognc group but not as to group member In other areas the group members or zones are readily ldentfffable The combmatlons of data and
the use of local rather lha regmnal geologic names I some instances are emplaned 1 the footnotes
b T represents transitlo zone or productlo of both water and &her gas or 011
fncludes data reported as Dornlck Hllfs and Dutcher
Includes Bromide first and second as reported on McClaln County area
g Data reported locally as Bromide third. Bromide upper third. and Bromide lower have bee ConsIdered as part of the Tuhp Creek
Includes data reported as Cleveland sand, Cleveland lower. and Cleveland upper
fncfudes the numerous zones (Deese first. second. third, fourth, fifth, Zone A, Zone 6. Zone C. and Zone 1) reported locally for the Anadarko, Ardmore, and Marietta Basm
areas. I northwest Oklahoma. these different zones are normally referred to as Cherokee In other areas the zones are frequently Identlftable and properties are reported
as for Redfork. Bartleswlle. etc
FormatIon
Aneth
Boundary Buite
Cliffhouse
D Sand
Dakota
Desert
Entrada
Frontier Sands
Gallop
Hermosa
Hospa
lsmay
J Sand
Leadville
McCracken
Madison
Manefee
Meeaverde
Morrison
Muddy
Nugget
Paradox
Phosphoria
(formerly Embar)
Pictured Cliffs
Point Lookout
Shannon
Sundance
Sussex
Tensleep
Tocito
Fluid
Production
TABLE 27.10~ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREA
Range of
Production
Depth
0)
5,100 to 5,300
5.500 to 5.600
5,400 to 5,900
3,600 to 5,800
4,350 to 5.050
500 to 7,100
653 to 7,293
5,400 to 5,500
3,600 to 3.700
265 to 8,295
1,5M1 to 6,900
500 to 6,400
4,900 to 7,700
5,300 to 6,000
4,800 to 7,100
4,600 to 5,100
5,544 to 5,887
4,470 to 5,460
6,970 to 8.040
9,950 to 10,100
8,264 to 9,466
3,400 to 6,200
5,200 to 5,700
1,500 to 6,100
1,600 to 6.900
930 to 8,747
9,900 to 10,300
9,500 to 10,800
5,100 to 9,500
5,300 to 6,100
700 to 10.500
1,200 to 5,800
4,300 to 6.500
4,700 to 5,500
1,100 to 6,860
4,300 to 5,100
600 to 11,800
1,400 to 5,100
Average
Production
Depth
(fi)
5,200
5,600
5,600
4,800
5,800
5,700
5,600
3,640
2,950
5,000
4,600
5,600
5,600
5,500
4,800
5,707
4,900
7.500
9,950
8,820
4,900
5,400
4,700
300
4,500
1,845
10,100
10,375
6,900
5,700
4,600
3,400
2,900
5,500
4,700
4,900
3,100
4,500
4,700
7,900
4.600
Range of
ProductIon
Thickness
(f1)
3.8 to 23.1
8 to 27
2 to 68
2 to 56
7 to 33
2 to 75
13 to 75
11.6 to 18.3
4to10
8 to 100
5 to 25
2 to 43
5 to 30
3 to 36.2
3to17
6to 1El
10 to 90
151062
20 to 76
2 to 142
41 to 450
7 to 25
2 to 22
-
24 to 54
7 to 75
60 to 700
250 to 700
4 lo 44.2
2 to 66
5 to 100
3.0 to 72 0
2 to 101
10 to 20
5 to 100
10 to 30
IO to 200
-
4 to 58
Average
Production
Thickness
(W
Range of
Permeability
(md)
14.0 0.7 to 34
17.5 01 to20
16.2 0.1 to 114
13.7 0.1 to 3.7
15.0 0 to 900
32.0 0.1 to 915
32.0 0.1 to 915
14.9 1 .o to 11
6.0 5 to 300
46.0 0 to 534
11.6 0.1 to 324
12.4 0.1 to 2,470
.14.1 0.1 to 91
15.1 0.1 to 37
10.5 0.1 to 70
133 0 7 to 25
36.4 0 1 lo 142
25.0 0 to 1,795
45 0 0.01 to 0.50
15.0 0 lo 21
56 4 0.01 to 272
186.0 0 to 1,460
12.7 0 1 to 20
10.0 0.1 to 17
4.0
-
40.0 0 to 1,250
20.0 0 to 2,150
385.0 0.6 to 65
475.0 0.5 to 85
12.2 0.2 to 42
14.8 0.1 to 119
64 0
17.0
23.0
22.9
7.0
15.0
44.0
20.0
118.0
7.0
17.3
0 to 126
0.01 to 135
0.1 to 16
-
0.05 to 5.0
0 to 1,250
0.05 to 20
0 to 2,950
-
0 to 31
Average
Permeability
OW
9.35
1.05
13.3
0.94
192
106
106
4.4
100
105
26.5
48.2
18.6
7.32
18.2
8 63
to.4
330
0.20
3.0
5.8
13
5.04
3.57
60
43
173
:
11.6
10.4
3.7
7.7
0.5
1.74
2.90
0.8
100
1.0
120
230
3.36
Range of
Permeablhty.
km
VW
0.2 to 23
-
0.2 to 23
-
-
-
0.4 to 2.4
-
-
0.3 to 20
0.1 to 3.2
45.0
0 to 26
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1 to 28
0 to 57
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 27.1 O-ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREA (continued)
Average
Perm_eability, Range of
Porosity
W)
6.10
12.5
-
-
1 13
-
10.2
0.7
45.0
4.26
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.43
4.57
-
-
2.40
-
-
4.4 to 10.5 6.1
4.3 to 6.5 47
5.4 to 21 6 11 .o
7.0 to 16 2 11.3
8.6 to 29 5 21.6
4.5 to 21 6 14.8
5.0 to 23.3 t 1.2
11.9 to 13.6 12.7
12.0 to 27 0 25.0
6.3 to 29 6 20 0
8.5 to 20.8 t 3.3
6.9 to 23 1 12.5
5.5 to 16 5 to.2
2.7 to 17 9 8.3
7.4 to 11 9 10.5
6.6 to 14.8 11.3
0.5 to 22 2 7.6
5.9 to 32.7 19.6
3.0 to 20.0 10.0
2.0 to 16.0 3.0
0.5 to 15.1 6.5
1.6 to 26.4 11.9
8.7 to 13.5 11.2
10.0 to 19.8 146
-
26.2
9.9 to 25.5 17.5
2.3 to 32 9 22.3
10 0 to 18.0 13.7
10 0 to 18.0 13.4
1.4 to 19.4 7.4
3.3 to 21.8 10.5
2 0 to 25.0
3 1 to 31.0
5.6 to 21.6
-
6.0 to 15 0
15.0 to 25.0
8 0 to 20 0
5.0 to 27.0
-
12.6 to 17.8
8.9 3.0 to 40.0 22.5
-
17.5 0.0 to 21 .l 2.6 16.0 to 88.0
11.4
-
23.2
-
10.9 0 to 9.1 2.9 11.9 to 55.6
13.3
-
23.8 40
12.0 3.0 to 22.0 16.0 30.0 to 60 0
19.0 8.0 to 25.0 17.0
-
130 5 0 to 20 0 11.0 35.0 to 60 0
13.6 6.0 to 30.0 23.3 7.0 to 59
20.2
-
4.0
-
14.7 11 9 to 26.6 21.3 40.6 to 55
Range 01
Average Oil
Porosity Saturation
W) W)
14.5 to 35.9
4.7
4 8 lo 26.7
0 to 19.8
8 4 10 39.5
0.0 to 7.8
13.8 lo 54.5
13.4 to 16.6
trace to 6.0
7 6 lo 37.6
0 to 25.6
0.5 to 43.7
0 to 6.5
3.9 to 29.1
0.5 to 23.6
20.4 to 29.8
1 6 to 26.4
8.8 to 46.5
0.0 to 22.2
trace to 6.0
0.0 to 50.1
6.0 to 43.5
0.3 to 5.3
Oto68
5.0 to 26.0
7.6 to 48.5
0.0 to 5.0
5 0 to 10.0
0 to 10.1
3 6 to 36.7
Range of
Average Total
Oil Water
Saturation Saturation
wd w
12.5 to 30.5
23.8 to 35.0
9.3 to 48.8
10.2 to 60.3
25.0
4.7
12 5
4.5
13.2
3.5
24.4
15.2
3.0
14.9
5.7
25.3
3.0
10.8
7.5
25.0
a.4
13.9
2.0
7.5
14.4
17.4
1.6
3.3
8.3
13.1
30.8
3.6
6.4
3.1
12 4
-
14.8 to 55.3
11.6 to 44.3
14.8 to 24.7
-
-
20.7 to 59.2
17.2 to 76.9
14.2 to 45.3
11.6 to 60.0
8.7 to 49.7
32.3 to 44.6
-
-
10.0 to 65 0
-
-
14.5 to 45.1
145to664
-
-
-
20.0 to 60.0
20.0 to 50.0
9.9 to 57.9
10.8 to 60 5
Range of Average
Average Calculated Calculated
Total Interstltial- Interstitial-
Water Water Water Range of
Saturation Saturation Saturation Gravity
w W) W)
(OAPI)
23.6
29.4
26.3
36.9
-
40.6
31 .o
19.2
-
40.0
35.7
32.7
35.6
36.1
36.0
-
3Co
-
-
-
27.5
42 0
61 .O
-
28.0
32.5
34.7
33.6
-
47.0
40.9
36.7
40.9
45.0
-
45.0
25.7
51.6
46.3
13 to 31 24
23 to 35 29
7 to 45 27
lOto 36
9 to 46 23
- -
-
14to22
-
26 to 45
20 to 54
14 to 77
12to45
12 to 60
8 to 49
31 to 45
-
6 to 42
-
-
16
-
33
37
34
32
35
37
35
-
20
-
-
22 to 33
15 to 43
15 to 64
-
15 to 41
5 to 47
20 to 56
18 to 40
10 to 58
10 to 61
-
-
27
27
40
44
35
19
26
26
34
33
5 to 30
-
121055
-
-
20 to 49
-
5 to 50
-
40 to 55
21
-
36
41
35
-
19
43
46
41
40 to 41
36 to 42
-
38 to 43
-
31 to 50
39
36 to 42
-
41 to 42
-
40
-
36 to 42
-
45 to 46
21.6 to 30
-
-
29 to 56
26 to 42
-
-
40 to 43
15 to 42.3
f
-
-
-
22 to 63
40 to 43
17 to 56.5
36 to 40
Average
Gravity
(OAPI)
41
41 1
36
-
40
41
-
2
39
-
40
-
;:
38
-
-
45.5
26
-
-
42
38
48
41
25.4
55
39
-
39
44
39
42
26.2
-
36
TABLE 27.11 -WEST TEXAS-SOUTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO AREAS
Form&on
Bend Conglomerate
Blwbry
Cambrran
Canyon reef
Canyon sand
Clearfork
Dean
Delaware
Ellenburger
Fusselman
Glorletta
(Paddock)g
Granite wash
Grayburg
Pennsylvanta sand
(Morto~)~
Queen (Penrose)g
San Andres
Seven Rivers
Sprayberry
Strawn llme
Straw sand
Tubb
Wolfcamp (Abo)Y
Group
1
2
-
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
1
2
3
-
-
-
-
1
2
3
-
-
1
2
3
-
1
2
-
1
2
3
4
Area
1.2.4
5.6.8
3
8
3
2.3.4
5.6.7
z3.4.7
3.4.7
mart)
5.6
2(w)
2.4.7
1C
2.50
2.5e
All
All
3.4.6.7
a
4 5.6.7
1.2.3
2.3.4
All
8
5.6
1. 2. 3
4.7
1 2.5.8
47
2
All
Others
1 2.5.8
2
4 5 6.7
wart)
FluId
Production
0
0
G
0
0
0
G
0
G
:
0
E
G
0
G
0
C
0
C
0
Ei
G
0
G
0
G
:
0
0
0
G
0
:
0
:
0
0
G
0
G
0
0
:
0
G
0
0
Range of
ProductIon
Depth
llll
6.000 to 6.100
10.300 to 10.500
5 383 to 5.575
5 262 to 5.950
5 500 10 6.300
4.200 to 10.400
-
30001010000
1.500 to 6.800
5.400 to 8.300
7.700 to 9.100
4.700 to 5,000
3 500 to 5.100
11 20010 11,600
11,300 to 12.300
5.500 to 9.900
11 000 to 11:zoo
7 800 to 12.800
4 100 to 10.600
5.500 to 16.600
8.700 to 12,700
9.500 to 12.500
2200 to 2 600
2,300 to 6.000
3.000 to 8 600
2,300 to 3 400
3.600 to 4 200
2.400 to 4 500
4.400
3.000 to 4 800
1.300 to 3 900
4.100 to 11.400
3.000 to 3 200
f3ooto 4 900
3.900 to 4 700
4.100 to 5 300
1 500to 5 100
3.600 to 4 100
I300 to 4 000
4.800 to 8 500
5oooto 9 200
-
5.200 to 6 700
3.800 to 10.500
I.100 to 11.300
915to 7 366
6.100 to 7 300
-
8.400 to 9 200
2.500 to 4 100
2.400 to 4 100
9.000 to 10.600
1.400 to 3 500
1.4oa to 4 000
Average
Production
Depth
(fl)
6.000
Range of
ProductIon
Thickness
lfll
Rangeof Average
Permeablllty Permeability
(W (4
3 to 22
Average
Productfan
Thvzkness
(f1)
13.2 4 to 311 150
10400 10 to 28 20 0 16toll 5.7
5.480 23to 50 36 1.6 to 3 8 24
5.610 410 95 43 0.1 10 5 3 1.8
5.900 20 to 95 30 3 0.8 to 1,130 173
7.100 40 to 222 36 a 0.6 to 746 42
5,000
5 500
2,400
4.400
6,600
-
3010 57
-
40t0180
3010 259
80
-
17
16 9 01 to 477 38
95
-
11
41 0.1 to 43 4.6
33 <O 1 to 136 5.8
8.200
4.800
4.200
11.400
11.800
9.200
7.700
11.100
11.200
7400
10.100
10.300
12.000
2.400
4300
4.700
3.000
3.800
4.100
4.400
4400
2.700
9100
6 0 to 68
52 to 39
3 0 to 52
1410 117
8 to 299
<01to03
1.1 to 33
0.6 to 84
0.5 to 36
0.2 to 23
-
Et0 113
19 to 34
65 to 954
11 to 18
30 to 347
18 to 51
8 to 49
3to 44
3to 103
4 to 8
2 to 81
301050
30 lo 123
12 to 26
6 to 259
45 to 182
17to 77
26.2
18.6
14.5
54
99
17
34
27
69
14 3
55
34
32
16 3
22 3
51
15 6
42
274
20.8
45
50
22 3
-
2.5 to 50
<OllOZ2
1.0 to 2,840
203to 246
0 1 to 2,250
12 to 26
0.5 to 25
46to 12
04to 223
11 to 2,890
5 to 3.290
t6to93
05to159
0.6 to 3 7
02to 118
0 3 to 1.430
0.3 to 462
0.12
12.9
245
10.5
4.0
0.4
14.9
1.1
177
225
75
8.4
10.3
5.6
11.5
477
609
6.5
13.7
25
55
37.7
349
3100 4 0 to 29 99 loto 318 64
3500 15 to 38 10.2 0.2 to 4,190 123
4.500 610 39 18 6 0 3 to 461 61
4.500 47to124 40 1 0 3to 295 69
3.300 30 to 197 30 2 0 2to 593 9.7
3900
2.600
7100
6 900
5600
5.900
7.800
5.200
3938
6500
9 800
8.800
3.600
3.500
9700
2800
2.300
301080
40 to 136
2 0 to 59
20 to 120
11 to 57
2010101
3 0 to 39
20 to 76
6 to 21
1510 43
0.6 to 23
04to 428
0.2 to 71
0 1 to 124
4 5to 310
19to 196
0 3to 42
02to 718
1 oto 400
02to135
-
13 to 129
4oto119
20 to 114
45 to 204
30 to 53
30 to 66
56
1s 5
21 7
IS 5
34 4
36 7
16 8
15 1
14
335
10 6
41 7
22.5
28 0
59
10 8
16 6
-
23to9410
0 1 to 1.380
1 0 to 1,270
02to147
02to 145
1 oto 4 000
12.2
51.4
63
48
179
43
11 4
47
45
276
23
419
57
60
204
19.3
427
TYPICAL CORE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT FORMATIONS 27-l 7
TABLE 27.11-WEST TEXAS-SOUTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO AREA (continued)
Range of Average
Permeabihty, Permeabtlity,
km
(md)
-
09to51
-
ozto42
-
0 3 to 249
2.2
1.4
17
-
-
-
<O.l to 24
10.1 to 109
-
7.8
2.5
3.1
-
-
-
0.1 to 1.3
0.1 to 5.8
-
-
-
0.5
08
0.2 to 18
<O.l to 0 9
0.3 io 1,020
1.4 to 54
<Ol to396
03to13
02 to 17
02to126
-
-
-
70
0.5
37
27 7
22.9
09
3.9
93
8.1
53
30
0 2 to 48
0.3 to 2 1
0 1 IO 110
0.1 to 228
0.1 to 168
-
52
13
27
143
147
- -
-
10
0 1 to 462 53
0.1 to 208 38
0.2 to 510 84
-
03
80
40
-
27 to 189
0 6 to 148
01 too4
0 1 to 138
-
108
19 1
02
11 7
011011 05
-
04
1.5 to 6.210 274
-
34
-
43
0 2 to 36 54
-
-
27 8
Range of
Poroslly
P/o)
Range of Average
Range of Average Total Total
Average 011 011 water water
Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation
1%) 1%1 &%I P/d
Range of Average
Calculated Calculated
Interstltlal- Intarstltlal-
water water Range of Average
Saturation Saturation Grawty Gravity
Ml P/d iDAPIl YAPI\
13 8 lo 16.9
Porostty
(Oh)
150 8.1 lo 8 6 8.3 43 10 64
21 to 41
34 to 40
29 to 57
22 to 71
la 3 to 73
52 42 to 62
21 to 39
31 to 33
27 to 56
22 to 71
18 to 73
50
4 0 to 15.7 10 9 9.5to161 11.5
10 7 to 14 8 12 7 2.1 to 9 1 4.9
31 to 125 78 9.6 to 19 3 12.8
41 to 168 120 6.9 to 21 2 11 8
3.0 to 21.5 89 3 6 to 39 2 11 6
33
36
40
39
44
32
z;
38
43
-
5 5 to 22 1
15 1
14 3
13 5
92
58
4.8 lo 27 7
-
4 1 to 20.6
19to194
7.5 to 31 4
5.6 lo 27 1
58
13 7
57
156
16 5
-
21 to 72
18to84
22 to 69
46
-
44 -
43 21 to 72 41 37 to 43
50
-
50
-
54 18 to 84 53 23 to 42
47 21 to 69 47 28 to 40
75to127
138to218
152to254
17to53
13to68
5 5 to 27 7
2 2 to 7 7
1 e to 25 2
37to46
13to 138
26to37
14to107
14 to 182
5 2 to 20 9
121 to204
3 5 to 26 1
11 1 to 143
7 0 to 20 0
631066
27to162
5 3 lo 24 3
2710139
10 3
179
21 0
33
43
67
15 2
50
60
42
36
33
3.3
15.0
13 6
14.4
17.7
124
11 3
6.4
79
119
77
,22 to 44
2.0 to 103
3.910 156
2.1 to 6.6
3.3 to 16 7
6.8 to 22 9
3.1 to 4 8
5 3 to 24 6
08to76
1.010 192
02to39
5.2 to 16
39to44
3 1 to 22 1
29toa7
4 8 to 22.5
7 1 to 42
6.2 to 37 9
24to71
4.8 to 22 1
8 3 to 34
47to 188
33 7 20 to 52
60 45 to 66
11 2 33 to 65
37 37 to 68
92 19 to 53
57
-
11 0 41 to 76
40 45 to 69
129 22 to 65
42 47 to 67
a4 40 to 84
17 32 to 47
104 25 to 65
37 39 to 60
154 24 to 72
52 39 to 66
14 7 42 lo 71
18.6 22 to 53
176 26 to 56
47 55 to 68
13.9 32 to 84
182 31 to 78
97 28 to 58
34
53
49
ii
62
51
57
46
57
61
40
42
51
48
55
54
i:
60
55
58
42
19 10 51
36 lo 63
31 to 64
37 lo 68
19 10 53
-
41 lo 76
45 lo 69
22 lo 65
47 lo 67
40 to 84
32 lo 47
24 to 64
37 lo 60
24 lo 71
39 to 66
35 to 66
22 to 52
25 to 55
55 to 68
32 to 84
31 to 78
28 to 58
33
49
42
;:
61
51
57
46
57
60
40
38
50
47
53
49
::
60
55
56
41
10 7 to 22 2 16.6 2.6 to 7 6 74 36 to 62 48 35 to 58 45
5 7 to 27 0 172 4.2 to 34 7 156 32 to 68 49 30 to 66 45
32to140 85 8 9 to 33 9 187 21 to 49 36 19 to 49 36
31 to128 71 4 9 to 30 6 147 26 to 69 52 25 to 69 51
3 3 to 25 1 15 5 3 5 to 24 2 132 39 to 74 58 37 10 74 56
15 5 to 16 6
5 9 to 28 9
101 to233
4 4 to 20 6
10 9 IO 14 8
31 I0126
21 to142
1 oto203
6 0 lo 27
2 5 to 7 1
-
4910185
7 2 to 24 5
5 4 to 26 3
26t0128
121 to274
2.4 to 27 0
160
16 5
158
11 7
129
72
6.9
126
16 2
49
43
99
153
15 5
81
179
18 8
34to95
42to41 7
7 0 to 24 5
7.0 to 30
55tof33
4 9 lo 26 3
17to52
2 7 to 279
5 0 to 27
8 5 to 25 3
66to 168
0510 161
1 6 to 26 8
5.3 to 23 6
13to 170
3 7 to 37 3
64 51 to 66 56 46 to 65 54
16.2 38 to 70 54 36 10 61 50
15 3 32 to 68 45 30 to 67 43
15.5 25 to 72 43 25 to 72 42
5.9 38 to 39 39 38 to 39 38
11 2 15 to 66 44 15 to 66 43
30 46 to 60 52 46 lo 60 52
122 23 to 77 43 23 to 77 41
14 1 25 to 60 43 23 10 59 41
12 9 37 to 64 54 37 to 64 54
19 6
-
25
-
25
97 32 to 56 44 31 to 56 44
46 30 lo 64 48 26 to 64 45
14.3 32 10 65 46 29 to 64 44
14.4 28 to 56 39 28 to 56 39
56 id to 79 59 36 to 76 53
16 0 31 to 75 53 31 to 75 47
40 io 42 14
41 to 45
-
39 lo 42
44 to 51
30 to 47
43
40
46
42
40
28
32
37 to 40
-
35 to 42
-
48 lo 52
-
35 to 46
-
36 to 49
-
37 10 52
-
47 to 50
-
28 to 40
-
40 to 45
-
31 to 41
39
40
49
42
42
47
48
33
42
36
23 lo 40 32
28 to 35 31
38 to 47 41
30 to 42 33
34 to 38 37
30 to 37 33
26 to 37 32
28 to 38 32
36 to 42 39
36 to 43 38
39 to 47 41
29 to 48
-
38
42
36 to 45
42
38
42
40
40 to 50 48
40 to 44 42
27 to 41 32
Fig. 27.1-Area map for Table 27.11
TABLE 27.1 P-ALASKA
27-19
Range of
Production
Depth
fftl
Average Range of
Depth Thickness
(fo (fi)
5,640 40 to 106
8,600 20 to 1,300
6,200 30 to 80
8,600 350 to 630
6,230 22 to 130
7,200 36 to 92
6,150 90 to 1,000
Average
Production
Thickness
(fi)
82
420
-
-
t:
265
Range of
Permeability
0-W
100 to 300
1 to 35
3 to 200
-
20 to 4,400
3.5 to 1,600
10 to 350
Average
Permeability
(md)
125
10
-
265
480
-
43
Fluid
Production
G
:
0
E
0
Formation
Beluga
Hemlock
Kuparek
Sadlerochit
Sterling
Tyonek
Tyonek
Data from repon.
4,500 to 8,100
6,100 to 10,800
6,200 to 6.700
8,300 to 8,800
2,850 to 7,500
6,950 to 7,800
4,400 to 14,800
TABLE 27.12-ALASKA (continued)
Range of
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
W)
35 to 50
35 to 46
Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
W)
40
39
Range of Average
Oil
Saturation SatZion
w W)
0.0 to 0.1 0.1
-
10.0
- -
Range of Average
Gravity Gravity
(OAPI) (OAPI)
30 to 38 37
-
23
-
28
Range of
Porosity
to4
19.8 to 28.0
11.2 to 18.0
-
Average
Porosity
w
23.0
14.6
23.0
22.0
30.0
16.0
16.0
Formation
Beluga
Hemlock
Kuparek
Sadlerochit
Sterling
Tyone k
Tyonek
- -
-
28.0 to 34.0
11.0 to 21.0
14.0 to 26.0
- -
- -
- -
10 to 18 15.0
- - - -
- -
35 to 44 40
- -
- -
Data from repon
TABLE 27.13-AUSTRALIA (GIPPSLAND BASIN)
Average
Calculated
Interstitial-
Water
Saturation
w
f :
25
10
26
24
16
40
Range of Average
Production Production Range of Average
Fluid Depth Thickness Permeability Permeability
Production
(m) b-0 VW VW
: 2,299 1,650 to to 2,396 1.950 80.4 6.0 600 800 to to 3000 3000 - -
G 1.521 fo 1.556 7.5 2.occr
Average
Average
Porosity SatZion
(Oh) W)
22 -
21 -
25 0
21 0
2
27 0
25 -
Formation Production
(Reservoir) Unit
L-l Mackerel
L-l Tuna
M-l Marlin
M-l Tuna
M-l Barracuda
M-l Cobia
N-l Snapper
N-4 Barracuda
G 11299 to 1:377 59.1 - 3;oO0
: 2,352 1,018 to to 2,396 1,151 37.2 40.0 5,ocO 500 to5000
G 1,186 to 1,383 99.0 - 1,000
0 1,330 to 1,339 2.7 - 1,000
27-20
TABLE 27.14-ALBERTA. CANADA
Formation
Cardium A
Cardium A
Beaver Hill Lake A&B
Father (conglomerate)
Falher (sandstone)
Gilwood
Keg River
Keg River
Leduc 03
Leduc 03A
Taber
Viking
Viking A
Pool
Barrington
Willesden Green
Swan Hills
Elmworth
Elmworth
Nipisi
Rainbow
Rainbow
Red Water
Bonnie Glen
Taber
Viking Kimsella
Gilbey
Flutd
Production
0
:
E
0
G
0
0
:
G
0
Average
Production
Depth
WI
6,634
6,225
0,345
6,500
6,500
5,651
6,082
6,381
3,208
6,000
3,500
2,400
6,401
Permeaiility
0-4
3.7
7.4
32.2
1.0
40.1
208.0
95.0
187.0
302.0
682.0
1,000.0
14.0
238.0
TABLE 27.15~MIDDLE EAST
Range of
ProductIon Range of
Fluid Depth Permeability
Formation Locatton ProductIon
(fo OW
Arab IV Quatar 0 7,400 10 7,980 0.3 to 6,000
ShubalbalWasal Oman 0 4,125 lo 4,422 2.0 to 10
Buhasa Abu Dhabl 0 10,000 to 12,000 0.5 to 1,000
Umm Shalff Abu Dhabi 0 10,000 to 12,000 0.2 to 500
Asab Abu Dhabi 0 10,000 to 12,000 0.5 to 1,500
Average Range of
Permeability Porosity
Cm4 W)
300 5 to 34
8 27 to 37
20 15to22
8 lot020
25 15to30
TABLE 27.16-NORTH SEA
Formation Field
Productton Range of
Fluid Depth Thickness Permeability
Productton
m (w WJ)
(Paleocene) Forties 0 7,200 509 400 to 3,900
Brent Brent G&O - 740 10 to 8,000
Brent Statfjord 0 7,700 770
Statfjord Brent G&O 900 100 to 5,500
Statfjord Slatfjord es00 800 10 to 2,000
(Upper Cretaceous) lo Danian Ekofisk : 10:400 700
Average
Porosity
(04
10.1
15.1
7.9
10.0
9.0
12.9
4.4
10.0
6.3
9.4
26.0
18.0
10.6
Average
Oil
Saturation
37.9
30.3
13.3
0
0
9.3
0
16.1
19.4
4.7
20.0
0
13.0
Average
Calculated
Water
Saturation
22.9
23.3
21.9
23.0
35.0
42.5
14.0
19.9
25.6
24.2
25.0
35.0
35.6
Range of Average
Reservoir Reservoir
Average Water Water
Porosity Saturation Saturation
W) W) P/o)
21 9 to 100 25
33 8 to 16 10
18 151040 25
15 25 to 45 35
20 151035 20
Average Range of
Permeability Porowty
WI W)
- 25 to 30
7 to 37
3,000 -
- IO to 26
- -
12
Average
Reservoir
Average Water
Porosity Saturation
W) w/o)
27 23
- -
28 -
- -
23 -
30 20
TABLE 27.17-VENEZUELA
Production Production Production Productson Range of Average Range of Average
Fluid Depth Depth
FormatIon
Thickness Thickness Permeability Permeability Porosity Porosity
Production
(n) (fi) (fi) (4 (md) W-a w Wd
Upper Laguna 0 7,200 lo 10,900 9,500 20 to 170 06 100 lo 470 270 1ato35 30.3
Upper Lagumllas InferNor 0 8,100 10 11,400 10,000 20 lo 220 142 200 to 3.000 1,500 20 lo 32 20.7
Bachaquero inferior 0 9.000 lo 11,cOo 10,000 20 to 150 83 100 to 700 450 17 to 28 21.8
Chapter 28
Relative Permeability
Walter Rose.con\ultant *
Introduction
This chapter was written as an overview of relative
permeability: the basic ideas are given and their evolu-
tion is traced. Also presented are some laboratory
measurement details and comments on the use of relative
permeability information in problem solving. Many
unresolved issues still exist, regardless of the fact that
the literature is quite rich with the descriptions of what
previous workers have thought about this complex
sub,ject
Fluid flow is the major transport process that is in-
volved in the recovery of oil, gas, and associated forma-
tion waters from subsurface petroleum reservoirs. As a
consequence, process descriptions are needed to unders-
tand. to forecast. to manage, and to control production
operations. Relative permeability is the concept that is
often used as a framework for describing two- and three-
phase flow of immiscible fluids through porous sedimen-
tary rocks.
The term permubility historically has been adopted as
a measure of the porous rocks ability to conduct fluid. If
only one fluid is present in the interstices, this transport
coefficient is called the speciJi(, permeability, but other-
wise one must make reference to the c$kcti\v
permeability of each of the immiscible fluids in the con-
nected pore space. Relative permeability by convention
is the ratio of the effective to the specific permeability.
In transport theory one deals with U%.re.s. ,@(vs, and
the coefficients by which these variables arc intcrcon-
netted. As soon as the force-flux relationships are
established for particular cases, they can be written in
such a way that the various permeability functions will
appear explicitly. In other words, just as specific
Aulhor of the chapter on ,h,s to~,c I the ,962 ed,t,on was M R J Wyllle
permeability has the sense of a transport coefficient that
appears in Darcys equation for single-phase flow, effec-
tive and corresponding relative permeability functions
also can be thought of analogously as important transport
coefficients by which multiphase flow processes are best
described.
Central to the relative permeability idea is that we arc
dealing with material response types of parameters that
cannot be derived from theory alone. On the contrary.
laboratory measurements generally also will have to be
made. All measurements are to be made in accordance
with how the experimental variables properly are defined
and used later.
To simplify the discussion, assume that we are dealing
with the steady flow of an incompressible fluid that is
moving macroscopically in a horizontal direction. Then.
kAAp
4=-
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1)
I.IL
where Ap is the pressure drop that can be measured
across a specimen sample of length L and cross-sectional
area A. and q is the volumetric rate of discharge of the
flowing fluid whose viscosity is CL. Eq. I serves to
prescribe an experimental measurement methodology by
which values for k can be determined unambiguously.
In particular. it is seen that a plot of q vs. AI, should be
a straight line whose slope is proportional to the specific
permeability. k, as long as certain limiting conditions
prevail. These are that (1) the fluid is homogeneous: (2)
the temperature is constant: (3) the transport process is
free of electrokinetic effects (as occur when certain
dilute electrolytes are being moved through electrically
nonconducting media), and of film surface flow (as oc-
curs when a gas is moving at such low mean pressure
that the frequency of molecular collisions at the in-
terstitial surface boundaries becomes important); and (4)
the porous rock is sufficiently rigid and inert to preclude
rapid changes in the pore geometry.
Accordingly, in what follows, we adopt the idea that if
Darcys law adequately describes single-phase flow,
analogs of it can be postulated just as well as useful
descriptions of multiphase flow phenomena.
Historical Background
In the 1930s and 1940s, serious ideas about the mean-
ing and measurement of relative permeability
phenomena first appeared. Principal authors were
Muskat, Botset. Hassler, Leverett, and perhaps a dozen
more whose names punctuate the milestones described in
the standard references. .* These people were connected
predominantly in one way or another with the U.S.
petroleum industry at a time when quantitative study of
recovery of hydrocarbon fluids from subsurface
sedimentary environments was in its infancy. In focusing
on how reservoir fields of fluid flow would be influenced
by the nature and number of the coexistent interstitial
fluids, the early workers took advantage of the fact that
the existing and well-developed understandings about
single-phase flow in porous rocks, when generalized.
seemed to provide credible descriptions of multiphase
flow situations. When L.A. Richards3 published his
classic 1931 paper on the flow of capillary-bound
moisture in so-called unsaturated soils, Darcys pioneer-
ing work already had stood the test of three-quarters of a
century of scrutiny, use, and amplification by diverse
groups of technologists that included groundwater
specialists as well as petroleum, chemical, and civil
engineers,
Framework Ideas
By analogy to Eq. 1, a set of separate equations can be
written to describe multiphase flow phenomena under
the restricted conditions that no gravity forces are affect-
ing the steady flow of each of the incompressible im-
miscible fluids, or
9, =(kjA)(AP,)l(~jLjL)=(Wc~jA)(APj)i(~jL),
where the subscript j refers to the jth fluid phase (oil,
gas, water). Following the usual terminology. k, is
called the effective permeability, krj is called the relative
permeability, and Pj denotes values of pressure locally
measured in the various fluid phases that are separated
by interfaces of contact.
In particular, kj and kti are to be considered measures
of the flow conductivity afforded by the porous rock
when saturated with the immiscible fluid phases in some
particular way. As will be seen, reference must be made
to fluid saturation configurations and distributions as
well as to fluid saturation levels. For example, and in
analogy to the porosity concept where 4 is given by the
local ratio of pore to bulk volume, the saturation of the
jth fluid, Sj, is defined as
8
SQV ,,...............................(3)
/Jr
where Vfi is the volume of fluid j and V,,, is the total pore
volume. In other words, the product C&S, can be thought
of as an effective porosity of that portion of the partition-
ed pore space occupied by the jth fluid phase.
It follows that locally (i.e., in any representative
volume element of the reservoir rock system of interest)
Es,, = 1, even when saturation is changing with time and
position. In any case, it would appear that the relative
permeability, k,, has a first-order dependency on the
saturation level, Si. But this is only one of the dependen-
cies, because usually many interstitial fluid phase
distributions are possible for each level of saturation.
Also, the reduced pore space occupied by each of the
several pore fluid saturants is not necessarily everywhere
bounded by interstitial (solid pore wall) surfaces; hence,
it is possible that the influence of prevalent fluid/fluid in-
terfacial boundaries also may have to be considered.
Thus, the statement
O<kr;<l forO<Sj<l, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
while always true, ignores the fact that k,., may equal
zero even when Sj is finite, and may be greater than uni-
ty even for values for S, less than unity.4. Moreover,
Eq. 4 is too crude to indicate explicitly that krj can have
more than one value for each value of si (e.g.. because
of hysteresis).
Hysteresis
From the thermodynamic point of view, the fluid flow
processes under consideration are irreversible (i.e.,
nonequilibrium); therefore, they are inherently path-
dependent. One consequence is that the equilibrium
states approached in one direction can be different from
those approached in another. This phenomenon is called
hysteresis, and explanations for it are not hard to find.
For example, while specific permeability depends most-
ly on the interstitial pore geometry, effective (hence,
relative) permeability depends on the fluid saturation
geometry as well. Usually there will be more than one
way a given fraction of the pore space can be occupied
by each fluid phase of interest. The result is that relative
permeability data give values that are functions of the
history and sequence of the prior saturation changes as
well as being merely functions of the fluid saturation
levels.
As will be seen later in this chapter, little laboratory
work has been published to prove that Eq. 2 truly
describes multiphase flow phenomena. Nor can much
reassurance be taken from the fact that the validity of Eq.
I as a description of the characteristics of single-phase
flow has been confirmed experimentally for a large
number of cases. This is because the unsteady states are
of the greatest interest when dealing with petroleum
recovery problems, but this aspect is ignored by the Dar-
cian modeling.
In other words, Eq. 2 by itself does not make it possi-
ble to account for and to predict the saturation changes
that occur as flood fronts move through reservoir space
during production. And in the real processes to be
modeled, the various phases may be flowing in separate
directions rather than colinearly. The greatest limitation
of Eq. 2, however, is that it gives no explicit prescription
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
28-3
of how to avoid end effects (the buildup of wetting fluid
saturation levels at surfaces of capillary discontinuity
such as core end-faces) in laboratory work.
Immiscible Wetting and Nonwetting Pore Fluids
Whenever wetting and nonwetting immiscible fluids
compete to occupy the same pore space, it is clear that at
inflow and outflow surfaces of so-called capillary
discontinuity, there will tend to be a buildup of wetting
fluid saturation levels during the course of multiphase
flow processes. This has been understood from the
earliest days. 3.6 The central idea is that immiscible
fluids that are co-existent in contiguous capillary pore
space generally will be separated by curved interfaces of
contact instead of by stress-free flat interfaces at contacts
that occur exterior to the flow system.
In fact, the inter-facial curved boundaries are a retlec-
tion of the balance between capillary and gravity forces
in the static (stationary) cases, and of the viscous forces
as well in the dynamic cases. This means that locally
there usually will be a pressure difference between the
immiscible fluids. This pressure difference, commonly
called the capillary pressure, P,., by convention is de-
fined as the local difference between p,! and pIr (where
the subscripts n and MJ refer to the nonwetting and the
wetting fluids, respectively).
In systems at equilibrium. immiscible fluids tend to be
distributed such that the free surface energy of the
system is at a minimum, subject to the constraints im-
posed by the S, levels and by the hysteretic path of
saturation change being followed as successive
equilibrium states are being established. This usually
means that the wetting fluid will be found in the smaller
pore spaces, and that the interfaces of contact will be
concave toward the nonwetting fluid (hence, P, will
have positive values). In fact. capillary pressure, like kj
and k, , frequently is assumed to be primarily saturation-
dependent, but it depends substantially on the fluid/fluid
interstitial configurations at each saturation level.
The Buckley-Leverett equation6 takes the following
special form in describing two-phase displacement proc-
esses involving one-dimensional (horizontal) flow of in-
compressible fluids. With density p, =constant and
aq,l&=O, we have
=o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(S)
where 4 is the local porosity independent of time, Af is
the cross-sectional area of flow path, P,. is the capillary
pressure, L,, is the horizontal distance parameter, and t is
the time (both independent variables); and h4, and M,,.
are the mobilities of the nonwetting and wetting fluids,
respectively (i.e.. M, =k,llLj). As can be seen from the
derivations of Eq. 5 given in Refs. 1, 2, and 6. the
saturation levels vary with position and time in a way
that depends on the variation of P,. with S,,.. on the inherent in the indirect nature of such measurements. To
saturation gradient, on the relative permeabilities, and on expose the rationale for selecting one type of procedure
the initial and boundary conditions of the problem [as over another, the ideas of recent authors are reviewed
well as on certain controllable and disposable variables below.
As will be seen, the steady-state methods are more
time-consuming than the unsteady-state methods; still,
the data obtained by them are at least as believable as the
plausible model on which they are based (Eq. 2),
especially if convincing measures are taken to minimize
the capillary end effects mentioned previously. On the
other hand, the unsteady-state methods, comparatively
speaking, supply the wanted data quickly and cheaply.
This latter advantage, it may be argued, is only a partial
compensation for the uncertainties in data interpretation
such as porosity, fluid viscosities, the specific
permeability, and the total flow rate given by (q,,, +q,l)].
Indeed, the importance of having relative permeability
information is to make it possible to solve reservoir
engineering problems modeled by process descriptions
such as given by Eq. 5. The more elaborate modeling
technique involving equations with the transport and in-
teraction coefficients described by Rose require con-
sidering more than simple relative permeability informa-
tion, however. Even so, the experiments prescribed by
the Buckley-Leverett and Rose equations will not be
easy to perform. The laboratory difficulties obviously
multiply if unsteady states are to be considered (where Sj
changes with time and spatial position). This is why only
state-of-the-art methodologies will be described here.
Nonetheless, it is clear that future workers will continue
to be challenged by the need to develop and to perfect
measurement methods that are based on modeling that
goes beyond the simplistic Darcian reasoning embedded
in Eq. 2.
Measurement Methodologies
A number of measurement methodologies have been
described in the literature; these are classified and ex-
plained to some extent as follows, along with some of
the data that have been reported. Two controversial
questions are (1) do the various methods yield equivalent
data, and (2) if not, which are the most trustworthy ones?
Laboratory measurement techniques for relative
permeability determination are of two sorts. In the so-
called steady-state methods, the effective permeability as
a function of saturation is calculated from the flow data
that are obtained on the assumption that Eq. 2 is correct
in form. The trick is to make direct measurements
prescribed by the theory, of parameters such as
volumetric flow rates, pressure drops, and fluid satura-
tion levels. In one variant of the method, known as the
Hassler technique, provision also is made to control
and to measure the local values of capillary pressure to
avoid the troublesome end effects.
The so-called unsteady-state methods are based on us-
ing integrals of Eq. 5 as the process model. The idea is to
observe the consequences (i.e., the outcomes in terms of
cumulative production) of controlled multiphase
displacement experiments, and then to back-calculate the
relative permeability values that are consistent with, and
serve to explain, those outcomes. The cumulative pro-
duction data also are processed to provide a basis for
calculating average saturation levels to be associated
with the relative permeability values.
Fig. 2&l-Details of steady-state relative
permeability apparatus.
Steady-State k, Methods
Experimental Procedure. Blackwell and Braun pro-
vide a comprehensive statement of how some people
think the steady-state relative permeability method
should be practiced when given the understandings and
instrumentation opportunities available at the start of the
1980s. Fig. 28.1 is a schematic ofthe laboratory system
that can be used. Positive displacement or other types of
constant-rate pumps, one for each fluid, discharge a
fixed-ratio mixture into the core sample. Regardless of
the initial saturation conditions within the core sample,
the effluent fluid mixture eventually will be identical in
composition to that being delivered by the pumps
upstream. At this steady-state condition, effective
permeabilities for the immiscible fluids can be calculated
because the separate pump rates (4(, and q,,) will be
known, and because an approximation of the pressure
drop across the core sample can be used as the indicated
driving force for each fluid.
For example, suppose that the reservoir process under
consideration involves edgewater encroachment into a
uniform sand that has a certain level of interstitial water
saturation, with the rest of the pore space filled with an
unsaturated oil. A core sample representative of the for-
mation could be selected and. after cleaning. an ap-
propriate initial condition with respect to water and oil
\aturat(on could be established by the so-called restored-
state capillaty pressure technique. Alternatively (and
perhaps ideally), a fresh core sample could be
brought into the laboratory as recovered by a pressure
core barrel so that the wanted initial saturation conditions
already would prevail. Or, as still another preparation
procedure, an as-received core could be processed so
that the mud filtrate was replaced by simulated formation
water that, thereafter, was displaced down to interstitial
levels by flooding the sample with live oil. That is, in
one way or another, the imbibition water/oil relative
permeability data could be obtained where the experi-
ment is started from a proper initial condition in fluid
saturations and saturation distributions. And, if reservoir
conditions of wettability were to be somehow preserved
or restored as preparations for the experimental work are
made, and if the ensuing displacement process were to
be undertaken under conditions where reservoir-like
overburden stress, pore fluid pressure, and/or
temperature were simulated, then so much the better.
However, the final saturation levels at steady state still
would have to be measured. Several methods are
available from which this information can be obtained.
Saturation Measurements. What the Braun and
Blackwell method9 does is have a downstream water/oil
separator where (as shown in Fig. 28.1) the bulk of each
effluent phase is directed back to the inflow sides of the
respective pumps, but where the differential amount be-
tween inflow and outflow of each phase is collected in a
column and gravimetrically or volumetrically measured.
In other schemes, X-ray absorbers or radioactive tracers
can be added to one or more of the flowing fluids so that
external instrument scans of the core will give the infor-
mation that can be converted back to saturation levels.
Even more simply, the core sample can be removed from
the core holder after each steady-state condition is
Fig. 28.2-The Hassler sandwich. C denotes the core sam-
ple of length L and 6 denotes the inflow and outflow
capillary end barriers. NW and W designate the
ports through which the nonwetting and wetting
fluids are directed collinearly as shown by the
arrows.
reached, and then weighed so that saturation values can
be calculated from independent knowledge of fluid den-
sities and core sample PV.
More details about the steady-state procedure under
discussion are available in the references. Suffice it to
say that entire curves of relative permeability vs. satura-
tion are to be obtained. following well-defined imbibi-
tion or drainage paths, by proceeding stepwise from one
steady-state condition to the next. For example, in the
water influx experiment under discussion, the q,./q,,
ratio delivered by the pumps could be set at succeedingly
higher values while going from one steady state to the
next until finally the high produced WORs would con-
firm that a condition of residual oil saturation had been
achieved.
The previous discussion provides a brief description of
the sense of the steady-state relative permeability
measurement scheme as used when no special effort is
made to control end effects (e.g., the buildup of wetting
fluid saturation levels at surfaces of capillary discon-
tinuity such as core end-faces). Early data obtained by
equivalent steady-state procedures are reported in
Muskats classic work. lo Remarkably, there does not
appear to be much learned from more recently obtained
data than was at least qualitatively apparent in the
beginning.
For example, one conclusion that can be drawn con-
sistently from laboratory observations is that the ine-
qualities given previously as Eq. 4 can be written more
exactly as
O<k,.;<l forS;j<Si<l, . (6)
where S;, is the minimum (irreducible) value of S, when
the jth fluid of interest no longer has phase continuity
over sensible distances within the pore space. On the
other hand, the idea that relative permeability can be
greater than unity for saturations less than unity has been
reported. and explained as a reflection of the lubrica-
tion provided as one fluid slides by an adjacent im-
miscible one.
28-5
DRAINAGE CURVE
. .
1 I I
\
I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 (0.8 1.0
SW E
Fig. 28.3-Schematic capillary pressure curves
On the other hand, when attention needs to be given to
end effects, some workers have proposed that long cores
be used so that measurements could be confined to an in-
ner portion. Even in such a so-called Penn State ar-
rangement, however, the pressure-drop terms of Eq. 2
still are not measured separately for each of the immisci-
ble fluids, and that is why it makes sense to refer back to
Hasslers almost-forgotten work.
The Hassler method for relative permeability deter-
mination has had a curious history. The patent was
granted in 1944 and although cited occasionally, it has
been ignored by most workers intent on developing sim-
ple state-of-the-art procedures. Scheidegge? referred to
the method as superior, but difficult and time-consuming
to apply, and at one point Rose I2 gave an analysis of
why operational difficulties were to be expected in some
applications. More recently, however, a patent has ap-
peared that teaches how Hasslers ideas indeed might be
reduced to a practical operating scheme. I3 Whether or
not these claims eventually are substantiated by the facts,
it is nonetheless of interest to examine in some detail the
principle of the Hassler method for relative permeability
determination. Thereby, a reference frame can be
established to which other steady-state relative
permeability procedures can be compared.
0.6 -
kw
k.
0.4 -
28-6
- 0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
svl
Fig. 28.4-Schematic relative permeability curves
l------
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
5,
Fig. 28.5-Hysteresis in waterflood vs. oilflood relative
permeability curves.
Fig. 28.2 is a schematic that shows the sandwich ar-
rangement where the wetting fluid (denoted by W)
passes in series through an inflow capillary barrier as it
enters the core sample, and then exits through a similar
downstream barrier. The nonwetting fluid (denoted by
NW) flows in parallel with the wetting fluid in the core
sample but does not enter the pore space of the barriers.
This exclusion is achieved by never letting the pressure
in the nonwetting phase locally be so great that the bar-
rier threshhold pressure is exceeded; hence, the endflow
barriers will always remain 100% saturated with the wet-
ting fluid during the course of the test.
Fig. 28.3 is a schematic of a representative capillary
pressure drainage and imbibition curve for the reservoir
rock sample of interest where the relative permeability
relationships are wanted. Suppose that, as an initial con-
dition, the core (as well as the end barriers in series with
it) is 100% saturated with water (say with a simulated
oilfield brine). Let the threshold pressure for the core
sample be PcA and that for the barrier material be greater
than Pee. * Threshold pressure is being defined here as
the lowest capillary pressure (P,., -PC.,,.), where the
nonwetting fluid will enter a wetting-fluid-saturated
porous medium. Since the capillary end barriers are
made of material considerably less permeable than the
core sample material, P,., $ P,,
Hasslers way of performing the relative permeability
experiment is to measure the effective permeability to
each phase by using Eq. 2 at various successive capillary
pressure conditions, such as PA, PSI, PSI PC, PDI,
PD2. PE. The result is a succession of saturation
states such as S,.,, , Ssl, SB2 SC,, SD,, SD2 SE in
the sense that from A to C a drainage curve is being
traced since the wetting-phase saturation is always
decreasing, while from C to E an imbibition curve is be-
ing traced since the wetting-phase saturation is always
increasing. Note that at A the wetting-phase saturation,
S4, is 1 .O, at C the wetting-phase saturation is close to
the interstitial water level, S;,,, while at E the wetting-
phase saturation is (1 -S,,Z), where S,,, designates the
residual (nonproducible) nonwetting fluid saturation
level.
Corresponding to the saturation points where capillary
pressure values have been measured and shown in Fig.
28.3 during drainage and imbibition, the associated
relative permeability data to be obtained by the Hassler
method are shown in Fig. 28.4 in schematic format. It is
instructive to draw some comparisons between these
presentations. Capillary pressure as well as relative
permeability functions are saturation-dependent. They
both appear as parameters in the Buckley-Leverett
description of multiphase flow and displacement proc-
esses (Eq. 5). Both functions are a direct reflection of the
network structure of the pore space (size, shape, orienta-
tion, mode of branching, tortuosity, etc.). It is for these
reasons that early workers were quick to search for the
direct dependency between capillary pressure and
relative permeability phenomena and that Hassler,
with such great insight, was provoked to emphasize the
interconnections that still earlier had been recognized by
Leverett I5 and Richards.
*Pee IS the highest value of capillary pressure 10 be used I,, the exper,men, 10 ob,a,n
Ihe lowest value of S,
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY 28-7
The process under discussion is complicated and not
OIL ISOPERMS
GAS
easy to describe without many details. Since these are
fully covered in the original references, J. it is enough
to end the discussion here with the observation that there
are at least two ways, in principle. to practice the Hassler
method. One is to impose fixed boundary conditions in
pressure upstream as well as downstream, and then to
observe flow rates needed for the calculations of
permeability data. * The other is to have constant flow
rate as the upstream boundary condition while keeping
constant pressure as the downstream boundary condi-
tion. What is gained thereby is circumvention of the
practical difficulties of avoiding end effects encountered
when the boundary conditions are set in terms of
upstream and downstream pressure only.
/ \ \
YRTER /
I
' OIL
Unsteady-State k, Method
Compared to the unsteady-state methods to be described
Fig. 28.6-Three-phase saturation trajectory and oil isoperms
now, the steads-state methods are suite straightforward
rangingfrom 1x10- to2x10-3.
and involve few uncertainties. The following analyses
will reveal why this is so.
Experimental Procedure. In so-called unsteady-state
procedures, effluent production from a core sample dur-
ing the course of an imposed displacement process is
recorded, and relative permeability functions are
generated on the basis of a mathematical modeling of the
process that is supposed to be consistent with what is be-
ing observed. In practice, the mathematical model usual-
ly selected is a simplified form of an integral of the
Buckley-Leverett Eq. 5. By linearizing the equation by
dropping the capillary pressure (end effect) terms, back-
calculating the relative permeability functions appears to
be possible.
Since the aim is to get more resolution for calculation
of intermediate values of relative permeability and for
calculation of the associated saturation values, one needs
to spread out the effluent production data. The whole
enterprise is compromised, however. when a very un-
favorable mobilit? ratio is chosen as the way to prolong
the transient penod before total breakthrough of the
displacing phase. The reader is referred to one analysis
of this situation for further information.
Methods of Calculation
Institut Francais du Petrole Method. The reader also
is referred to the definitive paper by authors at the In-
stitut FranGais du P&role I6 for full details about how to
practice the unsteady-state method for relative
permeability determination. Constant-flow-rate and
constant-pressure schemes are described, precautions are
enumerated, and calculation schemes are given. Fig.
28.5 is taken from another paper that shows how
representative data and the associated relative
permeability curves might look in a representative case.
Automated Centrifuge Technique. To finish with the
discussion of the variants of the unsteady-state
methodologies, it will be useful to cite the work of
OMeara and Lease, I8 who gave three-phase data ob-
tained with an automated centrifuge technique. By spin-
ning core samples in a centrifugal field of known
strength and observing effluent volumes as a function of
time, a back-calculation of relative permeability can be
made (which, again, will be at most of qualitative value
because of the limiting assumptions that have been used
in the mathematical modeling).
Claims made for the centrifuge technique are (1) it
does not suffer from viscous fingering distortions, as in
the case of the conventional unsteady-state procedures,
and (2) it is faster than the competing steady-state pro-
cedures. However, the capillary end-effect problem still
has to be faced. Another disadvantage is that in any
given run, the information obtained applies only to the
relative permeability of the invading phase. Since the
conventional unsteady-state procedures give relative
permeabilities for the displaced (as well as the displac-
ing) fluids, and since larger samples can be processed
than is possible in the centrifuge, the conventional ap-
proaches are the ones that are considered to be state-of-
the-art. In fact, the appeal that the centrifuge technique
holds for experimenters is related to its suitability for
automation, and to the fact that it is already generating
three-phase data. Fig. 28.6, for example, is a display of
some of the data that have been reported.
Critique of Methods
To summarize what has been published about relative
permeability measurement methodologies, the critique
originally given by Scheidegger, 2 and more recently af-
firmed, * is accepted enthusiastically here. The consen-
sus seems to be that the steady-state methods. Hasslers
in particular, give the most believable results since they
are based on a plausible (however naive) definition of
relative permeability (i.e., as embedded in Eq. 2).
Unsteady-state methods, while quicker and easier to ap-
ply from the laboratory operational point of view,
nonetheless are beset with enormous interpretation dif-
ficulties. This is mostly because they involve drawing in-
ferences (by way of back-calculations) from a rough-
integral form of the Buckley-Leverett Eq. 5. As noted
previously, Eq. 5 is at most an imperfect model of the
flow process under study.
t
0 i l 76 Cm. Hg.(Air Flow)
A P=oO (Air Flow)
0 P*CO (Hellurn Flow)
,THEORETICAL CURVE
2 .4 6 6
SL,- WETTING LIOUID SATURATION (fracl~onal)
Fig. 28.7-Gas relative permeability vs. total wetting-liquid
saturation.
Other k, Methods
Still other methods to arrive at relative permeability in-
formation remain to be cited for completeness. For ex-
ample, there are the so-called stationary fluid methods I9
and the calculation methods based on capillary pressure
and endpoint displacement data associated with Corey et
al. *O and Stone.2 Figs. 28.7 and 28.8 display some of
the results given by these investigators.
In the stationary fluid methods, the effective
permeability of one phase is measured by flowing that
fluid at such a low pressure gradient that the contiguous
immiscible fluid is left (it is hoped) unaffected. Clearly,
the method can be trusted most when the stationary fluid
has a saturation level close to its minimum (irreducible)
value (i.e., Sj-+SV for the stationary fluid). Otherwise,
it may be concluded that the data generated by applying
the method will be distorted by the ever-present end ef-
fects. On the other hand, the method is easy to apply
operationally, and the data generated giving k, at S;,,
(irreducible water saturation) and k,. at S;, (irreducible
oil saturation) are needed along with other parameters
when calculated values of relative permeability are to be
made by the popular Corey et al. and Stone
methodologies. In any case, values for k, at Sit,. give an
indication of the initial productivity of oil wells from
horizons where there is only initial oil plus interstitial
water saturation. Similarly, values for k, at Si, can be
used to indicate the level of the effective water/brine
permeabilities when residual oil saturation conditions are
reached at the end of a waterflood recovery process.
To understand better the rationale for using relative
permeability calculation schemes, reference can be made
to the early papers where they were first advocated. 14~2
All along, the idea underlying them has been that
petrophysical properties (e.g., relative permeability and
capillary pressure relationships, specific surface area,
Fig. 28.8-Matching Corey et al. Berea sandstone data
electrical resistivity parameters, etc.) depend in one way
or another on the nature of the pore structure, and on
how it will be partitioned in representative cases between
the intertwining filaments of the adjacent immiscible
fluid phases. Of the pore textural properties enumerated
previously, relative permeability turns out to be the most
difficult one to measure in the laboratory. This has been
the origin of the thought (and hope) that an economy
could be expected if relative permeability information
somehow could be extracted (by way of calculations)
from the more easily obtainable data. Wyllie, a
foremost advocate of these ways of thinking, is the
authority to be consulted when more information is
needed.
Eqs. 7a and 7b are the ones given by Corey et al. 2o for
calculating k, under three-phase saturation conditions,
and Eq. 8 is the one proposed by Stone. I For SL > SLrr
k,.~~=(1-S,-S,V)3(1-SS,+S,,,-2SL,)/(l-SLr)4.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I...........
(74
and for SL 2 SLr
k,=(1-S,-S,.)/(l-SL,)4. . . . .(7b)
Also,
km =(k,w +k,)(k,, +k,)-(km, +k,), . (8)
where
SL = total liquid saturation, fraction,
SLr = residual liquid saturation left in pore space,
fraction,
k,,. = relative permeability to oil in a gas-free
system, and
k
i-q
= relative permeability to oil in a water-free
system.
0.6
A 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0. I
0
40 50 60
.9,-x vp
Fig. 28.9-Gas/oil relative permeability in poorly consolidated Fig. 28.10-Unsteady-state. three-phase relative mobility
sandstone. (relative permeability to oil, Berea sandstone).
The recommendation for using Eqs. 7 and 8 to obtain
calculated values for the difficult-to-measure k,,, under
three-phase saturation conditions is that one only needs
to enter more easily obtained two-phase data. Inspection
will show that while such equations give plausible results
(e.g.. compatible with the indications of Eq. 6), the
results are no more trustworthy than the modeling
assumptions when measured relative permeability values
are needed but are otherwise unavailable.
Comments. A conclusion to be drawn from this analysis
is that if there is any merit to taking short-cuts, it is only
when the benefits outweigh the risks. While many
(perhaps most) of the readers of this chapter will never
have to go to the laboratory to make relative permeability
measurements, it is important for them to realize that
someone, some day, has to make such measurements
before any of the calculation schemes can be used with
confidence. In other words, computer guesswork in
general will be no substitute for laboratory work. This is
because direct observations always will be needed before
reliable predictions can be made for processes that in-
herently depend on material response parameters such as
relative permeability.
Recent Literature
More than 30 years have elapsed between an early and a
later time when the author of this chapter was provoked
to write papers on the then-current problems of relative
permeability measurement. X It is as though some of
the problems have continued to be unsolved and/or un-
solvable, while other vexing ones have emerged to take
the place of any of the earlier ones that somehow were
resolved. In the meantime. work continues on many
fronts such as those critiqued in this paper. Note that all
the papers now to be referenced have appeared after
- LEGEND
-I
SW
G - .RUNI I 4 9.2
2 49.3
FO.l:i : 43. 50.0 I
c - - . . 5 6 49.0 46.4 l
? h 7 414
2
5
i . :
E 0. , I
; .Ol,
l ; **
h
A
w 2 .4 8.. A
5
d
?F. ,
*
E
yv . a
A
.OOl
I
d f
I I I
20 40 60 t
OIL SATURATION, PERCENT
1
80
60
I
0
I
0 I
0. 11
2
I I I I
0 IO 20 30 40
0.2 0 cm
t
7
GAS SATURATION. %
Fig. 28.1 l--Relative permeability to gas in three-phase flow as
a function of gas saturation.
CONTACT ANGLE
-
leo0
--
410
Fig. 28.12--Relative permeability to oil and water showing the
effect of displacement (Curve 1) vs. carbonated
water displacement (Curve 2)
0 20 40 60 80
WATER SATURATION, PERCENT PORE VOLUME
1
10 0
Fig. 28.13-A comparison of restored-state and native-state
water/gas relative permeability data.
0 20 40 w 80 1Ul
WATER SATURATI ON. PERCENT PORE SPACE
Fig. 28.14-lmbibition relative permeabilities for two wetting
conditions, Torpedo sandstone.
Wyllie wrote the original chapter on Relative
Permeability in the first edition of this handbook (in
1962) referencing the literature through the 1950s. z3
Critique of Recent Work
Loomis and Crowe1126 present an early but extensive
comparison of data obtained by various methods, and as
calculated by various mathematical modeling schemes.
The high degree of conformity reported makes suspect
the objectivity of the work. On the other hand, the
authors were quick to point out that wettability was an
uncontrolled laboratory variable in their work. This dis-
quieting contention was matched by the surprising result
reported without explanation by other workers at the
same time, namely that hysteresis effects were different
for unconsolidated vs. consolidated core samples. Fig.
28.9 shows the trends observed.
The paper of SaremZs was one of several describing
three-phase measurements by an unsteady-state method.
One observation (see Fig. 28.10) of this work had to do
with the important role played by the initial saturation
conditions. At about the same time, Saref and Fatt29
reported success in the development of a nuclear
magnetic resonance technique for measurements of fluid
saturation levels. These workers, moreover, confirmed
the long-held view that relative permeability to gas in
three-phase systems depended mostly on the total liquid
saturation. This calculation is supported by the data
shown in Fig. 28.11.
Two papers appeared in the early 197Oso. in-
dicating that relative permeability to oil is greatly in-
creased if CO* is present (see Fig. 28.12). At this same
point in time, Lefebvre du Prey3* was dealing with the
question of interfacial tension effects on relative
kro
Fig. 28.15-Gas/oil relative permeability calculated from pro-
duction data from experiments.
permeability while Schneider and Owens3 and Owens
and Archer34 were concluding that because of wettabili-
ty effects, experimenters were advised to make use of so-
called native-state cores. The work of Bardon and
Longeron- also dealt with this subject. And somewhat
later Sigmund and MacCaffery36 were trying to sort out
the influence of reservoir rock heterogeneity on relative
permeability characteristics. Some of the data presented
by these authors are shown in Figs. 28.13, 28.14, and
28.15.
In the 1980s, numerous relative permeability papers
continue to appear as though a renascent interest in the
old subject is developing. A noteworthy one was by
Hagoort, 37 who used a centrifuge technique to show the
high efficiency of the gravity drainage recovery process
in water-wet cores. Bogdanov and Markhasin*
in-
troduced the less familiar subject that speculated that
viscosity changes (because of molecular-surface interac-
tions with the rock matrix) could distort relative
permeability data. At the same time, Ashford,j9 in a
very comprehensive paper, was reopening the dubious
issue of how relative permeability and capillary pressure
data can be linked directly. (As implied above, it is nice
to have a conceptual theory available to explain relative
permeability effects, but to expect that calculations avoid
the need for careful experimental work is a kind of
wishful thinking that can be justified only when there is a
great urgency to have qualitative inputs for reservoir
process simulations). Fig. 28.16 is representative of the
fits reported by Ashford between calculated and
measured values.
Delshad et al. currently have addressed the in-
teresting question of whether the transport of low-tension
micellar fluids will significantly change classical relative
permeability trends. They show that the residual (end-
point) saturations decrease and relative permeabilities in-
crease as interfacial tension decreases. The predicted
nearly 45 relative permeability curves are shown for
one case in Fig. 28.17. Yokoyama4 has been dealing
28-11
Fig. 28.16~-Relative permeability relations for imbibition and
drainage experiments, with values calculated by
Naar et al. method.
Fig. 28.17~lmbibition relative permeability curves for
microemulsion and decane vs. oil saturation in
Berea sandstone.
with the equally complex problem of accounting for
transverse and longitudinal capillary imbibition during
displacements in stratified media.
In another direction, Carlson4* extends Lands4
earlier prescriptions for calculating flow from indepen-
dent measurements of rock properties. Chierici4 does
the same thing, on the basis of the bundle of capillary
tubes model described earlier by Brooks and Corey. 45
Some of these data are shown in Fig. 28.18.
Finally, Lin and Slattety46 and Mohanty and Salterj
carry pore structure (network) modeling as a basis for ar-
riving at calculated relative permeabilities to still higher
plateaus of sophistication. Extensive bibliographies are
provided by these latter authors. Some of their results are
given in Figs. 28.19 and 28.20.
For example, Fig. 28.20 indicates that (1) relative
permeabilities to the nonwetting phase k, during secon-
dary imbibition (SI) and imbibition (IM) are essentially
the same but lower than the values that refer to the
primary drainage (PD) conditions, and (2) relative
permeabilities to the wetting phase k, during primary
drainage is lower than that in either seconda drainage
or imbibition. In other words, those authors conclude
that the ratio of conductivity or nooks and crannies to
that of a full throat feature influences the wetting fluid
permeabilities only at low saturation.
Other recent papers are those of Salter and Moharty,48
who made observations to justify a modeling of
multiphase flow that postulates flowing, dendritic, and
isolated configurations for each phase, and of Maini and
Batycky, 49 who claim (see Fig. 28.21) that temperature
influences both the endpoint saturation and the shape of
the relative permeability curves. A different view about
the importance of temperature effects had been ex-
pressed earlier by Sufi et al. 5o
no I- -* /-
-. 1
a2
0
Fig. 28.19-Comparison of drainage relative permeabilities
from randomized network model with experimental
data for 100 to 200 mesh sand.
The paper of OMeara and Lease I8 has been cited
previously in connection with the unsteady-state deter-
mination of three-phase relative permeabilities using the
centrifuge technique. It, along with the Maini and
Batycky paper, 49 are just two of nine other papers on
relative permeability presented at the 1983 Society of
Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in San Francisco, Oct. 5-8. Listing them by
topic is one way to expose the depth and breadth of cur-
rent interests in the subject. Thus, Kortekass describes
displacement in cross-bedded reservoirs. Meads and
Bassiouni5 speak of combining production history and
petrophysical correlations to enhance the represen-
tativeness of relative permeability data. Miller and
Ramey 53 deal further with temperature effects for
oil/water systems. Mohanty and Salters4 extend their
work on oil mobilization, transverse dispersion, and wet-
tability effects. Fulcher et al. and Harberts6 deal fur-
ther with low interfacial systems. Heiba er al. 57 address
the wettability uestions.
Heaviside et al.
51
And in companion papers,
cover the experimental and theoretical
aspects of relative permeability phenomena. Such are the
extensive details currently being discussed.
Ramifications Needing Attention
In summary, the reader who has studied the represen-
tative papers cited here, and the even larger number that
are scattered in the literature at large, will conclude that
this chapter is not the final one to be written on what
amounts to be a very complex subject. Some of the
ramifications that appear to need further attention in-
clude studies of the following effects: (1) phase changes
such as gas evolution during multiphase flow, (2) non-
collinear flow in a gravity force field between immisci-
ble fluids of differing densities, and counterflow imbibi-
tion. (3) reservoir rock anisotropy and heterogeneity by
which sample size and sampling frequency requirements
are to be determined, (4) fines movements. (5) over-
burden stress simulation and related stress-relaxation and
creep compaction phenomena, (6) viscous drag at in-
terstitial interfaces between contiguous immiscible
fluids, (7) chemical precipitation and dissolution
phenomena, (8) chemical reactions, (9) high Reynolds-
number conditions (nonlinear laminar and turbulent flow
regimes) (10) Klinkenberg gas-slippage effects. (I 1)
concentration and/or thermal gradients being superim-
posed on fields of flow primarily caused by mechanical
energy gradients, (12) non-Newtonian rheology, (13)
systems characterized by more than one local pore space
type, (14) fluid/solid interactions, for example, as
related to the mineralogy of interstitial clays, (15)
viscous fingering, and (16) hysteresis related to wet-
tability changes.
While theoretical considerations may permit a
qualitative prediction of the nature of some of these ef-
fects, in the final analysis, any truly quantitative
assessments should be based on directly undertaken ex-
perimental work, if possible. This is not to say that in
every case the laboratory data obtained on small hand
specimens will reveal everything that needs to be known
about large composite petroleum reservoirs, but rather
that observations generally are more trustworthy in-
dicators than are blind guesses.
Conclusions
Several questions come to mind whenever the subject of
relative permeability is raised: how is it to be defined?
where can the information be obtained? why is it needed
and by whom? What are the proper (fruitful) ways to use
it? Only partial answers to some of these questions have
been given in this chapter. This is because the subject is
too vast to be dealt with fully in limited space and
because the details not covered are probably too
specialized for the average reader, whose concern is only
with the ordinary applications.
Here we have asserted that definitions of permeability
(specific. effective, relative) are embedded in the dif-
ferential equations that describe the transport equations
governing fluid flow in petroleum reservoirs. Eqs. I and
5 are examples that apply to special situations (steady
single-phase flow and unsteady multiphase flow of im-
miscible fluids, respectively). Obviously, the differential
equations of transport will have other forms for more
general cases of fluid flow, such as those observed when
there is coupling with chemical diffusion and/or heat
transfer processes. This is to say that there may be dif-
ferent kinds of relative permeability to deal with accord-
ing to the nature of the process under consideration. In
all cases. however, one must start by constructing the
defining equations to be compatible with the underlying
principles of nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
Relative permeability information can be obtained in
two major ways. The preferred method is to have an cx-
periment performed on a representative sample of the
reservoir rock according to the procedure prescribed by
the appropriate integral form of the defining differential
equation. Eqs. 1 and 2 are examples of integrals that in-
volve measurable terms (such as volumetric flow rates
0 50 100
NONWETTING PHASE SATURATION
Fig. 28.20~-Relative permeability curves.
RUN: I 1
TEMPERARATURE: i 02' C
WATFP SATI J PATI ZN
Fig. 28.21-High-temperature relative permeability curves for
oil and water.
28-14
and pressures. pi, at bounding sample surfaces). Since
the parent differential equations themselves have terms
that cannot be directly measured in the laboratory (such
as velocity and mechanical energy gradients), integral
forms that apply to the particular initial and boundary
conditions of the problem must be derived and used for
each specific case.
In these connections. it will be revealing (and disturb-
ing) to mention that the degree of equivalence of relative
permeability functions obtained by different methods
(e.g., the steady- vs. the unsteady-state schemes men-
tioned previously) so far has not been established fully.
Eq. 2 prescribes how the steady-state results are to be ob-
tained, while integrals of Eq. 5 prescribe how the
unsteady-state results are to be obtained. Until the
definitive laboratory work is done and the comparisons
are reported in the literature, users of relative permeabili-
ty information today will continue to be left in the dark
as to which procedure can be used with the most con-
fidence when applications are being made.
As for ordinary applications, relative permeability in-
formation is used by petroleum reservoir engineers when
interpretations and assessments are being made about the
outcomes of observed and probable petroleum recovery
processes. These applications are referenced in other
chapters in this handbook (e.g., on reservoir simulation.
well testing analysis. etc.). and will not be discussed fur-
ther here. Suffice it to say that the same governing
transport equations and their integrals by which relative
permeability is defined, necessarily are used again in the
ensuing analyses of reservoir performance; hence,
relative permeability will be needed as input data
whenever analytical studies are undertaken. Among
other things, this means that using drainage relative
permeability data to describe an imbibition process (such
as waterflooding) should be avoided.
A second way to obtain relative permeability informa-
tion is to develop suitable models of the processes under
consideration for use as calculation algorithms. Eqs. 7
and 8 are examples that in use require laboratory data
more easily obtained than the relative permeability func-
tions themselves. For example. to calculate three-phase
oil relative permeability as a function of oil saturation
(where S,, = I -S,,.-S,) by Eq. 7, all that is needed is
prior knowledge of the interstitial water saturation.
Naturally, such calculation schemes cannot be used
blindly except for cases where it has been independently
validated that calculated and experimental values are
equivalent. In other words, even the most carefully con-
structed calculation scheme does not circumvent the
need to have experimental measurement methods also
developed and available.
However, calculation schemes usually involve
analytical functions that can be entered directly into the
computer software used for such things as qualitative
economic forecasting. Similarly, the related way to ob-
tain relative permeability information, namely by infer-
ring it from the values that force history matches of
observed field data, also has a utility when qualitative
assessments are being made using reservoir simulators.
The points being made here are both subtle and self-
evident. The aim has been simply to convey a certain set
of useful ideas to users of relative permeability informa-
tion such as (I) that relative permeability methodologies
are still in the developmental state even after more than a
half century of well-intentioned labor by hundreds of
workers and (2) that users of relative permeability infor-
mation must put the burden of proof on those that supply
it. to demonstrate that credible schemes have been used.
Acknowledgment
Any author who has been writing narrowly on a
specialized subject like relative permeability for more
than a third of a century (specifically from 1948 to
1984l) has to be deeply indebted to all those inspiring
workers who have managed to keep the issues alive and
in focus over such a long period. A few of them, but not
all, are named in the abbreviated references that appear
here. Likewise, any teacher for a similarly long period
must be deeply indebted to the generations of inquisitive
students who were willing to ask the provocative ques-
tions before they graduated and left to disappear into
oblivion. What a lucky thing it was to have had so many
companions on what otherwise would have been a dreary
Orwellian journey.
Nomenclature
A=
Af =
k=
k, =
k,.i =
k ,-oh =
km,,. =
k,.,,. =
K
,11< =
L=
L/l =
M,, =
M,,, =
P, =
Ap =
P,. =
4=
s, =
s,l II
Sin =
Sj =
SL =
s1.r =
SLU =
srr, =
s,,. =
s wr =
I=
J =
p, =
Ap =
c=
cross-sectional area
cross-sectional area of flow path
specific permeability
effective permeability, Fluid j (gas. oil. or
water)
relative permeability, Fluid j (gas, oil, or
water)
relative permeability to oil in water-free
system
relative permeability to oil in gas-free
system
relative permeability of wetting fluid
microemulsion dispersion coefficient
length
horizontal distance
mobility of nonwetting phase
mobility of wetting phase
pressure, Fluid j
pressure drop
capillary pressure
volumetric flow rate
residual gas saturation
irreducible (minimum) value of S.;
irreducible (interstitial) water saturation
fractional saturation of jth fluid
total liquid saturation
residual liquid saturation
wetting liquid saturation
residual (nonproducible) nonwetting fluid
saturation
water saturation
residual water saturation
time
volume of Fluid j
total PV
pressure drop
fluid viscosity
(T = inter-facial tension
6 = porosity
Subscripts
g = gas
j = jth fluid (gas, oil, or water)
n = nonwetting
0 = oil
M = water or wetting
References
I .
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
x.
9.
IO.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
IX.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2s
26.
27.
Bear. J .: Dw~tmi~s ofFluids in Porous Media, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Co. Inc., New York City (1972).
Scheidegger, A.E.: Phwics I!(~ou, Throu,yh Pr~rous Me&. third
edmon. U. of Toronto Press. Toronto. Canada (1974).
Richards. L A.: Capillary Conduction of Liquids Through
Porous Mediums. Pitx\ics (1931) I. 31X-33.
Odeh. A S.: Effect of Viscosity Ratro on Relative Permeabili-
ty, Tiwis.. AIME (19.59) 216. 346-52.
Yuster. ST. Theoretical Consideration of Multtphasc Flow in
Idealized Capillary Systems, Pmt., Third World Pet. Gong.,
The Hague (195 I) 436-45.
Buckley, S.E. and Lcverett. M.C.: Mechanism of Fluid
Displacement in Sandh. T,zrr).\.. AIME (1942) 146. 107716.
Rwe. W.: Some Problems Connected Wi th the Use of Classical
Descripttons ofFluid/Fluid Displacement Processes. Fuhdrrrwrt-
ml,\ ,?f Trctnsport Pnxxc.w.s in Porous Me&r. Elsevier Scientific
Publishmg Co. Inc.. Amsterdam (1972) 229-40.
Has\ler. G-L.: U.S. Patent No. 2.345,935 11944).
Braun. E.M. and Blackwell, R.J.: A Steady-State Technique for
Measuring Oil-Water Relative Permeability Curves at Reservoir
Condittons. paper SPE 10155 presented at the 1981 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
Muskat. M.: fh~sic~~/ Prin+lc.s oJOi/ Pmduc~tion. McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc.. New York City (1949).
Oaoba. J.S. rf cl/.: Laboratory Measurements of Relattve
Permeability. Trctns., AIME (1951) 192. 47756.
Rose. W.. Some Problems m Applymg the Hasaler Relative
Permeability Method. J. Per. Twb. (July 1980) 1161-63.
Rose. W.: U.S. Patent No. 4..506..542 (198.5).
Rose. W. and Bmce. W.A.: Evaluation of Capillaty Character in
Reservoir Rock. Trcm.. AIME (1949) 186. 127-42.
Leverett. M.C.: Capillary Behavior m Porous Solids. Trrmr..
AIME (1940) 142. 152-69.
Measurement of Relative Pcrmeabilities by the Welge Method
(Investigation). R~WP de / /nrri/ui Fmquis du Pdrdr ( 1973)
28. No. 5. 695-714.
Jones, S.C and Rosrelle. W.O.: Graphical Techniques for
Determimng Relative Permeability From Displacement Ex-
periment\. J. Per. Tech. (May 1978) 807-17: Trcrhs.. AIME,
26.5.
OMeara. D.J. Jr. and Lease. W.O.: Multiphase Relative
Pemteabillty Measurements Using an Automated Centrrfuge.
paper SPE 12128 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Techmcal
Conference and Exhibition. San Francisco. Oct. 5-8.
Rose. W.: Permeabtlity and Gas Slippage Phenomena, Drill.
~rrrd Pr,x/ Pi-w.. API, Dallas (1948) 127-3.5.
Corey. A.T. 01 trl.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability. J. Per.
Tw/r. (Nov. 1956) 63-65: 7r~rir.s.. AIME. 207.
Stone, H.L.: Probability Model for Esttmating Three-Phase
Rslativc Permeability, J. Cdz. Pri. Twh. (Oct. 1973) 53-59.
Rose. W.: Theoretical Generalizations Leading to the Evaluatton
of Relative Perme;ibility. 7rcrn.v , AIME (1949) 186. I I l-26
Wyllre. M.R.J.: Relattve Permeability, Prrrol~ut~~ Prdwrion
Hrrnrllxwk. SPE. Richardson, TX (1962) 2, I- I4
Rose. W. Some Problems of Relative Permeability Measure-
ment. Prm Thtrd World Pet Gong. t 1951) Set 2. 446-59.
Rorc. W.. Formatmn Evaluation by Reservoir Rock and Fluid
Sample Analyws. paper SPE I I X58 presented at the 1983 SPE
Rocky Mountain Regronal Meetmg. Salt Lake City. May 22-25.
Loomis. A.G. and Crowcll. D.C.: Report of Inveatigattons.
&r/i. 599. U.S. Bureau of Mmes (1962).
Naar. J. et trl.: Imbibrtron Relative Permeability in Uncon-
wltdated Porou\ Media. So<. P<v E/r,q. J. (March 1962) 1317:
~iwt.r. . AlME. 225.
28.
29.
30
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36
37
3x
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Sawn, A.M.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability Measurements
bv Unsteady-State Method, Snr. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1966)
199-205, T&s., AIME, 237.
Saraf, D.N. and Fatt, I.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Measurement Using a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Technique for
Estimating Fluid Saturation, Sot Pet. Eng. J. (Sept 1967)
235-42; Trans., AIME, 240.
Balint, V. et nl.: Relative Permeability Curves for Oil Displace-
ment by Carbon Dioxide, Koola~ es Fold& (1971) 4. 140-44.
Panteleev, V.G. et al.: Influence of Carbon Dinxrde on Three
Phase Permeability by Oil and Water, Neftepromyalovoe delo
(1973) No. 6, 11-13.
Lefebvre du Prey, E.J.: Facton Affecting Liquid-Liquid
Relative Permeabilities of a Consolidated Porous Medium, Sot.
Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1973) 39-47.
Schneider, F.N. and Owens, W.W.: Relative Permeabrlrty
Studies of Gas-Water Flow Following Solvent Injection in Car-
bonate Rocks. Sm. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1976) 23-30: Tmns..
AIME, 261.
Owens, W.W. and Archer, D.L.: The Effect of Rock Wettabili-
ty on Oil-Water Relative Permeability Relationships. J. Per.
Tech. (July 1971) 873-78; Trans., AIME, 251.
Bardon. C. and Longeron, D.G.: Influence of Very Low Inter-
facial Tensions on Relative Permeability, Snc,. Per. EI?R, J. (Oct.
1980) 39ll401.
Sigmund, P.M. and McCaffery, F.G.: An Improved Unsteady-
State Procedure for Determining Relative-Permeability
Characteristics of Heterogeneous Porous Media. Sot. Per. EII~~.
J. (Feb. 1979) 1528.
Hagoott, J.: Oil Recovery by Gravity Drainage. So<. PH. Eng.
J. (June 1980) 139-50.
Bogdanov, V.S. and Markhasin, I.L.: Determinatton of Relative
Permeability to Oil With Allowance for the Change in its Viscosi-
ty Due to Molecular Surface Interaction with Rock. /;I. Qwh.
U&b. Zaved. Nq? i Gaz (Oct. 1980) No. IO. 57-60.
Ashford, F.E.: Determination of Two Phase and Multiphase
Relative Permeability for Drainage and Imbibition Cycles Based
on Capillary Pressure Measurement. Re~+.vcr Tec~nica Inrevep
(1981) 1, 77-94.
Delshad, M. cr al.: Multiphase Dispersion and Relative
Permeability Experiments, Sot Per. Eng. J. (Aug 1985)
524-34.
Yokoyama, Y. and Lake, L.W.: The Effects of Capillary
Ptessute on Immiscible Displacements in Stratified Porous
Media, paper SPE 10109 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antomo. Oct. 4-7.
Carlson, F.M.: Simulation of Relative Pemreability Hysteresis
to the Nonwettmg Phase, paper SPE 10157 presented at the I98 I
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio.
Sept. 4-7.
Land, C.S.: Calculation of lmbibition Relative Permeability for
Two- and Three-Phase Flow from Rock Properties. Sx. Prr.
Eng. J. (June 1968) 149-56: Trans.. AIME. 243.
Chierici. G.L.: Novel Relations for Drainage and lmbibttion
Relative Permeabilities. Sot. Per. Enx. J. (June 1984) 27.5-76.
Brooks. R.H and Corey, A T.: Hydraultc Paper No 3. Colomdo
State U. (1964).
Lin, C. and Slattery. J.C.: Three-Drmenaional. Randomized,
Network Model for Two-Phase Flow Through Porous Media.
AIChE J , 28 (1982) No. 2. 31 l-24.
Mohanty. K.K. and Salter, S.J.: Multipha\e Flow in Porous
Media: II. Pore-Level Modelmg, paper SPE I1018 presented at
the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
Salter, S.J. and Mohanty. K.K.: Multiphaw Flow in Porous
Medta: I. Macroscoprc Observations and Modelmg. paper SPE
II017 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhrbition. New Orleans, Scpt 26-29.
Mann. B.B. and Batycky. J.P.: Effect of Temperature on
Heavy-Oil/Water Relative Permeabilities m Horizontally and Ver-
ucally Drilled Core Plugs. J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1985) 1500-10.
SUfl, A.H. ci trl.: Temperature Effects on Relative
Permeabilities of Oil-Water System\. paper SPE II071
pre\ented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
htbition. New Orleans. Sept. 26-29.
Kortekad\. T.F.M: Water/O11 Displacement Characteristics in
Crossbedded Reservoir Zones. Sw Per. &IX. J. (Dec. 1985)
917-26.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
Mud\. R ~xI B<~s\ioun~. Z.: Comhinmg Production Hl\tq
and Pctrophy~ical Correlation\ to Ohtain More Repre~ntat~vc
Relative Permcahillty Data, paper SPE 12 I I3 pre\cntcd at the
1983 SPE Annual Techmcal Conlcrcnce and Exhlhition. San
Ftxnclrco. Oct. S-8.
Miller, M.A. and Ramey. H.J. Jr.: Ellect or Temperature on
Heavy-OiliWdtcr Relative Pem?rabilitics of Unconsolidated and
Consolidated Sands. Sot,. /pi. 0,~. J. (Dec. 190) 945-54.
Mohanty. K K. and Salter. S.J.: Multiphase Flow I Porw\
Media: Part 3-011 Mohllwatton. Tranhvew Dlspenmn. and
Wettahility. paper SPE 12127 presented at the 19X.3 SPE Annual
Technical Contuence and Exhihltion. San Franasco. Ocl. S-X.
Fulchcr, R.A. <I cd: Ettect ot Cupillaly Number and Its Conhti-
~ucnts on Two-Pha\e Relative Pem~cab~l~ty Cunes. J. /PI
Tcih. (Feb. 1985) 249-60.
Harben. L.W.: Low-lntcrtaclal-Tenhion Relative Pcnneahdi-
ty. paper SPE 1217 I presented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Techmcal Conterence and Exhihition, San Francisco. Oct. 5-n.
57. Heiba. A.A. <jr crl.: Ellect n1Wettabillty on Tuo-Phase Relarlvc
Pconcahdmes and Capdlnty Pressures. paper SPE I2 I72
presented at the I983 SPE Annual Techmcal Contcrence and Ex-
hlhitmn. San Francwo. Oct. S-8.
5X. Hcawside. J., Black. C.J.J.. and Berry, J.F.: Fundamentals of
Relative Penneablllty: Expenmental and Theoretical Conaidera-
tion\~ paper SPE 12 173 pwsented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Techmcal Conference and ExhIbition. San Francwo. Oct. 5-8.
General References
Whitaker. S.: Flow in Porous Media II: The Governing Equations tor
Immi~cihle, Two-Phase Flow. Trot~.sporr in Pmwu.~ Aklk~ ( 1986)
1. 105-25.
Chapter 29
Petroleum Reservoir Traps
Raymond T. Skirvin, J.R. Butler and Co
Brian E. Ausbum, J.R. Butler and CO.*
Introduction
A reservoir trap is a combination of physical conditions
that will cause hydrocarbon liquids and/or gases and
water to accumulate in porous and permeable rock and
prevent them from escaping either laterally or vertically
because of differences in specific gravity, pressure,
fluid/gas characteristics, and/or lithology. It has the
capability of collecting, holding, and yielding hydrocar-
bon fluids and water.
The portion of the trap that contains oil and/or gas ac-
cumulations is the petroleum reservoir. It generally oc-
cupies a limited portion of the trap capacity, the re-
mainder being occupied by formation waters that
underlie and are interspersed within the petroleum
accumulation.
Traps are formed by an infinite variety of structural
and stratigraphic conditions of rock formations com-
bined with pressure differentials among the various
fluids within the reservoir rock. A trap consists of an im-
pervious cover or roof rock overlying a porous and
permeable rock. Reservoir pressure gradients and fluid
flow within the reservoir rock can create traps that do not
have structural closure. The boundary between oil and
water or between gas and water need not be flat or level
when these pressure gradients are present. Generally.
however, traps do have structural closure, and as viewed
from below, the impervious cover is concave, preventing
the oil and gas, if present. from escaping vertically or
laterally. The water underlying the oil and gas exerts a
buoyant force on the oil/water boundary or contact, lift-
ing and holding the oil and gas to the crest of the struc-
ture or area of minimum hydrostatic pressure.
Trap Classification
Classification of traps logically falls into three broad
general groups: (I) structural, (2) stratigraphic, and (3)
combination. More detailed classifications have been
made by geologists attempting to include all factors and
conditions that account for petroleum reservoirs. Many
reservoirs have unique features that cause the oil to ac-
cumulate at a given location. The purpose of this chapter
is to illustrate the more common geological conditions
that cause traps and to point out a few of the infinite
variety of minor variations that help create and hold
petroleum accumulations in place.
Structural Traps
Structure implies some form of rock deformation, com-
monly expressed as a positive uplift, which may result in
four-way dip closure. With the proper stratigraphy,
structural traps may be present. Domes, anticlines, and
folds are common structures. Fault-related features also
may be classified as structural traps if closure is present.
Structural traps are the easiest to locate by surface and
subsurface geological and geophysical studies. They are
the most numerous among traps and have received a
greater amount of attention in the search for oil than all
other types of traps. In new areas of exploration the
prime search is for potential reservoir rock, source beds
for hydrocarbons, and structural deformation. This struc-
tural deformation provides opportunities for several
types of structural traps.
Domes, Anticlines, and Folds. Domes, anticlines, and
folds in general must have structural closure to become
effective traps. The reservoir rock must dip away in all
directions from the crest of the structure. If there is not
dip in all directions away from the crest but hydrocar-
bons are present, there are other contnbuting physical
factors that helped complete the trap.
Domes, anticlines, and folds caused by structural
deformation of sedimentary rocks generally create many
potential traps because the deformation extends vertical-
ly through potential reservoirs. Thus a single well can
reveal many possible pay zones when drilled on the crest
of a domal structure.
KREYENHAGEN KETTLEMAN
HILLS PLAINS
KETHiXl-;AN SANvJL$+JN
TEMBLOR SANDSTONE
REEF RDGE
KETTLEMAN HILLS
KREYENHAGEN SHALE CROSS SECTION
CRETACEOUS -UNDIFF
Fig. 29.1-Example of anticlinal folds creating structural traps; Kettleman Hills field.
L*IN 8Y 5NdO
I -. - . - ..-- -,
IN PLVXEHE
)IATOYITE SPELLACY ANTICLINE 1FII rAtr
.
\
CROSS SECTION \
OF THE
WILLIAMS AND TWENTY-FIVE
HILL AREAS
MIDWAY OIL FIELD
KERN CO., CALIFORNIA
500 0 aaalcm Imod 2500
DONUIL HILLIS. NOV. 1941
Fig. 29.2-Example of anticlinal folds creating structural and stratographic traps: Midway
oilfield.
1
3.000
SANTA FE SPRINGS
FIELD, CALIFORNIA
Fig. 29.3-Example of anticlinal folds creating many separate
reservoirs: Santa Fe Springs field.
Figs. 29.1, 29.2, and 29.3 are cross sections of Ket-
tleman Hills, Midway, and Santa Fe Springs fields,
CA. t These are examples of single folds creating many
separate accumulations. The separation between the
various reservoirs is demonstrated in each case by dif-
ferent oil/water and gas/oil contacts in most reservoirs.
The Midway field also illustrates stratigraphic traps
formed on the flanks of the anticlinal fold.
Folds, anticlines, and domes arc the easiest to interpret
in subsurface studies. They vary in size from a few acres
to several thousand acres. Folds and anticlines were
created by compressional or tensional forces in the
earths crust or by differential compaction of the
sediments. Asymmetrical anticlines, overturned an-
ticlines, thrust faulting, and fracturing generally indicate
areas of compression. Symmetrical folds and anticlines,
low-angle normal faulting, monoclines, homoclines, and
low-relief domal structures generally indicate areas of
tensional forces or compaction.
Mountainous areas usually result from compressional
forces. Torsion and shearing help cause local complex
structures but are generally forces resulting from the
more regional compressional forces of the earths crust.
Stable areas or areas of subsidence ate the counterpart
to mountain-building compressional areas. They are
areas where structures arc caused by differential
PETROLEUM RESERVOIR TRAPS 29-3
m
FAULT OF FAiLTED FAULT
REGIONAL DIP ANTICLINE STRUCTURE
THRUSTWT;EVERSE GRABEN AND HORST
NORMAL FAULTING
Fig. 29.4-Examples of fault traps: Fig. 29.5-Examples of fault traps:
normal or gravity faults. reverse or thrust faults.
downwarping, as in the midcontinent area of the U.S.
and areas where structures are created by the lengthening
of the earths crust, such as the gulf coast of Texas and
Louisiana. This lengthening causes regional horizontal
tensional forces that create simple and more predictable
local structures. The many prolific structural and
stratigraphic oil trends that parallel the U.S. gulf coast
today are the result of regional downwarping and ten-
sional forces.
tural closure.
Fault Traps. Fault traps are classified as structural traps
where closure is effected in one or more directions by
faulting or where faulting has caused definite changes in
Normal or gravity faults (Fig. 29.4) occur as a result
the reservoir configuration (such as along strike-slip
faults). Many structures are faulted without being limited
by the faults or without changing the reservoir configura-
tion. Fault traps can occur in both the up- and
downthrown blocks. Closure against the fault can result
from faults striking across regional dip or across an-
ticlines or domes. Horsts and grabens and other closed
fault blocks can result in traps with relatively no struc-
the fault. This downbending creates a reversal in dip
and this results in closure. This type of trap is extremely
common in the Cenozoic formations of the U.S. gulf
coast.
Reverse or thrustfaults (Fig. 29.5) result from com-
pressional forces and involve horizontal shortening of
the earths crust. The angle of the fault plane with a
horizontal plane can vary from a few degrees to 90 and
can be recognized in the subsurface by repetition of
stratigraphic section in wells drilled through the fault
plane. Structural traps of this nature are common on both
the east and west coasts of North America. The occur-
rence of a trap against a fault depends on the fault plane
sealing the porous reservoir rock and preventing migra-
tion across or along the fault plane.
solution and combine with primary and secondary
porosity to give a greater effective reservoir porosity and
Fractured formations usually are caused by local
deformation, faulting and folding, reduction in over-
burden permitting expansion of the underlying rock, and
differential compaction. Brittle rocks are more common-
ly affected because of their inelasticity. In many cases
minor joints, fractures, and fissures are modified by
of tensional or gravitational forces. The angle of the fault
plane with the horizontal generally ranges between 25
and 60. Normal faults involve horizontal lengthening of
the earths crust and are recognized in the subsurface by
loss of stratigraphic section in wells drilled through the
fault plane. Geophysically, they are recognized by inter-
ruptions in the continuity of reflective interfaces.
Two common types of normal fault-related traps are:
(1) fault closures and (2) rollover fault closures. Any
structural nosing cut at right angles by a fault results in a
fault closure. The direction of throw on the fault is not
important but the closure created by the fault is. For ex-
ample, a south-plunging structural nose cut at right
angles by a fault will result in a potential trap. The fault
throw may be in either direction. A trap will result if the
fault acts as a seal or if the potential reservoir is thrown
against a shale or other impermeable member on the op-
posite side of the fault.
Gravity-type faulting commonly occurs in areas of ten-
sion and over the crests of domes and anticlines because
of the stresses involved. Fault traps are common in such
an environment, and hydrocarbon accumulations may
occur on either the up- or downthrown blocks, in horsts,
permeability. Fractures in reservoirs increase the
wellbore radius and permit extremely tight and im-
permeable areas to bleed into the fractures over a wide
area and thus be connected with channels leading to the
wellbore.
Production is sometimes obtained from igneous and
metamorphosed rock as a result of fracturing. The frac-
tures provide the reservoir space as well as the
permeability to permit oil and gas migration, accumula-
tion, and production from the reservoir.
For a trap to occur in a fractured formation, it must be
overlain by a more pliable or less brittle rock that has not
been fractured by the deformation. Otherwise, migration
would occur up through the fractures and there would be
no trap.
Where faulting caused the fracturing, production is
limited to a narrow band along the fault. When folding or
other deformation has caused the fracturing, the reser-
voir can become very complex in shape and unpredicta-
ble in production performance. Generally, the areas of
greatest deformation have the greater number of frac-
tures, which results in better well performance and
recovery of more oil or gas.
and/or in grabens.
Rollover fault closures are common in sedimentarv
Stratigraphic Traps
basins receiving great quantities of sediments. Closure $ Traps created by changes in stratigtaphy have the same
created on the downthrown block by contemporaneous physical requirements as structural traps. There is an up-
sedimentation and fault movement. Through this interac- dip limitation or termination of the reservoir rock,
tion, more deposition takes place next to the active fault creating an area of minimum hydrodynamic potential or
plane, resulting in a downbending of the deposits into .concave closure. In case of structural limitations, this is
Fig. 29.6-StructuraVstratigraphic interpretation; Northwest
Atkinson field, TX.
obtained by faulting or a turnover of the reservoir rock.
In stratigraphic traps, this limitation is accomplished by
changes in porosity and permeability, which result from
nondeposition, erosion and overlap, facies, and
lithological changes caused by depositional variations,
truncation, and differential compaction.
Stratigraphic traps can be classified as primary or
secondary. Primary traps are those formed during
sedimentary deposition: lenses, facies changes, shoe-
string sands, offshore sandbars, reefs, and detrital
limestone or dolomite reservoirs can be classified as
primary. Secondary traps arc those resulting from later
causes such as solution, cementation, erosion, fractur-
ing, and chemical alteration or replacement.
Primary Stratigraphic Traps. These traps result from
deposition of elastic or chemical materials. Shoestring
sands, lenses, sand patches, bars, channel fillings, facies
changes, strand-line (shoreline) deposits, coquinas, and
weathered or reworked igneous materials are classified
as elastic sedimentary deposits and can result in
stratigraphic traps. Fig. 29.6 is a structural/stratigraphic
interpretation of the northwest Atkinson field in Live
Oak County, TX. 2 An ancient sand-filled stream chan-
nel meander has cut into older south-dipping shales and
created a perfect stratigraphic trap. Fig. 29.7 is a cross
section3 across the Yoakum Channel in Lavaca County,
TX. This is an example of a channel filled with shale.
The shale plug served as the seal for reservoirs within a
west-plunging structural nose. Hydrocarbons are trapped
in the truncated updip portions of the reservoirs.
Organic reefs or biohenns and biostromes are the
primary chemical stratigmphic traps; they are built by
organisms and are foreign bodies to the surrounding
deposits. A cross section of Scurry field in Scurry Coun-
ty, TX (Fig. 29.8) gives an example of a primary
chemical stratigmphic trap.4 The Strawn and Cisco-
Canyon series are limestone reefs that have had younger
sediments deposited on the flanks and eventually over
the crest of the reef deposits. The shale serves as the
seal. Differential compaction of the thicker shales on the
H.R. SMITH PURE PURE PURE CHAVANNE PURE WILSON TEXAS E.
BOOTHE RICE CHANDLER REt-SE CARTER SCHULTZ OUOTA ORSAK
II -1%0~l~....114 TOP OF WI, ,-nx 115J164V 118
LOG SECTION A-A
CHANN
FILL
MIDDLE WILCOX CHAN
Fig. 29.7-Cross section showing stratigraphic position of upper Wilcox Yoakl urn channel.
NEL
PETROLEUM RESERVOIR TRAPS
29-5
Fig. 29.8-Example of a stratigraphic reef field; structure and cross section of Scurry field.
flanks of the reef as compared with the thinner shale at
the crest has created structural closure in younger overly-
ing formations. Hydrocarbon accumulations have oc-
curred in the Cisco and Fuller formations as a result of
this differential compaction. Additional traps in other
reservoirs arc the result of updip permeability and
porosity barriers and are either primary or secondary
stratigraphic traps.
Secondary Stratigraphic Traps. Traps of this type
were formed after the deposition of the reservoir rock by
erosion and/or alteration of a portion of the reservoir
rock through solution or chemical replacement.
Secondary stratigmphic traps actually should fall into
the combination-trap classification because most are
associated with or are the result of structural relief during
some stage of development of porosity and permeability
or limitation of the reservoir rock. However, many of the
so-called typical stratigraphic traps fall into this
category, and it is felt that it would be impossible to
change the historical usage of this term. Therefore,
secondary stratigraphic traps are defined for this discus-
sion as those traps created after deposition and having
limitations caused by lithology changes.
Erosion creates a major part of these through trunca-
tion of the reservoir rock. On-lap deposition (when the
water is encroaching landward), off-lap deposition
(when the water is regressing), and the chemical altera-
tion of limestone result in many secondary stratigraphic
traps.
The East Texas field (Figs. 29.9 and 29.10) is perhaps
the most famous field in this classification. It is a trunca-
tion of the Woodbine formation as it approaches the
regional Sabine uplift. 5 A certain amount of leaching of
the cementing material by waters over the unconformity
has resulted in increased porosity and permeability in the
field as compared with similar Woodbine sands in the
deeper portions of the East Texas basin.
Combination Traps
Combination traps are structural closures or deforma-
tions in which the reservoir rock covers only part of the
structure. Both structural and stratigraphic changes are
essential to the creation of this type of trap. Traps of this
nature are dependent on stratigraphic changes to limit
permeability and structure to create closure and complete
the trap. Updip shale-outs, strand-lines, and facies
changes on anticlines, domes, or other structural features
causing dip of the reservoir rock create many combina-
tion traps. Unconformities, overlap of porous rocks, and
truncation are equally important in forming combination
traps. Faulting is also a controlling factor in many of
these traps. Asphalt seals and other secondary plugging
agents may assist in creating traps.
Salt Domes. These structures are of enough importance
to justify a separate classification. However, sometimes
they are difficult to identify, and many of the traps result
from both stratigraphic variations and structural
deformation.
Intrusion of rocks into overlying sediments may result
in many different types of traps. Salt intrusions are more
commonly associated with petroleum traps, although
some igneous intrusions have also resulted in the forma-
tion of petroleum traps.
Salt domes are classified as piercement, intermediate,
and deep-seated domes. Salt plugs or masses have
moved up from greater depths through overlying
sediments, forming traps in the sediments that have not
been penetrated by the salt. Most salt intrusions took
EAST TEXAS FIELD
IZONTAL SCALE
Fig. 29.9-Example of a secondary stratigraphic trap: structure and cross section
of East Texas field.
EAST TEXAS FIELD
CONTOURS ON ERODED
SURFACE OF WOODBINE
Fig. 29.10-Example of a secondary stratigraphic trap: struc-
ture and cross section of East Texas field.
considerable geologic time to reach their cut-tent position
in the crust of the earth. Some are still growing, and ap-
parently all have grown intermittently, allowing sands to
be deposited over the crest of the structure at certain
times and limiting deposition to the flanks of the sttuc-
ture at other times. The movement of the salt mass up
through the surmunding rock creates many complex
structures and sedimentary variations. Radial and
peripheral faulting provide the avenue for the salt
pushing up through overlying sediments. At times, the
overlying formations were competent enough to stop or
delay the growth of the salt plug. At other times, the salt
apparently grew steadily and contemporaneously with
the deposition. Many times the salt masses of some
domes must have reached the surface or near surface,
where groundwaters could act on the intrusive salt mass.
Some of the domes are very near the surface of the
ground. Some have reached the surface and are currently
extruding salt. In areas of very low rainfall, such as
southwest Iran, salt has reached a height of 5,000 ft
above the surrounding terrain.
Deep-seated salt domes are normally those at con-
siderable depths where the salt may not have been
penetrated by drilling. These can be identified by the
overlying characteristic structure or by geophysical data,
which help prove salt is present at depths of 12,000 ft or
more and can be assumed to have caused the overlying
complex structure. Intermediate domes can be defined
arbitrarily as those where the salt is deeper than 2,500 ft
but has been penetrated by drilling at depths less than
12,000 ft.
Traps occur on the flanks of salt domes where sands
have been faulted and deformed or terminate against the
salt mass and where facies changes have resulted
because of the associated uplift. These conditions are il-
lustrated in Fig. 29. 11.6 Traps occur in the cabrock,
which consists of calcite, anhydrite, and limestone.
Caprock is the insoluble residue on top of the plug that
results from the dissolution of the salt from the crest of
the plug. Porosity and permeability in the capmck result
from fracturing, solution, chemical alteration, or any
combination of these and are generally restricted to the
calcite or limestone portions of the caprock.
Traps also overlie the salt mass and may result entirely
from structural closure, faulting, differential compac-
tion, or stratigraphic variations combined with the defor-
mation, as indicated in Fig. 29.12.l
Characteristics of Reservoir Rocks
Classification of reservoirs* can be made on the basis of
the texture, composition, and origin of the containing
rock or the geometric configuration of the reservoir trap.
Classification of reservoirs on the basis of rock texture
and composition can assist in the prediction of reservoir
performance. Variations in the mineralogy of reservoir
rocks can be as important in reservoir performance as
structural configuration or area1 extent of the reservoir
rock.
Sedimentary reservoir rocks can be divided into two
groups: chemical and detrital. Sedimentary rocks are
created by the weathering, disintegration, erosion,
reworking, and deposition of material from older rocks.
For mm detailed coverage of this subject. refer to Aefs. S and 9.
29-7
A
,PLIESTOCENE
MIOCENE <
SALT
ifi
OLIGOCENE-,-
I\
i A
-OLIGOCENE
JACKSON BARBERS HI1
cH,c,,2~.T:As YEGUA -
GOUGE ZONE
YEGUA
t
01
/
gL-
1000 FT
Fig. 29.1 l-Example of piercement-type dome showing ter-
mination of sands on- the flanks of the salt plug
and the resultant reservoir traps.
Clastic or detrital rocks are created from fragments
transported by wind or water and allowed to settle out of
suspension when the weight of the fragments is sufficient
to exceed the carrying capacity of the transporting agent
(wind or water). Chemical rocks are the result of
precipitation of materials out of aqueous solution by
organic growth and deposition or evaporation of
seawater in closed basins, which precipitates salt and
other evaporites. A list of reservoir rocks is given in
Table 29.1.
Detrital Reservoirs
Clastic or Detrital Granular Reservoirs. These reser-
voirs can be classified according to rock types, depend-
ing on variations in source rock, transport distance, and
depositional environment.
Quartzose-Type. Quartzose-type sediments occur in
periods of geologic quiescence, with relatively flat
coastal plains bordered by shallow seas. Weathering and
chemical decay are at a maximum and erosion is at a
minimum. Only stable minerals remain, and these are
well sorted and generally uniform in texture and com-
position. Blanket sands and shales over extensive areas
are general factors and the sandstones demonstrate high
vertical as well as horizontal permeability. Waterdrive
reservoir mechanisms can be expected and high
recoveries by primary methods of production are the
general rule because of the homogeneity of the reservoir
rock. The coastal plains, embayments, and continental
shelf along the Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Florida are
typical of the physical requirements for this type of
deposition.
Graywacke Sediments. These sediments occur in
periods of moderate geologic disturbances. The coastal
region is moderately uplifted and the depositional basins
are somewhat deeper with a shorter continental shelf.
More rapid erosion and shorter distances of transporta-
tion prevent the complete weathering and chemical
decay of the sediments, and some of the more unstable
minerals are able to remain. The land and adjacent basin
areas are unstable, and minor isostatic adjustments occur
from time to time, causing abrupt changes in the
sediments being deposited. This causes poor sorting,
lenticularity, irregular porosity and permeability varia-
tions, and heterogeneous deposition. Vertical
permeability is poor, limiting water drive and gravity
drainage. Production is normally gas-depletion drive,
and the opportunities for secondary recovery operations
are excellent. The New England coast is typical of the
environment necessary for these types of deposits.
Arkose Sediments. Arkose sediments result from
deposition during periods of intense erogenic
movements. Certain land areas are sharply elevated
above other land areas and/or the shoreline. Faulting and
major isostatic adjustments occur frequently. The con-
ESPERSON DOME
STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION
Fig. 29.12-Example of traps caused by a combination of structural and stratigraphic varia-
tions and of the complex faulting occurring above an intrusive salt mass.
29-8
TABLE 29.1--RESERVOIR ROCKS
Clastlc and Detrttal Porosity
1. Sand, conglomeratic sand, and gravel (clean, argillaceous,
silty, lignitic, etc.)
2. Porous calcareous sandstone and siliceous sandstone (in-
complete cementation)
3. Arkosic (feldspathic) sand, arkose, arkosic conglomerate
(granite wash)
4. Detrital limestone and dolomite, oolitic and pisolitic
limestone, coquina, and shell breccia
Fractured Porosity
1. Fractured sandstone and conglomerate
2. Fractured limestone, shale, and chert
Crystalline Porosity
1. Crystalline limestone and dolomite
2. Sugary dolomite saccharoidal porosity
Solution Porosity
1. Crystalline limestone and dolomite
2. Cavernous limestone and dolomite
3. Porous caprock
4. Honeycombed anhydrite
5. Ooliclastic limestone
tinental shelf is extremely narrow or nonexistent. Max-
imum erosion and the short distance of transportation
virtually eliminate chemical decay and weathering.
Sediments are deposited and covered over by younger
sediments before any appreciable sorting and weathering
can take place. Unstable minerals are present in the thick
heterogeneous deposits. Highly porous stratigraphic
traps are developed by lensing, pinchouts, and unconfor-
mities. Depletion-drive reservoirs are the general rule
and recoveries are usually low. Much of the California
coast is typical of the depositional environment for the
deposition of arkosic sediments.
Chemical Reservoirs
Limestones and Dolomites. Limestones and dolomites
also are deposited in quiescent geologic environments.
Deposition of limy deposits is occurring along the west
coast of Florida and some of the Bahama Islands while
elastic sediments are being deposited in other nearby
local areas.
Carbonate Reservoirs. Carbonate reservoirs include
reefs, elastic limestones. chemical limestones, and
dolomite. Porosity may be intercrystalline, in-
tergranular, oolitic or ooliclastic, vuggy fractured,
fossiliferous, cavernous, or saccharoidal. Production
characteristics are highly variable in carbonate reser-
voirs. depending almost entirely on the type of porosity
and fracturing developed and the resultant permeability.
Other types of reservoirs are given in Table 29.2.
Glossary of Terms
Eioherm: A moundlike, domelike, lenslike. or reeflike mass of rock
built by sedentary organisms (such as corals, algae, foraminifers,
mollusks, and gastmpods), composed almost exclusively of their
calcareous remains and enclosed or surrounded by rock of different
lithology.
Biostrom: A distinctly bedded and widely extensive or broadly len-
titular, blanketlike mass of rock built by and composed mainly of
the remains of sedentary organisms and not swelling into a
TABLE 29.2-TYPES OF RESERVOIRS
Shale Reservoirs
Sometimes present in brittle, siliceous fractured shales
Anhydrite Evaporites
Develop porosity from leaching by circulating waters
lqneous or Metamorphic Rock
1. Very uncommon
2. Sometimes contain oil when secondary porosity is
developed by fracturing or weathering
3. Best-known igneous reservoirs are the serpentine plugs of
Bastrop and Caldwell counties, Texas
moundlike or lenslike form. As an organic layer, such as a bed of
shells, crinoids, or corals or a modem reef in the course of
formation.
Brecciat A coarse-grained elastic rock composed of angular broken
fragments held together by a mineral cement or in a fine-grained
matrix.
Closure: In a subsurface fold, dome, or other structural trap, the ver-
tical distance between the structures highest point and its lowest
closed structllre contour. Four-way dip is determined by in-line and
cross-line right angle control demonstrating dip in four directions
away from the crest of the closure.
Coquina: A dettital limestone composed wholly or chiefly of
mechanically sorted fossil debris that experienced abrasion and
transport before reaching the deposition site, and weakly to
moderately cemented but not completely endmated.
Deftifalr Pertaining to or formed from detritus of rocks, minerals, and
sediments. The term may indicate a source outside or inside the
depositional basin.
Facies: The aspect, appearance, and characteristics of a rock unit,
usually reflecting the conditions of its origin; especially as differen-
tiating the unit from adjacent or associated units.
Graben: An elongate, relatively depressed crustal unit or block that is
bounded by faults on its long sides.
Horst: An elongate, relatively uplifted crustal unit or block that is
bounded by faults on its long sides.
Minimum hydrodynamicpotential: As used here, a geologic position or
condition due to impermeability in the reservoir rock where the
dynamic action of fluid movement is abated.
Minor isosfafic adjustment: The minor adjustment of the lithosphere of
the earth to maintain equilibrium among units of varying mass and
density; excess mass above is balanced by a deficit of density below
and vice versa.
Norn~lfuult: A fault in which the hanging wall appears to have moved
downward relative to the foot wall. The angle of the fault is usually
45 to 90. A low-angle normal fault is a normal fault with the angle
of the fault less than 45.
Ofilop deposirion: The progressive offshore regression of the updip
terminations of the sedimentary units within a cornformable se-
quence. of mcks in which each successively younger unit leaves ex-
posed a portion of the older unit on which it lies. The successive
contraction in the lateral extent of strata (as seen in an upward se-
quence) resulting from their being deposited in a shrinking sea or on
the margin of a rising land mass.
On-fop deposition: The regular and progressive pinching out toward
the margins or shores of a depositional basin of the sedimentary units
within a conformable sequence of rocks in which the boundary of
each unit is transgressed by the next overlying unit and each unit, in
turn, terminates farther from the point of reference.
Oolicnsr: One of the small, subspherical openings found m an oohtlc
mck, produced by the selective solution of ooliths without destmc-
tion of the matrix.
Oolicusric porosity: The porosity produced in an oolitic rock by
removal of the ooids and formation of oolicasts.
Oolith: One of the small round or oval accretionaty bodies in a
sedimentary rock resembling the me of fish, usually formed of
calcium catbonate and having a diameter of 0.25 to 2 mm.
Pisolirh: One of the small, round or ellipsoidal accretionary boches in a
sedimentary rock, resembling a pea in size and shape, and con-
stituting one of the grains that make up a pisolite. It is often formed
of calcium carbonate and some are thought to have been produced by
a biochemical algae-encrustation process. A pisolith is larger and
less regular in form than an oolith.
Pisoliric: Pertaining to pisolite or to the texture of a rock made up of
pisoliths or pealike grains.
Pisolitic limestone: A limestone with pisolitic texture.
Saccharoidal: Said of a granular or crystalline texture resembling
sugar.
Shell breccint A breccia composed of angular broken shell fragments.
Shoestting sands: A shoestring of sand or sandstone usually buried in
the nudst of mud or shale as in a buried sandbar or channel fill.
Strand line: The ephemeral line or level at which a body of standing
water meets the land; the shoreline, especially a former shoreline
now elevated above the present water level.
Strike-slip fault: A fault on which the movement is parallel to the
faults strike.
Torsion: The state of stress produced by two force couples of opposite
movement acting in different but parallel planes about a common
axis. Torsion faults are wrench faults or lateral faults in which the
fault surface is more or less vertical.
Tnmcnrion: An act or instance of cutting or breaking off the top or end
of a geologic stmcture or land form, as by erosion.
Unconformity: A substantial break or gap in the geologic record where
a mck unit is overlain by another that is not next in stratigraphic suc-
cession, such as interruption in the continuity of a depositional se-
quence of sedimentary rocks or a break between eroded igneous
rocks and younger sedimentary strata. It results from a change that
caused deposition to cease for a considerable span of time, and it
normally implies uplift and erosion with loss of the previously
formed record.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Galloway, T.J.: Bull. 118, California Division of Mines,
Sacramento (Aug. 1957).
Sams, H.: Atkinson Field; Good Example of Subtle
Stratigraphic Trap, Oil and Gas J. (Aug. 12. 1974), 145-63.
Hoyt, W.V.: Erosional Channel III the Middle Wilcox Near
Yoakum, Lavaca County, Texas, Trans., Gulf Coast Assn. of
Geological Societies (Nov. 1959) 9, 41-50.
Occurrence of Oil and Gas in West Texas, F.A. Herald (ed.)
Bureau of Economic Geology and West Texas Geological Sot.
(Aug. 1957).
Occurrence of Oil and Gas in Northeast Texas, F.A. Herald
(ed.) Bureau of Economic Geology and East Texas Geological
Sot. (April 1951).
An I ntroduction ro Gu[fCoa~r Oil Fields, Houston Geological SOC.
(1941).
A Guide Book, Houston Geological Sot. (1953).
Pirson, S.J.: Oil Reservoir Engineering, second edition, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1958).
29-9
9. Krynine, P.D.: The Megascopic Study and Field Classification
of Sedimentary Rocks, J. Geol., 56, No. 2.
General References
Aguilera R. : Natural Fractured Reservoirs, Petroleum Publishing Co.,
Tulsa (1980).
Bates, R.L. and Jackson, J.A.: Glossary of Geology, second edition,
American Geological Inst. (1980).
Beebe, Warren B.: Natural Gases of North America, Vols. 1 and 2,
Memoir 9, AAPG (1968).
Bouma, H., Moore, G.T., and Coleman, J.M.: Framework, Facies
and Oil Trapping Characteristics of the Upper Continental Margin,
AAPG (1978) Studies No. 7.
Braunstein, J.: North American Oil and Gas Fields, AAPG (1976)
Memoir 24.
Busch, D.A.: Stratigraphic Traps in Sandstone, AAPG (1974)
Memoir 2 1.
Geologic Formation and Economic Development of Oil and Gas
Fields of California, California Department of Natural Resources,
Sacramento (1943).
Halbouty, M.T.: Cilant Oil and Gas Fields of the Decade
1968-1978, AAPG (1980) Memoir 30.
Halbouty, M.T.: Salt Domes, Gulf Region, United States and Mex-
ico, second edition, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1979).
Halbouty, M.T.: The Deliberate Search for the Subtle Trap, AAPG
(1982) Memoir 32.
Hanna, M.A.: Gulf Coast Salt Domes, Problems in Petroleum
Geology, AAPG (1934).
Hubbert, M.K.: Entrapment of Petroleum under Hydrodynamic Con-
ditions, Bull., AAPG (Aug. 1953) 37, 1954-2026.
King, R.E.: Stratigraphic Oil and Gas Fields: Classification, Ex-
ploration Methods and Case Histories, AAPG (1972) Memoir 16,
S.E.G. Special Publication No. 10.
Levorsen, A.I.: Geology of Petroleum, W.H. Freeman and Co., San
Francisco (1954).
Mazzullo, S.J.: Stratigraphic Traps in Carbonate Rocks, AAPG
(1980) Reprint 23.
Payton, E.: Seismic Stratigmphy-Applications to Hydrocarbon Ex-
ploration, AAPG (1977) Memoir 26.
Russel, W, L. : Structural Geology for Petroleum Geologists, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1955).
Scholle, P.A., Bebout, D.G., and Moore, C.H.: Carbonate Deposi-
tional Environments, AAPG (1983).
Structure of Typical American Oil Fields, Bull., AAPG (1929).
Weeks, L.G.: Habitat of Oil, AAPG (1958).
Wilhelm, 0.: Classification of Petroleum Reservoirs, Bull., AAPG
(Nov. 1945) 29, 1537-79.
Woodland, A.W.: Petroleum and the Continental Shelf of Northwest
Europe, Vol. I, Geology, John Wiley Sons Inc., New York City
(1975).
Young, A. and Galley, I.E.: Fluids in Subsurface Environments,
AAPG (1965) Memoir 4.
Chapter 30
Bottomhole Pressures
G.J. Plisga, Sbhio Alaska Petroleum Co.*
Introduction
The practice of using bottomhole pressure (BHP) to im-
prove oil production and to solve petroleum engineering
problems started in about 1930. Pressures in oil wells
were first calculated from fluid levels and later by inject-
ing gas into the tubing until the pressure became con-
stant. The earliest BHP measurements were made with
pressure bombs and with maximum-indicating or
maximum-recording pressure gauges that did not have
the accuracy, reliability, or durability now demanded.
These early pressure measurements were occasional. or
spot tests rather than systematic diagnostic engineering
measurements.
BHP Instruments
The development of precision recording pressure gauges
small enough in diameter to be run through tubing made
it feasible to make BHP measurements in sufficient
number to develop the science that now makes them in-
dispensable to petroleum engineering. BHP now is deter-
mined with continuously recording pressure gauges,
which are either self-contained or surface-recording.
Self-Contained Gauges
Mechanical self-contained pressure gauges are used
universally. The pressure element and recording section
are encased and sealed against external pressure except
for an opening to communicate the pressure to the ele-
ment. The entire instrument is run to the depth at which
the pressure is to be measured, allowed to stabilize ther-
mally, and then returned to the surface and the pressure
determined from the chart. Modem pressure measure-
ment systems incorporate force summing devices that
convert energy into physical displacement or deforma-
tion. These force summing devices can take many forms,
three of which are shown in Fig. 30.1. Although there
The ongmat chapter on the topic bn the 1962 edition was written by C.V. Mfllikan.
are numerous mechanical self-contained pressure
devices available (Table 30.1) only the most commonly
used continuously recording BHP gauges are discussed
fully. Regardless of the type of force summing device in-
corporated into the BHP gauge, whether physical
displacement (piston elements) or deformation
(bellows/bourdon tubes), the generated force is coupled
to a recording device.
The Amerada pressure gauge has a helical bourdon
tube as a pressure element that is of sufficient length to
rotate the stylus the full inside circumference of the
cylindrical chart holder without multiplication of move-
ment. A clock moves the chart longitudinally. The gauge
is made in both 1% - and l-in. diameters with a length of
approximately 74 in. A vapor-pressure-type recording
thermometer can be run in combination with this to ob-
tain continuously recorded temperatures and allow cor-
rection of pressure measurements. This will also ensure
that thermal stabilization has occurred.
The Humble gauge pressure element has a piston,
which moves through a stuffing box against a helical
spring in tension. Attached to the inner end of the piston
is a stylus that records longitudinally on a chart in a
cylindrical holder, which is rotated by a clock. The in-
strument is made in two sizes, with 1 l/4- and 15/16-in.
ODs, and is approximately 60 in. long. Thermometer
elements are available for both sizes.
Other recording gauges have been described in the
literature, two of which were continuously recording,
but they are no longer available on the market. The Gulf
BHP gauge has a pressure element consisting of a long
metallic bellows restrained by a double helical spring in
tension. The recording mechanism is a cylindrical chart
holder rotated by a clock. The USBM BHP gauge
pressure element is a multiple-bellows type with a move-
ment of about 0.6 in., which is multiplied through a rack
and gears to about 5% in. of stylus movement. The
stylus records longitudinally on a cylindrical chart that is
30-2
TABLE 30.
OD, in.
Length, in.
Type pressure element*
Maxtmum pressure, psi
Accuracy, %FS t
Resolution, %FSr
Maximum service temperature, OF
Maximum clock running time, hours
1
-
RPG-3 RPG-4
--MECHANICAL RECORDING BHP GAUGES
Amerada
1.25 1
77 76
B B
25,000 25,000
+0.2 f 0.2
+0.05 f 0.056
500 500
360 144
B = bardon tube, AP = Rotating piston, P = Piston.
Normally, elements are avarIable in several ranges.
tFS= Full scale. NS = Not stated
RPG-5
1.5
20
B
20,000
k 0.25
+ 0.05
450
120
PRES.SU{~~- ;E
DIAPHRAGM
BELLOWS
PRESSURE
SPIRAL BOURDON TUBE
Fig. 30.1-Force summing devices
rotated by a helical spring but controlled by a watch
movement.
BHP gauges, although rugged and capable of service
in severe conditions, must be considered precision in-
struments. Proper attention to adjustment, calibration,
and operation is required to obtain consistently reliable
and accurate pressure measurements. A comparison of
the commonly used mechanical continuously recording
BHP gauges is shown in Table 30.1.
Charts
Charts used in a BHP gauge are paper or metal. Paper
charts have an abrasive coating and are marked by a
brass or gold stylus. Metal charts, which are made of
brass, copper, or aluminum, are generally preferred
because they are not affected by humidity. Plain metal
charts require a sharp pointed stylus. Coated metal charts
are generally preferred because they produce less stylus
friction. Black-coated charts are marked with a steel or
jewel stylus, which burnishes the coated surface. White-
coated charts are used with a brass or gold stylus. A finer
line can be made on the black chart, but it is more dif-
ficult to read. A brass or gold stylus used with white-
coated charts, paper, or metal, must be sharpened very
frequently.
Self-contained pressure gauges, like all pressure gauges
used for precision work, must be calibrated on a dead-
weight tester at regular intervals. To obtain maximum
accuracy, the pressure gauge is calibrated before a
survey at the anticipated bottomhole temperature,
(BHT), the survey conducted, and then the chart read us-
ing the presurvey calibration lines. New pressure
elements should be calibrated frequently until they have
become seasoned in service and their ability to retain
calibration has been established. Before calibration,
pressure equal to the maximum range of the element
should be applied and released several times. The
number of calibration points should be more on a new
element, and two or more curves should be run as a
check. The element should also be calibrated at the reser-
voir temperature at which the pressures are to be deter-
mined, or a temperature-correction factor should be
determined to correct pressures measured at other than
calibration temperature (Fig. 30.2). During calibration,
the gauge should be tapped lightly to relieve residual
friction in the moving parts of the element. Under nor-
mal operating conditions, pressure determination in a
well should have an accuracy within a range of 0.2% of
the maximum range of the element. The pressure ele-
ment range should be selected to operate in the upper
two-thirds range when at bottomhole conditions. Greater
accuracy can be obtained by greater attention to details
of calibration and the use of instruments that are well-
seasoned by service. Pressure increase inside the gauge
caused by an increase in temperature is considered only
when extra effort is made to obtain precision pressures.
Temperature Effect
A small magnifying lens and steel scale with O.Ol-in. Temperature effect is an inherent property of metals and
divisions are most frequently used for reading charts is present in all gauges, although for some alloys it is
with static pressure-i.e., where only one or two very small. Except for such alloys, temperature change
KPG
Kuster
AK-1 K-2 K-3
1.25 2.25 1 1.25
73 36 41 43
B B B B
30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000
* 0.2 * 0.25 f 0.25 f 0.25
* 0.05 f0.025 +0.05 -f 0.04
700 350 700 700
360 120 120 120
Leutert
1.42
139
RP
10,000
f 0.025
f 0.005
300
Johnston
J-200
2.88
54
P
20,000
k 0.25
NS
400
192
pressures readings are made on a chart. When a number
of readings are to be made from a chart, it is advan-
tageous to use one of the several available chart scan-
ners. Some engineers have used microscopic com-
parators to read pressure deflection to 0.0001 in., but the
inherent errors of a pressure element even under most
careful handling are usually greater than the added ac-
curacy of such precise measurement of the chart. New
electronic chart scanners have improved the readability
and accuracy of mechanical BHP gauges.
Calibration
BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURES
Input
pressure - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
konstanr~
t
TKlle
Jl~,d,ur,r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
Room .,
Temo --
Time
---
4
\
.--
outpur \
Temperature
Error
, ,
T,mE?
\
/
\
/
/
\
/
\
/
\
,
\
/
\
.II/
Fig. 30.2-Temperature effect on pressure gauges.
must be considered in pressure measurements. The
preferred method is to calibrate the pressure element at
the temperature of the reservoir in which pressures are to
be measured. The calibration curve for most pressure
elements is practically a straight line; therefore, a
temperature-correction coefficient may be determined
for a given pressure element and used to correct for
temperatures other than the calibration temperature as
follows. For a given pressure, preferably about three-
fourths of the maximum for the element, determine the
pressure deflection and the temperature. For the same
pressure, determine the deflection at a higher
temperature, preferably 100F higher.
Then
where
CT = temperature coefficient,
T, = lower temperature,
T2 = higher temperature,
dl = deflection at T, for given pressure, and
d2 = deflection at T2 for same pressure.
The corrected deflection can be calculated as
d,.=
1 +CT(To -T,)
, . . . . .
where
d, . = deflection at calibration temperature,
d, = observed deflection,
T, = calibration temperature, and
T, = observed temperature.
(11
(2)
t
output
Marlmum
Input
b
Maxtmum ~npui
Fig. 30.3-Hysteresis.
If it is more convenient, pressure readings may be
substituted for deflections in Eq. 2. Gauges with a steel
pressure element usually have a temperature coefficient
of about 0.0002 in./F.
When the pressure gauge is run to the depth of the
pressure determination, it should remain long enough to
stabilize thermally, usually 15 to 20 minutes. If the in-
strument cannot remain long enough to reach
temperature equilibrium, a maximum-indicating ther-
mometer run in a closed container as part of the gauge
will give a satisfactory reading for temperature
correction.
Many BHP gauge elements are made of an alloy with a
very low temperature coefficient such as Ni-Span C@,
and a temperature correction may be neglected up to
200F except where extra precautions are taken to obtain
very precise pressure measurements. For temperatuf?s
above 2OOF, most elements require a varying correction
that can be determined only by actual calibration.
Hysteresis
Hysteresis is a characteristic of metals under strain that
must be recognized in pressure gauges. Because of
hysteresis, the calibration of a gauge made with increas-
ing pressures will differ slightly from a calibration made
with decreasing pressures (Fig. 30.3). If only static
pressures are to be determined, a calibration at increas-
ing pressure is satisfactory. When a flowing pressure
starting from a static condition is to be determined,
hysteresis may be of sufficient magnitude to take into ac-
count. To determine the hysteresis effect, the pressure
element should be pressurized somewhat higher than the
highest anticipated well pressure and released several
times before running the calibration, first with increasing
pressures, then with decreasing pressures. Flexing the
element several times will substantially reduce the
hysteretic effect and should be done each time just before
the gauge is run into a well.*
Operating Equipment
The BHP gauge, a self-contained instrument, is run on a
wireline and depth is measured by the line running in
contact with a calibrated measuring wheel, which
operates a counter. The most frequently used calibration
of the measuring wheel is 2 ftirev. When the contact of
the line is tangent to the measuring wheel, the wheel
TABLE 30.2-WIRELINE TENSILE STRENGTHS AND WEIGHTS
Nominal Tensile Strength (Ibf)
Tensile Strength
Diameter Line (in.)
(Psi) 0.066 0.072 0.082 0.092
Plow steel 232,000 -945 794 1,225- 1,542
~ai$3ss steel 170,000 150,000 582 513 692 611 090 792 1,130 997
Nominal Weight per 1,000 ft of Line (Ibm)
11.4 14.0 18.0 22.8 Plow steel
Stainless steel
Monel
11.8 14.1 18.3 23.0
13.1 15.6 20.2 25.4
diameter in inches is 241~. When the contact is an arc of
the wheel, the wheel diameter is D=(24/n)-d, where d
is the diameter of the wireline. This applies if the
greatest distance of the chord of the contact arc from the
periphery of the wheel is greater than the diameter of the
wireline. The measuring wheel diameter should be
checked at reasonable intervals to maintain accuracy of
depth measurements. A decrease in the diameter of the
wireline caused by wear or by permanent stretch
resulting from a hard pull will also cause errors in depth
measurements.
The most common wirelines have diameters of 0.066,
0.072, 0.082, or 0.092 in. In areas having noncorrosive
well fluids, plow steel lines are most satisfactory, but for
corrosive conditions, stainless steel and Monel@ lines are
used. Both plow steel and stainless steel are subject to
hydrogen embrittlement, but are satisfactory for short
runs such as static-pressure tests, except under severe
conditions. For an operation that requires the line to be
in the hole under corrosive conditions for several hours,
a Monel line should be used. Nominal tensile strengths
of wire lines and their weights are given in Table 30.2.
Equipment for operating a wireline varies greatly. The
most frequently used unit is a trailer-mounted reel driven
by a 2- to 4-hp air-cooled gasoline engine. Power is
transmitted to the reel by V-belt, through a disk clutch,
or by hydraulic drive. On smaller equipment, an idler
pulley permits the V-belt to serve as a clutch also. Brak-
ing may be by friction disk, brakeband, or hydraulic
pump. When the equipment is used for a continuous pro-
gram it may be mounted in a pickup truck, with housing
to protect against the weather.
Pressure Bombs
Pressure bombs were used to some extent before record-
ing pressure gauges small enough in diameter for oilwell
use became available. They were usually made from tub-
ing approximately 1 L/2 in. in diameter with a small nee-
dle valve in the top and a ball and seat in the bottom to
hold maximum pressure in the well. When the bomb was
recovered, the pressure was determined by attaching a
pressure gauge to the valve. The bomb had to be long
enough to leave a volume of gas (or air) in the top to
reduce the error of filling the bourdon tube of the
pressure gauge. There was also substantial correction for
temperature unless the bomb was raised to BHT before
the pressure was read. An ordinary commercial
maximum-indicating pressure gauge enclosed in a
pressure-tight container was used occasionally, and in
some cases a recording mechanism and clock were add-
ed. Such instruments were 3 in. or larger in diameter,
which limited their use to wells without tubing.
Surface Recording Gauges
Surface recording pressure gauges can be used either
permanently installed or wircline retrievable. All surface
recording pressure gauges must be run on a single-
BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURES 30-5
SGTISOI Excitation
Capacitive AC-DC special
Differential transformer AC special
Force balance AC line power high level (5V)
with servo
0.01
Piezoelectric DC amp and
self-generating
AC
medium level
with amp
1
Potentiometer AC-DC
regulated
high level 1
0.01 to 5,000 0 to>100
30 to 10,000 >I00
1 to 5,000 oto <5
0.1 to 40,080 1 to
> 100.000
5 to 10,000 oto >50
Strain gauge AC-DC
regulated
Unbended IOV AC-DC low level 4 mVN 0.25 0.5 to 40,000 0 to >2,000
Bonded foil 1 OV AC-DC low level 3 mVN 0.5 5 to 10,000 0 to >I,000
Thm film IOV AC-DC 3 mVN 0.25 15 to 10,000 0 to > 1,000
Diffused
semiconductor
Bonded bar
semiconductor
Variable reluctance AC special 40 mVN
10 to 28 V DC
1OV AC-DC
Vibrating we and tube AC special
Vlbratlng quartz AC special
TABLE 30.4-SUMMARY OF TRANSDUCER CRITERIA
Pressure Frequency Temperature Range
Accuracy Range Response and Effects
Output Level
PM (Psi) (Hz) VI
high level (5V)
frequency/bridge
htgh level (5V)
phase
demodlbridge
medium level 3
mVN to 20 mVN
medium level 3
mVN to 20 mVN
high level and
frequency
high level and
frequency
0.02
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.02
0.01
Oto +I85
Oto +165
poor
0.5
4Oto +165
(O.Ol%IF)
- 450 to + 400
(O.Ol%/~Fj
-85 to +300
(O.Ol%lF)
- 320 to + 800
(0.005%/F over
limited
compensated
range)
-65 to +250
(O.O1%/F over
limited
15 to 5.000 0 to > 1,000
5 to 10,090 0 to > 1,000
range)
- 320 to + 525
(O.OOS%/~F over
limited
compensated
range)
- 65 to 250
(0.005%/F over
limited
compensated
range)
-65 to t250
(O.Ol%lF over
limited
0.04 to 10,000 0 to > 1 ,OiJo
1t0100 oto >I00
range)
-320 to +800
(O.O2%/OF over
limited
compensated
range)
-85 to +200
requires
temperature control
1 to 10,000 0 to >I00 oto +I302
Shock and
Vibration
Sensitivity
@3X t0 QOod
Stability
WY0
0.05
poor O.OS%/month
excellent
poor
good
very good
very good
W QQQd
1
05
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.005
Lile or
Calibration Shift
with Use
> 10' cycles
with <0.05%
calibration shift
> to6 cycles
life
z 10 cycles
with ~0.5%
calibration shift
use effects
<IO@ cycles
life
< 0.5%
calibration shift
after IO6 cycles
> lOa cycles
> 106 cycles
with ~0.25%
calibration shift
< 0.25%
calibration shift
after 10 B cycles
< 0.5%
calibration shift
after lo6 cycles
> lo6 cycles
life
> 106 cycles
life
> lo6 cycles
life
Stability and calibration shift should be considered together.
30-6
BOURDON
TUBE
PRESSURE
SENSI NG
DI APHRAGM
L& g5
::::
q I
OUTPUT
..-.
/
BASE CRYSTAL
Fig. 30.5-Piezoelectric transducer.
Fig. 30.4--E-Core transformer
Variable Inductance Transducer
conductor armored cable that carries a direct current
from the surface to the transducer in the bottomhole in-
strument. Oscillating current returns through the same
circuit from the transducer to surface instruments that
determine and record its frequency. A transducer is any
device that converts energy from one form to another.
There is a large variety of transducers that allow nonelec-
trical variations to be converted into changes in
resistance, current, voltage, capacitance, etc. Some ex-
amples are the strain gauge, thermistor, and the
microphone. Readings are made at selected intervals of 1
second to 30 minutes or more. The frequency recorded in
cycles per second is translated to pounds per square inch
from a calibration curve. Table 30.3 shows a comparison
of commonly used surface recording pressure gauges.
A permanently installed surface recording pressure
gauge requires a gauge carrier or receiver and either a
single conductor line or small diameter tubing (0.092
in.) strapped to the production tubing. The pressure
gauge can be run with the tubing or by wireline
retrievable, which sits in a gas lift mandrel or some other
device to complete the circuit. The surface instruments
may be connected permanently, or one set can be used to
monitor BHP in several wells.
Modem precision pressure-measuring systems incor-
porate force summing devices that convert gas or liquid
entry into physical displacement or deformation. The
following sections discuss various concepts of pressure
transducer technology shown in Table 30.4.
Pressure Transducer Technology
Capacitive Transducer
In a capacitive transducer, a diaphragm is spaced evenly
between capacitor plates. BHP causes displacement of
the diaphragm and a change in capacitance. The advan-
tages of a capacitive transducer are excellent frequency
response, low hysteresis, good linearity, and excellent
stability and repeatability. Disadvantages are high sen-
sitivity to temperature variations and vibration.
In the variable inductance transducer, a flux linkage bar
is mechanically linked to a spiral bourdon tube,
diaphragm, or bellows (Fig. 30.1). The flux linkage bar
is in the magnetic path of an E-core transformer (Fig.
30.4). Displacement of the flux linkage bar by pressure
changes the E-core flux density resulting in a transformer
output proportional to the pressure applied. The advan-
tages are medium-level output and rugged construction.
Disadvantages are a requirement for AC excitation, poor
linearity, and susceptibility to stray magnetic fields.
Piezoelectric Transducer
The piezoelectric effect is the property exhibited by cer-
tain crystals of generating voltage when subjected to
pressure (Fig. 30.5). When a strain is applied to an
asymmetrical crystalline material such as barium,
titanite, quartz, or rochell salt, an electrical charge is
generated. When a piezoelectric crystal is connected to a
diaphragm, bellows, or bourdon tube, the generated
charge can be made proportional to the applied pressure.
Advantages are very high frequency response (250 kHz),
small size, rugged construction, and ability to accept
large overpressures without damage. Disadvantages are
temperature sensitivity, inability to make static
measurements, and special electronics required.
Potentiometric Transducer
This transducer is constructed by coupling the wiper of a
multitum potentiometer to an amplifying mechanical
linkage to a diaphragm, bellows, or bourdon tube. Ad-
vantages are low-cost, high-level output and simple elec-
tronic circuits. Disadvantages are limited life, poor
resolution, large hysteresis, and low frequency response.
Vibrating Wire Transducer
A thin wire is connected in tension to a diaphragm,
bellows, or bourdon tube and is caused to vibrate under
the influence of a magnetic field (Fig. 30.6). The wires
frequency of vibration is directly related to its tension.
TAUGHT M
MAGNETI C <
OUTPUT
MAGNETS
0
AC CARRI ER
AND FREQUENCY
DETECTOR
ELECTRONI CS
/
Fig. 30.6-Vibrating wire transducer.
Advantages are very high accuracy, low hysteresis, and
excellent long-term stability. Disadvantages are sen-
sitivity to shock and vibration, temperature sensitivity,
and additional electronics.
Strain Gauge Transducers
A strain gauge transducer is a strain-sensitive resistor
mounted to a diaphragm, bellows, or bourdon tube.
When pressure is applied, the resistor changes its
physical length thereby causing change in resistance.
This effect is expressed by
Arlr
F,=- . . ~,L, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3)
where
F, = gauge factor,
Ar = change in resistance,
r = unstrained resistance,
aL = change in length, and
L = unstrained length.
There are four basic types of strain gauge transducers;
unbonded wire, bonded foil, thin film, and semiconduc-
tor. A rule that applies to strain gauge transducers is the
larger the gauge factor, the higher the output of the
device. For unbonded wire, the gauge factor is four.
Bonded foil and thin film (Fig. 30.7) have factors of
two. For semiconductor transducers, the factor ranges
from 80 to 150.
Vibrating Crystal Transducer
In vibrating crystal transducers, a crystal is forced by ex-
ternal electronic circuits to oscillate at its resonate fre
quency when external stress is applied to the crystal by
mechanical linkage to the diaphragm, bellows, or bour-
don tube. The resonate frequency of the crystal shifts in
proportion to the stress. In at least one transducer of this
type, the pressure is applied directly to the crystal itself.
The vibrating crystal is usually manufactured out of
quartz because of its excellent elastic properties, long-
Fig. 30.7-Thin film strain gauge transducer.
Fig. 30.6-Cross-sections showing different modes of motion
of quartz crystals.
term stability characteristics, and ease of vibrational ex-
citement. Fig. 30.8 shows various modes of motion of
quartz crystal. Advantages are excellent accuracy,
resolution, and long-term stability. Disadvantages are
sensitivity to temperature and extremely high costs.
New technology is constantly evolving a new genera-
tion of surface recording pressure gauges that are more
and more advantageous to the petroleum engineer and
petroleum engineering problems.
Calculated BHP
BHP calculated from surface pressure and fluid level,
although less accurate than measured pressure, is suffi-
cient for many practical uses. In an open hole or open
tubing, the fluid level can be determined by a float run
on a measuring line.
In pumping wells, the fluid level can be determined by
sound reflection. There are four types of commercial in-
struments available. These are the deptbograph,
echometer, sonoloy, and acoustical well sounder. Each
of these instruments records sound reflection initiated by
firing a blank shotgun shell or pistol cartridge or venting
pressure into a chamber attached to the casing head. A
sound reflection is received and recorded from each tub-
ing collar. By counting the collar reflections and know-
ing the tubing tally, the depth to the fluid can be
calculated. In deep wells, attenuation of the collar reflec-
tion makes accurate counting difficult. In some oil wells,
30-8
usually those having considerable gas, a foaming condi-
tion makes the fluid level difficult to identify or may in-
dicate a fluid level much higher than actual. A foaming
condition is usually indicated when the fluid level
changes several feet on tests made at short intervals of
time. Fluid level can also be calculated from the time in-
terval for the reflection to be received from the fluid
level, but the variation in the speed of sound through
gases of different compositions and the effect of
temperature make the procedures more laborious and
usually less accurate than the simpler method of counting
collar reflections.
In calculating the pressure caused by the column of
fluid, allowances should be made for gas in solution in
the oil, which will reduce its specific gravity below that
measured in the stock tank. This can reduce the gradient
5 psi/100 ft or more where much gas is in solution under
high pressure. For wells producing water, it is customary
to calculate the fluid head on a basis of a column of oil
and water in the same ratio as normal production for the
well, but this calculation is less reliable for low-capacity
wells with high casinghead pressure and for pumping
wells in which the pump is several hundred feet above
the producing formation. If the surface pressure is low,
the pressure caused by the weight of a column of gas
may be too small to warrant consideration, but under
high pressure it should be calculated and added to the
hydrostatic head by the same equation used for
calculating BHP in a gas well, where D is the depth of
the fluid level.
Producing BHP of a pumping well that is sufficiently
accurate for practical use may be calculated by shutting
in the casing head until the gas pressure depresses the
fluid level to the inlet of the pump, at which time fluid
delivery is stopped. The casinghead pressure at that
time, plus the head of the column of gas from the casing
head to the pump inlet, plus the head of the column of
liquid from the pump inlet to the producing formation is
the producing BHP. A check of the determination should
be made by releasing and controlling the pressure a few
pounds less than the maximum pressure read and deter-
mining the rate of production under such conditions.
The BHP in a gas well can be calculated with an equa-
tion developed by Pierce and Rawlins4:
pw5=(pwh)e
0 m347y * D
) . . . . . . . I. I.. . . . . (4)
where
p,,,$ = static BHP, psia,
p,+h = wellhead pressure, psia,
e = base, natural logarithms,
YR
= specific gravity of gas (air= l), and
D = depth of well, ft.
This equation is based on an average temperature of
the column of gas of 60F. While the temperature gradient
in a producing well is rarely a straight line, the average
temperature at a depth below seasonal effect (20 to 30
ft) and at a depth of the pressure is sufficiently accurate
for practical purposes. The equation can then be written5 :
or
YRD
bgp,,s =logp,h +KT, . . . .
(5)
where T is the average temperature in the borehole,
F+460.
Deviation of a gas from Boyles law will affect the
calculated BHP enough to be considered only in high
pressure deep wells. USBM Monograph 7 presents the
following equation.
where z is the deviation coefficient, deviation per psi ex-
pressed as a decimal.
Application of BHP
The importance of pressure analysis in projecting and
enhancing the performance of producing oil and gas
wells emphasizes the need for precision pressure
measurement systems. Todays petroleum engineer must
have sufficient information about the reservoir to ade-
quately analyze current performance and predict and op-
timize future performance. More specifically, such
pressures are a basic part of reservoir calculations, rate
of equalization of pressures, interference tests for well
spacing or rate of development, formation damage dur-
ing completion, rework or workover operations, and in-
dication of deposition of salts, sediments, or other
restrictions at the wellbore. Other applications are design
of downhole equipment for artificial lifting, efficiency of
operation of such equipment, and evaluation of drillstem
test (DST) information.
Static Pressure
Static pressure is the most frequent BHP measurement.
Most such measurements are made as a pressure survey
of a pool where the pressures in all wells are determined
in a short period of time either by cooperation of the
operators or by order of a conservation commission,
usually as a result of a recommendation by the operators.
Pressures are taken under reasonably uniform conditions
after the wells have been shut in a specified length of
time such as 24 or 48 hours, or longer, if the pressure
buildup is at a slow rate. The pressures should be
measured at or adjusted to a common data plane. In
many pools, the pressures will not reach equilibrium in
the specified shut-in time. However, if the pressures are
determined for several surveys under the same condi-
tions, the indicated rate of decline of the reservoir
pressure should be reasonably accurate. Tests in
representative wells which have been shut in long
enough to reach pressure equilibrium will show the rela-
tion of the measured pressure to the actual reservoir
pressure. Pressures in inactive wells may be used to con-
firm the actual pressure and the rate of decline.
Average Reservoir Pressure
The average reservoir pressure for a pool may be deter-
mined by arithmetically averaging the pressures of all
wells. For some pools it is preferable to determine a
weighted average by weighting each pressure by the pro-
ductive thickness of the reservoir at that point. When for
any reason the pressure cannot be determined in substan-
tially all wells or where wells are irregularly spaced, a
better average reservoir pressure is determined by re-
cording the pressures, either actual or weighted, on a
map of the area and drawing isobars from which the
average pressure weighted for an area is determined by
planimeter, grid system, or other means.
Static Pressure from Partial Buildup
Many low-permeability reservoirs require excessive
shut-in time to reach static or equilibrium pressure.
Several methods have been proposed for calculating the
reservoir pressure from partial buildup of pressure.
Muskat proposed plotting log (p,,,$ -pr) vs. time,
where pbrs is an estimated static BHP and pr is the
measured pressure at different times, p,, , pt, , p,, , etc.
When plotted on semilog cross-sectional paper with
pressure on the log scale, the selected pws is the static
pressure when the plot is a straight line.
Arps and Smith7 proposed plotting increments of
pressure increase for uniform time periods against
measured pressure on rectangular cross-sectional paper,
and extrapolating the curve to intersect the zero line of
the incremental-pressure scale, which gives the static
pressure. Both the Arps and Smith and the Muskat
methods are more commonly used in cases of rapid
pressure buildu
Miller et al.
.r
presented an equation to calculate the
static pressure from a partial buildup curve:
P~,~=P*+ (Psd-*!j')@
o~oo70* kh ) . . . . . . . .
where
PWS
= static BHP, psi
p* = last pressure on buildup curve, psi
psd = log,(rdlrw) for constant pressure at radius
of drainage, or
= log,(rd/r,)-0.75 when no influx across
external boundary,
4 = production rate at shut-in, B/D,
p = reservoir fluid viscosity, cp,
B = formation volume factor for total fluid
produced, RBISTB
k = permeability of reservoir, md,
h = effective thickness of reservoir, ft,
@ = dimensionless pressure variable from curves
(see Fig. 30.9),
ds = Pnf-Pws,
p4 = BHP during buildup, psi,
PWS
= BHP at time of shut-in, psi, and
t = time after well was shut in. hours.
The value of p* is determined by plotting the buildup
pressure vs. the time on semilog paper, with time on the
log scale. When afterflow is completed following shut-
in, the points should fall on a straight line and p* is the
30-9
Fig. 30.9-Curves from which A@ is determined in the Miller et
al. equation for calculating static pressure from
buildup pressure curve. Solid lines assume influx
at fd and dotted line indicates direction of curves
when no influx at rd.
highest measured pressure lying on the straight line. This
is the same straight line by which the slope, m, is deter-
mined in the equation for permeability from buildup
pressures by the same authors and is discussed further
under that topic.
The straight line by which the slope m is determined
comes from the middle time region of a Homer plot.
Afterflow causes lack of development of the middle time
region (with long periods of aftefflow), early onset of
boundary effects, and development of several false
straight lines that could be mistaken for the middle time
region. This makes the middle time region difficult for
the buildup test analyst to recognize. Recognition of the
middle time region is essential for successful buildup
curve analysis based on Homer plot method. The line
must be identified to estimate reservoir permeability, to
calculate skin factor, and to estimate static drainage area
pressure.
A log-log graph of the pressure change, pws -pwf
(Q), in a buildup test vs. shut-in time t presents a good
estimation of where the straight line portion, or middle
time region, begins (Fig. 30. 1O).9 A log-log graph of
pressure change pws -pwf vs. At I 6 is an even more
diagnostic indicator of the end of afterflow distortion.
Fig. 30.11 shows a semilog plot of theoretical buildup
test data. The use of type curves has greatly improved
identification of the straight line portion of the buildup
curve after wellbore storage effects have ended.
HomerlO plotted buildup pressure vs. (t+At)lAt on
semilog paper with (t+At)lht on the log scale where
t=total producing time since well completion, hours,
and At=time since the well was closed in, hours. Ex-
trapolation of the curve to a value of (t + At)/At = 1 is the
approximate static pressure.
SEYKOG
ti t2
LOG t
Fig. 30.10-Log-log vs. semilog plots.
The value of I is determined by dividing the
cumulative production of the well by the rate of produc-
tion per hour at the time the well is shut in. The uncer-
tainty of the value oft increases with the age of the well.
Experience indicates that using the time of the flow
period before the well is shut in for the buildup test is
often more reliable thanusing the total time since com-
pletion provided fully stabilized conditions exist both
when the well is opened and when it is shut in.
Thomas, l1 with Homers basic equation, preferred
using the reciprocal of (t+At)lAt and therefore plotted
pressure vs. At/(l+At) on semilog paper with Atl(t+At)
on the log scale, and extrapolated the curve to a value of
Atl(t+Ar)= 1, which gives the approximate reservoir
pressure.
Hurst* plotted the buildup pressure vs. the shut-in
time in minutes on semilog paper with time on the log
scale. A straight line is drawn through the points and ex-
trapolated to an intercept time value of 1. The slope is
the value of pressure change in one log cycle. Expressing
his equation in English units, the static pressure is
calculated:
p,,,=b+mlog625m, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
where
pas = static BHP, psi,
m = slope of buildup curve, and
h = intercept of curve with time value of 1
minute.
Correct identification of the straight-line portion of the
buildup curve is necessary for the interpretation of
pressure buildup data. The straight-line portion of the
Fig. 30.11-Plot of typical buildup with afterflow.
curve is frequently masked by one or more factors, such
as skin effect, afterflow, and the early onset of boundary
effects. Chap. 35, Well Performance Equations, ad-
dresses these problems.
The capacity of a well to produce can be estimated
from the BHP drawdown on a flow test. For gas wells,
the open-flow capacity is calculated by the procedure
proposed in Ref. 5 except that both the static pressure
and the flowing pressure are measured with a BHP
gauge. Open-flow capacity of oil wells having large
capacity and high pressure is rarely of value, and little
work has been reported on such determinations.
Theoretically, so long as single-phase flow maintains,
the rate of flow should increase in proportion to the
drawdown pressure. But, because of gas coming out of
solution below the bubblepoint, turbulence in the flow,
and borehole restrictions, the flow conditions change and
the proportionality does not hold. Engineers who have
investigated the problem usually consider that little in-
crease will be obtained after the drawdown pressure is
one-half the static pressure. For low-pressure wells, the
rate of production will usually continue to increase until
the flowing pressure is equal to or close to atmospheric
pressure.
Productivity Index
PI is defined as the barrels of oil produced per day per
pound decline in BHP. To determine the PI, a well is
shut in until static or reservoir pressure is reached. The
well then is opened and produced until the BHP and rate
of production are stabilized. Since a stabilized pressure
at surface does not necessarily indicate a stabilized BHP,
the BHP should be recorded continuously from the time
the well is opened. The PI is then
. . . . . . .
(9)
where
J = PI, B/D-psi,
qO = rate of oil production, B/D,
PWS
= static BHP, psi, and
p,,f = flowing BHP, psi.
BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURES 30-l 1
Fig. 30.12-Flow-test data on a well having a negligible transient or stabiliza-
tion period.
Specific PI is defined as barrels of oil produced per
day per pound decline in BHP per foot of effective reser-
voir thickness, and is expressed as
J , = "
( p, - Pwf ) h, . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
where J,y is the specific PI and h is the effective reservoir
thickness, ft.
On a flow test the time required for a well to reach a
stabilized BHP and rate of production, that is, the tran-
sient period, may require several hours or even days and
occasionally several weeks. The duration of the transient
period and the rate of the pressure decline and the PI
decline during the transient period will indicate the quali-
ty of the reservoir. A short transient period indicates a
high-quality reservoir, and a long transient indicates a
low-quality reservoir which will have a comparatively
low recovery of the amount of oil calculated to be in
place. Reservoir quality is not related to the numerical
value of the PI. The nature of the transient period is most
conveniently expressed by plotting the productivity in-
dex by hours on log-log paper.
Typical well test data are presented in Figs. 30.12
through 30.15. The negligible transient period of the test
shown in Fig. 30.12 indicates a high-quality reservoir
from which relatively high recovery may be expected.
The short transient period in the flow test in Fig. 30.13
indicates a comparatively high recovery of the original
oil in place. In Fig. 30.14, the transient period is quite
long but the continuous flattening of the slope of the PI
curve indicates eventual stabilization. Fig. 30.15 is the
flow test of a well in which the continuous decline in
pressure, production, and PI shows that the flow will not
stabilize and therefore the ultimate recovery will be
lower than that reasonably expected from a consideration
of the producing formation and its apparent productivity.
Flow tests and PI tests are conducted by other pro-
cedures. Some prefer to run the test at two or more dif-
ferent rates of flow. There is usually some difference in
the PI at different rates, sometimes more than can be ac-
counted for by inherent limitation of accuracy of
pressure measurement and production gauging. Chang-
ing GOR or WOR will affect the relative permeability
and therefore the PI. Calculating a PI based on total fluid
mass instead of liquid production has given more consis-
tent results in some pools.
Permeability
Permeability of the reservoir rock can be calculated from
the PI. Wycoff et al. I 3 used
=325 J,pB log=, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
rw
where
k = permeability, md,
rd = radius of drainage area, ft,
rw
= wellbore radius, ft,
q = production rate, B/D,
p = viscosity of produced fluid, cp,
B = formation volume factor, RBISTB,
h = effective reservoir thickness, ft,
Pws
= static BHP,
p,,,, = flowing BHP, and
J, = specific PI.
Permeability can be calculated from the buildup curve
obtained when a producing well is shut in following a
flow test. Muskat discussed this in 1937 and presented
an equation in 1949. l4 The equation in commonly used
units is
k=
40.37 wui*pB log(rdlr,.)
, ,,..........,..
(12)
hy
where m =slope of log (p, -p,,,,) vs. t, d=diameter of
flow pipe, in., t=time, hours, since well was closed in,
and other parameters are as previously defined.
The equation has limitations, but it may be helpful in
cases of severe reservoir damage such as interpretation
of DST buildup curves where recovery is low.
30-12
HOURS
Fig. 30.13-Flow-test data on a well having a short transient period.
Miller et al. 8 calculated permeability from a BHP
buildup curve with the equation
ko =
162.5qo~oBo
hm ( .,,...._...........~..
(13)
where
k, = effective oil permeability, md,
40
= oil production rate, B/D,
= viscosity of reservoir oil, cp,
i = formation volume factor of oil RB/STB,
i = effective reservoir thickness, f;, and
m = slope of buildup curve.
The slope m can be determined most conveniently by
plotting BHP against time in hours on semilog paper,
with time on the log scale. The initial part of the curve is
affected by the afterflow into the wellbore, and the last
part of the buildup curve may be too flat and therefore
unreliable because of interference of drainage areas or
limited reservoir. The calculation is simplified by ex-
trapolating the buildup curve to encompass one complete
cycle of the log scale. The slope is then the difference in
the pressure reading at the beginning and at the end of
the cycle.
The part of the curve representing the slope of the
buildup curve is usually evident, but occasionally in-
terferences and irregularities in the reservoir make the
slope uncertain. We consider that if the value
0.0002637kt
m=
4ct,rd2p
,,.__..,.................
(14)
where
t = time, hours, from closed in to end of
straight-line portion,
4 = porosity, fractional,
Cl.
= liquid compressibility, psi - ,
p = viscosity, cp,
r d
= drainage radius, ft,
falls to the range 10 ~ r to 10 p2, the slope m is proper
and the calculated value of k is valid. This tacitly
assumes that the values of the other factors are known
and that the conditions exist for which the equation was
derived. A valid calculation of permeability from
buildup curves requires stabilized conditions of pressure
and rate of production at the time the well is closed in.
These equations for calculating permeability are based
on liquid single-phase flow. When a small amount of
free gas is produced with the liquid, adjustment by the
relative permeability will give an acceptable answer.
When gas only is produced from the reservoir, the equa-
tions for permeability are as follows.
Radial flow equation:
k=
qXpKTRz b&d~r,.)
O.OO~O~II(~,~,~*-~,~~) .
. (15)
Pressure buildup t5 :
k=
1 ,637qgpgTRz
hmg , ,.....,,.........,....
.(I61
where
q&T
= rate of production, Mcf/D at 14.7 psi and
60F,
= viscosity of reservoir gas, cp,
Fi = reservoir temperature, F+460,
z = gas deviation factor, reservoir conditions,
h = effective reservoir thickness, ft,
PWS
= static BHP, psia,
pwf = flowing BHP, psia,
rd = drainage radius,
rw
= wellbore radius, and,
mg
= slope of pressure buildup curve, pw 2 vs.
log t, where t=time after shut-in, hours,
pw =BHP at t.
HOURS
Fig. 30.14-Flow-test data on a well having a long but finite transient period.
15-w DRAW-DOWN PRESSURE -e-t
I bl / I I 1 I
i 1
hi I 1 /PRODUCTION I i t t t l '
I
1w
IO
HOURS
Fig. 30.15-Flow-test data on a well having a very long transient period.
Permeability Damage
The permeability of the reservoir adjacent to the
borehole is frequently reduced by the invasion of drilling
mud, water blocking by invasion of filtrate water from
drilling fluid or other source, swelling of clay particles,
or deposition of salts or wax. Blinding or partial clogging
of screens or perforations will give a similar effect. A
substantial restriction of flow can be observed on the
BHP chart by the straight-line buildup until near the
maximum pressure instead of the normal exponential
shaped curve. On the other hand, permeability adjacent
to the borehole may be increased as a result of acidizing,
fracturing, or shooting.
The amount of damage or improvement to the
permeability adjacent to the borehole is determined by
comparing the permeability calculated from flow test
with the permeability calculated from the buildup and is
expressed as the productivity ratio:
Fp=k ,.............................
kb
. .(17)
where
FP = productivity ratio,
kj = permeability calculated from productivity
index, and
kb = permeability calculated from buildup
pressure.
Substituting the equated expressions of kj and kb and
simplifying:
F, =
2m log(rdlrw)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(18)
P ICS -P wj
A fractional Fp indicates restricted flow at the borehole
and an Fp greater than unity indicates better permeabili-
ty at the borehole, usually the result of stimulation.
Dolan et al. I6 presented an empirical equation to
determine damage factor that does not involve the use
of the amount of production. It is of particular value for
interpretation of drillstem test charts that have an accep-
table buildup but negligible fluid recovery. His equation
expressed as productivity ratio is
Fp=
4
o.183(p, -pw~), . . . . . . . . . . .
(19)
30-l 4
where
FP = productivity ratio,
P WS
= static BHP,
pti = flowing BHP, and
Ap = slope of plot ofp vs. log (t+AtlAt),
where
t = time well was open, minutes,
At = time after well was shut in, minutes, and
p = pressure at t+At.
Hurst I2 has developed eq uations for calculating
restrictions to flow through the reservoir adjacent to the
borehole, which they have called skin effect. Ex-
pressed in oilfield units, these equations are
for oil:
PS =m
[
(Pr -Pwf>
-log
(
93,
171 10.4mhqbc,r,,. >I
. . . . . .
and for gas:
pS =mR
[
(Pr-Pwf)
Mg
-log ,
(201
(21)
where
Ps =
Pws =
Pwf =
Pt =
40 =
qg =
pressure loss due to skin effect, psi,
static BHP, psi,
flowing BHP, psi,
well pressure 1 hour after shut-in, psi,
production rate for oil, B/D,
production rates for gas, Mcf/D at 14.7 psia
and 60F,
B, =
z=
h=
TR =
4=
co =
rw =
m=
mg =
formation volume factor of oil, RBISTB,
compressibility factor (gas deviation factor),
effective reservoir thickness, ft,
reservoir temperature, F+460,
porosity reservoir rock, fraction,
compressibility of reservoir oil, psi - ,
borehole radius, ft,
slope, pt vs. log t, and
slope pt2 vs. log t, where pt is the well
pressure at time t and t is time after well
shut-in, hours.
Positive values of ps indicate damage and negative
values of pr indicate improvement of permeability adja-
cent to the wellbore in terms of pressure loss due to skin
effect.
It is usually difficult to delineate specific
heterogeneities from well test results only because dif-
ferent heterogeneities may cause the same or similar well
test response. A higher degree of confidence is achieved
when the interpretation of test results is confirmed by
geological and geophysical evidence of heterogeneities.
Linear discontinuities, faults, and barriers affect a
pressure buildup behavior and are manifested by a sec-
ond straight line, the slope of which is double the initial
straight line. For a well near a linear fault, drawdown
testing can be used to estimate reservoir permeability and
skin factor in the usual fashion, as long as wellbore
storage effects do not mask the initial straight-line sec-
tion. If the well is very close to the fault, the initial
straight-line section may end so quickly that it will be
masked by wellbore storage.
As the drawdown proceeds and the pressure at the pro-
ducing well falls below the initial semilog straight line,
the following equation indicates that ~,,f vs. log t plot
will have a second straight line portion with a slope dou-
ble that of the initial straight line.
pi+m 0.86859s+log , . .
(22)
-162.5qopoBo
m=
kh
Plhr
= pressure on straight-line portion of semilog
plot one hour after beginning a transient
test, psi,
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi,
s = skin effect, and
L = distance to a linear discontinuity, ft.
However, the simple occurrence of a doubling slope in a
transient test does not guarantee the existence of a linear
boundary near the well.
To estimate the distance to a linear discontinuity, we
use the intersection time, t,, of the two straight line
segments of the drawdown curve. The following equa-
tion applies for drawdown testing. I7
(23)
where c, is compressibility of the total system, psi-
The effects of reservoir heterogeneities and method of
determining them are discussed in Chap. 26.
Lifting Equipment
BHP measurements are valuable to the engineer for
determining the size and type of artificial lift to install
and to monitor the efficiency of such equipment.
The efficiency of a gas lift depends, among other fac-
tors, on the pressure at the depth of gas injection. From
the flowing pressure or PI, the pressure can be calculated
for a given rate of production and after a gas lift is in
operation. Knowing the PI, the producing efficiency can
be calculated from the rate of production. The change in
pressure gradient in a well being gas lifted will determine
the point at which gas is entering the flow string, which
is of interest where multiple flow or unloading valves are
installed.
The PI is used to determine the amount of fluid
available to be pumped from a well and therefore the size
of the pump that should be run and the depth at which it
should be set. After a well has been on the pump for
some time and declined in production, the question fre-
quently arises as to whether the productivity of the well
has declined or the pumping equipment has decreased in
efficiency. The correct condition can be determined by
measuring the static and producing pressures, either with
a bottomhole gauge or from fluid-level calculation by
sound reflections as described previously. If fluid-level
determinations are known to be unreliable for a given
pool or are proved uncertain in a given well because of
fluctuating fluid-level by several determinations, a BHP
gauge should be run. Many operators have successfully
run a pressure gauge in the annulus between the tubing
and casing. During such runs the wireline will
sometimes wrap around the tubing or the gauge will
wedge between the tubing and casing. It can usually be
released by starting the pumping equipment, but
sometimes it is necessary to move in a pulling unit to lift
the tubing to free the gauge. Many operators use an ec-
centric tubing head to position the tubing against one
side of the casing instead of its normal central position
and thus minimize chances of the gauges becoming
hung up in the annulus. The BHP gauge can be run on
the rods in most wells by attaching it, preferably rigidly,
to the standing valve. A pressure gauge under these con-
ditions is subject to severe vibrations resulting from both
the vibration of the pumping equipment and a water-
hammer effect from the liquid at the pump level.
Drillstem Tests
The most common use of BHP gauges in a drilling well
is in evaluating DSTs. Pressure gauges were first used
to determine that the valve functioned properly and was
open during the test. Subsequently the pressure informa-
tion has become important. The detailed pressure infor-
mation obtained on a DST can be used to determine the
productivity of the formation by calculating the PI from
the amount of fluid recovered during the test and the
static and drawdown pressures. A more recent use has
been to confirm indicated productivity from the buildup
after the valve is closed. It is not unusual to have a very
poor recovery of fluid and obtain a good buildup curve
such as can be obtained only when the producing capaci-
ty is much better than indicated by the quantity of fluid
recovered. The permeability can be calculated from the
buildup curve. While subject to a high probable error
because of the short time of the test and usually high
reservoir damage adjacent to the borehole, it is sufficient
to indicate whether further testing may be warranted.
Mud Weight
The pressure at the depth of a DST, before seating the
packer and also after the test is completed and the packer
30-15
unseated, permits calculating the average weight of mud
in the hole and is used to verify mud weight as measured
by routine tests.
Nomenclature
b = intercept of curve with time value of 1
minute
E = formation volume factor for total fluid
produced
B, = formation volume factor of oil
CL = liquid compressibility
CO
= compressibility of reservoir oil
ct
= compressibility of the total system
C, = gas compressibility
CT = temperature coefficient
d = diameter of flow pipe
d,. =
d, =
d, =
d2 =
D=
e=
F, =
FP =
h=
J =
J, =
k=
kb =
deflection of calibration temperature
observed deflection
deflection at Ti for given pressure
deflection at T2 for same pressure
depth of well
base, natural logarithms
gauge factor
productivity ratio
effective reservoir thickness
PI
specific PI
permeability of reservoir
permeability calculated from buildup
pressure
kj =
k, =
L=
permeability calculated from productivity
index
AL=
m=
ml* =
effective permeability of oil
distance to a linear discontinuity and
unstrained length
change in length
slope of buildup curve, pt vs. log I or
slope of log(p,, -pwf) vs. I
slope of pressure buildup curve, pm, vs.
log t
P=
Ap =
Lcp =
pressure at r+Ar
slope of plot of p vs. log t+ Al/At or
AP=P~~-P~,
dimensionless factor from curves
(see Fig. 30.9)
p* =
last pressure on buildup curve
Pi =
initial reservoir pressure
PA =
pressure loss due to skin effect
P.sd =
log e rd/r,,, for constant pressure at radius
Pt =
PI, =
Pwf =
of drainage or log c (rd/r,.)-0.75 when
no influx across external boundary
well pressure 1 hour after shut-in
BHP at t
flowing BHP
pKh = wellhead pressure
pH.,, = static BHP
Plhr
= pressure on straight-line portion of semilog
plot one hour after beginning a transient
test
4=
4K =
qn =
r=
Ar =
t-d =
rw =
.Y=
t=
t=
production rate at shut-in
rate of production
rate of oil production
unstrained resistance
change in resistance
drainage radius
wellbore radius
skin effect
time
kt
m=
+ct,rd CL
. . . . .
(14)
254.359q,p,TRz log
k=
h(p,&p,,f2) ...
(15)
time from closed in to end of straight-line
At =
portion of buildup curve
time after well was shut in
intersection time of the two straight line
k=
127.2q,~KTRZ
. . hm, .(16)
t, =
T=
T,. =
7-o =
segments of the drawdown curve
average temperature in the borehole
calibration temperature
observed temperature
reservoir temperature
lower temperature
higher temperature
compressibility factor (gas deviation factor)
specific gravity of gas (air=l)
viscosity of produced fluid
viscosity of reservoir gas
viscosity of reservoir oil
porosity reservoir rock
(20)
T, =
T, =
T, =
z=
142.817q,zTR
ps =mR
Pt-P4 log
m<s
$hm c r ,2j
fi 8 I I
il
.(21)
L=
J
kt,
,,78,~c,~, ,
(23)
f~,,,=p,~~ exp(l.l39XlO-y,D). _, (4)
Y,D
logp ,,.,, =logp ,,,, l+p. . . . . . . . . . . (5)
67.37T
p ,, =p*+ (P v/ -MqbB
I, I
(7) 2ahk
kz - .
(I I )
2*4p,,, -P,,t.)
27l
44.330 dtLB log
k=
. .
(12)
hY
k,, = 4OtcOB~,
5,45751,n7 . (13)
where
ps are in Pa,
D is in m,
yK is in kg/m3,
T is in K,
I* is in Pa*s,
h is in m,
k is in m2,
q is in m/s,
rs are in m,
t is in s, and
cs are in m3/m3.
References
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Millikan, C.V.: Bottom-Hole Pressures, Petroleum Produc-
tion Hundbook (1962) 2, 27-l-27-14.
Brownscombe. E.R. and Cordon, D.R.: Precision in Bottom-
Hole Pressure Measurement. Trans., AIME (1946) 165,
159-74.
Bergman, J.C.. Guimard. A., and Hagernan, P.S.: High Perfor-
mance Pressure Measurement Systems, Johnston-Macco (1980)
10.
Pierce, H.R. and Rawlins. E.L.: The Study of Fundamental
Basis for Controlling and Gauging Natural Gas Wells, Part I , RI
2929, USBM (1929).
Buck-Pressure Data on Natural Gus Wells and Their Application
to Pmductiotz Pructices, USBM Monogrdph 7 (1935) 168.
Muskat, M.: Use of Data in the Build-Up of Bottomhole
Pressures. Trans., AIME (1937) 123, 44-48.
Arps, J.J. and Smith, A.E.: Practical Use of Bottom-Hole
Pressure Build-Up Curves, Drill. and Prod. Pruc., API (1949)
155.
8. Miller. C.C.. Dyes. A.B.. and Hutchinson. C A. Jr.: Estimation 13. Wycoff, R.D. er 01.1 Measurement of Permeability of Porous
of Permeabihty and Reservoir Pressure from Bottomhole Preasurc Media. Bull.. AAPG (1934) 18. 161.
Bmld-Up Charactenstics, Trum., AIME (1950) 189. 91-104.
9. Earlougher, R.C. Jr., Kench, K.M., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:
14. Muskat, M.: Physical P&r&s ofOil Production. McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc., New York City (1949).
Well&e Effects in Injection Well Testmg,J. Pet..Tech. (Nov.
1973) 1244-50.
10. Homer, D.R.: Pressure Build-Up in Wells. Proc.. Third
World Pet. Gong. (1951).
11. Thomas, G.B.: Analysis of Pressure Build-Up Data, J. Pet.
Tech. (April 1953) 125-28; Trans., AIME, 198.
12. Hurst, W.: Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment
to Fluid Flow into a Wellbore, Pet. Eng. (1953) 25. No. 11,
B-6.
15. Tracy, G.W.: Why Gas Wells Have Low Productivity, Oil and
Gas .I. (Aug. 6, 1955) 54, No. 66, 84.
16. Dolan, J.P., Einarsen, C.A., and Hill, G.A.: Special Applica-
tions of Drill Stem Test Pressure Data, J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1957)
318-24; Trans., AJME, 210.
17. Gray, K.E.: Approximating Well-to-Fault Distance fmm
Pressure Build-Up Tests, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1965) 761-67.
Chapter 31
Temperature in Wells
G.J. Plisga, Sohio Alaska Petroleum Co.*
Introduction
Frequently, when working with a wildcat or deepening
old production into zones that are relatively unknown, it
becomes necessary to know the underground
temperatures expected at a predetermined depth. In the
1920s, API Research Project 25 investigated the rela-
tionship between geothermal gradients and the geologic
structures of oil fields. Initially, interest in subsurface
temperatures in oil fields focused on high temperature in
deep wells, which caused cement to take initial set
before it was placed behind the casing. More recently,
cements with low hydration heat have been developed to
protect permafrost intervals in northern frontier areas.
Temperature surveys in wells were used to determine the
top of the column of cement behind the casing.2 With
continual development of temperature devices, the
reliability, accuracy, and speed of response have opened
new horizons to temperature logging. Temperature logs
are used currently to identify fluid entry into the
wellbore, fluid migration behind the casing, tubing/cas-
ing leaks, and the extent of hydraulic fracturing and to
monitor injectivity profiles.
Thermometers
Self-Contained Recording Thermometers
Self-contained recording thermometers, as used in the oil
fields, use the same mechanism to record as the bot-
tomhole pressure (BHP) gauge, with a thermometer ele-
ment substituted for a pressure element. Temperature
elements are made for some of the commercially
available BHP gauges.
Humble Gauge Temperature Element. The tempera-
ture element for the Humble gauge is a container filled
with mercury. With an increase in temperature, the mer-
cury expands into a small-diameter cylinder at the end of
Author of the original chapter on this topbc m the 1962 edltm was C.V. Mllhkan
a piston, which extends through a packing gland against
a tense helical spring. A stylus arm attached to the end of
the piston extends into the cylindrical chart holder of the
recording mechanism. The temperature range may be
changed by varying the diameter of the cylinder and
piston. To prevent the well pressure from affecting the
temperature element, the mercury container is enclosed
within an outer tube, which is filled with mercury to
reduce thermal lag. With reasonable care in calibration
and operation, temperature readings are accurate to 2F
and differential temperatures of 0.5F can be read.
Amerada Gauge Temperature Element. The
temperature element for an Amerada gauge is a pressure
element with a bulb attached to the pressure end of the
helical Bourdon tube, but thermally insulated from the
gauge to reduce thermal lag. The bulb contains a liquid
that has a substantial vapor pressure in the temperature
range of interest. For various temperature ranges, dif-
ferent liquids and different ranges of helical Bourdon
tubes are selected, preferably in such a combination that
the maximum temperature range is near the critical
temperature of the liquid, which gives maximum defec-
tion per degree change in temperature. Ranges of ap-
proximately 120 and 200F are used most frequently,
with the minimum or maximum temperature as requested
on the order. For maximum chart readability, the span
between the minimum and maximum should be no
greater than 200F. Thermometers with a range of 120
to 2OOF, as ordinarily calibrated, have a sensitivity of
about 0SF and temperature changes of 0.1 F can be
detected. The absolute accuracy of the Amerada
temperature gauges is +2F. The time required for ther-
mal equilibrium is 20 minutes, but some 70% of the
change in temperature will be recorded in 30 to 45
seconds when the instrument is immersed in liquid. A
faster-responding gauge design, which increases the
temperature sensing area and reduces the heated mass,
reaches thermal equilibrium in 8 to 10 minutes. The
response of a liquid-vapor element is not a straight line,
and therefore the accuracy and sensitivity of the element
depend on the temperature to be measured.
Time Response. The time response of a thermometer to
a change in temperature is directly related to the rate of
movement through fluid, or flow of fluid past the ther-
mometer. When a long section of hole is to be surveyed
for a possible anomaly, the thermometer can be run at 50
to 100 ftimin followed by a second nm at 2 to 5 ftimin
through intervals of interest indicated on the first run.
Thermometers in Gas. The thermal conductivity of a
gas is much lower than that of liquid. Therefore, a ther-
mometer in gas has greater thermal lag for a given
change in temperature. However, in most wells in which
a thermometer is run through gas, any anomaly present is
caused by expansion of gas, and the change in
temperature is much greater than normally found when
the anomaly is caused by migration of liquids. Because
of the greater change in temperature, the presence of an
anomaly is recorded as quickly in gas as in liquid. If a
wellbore contains gas through the interval of interest and
no gas expansion is present, such as a survey to deter-
mine migration of fluid behind the pipe, it is preferable
to fill the well with liquid. If this is not feasible, then the
thermometer must be run much slower (one-fifth to one-
tenth) than the normal rate in liquid.
Electrical Surface-Recording Thermometers
Electrical surface-recording thermometers have a ther-
mocouple, resistance wire, or thermistor as a
temperature element. As normally calibrated for oil well
use, electrical surface-recording thermometers have a
sensitivity of 0.5F and a thermal lag of only a few
seconds. They are run on armored, insulated cables and
the measuring wheel is geared to drive a chart recorder,
camera, or computer to record temperature against
depth.
Differential thermometers have been developed that
record very small changes in temperature, 0.1 F or less,
and are useful for identifying an anomaly in a long sec-
tion when surveying at logging speeds of 100 to 150
ftimin. Once an anomaly is recorded, the thermometer
can be run at slower speeds to completely define the
anomaly. The differential thermometer is usually run in
conjunction with an electrical thermometer to allow the
absolute temperature to be measured in conjunction with
the differential temperature.
By using electrical surface-recording thermometers,
any temperature change noted can be checked by a rerun
without returning the instrument to the surface. Very
small anomalies under static conditions may be disturbed
by the movement of the instrument, and therefore when a
check of such condition is run, it should be delayed long
enough to reestablish temperature equilibrium in the
hole.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Self-contained thermometers and electrical surface-
recording thermometers each have advantages and disad-
vantages. Self-contained thermometers have the advan-
tages of portability and low investment. Disadvantages
are much greater thermal lag and the necessity of retum-
ing the instrument to surface and reading the charts
before the results are known. Electrical surface-
recording thermometers have the advantage of quick
response to temperature change, which permits running
faster, plotting temperature against depth as the survey
progresses, and checking any temperature anomaly
without having to recover the instrument from the well.
Disadvantages include a much greater investment, larger
and heavier equipment, and delicate instrumentation.
Thermometry
Introduction
Two types of temperature surveys are used in the oil
fields. One determines the true temperature at the depth
of interest, and the second determines the depth or inter-
val of a change in temperature. Usually, true temperature
is measured with a maximum-recording thermometer.
However, the use of electrical surface-recording ther-
mometers is becoming more widespread for measuring
true temperatures. Determination of a change in temper-
ature requires a continuous record some distance above
and below (as well as through) the interval of interest. In
this case, the use of a differential thermometer will show
the existence of a change in temperature rather than the
true temperature or the actual magnitude of the change.
Actual Temperature
The geothermal gradient is very different in the various
sedimentary basins, but within a given basin the change
is gradual from one part to another.3b4 In most oil-
producing areas, the gradient is usually within the range
of 1 to 2F increase for each 100 ft of depth.
Temperatures just below the seasonal effect, ordinarily
30 ft below the surface, are about 1.5F higher than the
isotherms of the average annual temperature, as shown
by climatological data of the U.S. Weather Bureau (Fig.
3 1. I). An exception to this is in northern latitudes where
continuous permafrost exists. A geothermal gradient
determined from such surface temperatures and the
temperature of the producing formation is sufficiently
accurate for most practical uses (Fig. 31.2). The rate of
temperature increase in some areas is greater with depth,
especially below 10,000 ft, and marked increases have
been reported below 18,000 ft. When a precise geother-
mal gradient is to be determined, the hole selected must
not have been disturbed for several months. In any
event, the survey must be conducted while the well is in
operation, since the passage of the thermometer will alter
the static gradient.
The thermal conductivity of geological strata varies.
The average heat conductivity of common sediments is
given approximately by the figures in Table 3 1.1. 4
When fluid movement continues in a borehole for
periods of time, such as in drilling operations or a pro-
ducing well, the temperature effect will be different on
each formation. Any effect on a given formation will de-
pend on its thermal conductivity, the difference in
temperature between the moving fluid and the formation,
and the length of time such movement continues. When
fluid movement is stopped, temperature equalization
TEMPERATURE IN WELLS
31-3
Fig. 31.1-Average annual temperature, OF, for the period 1899 to 1938. lsolines are drawn
through points of approximate equal values.
begins, but considerable time, usually several months, is
required to approach temperature equilibrium. In
temperature surveys of wells, such temperature ir-
regularities can be confused with an anomaly caused by
some operating condition. Normally, however, the ir-
regularities in the gradient resulting from normal
operating conditions are small and the abnormal condi-
tion being investigated, such as a hole in the casing, fluid
migration behind the pipe, or cement top, is of such size
or character that there is no uncertainty as to cause.
The actual temperature at depth is very important in
many problems in drilling, production, and reservoir
work. Drilling mud is often adversely affected by high
temperature. The type of cement and additives are deter-
mined by the temperature at the casing seat or zone of in-
terest. In oil reservoirs, the amount of gas in solution,
the bubblepoint, and the viscosity are all related to the
temperature, as is the amount of condensate formed and
CONTOUR VALUES ARE IN
DEGREES PER 100 FEET
MEAN SURFACE TEMP. 74-F
Fig. 31.2-Contour map of geothermal gradients in southwest U.S
TEMPERATURE INCREASES *
TABLE 31 .I-AVERAGE HEAT CONDUCTIVITY OF
COMMON SEDIMENTS (Btu/hr-sq ft-OF)
Rock salt
Anhydrite
Dense lime
Sand
Shale
36
;02
16
12
the amount that remains as a liquid wetting the reservoir
rock. The volume of gas per unit of reservoir rock and
the supercompressibility of the gas are also related to the
actual temperature.
Temperature Surveys
A temperature survey of a well is made either by running
the thermometer continuously at a slow speed or by stop-
ping it for a short time at regular intervals. For a survey
through a long interval of hole, a continuous run is often
preferred, while for a short interval numerous stops of 1
to 2 minutes are made. Temperature readings should be
taken through the interval of interest, while running the
thermometer in and while pulling up. Both runs should
be at the same speed or at the same stops to determine
more accurately the depth of any anomaly. On runs made
very slowly, 2 to 5 ftimin, the actual thermal lag may be
too small to warrant surveying the opposite direction.
When a survey is started at a given rate, that rate should
not be changed during the survey. To do so will cause a
change in gradient or anomaly on the chart that may
mask an actual anomaly or change in gradient in the
well. Since the temperature chart is not available until
the survey is completed and the thermometer is removed
from the well, thorough notes that record time and depth
of the instrument are required to correlate temperature
and depth.
Fig. 31.3-(a) Example gradient gas flow. (b) Example
gradient fluid flow.
The location of a temperature change on a temperature
survey is, in most cases, much more significant than the
actual temperature or the amount of change in
temperature. Normally, the temperature gradient in a
well is reasonably uniform, and any deviation is in-
dicative of an abnormal condition at that depth. The
deviation may be an irregularity or anomaly in an other-
wise uniform gradient, or it may be merely a change in
the gradient. The primary causes of temperature change
in a wellbore are expansion of gas, hydration of cement,
and migration of fluid. Expansion of liquids in producing
wells and heat of solution and chemical reaction are
often present, especially in drilling wells, but the net ef-
fect on the temperature in the borehole is normally too
small to be recognized. Gas expansion will cause an
anomaly on the gradient, and migration of fluid will
cause a change in gradient.
ducing. When the tubing tail is below the producing in-
terval, any gas produced that travels downward to the
bottom of the tubing, then up the tubing past the ther-
mometer, mixed with any other fluid that may be flow-
ing into the wellbore, will mask anomalies that exist at
the producing interval. With this type of completion, the
tubing must be shut in and the annulus allowed to pro-
duce with the thermometer being run in the tubing. If a
packer is set or, for other reasons, the well cannot be
produced through the annulus, the survey can be run
after the well is shut in. A temperature survey on a shut-
in well relies on gas cooling by expansion to lower the
temperature of that part of the formation producing gas
below that of the formation not producing gas. Some
time is required for the temperature to equalize, and a
temperature survey run long enough after shut-in to com-
plete afterflow will record lower temperatures in the
principal intervals of gas production. A sequence of runs
through the interval will permit a more reliable
interpretation.
The lowest interval producing gas can be identified
from a temperature survey by the cooling effect through
the intervals producing the free gas and the return to the
normal gradient below. Water-producing intervals can
be determined only if enough free gas is produced with
the oil to give a change in gradient at the lowest interval
producing oil.
A hole in the casing through which fluid is moving can
usually be found by running a temperature survey. In ad-
dition to the depth of the hole in the casing, the depth of
the formation, which is the source of the migrating fluid,
and the depth of the formation into which the fluid is
moving must be determined when a hole is known or
suspected to exist.
Gas expanding as it enters the borehole from the reser- A permeability or injectivity profile of a water-
voir formation is much cooler than the adjacent forma-
injection well can be determined from a temperature
tions, and therefore the particular intervals from which
survey. A typical temperature survey of a water-injection
the gas is flowing can be identified by a temperature
well with a homogeneous formation shows a cooling
survey (Fig. 3 1.3A). A typical temperature survey con-
across the injection interval (Fig. 31.4). Two procedures
ducted in a well producing minimal or no gas can be
are used to obtain injection-well temperature surveys.
identified by a temperature survey (Fig. 3 1.3B). Greater
After injecting water for a period of time, injection is
detail will be recorded if the thermometer is run across
discontinued and, after a few hours, the survey is run. A
the open hole or perforated sections while the well is pro-
more reliable answer would be expected from a series of
TEMPERATURE IN WELLS
TEYPERATURE I NCREASES -
INJECTING WATER
STATIC
12 HOUR SHUT-I N
\
YJ ECTI ON ZONE \
\
\
- -,
\
1
Fig. 31.4-Water-injection gradient.
surveys at intervals of a few hours. Continued injection
for many months can cool the entire formation and make
it difficult to identify the relative injection capacity of the
different parts. Under some conditions, another method
that may give more detail is to discontinue injection for a
day or more, then run a survey while injecting water at a
very low rate, such as 1 to 5 bbl/hr. Because of the
residual variations of temperature from normal water-
injection operations, a survey before injection is recom-
mended for comparison.
If water were channeling from below, the temperature
survey would show a warmer anomaly at the base of the
producing interval (Fig. 31 S). Fig. 31.6 shows ideal-
temperature curves for various conditions of migration of
fluid through a hole in the casing. Certain assumptions
were made in drawing these ideal curves. Where gas is
migrating, some expansion and, therefore, cooling is
presumed as the gas leaves the formation. Also, it is
assumed there will be a drop in pressure and, therefore,
expansion and cooling at the depth of the hole in the cas-
ing. If there is no expansion at either point, the curves
for gas would have the same appearance as the curves for
31-5
TENPERATURE I NCREASES -
2 HOUR SHUT - I N
PRODUCING ZONE
MELED ZONE
!
\
Fig. 31.5-Fluid channel gradient.
liquid. In cases where both formations are either above
or below the casing hole, the movement of fluid from the
hole to the farthest formation will mask any gradient be-
tween the hole and the nearest formation.
There are times when the volume of migrating fluids is
not sufficient to affect the temperature. Gas leaking
through a small hole in the casing will cause a very sharp
temperature drop, but the volume may be too small to af-
fect the gradient. Migration of fluids behind the casing
will create a lower rate of temperature change than the
normal gradient. If the flow is upward the gradient
temperature will be higher than the normal gradient, and
for downward flow the gradient temperature will be
lower.
Preparation of the well is essential for a successful and
reliable interpretation of the survey results. Usually the
maximum anomaly is of the order of 2F, and under less
than optimal conditions the anomaly may be so small or
so masked that a reliable interpretation is impossible. In
these instances, the use of an electrical surface-recording
differential thermometer may be the only method of ob-
taining a successful survey.
Normal Temperature Gradient
-Formation from which fluld is migrating
-Formation into which fluld is migrating
(A] Gas migrating upward
(6) L!qud migrating upward
(C) Gas mtgrat,ng downward
(0) Liqwd migrating downward
(E) Gas rmgratmg downward to casmg hole, then up
(F) Llquld migrating downward to cas.mg hole. then up
(G) Gas m,grat,ng up to casmg hole. then down
(H) Liquid migrating up to casing hole, then down
Fig. 31.6-Ideal-temperature curves of fluid migrating through casing hole.
Casing-leak and channeling-of-fluid temperature
surveys are run with the well shut in. The shut-in time
must be long enough for the entire wellbore to approach
an even temperature gradient. A minimum of 24 hours
should be allowed. However, the shut-in time required
should be determined from past experience, type of
problem to be identified, and location. Gas production
and water production intervals are located with the well
flowing at the maximum practical rate. If the survey can-
not be run while flowing the well, the time interval be-
tween shutting in the well and running the survey may be
critical. All afterflow must have ceased, but not so long
as to allow the temperature to approach the normal gm-
dient, which would mask any anomaly.
A temperature anomaly can be created by injection of
fluid, usually oil or water, when normal conditions will
not give a temperature change. Examples of this are
identifying a channel below the producing interval and
locating a packer or tubing leak by pumping cool fluids.
The data required for this graph usually are obtained on
successive openhole logging runs and allow an approx-
imation of static BHT.5 Although this Homer-type
analysis is not mathematically correct, when assuming
short circulating times the technique provides reliable
estimates of static temperature. This technique is most
applicable in regions of high geothermal gradient, where
log-recorded temperatures can be significantly lower
than the static temperature.
Drilling Wells
In drilling deep wells or wells that encounter high The hydration of cement is an exothermic reaction,
temperatures, especially in excess of 250F, a xepresen- and sufficient heat is generated that the presence of ce-
tative bottomhole temperature (BHT) is required for ment behind a string of casing can be determined by a
selection of a proper mud program, cement, and ad- temperature survey for up to several days after cement-
ditives to ensure proper cementing of the casing. In ing. The character of the anomaly at the top of cement in
development drilling, temperature data from neighboring a particular field is fairly uniform but varies greatly in
wells can be used in estimating the BHT of a new well. different fluids. The anomaly may be a large, sharp in-
In exploration drilling, an estimation of the BHT may be crease (Fig. 31.7A) in some cases 35 to 45F, or it may
all that is available. Unless offset data are available a be a very slight increase in gradient (Fig. 31.7B).
geothermal gradient must be assumed that will permit
estimation of the BHT.
A technique exists for determining static BHTs by
plotting on semilog paper T,, vs. (tk + At)/At where
T
ws
= bottomhole shut-in temperature measured at
At, OF,
tk = circulation time, hours, and
Ar = time after circulation ceases or shut-in time,
hours.
TEMPERATURE INCREASES
>
TEMPERATURE INCREASES
-t
Fig. 31.7A-Effect of cement behind casing on temperature
gradient.
Fig. 31.7B-Effect of cement behind casing on temperature
gradient.
TEMPERATURE IN WELLS 31-7
The principal influence on the survey is the time
elapsed between placement of the cement and running
the survey. Other influential conditions include fineness
of cement, chemical composition, rate of hydration,
mass of cement in place, and the thermal conductivity of
the adjacent formation. The maximum temperature
usually occurs 4 to 9 hours after cementing, but reliable
data can be determined in most areas after 48 hours. Any
temperature change is affected more by the rate of hydra-
tion than by the total amount of heat liberated. Although
hydration continues indefinitely, the rate decreases
rapidly from the peak. A washed-out section of hole may
be responsible for a large, sharp increase in temperature
and can indicate a false cement top. A small temperature
change or slight change in gradient could be caused by a
small annular area or dilution of the cement with drilling
mud. These factors, which influence the size of the
temperature anomaly at the top of the cement in a given
well, vary widely in their effect. However, even under
an unfavorable combination enough heat is generated to
permit a determination of the cement top.
A new cased-hole logging method exists for detecting
vertical flow outside the casing resulting from faulty ce-
ment. The radial differential temperature (RDT) log
measures variations in temperature in the plane of the
casing radius on the inside of the casing.6 Normally,
two sensors are used, placed 180 apart; one sensor may
be used at the wall of the casing and the other sensor in
the body of the tool. An anchor spring at the top of the
logging tools prevents the entire tool from turning as the
sensors rotate. A motor rotates the tool at a speed of one
revolution every 4 minutes. The RDT logging tools are
designed to allow attachment of a perforating gun, which
can be adjusted to perforate into the suspected channel or
abnormality located by logging,
If a channel is suspected in a perforated well, the well
should be produced long enough to ensure that channel
fluid is being produced before running the RDT log. The
RDT sonde is placed at depths in the well where the
channel is suspected. The arms are extended and the in-
strument revolves once or twice. Before moving to
another depth the arms are retracted. As many
measurements as required to delineate the channel can be
made on one run. In some cases better results are ob-
tained by injecting fluids at the surface to cool the
channel.
Temperature surveys can be used to locate depth of
lost circulation in an area where formations above the
depth of drilling are known to have taken fluid. The
temperature survey will show a sharp increase in
temperature immediately below the point of loss of fluid.
The temperature break will be even greater if slow losses
are occurring while running the survey. At times when
the hole is considered dangerous, the survey can be run
through open-ended drillpipe over the suspected interval.
Summary
Wellbore temperature surveys are an inexpensive
method to determine problem well conditions. The data
obtained from a temperature survey are often the only
data available and usually are accurate and reliable.
When an anomaly occurs, one of these conditions must
exist: (1) expansion of gas, (2) migration of fluid, or (3)
some type of chemical reaction. With the exception of
measuring the actual temperature at a point in a
wellbore, temperature surveying is highly qualitative. In
the majority of surveys, consistency of procedures, past
experience, and the engineers ingenuity allow reliable
information to be collected and unique analyses to be
performed. Since no quantitative relationship between
temperature and depth exists that covers all areas and
sedimentary basins, an assumed gradient of 1 to 2F/lOO
ft depth is appropriate.
References
I. Heald, K.C.: Study of Earth Temperatures m Oil Fields on An-
ticlinal Structures. Bull. 205, API, Dallas (1930) I.
2. Leonardon, E.G.: The Economic Utility of Thermometric
Measurements in Drill Holes in Connection with Drilling and
Cementing Problems, Geophysics (1936) 1, 115.
3. Van Orstrand. C.E.: Normal Geothermal Gradient in the United
States, Bull., AAPG (1935) 19, 79.
4. Nichols, E.A.: Geothermal Gradients in Midcontinent and Gulf
Coast Oil Fields, Trans. AIME (1947) 170, 44-50.
5. Dowdle, W.L. and Cobb, W.M.: Static Formation Temperature
From Well Logs-An Empirical Method, J. Per. Tech. (Nov.
1975) 1326-30.
6. Cooke, C.E. Jr.. Radial Differential Temperature (RDT) Log-
gmg - A New Tool for Detecting and Treating Flow Behind Cas-
ing, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1979) 676-82.
General References
Romero-Juarez. A. : A Simplified Method for Calculating
Temperature Changes in Deep Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1979)
763-68: Trirrzs., AIME. 267.
Smith. R.C. and Steffensen. R.J.: Interpretatwn of Temperature Pro-
files in Water-Injection Wells.J. Pet. Ted. (June 1975) 777-83:
Trmu.. AIME. 259.
Wooley. G.R.: Computing Downhole Temperature in Circulation.
Injection, and Production Wells, J. Pet. Tevh. (Sept. 1980)
1509-22.
Chapter 32
Potential Tests of Oil Wells
J.D. Kimmel, Oilcovery Inc.*
Richard N. Dalati, Cockrel l Oi l Corp.
A potential test is a simple production test under stabil-
ized flowing conditions to determine the ability of a well
to produce. Potential or production tests are used to
determine the rate of production through a given size of
choke. This production rate and GOR then are used to
determine if the well is capable of producing the as-
signed daily allowable production rates.
Production-rate tests are conducted on a well so that its
producing capabilities can be determined and a record of
its producing abilities maintained. The results of these
tests are used in diagnosing and evaluating a producing
well. Their impottance cannot be overemphasized since
they are used in every phase of reservoir and equipment
analysis in which a knowledge of the productivity of the
reservoir is essential. The test results aid in determining
the parameters shown in Table 32.1.
Production tests usually are considered part of routine
field operations. Because they are performed on every
type of producing well, a standard method of procedure
that would cover every well cannot be set forth in detail.
In many cases, the method or procedure for obtaining the
results desired is left to the engineers initiative and judg-
ment and, in many cases, ingenuity.
In every production test an initial understanding of the
equipment employed and the method of completion, and
a general knowledge of the producing reservoir and the
results of previous tests on the well or on comparable
wells will greatly simplify the testing procedure and aid
in obtaining the desired results.
Potential or production rate tests generally are required
periodically by most state regulatory bodies in the U.S.,
such as the Texas Railroad Commission and the Loui-
siana Dept. of Conservation. The state regulatory
bodies, authorized by the various states to control the
production of oil and gas, set up a daily allowable or
maximum rate at which each individual well may be pro-
duced. The well and reservoir conditions are considered
in setting up this maximum producing rate. Usually one
other condition is involved in setting the producing
allowable: the produced or re$ned oil and gas storage or
market capacity. These regulatory bodies meet
periodically and set a maximum number of producing
days for a given period. The allowable is specified in two
ways: the maximum amount of oil that can be produced
each day and the maximum number of days each set
period (usually 1 month) that this maximum daily
allowable may be produced.
It is a responsibility of the engineer or person in charge
to set up and supervise the proper testing of all producing
wells. When the production is controlled by state
regulatory bodies, it is also the responsibility of the
engineer or person in charge to find out the requirements
set up by these regulatory bodies as to the proper method
for testing and reporting the tests on producing wells.
The importance of testing and information required to
be supplied to the state regulatory agencies cannot be
overlooked. Form W-2 of the Texas Railroad Commis-
sions Oil and Gas Div. is an example of the information
required (see Fig. 32.1).
As a general rule in Texas and Louisiana, the daily
allowable is determined by the producing horizon of the
well, but there are exceptions to this rule. The reservoir
characteristics, previous reservoir performances, and
completion procedures are considered before a definite
allowable is set for the well. The general case in Texas is
covered by a depth allowable set up in 1947. These
allowables are set up for wells completed in proven areas
and known reservoirs.
Texas Allowable Rule
The Texas Allowable Rules of 1947 and 1965 were
based on producing depth and well spacing. These are
normally referred to as yardsticks. In 1966, another
yardstick was established for offshore only (Table 32.2).
32- 2
TABLE 32. 1- DETERMI NATI ONS FROM TEST RESULTS The allowables set up by the state regulatory bodies
are not necessarily the proper rate to produce the wells.
The producer should work very closely with the reservoir
engineers and geologists to see that the test data, along
with all other information available, are used to deter-
mine the most efficient producing rate of the well or
reservoir.
a.
9.
10.
I l .
Opti mal or maxi mum ef f i ci ent producti on rates.
Correl ati on and i denti f i cati on of produci ng hori zons.
Resul ts of recovery methods.
Esti mates of oi l and gas reserves; f or exampl e, gauged
rate producti on decline vs. time.
Decl i ne trends and perf ormance producti ons i n the abi l i -
ty of the reservoi r to produce.
Qual i tati ve determi nati ons of gas and/ or l i qui d contacts.
Determi nati ons rel ati ve to arti f i ci al l y i mposed harmf ul
wel l bore or reservoi r condi ti ons such as gas or water
coni ng, sandi ng or bri dgi ng acti on, and paraf f i n
deposi ti ons.
Anal yses and compari sons of wel l - compl eti on practi ces
and equi pment.
Perf ormance of and compari son between subsurf ace
wel l equi pment and i nstal l ati on pri nci pl es.
Anal yses and compari sons of arti f i ci al l i f ti ng practi ces
and equi pment.
Determi ni ng the necessi ty of and eval uati ng the resul ts
of remedi al measures.
The allowable given a well completed in a new field or
new reservoir is called the Discovery Allowable: It is
usually set up on a producing-depth basis. This
allowable is for a certain period of time or until a certain
number of wells are completed into the reservoir. For ex-
ample, in Texas the onshore discovery allowable is for a
24-month period or until the 11 th well is completed into
the reservoir. The offshore discovery allowable is for an
l&month period or until the sixth well is completed into
the reservoir. The discovery allowable in Texas is set up
as in Table 32.3.
When several companies produce from the same reser-
voir, it is common procedure to combine their knowl-
edge and arrive at a maximum efficient producing rate
(MER).
It is permissible for a company to request a change of
allowables to conform more closely to the MER as deter-
mined by the companys engineers. Before any change in
the allowables is made by the regulatory bodies, a
meeting or hearing of all the companies involved in pro-
ducing from the reservoir is proposed. At this time all the
information available is evaluated to determine if a new
and different allowable is warranted. This new allowable
(to conform more to the MER) usually involves a reduc-
tion in the normal allowable set up by the regulatory
body.
Productivity Index (PI)
It is desirable to be able to assign to a producing well a
quantity that indicates the wells ability to produce. It
was once a common occurrence to open the well up
and measure the amount of production under wide-open
flow. Today it is realized that wide-open flow of an oil or
gas well can be very harmful to future well conditions.
Fi g. 32. 1- Sampl e regul atory agency f orm.
POTENTI ALTESTS OFOI LWELLS 32- 3
TABLE 32. 2- ALLOWABLE YARDSTI CK SCHEDULE
47 Yardsti ck 65 Yardsti ck' 66Of f shore"
Depth ( f t) 10 20 40
0 to 1, 000
1, 000 to 1, 500
1, 500 to 2, 000
2, 000 to 3, 000
3, 000 to 4, 000
4, 000 to 5, 000
5, OOOto 6, 000
6, oooto 7, 000
7, 000 to 8, 000
a, oooto 8, 500
8, 500to 9, 000
9, 000 to 9, 500
9, 500 to 10, 000
10, 000 to 10, 500
10, 500 to 11, 000
11, 000 to 11, 500
11, 500 to i 2. 000
12, 000 to 12, 500
12, 500 to 13, 000
13, 000 to 13, 500
13, 500 to 14, 000
14, 000 to 14, 500
14, 500 to 15, 000
18 28
-
27 37 57
36 46 66
45 55 75
54 64 84
63 73 93
72 82 102
81 91 111
91 101 121
103 113 133
112 122 142
127 137 157
152 162 182
190 210 230
-
225 245
-
225 275
-
290 310
10 20
- -
21 39
21 39
21 39
22 41
23 44
24 4%
26 52
28 57
31 62
34 68
36 74
40 81
43 88
48 96
-
106
-
119
-
131
40 80
74 129
74 129
74 129
78 135
84 144
93 158
102 171
111 184
121 198
133 215
142 229
157 250
172 272
192 300
212 329
237 365
262 401
- 330 350 - 144 287 436
- 375 395 - 156 312 471
- 425 445 - 169 337
- 480 500 - 181 362
- 540 560 - 200 400
- - - - - -
1965 yardstick effective tt field d!scovered aiter Jan 1, 1965
1966 offshore yardstick efiective Jan 1. 1966
Wide-open flow may cause water or gas coning, influx
of sand into the wellbore, collapse of tubing or casing,
and/or many other harmful results.
The ability of a well to produce usually is determined
by use of the PI. The use of the PI was first mentioned by
Moore in 1930. In a 1936 paper M.L. Harder states that
the relative ability of a well to produce shows the PI to be
superior. 2
API states in Recommended Practice for Determining
Productivity I ndices3 that the PI is calculated from the
observed production rates and subsurface pressure
measurements obtained. Special applications and
modifications by the user to conform to individual re-
quirements and conditions are normally used. The
following discussion of PI is not meant to cover all ap-
plications but only to show how the PI may be used.
By definition, the PI is equal to the barrels per day of
stock-tank oil production per pound force of pressure dif-
ferential between the wellbore opposite the producing
horizon and the static reservoir pressure, which is the
average pressure of the well drainage area. Therefore,
the PI is, in barrels of oil produced per day per psi
decrease in reservoir pressure, the difference between
the average pressure in the drainage area of the well and
the flowing bottomhole pressure (BHP) of the well. Ac-
cording to the accepted concepts of flow, the rate of flow
in a system containing a single fluid under steady-state
conditions should be directly proportional to the pressure
drop. Using this concept, the PI would be the slope of
the line resulting from plotting the rate of flow against
pressure drop. On such a plot the wide-open flow quanti-
ty or well potential would be measured at the maximum
pressure drop available. Such a case is referred to as the
ideal PI. Observed values of production rates vs.
pressure differentials do not give straight lines. PI data
on nonflowing wells are usually more linear than the data
506
543
600
-
160 40
238200
238 200
238 200
249 245
265 245
288 275
310 305
331 340
353 380
380 420
402 420
435 465
471 465
515 515
562 515
621 565
679 565
735 620
789 620
843 675
905 675
1, 000 735
-
735
80 160
. - -
330 590
330 590
330 590
360 640
400 705
445 785
490 865
545 950
605 1, 050
665 1, 150
665 1, 150
730 1, 260
730 1, 260
800 1, 380
800 1, 380
a75 1, 500
875 1, 500
950 1, 625
950 1, 625
1, 030 1, 750
1, 030 1, 750
1, 115 1, 880
1, 115 1, 880
on flowing wells. Experience has shown that the line will
be curved. This is because PI is defined to occur under
steady or pseudosteady-state flow conditions. The cur-
vature results because pB is not constant if the flow is
single phase and/or gas evolution or water coning exists
around the wellbore - i.e., relative permeability effects.
PI is higher than theoretical when calculated erroneously
before pseudosteady-state flow exists. PI is meaningless
unless the radius of wellbote damage is fixed - i.e.,
pseudosteady-state flow is established. The flow of com-
pressible fluids (oil and water) into a wellbore after the
drainage area has been established is, strictly speaking,
described by a pseudosteady-state flow equation.
TABLE 32. 3- DI SCOVERY ALLOWABLES
Interval of
Depth
( f u
0 to 1. 000
1, 000 to 21000
2, 000 to 3, 000
3, 000 to 4, 000
4, 000 to 5, 000
5, 000 to 6, 000
6, 000 to 7, 000
7, 000 to 8, 000
8, 000 to 9, 000
9, 000 to 10, 000
10, 000 to 10, 500
10, 500 to 11, 000
11. 000to 11, 500
11, 500 to 12, 000
12, OOOto 12, 500
12. 500to 13, 000
13, 000 to 13, 500
13, 500 to 14, 000
14, 000to 14, 500
Dai l y Wel l
Al l owabl e
WI )
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
210
225
255
290
330
375
425
480
540
32- 4
However, some people in the oil industry describe the
flow by a Darcy-type equation, which is referred to as
steady-state flow. The difference in the flow rates deter-
mined from the two equations is very small. We discuss
PI by use of both the steady-state and pseudosteady-state
flow equations.
Steady-State Flow
For a radial system under steady-state flow, the equation
giving the flow rate is
where
40 =
k=
h=
Pe =
Pwf =
;I I
r, =
r, =
S=
oil production rate, STB/D,
permeability of formation, md,
thickness of formation, ft,
pressure at the effective drainage radius re
normally approximated by PR,
average reservoir pressure in drainage area,
psi,
flowing BHP, psi,
oil viscosity, cp,
oil formation volume factor, RB/STB,
effective drainage radius, ft,
wellbore radius, ft, and
skin effect (zone of reduced or improved
permeability), dimensionless
The term equivalent to the PI is
JLL
7.08x10-3kh
Ap /1,B,[ln(r,/r,)+s] .
(2)
IO3
PERMEABI LI TY, md
Fi g. 32. 2- PI - permeabi l i ty correl ati on.
where J is the PI, STBID-psi, and AJJ is the pressure dif-
ference between p e and p wf, psi.
In analyzing the PI, it can be seen that it is a function
of the formation characteristics, k and h, the fluid
characteristics, pLo and B,, and the system charac-
teristics, h, re, r,,,, and s.
Specific PI
The term specific PI is frequently used and usually
means the PI per foot of pay. When the term specific
is used, it is necessary to state why. The productivity
could just as well have been made specific to any other
variable in Eq. 2.
Well systems do not operate at any time under steady-
state conditions, but they do under pseudosteady-state
conditions. Oil, water, and gas are compressible fluids;
therefore, only pseudosteady-state occurs. Thus, we can-
not expect Eq. 2 to yield exact correlation. The primary
correlation sought has been with permeability so that the
PI could be predicted from core analysis. An example of
an early correlation is given by Fig. 32.2. 4
Oil flowing into a wellbore will practically always
seem to enter the wellbore from a formation of lower
permeability than the homogeneous fluid value deter-
mined in the laboratory. In many cases the relative
permeability to oil at interstitial water saturation is one.
What actually happens is that the permeability measured
in the laboratory is too high because the confining
pressure is lower than in the reservoir.
Muskat states that the PI should not be used to
predict production of high differential pressures by sim-
ply multiplying the PI by the pressure drop of interest.
He states that it is doubtful that calculated potential tests
would agree with actual tests. The relative comparison
should reflect the comparative production capacity with
fair approximation. The PI times reservoir pressure
equals the open flow potential.
Muskat also states that the productivity index is an ex-
cellent tool to determine well problems such as:
1. Comparison before and after well treatments IO
evaluate these treatments. J should increase.
2. Stable GOR, R, with a declining J indicates plug-
ging of wellbore.
3. R increasing markedly without decline in J indicates
entry of extraneous gas. This would be the same if R
changes with various production rates and J stays
constant.
4. Rapid increase in water production should bring a
decline in J if water is entering through typical strata
within oil pay. If 1 is maintained, this should indicate the
water is not coming through the oil-producing strata.
5, Decline of J should take place during normal reser-
voir depletion and parallel the normal growth of GOR or
water/oil ratio (WOR). If not, plugging of the wellbore
should be considered.
These are guidelines for further investigation.
Theoretical PI
Muskat and Evinger6 first showed that a theoretical PI
could be worked out using the steady-state formula as
developed for a radial system flowing oil and gas. By
POTENTI AL TESTS OF OI L WELLS 32- 5
such a system it can be shown that the J for a given well
system can be expressed in terms of three parameters: (1)
the producing GOR, (2) the pressure gradient in the well
system, and (3) the absolute reservoir pressure.
It can be shown that for the steady-state flow of oil and
gas in a radial system, the following equation expresses
the rate of oil flow.
7.08~10-~ kh
40=
In re/rw +s
s
PR k,/k
-dp, . . . . . . . . (3)
pi PoBo
where k, is effective permeability to oil.
The integraI
0 Pw l.OC+JPe 2,000 Pw Pe 3.m
PRESSURE. psia
s
PR k,/k
-4
py hobo
Fig. 32. 3- Pl ot f or determi ni ng PI f or di f f erent GOR s.
can be evaluated using Fig. 32.3.
The PI is, therefore,
J =40=
7.08~10-~ khA,
pe -pwf (p, -p,fHW,~~,)+4
for a non-circular drainage area.
From Eq. 6 the actual PI is
7.08x 10 -3 kh
J =
fi,B,(ln X-0.75+s)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4)
where A, is the area under the curve.
By using Fig. 32.3 and the definition of the PI, it can
be seen that I will not double if (p, -p,,,& is doubled
because the area under the curve will not double. Also
pe is determined by reservoir conditions and cannot be
varied. Note that for a definite value of (p, -pwf) taken
at a high absolute pressure, J will be greater than for the
same (p, -pg) taken at a lower pressure because the
area under the curve will be greater.
It is not readily apparent, but can be shown, that J
depends on the producing GOR, R. A simple explanation
is that an increase in R means that the oil saturation is
less, thus k, is smaller. In Fig. 32.3, the curves labeled
R t , RI, and R3 are for different GORs with R, >
R2 > R3.
Pseudosteady-State Flow
The steady-state equation is used frequently; however,
this would only apply if the pressure at the outer radius
stayed constant, which would only happen if a complete
pressure maintenance program were maintained. If the
well has a closed boundary or is operating with an
established drainage radius, then pseudosteady-state
flow occurs. The pseudosteady-state equation is
40=
7.08~10-~ kh (PR-p,,,,)
. . .
.(5)
p$,[ln(r,/r,)-0.75+s]
for a circular drainage area and
pOB,(ln x-O.75 +s)
. .@I
where x is a factor for noncircular drainage area and well
location.
Most reservoir engineering flow equations assume
radial geometry. This assumes the drainage area of the
well is circular and the well is located in the center. Ex-
perience has shown that in many cases the drainage area
of the well is rectangular, triangular, or other shapes. As
stated previously, the PI, J, is a function of the system
characteristics, which can be applied to the productivity
index. Sha functions can be determined by reservoir
limit tests.
r
Van Everdingen originally defined the skin effects as
the additional resistance concentrated around the
wellbore that result from the drilling and completion
techniques employed. 9 This skin effect detracts con-
siderably from a wells capacity to produce. More
recently the skin effect is also used to indicate improved
permeability around the wellbore that results from
acidizing and/or fracturing. The skin effect can be de-
fined as
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(7)
where
r, = radius of area around the wellbore affected
by skin effect, ft,
k = formation permeability, md, and
k, = permeability of area around the wellbore
affected by skin effect, md.
The skin effect, s, normally is determined from
pressure transient analysis. The reader is referred to
Chap. 35, Well Performance Equations, for a detailed
treatment of skin effect.
32- 6 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
The aim of the production engineer is to make the PI,
J, as high as possible; the equation for J indicates this
may be done by several ways that include:
1, Remove the skin effect through acid treatment or
the use of various completion or drilling fluids, depend-
ing on the formation.
2. Increase the effective permeability by fracturing or
propping.
3. Reduce the viscosity by formation heating.
4. Reduce formation volume factor, B, , by production
techniques and surface separation system.
5. Increase the well penetration, h, by completing
across the entire producing formation. Care should be
taken not to complete across a zone of excessive gas or
water production.
6. Reduce the ratio re/rw. Since it appears as a
logarithmic tey4 this has little influence. Underreaming
is seldom considered as a means of well stimulation.
The above equations should indicate that the most im-
portant step in determining and analyzing the perfor-
mance of any well, especially flowing wells, is to deter-
mine the well production rate for any given flowing
BHP.
It is now readily apparent that to compare a PI of a
well it is necessary to know what is being compared,
which includes the permeability, sand thickness, well
radius, drainage radius, fluid characteristics, and flow
relations. A comparison should also be made on reser-
voir pressure and pressure drawdown for a similar GOR.
The standard procedure for conducting PI tests mainly
consists of following the directions that have been set
forth in the procedures for conducting static and flowing
reservoir pressures and gauged-rate production tests. The
most popular wireline pressure gauge is the Amerada
recording pressure gauge.
In some cases, the use of artificial-lift equipment
prevents the passage of subsurface gauges; therefore,
other means must be found for determining these
pressures. It is possible with the use of sounding
devices-i.e., Echometer or Sonolog - to determine the
liquid level. Knowing the liquid level, the static or flow-
ing pressures can be approximated by gradient and depth
calculations.
Care should be exercised in determining the static and
flowing pressures to be sure they are the equilibrium
pressures. If there is any doubt regarding the equilibrium
conditions, two or more pressure readings should be
made several hours apart to be sure they are the same.
Some formations stabilize in one hour but most take four
to 24 hours. Tight formation could take several days. In
determining the actual J, the flowing rates should have
wide enough variation to compensate for any errors in
measurement.
When artificial-lift equipment is used, the gauged pro-
duction tests for determining the J must be lower than the
production limitations of the lift equipment.
Methods of determining production rates are: (1)
stock-tank measurement; (2) portable well testers, in-
cluding batch-type meters, positive-displacement
meters, turbine meters, and flow meters; and (3) sta-
tionaty test equipment.
Stock-Tank Measurement
The oldest and most widely accepted means of determin-
ing the amount of liquid produced by an oil or gas well is
the manual gauging of the production in stock tanks. A
single well producing into a tank battery presents no
testing problems, as it is a simple process to measure the
liquid in the stock tanks at the start of the test and the liq-
uid in the stock tanks at the end of the test. Most tank
batteries are arranged so that one well may be tested at
the battery while the other wells are being produced.
This requires, of course, the addition of a test separator
in addition to the production separator and also sufficient
stock-tank volume so that no commingling of the pro-
duction is required. A separate gas run and meter would
also be required for measurement of the gas produced
while the well is on test. If this meter run is not
available, a portable orifice well tester could be used.
If testing facilities are not available at the lease, it is
necessary to shut in the entire lease while individual
wells are being tested into the tank battery. In the latter
case, it is usually better to use portable test equipment to
determine the production rate.
Before the production test is started, with stock tanks
as a means of measurement, it is necessary to determine
the amount of basic sediment and water (BSSrW) at the
bottom of the tank, in addition to the liquid level at the
start of the test. If at all possible, stock tanks should be
clean, since errors may be introduced in determining
BS&W. Dirty stock tanks can cause the tank tables to be
in error. If possible, produced water should be produced
and gauged in separate stock tanks.
After gauging the test tank or gun barrel, the usual pm-
cedure would be to proceed to the separator, check and
record the operating pressure, and on large-volume
separators, if the well being tested has a low productivi-
ty, record the liquid level in the separator. The choke
size at the wellhead should be carefully determined and
if there is a question, the choke should be checked and
calibrated.
If a treater or heater is used, its operating
characteristics should be noted so that any conditions not
uniform may be considered on the gauged production
test. All tests should be made after the production has
stabilized and under conditions that are as uniform as
possible. No change should be made at the wellhead or
tank battery during the duration of the test.
Standard tests should range from 24 to 168 hours in
length, depending on the well and reservoir character-
istics. All data should be observed and recorded at less
frequent intervals. The time between intervals will vary
depending on the length of test. In cases where short
tests (6 to 8 hours duration) are necessary, consecutive
data recordings should be made hourly.
Tests should be for 24 to 168 hours duration so that
fluctuations in the GOR, as a result of heading tenden-
cies and temperature variations, may be considered and
the test results averaged. It is not uncommon to observe a
40 to 50F temperature variation between night and day
atmosphere and to observe a 10 to 20% variation in the
gas/liquid ratio. Recognizing these facts, it becomes
necessary to measure the temperature of either the liquid
or vapor section of the separator.
The preferred location to obtain the temperature would
be in the flow line immediately before the separator.
This latter temperature would more nearly reflect the ac-
POTENTI AL TESTS OF OI L WELLS 32-7
FLOATE
77+&i/ r 20 r WATER OUTLET
1
ET
OIL LLC
WAT
Z&WELL FLUID
WATER OUTLET
&$#$~OIL;UTLET
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
(II Degassing element
(2) Mist extractor (vane-type)
(3) Relief valve
(4) Safely head (optional)
(5) Elkpt~cal manway
(6) 011.dump valve
(7) Water-dump valve
(6) 011 meter
(9) Water meter
(IO) Check valves
(11) Strainers (optional)
(12) Plug Yalws
(13) Pressure gauge
(14) 011 outlet-wew nipple (removable)
(15) Interface LLC pIlot
(16) 011 LLC pIlot
(17) Water outlet (from separator)
(18) Gas outlet (from separator)
(19) Orifice fittmg (optmnal)
(20) Gas back-pressure valve
(21) Liquid-level sight glasses
(22) Trailer assembly
Fig. 32. 4- Trai l er- mounted three- phase well tester wi th PD meters.
tual liquid-phase temperature prior to the flash liberation
process.
The production should be sampled each time the data
are recorded during the production test. This interval
sampling is very necessary if storage facilities are such
that the water produced must be disposed of as it is pro-
duced. Refer to Chap. 17 for sampling information.
Wells that produce with a high WOR should always be
tested at length because of the usual uneven oil-
producing rate.
Depending on the separation pressure and the
characteristics of the crude for shrinkage, some con-
sideration should be given to determining the amount of
gas produced that is not measured by the gas meter but is
vented from the stock tanks.
Points to check to ensure the accuracy of stock-tank
gauges include:
1. Correct and accurate strapping table is used with the
test tank.
2. No dents or damage has occurred to the stock tank
since strapping table was made.
3. Tank is clean with no encrustations or deposits on
the walls.
4. If foamy crude is being produced the liquid level
will be almost impossible to determine correctly with a
gauge tape. Chemical addition or settling time may be
required to minimize the foam.
5. BS&W at bottom of tank is determined as accurate-
ly as possible before and after the test.
6. Gauge tape must not be kinked and plumb bob must
be carefully touched at the bottom of tank.
7. Temperature of oil in the stock tank must be
considered.
8. The oil level must be steady and undisturbed while
a gauge reading is taken.
Portable Well Testers
The trend toward unitization and centralization of tank
batteries has increased the demand for a means of deter-
mining production rates without requiring the installation
of additional expensive stock tanks and test separators.
The requirements are being solved by the use of well
testers.
The well tester is a combination separating and
measuring unit for oil, water, and gas. The well tester
can be either two or three phase, can be used for penna-
nent installation, or can be skid or trailer mounted for
portable operation (see Figs. 32.4 through 32.8). The
well tester may utilize several types of meters for both
liquid and gas measurement. Note that the two-phase
testers (Figs. 32.5 and 32.8) are not fitted with liquid
level controllers (LLCs), but are blanked so LLCs can
be added in the field for three-phase testing.
Each established class of metering equipment has sur-
vived and advanced in the petroleum industry today
because it fits a definite need in the metering field. Each
type has won its place in the petroleum industry by
fulfilling the requirements of certain applications better
than any other type. Selection of the type of meter used
on a well tester may be determined by the user, based on
the application of the well tester and the limitations and
capabilities of the meters available (see Table 32.4 for
various sizes and working pressures of standard well
testers). Remember that it is better to have a unit that has
the capacity to test (pressure and flow capacity) so that
modifications to the test can be minimized.
Capacities are based on steady continuous flow for a
24-hour period. Fluid retention time is as follows.
0 to 600 psi = 1 minute.
600 to 1,000 psi = 50 seconds.
More than 1,000 psi = 30 seconds.
32-8
-8
FLUI D
\T
U U
, -
FRONT ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
Fi g. 32. 5- Trai l er- mounted two- phase wel l tester wi th PD meter
NOTE. INTERFACE FLOAT
MUST BE WEIG
SINK IN OIL ANU tMU
PLAN
-
WELL FLUID
INLET
-5
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
(1) B?gasswlg element
(3) Relief valve
(4) Safety head (optional)
(5) Elliptical manway
(6) OIldump valve
(7) Oil meter
(6) Check valves
(9) Strainer (optional)
(10) Plug valves
(11) Pressure gauge
(12) Oil outlet (from separator)
(13) Gas outlet (from separator)
(14) Orifice fittmg (optional)
(15) LLC pilot
(17) Liquid-level sight glass
(19) Auxiliary float nozzle
(I) Degassmg element
(3) Relief valve
(4) Safety head (optIonal)
(5) EllIptical manway
(7) Water meter
(8) 0114nlet motor
(9) 0~1.outlet motor valve
(lo) 011 meter
(11) Pressure gauge
(12) Oil-outlet wer nipple (removable)
(t 3) Water outlet (from separator)
(14) Gas outlet (horn separator)
(I 5) Orlflce iittmg (optional)
(1.5) Interface LLC Plkx
(18) Liqwd-level slght glasses
(19) Gas.sqalIzig llne
(20) Plug valves
(2,) Gas back-presSure YalYe
(22) Check valve
(23) Check valves
(24) Siram?r (+WXMt)
Fig. 32. 6- Trai l er- mounted three- phase wel l tester wi th oi l - vol ume meter and PD meter.
POTENTI AL TESTS OF OI L WELLS
32- 9
NOTE.
, Ll ! ?l
<
3
I NTERFACE
FLOAT MUST
BE WEIGHTED
SECTION%B
TO SINK IN OIL
AND EMULSION
AND FLOAT ONLY
IN FREE WATER
PLAN I----]
-
DRAINSM
FRONT ELEVATI ON
FRONT ELEVATI ON
SIDE ELEVATION
Fi g. 32. 7- Trai l er- mounted three- phase wel l tester wi th batch- type
Ii----l/L17
PLAN
-
- ET
. ET
SIDE ELEVPTION
(1) oegassmg element
(2) Misl extractor (vane-type)
(3) Relief valve
(4) Safety head (optmal)
(5) Elliptical manway
(7) Water-inlet molar valve
(6) Water-outlet motor valve
(9) Water meter
(10) Oil-Inlet motor valve
(11) Oil-outlet motor valve
(12) Oil meter
(13) Pressure gauge
(14) Oil-outlet war mpple (removable)
(15) Water outlet (irom separator)
(16) Gas outlet (horn separator)
(17) Orifice fitting (optlonal)
(18) Interface LLC pilot
(20) Llquld-level slght glasses
(21) Gas-equahzlng llne
(22) Plug valves
(24) Check valves (optional)
(1) DegassIng element
(3) Gas outlet [from separator)
(4) Orifice fItring (optional)
(5) 011 outlet (from separator)
(6) 011 meter
(7) Oil-Inlet mOtOr Valve
(6) Oil-outlet motor valve
(9) Relief valve
(lo] Safety head (optional)
(11) Pressure gauge
(12) Gas-equalizing line
(14) Llquld-level sight glass
(151 Elllptlcal manway
(161 Plug valve
(17) Check valve (apt~onal)
Fi g. 32. 8- Trai l er- mounted two- phase wel l tester wi th vol ume meters.
32-10
Separator Si ze
Shel l
Length
Shel l Seam to
OD Seam
( i n. )
( f i )
16 6
24 6
30 6
36 7
48 7
16 6
24 6
30 6
36 7
16 7
20 7
24 7
30 7
14 7
16 7
20 7
24 7
12 7
14 7
16 7
20 7
12 7
14 7
16 7
20 7
Maxi mum
Worki ng
Pressure
( Psi )
125
125
125
125
125
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
1, 200
1, 200
1, 200
1, 200
1, 800
1, 800
1, 800
1, 800
2, 400
2, 400
2, 400
2, 400
TABLE 32. 4- WELL- TESTER SPECI FI CATI ONS
Rated Separator Capacities
Two-Phase
Separati on
Oi l Pl us
Water
( B/ D)
500
1, 200
1, 800
2, 800
4, 800
500
1, 200
1, 800
2, 800
500
850
1, 200
1, 800
400
500
850
1, 200
300
400
500
850
300
400
500
850
Gas Oi l Water
(M Mscf/D) ( B/ D) ( B/ D)
1.6 500- 250
3. 6 1, 200 600
5. 5 1, 800 900
8. 0 2, 800 1, 400
14. 0 4, 800 2, 400
3. 5 500 250
7. 7 1, 200 600
12. 5 1, 800 900
17. 0 2, 800 1, 400
5. 5 500 250
8. 3 850 425
12. 5 1, 200 600
19. 0 1, 800 900
6. 1 400 200
7. 7 500 250
11. 4 850 425
16. 5 1, 200 600
5. 5 300 150
6. 8 400 200
8. 0 500 250
12. 2 850 425
5. 3 300 150
6. 5 400 200
8. 0 500 250
12. 4 850 425
The type of fluid to be tested must be considered in
determining the retention time. If the crude foams, the
necessary retention time for the gas to break out of solu-
tion may be 5 minutes or longer. For three-phase separa-
tion, additional retention time may be required for the oil
and water separation depending on the type of emulsion
produced. Many times the addition of heat and/or
chemicals is required to produce proper separation of the
oil and water or gas and oil. Well testers are available in
low working pressures that utilize either electric or gas-
fired heaters to heat the well fluid and improve the
separation processes. The meter used must be of suffi-
cient metering capacity not to limit the capacity of the
well tester. Working pressures are available up to 4,000
psi.
The listing in Table 32.4 of sizes and capacities of
standard well testers is not complete but may be used as a
guide to determine the approximate size and capacity of
the unit required for your specific testing purpose.
The types of meter available for use on well testers are
(1) batch-type meters, (2) positive-displacement meters,
and (3) flow meters, including standard and mass flow
meters.
Batch-Type Meters
The batch-type meter works by means of cyclic ac-
cumulation, isolation, and discharge of predetermined
volumes. Each dump volume is registered on a counter.
The counter reading is then multiplied by the dump
volume to determine the total measured volume.
When metering vessels such as batch meters are used
to measure liquid hydrocarbons, four factors must be ob-
Three- Phase Separati on
Total
Li qui d
Oi l Pl us
Water
W)
500
1, 200
1, 800
2, 800
4, 800
500
1, 200
1, 800
2, 800
500
850
1, 200
1, 800
400
500
850
1, 200
300
400
500
850
300
400
500
850
Gas
( MMscf l D)
1 . o
2. 2
3. 5
5. 1
8. 7
2. 1
4. 9
7. 5
11 . o
3. 3
5. 0
7. 5
12. 0
3. 8
5. 0
6. 5
9. 1
3. 5
4. 3
5. 5
7. 0
3. 4
4. 2
5. 3
7. 0
Approxi mate
Wei ght
( I br?$
1, 200
1, 500
1, 700
2, 300
41600
1, 900
2, 200
2, 400
2, 800
2, 600
2, 800
3, 000
3, 200
2, 900
3. 100
31400
3, 600
3, 000
3, 400
3, 800
4, 100
3, 500
4, 000
4, 500
4, 800
tained and maintained:
1. An unchanging volume in the metering vessel must
be maintained consistently. This means that there can be
no foreign material deposited in the vessel and that the
vessel itself must not change shape or size.
2. Exact upper and lower dumping levels must be ob-
tained and maintained in the metering vessel. These
dumping levels must be the same for each cycle.
3. Proper valve arrangement must be maintained so
that no liquid may slip through the vessel without being
metered. The valve or valves should be arranged so that
there is a period of time at the beginning and end of each
cycle during which both the inlet and outlet to the meter-
ing vessel are closed at the same time. This assures that
no unmetered fluid will slip through the metering vessel.
4. An appropriate and accurate meter factor must
be used to compensate for temperature change of the liq-
uid, shrinkage (volume reduction) of the liquid resulting
from pressure reduction, mechanical metering error of
the metering vessel, and BS&W content of the liquid.
These various factors are usually combined into one
factor known as the meter factor or meter
multiplier. These meter factors are usually less than
1.0. In other words, the meter normally reads higher
than the net stock-tank volume.
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Batch-Type Meters
1. A metering vessel can be used as i ts own meter
proving tank if the vessel is inspected for encrustation,
the dumping levels are observed during operations, and
valves are checked for leakage.
POTENTIAL TESTS OF OIL WELLS 32-11
TABLE 32.5-NOMINAL RATED CAPACITY OF VOLUME-TYPE DUMP METERS
Barrel s per di scharge
Meteri ng capaci ty,
bbl / 24- hr day
0.25 0.5 1 . o
300 500 720
2. A metering vessel will handle more sand and other
foreign material without causing trouble than the
positive-displacement (PD) meter.
3. A metering vessel will meter from zero flow to
maximum rated rate of flow with the same degree of
accuracy.
4. Weight-type (hydrostatic-head) metering controls
may be used to meter foaming oil.
5. The unit may be adjusted while in operation.
6. Free gas will not register as liquid if the controls
should fail to function.
7. Initial and installation cost is slightly higher than
with the PD meter.
8. The meter delivers an intermittent discharge of
liquid.
9. Gas is requited to displace the liquid from the
vessel.
10. Paraffin buildup on the vessel wall will cause
inaccuracies.
11. The meter requires more space and is heavier than
a PD meter.
12. With heavy viscous crudes a larger inlet or dif-
ferential pressure arrangement between the separator and
metering vessel may be required to maintain the rated
capacity.
Nominal rated metering capacity of various sizes of
volume-type dump meters under normal field conditions
is given in Table 32.5. Pressure ratings are up to 3,ooO
psi. Volume meters are not used for gas measurement.
PD Meters
PD meters are quantitative instruments. They are termed
positive-displacement because some sensing element
is forcibly or positively displaced through a measuring
cycle by the hydraulic action of the fluid on the ele-
ment. l1 For a completed measuring cycle a known
quantity is displaced by the sensing element. It is
necessary to count the number of cycles and multiply
them by the displacement volume to get the total liquid
quantity that has passed through the meter. This latter
function is carried out by the meters gear train and
register.
Fig. 32.9 shows the basic types of PD meters: nutating
disk, oscillating piston, oval gear, rotary vane,
reciprocating piston. and bi-rotor.
Probably 80 to 90% of all PD meters in service today
are of the nutating-disk type. They are most popular
because of the relative simplicity of the construction,
ruggedness, accuracy over a wide range, and low cost.
The accuracy of the nutating-disk type meter is not as
high as that of the PD meters of the other types.
Advantages and Disadvantages of PD Meters
1. Discharge of the metered liquid is continuous.
2. PD meters can be used to meter exceptionally
viscous liquids.
2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
1,440 2,000 4,000 8,000 15,000
3. PD meters do not require gas to displace the fluid
through the meters.
4. Initial and installation cost is lower.
5. Temperature compensation can be applied with cer-
tain types of PD meters less expensively than with batch-
type meters.
6. Paraffin may not reduce metering accuracy.
7. Liquids metered must be free of gas, since slugs of
gas may damage or wreck the meter. Gas will register as
fluid when passing through a PD meter.
8. Sand, mud, salt, or other foreign particles will
cause wear on the PD meter and cause inaccurate meter
readings.
9. Some type of meter-proving process is required to
prove PD meters periodically. Actual stock-tank gauges
are used in many cases to determine the accuracy of the
meter.
10. Meters must be operated between a minimum and
maximum specified rate of flow. High or low rates of
flow may affect the accuracy of the PD meter.
PD meters are available in pressure ratings to 5,000
psi. Capacities of PD meters depend on the size and type
of meter. If possible the manufacturer of the PD meter
should be requested to furnish information regarding the
NUTATING DISK OSCILLATING PISTON
OVAL GEAR
RECIPROCATING PISTON
-
EL
0
ROTARY VANE
Bl-ROTOR
Fig. 32.9-Basic types of PD meters.
32- 12
TABLE 32.6-AVERAGE CAPACITY
FOR NUTATING-DISK-TYPE PD
METERS
Capacity
Size
(B/D)
( i n. ) Mi ni mum
Maxi mum
5/ B to J / i 68 340
Yi 102 510
1 170 850
1% 342 1, 710
2 548 2, 740
Average Capacity for Nutating-Disk Type PD
Meters. The average rates shown in Table 32.6 are
based on oil as the fluid being metered. The manufac-
turer should always furnish information about recom-
mended capacity. When PD meters are used downstream
of separators or vessels that arc not continually dumping,
it is necessary to size the meter on the maximum rate
of discharge while the vessel is dumping.
PD meters are used in some cases for gas measure-
ment The types used are the bellows and birotor. High
cost and size have held the use of PD meters for gas
measurement to a minimum.
Turbine Meter
Today most liquid measurement is done by the use of
turbine meters. A turbine meter is a flow rate measuring
device which has a rotating element that senses the
velocity of the flowing liquid. t2 This liquid causes the
rotating device to rotate at a velocity proportional to the
volumetric flow. The movement of the rotating device is
sensed either mechanically or electrically and is
registered. The actual volume is then compared to the
registered readout to arrive at a meter or register factor
(see Figs. 32.10 and 32.11).
The turbine meter is used because of its simplicity and
costs. Each meter application will require different meter
or register factors.
Considerations in the selection of turbine meters in-
clude (1) properties of the liquid to be metered-viscosi-
ty, density, vapor pressure, corrosiveness, and
lubricating ability; (2) operating conditions, including
pressure, flow rates and whether continuous or intermit-
tent, temperatures (some meters have temperature com-
pensators), and quantity and size of abrasive particles in
the fluid; and (3) space availability (see Fig. 32.12).
Items or conditions that normally affect the meter factor
are shown in Table 32.7. Both turbine and PD meters
should be connected so that meter factors may be
periodically determined.
(I) Upsiream stator
(2) Upstream stator supports
(3) Bearings
(4) Shaft
(5) Rotor hub
(6) Rotor blade
(7) Downstream stator
(6) Oownstrearn *tator supports
(9) Meter housing
(10) Pickup
(11) End connectlorw
Fig. 32.10-Names of typi cal turbi ne meter parts.
(2) Prsssure gauge (optional)
(3) Filter, au eliminator and/or strainer as required
9
( 1
,j 7i Ii
*.1ew
.
I
+q +
I?
e+ ;<I t Mfp&.Tl; y
(4) Straight pipe
(5) Straightening vane (as required)
(6) Turbtne meter
I=
(7) Straight pipe (with straghtening vane as required)
- <> :.
+
, (8) Pressure gauge
,h
sl 6 $ hgf 4 (9) Thermometer
(IOJ Proving connections (should be downstream of meter run)
(IIJ Valve with double-block and bleed or valves wth a telltale bleed
(12) Control valve (as required)
(131 Check valve (as required)
Fig. 32.11-Turbine meter systemschemati c.
POTENTI AL TESTS OF OI L WELLS 32- 13
fxF=
-
Fi g. 32. 12- - Schemati c operati on di agramof oi l wel l producti on meter i nstal l ati on wi th stock tank or
open prover.
Flowmeters
The standard-type flowmeters are: orifice plate, Venturi
tubes, flow nozzle, Pitot tube, drag body, and lift sur-
face. These meters or devices are used to create a flow-
ing differential pressure. This flowing differential
pressure is used to solve the flow equation for the rate of
flow.
Orifice plate, Venturi tube, flow nozzle, and Pitot tube
are commonly used. Drag body and lift surface arc not as
familiar. The net force resulting from a pressure dif-
ference is measured. This pressure difference is used to
solve the flow equation. If the force is parallel to the
flow direction, the force is called drag body. If the
force is perpendicular to the flow direction, the force is
called a lifting surface.
In addition to differential pressure drop, six other fac-
tors must be considered and included in the integration to
determine a basic flow rate or quantity. They are (1)
static pressure, (2) flowing temperature, (3) specific
gravity of the flowing quantity, (4) size of orifice run,
(5) size of the orifice plate if orifice plate is used to
create the differential pressure, and (6) supercom-
pressibility, if applicable.
These factors may be considered by the solving of the
flow equation or they may be applied as a multiplying
factor applied to the meter reading.
Mass Flowmeter. In about 1942, W.J.D. VanDijik of
The Netherlands constructed and evaluated the first mass
flowmeter, as such. The mass flowmeter measures the
quantity of matter passed through the meter. This mass is
independent of all ambient conditions, which is not true
of volumetric meters discussed previously. If any type of
flowmeter mentioned above is compensated in any way
(electrically, mechanically, or a combination of both) for
fluid density, it is a mass flowmeter. As early as 1930,
pressure and temperature compensators could be at-
tached to a standard orifice meter. They were mass
flowmeters, in a true definition of mass flowmetering,
although they were not called by that name.
On well testers, and for measurement of produced
water, oil, and gas, it is most common to use turbine,
PD, and batch meters for liquid measurement and the
standard orifice meter for gas measurement. Mass
flowmeters may be used for both gas and liquid measure-
ment. Because of the cost and special requirements for
technicians to operate and maintain these meters, they
are seldom used in field operations.
Automation and remote readout requirements can be
accomplished with the use of well testers in much the
same way as with automatic custody units. The liquid
measurement may be relayed by pneumatic or electrical
impulses to a transmitter. These impulses i n turn may ac-
tuate some type of recording unit at a central location.
The gas measurement would require some type of
pressure transducer to convert the differential pressure to
an electrical signal. More often, when remote recording
of gas flow is required, an integrating flowmeter is used
and the transmitted signal will read in volumetric units.
Fig. 32.13 shows a well tester installed at a tank bat-
tery for permanent test or lease automation.
Stationary Metering Installation
Stationary metering installations are those that include
metering separators, metering treaters, and any other
TABLE 32. 7- CONDI TI ONS AFFECTI NG THE METER
FACTOR
1. Mechani cs of meter as to tol erances.
2. Change i n cl earance due to wear or damage.
3. Fl owrates and vari ati ons i n f l ow.
4. Temperatures of l i qui ds.
5. Vi scosi ty of l i qui ds.
6. Pressure of l i qui ds.
7. Pressure drop across the meter as a resi stance to f l ow.
8. Forei gn materi al l odged or deposi ted i n the meter or
connecti ng pi pi ng.
9. I nl et condi ti on changes, such as changes i n the
entrance to the meter, whi ch change the f l owi ng f l ui d
prof i l e.
10. Lubri cati ng properti es of the l i qui d.
11. Accuracy and condi ti ons of meter- provi ng systemand
meter- f actor test.
32- 14 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
Fi g. 32. 13- Uni ti zed or automati c tank battery.
type of meter used in conjunction with test separators or
emulsion treaters. These units are installed as an integral
part of the tank battery.
The metering separator combines two functions of
separating and metering the produced fluid (see Figs.
32.14 and 32.15). The metering separation is divided in-
to one compartment for separating the liquid and the gas
and into one or two other compartments for metering the
RELIEF VALVE
MIST EXTRACTOR
SEPARATING CHAMBER
GAS EQUALIZING LINE
INLET SEPARATING
ELEMENT
GAS BOIL INLET -
BAFFLE PLATE-
PRESSUREGAUGE
INTERFACE LLC
WITH WEIGHTED
OIL-WATER
INTERFACE
ERT
I ,., I I I
OIL-METERING CHAMBER
COUNTER,
oil and water. PD meters may be used for metering all
produced fluids.
Pressure ratings range to 3,000 psi. Capacities will be
the same as shown for standard oil and gas separators in
Chapter 12. The metering capacity will be as shown for
the type of meter used.
GOR
The GOR may be defined as the rate of gas production
divided by the rate of oil production. It is usually ex-
pressed as standard cubic feet of gas per barrel of stock-
tank oil produced under stabilized flowing conditions for
a 24-hour period.
The term cubic feet of gas or standard cubic feet
of gas means the volume of gas contained in one cubic
foot of space at a standard pressure base and standard
temperature base. This standard base is normally 14.65
psia and 60F. Most tables published for orifice well
testers, Pitot tubes, flow provers, and other gas measure-
ment means are referred to a base pressure of 14.65 psia
and 60F temperature. Whenever the conditions of
pressure and temperature vary they may be converted to
a standard or base condition by the use of the real gas
law.
The volume of gas used should be the total gas pro-
duced from the reservoir through either the casing or tub-
ing. Any gas that is injected back into the reservoir for
artificial lifting purposes such as gas lift should be sub-
tracted from this total gas produced.
(j p &;$j&; OLJTLET
YTr_,
SAFETY HEAD
RELIEF VALVE
SIDE VIEW OF METERING
COMPARTMENT
(OIL OR WATER)
GAS EOUALIZING LINE
MIST EXTRACTOR
GAS EOUALIZING LINE
SEPARATING C
WELL FLUID IN
BAFFLE PLATE
PIPING -
COPPER TUBING --
OPTIONAL ITEMS l
COMPARTMENTS
lNTERFC= ( r
WATER t
WATER-
METER11
FOR
-s
PRESSUREGAUGE
~~~~~~~~~~~
COUNTER
COUNTER ACTUATOR
Fl g. 32. 14- Meteri ng separator wi th f ree water knockout. Fl g. 32. 15- Three- phase meteri ng separator wi th i ntegral
meteri ng compartments. Gauge gl asses and val ves
are f urni shed f or separati ng chamber and both
meteri ng chambers. Automati c BS&W sampl es can
be f urni shed as an opti on.
POTENTIAL TESTS OF OIL WELLS
32-15
The volume of oil produced should be determined by
any of the means discussed in the first part of this
chapter.
Procedures for Well Testing
Flowing Wells. The oil flow should be stabilized during
the 24-hour period immediately preceding the test. This
stabilized flow should be very close to the assigned
allowable or the daily producing rate. If the well being
tested is a discovery well, the producing rate should be
as close to the assigned discovery allowable as possible.
Any adjustments should be made during the first 12
hours of the stabilization period and no adjustment made
during the last 12 hours or during the time the well is on
test. All gas withdrawn from the reservoir must be in-
cluded as produced gas. If the oil has a great deal of
shrinkage after it is placed in the stock tanks, some
means should be considered for measurement of the gas
that breaks out of solution. Any gas used for operation of
machinery or for any other purpose must be considered
as produced gas. Tests should range from 24 to 168
hours duration to consider any uneven flow.
Intermittent Flowing Wells (Stopcocked). The pro-
cedure for testing should be as outlined for flowing
wells, except the shut-in casing and tubing pressures
should be approximately equal to the pressures recorded
at the beginning of the test. The Texas Railroad Com-
mission states, The closed-in casing pressure at the end
of the 24-hour test period shall not exceed the closed-in
casing pressure at the beginning of the test by more than
six-tenths (0.6) pounds per square inch per barrel of oil
produced during the test. This rule also applies to flow-
ing wells. This is true because of the loading
characteristic of some wells while shut-in. Before an ac-
curate test can be made the flow must be stabilized and
stabilization cannot occur while producing from a loaded
annulus or tubing.
Gas-Lift or Jetting Wells. The volume of gas used
should be the net produced gas or formation gas. Forma-
tion gas will be equal to the total gas produced minus the
injection gas.
Pumping Wells. In computing the GOR for pumping
wells, the total volume of gas produced during the
24-hour period, ending with the closing in of the well at
the conclusion of the tests, and the total barrels of oil that
are produced in order to obtain the daily allowable must
be used regardless of the actual pumping time in the
24-hour period. If the gas produced is not enough to
measure accurately, this should be indicated on the test
report as gas too low to measure.
In some states the regulatory agencies will lower the
assigned allowable of the well if the daily or producing
allowable is not produced while making GOR tests.
Average GOR
To obtain an average GOR for several wells or for all the
wells in a field, one cannot take the arithmetic average
value of the ratios. For example, two wells with GORs
of 2,000 and 4,000 would not necessarily have an
STOCK TANK CUMULATIVE+
Fl g. 32. 16- Typi cal perf ormance curve f or
an i nternal gas- dri ven reservoi r.
average ratio of 3,000. For the average ratio to be 3,000
the wells would have to produce the same amounts of
oil. The average GOR of several wells must be obtained
by dividing the total gas production of all wells involved.
For example, if the 2,000-ratio well produced 50 B/D oil
and the 4,000-ratio well produced 200 B/D oil, the
average GOR for the two wells would be
R=(2,000X50)+(4,0tXlx200)
50+200
=3,600 cu ftibbl.
For a large number of wells, the average ratio can be
figured as
& wiw Xqhv)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cqi,
(8)
where
i? = average GOR, cu ftlbbl,
R
1w
= individual well GOR, cu ft/bbl, and
4iw
= individual well daily production, STBID.
Cumulative GOR
The cumulative GOR is defined as the total amount of
gas produced and kept from the reservoir up to a ceflain
time divided by the cumulative oil produced up to the
same time. Therefore,
Rp=
G,-G
-, . ..I....I....................
NP
'(9)
where
R, = cumulative GOR, cu ft/bbl,
G, = total gas produced, cu ft,
G = gas reinjected, cu ft, and
NP = total oil produced, bbl.
GOR as a Criterion of Reservoir
Performance
The producing GOR is often used as an indication of the
efficiency of a producing well, and the increase in the
ratio is looked on as a danger signal in the control of the
reservoir performance. The GOR should be kept as low
as possible (see Fig. 32.16). The area under the curve,
shown as the surface ratio, will be the total amount of
produced gas. This is by the previous definition of
32- 16
GOR.This shows that maintaining the GOR as low as
possible will increase the cumulative production for the
same amount of produced gas.
Consider the internal-gas-drive reservoir. As oil is pro-
duced from the reservoir the space is taken over by gas
volume. The presence of gas within the reservoir
decreases the ability of oil to flow and increases the abili-
ty of gas to flow. After a certain minimum gas saturation
(about 5 to 10%) is exceeded, the ease with which gas
flows increases to such an extent that it flows concurrent-
ly with the oil. This process continues until finally the
only flow is almost all gas. This allows the reservoir
energy to escape and causes the reservoir to cease pro-
duction by natural means. Fig. 32.16 shows how the
stock-tank cumulative production almost ceases as the
reservoir/GOR increases.
40 =
5.427~IO-~kh(p,-p,,~)
. . . . @,[ln(r,lr,,,)+s]
J2!?=
5.427x 10-4kh
Ap ~oB,[ln(r,/r,,)+.~] ..t..
(2)
where
q. = oil production rate, m3/d
k = permeability of formation, m2
h = thickness of formation, m
pe = pressure at the effective drainage radius I,,
normally approximated by PR , kPa
p,+,f = flowing bottomhole pressure, kPa
B, = 011 formation volume factor, res mJiSTm+
t, = effective drainage radius, m
r,
= wellbore radius, m
s = skin effect (zone of reduced or improved
pwmeability), dimensionless
J = productivity index (PI), m3 I(d.kPa)
References
I. Moore, T.V.: Definitions of Potential Productions of Wells
Without Open Flow Tests, Bull.. API, Dallas (1930) 20.5.
2. Harder, M:L.: Productivity Index, API, Dallas (May 1936).
3. API Recommended Practice fir Determining Productivity Indices,
API RP 36, first edition, API, Dallas (June 1958).
4. Calhoun. J.C. Jr.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, E-
vised edition, U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman (19.53).
5. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, Intl.
Human Resources Development Corp., Boston (1981).
6. Muskat. M. and Evinger, H.H.: Calculation of Theoretical Pro-
ductivity Factor, Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 126-39.
7. Odeh, A.%: Pseudosteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity
Index for a Well With Noncircular Drainage Area, .I. Pet. Tech.
(Nov. 1978) 1630-32.
8. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reser-
voir Limit Tests, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1971) 1266-75; Trans..
AIME, 251.
9. van Everdingen, A.F.: The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the
Productive Capacity of a Well, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1953)
171-76; Trans., AIME, 198.
IO. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir fkgineering, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co.. New York Cite (1978).
-
I I. Measurement of Petroleum Liquid Hy~rocarbotu by Positive
Displacement Meter, API Standard 1101, first edition, API,
Dallas (Aug. 1960).
12. Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, API, Dallas (1961)
PO
= oil viscosity, Pa 1 s
Chap. 5.
Chapter 33
Open Flow of Gas Wells
R.V. Smith, Petroleum Consuitant*
Introduction
The gauging or testing of gas wells arose from the need
to measure the productive capacity of a well. The earliest
response to this need was to open the well to flow to the
atmosphere and then to measure the flow rate. However,
it soon became apparent that such practices were
wasteful of gas, dangerous for personnel and well equip-
ment, and frequently damaging to the reservoir. In addi-
tion, such tests provided very little information for
estimating production rates into a pipeline. As a result,
the practice of gauging gas wells by opening the well to
flow to the atmosphere decreased and now is almost
completely confined to stripper gas areas where
pressures are very low and the rates of flow are small.
Pitot-Tube Gauging of Low-Pressure Wells
The pitot tube is one of the simplest instruments for
measuring the rate of flow of gas. As such, the pitot has
been used extensively to obtain an approximate gauge of
the open-flow capacity of low-pressure gas wells. The
well is opened to flow to the atmosphere through a flow
nipple, and the producing rate is measured with a pitot
tube. The producing rate is influenced by the hydrostatic
head of the column of flowing gas and the friction be-
tween the flowing gas and the walls of the flow string.
Thus the observed rate of flow to the atmosphere may be
a very close measure of the ability of shallow low-
capacity reservoirs to deliver gas into the wellbore.
However, it may be more nearly a measure of the flow
capacity of the flow string in the case of a well producing
from a high-capacity reservoir. This is especially true
where the flow is through a small-diameter flow string.
Historically, gauging of wells with pitot-tube
measurements has been useful in the drilling and com-
pletion of low-pressure gas wells. During the drilling of
many wells in the Hugoton field of Kansas, Oklahoma,
and Texas, it was the practice to take pitot gauges after
The author also wrote the original chapter on this topc fn the 1962 edItIon
every bailer run or at the end of each 5 ft of formation
drilled. Upon completion, data were available to con-
sttuct a chart showing a relationship between the rate of
flow and depth. The chart is useful in determining the
depth of the major gas-producing zones. Such data were
valuable in planning remedial work that may be
necessary during the life of the well. Pitot-tube gauges
were useful in determining rate-of-flow increases
resulting from each stage of acid treatment. In many
cases the pitot-tube gauge after acid treatment provided
data from which the desired flow rates for a backpressure
test could be selected.
Fig. 33.1 shows a pitot-tube and flow nipple arrange-
ment that is suitable for gas measurement. The pitot tube
should be made of %-in-ID pipe shaped to measure im-
pact pressure at the center and in the plane of the opening
of the flow nipple. The flow nipple should be at least
eight pipe diameters long, free from burrs or other
obstructions, and must be round. The impact pressures
are measured with water or mercury manometers or a
pressure gauge, depending on the pressure to be
measured.
The impact pressure is converted to rate of flow by
suitable equations or tables such as those published by
Reid. Subsequent experimental work by the USBM* is
in reasonable agreement with the Reid data. The equa-
tions published by Reid were investigated by Binckley, 3
who concluded that they were based on sound theoretical
principles. Reids equations and tables have been ad-
justed to a pressure base of 14.65 psia for the purposes of
this handbook. The adjusted equations for impact
pressures less than 15 psig are
~/,~=34.81~&* K, . . . . . . (1)
qa =1284d; Jh, , . . . . (2)
and
y,C=183.2dt &, .___ _. _____. _. ___.. (3)
TO MANOMETER
ORPRESSURE
GAUGE CONNECTION
L=8di
Fig.33.1-Typical flow nipple and pitot tube for gas
measurement.
where
qx
= rate of gas flow, Mcf/D (14.65 psia and
fjoF),
dj = ID of flow nipple, in.,
h,. = height (manometer reading), in. water,
h,, = height (manometer reading), in. mercury, and
pi = impact pressure, psig.
For impact pressures more than 15 psig, the adjusted
Reid equation is
q&, =23.89d?p, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4)
where p, is impact pressure, psia. Values of rates of
flow for various impact pressures are given in Table 33.1
for a flow nipple with an ID of 1.000 in. Rates of flow
in Table 33.1 were computed by Eqs. 1 through 3. The
range of impact pressures is from 0.1 in. of water to 15
psig. Rates of flow for impact pressures from 15 to 200
psig were computed by Eq. 4 and are given in Table 33.2
for a flow nipple with an ID of 1.000 in. Impact pres-
sures measured on larger flow nipples can be converted
to rates of flow by multiplying the rate of flow from the
table corresponding to the impact pressure by the square
of the ID (in.) of the larger nipple.
Rates of flow taken from Tables 33.1 and 33.2 or com-
puted by Eqs. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are for gases with a specific
gravity of 0.600 (air = 1 .OOO), flowing temperatures of
60F, and for discharge into an atmospheric pressure of
14.65 psia. Corrections can be made when desirable by
multiplying values from the equations or tables by the
following factors.
J
0.600
F,= -
YR
and
J
520
FT=
(460+ Tf)
where
F, = specific gravity correction factor,
YY
= specific gravity of gas being measured,
air= 1.000,
FT = flowing-temperature correction factor, and
Tf = temperature of flowing gas, F.
The atmospheric-pressure correction factor for values
from Table 33.1 and Eqs. 1, 2, and 3 is
Fbar =
J
Pa
-
14.65
where Fbar is barometric correction factor and pa is at-
mospheric pressure, psia. The value of pressure used for
p, in Eq. 4 is the absolute pressure and is computed by
adding the barometric pressure to the gauge pressure.
The correction factor for barometric pressure for Table
33.2 is
Fbar =
Pi +Pa
pi + 14.65
In ordinary usage, rates of flow are taken from pitot
tables or formulas without correction.
Example Problem 1. Given an impact pressure of 27.2
in. of water on a flow nipple with ID~2.441 in., deter-
mine the rate of flow.
Rate of flow from Table 33.1 for ID = 1 .OOO = 182
Mcf/D.
Rate of flow for ID = 2.441 in. is
q,=182(2.441)2=182x5.958=1,080Mcf/D.
Or, by Eq. 1, the rate of flow is
=(34.81)(5.958)(5.215) = 1,080 McfiD.
Example Problem 2. Given an impact pressure of 65 psig
on a flow nipple with ID=4.082 in. with discharge into
a barometric pressure of 13.2 psia, determine the rate of
flow.
Rate of flow from Table 33.2 for ID of 1 .OOO and at-
mospheric pressure of 14.65 psia is 1,904 Mcf/D.
For ID of 4.082 in. and barometric pressure of 13.2
psia, the rate of flow is
qg = 1,904(4.082)*(65+13.2)/(65+14.7)
=(1,904)(16.663)(0.9812)=31,100 Mcf/D.
OPEN FLOWOFGASWELLS
Or by Eq. 4.
qs =23X9(4.082)*(65+ 13.2)
=31,100 McfiD.
Backpressure Testing
Before the development of the backpressure method for
testing gas wells, the open-flow capacities of gas wells
were determined by actual open-flow tests. The flow-
ing of wells at their wide-open rate results in waste and
possible damage to the well. In addition, the open-flow
33-3
test yields very little information regarding the capacity
of a well to deliver gas into a pipeline system.
The backpressure method of testin gas wells was
developed by Rawlins and Schellhardt.
9
Results of tests
on 582 wells as reported in their study and other work on
many wells reported elsewhere show that when the rates
of flow are plotted on logarithmic coordinates against
corresponding values of (pi -p,,,,)-the difference of
squares of the shut-in pressure FR and the flowing sand-
face (bottomhole) pressure (BHP) p,f-the relationship
may be represented empirically by a straight line.
TABLE 33.1-RATES OF FLOW FOR IMPACT PRESSURES LESS THAN 15 PSIG
MEASURED WITH A PITOT TUBE FOR FLOW NIPPLE WITH ID = 1 .OOO in. *
Impact Pressure
qg, IO3 cu ft/D
Impact Pressure
Water Mercury (14.65 psia Water Mercury
q,,103 cu ft/D
(14.65 psia
(in.) (in.) psig and 60F) (in.)
On.) (Psig)
and60F)
-~-
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
11 .o 10.9
15.6 12.0
19.1 12.2
22.0 13.9
24.6 15.0
0.6
- -
0.7
- -
0.6
- -
0.9
- -
1.0
- -
27.0
29.1
31.1
33.0
34.6
1.25
- -
1.36 0.10 -
1.6 0.12 -
1.6 0.13 -
2.0 0.15 -
38.9
40.6
44.0
46.7
49.2
2.2 0.16 - 51.6
2.4 0.18 - 53.9
2.7 0.20 - 57.2
3.0 0.22 - 60.3
3.5 0.26 - 65.1
4.1 0.30 - 70.5
4.5 0.33 - 73.6
5.0 0.37 - 77.6
5.4 0.40 - 60.9
6.0 0.44 - 65.2
6.6 0.50 - 90.6
6.2 0.60 - 99.7
9.0 0.66 - 104.4
9.5 0.70 - 107.3
10.0 0.74 - 110.1
5.6 - 309
6.0 3.0 314
6.5 - 327
7.0 3.5 340
7.5 - 352
6.0 4.0 363
6.5 - 374
9.0 4.5 365
9.5 - 396
10.0 - 406
10.2 5.0 410
11.2 5.5 430
12.2 6.0 446
13.2 6.5 466
14.3 7.0 466
16.3
17.7
19.0
20.4
21.6
24.5
27.2
29.9
32.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.60
-
0.66
-
0.90
-
1.02 0.5
1.1
-
115
121
122
130
135
1.2
-
140
1.3
-
146
1.4
-
152
1.5
-
157
1.6
-
162
1.8
-
172
2.0 1.0 182
2.2
-
190
2.4
-
199
2.6
-
207
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
-
1.5
-
-
215
222
230
237
244
3.6
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
2.0
-
250
257
263
269
275
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
2.5
-
-
-
261
267
293
296
304
15.3
16.3
17.3
16.3
19.3
7.5
6.0
6.5
9.0
9.5
10
11
12
13
14
15
502
516
522
549
564
20.4
22.4
24.4
26.5
26.5
560
606
634
661
677
710
Multiply rate of flow from fable by the square of the diameter for flow nipples with IDs
mm than 1,DDO ,n
TABLE 33.2-RATES OF FLOW FOR IMPACT PRESSURES.
15 TO 200 PSIG, MEASURED WITH A PITOT TUBE
FOR FLOW NIPPLE WITH ID = 1 .OOO in.
Impact
Pressure
Wg)
15
16
17
18
19
qg, lo3 cu ft/D impact
(14.65 psia Pressure
qg, 103 cu ft/D
(14.65 psia
and 6OOF)
Wg)
and 60F)
710 40 1,307
733
z:
1,426
757 1,546
781 55 1,665
805 60 1,785
20 829 65 1,904
21 853 70 2,023
22 877 75 2,143
23 901 80 2,262
24 925 90 2,501
25 948 100 2,740
26 972 110 2,979
27 996 120 3,218
28 1,020 130 3,457
29 1,044 140 3,697
30 1,068 150 3,935
32 1,116 160 4,174
34 1,163 170 4,412
36 1,211 180 4,651
38 1,259 190 4,890
200 5,129
Multiply rate of tlow from table by the square 01 the
diameter for Row nipples with IDs mere than I.000 in
The backpressure method of testing wells requires that
a series of flow rates and corresponding pressure
measurements be obtained under stabilized conditions or
at certain fixed time intervals. Testing under stabilized
pressure and rate-of-flow conditions or according to a
fixed time interval has become known as multipoint or
flow-after-flow backpressure testing.
As the original backpressure or multipoint method
came into general use, it became evident that the method
of testing was applicable to those wells that approached
stabilized producing conditions within a relatively short
time. However, performance characteristics could not be
determined by this method for wells that approached
stabilized producing conditions slowly over a con-
siderable period. This characteristic of slow stabilization
has been associated generally with wells producing from
reservoirs with low permeability and resulted in the
development of the isochronal method of backpressure
testing by Cullender. 4
The procedure used to obtain the necessary perfor-
mance data for the isochronal testing method is to open
the well from a shut-in condition and allow the well to
flow without disturbing the rate by changing the
mechanical adjustment of chokes or valves for a specific
period of time. The well is then shut in and allowed to
return to a shut-in pressure comparable with that existing
before the well was first opened, after which the well is
again opened at a different rate of flow. In isochronal
testing, each rate of flow starts from a comparable shut-
in condition, which provides a means of maintaining a
simple pressure gradient throughout the drainage area of
the well during testing. The isochronal method of testing
99, lo3 cu ft/D
Fig. 33.2-Multipoint test showing bottomhole performance for
Well 0.
is especially suitable for determining the performance
characteristics of wells producing from reservoirs with
low permeability.
High-Pressure Gas and Gas-Condensate Wells
All the instructions for testing wells in this chapter apply
to gas wells that produce a single-phase gas into the
wellbore or to wells that are predominantly gas wells and
the fluid flowing in the reservoir has a high in-place
gas/liquid ratio (GLR). However, these methods for
testing gas wells have been applied to high-ratio oil wells
with some degree of success.
The chief difference between testing methods for high-
pressure gas and gas-condensate wells and low-pressure
wells is the care used in taking the data and methods used
in computing the results. The effect of liquids is usually
more pronounced in high-pressure than in low-pressure
wells. Consequently, special care should be used to
measure GLRs in high-pressure wells. Often it is
necessary to determine the GLR at each rate of flow dur-
ing a backpressure test. If the ratio was not constant dur-
ing testing, the well probably was accumulating liquid in
the wellbore during testing or unloading liquid. In either
case the test is probably not acceptable and the well
should be cleaned by flowing at a high rate and retested
at rates of flow high enough to keep the well free of
liquid.
Temperature effects during testing of high-pressure
wells may be troublesome in interpreting test results. For
example, Well B (Fig. 33.2) has a shut-in wellhead
pressure of 4,173 psia at a wellhead temperature of
117F. Maximum wellhead pressure was observed 3
minutes after the well was shut in. If wellhead pressure
has been observed for an extended period of time, the
wellhead pressure would have decreased to about 4,140
psia. The decrease in wellhead pressure is caused by the
cooling of the gas in the well. In general, better tests can
be obtained on such large-capacity wells if the testing is
done after a preflow period. The preflow period should
be run long enough to bring wellhead temperatures to a
normal operating range of temperature. Wellhead
OPEN FLOW OF GAS WELLS
temperatures should be recorded during testing at
periodic intervals so that actual measured temperatures
can be used in computing subsurface pressures by
methods outlined under Example 3 in the section on
computing subsurface pressures.
Official Testing
Official testing of gas wells for state regulatory bodies is
usually a multipoint test of short duration. In addition to
the multipoint test, a single rate of flow for a period of 24
to 72 hours is required in some cases. The tester is re-
ferred to the test manuals of the various states, provinces
of Canada, or appropriate countries for exact procedures,
and no attempt is made here to outline official testing.
Backpressure Equations
In either multipoint or isoehronal backpressure testing,
the rates of flow and the corresponding values of the dif-
ference of squares of the average formation (reservoir)
pressure pR and the sandface pressure [bottomhole flow-
ing pressure (BHFP)] p,,f are plotted on logarithmic
coordinates and a straight line is drawn through the
points. The equation for the relationship is
qg =C(F,2 -p,J), . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
where the performance coefficient is represented by C
and the exponent of the backpressure curve by n. The in-
dustry by common usage has referred ton as the slope
of the backpressure curve, even though n is the
reciprocal of the mathematical slope of the line. Here n is
referred to as the exponent of the backpressure curve.
Eq. 5 is an empirical relationship for both the multipoint
test and the isochronal test and has resulted from the
study of results of many tests. Values of the exponent
vary for individual wells in the range of 0.5 to 1 .O. Tests
that result in exponents less than 0.5 or more than 1 .O
should be rerun. Exponents of less than 0.5 resulting
from multipoint tests may be caused by the slow-
stabilization characteristics of the reservoir or by the ac-
cumulation of liquids in the wellbore. Exponents greater
than 1 .O may be caused by the removal of liquid from the
well during testing or by a cleaning of the formation
around the well, such as the removal of drilling mud or
stimulation fluids. Also, a multipoint test run in decreas-
ing rate sequence may have an exponent of more than
1 .O for wells in slow-stabilizing reservoirs. Erratic ex-
ponents in isochronal testing are caused by either ac-
cumulation or cleaning of liquids from around the well.
Erratic alignment of data points from multipoint or
isochronal testing is usually caused by changes in actual
well capacity during testing. Such changes may be
caused by accumulation of liquids or the cleaning of the
wells. The effects of the liquids in the well on multipoint
testing have been given in detail by Rawlins and
Schellhardt.
Eq. 5 represents the capacity of a well to deliver gas
into the wellbore, and it is useful especially in evaluating
reservoir conditions. The capacity of a well to deliver
gas at the wellhead may be represented by
qy =c(p,\? -pl,2)i, . . (6)
33-5
where C, the performance coefficient, and n, the expo-
nent, are different from those in Eq. 5 for a given well.
prs and ptf represent wellhead shut-in (static tubing)
pressure and working (flowing tubing) pressure on the
flowing-gas column at the wellhead, respectively. Eq. 6
is useful especially in estimating the capacity of a well to
deliver gas into a pipeline under specified conditions.
Gas Well Inflow Equation,
Pseudosteady State
Reservoir engineers have realized for many years that in-
terpretation of multipoint and isochronal tests by means
of Eq. 5 gave no insight into the effect of reservoir or gas
properties on the rate of flow into a well. Thus, Eq. 5
proved inadequate for reservoir engineering purposes.
An equation that describes the pseudosteady-state flow
of gas into a well has been presented in the literature. 5-8
It is
qe=
703 x 10-6k,h(& -pwf2)
CL8
t TRZ(lIl reh, -0.75+s+FnDq,) . .
(7)
where
qg =
k, =
h=
PR =
pWf=
Pg =
TR =
z=
re =
rw =
s=
F
nD =
If we let
gas-production rate, lo3 cu ft/D,
permeability, effective to gas, md,
formation thickness, ft,
average reservoir pressure, psia,
flowing bottomhole pressure, psia,
gas viscosity, cp,
reservoir temperature, R,
compressibility factor of gas,
effective drainage radius, ft,
wellbore radius, ft,
skin factor, and
non-Damy flow factor.
703 x 10 +kgh(&$ -p,)
=
PgTZ
Cl,
and
In r,lr,-0.75+s=C2,
Eq. 7 becomes
q#= c1
C2 +F,,q,
or
F,,Dq; +CzqR -C, =O.
From this we get
-C2 +dC,2 +4F,,,C,
9g=
. .
2Fn1,
(8)
The maximum rate of flow [open-flow potential (OFP)]
is given when Ct is a maximum-that is, whenp,f = 0.
Eq. 7 incorporates the properties of the reservoir and the
gas and can be extended to noncircular areas as given in
Ref. 5.
Determination of Absolute Open Flow (AOF)
The terms calculated absolute open flow (CAOF) and
OFF are the rate of flow in thousands of cubic feet of gas
per 24 hours that would be produced by a well if the
pressure against the face of the producing formation in
the wellbore were zero. The value of the OFP is usually
determined graphically by plotting rates of flow qg
against the corresponding values of a,$ -p wf2. The
straight-line relationship between qg and jji -pwf2 is
extended so the rate of flow qg corresponding to the
value ofp,$ can be read by extrapolation. Then qs is the
AOFP of the well in cubic feet per 24 hours. The AOF
can be computed from Eq. 5 or read directly from plotted
relationships.
In wells producing from reservoirs with low
permeability, the reported AOF must be identified fur-
ther by the time involved in the test and the type of test.
For example, the OFP of such a well as determined by a
3-hour multipoint test (each rate of flow lasting 3 hours)
would be less than that determined by a 2-hour multi-
point test. The open flow determined by an isochronal
test of 3 hours would be different from that determined
by a multipoint test. A good example of the relationship
between AOF and type of test is given by Cullender.4
Reported OFPs on wells in low-permeability reservoirs
are more or less meaningless without an indication of the
type of test involved.
Determination of the Exponent n
The calculation of the exponent n is based on Eq. 5 and
the relationship
II=
1% qg2 -1% 481
log@j -p& -log(J,If -p&, .
. .
Values of qg and corresponding values of pi -p,,f* ,
either actual experimental points or values read from the
straight-line relationship, are substituted in Eq. 9. Usual-
ly the data points do not fall exactly on a straight line; so
the best practice is to read values of qg and jji -pwf2
directly from the straight line.
Determination of the Performance Coefficient C
After the value of the exponent n has been determined,
the value of the performance coefficient C may be deter-
mined by substitution of a corresponding set of values
for qg and a,$ -pwf2 and the value of n into Eq. 5. The
value of C is found by solution of the resulting equation.
Graphically the value of C may be determined by exten-
sion of the straight-line relationship to jj,$ -t,f2 = 1
and reading the corresponding q!. When jr~ -pwf2 is
unity, C is equal to qg. In practtce, a determination of
the value of C is seldom necessary for routine analysis of
backpressure tests.
Preparation of Well for Testing
The wellbore should be cleaned of liquids by flowing at a
high rate to a pipeline for a period of 24 hours. If the well
does not have a pipeline connection, it may be blown to
the air for a short period of time, provided blowing is
considered safe. Extra precautions should be taken on
new wells to remove drilling mud, solids, and stimula-
tion fluids from the wellbore. The well should be shut in
for 24 hours or longer to equalize the reservoir pressure
in the vicinity of the well. Wells with slow pressure-
buildup characteristics should be shut in 48 to 72 hours,
if possible.
While the well is shut in, the gas-measurement equip-
ment should be prepared for use. If the gas is to be
measured with an orifice meter, the meter should be
calibrated, the diameters and condition of the run and
plate verified, and the differential pen should be zeroed
in accordance with good meter practice. If a critical-flow
prover (see later section on gas measurement) is used, it
should be placed in a vertical position at the wellhead or
downstream from the separator so that the gas will flow
up and away from the test area. If a separator is used,
control the rate of flow with a production choke and
maintain pressure on the separator with a critical-flow
prover or backptessure regulator when an orifice meter is
used. If a separator is not used, control rate of flow and
pressure at the wellhead with the critical-flow prover.
Always install thermometer wells at the wellhead and at
gas-measuring equipment so that temperatures may be
measured with a thermometer or calibrated recording
device. The thermometer wells should be filled with
water or oil to obtain accurate temperature measurement.
Shut-In Pressure
All shut-in or flowing pressures should be measured with
a dead-weight or piston gauge, because spring gauges
are usually not accurate enough for backpressure tests.
Determine and record the pressure at the end of the shut-
in period, prepare the well for testing, and redetermine
the shut-in pressure as a check on the first measurement
and to obtain the rate of pressure buildup. Report each
pressure and time the well was shut in prior to each
pressure measurement. After the second pressure
measurement, either the isochronal or multipoint test
may be started.
Subsurface pressures in gas wells may be measured
directly with pressure gauges or computed from
wellhead pressures. Subsurface-pressure gauges are very
useful in wells where liquids accumulate in the wellbore
during shut-in. However, the use of subsurface gauges
limits the rates of flow during the backpressure test to
velocities that will not lift the gauge in the flow string.
The use of subsurface gauges is limited to rather low
rates of flow in 2%-in. OD tubing, but there is practical-
ly no limitation on their use in 7-in. casing. The use of
subsurface gauges in the annular spaces of dual comple-
tions is practically impossible. In cases where large-
capacity wells are being tested, correction must be made
for the effect of hysteresis on gauge readings, or the BHP
must be measured at each rate of flow by a separate run
of the gauge.
The accumulation of liquid in the wellbore is probably
the most serious cause of erroneous calculated BHPs.
Other sources of error are uncertainties in temperature
gradients and specific gravities of the fluids flowing in
the well. Before a backpressure test is begun, special
care should be taken to remove the liquids from the
wellbore by flowing at rates large enough to lift the liq-
uid. If possible, each rate of flow used in the
backpressurc test should be large enough to lift con-
tinuously any liquid that may move into the wellbore
during production. Temperature gradients can be
OPEN FLOW OF GAS WELLS 33-7
established for a new area only by actual measurement.
Usually a flowing-temperature gradient can be estimated
by assuming a straight-line gradient between flowing
wellhead temperature and bottomhole temperature.
Uncertainty in the specific gravity of the fluid flowing in
the well can be eliminated to a large degree by careful
measurement of gas/hydrocarbon liquid ratio and deter-
mination of the specific gravity of the separator gas,
separator liquid. and stock-tank liquid.
Multipoint Test and Example
A four-point multipoint test of constant duration for each
rate taken in increasing rate sequence is normally
satisfactory for establishing the performance of a well. In
the case of high-liquid-ratio wells or high-flowing-
temperature conditions, a decreasing-rate-sequence test
may be used if an increasing-rate-sequence test would
not result in alignment of points. In the case of high-
liquid-ratio wells, the low flow rates will not clean the
wellbore of liquids that accumulate during production. In
the case of wells with exceptionally high flowing
temperature, it may be desirable to start the test at the
highest rate of flow that will result in more nearly con-
stant wellhead temperatures during the test rather than
starting at the lowest rate of flow. However, a test in
decreasing-rate sequence should not be run unless it is
known that an increasing-rate-sequence test will not give
a satisfactory test.
The four rates of flow for the test should be evenly
distributed over the test range. For average- to low-
capacity gas wells, the first rate of flow should lower the
pressure at the wellhead about 5%) and the pressure
reduction for the fourth rate should be 25 %. The rate of
flow required to reduce the working pressure to 5% for
the first test rate can be approximated from pressure
readings obtained while the well is being cleaned before
the well is shut in. These recommended pressure reduc-
tions may not be possible for large-capacity wells with
large flow strings.
After the well is opened for the first rate of flow, the
test rate should be continued for 3 hours but no more
than 4 hours. Each succeeding flow rate should be for the
same period of time. During each flow rate, the wellhead
working pressure and temperature, meter or prover
pressure and differential, and temperature should be
reported at the end of each I5-minute period, If separator
and tanks are used during testing, the rate of liquid ac-
cumulation, both hydrocarbon and water, should be
reported. If a critical-flow prover alone is used, the
presence or absence of liquids in the gas stream should
be noted and reported. The specific gravity of the
separator gas or the specific gravity of the gas flowing
from the critical-flow prover should be measured and
reported, or a gas sample should be taken for analysis
and calculation of the specific gravity. More represen-
tative gas specific gravities can be obtained after the well
has been flowing at least an hour.
Table 33.3 is an actual copy of the field data sheet for
a multipoint backpressure test for Well A in the Guymon
Hugoton gas field in Texas County, OK.* The form on
which the data are reported has proved convenient for
recording test data. The times at which each plate was
Thus test, used m the 1962 edlfion of the handbook was run many years ago It still
stands as a clawc multlpoint test example today
changed and when the well opened on each rate of flow
were carefully reported. The remarks column gives
the results of the specific-gravity measurement and the
condition of the flow with regard to whether the well was
producing water. All the observations recorded in Table
33.3 are necessary for accurate analysis of test results.
Computation of the results of a backpressure test on a
gas well involves the following steps.
I. Compute rates of flow and pressures at the face of
the producing formation from pressure and volume
observations made at the wellhead.
2. Determine values of p,: -prf2 and p,$ -p,+f* and
rates of flow corresponding to these pressure factors.
Then, PR and pwf are calculated at the midpoint of the
sandface in wells without tubing. If the well has tubing,
they are determined at the entrance to the tubing, provid-
ed the entry to the tubing is no more than 100 ft from the
midpoint of the sandface.
3. Plot values of q8 and corresponding values of
PR -pwf2 and pt:
-pti2 on logarithmic coordinates.
4. Determine values of the exponent n and the perfor-
mance coefficient C of the flow equations
qg =C(Pl? -Pwf2Y
and
4x =c(P,.? -Pff2Y*.
For most routine analyses of backpressure tests. deter-
mination of the value of C is not necessary.
5. Determine the CAOF. Computations for rate of
flow and pressures at the producing formation are ex-
plained in separate sections.
A convenient form for reporting the results of a multi-
point test is illustrated in Table 33.4 for the test data
taken on Well A and reported in Table 33.3. Table 33.4
shows general well information, a summary of test data,
calculation of rates of flow, data for determining com-
pressibility, and the difference of squares of pressures
for wellhead and bottomhole conditions. The calculated
OFP of 25,000~10~ cu ft/D was determined in Fig.
33.3 where the rate of flow is the abscissa and PJ -p w,2
(in thousands) is the ordinate on logarithmic coordinates.
The data points were connected by a straight line and ex-
trapolated to a value of PJ -p,,,f2, where p&f2 is zero.
In this case, the value is j~i = 230.9 (thousands). The
corresponding rate of flow is 25,000 x lo3 cu ft/D. The
AOF of 25,000~ lo3 cu ft/D for Well A is for a 3-hour
four-point test. If the test were for a lesser-time four-
point test, the resulting AOF would have been more than
25,000 x lo3 cu ft/D.
The exponent n was determined by taking values of qs
andpd -pwf2 from the straight line in Fig. 33.3 and Eq.
7 as follows.
qs, lo3 cu ft/D p,$ -p wf2 (thousands)
20,000 168
4,ooo
16.8
log 20,000-log 4,000 log 5.00 0.699
n=
=-=-
log 168-log 16.8 log 10.0 I .ooo
=0.699.
33-a PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
TABLE 33.3-FIELD DATA SHEET FOR MULTIPOINT TEST (WELL A)
Company
Lease Well No.-
Location
rema carnty. okuha
2Prover nMeter Run
P
Taps
DhTE
WELLHEAD WORKING PRESSURE METER OR PROVER REMARKS
6-IW? Tbg. Csiq. An;&us Tey.
Tim IHrr, Psi0 W
p*iq Dif. , Orifice
I u*ll hut lo fo a dam I I I
I /
L I I I I I
PAGEL OF JDATA BY J. it. J.
The performance coefficient C was determined from the
exponent n=0.699, Eq. 5, and one of the corresponding
33.4 where qg and corresponding pt: -ptf* values ate
values of qg and j12 -pd* as follows.
plotted on logarithmic coordinates. The straight line has
been extended to show a wellhead OFP of 22,000 X lo3
20,000 = C(168)0.699
cu ft/D. The exponent is 0.672 and C is 621. The
backpressure relationship corresponding to Eq. 6 is
C = 20,000/(168)~699
log C = log 20,000-0.699 log 168
log c = 4.3010-1.5555
c = 557.
The value of 557 may be checked b
straight line on Fig. 33.3 top2 -p,,,,
z-
extrapolating the
- 1 and reading
the corresponding value of qs. Note that the value of
C=557 is for qg in units of lo3 cu ft/D and for
jr2 -pg* in units of thousands.
The backpressure equation for the results of the multi-
point test on Well A given in Table 33.4 and illustrated
in Fig. 33.3 is
The wellhead Performance of Well A as determined by
the test results given in Table 33.4 is illustrated in Fig.
qR =627(pr,2 -P~~)O.~*.
This wellhead performance equation for Well A, il-
lustrated in Fig. 33.4, is a measure of the ability of Well
A to deliver gas at the wellhead through 5 %-in. casing as
indicated by the multipoint test given in Table 33.4. The
relationship is influenced by the size of the flow string
and hydrostatic head of the gas column as well as the
productive capacity of the well.
An example of the bottomhole performance as in-
dicated by a multipoint test is given in Fig. 33.2 for an
extremely large-capacity well. Well B (Fig. 33.4) had a
shut-in pressure~R of 5,169 psia at a depth of 10,658 ft
and a wellhead pressure of 4,173 psia. The calculated
OFP was 280,000x103 cu ft/D. The corresponding
wellhead performance for Well B producing through
2X-in.-OD, 6.5-lbm/ft tubing is illustrated in Fig. 33.5
where the data points for the test are plotted as circles.
TABLE 33.4--RESULTS OF MULTIPOINT BACKPRESSURE TEST (WELL A)
COMPANY LEASE - WELL N0.I
ADDRESS DATE 6-17 19k
DISTRICT FIELD ~goton RESERVOIR Uwota
LOCATION Tens CmmtJ, Okldwm
CASING SIZE5 WT.x I D 5.012 SET Al 269 PERF 2665-2620
TUBING SIZE-
WT.--- ~ -
I.0 SET AT PERF.
PRODUCING BOTTOMHOLE
SECTION FROM 2Lb5 TO 2620 Ii 2542 TEMPERATURE 90 Ca 25fQ
DATE OF PRODUCING
ELEVATION - COMPLETION
A
THROUGH TBG.: CASING I
F,
o.wl6105 BAROMETER 13.2 p*I ACRES -
REMARKS:
P,. uB.5 DrioP, 201 15x10
j-
Pa Le3.5 Pb230.92xlO
Potmtbl 25.m IO C fm CommItdon
n 0.699 company
Others
qg, lo3 cu ft/D
Fig. 33.3-Multipoint test showing bottomhole performance for
Well A.
3001------
I 01 1 II,,,, I 1
1000 10,000 30,cQo
qg, IO3 cu ft/D
Fig. 33.4-Multipoint test showing wellhead performance for
Well A.
3-
3-
3-
:0
I
0 10,000 IOC
q9, lo3 cu ft/D
Fig. 33.5-Multipoint test showing wellhead performance for
Well 0.
Data points represented as squares (Fig. 33.5) are flow
tests of several days duration with Point 1 taken shortly
after production started and Point 3 taken over a year
later. The position of the data points in Fig. 33.5 in-
dicated that the performance of Well B improved after
the well was placed on production, which was probably
caused by the removal of drilling fluids from the area
around the wellbore.
The wellhead OFP of Well B was 41,000~ IO3 cu
ND, which was the approximate capacity of the tubing.
A different wellhead performance curve would result if
the tubing were changed in Well B. The wellhead perfor-
mance for a different string of tubing can be calculated
by starting with the bottomhole performance curve in
Fig. 33.2 and calculating the pressure drop caused by
friction for the different string of tubing.
Isochronal Test and Example
The isochronal method of backpressure testing as de-
fined by Cullender4 considers the performance coeff-
cient C in Eqs. 5 and 6 to be a variable with respect to
time until the well stabilizes but a constant with respect
to a specific time. Thus the backpressure performance of
a well producing from a reservoir with low permeability
is a series of parallel curves. Each curve represents the
performance of the well at the end of a given time inter-
val. Isochronal performance curves for wells producing
from reservoirs with relatively higher permeability arc
closely spaced. For example, the isochronal curves for
various times for Well B (Fig. 33.5) are for all practical
purposes one curve, and Well B is said to stabilize
rapidly.
The isochronal method of testing permits the deter-
mination of the true exponent n of the performance curve
for a given gas well. This is accomplished by the
establishment of a simple pressure gradient around a pro-
ducing well during the test period, which prevents the
variation of the performance coefficient with time from
obscuring the true value of the exponent. The determina-
tion of the relationship between performance coefficient
and time permits the estimation of the rate of flow of a
given well into a pipeline over long periods of time.
The term isochronal was adopted as being descrip-
tive of the method, because only those conditions ex-
isting as a result of a single disturbance of constant dura-
tion are considered as being related to each other by Eqs.
5 and 6. The expression single disturbance of constant
duration is defined as those conditions existing around
a well as a result of a constant flow rate for a specific
period of time from shut-in conditions. Under actual test
conditions this requirement is rarely satisfied. However,
this condition may be approximated by starting a well on
production and allowing the well to produce without fur-
ther outside or mechanical adjustments in rate of flow.
Thus a simple pressure gradient is established around the
wellbore as opposed to a complex pressure gradient
resulting from a multipoint backpressure test.
The presentation of isochronal test data as a series of
parallel curves with a constant exponent n and a constant
performance coefficient C for a specific time interval in-
volves certain assumptions. The exponent of the perfor-
mance curves for a gas well is assumed independent of
the drainage area. It is established immediately after the
well is opened. The variations of the performance coeff-
cient with respect to time are believed to be independent
of the rate of flow and the pressure level under simple
gradient conditions.
The procedure employed to obtain the necessary per-
formance data for an isochronal test is to open a well
from shut-in conditions and obtain rate-of-flow and
pressure data at specific time intervals during the flow
period without disturbing the rate of flow. After suffi-
cient data have been obtained, the well is shut in and
allowed to return to a shut-in condition comparable with
that existing at the time the well was first opened. The
well is again opened at a different rate of flow with data
being obtained at the same time intervals as before. The
procedure may be repeated as many times as necessary to
obtain the desired number of data points.
With the exception of starting each rate of flow from
shut-in conditions, the procedure for running isochmnal
tests is the same as that for the multipoint test. The
necessity for cleaning the well, calibrating the gas-
measuring equipment, and accurately measuring
pressures and temperatures remains the same. At least
four rates of flow should be taken; the lowest rate should
reduce the pressure at the wellhead about 5% and the
highest rate of flow should reduce the pressure about
25%.
The results of an isochronal test are computed in the
same manner as those for a multipoint test. The data
points are plotted on logarithmic coordinates as il-
lustrated in Figs. 33.6 and 33.7. The isochronal curves
are drawn so that the points taken at a constant time for
the various rates of flow are joined by a straight line. For
example, all the points on the line labeled Time, 3 hr
in Fig. 33.6 represent the performance of Well A after
flowing at the various rates of flow for 3 hours from
shut-in conditions.
IO I III
1000 l0,000 60,000
qg. IO3 cu WD
3oor--,
0
; loo-
.P
zi
N^
ct
I
N
:
IO_
* I II
1000 10,000 50,000
qg. lo3 cu ft/D
Fig. 33.6~lsochronal test showing bottomhole performance for Fig. 33.7~lsochronal test showing wellhead performance for
Well A. Well A.
The results of isochronal tests can be analyzed in two
ways. One way is to use Eqs. 7 and 8 and the properties
of the gas to determine the properties of the reservoir and
the skin factor. The second way is to use the results as a
basis for comparison of well performance at the time of
the test with performance as measured previously or to
set a base against which future performance is to be
compared.
The isochronal type curves shown on Fig. 33.6 can be
used to estimate the pressures that would have been
observed if the test had been a constant-rate drawdown
test. Test periods longer than the 3-hour periods on Fig.
33.6 are much more desirable for this purpose. With this
information the k,h value for the reservoir and the total
skin value (s,=s+F,~q~) are calculated as given in
Chap. 35. This results in several values for the total skin,
s,, as a function of the rate of flow, qg, from which s
and F,D can be obtained for use in Eq. 7.6 The multi-
point test can be analyzed to obtain k,h, s, and F,JJ as
indicated by Ref. 7. A discussion of the performance-
comparison method follows.
A copy of actual field data for an isochronal test is
given in Table 33.5 for Well A, which is the same well
used in the example of a multipoint test.* Four rates of
flow of 3 hours duration were used with each flow start-
ing from shut-in conditions. Shut-in pressures reported
varied from 359.6 psig after 48 hours for the first rate of
flow to 357.6 psig, which was just previous to the fourth
rate of flow. The results of the isochronal test are sum-
marized in Table 33.6. Bottomhole and wellhead perfor-
mance curves are illustrated on Figs. 33.6 and 33.7,
respectively.
The isochronal test on Well A (Fig. 33.6) shows that
the calculated OFP for a BHP of 399.1 psia was 5 1,500,
41,500, 35,ooO, and 31,500~ lo3 cu ft/D at the end of
0.5, 1 .O, 2.0, and 3.0 hours, respectively. The
calculated potential after 3 hours flow was only 61% of
the potential after 0.5 hour of flow, A similar figure for
the wellhead performance of Well A is 66% (Fig. 33 -7)
If Well A were opened into a pipeline with a constant
This test, used I the 1962 edltlan, was run many years ago. It still stands as a
classtc tsochronal test example today.
pressure, the rate of flow at the end of 3 hours would be
66% of the rate of flow at 0.5 hour. Experimental data
not given here show that the production at the end of 72
hours has decreased to about 48% of that at 0.5 hour.
The figures showing change-of-performance character-
istics with time illustrate the need for isochronal test data
for estimating the delivery from a particular well into a
pipeline. Accurate estimation of pipeline deliveries from
wells producing from reservoirs with low permeability is
practically impossible without isochronal test data.
Examination of the field notes under the Remarks
column in Table 33.5 indicates that Well A started to
produce water during the flow test taken on Dec. 20,
195 1, which was the largest rate of flow. The effect of
water production on well performance is illustrated by
the irregularities in the corresponding data in Figs. 33.6
and 33.7. Water production and accumulation of water
or liquids in the wellbore cause the performance
characteristics of a well to deteriorate.
The data represented as squares in Fig. 33.5 are
isochronal points taken after Well B has been flowing
from 5 to 30 days. Their close agreement with the data
from the multipoint test indicates that the performance of
Well B does not vary appreciably with time. Well B pro-
duces from a reservoir with high permeability and the
radius of drainage is established quickly after the well is
opened to flow.
Comparison of Multipoint With
Isochronal Test
Either the multipoint or the isochronal test is suitable for
wells producing from reservoirs with high permeability.
The isochronal method of testing is especially suitable
for testing wells in low-permeability reservoirs.
However, for wells producing from extremely low-
permeability reservoirs where the unsteady-state effects
last for days or even weeks, economic considerations
may limit the testing to only one point of the isochronal
type (starting flow from a shut-in condition). Multipoint
tests should be limited to reservoirs where the unsteady-
state effects are of very short duration. Otherwise the
results of the multipoint test are difficult to analyze.
TABLE 33.5-FIELD DATA SHEET FOR ISOCHRONAL TEST (WELL A)
company L.30S0 Well No.&-
Location
Tmaa CounW. LKUba
2Prover n*t&1er Run a Tops
I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I
PAGEA OFAOATA BY J. If. J.
TABLE 33.6--RESULTS OF ISOCHRONAL TEST ON WELL A The results of the 3-hour multipoint test and the 3-hour
isochronal test on Well A are shown together in Fig.
Flow
Duration
33.8 as wellhead performance curves. The exponent
Pts
Date
(psi4
(hr) (M%D) $ -P,,$
PrsZ - Pn2
(0.672) for the multipoint test is less than the exponent
(0.848) of the isochronal test. In general, exponents of
Dec. 17, 1951 372.6 0.5
1 .o
2.0
3.0
4,159
4,120
4,078
4,047
Dec. 18, 1951 372.0 0.5
1 .o
2.0
3.0
Dec. 19, 1951 372.0 0.5
1 .o
2.0
3.0
Dec. 20, 1951 370.8 0.5
1 .o
2.0
3.0
5,552
5,485
5,461
5,423
multipoint curves run in increasing rate sequence are less
than those for isochronal curves for the same well. The
first data point on the multipoint test ( qn =4,928 Mcf/D)
is on the isochronal curve (Fig. 33.8) because the first
rate of flow for the multipoint curve was started from
shut-in conditions. Thereafter, the position of each suc-
ceeding point of the multipoint test is influenced not only
by the rate of flow but also by each preceding point.
7,019
6,982
6,847
6,777
8,599
8,153
8,048
10.60 10.60
13.19 12.82
15.79 15.08
17.63 16.55
14.85 15.18
18.10 17.97
21.58 20.87
23.56 22.58
17.93 20.59
22.17 24.14
26.48 27.76
26.80 29.81
24.96 27.93
34.10 35.22
37.00 37.63
The initial points of each multipoint test on wells pro-
ducing from reservoirs with low permeability represent
the formation characteristics, while other points repre-
sent complex conditions that are almost impossible to in-
terpret. The characteristic exponent of the isochronal
curve still applies to the complex points, with the only
difference in performance being in the performance coef-
ficient C. If the exponent of 0.848 is applied to the com-
plex points of the multipoint test (Fig. 33.8). it can be
qg. IO3 cu ft/D
Fig. 33.6-Comparison of multipoint with isochronal test for
Well A.
seen that the coefficient obtained in each case can be
considered the result of an effective time, which has
no permanent significance because it is not equal to the
elapsed time or to the elapsed time since the last change
in flow rate.
An examination of the multipoint and isochronal data
presented in Fig. 33.5 for Well B shows that there are
certain gas wells that stabilize so rapidly that there is no
necessity for obtaining isochronal performance data. As
the time required for stabilization increases, the dif-
ferences between data obtained by the isochronal test and
the multipoint test increase.
Gas Measurement
Orifice Meters
The recommended specifications for orifice meters and
methods for computing rates of flow are those published
by the American Gas Assn. 9 It should be noted that the
basic orifice factors are for a pressure base of 14.73 psia.
Multiplying the basic orifice factors in Ref. 9 by 1.0055
changes volumes to a pressure base of 14.65 psia. Basic
orifice factors,for a pressure base of 14.65 psia have
been published in the test manual of the Corporation
Commission of the State of Kansas lo and the Interstate
Oil Compact Commission.
Critical-Flow Provers
The following method for measurement and computation
of rates of flow for critical-flow provers is a modification
of the method published by Rawlins and Schellhardt.*
The equation computing rates of flow from
measurements with a critical-flow prover is
qg=psFpFgFTFpv, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(lO)
where p,, is static pressure on critical-flow prover, psia.
Basic orifice factors, F,, , for 2- and 4-in. critical-flow
provers are given in Table 33.7. These factors apply on-
ly to plates designed according to USBM specifications.
The adjustment factor (Table 33.8) to correct for an
assumed specific gravity of 1.000 to the actual specific
gravity of the gas flowing through the prover may be
computed by
33-13
TABLE 33.7-BASIC ORIFICE FACTORS FOR
CRITICAL-FLOW PROVER (USBM plate design) F, - McflD
Base temperature, OF 60
Base pressure, psia 14.65
Flowing temperature, OF 60
Specific gravity 1.000
2-in. Prover 4-k Prover
Orifice Diameter Factor Orifice Diameter Factor
(in.)
(F,)
(in.)
(FP)
0.06569
0.1446
0.2716
0.6237
0.8608
1.115
1.714
2.439
3.495
4.388
6.638
9.694
13.33
17.53
22.45
28.34
34.82
43.19
2% 136.9
3 168.3
1.074
2.414
4.319
6.729
9.643
13.11
17.08
21.52
26.57
31.99
38.12
52.07
68.80
88.19
110.6
F,= i, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(n)
7s
where yg is specific gravity of the flowing gas, air =
l.COO.
Factors to correct for an assumed flowing temperature
of 60F to the actual flowing temperature of the gas at
the point of measurement are given in Table 33.9 and
may be computed by
520
FT= -, __. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
Tf
where Tf is actual flowing temperature of the gas,
(F +460).
The supercompressibility factor to correct for the ef-
fect of gas compressibility is computed from the com-
pressibility by
F,,\,=
r
i, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
z
where z is compressibility of the gas at ps and Tf or the
pressure and temperature at point of measurement.
Methods for estimating gas compressibilities are given
in Chap. 20.
Calculation of Subsurface Pressures
Specific Gravity of Flowing Fluid
Calculation of either shut-in or flowing pressures in gas
wells requires a knowledge of the specific gravity of the
fluid in the wellbore. In the case of a gas-condensate
well, the specific gravity of the separator gas and the
gravity of the stock-tank liquid are measured, and it is
33-14
PETROLEUM ENGINEERINGHANDBOOK
TABLE 33.8--SPECIFIC-GRAVITY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
Specific
Gravity
0.550
0.560
0.570
0.580
0.590
0.000
1.348
1.336
1.325
1.313
1.302
0.001 0.002
1.3471.346
1.335 1.334
1.323 1.322
1.312 1.311
1.301 1.300
0.003
1.345
1.333
1.321
0.006
1.341
1.329
1.318
1.310
1.299
0.004 0.005
1.344 1.342
1.332 1.330
1.320 1.319
1.309 1.307
1.298 1.296
1.306
1.295
0.007
1.340
1.328
1.316
1.305
1.294
0.600 1.291 1.290 1.289 1.288 1.287 1.286 1.285 1.284
0.610 1.280 1.279 1.278 1.277 1.276 1.275 1.274 1.273
0.620 1.270 1.269 1.268 1.267 1.266 1.265 1.264 1.263
0.630 1.260 1.259 1.258 1.257 1.256 1.255 1.254 1.253
0.640 1.250 1.249 1.248 1.247 1.246 1.245 1.244 1.243
0.650 1.240 1.239 1.238 1.237
0.660 1.231 1.230 1.229 1.228
0.670 1.222 1.221 1.220 1.219
0.660 1.213 1.212 1.211 1.210
0.690 1.204 1.203 1.202 1.201
1.237 1.236
1.227 1.226
1.218 1.217
1.209 1.208
1.235
1.225
1.216
1.207
1.199
1.234
1.224
1.215
1.206
1.200 1.200 1.198
0.700 1.195 1.194 1.194 1.193 1.192 1.191 1.190
0.710 1.187 1.186 1.185 1.184 1.183 1.183 1.182
0.720 1.179 1.178 1.177 1.176 1.175 1.174 1.174
0.730 1.170 1.170 1.169 1.168 1.167 1.166 1.166
0.740 1.162 1.162 1.161 1.160 1.159 1.159 1.158
0.006
1.339
0.009
1.338
1.326
1.314
1.327
1.315
1.304
1.293
1.282
1.272
1.262
1.252
1.242
1.303
1.292
1.281
1.271
1.261
1.251
1.241
1.233 1.232
1.224 1.223
1.214 1.214
1.206 1.205
1.197 1.196
1.188 1.188
1.180 1.179
1.172 1.171
1.164 1.163
1.156 1.155
1.189
1.181
1.173
1.165
1.157
0.750 1.155
0.760 1.147
0.770 1.140
1.154 1.153
1.146 1.146
1.139 1.138
1.132 1.131
1.124 1.124
1.152
1.145
1.137
1.130
1.123
1.152
1.144
1.137
1.151
1.143
1.136
1.129
1.122
1.150 1.149
1.143 1.142
1.135 1.134
1.149 1.148
1.141 1.140
1.134 1.133
1.127 1.126
1.119 1.119
0.780 1.132
0.790 1.125
1.129
1.122
1.128 1.127
1.121 1.120
0.800 ,118 1.117 1.117 1.116
0.810 ,111 1.110 1.110 1.109
0.820 ,104 1.104 1.103 1.102
0.830 .098 1.097 1.096 1.096
0.840 ,091 1.090 1.090 1.089
,115 1.115 1.114 1.113 1.112 1.112
,108 1.108 1.107 1.106 1.106 1.105
,102 1.101 1.100 1.100 1.099 1.098
,095 1.094 1.094 1.093 1.092 1.092
,089 0.088 1.087 1.087 1.086 1.085
0.850
0.860
0.870
0.880
0.890
,085 1.084
,078 1.078
,072 1.072
1.083
1.077
I.071
1.065
1.059
,082 1.081 1.081 1.080 1.080 1.079
1.066 1.065
1.060 1.059
1.083
1.076
1.070
1.064 1.064
1.058 1.058
,076 1.075 1.075 1.074 1.073 1.073
,070 1.069 1.068 1.068 1.067 1.067
1.063 1.062 1.062 1.061 1.061
1.057 1.056 1.056 1.055 1.055
0.900 1.054 1.054 1.053 1.052 1.052 1.051 1.051 1.050 1.049 1.049
0.910 1.048 1.048 1.047 1.047 1.046 1.045 1.045 1.044 1.044 1.043
0.920 1.043 1.042 1.041 1.041 1.040 1.040 1.039 1.039 1.038 1.038
0.930 1.037 1.036 1.036 1.035 1.035 1.034 1.034 1.033 1.033 1.032
0.940 1.031 1.031 1.030 1.030 1.029 1.029 1.028 1.028 1.027 1.027
0.950 1.026 1.025 1.025 1.024 1.024 1.023 1.023 1.022 1.022 1.021
0.960 1.021 1.020 1.020 1.019 1.019 1.018 1.017 1.017 1.016 1.016
0.970 1.015 1.015 1.014 1.014 1.013 1.013 1.012 1.012 1.011 1.011
0.980 1.010 1.010 1.009 1.009 1.008 1.008 1.007 1.007 1.006 1.006
0.990 1.005 1.005 1.004 1004 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.001
yL = specific gravity of hydrocarbon liquid
referred to water, and
VL = vapor volume equivalent of 1 bbl (60F) of
hydrocarbon liquid, cu ftibbl.
The specific gravity and the approximate vapor volume
of the hydrocarbon liquid can be calculated from the API
gravity by
usually necessary to compute the specific gravity of the
fluid flowing in the wellbore. The shrinkage of the liquid
between the separator and the stock tank is usually
unknown and apparently can be neglected. The equation
for computing the specific gravity of the flowing fluid,
ysJ, is:
R
&Yg +4m3 YL
-rff=
) . . . . . R,L~L
where
R
hL
= gas to hydrocarbon liquid ratio, cu ft/bbl, and
(14b)
OPEN FLOWOF GAS WELLS
TABLE 33.9-FLOWING-TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
33-15
5 6 7 8 9
Observed
Temperature
lOFl 0 1 2 3 4
1.063 1.062 1.061 1.060 1.059 1.057 1.056 1.055 1.054 1.053
1.052 1.051 1.050 1.049 1.047 1.046 1.045 1.044 1.043 1.042
1.039 1.038 1.037 1.035 1.034 1.033 1.032 1.031
1.028 1.027 1.026 1.025 1.024 1.023 1.022 1.021
1.018 1.017 1.016 1.015 1.014 1.013 1.012 1.011
50
60
70
80
so
0.9905 0.9896
0.9813 0.9804
0.9723 0.9715
1.008 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.002 1.001
0.9981 0.9971 0.9962 0.9952 0.9943 0.9933 0.9924 0.9915
0.9887 0.9877 0.9868 0.9859 0.9850 0.9840 0.9831 0.9822
0.9795 0.9786 0.9777 0.9768 0.9759 0.9750 0.9741 0.9732
0.9706 0.9697 0.9888 0.9680 0.9671 0.9662 0.9653 0.9645
100
110
120
130
140
0.9636 0.9628 0.9619 0.9610 0.9602 0.9594 0.9585 0.9577 0.9568 0.9560
0.9551 0.9543 0.9535 0.9526 0.9518 0.9510 0.9501 0.9493 0.9485 0.9477
0.9469 0.9460 0.9452 0.9444 0.9436 0.9428 0.9420 0.9412 0.9404 0.9396
0.9388 0.9380 0.9372 0.9364 0.9356 0.9349 0.9341 0.9333 0.9325 0.9317
0.9309 0.9302 0.9294 0.9286 0.9279 0.9271 0.9263 0.9256 0.9248 0.9240
150 0.9233 0.9225 0.9217 0.9210 0.9202 0.9195 0.9187 0.9180 0.9173 0.9165
160 0.9158 0.9150 0.9143 0.9135 0.9128 0.9121 0.9112 0.9106 0.9099 0.9092
170 0.9085 0.9077 0.9069 0.9063 0.9055 0.9048 0.9042 0.9035 0.9028 0.9020
180 0.9014 0.9007 0.9000 0.8992 0.8985 0.8979 0.8972 0.8965 0.8958 0.8951
190 0.8944 0.8937 0.8931 0.8923 0.8916 0.8910 0.8903 0.8896 0.8889 0.8882
200
210
220
230
240
0.8876 0.8870 0.8863 0.8856 0.8849 0.8843 0.8836 0.8830 0.8823 0.8816
0.8810 0.8803 0.8797 0.8790 0.8784 0.8777 0.8770 0.8764 0.8758 0.8751
0.8745 0.8738 0.8732 0.8725 0.8719 0.8713 0.8706 0.8700 0.8694 0.8687
0.8681 0.8675 0.8668 0.8662 0.8656 0.8650 0.8644 0.8637 0.8631 0.8625
0.8619 0.8613 0.8606 0.8600 0.8594 0.8588 0.8582 0.8576 0.8570 0.8564
VL=369+5yAP, +O.O4(y Apr)2, . . . .(14c) where
L = length of flowstring in well corresponding to
H, fit
H = vertical depth in well, ft, and
98
= rate of gas flow at 14.65 psia and 60F,
lo6 scf/D.
where yAPr is stock-tank oil gravity, API. The deriva-
tions of Eqs. 14a and 14c were given by Smith. I2
Equations for Computing Subsurface Pressures
Pressures at the sandface or at the inlet to the tubing in
shut-in or flowing gas wells may be measured with BHP
gauges or computed from wellhead pressures. However,
most subsurface pressures in gas wells are calculated by
equations. The most usable and realistic equations
available are those of Cullender and Smith, I3 which
have been adopted by the Kansas Corp. Commission, the
Interstate Oil Compact Commission, and the New Mex-
ico Conservation Commission, and by the Railroad
Commission of Texas for cettain fields. The equations
were revised* recently for use with programmable
calculators and small computers.
The revised flow equation for gas wells is
F*=
2-6665-fq,2
di
=(F q )* . . . . .
r 1
Wa)
and
J
1 4 log 7.4ri
-72
, . . . . . . . . . . f K
(16b)
where
f = coefficient of friction (friction factor),
ri = internal radius of pipe, in.,
K = absolute roughness characteristic = 0.0006
in., and
r/K = relative roughness.
Refer to Ref. 12 for the background of Eqs. 15, 16a, and
16b. The second term in the numerator on the right side
of Eq. 15 is the kinetic energy term that heretofore has
been set at zero because the computations were made
manually. Although the kinetic energy term can be
neglected without appreciable error in the majority of
cases, there is no need to do so when programmable
u
yg qg
*dp
1,ooo Y,L _
s
PI
p Tz-2.082-
d,%
>
53.356 -pz H (~/Tz)~
I
F*+--
L 1,000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(15)
33-16
TABLE 33.10- F, VALUES FOR VARIOUS FLOW STRING (K =0.0006 in.)
Nominal
Size d,
d,
Minimum
(in.] (in.) (Ibmlft) (in.) N
Rs f=,
Tubing
1.315 1.80 1.049 139,000 0.09505
1%
1%
2
2/2
3
3%
4
4%
4%
Nominal
Size
(2)
d,
(in.) (Ibmlft) (in.)
~- - ~
Minimum
N
Fe Fr
696,000 0.002146
681,000 0.002257
784,000 0.001617
778,000 0.001647
773.000 0.001670
Casing
5.000 13.00 4.494
5.000 15.00 4.408
5%
5.500 14.00 5.012
5.500 15.00 4.976
5.500 15.50 4.950
5.500 17.00 4.892 764;OOO 0.001722
5.500 20.00 4.778 744,000 0.001830
5.500 23.00 4.670 726,000 0.001942
5.500 25.00 4.580 710,000 0.002043
5% 6.000 15.00 5.524 872,000 0.001256
6.000 17.00 5.450 860.000 0.001301
6.000 20.00 5.352 843;OO0 0 001363
6.000 23.00 5.240 823,000 0.001440
6.000 26.00 5.140 806,000 0.001514
6% 6.625 20.00 6.049 964,000 0.0009922
6.625 22.00 5.989 953,000 0.001018
6.625 24.00 5.921 941,000 0.001049
6.625 26.00 5.855 930,000 0.001080
6.625 28.00 5.791 919,000 0.001111
6.625 31.80 5.675 899,000 0.001171
6.625 34.00 5.595 885,000 0.001215
6% 7.000 20.00 6.456 1.035.000 0.0008380
7.000 22.00 6.398 1;025;000 0.0008579
7.000 23.00 6.366 1,019,OOO 0.0008691
7.000 24.00 6.336 1,014,OOO 0.0008798
7.000 26.00 6.276 1.003.000 0.0009018
7.000 28.00 6.214 .992;000 0.0009253
7.000 30.00 6.154 982,000 0.0009489
7.000 40.00 5.836 926,000 0.001089
7h 7.626 26.40 6.969 1,125,OOO 0.0006872
7.625 29.70 6.875 1,108,OOO 0.0007119
7.625 33.70 6.765 1,089,OOO 0.0007423
7.625 38.70 6.625 1,064,OOO 0.0007837
1.660 2.40 1.380 189,000 0.04643
1.990 2.75 1.610 224,000 0.03105
2.375 4.70 1.995 284,000 0.01776
2.875 6.50 2.441 355,000 0.01050
3.500 9.30 2.992 445,000 0.006180
4.000 11.00 3.476 525,000 0.004184
4.500 12.70 3.958 605,000 0.002985
4.750 16.25 4.082 626,000 0.002755
4.750 18.00 4.000 612,000 0.002905
5.000 18.00 4.276 659,000 0.002442
5.000 21 .oo 4.154 638,000 0.002633
calculators or computers are used. Eq. 15 is based on the
assumptions that the flow is completely turbulent, the
coefficient of friction, f, is a constant, the compressibili-
ty of the gas at base pressure and temperature conditions
(14.65 psia and 60F) is 1 .OOO, and only a gas phase is
flowing.
Eq. 15 has a subtle but important concept in the value
of the quantity H/L at the wellhead, where both Hand L
are zero. For a vertical wellbore, H = L and
Nominal
Size d,
d,
Minimum
(in.) (in.) (Ibmlft) (in.) N
fle F,
Casmg
7=/a
7.625 45.00 6.445
8.000 26.00 7.386
8.125 28.00 7.485
8.125 32.00 7.385
8.125 35.50 7.285
1,033,OOO 0.0008417
1,199,ooo 0.0005911
1,216,OOO 0.0005710
1,199,ooo 0.0005913
1,181,000 0.0006126
8%
8.125 39.50 7.185 1 ,I 63,000 0.0006349
8.625 17.50 8.249 1,353,OOO 0.0004438
8.625 20.00 8.191 1,342,OOO 0.0004520
8.625 24.00 8.097 1,326,OOO 0.0004658
8.625 28.00 8.003 1,309,OOO 0.0004801
8.625 32.00 7.907 1,292,ooo 0.0004953
8.625 36.00 7.825 1,277.OOO 0.0005089
8.625 38.00 7.775 1,268,OOO 0.0005174
8.625 43.00 7.651 1,246,OOO 0.0005394
9.000 34.00 8.290 1,360,OOO 0.0004382
9.000 38.00 8.196 1,343,ooo 0.0004513
9.000 40.00 8.150 1,335,ooo 0.0004579
9.000 45.00 8.032 1,314,OOO 0.0004756
9 9.625 36.00 8.921 1,473,OOO 0.0003623
9.625 40.00 8.835 1,458,OOO 0.0003715
9.625 43.50 a.755 1,444,OOO 0.0003804
9.625 47.00 8.681 1,430,OOO 0.0003888
9.625 53.50 a.535 1,404,OOO 0.0004063
9.625 58.00 8.435 1,386,OOO 0.0004189
9% 10.000
10.000
10.000
10.750
10.750
10.750
10.750
10.750
10.750
33.00 9.384
55.50 8.908
61.20 8.790
10 32.75 10.192
35.75 10.136
40.00 10.050
45.50 9.950
48.00 9.902
54.00 9.784
1,557,OOO 0.0003178
1,47l,OOO 0.0003637
1,450,OOO 0.0003764
1,704,OOO 0.0002566
1,694,OOO 0.0002602
1,678,OOO 0.0002660
1,660,OOO 0.0002730
1,651,OOO 0.0002765
1,830,OOO 0.0002852
H/L=~l&(~/L)=l.ooO.
+
In a deviated wellbore, H is less than L, and for a
horizontal pipeline, H = 0, and as a result the term for
the head of gas drops out of Eq. 15. For a complete
guide to the algebraic convention for H and L, refer to
Ref. 12.
OPEN FLOWOF GAS WELLS 33-17
TABLE33.11-F,VALUESFORVARlOUSANNULl (K= O.OOlin.)
Casing
ID
(in.) 1.900
4.154 0.005082
4.276 0.004576
4.408 0.004107
4.494 0.003838
4.580 0.003593
4.670 0.003361
4.778 0.003109
4.892 0.002872
4.950 0.002761
4.976 0.002713
5.012 0.002649 0.003235 0.004251 0.006883 0.01245
5.140 0.002438 0.002946 0.003809 0.005947 0.01012
5.240 0.002289 0.002746 0.003509 0.005343 0.008738
5.352 0.002137 0.002545 0.003213 0.004770 0.007506
5.450 0.002016 0.002385 0.002983 0.004342 0.006634
5.524 0.001931 0.002274 0.002825 0.004055 0.006074 0.01098
5.595 0.001854 0.002175 0.002684 0.003806 0.005601 0.009783
5.675 0.001773 0.002070 0.002538 0.003552 0.005133 0.008658
5.791 0.001883 0.001930 0.002346 0.003226 0.004552 0.007351 0.01017
5.836 0.001623 0.001880 0.002277 0.003111 0.004354 0.006924 0.009455
Tubino OD (in.1
2.375
0.008901
0.006oa7
0.005356
0.004948
0.004583
2.875 3.500 4.000 4.500 4.750 5.000
0.01093
0.009268
0.007867
0.007119
0.006473 0.01250
0.004242 0.005886 0.01086
0.003880 0.005281 0.009289
0.003544 0.004738 0.007980
0.003390 0.004492 0.007419
0.003324 0.004389 0.007187
5.855 0.001607 O.OOla59 0.002249 0.003065 0.004274 0.006755 0.009176
5.921 0.001551 0.001790 0.002155 0.002911 0.004012 0.006215 0.008301
5.989 0.001497 0.001722 0.002064 0.002764 0.003768 0.005726 0.007528
6.049 0.001452 0.001665 0.001988 0.002643 0.003570 0.005341 0.006935 0.009582
6.154 0.001376 0.001572 0.001865 0.002450 0.003260 0.004757 0.006057 O.OOa132
6.214 0.001336 0.001522 0.001799 0.002349 0.003100 0.004466 0.005630 0.007451
6.276 0.001296 0.001472 0.001735 0.002251 0.002947 0.004193 0.005235 0.006837
6.336 0.001259 0.001427 0.001676 0.002161 0.002810 0.003952 0.004892 0.006313
6.366 0.001241 0.001405 0.001647 0.002119 0.002745 0.003839 0.004734 0.006074
8.398 0.001222 0.001382 0.001618 0.002074 0.002878 0.003724 0.004573 0.005835
6.445 0.001195 0.001349 0.001576 0.002012 0.002584 0.003565 0.004352 0.005508
6.456 0.001189 0.001342 0.001566 0.001998 0.002583 0.003529 0.004302 0.005436
6.625 0.001099 0.001234 0.001429 0.001796 0.002266 0.003041 0.003639 0.004486
6.765 0.001032 0.001153 0.001327 0.001651 0.002057 0.002710 0.003201 0.003879
6.875 0.0009830 0.001095 0.001255 0.001549 0.001912 0.002486 0.002910 0.003486
6.969 0.0009439 0.001049 0.001198 0.001469 0.001800 0.002316 0.002692 0.003196
7.185 0.0008619 0.0009524 0.001079 0.001306 0.001577 0.001987 0.002276 0.002655
7.285 0.0008273 0.0009120 0.001030 0.001240 0.001487 0.001857 0.002116 0.002450
7.385 0.0007946 0.0008739 0.0009839 0.001178 0.001405 0.001740 0.001972 0.002268
7.386 0.0007943 0.0008736 0.0009834 0.001177 0.001404 0.001739 0.001970 0.002266
Eq. 15 does not lend itself to mathematical integration
without making assumptions regarding T and z, but it
may be integrated over definite limits by the trapezoidal
mle.
If we let
I
[
yk?qsL
s
Pn p/Tz-2.082-
di4 P
1
Q
= pnz(jp=
s
l,ooo Y&J
PI
H (P/Tz)* p,
FZ+--
53.356
L 1,000
+...+(pn-pn-,)(I,+Z,-*)], . . . . . . . (17)
then
(~3+~2)+...+(pn-pn-l)(zn+zn-1)], . . . (18)
whereZt,Z2,Z3 . . . I, is the trapezoidal rule interval cor-
responding to the respective pressure. If we make the
assumptions that the kinetic energy term is zero or that
the temperature, T, and the gas compressibility factor, z,
are constant, the equations given in Chap. 30 of this
handbook can be derived. However, the numerical ex-
amples that follow will make use of Eqs. 15 through 18.
The details of computations of a BHFP and a shut-in
BHP by Eqs. 16a, 16b, 17, and 18 are illustrated by Ex-
ample Problem 3 on Page 33-18. To utilize the equations,
it is necessary to evaluate the factor F, for various flow
strings. The value may be determined by several corre-
lations; however, the values given in Tables 33.10 and
TABLE 33.12-WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATION OF SUBSURFACE FLOWING PRESSURE BY EQS. 15,16a, AND 16b
Company Lease Well No.
B
Dateof Test
-
^lg
0.615
%CO,
2.5
% N 2
PPC
679 T 361
EquationsUsed
15,16a,16b
PC
49
11.29s
H
10,658 , 10,490 d. 2.441 in.
Temperature Gradient
5F/1,000 ft
10,658
' 1.995
H L d
P
T
-02.4413,913.0117
2 I
AP
0 0.8776 104.719 0
1,000 1,000 2.441 4,023.l 122 0.8894 104.346 110.1
1,000 1,000 2.441 4,023.3 122 0.8894 104.343 110.3
2,000 2,000 2.441 4.134.0 127 0.9012 103.992 110.7
3,000 3,000 2.441 4,245.0 132 0.9129 103.659 111.0
4,000 4,000 2.441 4,3X3 137 0.9244 103.337 111.3
5,000 5,000 2.441 4,468.0 142 0.9359 103.036 111.7
6,000 6,000 2.441 4580.0 147 0.9472 102.743 112.0
7,000 7,000 2.441 4,692.3 152 0.9584 102.464 112.3
8.000 8.000 2.441 4.805.0 157 0.9695 102.196 112.7
9,000 9,000 2.441 4,917,s 162 0.9805 101.943 112.9
10,000 10,000 2.441 5,031.l 167 0.9913 101.693 113.2
10,490 10,490 2.441 5,086.7 169.5 0.9966 101.583 55.6
10.490 10,490 1.995 5,086.7 169.5 0.9966 76.546 0
10,658 10,658 1.995 5,112.0 170.3 0.9989 76.446 25.3
33.11 were calculated by the methods published by
Smith. *
To compute subsurface pressures where the well is
equipped with tubing set without a packer, the preferred
practice is to calculate the flowing subsurface pressure
from the wellhead pressure measured on the static gas
column by means of the static column equations. If the
well has a packer, it is necessary to calculate the flowing
subsurface pressure by means of the equations for flow-
ing gas columns.
Depths for calculating or measuring subsurface
pressures in wells are determined in practice by the
equipment installed in the well. Where a well is
equipped without tubing or with tubing set without a
packer, the proper depth for pressure determinations is
the distance to the midpoint of the productive sandface.
If the well has tubing set with a packer, the pressures are
determined at the entrance to the tubing provided the en-
try to the tubing is no more than 100 ft from the midpoint
of the productive sandface. Otherwise, appropriate cor-
rections would be made to determine the pressure at the
midpoint of the sandface.
An explanation of the computational procedures used
in Tables 33.12 and 33.13 will be helpful before going
into the details of the calculations. The recent advances
in computing equipment or, more realistically, the
dramatic decrease in the cost of computations have given
the average engineer access at least to a handheld pro-
grammable calculator or mom likely a microcomputer.
Therefore, the emphasis in the past has been to simplify
equations by making assumptions regarding pressure,
temperature, and gas compressibility, but that has not
been done here. Now the factor F, and compressibility
factor, z, become subroutines, the results of which are
never seen by the user. In this case, Tables 33.10 and
33.11 may seem redundant. The compressibility factors
given in Tables 33.12 and 33.13 were calculated by the
equation of state published by Hall and Yarborough t4
and Yarborough and Hall. l* The results of the computa-
tions in Tables 33.10 through 33.13 have been rounded,
-
23,018
23,059
23,063
23,049
23,039
23,052
23.047
231045
23.065
23,047
23,052
11,302
-
3,871
-
23,018
23,059
46,121
69,170
92,209
115,261
138,308
161,352
184.417
207,464 207,473
230,516 230,526
241,818 241,822
241,616 241.822
245,689 245,695
Y,L
0
23,053
46,105
69,158
92,211
115,263
138,316
161,369
184,421
Line
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
II
12
13
14
15
and the rules for rounding vary from one piece of com-
puting equipment to another. The algorithm used for
solving Eqs. 15, 17, and 18 seems to work for all cases,
but users may wish to devise their own algorithm.
Example Problem 3-Flowing Well. Details of the
method for calculating a flowing subsurface pressure for
Well B are given in Table 33.12.
The wellhead flowing pressure for Well B was 3,913
psia at a flow rate of 11.299 x lo6 cu ft/D. The annular
space between the tubing and casing was packed off and
filled with mud so that it is necessary to calculate the
flowing subsurface pressure at a depth of 10,658 ft down
the flowing column of gas. Gas properties are those
given in Table 33.12.
The flow string measures 10,490 ft of 27/s-in.-OD,
6.50-lbm/ft tubing with 168 ft of 2%-in.-OD,
4.70-lbm/ft tubing at bottom of flow string. Also, H =
L, or the flow string is vertical.
Computation of the required pressure is done in two
major steps because of the change in size of the flow
string at a depth of 10,490 ft. Computations are given in
the following steps.
Step 1. Obtain the IDs from Table 33.10 and enter at
top of Table 33.12
2% in. 0%ID = 2.441 in.
2% in. OD-ID = 1.995 in.
Step 2. Determine the temperature gradient applicable to
the problem. In this example, the flowing temperature of
the gas at the wellhead was 117F, and the subsurface
temperature at 10,658 ft was 170F. The temperature
was assumed to be a straight-line relationship between
117F at H = 0 and 170F at H = 10,658 ft for a
temperature gradient of 5F per 1,000 ft.
33-19
TABLE 33.13-WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATION OF SUBSURFACE SHUT-IN PRESSURE BY EQS. 15,16a, AND 16b
Company Lease Well No.
0
Date of Test
yg 0.615 %CO, 2.5 - 679 %N, PPC T 361 Equations Used 15,16a, 16b
PC
99 0 H 10,656 , 10,656 d N.A. Temperature Gradient 5Fll,000 ft
(4J)x WP) x
37.464 x
H T Z I
AP (1 +/n-l) u, +/n-1) Y,L
Line
-
L d, PO
0 ---ii 4,173.o 117 123.931 N.A. 0.6963 0 - - 0 1
1,000 1,000 N.A. 4,266.0 122 0.9071 123.753 93.0 23,036 23,036 23,053 2
1,000 1,000 N.A. 4,266.l 122 0.9071 123.751 93.1 23,059 23,059 3
2,000 2,000 N.A. 4,359.3 127 0.9177 123.573 93.2 23,051 46,i 10 46,105 4
3,000 3,000 N.A. 4,452.6 132 0.9262 123.410 93.3 23,043 69,153 69,156 5
4,000 4,000 N.A. 4,546.1 137 0.9365 123.245 93.5 23,062 92,215 92,211 6
5,000 5,000 N.A. 4,639.7 142 0.9486 123.061 93.6 23,056 115,271 115,263 7
6,000 6,000 N.A. 4,733.4 147 0.9566 122.929 93.7 23,051 136,322 136,316 6
7,000 7,000 N.A. 4,627.2 152 0.9665 122.766 93.6 23,046 161,370 161,369 9
6,000 6,000 N.A. 4,921.l 157 0.9762 122.645 93.9 23,046 164,416 184,421 IO
9,000 9,000 N.A. 5,015.l 162 0.9677 122.500 94.0 23,044 207,460 207,474 11
10,000 10,000 N.A. 5,109.3 167 0.9971 122.362 94.2 23,066 230,526 230,526 12
10.658 10,656 N.A. 5,171.3 170.3 1.0033 122.266 62.0 15,166 245,694 245,695 13
Step 3. Enter wellhead data on Line 1 where Hand L
are zero. Calculate f t from definition of I in Eq. 17.
From Eq. 17. I is:
;-2.082(g)
F2 + H (P& .
L 1,000
;=(3913)/(577)(0.8776)=7.72747.
Note that z was calculated by methods given in Refs.
14 and 15 (see also Chap. 20).
2.082(ygq,2/dpp>=
2.082(0.615)( 11.299)*
(2~l41)~(3913)
=0.00118.
[p/~z-2.082(y,q,2/dpp)]=7.72629.
Using Eqs. 16a and 16b:
=2.6665(11.299)2/~(2.441)5
. [4 log(2.441/O.ooO6) +2.27281] )
=340.425/24,200=0.014067,
or, from Table 33.10:
F*=(F,qs)*=(0.01050~11.299)*=0.014075.
This value of F* will be used later for comparison.
(p/Tz)*/1,CKIO=(7.72747)*/1,000=0.059714.
At the wellhead, where H=O and L=O for a vertical
wellbore. H=L, then
H/L=lim (H/L)=l.OOO.
H&L+0
For a deviated wellbore, H is less than L, and for a
horizontal pipeline, H = 0, and the term for the head of
gas drops out of the term for 1.
FZ+~(plTz)/l,OOO
=0.014067+(1.000)(0.059714)
=0.073781.
Then
Z=(7.72629)/(0.073781)=104.719.
If the F2 value determined from F, (taken from Table
33.10) is substituted above, I becomes 104.708, which
compares well with 104.719.
Step 4. Determine trial Ap (Line 2) for a depth of 1.000
ft by
Ml=
37.484~7, XL 37.484(0.615)(1,000)
21, = 2( 104.719)
=llO.l psi.
Step 5. Complete calculation of first trial 12 (104.346)
on Line 2 where the temperature is 122F, and the first
trial pressure is 3913.0+ 110.1=4023.1 psia. At these
conditions, the compressibility factor, Z, is 0.8g94. Esti-
mate the second trial Ap by:
&2=
37.484(0.615)(1,000) = 1 1o 3
104.719+104.346
33-20
Step 6. Complete calculation of second trial 12
(104.343) on Line 3 where the temperature remains at
122F, and the second trial pressure is 39 13 .O+ 110.3 =
4023.3 psia. Under these conditions, the compressibility
factor, Z, remains at 0.8894. Estimate the third trial Ap by
*~3=
37.484(0.615)( 1,000)
= 110.3.
104.719-t 104.343
Since the third trial Ap is the same to within 0.04 psi, the
pressure at a depth of 1,000 ft was determined by trial
and error to be 3,913.0+110.3 = 4,023.3 psia. (Note
that the third trial was not entered in Table 33.12.)
Step 7. Repeat Steps 4 through 6 to calculate the pres-
sure at a depth of2,OOO ft. Only the final step was given
in Table 33.12.
Table 33.13 illustrates the calculation of subsurface
shut-in pressures in a gas well by Eqs. 15, 16a, and 16b
by the same procedure used in Example 1. The only dif-
ference is that for the shut-in well the rate of flow, qg , is
zero and, as a result, the pressure loss caused by friction
is zero. Therefore, the inside diameter of the pipe has no
effect on the calculations.
Size of Integration Interval
The integration interval was 1,000 ft in Tables 33.12 and
33.13 for a moderately high-pressure well and, for the
flowing example (Table 33.12), the rate of 11.299 x lo3
cu ft/D gave an effective or average velocity of 14.7
ft/sec near the wellhead. Also, the compressibility fac-
tor, z, of the gas at wellhead conditions is in that portion
of the z vs. pressure curve where z is very nearly a linear
function of pressure. At this low velocity and the nearly
linear relationship of z with pressure, an integration in-
terval of 1,000 ft is probably more than enough.
Likewise, at low pressures where z is again almost a
straight-line function of pressure and at low velocities,
the integration interval could be extended to 3,000 ft
without undue error. However, even moderate computa-
tion facilities eliminate the necessity for expanding the
integration interval to more than 1,000 ft.
Application of Backpressure Tests
to Producing Problems
Backpressure tests taken properly are useful in predicting
delivery rates into a pipeline and in reconditioning
studies. For these purposes, either the multipoint or the
isochronal test is suitable for wells producing from reser-
voirs with high permeability such as Well B (Fig. 33.5).
The isochronal-type test is necessary for an accurate
analysis of producing problems for wells producing from
low-permeability reservoirs such as Well A (Fig. 33.7).
Although multipoint tests can be used, such analyses are
much more difficult.
Well performance at the bottom of the well is a
measure of the capacity of the reservoir to deliver gas in-
to the wellbore and is useful in analysis of reservoir
problems. A wellhead performance curve is a measure of
the capacity of the well to deliver gas into a pipeline and
is useful in equipment and reconditioning problems.
Usually, an analysis of producing problems can be com-
pleted with wellhead backpressure data.
Production Rate
Estimation of the steady production rate of a well into a
pipeline operating at a relatively constant pressure re-
quires both test data and a general knowledge of the pro-
ducing characteristics of the well. For example, an
estimate is required of the capacity of Well A (Fig. 33.7)
to deliver gas into a pipeline operating at a pressure so
that pts * -ptf
* in thousands equals 20. Starting from
shut-in conditions, the delivery rates would be 6,950,
6,000, 5,150, and 4,730x103 cu ft/D. The rate at 72
hours would be 3,340 x lo3 cu ft/D from data given in
the text. The steady reduction rate would be about
2,000 to
P
2,400x10 cu ft/D. Although theoretical
methods have been published for estimation of stabilized
production rates, they would require more data than is
available for the well.
Well B (Fig. 33.5) would produce about 4,300~ lo3
cu ft/D into a pipeline when
PlS
2
-prf* =500
as long as the well remained in good condition. Actually,
the performance of Well B increased during production
and the rate of flow would have increased. The perfor-
mance of Well B did not deteriorate with time.
Estimation of the sustained production rate of a par-
ticular well against fixed pipeline conditions requires a
general knowledge of well performance and a definite
knowledge of the performance characteristics of the par-
ticular well. The accuracy of such estimations is depen-
dent to a large extent on the amount of proper test data
available for study.
Causes of Deterioration in Performance
The principal causes of deterioration in gas-well perfor-
mance are hydrates, liquids, cavings, deposition of salts,
equipment leaks, foreign objects, and damage to the pro-
ducing formation. Any one or a combination of these
causes may result in loss of productive capacity and in
decreased income. The determination of the cause of
deterioration in performance and the recommendation of
remedial measures require a history of the performance
of the particular well.
The tests illustrated in Fig. 33.8 for Well A give a
history of the performance between the date (June 17,
1947) of the multipoint test and the date (Dec. 17, 1951)
of the isochronal test. The performance indicated by the
first point of the multipoint test (q8 =4,928x lo3 cu
ft/D) is the same as that of the isochronal test. Thus it is
concluded that the performance of Well A was main-
tained for about 4% years. Nothing occurred that harmed
the well. Similar conclusions regarding Well B are in-
dicated for the time interval represented by the data on
Fig. 33.5.
A regular program of testing gas wells is essential to
planning remedial action.
Hydrates
The formation of gas hydrates in the flow string or in the
reservoir may cause a well to cease flowing. The author
knows of no remedial action to remove hydrates from the
producing formation except that of allowing the natural
heat of the reservoir to melt the hydrates. The formation
of hydrates in the flow string may be prevented by use of
qg, IO3 cu ft/D
Fig. 33.9-Effect of tubing installation on performance of Well
C; Points 1 through 4 are before tubing installation,
Point 5 is after.
qg, lo3 cu fVD
Fig. 33.10-Effect of obstruction in tubing on performance of
Well D; Points 1 through 6 are before removal,
Point 7 is after.
bottomhole chokes, injection of chemicals such as the
alcohols or glycols into the flow string, or by the installa-
tion of downhole heating equipment. The accumulation
of hydrates in the flow strings may be alleviated to some
extent by elimination of obstructions in the flow string,
use of proper valve sizes at the surface, elimination of
sharp bends in surface lines, and proper placement of
chokes in surface lines. Remedial action consists in
lowering of hydrate-formation temperatures by
chemicals or by maintaining the temperature of the flow-
ing gas above the hydrate-formation temperature.
Heating of the flow string in a well is usually ac-
complished by the circulation of hot oil in the casing
around the tubing of the well. However, it must be em-
phasized that hydrate troubles are very easily confused
with liquid troubles in low-temperature wells. A careful
study should be made of flowing temperatures in a well
before recommendations are made for hydrate
prevention.
Liquids
Most performance difficulties in gas wells are caused by
the accumulation of liquids in the wellbore. Liquid
troubles may be caused by hydrocarbons (condensate
and etude oil), salt water, or brines coming into the
wellbore from the producing formation, brines from
foreign sources through casing leaks, or fresh water. Oc-
casionally, the production of formation water or crude
oil may be eliminated by plugback operations. Liquids in
wellbores may be removed by tubing strings of proper
design, siphon strings (tubing with jet holes or gas-lift
valves), and plunger lifts. Periodic flowing of the well at
high rates to the pipeline may eliminate liquid troubles.
Remedial action for water troubles requires an iden-
tification of the source of the water. This is done by
water analyses. If it is decided from analyses that the
water is native to the formation, there is a choice be-
tween plugback work and water removal by various
means. Salt water that is foreign to the producing forma-
tion or fresh water in excessive amounts indicates a cas-
ing leak that should be repaired. However, moderate
amounts of fresh water usually condense in the flow
strings of gas wells. Fresh water that occurs naturally
should not be confused with fresh water from a foreign
source.
Cavings
Cavings that consist of shale and pieces of the formation
are usually most troublesome in openhole completions.
The presence of cavings in wells without tubing can be
determined easily by comparison of measured depth with
drilled depth. Remedial action consists of cleaning out,
installation of liners in openhole, and acid washes where
the formation is soluble in acid.
Unconsolidated sand is troublesome in many Gulf
Coast wells. Sand may damage the performance of a
well in addition to causing severe damage to equipment.
Remedial action consists of cleaning out, installation of
special liners, or consolidation treatment for the
formation.
Deposition of Salts
Salts (sodium chloride or other chemical compounds)
may be. deposited in the flow strings or wellbores of gas
wells. Sodium chloride and water-soluble salts often
may be removed by water or light acid washes. Occa-
sionally it is necessary to replace the flow string with
clean pipe. Heavy crude oil (not a salt) may be removed
From the flow string and to a limited extent from the face
of the wellbore by washing with kerosene.
Casing and Tubing Leaks
Casing leaks usually permit the migration of gas into
another formation, but occasionally in low-pressure
areas water may come into the wellbore through leaks.
The migration of gas into another formation is wasteful.
Casing leaks, depending on their size in relation to well
33-22
capacity, cause deterioration in well performance.
Positive identification usually can be made with subsur-
face temperature surveys or special techniques supplied
by service companies.
Tubing leaks, where there is no packer, tend to defeat
the purpose of the tubing. Liquid removal becomes dif-
ficult if the hole in the tubing is large. Small leaks in tub-
ing are usually the result of corrosion. In wells where the
annular space is packed off, tubing leaks may allow cas-
ing pressures to build up to dangerous levels.
Foreign Objects
Foreign objects such as swab rubbers, stud bolts, or
pieces of metal may remain in the flow string of a well
after completion. Such objects should be removed from
the flow string because they can seriously affect the
delivery capacity of a well. The removal of foreign ob-
jects ftom the upstream side of chokes is common.
Examples of Remedial Operations
The effect of water production and the installation of tub-
ing on the performance of Well C in the Texas Hugoton
field is illustrated in Fig. 33.9. The curve (n=0.860)
shows the 3-hour isochronal test results taken im-
mediately after completion. Numbered points are
72-hour isochronal tests taken at yearly intervals, except
for Points 4 and 5, which were immediately before and
after installation of tubing. Point 1, taken after comple-
tion, and Point 2, taken about a year after completion,
represent good performance. Points 3 and 4 show poor
performance with the result that Well C was producing
about 30% of its assigned allowable. A study of Well C
indicated that salt water was causing the poor perfor-
mance. A string of 1 g-in. tubing with a X,-in. jet hole
100 ft from the bottom of the tubing was installed. The
well was then produced continuously through the tubing
string. At the time Point 5 was taken, the performance of
the well had not only been restored but it had been im-
proved over what it had been originally, which is shown
by the relative positions of Points 1, 2, and 5 with
respect to the 3-hour isochronal curve. Conclusions
regarding Well C are that there was a minor water prob-
lem from completion through the time that performance
data were taken for Points 1 and 2 (Fig. 33.9). Water
movement into the wellbore had seriously damaged the
performance of the well at the times Points 3 and 4 were
taken. The installation of tubing after Point 4 permitted
the removal of water from the well and even allowed the
water saturation to be reduced in the formation around
the wellbore. The position of Point 5 indicates better
72-hour performance than the well had originally as it is
closer to the 3-hour isochronal curve than Points 1 and 2.
An example of the effect of a tubing obstruction on the
performance of a well is illustrated in Fig. 33.10 for
Well D, where the performance points (indicated by
circles with and without numbers) were taken at intervals
of a month after start of production. Well D was an ex-
tremely high-capacity well as indicated by the position of
the original multipoint test. As the numbered points were
of long-time-flow duration, it was thought that position
of Points 1, 2, and 3 indicated some sort of liquid
blockage in the reservoir. However, the tubing appeared
to be free of liquids when the well was shut in and
pressures were normal. Water-gas and condensate-gas
ratios were normal. Thus it was concluded that liquids
were not the source of trouble. After Points 4, 5, and 6
were taken, it was decided to blow the well. Shortly after
the well was opened, a swab rubber and several pieces of
metal were blown from the well. Afterward, the perfor-
mance of Well D returned to normal, as indicated by the
positions of Point 7 and later performance points that are
not numbered on Fig. 33.10.
Space does not permit a complete description of recon-
ditioning procedures. However, it is hoped that this brief
outline does illustrate the importance of adequate perfor-
mance tests in the maintenance of well productivity and
planning reconditioning procedures.
Nomenclature
C = performance coefficient
di = internal diameter, in.
f=
F=
F, =
F =
;; =
Fpu =
F, =
FT =
h, =
h, =
H=
I =
K=
L=
n=
P
Pi =
PI =
Ppc =
PR =
Ps =
Ptf =
Pts =
Pwf =
qg =
ri =
R
gL =
coefficient of friction (friction factor)
term in Eq. 16a
specific-gravity adjustment factor
non-Darcy flow factor
basic orifice factor for critical-flow prover,
lo3 cu ft/D at 14.65 psia, 60F, specific
gravity = 1.000
supercompressibility adjustment factor
factor defined by Eq. 16a
flowing-temperature adjustment factor
height (manometer reading), in. mercury
height (manometer reading), in. water
vertical depth in a well, ft (in untubed wells
H is the vertical depth to the midpoint of
the productive formation; in tubed wells
H is the vertical depth to the entrance to
the tubing)
terms in Eq. 17
absolute roughness characteristic, in.
length of flow string in well corresponding
to H, ft
exponent of the backpressure equation or
slope of the backpressure curve
pressure, psia
impact pressure on a pitot tube, psig
impact pressure on a pitot tube, psia
pressure, pseudocritical, psia
average pressure in the reservoir at vertical
depth H
static pressure on critical flow prover, psia
flowing pressure at wellhead measured on a
flowing column of gas, psia
shut-in pressure at wellhead, psia
subsurface (bottomhole) flowing pressure in
the wellbore at vertical depth H, psia
rate of flow, lo3 cu ft/D or lo6 cu ft/D
(14.65 psia and 60F)
internal radius of pipe, in.
gas to hydrocarbon liquid ratio, cu ft/bbl
T = temperature, OF+460
Tf = temperature of flowing gas, OF+460
33-23
Tpc = temperature, pseudocritical, OF+460
TR = reservoir temperature
I, = vapor volume equivalent of 1 bbl (60F) of
hydrocarbon liquid, cu ft/bbl
z = compressibility factor for gas
A = difference between two values
78
= specific gravity of separator gas or gas
being measured, air = 1.000
yg = specific gravity of the flowing fluid, air =
1.000
-ye = specific gravity of hydrocarbon liquid
referred to water
qn =o. 1533 d?p, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4)
ztgLYn +g19.g YL
-rff=
. . . . .
RgL+vL
141.5
YL=
131.5+yAPl . . . . . . . . . (14b)
vLy65.7+0.89 -fApI+0.~7(YApI)2. (14C)
H (p/Tz)
. (15)
F2+-p
L 1,000
F==
5.328Ofq;
di5 . . . . . . . . . . . (16a)
Al-
l 7.4 Ti
- =4 log-. . . . . .
f
K
(16b)
~~.~~~Y,L=[(P~PI)(IZ+~)+(P~PZ)
. (1.3 +12) f... (Pn -pn-1) (n +4-l)]
. . . . . . .
(18)
where
qn is in m3/d,
d; is in mm,
p is in kPa,
VL is in m/m,
L is in m,
T is in K,
H is in m,
T; is in mm, and
K is in mm.
References
1. Reid, W. : Open Flow Measurement of Gas Well, Western Gas
(Nov. 1929) 32.
2. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.: Back-pressure Data on
Natural Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Prac-
tices, USBM Monograph (1935) Washington, DC.
3. Binckley, C.W.: Methods of Approximating Open Flow of
Gas, Proc., Southwestern Gas Measurement Short Course
(1954) 304
4. Cullender, M.H.: The Isochronal Performance Method of Deter-
mining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells, J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1955) 13742; Trans., AIME, 204.
5. Odeh, A.S.: Pseudosteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity
Index for a Well With Noncircular Drainage Area, J. Per. Tech.
(Nov. 1978) 1630-32.
6. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects
in Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown of Gas Wells, J . Per. Tech.
(Feb. 1965) 223-33; Trans., AIME, 234.
7. Odeh, A.S., Moreland, E.E., and Schueler, S.: Characterization
of a Gas Well From One Flow-Test Sequence, J . Per. Tech.
(Dec. 1975) 1500-04; Trans., AIME, 259.
8. Smith, R.V.: Unsteady-State Gas Flow into Gas Wells, J. Pet.
Tech. (Nov. 1961) 1151-59; Trans., AIME, 222.
9. Orifice Metering of Natural Gas, Gas Measurement Commitfee
Report 3, American Gas Ass., New York City (April 1955).
10. Manual of Back Pressure Testing of Gas Wells, State of Kansas,
Topeka (1959).
Il. Manual of Back Pressure Testing of Gas Wells, Interstate Oil
Compact Commission, Oklahoma City (1962).
12. Smith, R.V.: Practical Natural Gas Engineering, Pennwell
Publishing Co., Tulsa (1983).
13. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: Practical Solution of Gas-
Flow Equations for Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature
Gmdients, J . Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1956) 281-87; Trans., AIME,
207.
14. Hall, K.R. and Yatirough, L.: A New Equation of State for Z-
Factor Calculations, Oiland GasJ. (June 18, 1973) 71, No. 2.5,
82-85.
15. Yarborough, L. and Hall, K.R.: How to Solve Equation of State
for Z-Factors, Oil and Gus J . (Feb. 18, 1974) 72, 86-88.

Howard B. - Petroleum Engineers Handbook, Part 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Howard B. - Petroleum Engineers Handbook, Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Click Here To Continue

You might also like