718 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

The Carter-Tracy Water Influx Model

Van Everdingen-Hurst methodology provides the exact solution to the

radial diffusivity equation and therefore is considered the correct tech-
nique for calculating water influx. However, because superposition of
solutions is required, their method involves tedious calculations. To
reduce the complexity of water influx calculations, Carter and Tracy
(1960) proposed a calculation technique that does not require superposi-
tion and allows direct calculation of water influx.
The primary difference between the Carter-Tracy technique and the
van Everdingen-Hurst technique is that the Carter-Tracy technique
assumes constant water influx rates over each finite time interval. Using
the Carter-Tracy technique, the cumulative water influx at any time, tn,
can be calculated directly from the previous value obtained at tn − 1, or:

( We )n = ( We )n −1 + [(t D )n − (t D )n −1 ]
⎡ B Δp n − ( We )n −1 (p′D )n ⎤
⎢⎣ (p D )n − (t D )n −1 (p′D )n ⎥⎦ (10-34)

where B = the van Everdingen-Hurst water influx constant as defined

by Equation 10-23
tD = the dimensionless time as defined by Equation 10-17
n = refers to the current time step
n − 1 = refers to the previous time step
Δpn = total pressure drop, pi − pn, psi
pD = dimensionless pressure
p′D = dimensionless pressure derivative

Values of the dimensionless pressure pD as a function of tD and rD are

tabulated in Chapter 6, Table 6-2. In addition to the curve-fit equations
given in Chapter 6 (Equations 6-91 through 6-96), Edwardson and co-
authors (1962) developed the following approximation of pD for an infi-
nite-acting aquifer.

370.529 t D + 137.582 t D + 5.69549 (t D )1.5

pD = (10-35)
328.834 + 265.488 t D + 45.2157 t D + (t D )1.5
 Water Influx 719

The dimensionless pressure derivative can then be approximated by

E
p′D = (10-36)
F

where E = 716.441 + 46.7984 (tD)0.5 + 270.038 tD + 71.0098 (tD)1.5

F = 1296.86 (tD)0.5 +1204.73 tD + 618.618 (td)1.5
+ 538.072 (tD)2 + 142.41 (tD)2.5

The following approximation could also be used between tD > 100:

pD = 0.5 [ln (tD) + 0.80907]
with the derivative as given by:
PD′ = 1/(2tD)
It should be noted that the Carter-Tracy method is not an exact solution
to the diffusivity equation and should be considered an approximation.

Example 10-9
Rework Example 10-7 by using the Carter-Tracy method.

Solution
Example 10-7 shows the following preliminary results:

• Water influx constant B = 20.4 bbl/psi

• tD = 0.9888 t

Step 1. For each time step n, calculate the total pressure drop Δpn = pi − pn
and the corresponding tD

N t, days pn Δpn tD

0 0 2500 0 0
1 182.5 2490 10 180.5
2 365.0 2472 28 361.0
3 547.5 2444 56 541.5
4 730.0 2408 92 722.0

Step 2. Since values of tD are greater than 100, use Equation 6-92 to cal-
culate pD and its derivative p′D, i.e.,
pD = 0.5 [ln (tD) + 0.80907]
p′D = 1/(2 tD)
720 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

N t tD pD pD′

0 0 0 — —
1 182.5 180.5 3.002 2.770 × 10−3
2 365 361.0 3.349 1.385 × 10−3
3 547.5 541.5 3.552 0.923 × 10−3
4 730.0 722.0 3.696 0.693 × 10−3

Step 3. Calculate cumulative water influx by applying Equation 10-33.

• We after 182.5 days:

−3
⎡ (20.4) (10) − (0) (2.77 × 10 ) ⎤
We = 0 + [180.5 − 0] ⎢
⎣ 3.002 − (0) (2.77 × 10 −3 ) ⎥⎦

We = 12,266 bbl

• We after 365 days:

We = 12, 266 + [361 − 180.5]

−3
⎡ (20.4) (28) − (12, 266) (1.385 × 10 ) ⎤
⎢⎣ 3.349 − (180.5) (1.385 × 10 −3 ) ⎥⎦

= 42,546 bbl

• We after 547.5 days:

We = 42, 546 + [541.5 − 361]

−3
⎡ (20.4) (56) − (42, 546) (0.923 × 10 ) ⎤
⎢⎣ 3.552 − (361) (0.923 × 10 −3 ) ⎥⎦

We = 104,406

• We after 720 days:

We = 104, 406 + [722 − 541.5]

−3
⎡ (20.4) (92) − (104, 406) (0.693 × 10 ) ⎤
⎢⎣ 3.696 − (541.5) (0.693 × 10 −3 ) ⎥⎦

We = 202,477 bbl
 Water Influx 721

The following table compares results of the Carter-Tracy water influx

calculations with those of the van Everdingen-Hurst method.

Carter-Tracy Van Everdingen-Hurst

Time, month We, bbl We, bbl

0 0 0
6 12,266 7080
12 42,546 32,435
18 104,400 85,277
24 202,477 175,522

The above comparison indicates that the Carter-Tracy method consid-

erably overestimates the water influx. This is due, however, to the fact
that a large time-step of 6 months was used in the Carter-Tracy method to
determine the water influx. Accuracy of the Carter-Tracy method can be
increased substantially by restricting the time step used in performing the
water influx calculations to less than 30 days, i.e. Δt = 30 days. Recalcu-
lating the water influx on a monthly basis produces an excellent match
with the van Everdingen-Hurst method as shown below.

Carter- van Everdingen-

Tracy Hurst
Time Time p Dp We We
months days psi psi tD pD p´D bbl bbl

0 0 2500.0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 0

1 30 2498.9 1.06 30.0892 2.11 0.01661 308.8
2 61 2497.7 2.31 60.1784 2.45 0.00831 918.3
3 91 2496.2 3.81 90.2676 2.66 0.00554 1860.3
4 122 2494.4 5.56 120.357 2.80 0.00415 3171.7
5 152 2492.4 7.55 150.446 2.91 0.00332 4891.2
6 183 2490.2 9.79 180.535 3.00 0.00277 7057.3 7088.9
7 213 2487.7 12.27 210.624 3.08 0.00237 9709.0
8 243 2485.0 15.00 240.713 3.15 0.00208 12,884.7
9 274 2482.0 17.98 270.802 3.21 0.00185 16,622.8
10 304 2478.8 21.20 300.891 3.26 0.00166 20,961.5
11 335 2475.3 24.67 330.981 3.31 0.00151 25,938.5
12 365 2471.6 28.38 361.070 3.35 0.00139 31,591.5 32,438.0
13 396 2467.7 32.34 391.159 3.39 0.00128 37,957.8
14 426 2463.5 36.55 421.248 3.43 0.00119 45,074.5
15 456 2459.0 41.00 451.337 3.46 0.00111 52,978.6
16 487 2454.3 45.70 481.426 3.49 0.00104 61,706.7
17 517 2449.4 50.64 511.516 3.52 0.00098 71,295.3
18 547 2444.3 55.74 541.071 3.55 0.00092 81,578.8 85,552.0
19 578 2438.8 61.16 571.130 3.58 0.00088 92,968.2
20 608 2433.2 66.84 601.190 3.60 0.00083 105,323
21 638 2427.2 72.75 631.249 3.63 0.00079 118,681
22 669 2421.1 78.92 661.309 3.65 0.00076 133,076
23 699 2414.7 85.32 691.369 3.67 0.00072 148,544
24 730 2408.0 91.98 721.428 3.70 0.00069 165,119 175,414.0
722 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

Fetkovich’s Method

Fetkovich (1971) developed a method of describing the approximate

water influx behavior of a finite aquifer for radial and linear geometries.
In many cases, the results of this model closely match those determined
using the van Everdingen-Hurst approach. The Fetkovich theory is much
simpler, and, like the Carter-Tracy technique, this method does not
require the use of superposition. Hence, the application is much easier,
and this method is also often utilized in numerical simulation models.
Fetkovich’s model is based on the premise that the productivity index
concept will adequately describe water influx from a finite aquifer into a
hydrocarbon reservoir. That is, the water influx rate is directly propor-
tional to the pressure drop between the average aquifer pressure and the
pressure at the reservoir-aquifer boundary. The method neglects the
effects of any transient period. Thus, in cases where pressures are chang-
ing rapidly at the aquifer/reservoir interface, predicted results may differ
somewhat from the more rigorous van Everdingen-Hurst or Carter-Tracy
approaches. In many cases, however, pressure changes at the waterfront
are gradual and this method offers an excellent approximation to the two
methods discussed above.
This approach begins with two simple equations. The first is the pro-
ductivity index (PI) equation for the aquifer, which is analogous to the PI
equation used to describe an oil or gas well:
dWe
ew = = J ( pa − p r ) (10-37)
dt
where ew = water influx rate from aquifer, bbl/day
J = productivity index for the aquifer, bbl/day/psi
–p = average aquifer pressure, psi
a
pr = inner aquifer boundary pressure, psi
The second equation is an aquifer material balance equation for a con-
stant compressibility, which states that the amount of pressure depletion
in the aquifer is directly proportional to the amount of water influx from
the aquifer, or:
We = c t Wi (p i − pa ) f (10-38)
where Wi = initial volume of water in the aquifer, bbl
ct = total aquifer compressibility, cw + cf, psi−1
pi = initial pressure of the aquifer, psi
f = θ/360
 Water Influx 723

Equation 10-37 suggests that the maximum possible water influx occurs
if pa = 0, or:
Wei = ct Wi pi f (10-39)
Combining Equation 10-38 with 10-37 gives:

⎛ We ⎞
= pi ⎛1 − e ⎞
W
pa = p i ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (10-40)
⎝ c t Wi p i ⎠ ⎝ Wei ⎠

Equation 10-37 provides a simple expression to determine the average

aquifer pressure –pa after removing We bbl of water from the aquifer to the
reservoir, i.e., cumulative water influx.
Differentiating Equation 10-39 with respect to time gives:

dWe W d pa
= − ei (10-41)
dt p i dt
Fetkovich combined Equation 10-40 with 10-36 and integrated to give
the following form:

−J pi t ⎞
(p i − p r ) exp ⎛
Wei
We = (10-42)
pi ⎝ Wei ⎠

where We = cumulative water influx, bbl

pr = reservoir pressure, i.e., pressure at the oil- or gas-water
contact
t = time, days

Equation 10-41 has no practical applications since it was derived for a

constant inner boundary pressure. To use this solution in the case in
which the boundary pressure is varying continuously as a function of
time, the superposition technique must be applied. Rather than using
superposition, Fetkovich suggested that, if the reservoir-aquifer boundary
pressure history is divided into a finite number of time intervals, the
incremental water influx during the nth interval is:
724 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

Jp Δt
[( pa )n−1 − ( pr )n ] ⎡⎢1 − exp ⎛ − i n ⎞ ⎤⎥
Wei
(ΔWe )n = (10-43))
pi ⎣ ⎝ Wei ⎠ ⎦

where (p–)
a n − 1 is the average aquifer pressure at the end of the previous
time step. This average pressure is calculated from Equation 10-39 as:

( pa )n −1 = p i ⎛ 1 −
( We )n −1 ⎞
(10-44)
⎝ Wei ⎠

– ) is estimated from:
The average reservoir boundary pressure (pr n

(Pr )n + (p r )n −1
( pr )n = (10-45)
2
The productivity index J used in the calculation is a function of the
geometry of the aquifer. Fetkovich calculated the productivity index
from Darcy’s equation for bounded aquifers. Lee and Wattenbarger
(1996) pointed out that Fetkovich’s method can be extended to infinite-
acting aquifers by requiring that the ratio of water influx rate to pressure
drop be approximately constant throughout the productive life of the
reservoir. The productivity index J of the aquifer is given by the follow-
ing expressions.

Type of Outer J for Radial J for Linear

Aquifer Boundary Flow, bbl/day/psi Flow, bbl/day/psi Equation #

Finite, no flow 0.00708 kh f

(10-45)
0.003381 kwh
J= J=
m ⎡⎣ ln e D − 0.75⎤⎦ mL
Finite, constant pressure 0.00708 kh f
(10-46)
0.001127 k wh
J= J=
m ⎣⎡ ln ( rD ) ⎤⎦ mL
Infinite 0.00708 kh f 0.001 k wh
(10-47)
J= J=
m ln (a / re ) m 0.0633 kt / ( f m c t )

a = 0.0142 kt / ( fm c t )

where w = width of the linear aquifer

L = length of the linear aquifer
rD = dimensionless radius, ra/re
 Water Influx 725

k = permeability of the aquifer, md

t = time, days
θ = encroachment angle
h = thickness of the aquifer
f = θ/360

The following steps describe the methodology of using Fetkovich’s

model in predicting the cumulative water influx.

Step 1. Calculate initial volume of water in the aquifer from:

π
Wi = ( ra2 − re2 ) h φ
5.615
Step 2. Calculate the maximum possible water influx Wei by applying
Equation 10-38, or:

Wei = ct Wi pi f

Step 3. Calculate the productivity index J based on the boundary condi-

tions and aquifer geometry.

Step 4. Calculate the incremental water influx (ΔWe)n from the aquifer
during the nth time interval by using Equation 10-42. For exam-
ple, during the first time interval Δt1:

Wei ⎡ ⎛ − Jp i Δt1 ⎞ ⎤
( ΔWe )1 = [ p i − ( p r )1 ] ⎢1 − exp ⎜
⎝ Wei ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎟⎥
pi ⎢⎣

with

p i + ( p r )1
( p r )1 =
2
For the second time interval Δt2

Wei ⎡ ⎛ − Jp i Δt 2 ⎞ ⎤
( ΔWe )2 = [( pa )1 − ( p r )2 ] ⎢1 − exp ⎜
⎝ Wei ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎟⎥
pi ⎢⎣
726 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

Figure 10-17. Aquifer-reservoir geometry for Example 10-10.

where (p– ) is the average aquifer pressure at the end of the first
a 1
period and removing (ΔWe)1 barrels of water from the aquifer to
the reservoir. From Equation 10-43:

⎛ ( ΔWe )1 ⎞
( pa )1 = p i ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ Wei ⎠

Step 5. Calculate the cumulative (total) water influx at the end of any
time period from:
n
We = ∑ ( ΔWe )i
t =1

Example 10-102

Using Fetkovich’s method, calculate the water influx as a function of

time for the following reservoir-aquifer and boundary pressure data:

pi = 2740 psi h = 100′ ct = 7 × 10−6 psi

μw = 0.55 cp k = 200 md θ = 140°
reservoir area = 40,363 acres aquifer area = 1,000,000 acres.

2Dataof this example are given by L. P. Dake, Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering,

Elsevier Publishing Company, 1978.
 Water Influx 727

Time, days pr, psi

0 2740
365 2500
730 2290
1095 2109
1460 1949

Figure 10-17 shows the wedge reservoir-aquifer system with an encroach-

ment angle of 140°.

Solution

Step 1. Calculate the reservoir radius re:

re = ⎛
140 ⎞ (2374) (43, 560)
= 9200 ft
⎝ 360 ⎠ π

Step 2. Calculate the equivalent aquifer radius ra:

ra = ⎛
140 ⎞ (1, 000, 000) (43, 560)
= 46, 000 ft
⎝ 360 ⎠ π
Step 3. Calculate the dimensionless radius rD.

rD = ra / re

= 46, 000 / 9200 = 5

Step 4. Calculate initial water in place Wi.

Wi = π ( ra2 − re2 ) h φ 5.615

π ( 46, 0002 − 92002 ) (100) (0.25)

= = 28.41 MMM bbl
5.615

Step 5. Calculate Wei from Equation 10-38.

Wei = ct Wi pi f

Wei = 7 × 10 −6 (28.41 × 10 9 ) (2740) ⎛

140 ⎞
= 211.9 MM bbl
⎝ 360 ⎠
728 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

Step 6. Calculate the productivity index J of the radial aquifer from Equa-
tion 10-45.

J=
0.00708 (200) (100) ( )
140
360 = 116.5 bbl/day/psi
0.55 ln (5)

Therefore, Jpi/Wei = (116.5 × 2740)/(211.9 × 106) = 1.506 × 10−3

Since the time step Δt is fixed at 365 days, then

−3 × 365
1 − e − Jp i Δt / Wei = 1 − e −1.506 × 10 = 0.4229
Equation 10-42 can be reduced to:

211.9 × 106
(ΔWe )n = [( pa )n −1 − ( pr )n ] ( 0.4229 )
2740

(ΔWe )n = 32, 705 [( pa )n −1 − ( pr )n ]

Step 7. Calculate cumulative water influx as shown in the following table:

t (ΔWe)n (We)
n days pr –)
(p ( –pa )n − 1 ( –pa )n − 1 − (p–r )n MM bbl MM bbl
r n

0 0 2740 2740 2740 0 0 0

1 365 2500 2620 2740 120 3.925 3.925
2 730 2290 2395 2689 294 9.615 13.540
3 1095 2109 2199 2565 366 11.970 25.510
4 1460 1949 2029 2409 381 12.461 37.971

PROBLEMS
1. Calculate the cumulative water influx that results from a pressure drop of
200 psi at the oil-water contact with an encroachment angle of 50°. The
reservoir-aquifer system is characterized by the following properties:

Reservoir Aquifer

radius, ft 6000 20,000

porosity 0.18 0.15
cf, psi−1 4 × 10−6 3 ×10−6
cw, psi−1 5 × 10−6 4 × 10−6
h, ft 25 20
 Water Influx 729

2. An active water-drive oil reservoir is producing under the steady-state

flowing conditions. The following data are available:
pi = 4000 psi Qw = 0 Rs = 500 scf/STB
Qo = 40,000 STB/day p = 3000 psi T = 140°F
GOR = 700 scf/STB Bo = 1.3 bbl/STB Bw = 1.0 bbl/STB
z = 0.82
Calculate Schilthuis’ water influx constant.
3. The pressure history of a water-drive oil reservoir is given below:
t, days p, psi

0 4000
120 3950
220 3910
320 3880
420 3840

The aquifer is under a steady-state flowing condition with an esti-

mated water influx constant of 80 bbl/day/psi. Using the steady-state
model, calculate and plot the cumulative water influx as a function of
time.
4. A water-drive reservoir has the following boundary pressure history:

Boundary pressure,
Time, months psi

0 2610
6 2600
12 2580
18 2552
24 2515

The aquifer-reservoir system is characterized by the following data:

Reservoir Aquifer

radius, ft 2000 ∞
h, ft 25 30
k, md 60 80
φ, % 17 18
μw, cp 0.55 0.85
cw, psi−1 0.7 × 10−6 0.8 × 10−6
cf, psi−1 0.2 × 10−6 0.3 × 10−6
730 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

If the encroachment angle is 360°, calculate the water influx as a

function of time by using:

a. The van Everdingen-Hurst method

b. The Carter-Tracy method

5. The following table summarizes the original data available on the West
Texas water-drive reservoir:

Oil Zone Aquifer

Geometry Circle Semi-circle

Area, acres 640 Infinite
Initial reservoir
pressure, psia 4000 4000
Initial oil saturation 0.80 0
Porosity, % 22 —
Boi, bbl/STB 1.36 —
Bwi, bbl/STB 1.00 1.05
co, psi−1 6 × 10−6 —
cw, psi−1 3 × 10−6 7 × 10−6

The aquifer geological data estimate the water influx constant at 551
bbl/psi. After 1,120 days of production, the reservoir average pressure
has dropped to 3,800 psi and the field has produced 860,000 STB of
oil. The field condition after 1,120 days of production is given below:

p = 3800 psi
Np = 860,000 STB
Bo = 1.34 bbl/STB
Bw = 1.05 bbl/STB
We = 991,000 bbl
tD = 32.99 (dimensionless time after 1120 days)
Wp = 0 bbl
It is expected that the average reservoir pressure will drop to 3,400 psi
after 1,520 days (i.e., from the start of production). Calculate the
cumulative water influx after 1,520 days.
6. A wedge reservoir-aquifer system with an encroachment angle of 60°
has the following boundary pressure history:
 Water Influx 731

Time, days Boundary Pressure, psi

0 2850
365 2610
730 2400
1095 2220
1460 2060

Given:
h = 120′ cf = 5 × 10−6 psi−1 cw = 4 ×10−6 psi−1
μw = 0.7 cp k = 60 md φ = 12%
reservoir area = 40,000 acres aquifer area = 980,000 acres T = 140°F
Calculate the cumulative influx as a function of time by using
Fetkovich’s method.

REFERENCES
1. Allard, D. R., and Chen, S. M., “Calculation of Water Influx for Bottom Water
Drive Reservoirs,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988, pp. 369–379.
2. Carter, R. D., and Tracy, G. W., “An Improved Method for Calculations
Water Influx,” Trans. AIME, 1960.
3. Chatas, A., “A Practical Treatment of Nonsteady-State Flow Problems in
Reservoir Systems,” Petroleum Engineering, May 1953, 25, No. 5, B-42;
No. 6, June, p. B-38; No. 8, August, p. B-44.
4. Coats, K., “A Mathematical Model for Water Movement about Bottom-Water-
Drive Reservoirs,” SPE Jour., March 1962, pp. 44–52; Trans. AIME, p. 225.
5. Craft, B., and Hawkins, M., Applied Reservoir Engineering. Prentice Hall,
1959.
6. Craft, B., Hawkins, M., and Terry, R., Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engi-
neering, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 1991.
7. Dake, L. P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
1978.
8. Dake, L., The Practice of Reservoir Engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994.
9. Edwardson, M. et al., “Calculation of Formation Temperature Disturbances
Caused by Mud Circulation,” JPT, April 1962, pp. 416–425; Trans. AIME,
p. 225.
10. Fetkovich, M. J., “A Simplified Approach to Water Influx Calculations-
Finite Aquifer Systems,” JPT, July 1971, pp. 814–828.
732 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

11. Hurst, W., “Water Influx into a Reservoir and its Application to the Equation
of Volumetric Balance,” Trans. AIME, Vol. 151, pp. 57, 1643.
12. Lee, J., and Wattenbarger, R., Gas Reservoir Engineering. SPE Textbook
Series, Vol. 5, SPE, Dallas, TX, 1996.
13. Schilthuis, R., “Active Oil and Reservoir Energy,” Trans. AIME, 1936, pp.
37, 118.
14. Van Everdingen, A., and Hurst, W., “The Application of the Laplace Transfor-
mation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,” Trans. AIME, 1949, pp. 186, 305.
 C H A P T E R 1 1

OIL RECOVERY
MECHANISMS AND THE
MATERIAL BALANCE
EQUATION

Each reservoir is composed of a unique combination of geometric

form, geological rock properties, fluid characteristics, and primary drive
mechanism. Although no two reservoirs are identical in all aspects, they
can be grouped according to the primary recovery mechanism by which
they produce. It has been observed that each drive mechanism has certain
typical performance characteristics in terms of:

• Ultimate recovery factor

• Pressure decline rate
• Gas-oil ratio
• Water production

The recovery of oil by any of the natural drive mechanisms is called

primary recovery. The term refers to the production of hydrocarbons
from a reservoir without the use of any process (such as fluid injection)
to supplement the natural energy of the reservoir.
The two main objectives of this chapter are to:

1. Introduce and give a detailed discussion of the various primary recov-

ery mechanisms and their effects on the overall performance of oil
reservoirs.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Doi: 10.1016/C2009-0-30429-8

733
734 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

2. Provide the basic principles of the material balance equation and other
governing relationships that can be used to predict the volumetric per-
formance of oil reservoirs.

PRIMARY RECOVERY MECHANISMS

For a proper understanding of reservoir behavior and predicting future

performance, it is necessary to have knowledge of the driving mecha-
nisms that control the behavior of fluids within reservoirs. The overall
performance of oil reservoirs is largely determined by the nature of the
energy, i.e., driving mechanism, available for moving the oil to the well-
bore. There are basically six driving mechanisms that provide the natural
energy necessary for oil recovery:

• Rock and liquid expansion drive

• Depletion drive
• Gas-cap drive
• Water drive
• Gravity drainage drive
• Combination drive

These driving mechanisms are discussed as follows.

Rock and Liquid Expansion

When an oil reservoir initially exists at a pressure higher than its

bubble-point pressure, the reservoir is called an undersaturated-oil
reservoir. At pressures above the bubble-point pressure, crude oil, con-
nate-water, and rock are the only materials present. As the reservoir pres-
sure declines, the rock and fluids expand due to their individual com-
pressibilities. The reservoir rock compressibility is the result of two
factors:

• Expansion of the individual rock grains

• Formation compaction

Both of the above two factors are the results of a decrease of fluid
pressure within the pore spaces, and both tend to reduce the pore volume
through the reduction of the porosity.
As the expansion of the fluids and reduction in the pore volume occur
with decreasing reservoir pressure, the crude oil and water will be forced
 Oil Recovery Mechanisms and the Material Balance Equation 735

out of the pore space to the wellbore. Because liquids and rocks are only
slightly compressible, the reservoir will experience a rapid pressure
decline. The oil reservoir under this driving mechanism is characterized
by a constant gas-oil ratio that is equal to the gas solubility at the bubble
point pressure.
This driving mechanism is considered the least efficient driving force
and usually results in the recovery of only a small percentage of the total
oil-in-place.

The Depletion-Drive Mechanism

This driving form may also be referred to by the following various

terms:

• Solution gas drive

• Dissolved gas drive
• Internal gas drive

In this type of reservoir, the principal source of energy is a result of

gas liberation from the crude oil and the subsequent expansion of the
solution gas as the reservoir pressure is reduced. As pressure falls below
the bubble-point pressure, gas bubbles are liberated within the micro-
scopic pore spaces. These bubbles expand and force the crude oil out of
the pore space as shown conceptually in Figure 11-1.
Cole (1969) suggests that a depletion-drive reservoir can be identified
by the following characteristics:

• Reservoir pressure: The reservoir pressure declines rapidly and con-

tinuously. This reservoir pressure behavior is attributed to the fact that
no extraneous fluids or gas caps are available to provide a replacement
of the gas and oil withdrawals.
• Water production: The absence of a water drive means there will be
little or no water production with the oil during the entire producing life
of the reservoir.
• Gas-oil ratio: A depletion-drive reservoir is characterized by a rapidly
increasing gas-oil ratio from all wells, regardless of their structural
position. After the reservoir pressure has been reduced below the bub-
ble-point pressure, gas evolves from solution throughout the reservoir.
Once the gas saturation exceeds the critical gas saturation, free gas
begins to flow toward the wellbore and the gas-oil ratio increases. The
736 Reservoir Engineering Handbook

Figure 11-1. Solution-gas-drive reservoir. (After Clark, N. J., Elements of Petroleum

Reservoirs, SPE, 1969.)

gas will also begin a vertical movement due to the gravitational forces,
which may result in the formation of a secondary gas cap. Vertical per-
meability is an important factor in the formation of a secondary gas cap.
• Ultimate oil-recovery: Oil production by depletion drive is usually
the least efficient recovery method. This is a direct result of the forma-
tion of gas saturation throughout the reservoir. Ultimate oil recovery
from depletion-drive reservoirs may vary from less than 5% to about
30%. The low recovery from this type of reservoirs suggests that large
quantities of oil remain in the reservoir and, therefore, depletion-drive
reservoirs are considered the best candidates for secondary recovery
applications.