SPE

SFE7427

RECOVERY
EFFICIENCY

bv A. F. van Everdingen,Member SPli-AIME,and

Hyla Swesnik Kriss, DeGolyer and MacNaughton

r Copyright 1978. American Institute of IAnirrg. Metallurgical. and Ptwoleum Err@eera.

mc
Tfrta paper was presented at the !i3rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhmmon of the Soclet y of Petroleum Errgmeeraof AIMS held m Hobslon. Texas. Ott i-3. 1978 The material IS sublect to correction
by the author Permission 10 COPY ia !aslricted 10an
abstract of nOl more than 300 worda Write. 6200 N Central EXPY. Dallas. Texas 7520$

LSSTRArT Liquids and Natural Gas,’rprepared under the auspices

of the API and AGA; the report subsequentlywas
For the past 50 years, data on recovery efficiency issued yearly. Throughout World War II and most of
lave been collected and organized on the basis of dis- the postwar years, the reviews contatned only two
:overy year; in reviewing these data, we note that categories: ‘rChangesin Proved Reserves Due to Exten-
Lhe efficiency has declined during the last three sions and Revisions’rand ‘rProvedReserves in New
iecades. The modern petroleum industry was born in Pools.’r These categories were unchanged until 1966
bhe U.S.A. In this country, all tools are readily when the API’s work with respectito proved reserves
~vailable; many ideas on recovery efficiency have was expanded to include the development of estimates
>riginatedhere and have been put into practice with for crude oil as follows:
results reported. Therefore, we fail to understand
#hy the average efficiency is 30 percent when the best 1. original oil in place and altimate recovery
>f the fields has a recovery of close to 90 percent. categorized ky
de could argue that the data for the last 10 years are
still incomplete; this argument might explain the low a. geologic age of reservoir rock
figures for recent years. However, no such argument b. reservoir lithology
zan be advanced for the reservoirs found 10 years ago c. type of entrapment;
>? ea?lier. Moreover, the decrease in efficiency
>ccurred during a period in which the usefulness of 2. indicated additional reserves from cased-off
3chlumbergerlogs came to be fully recognized, in reservoirs and from future installationof
~hich the flow of reservoir fluids was better under- fluid injection projects in known fields;
stood, and in which powerful computers became avail-
able and were used extensively for a rapid analysis of 3. allocations back to year of dfscovery of
any situation.
a. current estimates of ultimate recove?y
Possible Explanations b. current estimates of original oil in
place;
The decrease in efficiency might be explained by:
4. reserves and production data by subdivisions
1. We were apt to consider formations as homog- for the states of California, Louisiana,
eneous when in fact they were not. New Mexico, and Texas;
2. We have been unable to properly assess the
effect of layering over wide distances. 5. crude oil productive capacity in the Unitec’
3. We had au incomplete tinderstandingof and States.
explanation for the skin effect.
4. We have failed to use pressure and production The report format has not been revised since 1966.
data effectively.
5. We have not kept reservoir pressures at the During each year, the existing data on any state
desired level, giving the Jamin effect an or portion thereof are reviewed by a small group of
opportunity to deve16p. engineers and geologil.ts.This group also prepares
6. We have, in many instanc~s,used well spacing the first estimates fcr new discoveries and extension~
that is too wide. of oil fields. The fndings of all the groups
(totaling some 120 people) are discussed in a special
INTRODUCTION meeting of the reserves committee each spring. The
data agreed upon are assembled by the API office in
1937 saw the first report on the reserves in the Washington, D.C.
U.S.A.. “Proved Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas
Because there are appreciablevaviations in year~
References and illustrations at end of paper. figures, we have computed 3-year moving averages of
* RECOVERY EFFICIENCY
c
both the “Estimates of Original Oil Ln Place” and
“EstimateofUltimate Recovery!’as Given on page 25 of
Ref. 1. From these arerages, IiP”Ledin Table 1, a
recove~ efficiency was calculated, and it is also
shown on Fig. 1. The graph shows an undeniable
----
decrease in the efficiency during the post-World War 11
~eriod. Conceivably, one might infer that the volume
Ifthe oil discovered in prewar years was understated
o that recovery percentages of the older fields are
lot as high as shown on Graph I. This remoning leads
,0the conclusion that now as in former Years only 30
~ercentof the oil found is being recovered.
In this analysis we have accepted figures as
;iven in the API reports. We find it especially
Lifficultto understand why there was a decrease in
riew of the following:
1. Schlumberger logging services were a~ailable,
they were better understood, and Schlumberger
provided many new types of logs which made
possible still better analysis.
2. Flow of compressible fluids in permeable
strata became better understood.
3. The relationshipbetween reservoir volume of
oil and its complement of gas for various
pressures was obtained accurately and
routinely so that material-balance equations
cotld be and were used extensively.
4, High-speed, sophisticated computers became
available and were used extensively for
analytical work.
Several possible explanations for this decrease can
be suggested:
1. M&ny forma of secondary recovery were applied
in fields discovered prior to World War II;
use of secondary methods might have increased
the recovery efficiency of these older fields
measurably, although this reasoning appears
daubtful.
2. Wider well spacing was used in the postwar
than in the prewar years. TIIiSwas done
partly because oil prices kept denser devel-
opment frombeing profitable, partly because
computations for homogeneous reservoirs
failed to indicate a relationship between
well spacing and recovery efficiency even
though considerabletime was spent on finding
such a relationship from the best documented
data available.
3. The general belief was that many reservoirs
were homogeneous; this was augmentea by the
fact that pressure-buildupanalyses for most
producing wells show a straight-line function
for the pressure increase versus log
(At/(t+At)), the fmous Horner-tYPe curve.
4. Small vertical permeabilities were believed
sufficient to equalize pressure differences
in sands of any complex away from the well;
hence, it became general practice to obtain
kh values from buildup curves and to use
sand thickness cbtained from logs to derive
k values.
Coring of forr.ations
was done only occasion-
5.
ally; differencesbetween measured and
SPE 7427
computed permeabilities (from buildup curves)
could easily be dismissed.
6. A skin effect as defined was found present in
many wells; usually, a skin effect was
blamed for mediocre recovery results.
Fracturing improved productivity of many wells.
ells which originally had radial flow and a positive
kin factor could be made to flow at higher rates with-
ut increasing the pressure drop; pressure analyses
ndicated that those wells had negative skin factors
,fterbeing fracture treated. Actually, fracturin$
rested completely new flow patterns. Although many
ells are fracture treated, the cumulative effect of
uch treatments on ultimate recovery cannot be gleaned
‘remthe recovery curve in Enclosure 1.
Thus, with all our innovations, we are not doing
m well as in prewar days, and the recovery efficiency
werages a dismal 30 to 32 percent. It appears to us
;hatthe industry either does something fundamentally
rrongor omits doing something fundamentally right. Ir
;his respect, the recovery efficiency of the huge East
?exas field is intriguing. The latest analysis,
‘eferredto in a letter to most parties interested in
]il (Ref. 2), shows that the field will produce 85
~ercentof the oil in place, an efficiency which is not
Iuite reached by other water-drive reservoirs. Fifty-
>ercent efficiency is a more generally accepted figure
;he average for the 72 cases reported on Fig. 5 of
~ef. 3. If 50-percent recovery is obtained for the
>est-doctsnentedwater-drive reservoirs, then there
nust be recoverable oil left even in those reservoirs
%nd appreciably more oil must.remain in those reser-
voirs less amenable tc water driv~. In Ref. 2, the
recoverableoil left m known reservoirs is placed at
mound 130 billion barrels, an amount equal to the
total ultimately expected from all known fields.
It was puzzling that the skin effect appeared
repeatedly throughout the producing life of some wells
even though these wells maintained high production
rates from the beginning. ‘l?h~refore,we surmised i.hat
this skin effect resulted from the presence in swell
of multiple layers with different permeabilities. It
1s assumed that these layers are separate “andthat no
:ross flow is possible except through the wellbore.
?or simplicity, we have investigated only two-layer
:ases instead of multiple-layer cases.
FORMULATIONS
Turning to the algebra of the problems, our first
considerationwill be reservoirs of “infinite” extent,
i.e., Those whose boundary effects cannot be observed
in buildup curves; the second part will deal with the
cor.blnatZonof an infinite and a limited reservoir.
Part I - Both Reservoirs are “Infinite”
Let 13n= 2nknhn/u
and
an= (@cr#kn)% .
This nomenclature follows closely that used by Matthew
and Lefkovits (Ref. h). Because only large, dimension
less times are used in well analyses, the LaPlace
trsnsfomn of the time derivative of the p(t) finctiQn
can be representedby KO(an@ which can be split into
 .
A. F. Van EVERDINGEN AND HYLA SWES?IK KRISS 3
PE 7427

Ko(fi) - lnan. Writing KO for Ko(~), the equations time for the combined layers and time in seconds are
related by the formula:
‘equiringa solution in two-layer flow are:
(I) ttiTx[_!JAx~+%%
Bli] + !3262= ; ,

and
We define the second term on the right-hand side
61(K0 - lnal) =ij2(Ko - lna2) (II) of both Eq. (V) and Eq. (VI), namelY

rherethe ~’s represent the LaPlace transform of the + 6162(lnal-lna2)

X %D)’
‘ate of production per unit of sand thickness. Equa-
(6,+6*)2
;ion (1) states that the sum of the contributionsof
joth layers per unit of time (i.e., per second) should as the “transfer f~ction” of the system. f+ similar
)e unity. As shown in Eq.(11), the pressures of esch function appears in Lefkovits’ paper (Ref. 4). The two
tember at the sand face should be identical. Solving functions behave markedly different over a short
?or {1 gives: interval after shut-in, an interval so short that
pressures cannot be measured reliably. For larger
K. - lnaz times, the functions are in the ratio 2:1.
1
al = ~~sij+~ x K. - (621nal+Bllnaz)
The transfer function represents the difference
fll+&* —
between the actual rate of a layer and either “
or, simplified:
or L /(f31+82)?the
f31/(RI+S2) rate distributionapproached
62(lnal-lna2)
61 =
only after a very long production time, when each layer
(f3J+62)~
&+ (III) produces proportionate to its kb-factor. This transfer
1 function could be important; if influx or efflux
x between layers during shut-in can be observed either
P(K -13zlnal+811na2“
o ) by direct measurement or by its influence on electrical
$)+B2 logs, it might be possible to recognize permeability
variations in producing formations.
;imilarly,
Sl(lnal-lnaz) To obtain the ~(p) curve for the system, mUltiplY
1
62 = ~6~ -
(IV)
—(~ either Eq. (III) by(Ko - lna,) or Eq.(VI)by(Ko - lna2)
x 1 as required by Eq.(11) (the results are identical)~
P(K -L121nal+f3]lnci2) “ giving:
o 61+62
.’
*
811nal+f32111a2
3ecause unit rate from the well was prescribed, ~(P)=*” +- ~(*1+62)
%. (III) must be multipliedby 61 and Eq. (IV) bY 62,
so that the contributionby the first layer is: [ (VII)

BI~l

x
P(K
=

0
~

1
61

-B21nal+Bllna2,
S1+62
+ f3182(lnal-lna2)

;
(s1+f32)~ (v)
B16$nal-lna2)2
(P1+f32)f
~

P(KO-

where the term in brackets is the LaPlace transform of

1

.f3,1nm2 + i321nal
-
f31+B2
)1
the pressure function per unit of dimensionless rate’
%nd for the second layer: for a two-layered reservoir. The formula contains
- 6162(lnal-lna2)
three terms: the LaPlace transform of the P function
t32 (t)
6262 = ~ (~~+f32)2
(VI) as defined in Ref. 5 where time is in seconds, a con-
stant, and a second constant time, the LaPlace trans-
X 1 . form of a q(tD) function. The inversion ofKo(@/p
p(k-~~l+611na2)
o is % lnt + .40454 so that the pressure increase above
61+f32
flowing pressure in any well is given by:
Eq. (V) and Eq. (VI) total ~, as required by Eq. (I).
4P”q %ln#+Cl
t“
last terms of Eq. (V) and Eq. (VI) resemble a
The I
(VIII)
LaPlacean operator si~lar in formto that of the
dimensionless rate function, q(tD), the time deriva- -C2 [
q(t.M)+q(At.M) -q((t+At).M)
1/
of the Q(tD) defined in Xq.(VI-28) ofRef. (5).
where
!fhisfunction represents the rate when, at tD=O, the
= q<(01482),is the dimensionlessrate,
‘t
pressure at the sand face is reduced by one unit. It
starts as high values, (mtD)-~, and decreases rapidly c1 ~ i311nu1+ B21nu2
+ .40454,
as is sho~ by Fig. 4-12 of Ref. (6). In the p~oblem (f3~+$21
under discussion,the rate of p~oductton for the
combined layers starts at unity, and dimensionless
 .
RECOVERY EFFICIENCY SPE 7427

J12(Yn R)
C2 = BlB2(lnal-lna2)2 is the proportionality and Mn = .
(61+82)2 J12(YnN ‘J12(Yn)

‘actorf?r the transfer function, and

The roots are designated as Yn because the Bn symbols
62 61
have already been used in Ref. 4 and in the first part
of this paper. Using the sane nomenclature as in
Part I, the two equations requiring a solution are

6,T1+f32ti2=p
~ (x)
s a time conversion factor that makes it possible for and

1.(XI)
lnelayer to overproduce at the seinerate at which the
econd layer underproduces so that the rate of the well 2
Mn
~1(K. - lnal) = 42 ——- -2z.—
s constant. (R2 -l)pa2’
[ ‘“l (Pa22+Yn2)

Normally, flowing pressures prior to shut-in are

~btainedby measurement; however, in our examples, we
d to compute a flowing pressure. Hence, the unusual
,nclusionof the t in the log term.
T%n=-2Mn ,
By combining and rearranging the log term and the and
:onstantterm, the following expression can be derived:
Y. =0,

[(
$1
q ~ in t“At then solving for II and ~2, we obtain
—- lnul + .40454 +
t f31+f32 t+~t )
f

82
~1+$2
( t.At
52in ~ - lna2 + .40454
)]
.

I!heforegoing expression is composed of the buildup .

formulas for each layer weighted with respect to the
layers‘ kh values. By comparing the layers’ portion
>T the pressure drop with the total pressure drop, we

I KO - lnal

1“
find that the transfer function is importsnt only for ~ -—
i2=p — (XIII
&short time after drawdown or buildhp. Fin
; $, +62(’0 - lnal)
Many pressure-buildupcurves of synthesized n=o pa22+yn2 -
H )
examples have been computed. They all show a straight
line when the pressure increases above flowing pres- To obtain ~(p) for the system, we multiply Eq. (XII) b
sure are plotted versus At/(t+At) on semilog paper or
versus log (At/(t+At))on coordinate PaPer. Further (K. - lnal) or Eq. (XIII) by
discussion can be found in the section entitled Tin

( )
“Discussion on Examples.”
:— , yielding
rl=o Pa2%n=
Part II - One Reservoir “Infinite,” One
Reservoir of Limited Extent

A reservoir of limited extent (bounded reservoir)

is one whose physical boundaries prevent any influx
from the surrounding formations. These boundaries
can tske on many forms (see Table C-1, page 20, Ref.6)
The mathematics of flow have been sufficientlyworked
out to be usable in only a few of the configuratio~s.
We therefore went back to Ref. 5 where complete form-
ulations were originally developed for circular res-
ervoirs.
The preceding LaPlace transform can be simplified if
The pressure-drop function for a limited reser- we use a relationship similar to the one dtscussed on
voir of radius R is given by Sq.(VII-19) of Ref. 5. page 314 of Ref. 5, where it is shown that
The LaPlace transform of its time derivative can be
Q(pj
written as ‘F(P) ‘+ ’0’- Q“(P)W P)=;”

F -25 * This relationship is also true for limited reservoirs,

(P) ‘*P n=l P+Yn2 ‘ i.e.:
R“
where y is a root of p “:1 = —— 1 3
n pa22+~2n Fin (xv)

[
J,(Yn R)Y1(Yn) - J,!Yn)’j(Yn R) = o
1 (Ix)
5—
n=o pa22+yn2
 ●
3PE
---, 7b27
—.
#here
J12(cn@
H=* .
Jo2(LnR)-J12(@
and
~n is a root Of Jl(cnR)Yo(qn)-Y
l(c;)Jo(cn)=O](XVI)
[ and increased by 200 cm in each succeeding case. The
I’heseroots are designated as Cn because the an
symbols have already been used. llhus,the pressure-
drop function can now be written as
61 + f3zP Ko(~al)
(;“=] —–-’
pa22+C2n
A first approximatio~to this is:
.-
. log (At/(t+At)) as prescribed by Horner. Even though
,-
-.
After making an inversion, the pressure function for a
unit ~ate expressed in cc/see is:
‘(t)’qT ~(%lnt-lna,+.40454)+2~
x ano p is small. This straight-linerelationship
[ could result from the interrelationthat exi3.ts
t -a12/4t- -3n2(t-t-)/a22
n~,RnYo(a~cn/a2) e .?
—.
/o
In our examples, we computed AP above flowing Pressurc
This was done similarly to the case with the two
infinite reservoirs by the formula .
‘p=qT[‘(t) + ‘(At)- ‘(t+At) “ 1 (xx)
.-
DISCUSSION ON EXAMPLES
Part I - Both Reservoirs are “Infinite”
When we began this study, we felt that reservoirs
are too easily considered homogeneous and that there
should be some relation between a reservoir’s permea-
bility and recovery efficiency. We began the study
by computing the pressure-buildup data of a well which
produced from two sands which had different permea-
bilities and which were not connected except through
the wellbore. Both sands were assumed to be of “infi-
nite” extent; therefore, no boundazy effects appear.
Although we investigated many,cases, we have
included only five in this study. Each of the five
cases used a production rate of 500 cubic meters per
day (625 m3/day, or 7,233.8 cc/see at reservoir con-
ditions) during 10 days; the well was then shut in
for 36,000 minutes, and the pressure increase above
flowing bottom-hole pressure was computed at 41 dif-
ferent intervals. The permeabilities of the two
sands were 100 md and 10 md. The viscosity of the
fluidwss 0.3; the formation volume factor, 1.25; th<
combined compressibilityof the fluid, ‘theformation,
and the connate water content, 0.0002/atm; the por-
osity (oil-filledpore space only), 10 percent; and
A. F. Van EVERDINGEN AND HYLA SWESNIK KRISS 5
the radius of the hole, 10.4775 cm, i.e., a diameter
of 8% in. For these conditions, the numerical value
of the time conversion factors is constant.
Table IT contains the details of the computations
for one case. All five caaes were computetisimilarly;
they differ in that, in Case 1, the thickness of the
most permeable layer (k=100 md) was taken as 200 cm
thickness of the layer with lower permeability in
Case I is 900 cm and decreases to 200 cm.
The computations require accurate values of the
flow function, q(t.) defined by equation VI-24 of
Ref. 5. To obtain these, a se: of precise valuea was
computed over the range, tD=l to 1019. These values
N“
)
(xVII were then used to obtain rational apprc,ximations
for
any tnby methods outlined in Chapter 9 of Ref. 7.
We obtained at least seven-si~nificant-digit
accuracy.
The results of all five cases were plotted versus
(XVIII
the transfer functions are accounted for, the pressure
increasea always form straight lines. Using the
complete formulation, even the pressure increase com-
put~d for a shut-in time of 1 second falls on the
line. This behavior was surprising because we had
split the L~lace tr~sform of the time and rate
(xIx) fwlction, a technique permissible only when t is large
bebweenthe p(t) and
Q(t)
functions referred to on
— Lit”
page 314 of Ref. 5, where equation VI-32 shows that
2t “
1
t
“t. These straightlines would
/ o P&-)Q(t-)~t
ordinarily indicate one homogeneous reservoir for
which the k value could be obtained by reading the
pressure increase above a shut-in time of 1 second
where the pressure increase is equal to
~ln m ‘ + %ln L +.40454) ; t is the production
Q’
4uCrW2
time in seconds, and q represents the dimensionless
t
rate obtainable from the slope. When we applied the
foregoing one-layer analysis to our plots, we obtained
a k value; this k value was the weighted average of
the k values of two layers. Using this avev.~e k
value, we found a skin effect in our plots; therefore,
we concluded that skin factors observed do not neces-
sarily represent formation damage. Skin factors can
also indicate the presence of several sands of
varying quality which are not in communicationexcept
through the wellbore.
The contributionsby the q(t)-functionsgenerally
are too small to be measurable, except for a short
time after shut-in. During that short time, the
casing effect may not yet have died out. Only if it
is found possible to detect, by logging during the
shut$in time, the small quantities of liquid leaving
one formation and entering another, can we hope to
find out more about the permeability of formations
present.
 6 RECOVERY EFFICIENCY SPE’7427

Part II - One Reservoir “Infinite,

” One
Reservoir of Limited Extent
When reviewing pressure-buildup curves teken at
yearly intervals on the same well, we noticed the
similarity in the shape of these curves. If swell
was a good producer and displayed an S-factor in the
buildup, the same S-factor would be present every
year. It is hard to understand why, in such a pro-
ducer, the S-factor d.. not decrease with time.
Another difficulty was presented by the fact that
some wells, producing at a sizable rate, were unable drawdown and buildup pressures always exceed the
to bring the pressure to the point where it becomes
the standard straight line exhibited by wells in
infinite reservoirs. Packers are usually present
between casing and tubing at a short distance above
the perforations, thereby minimizing the casing
effect; hence, the time required to reach the point
where the pressure becomes a straight line in the
buildup curve should be distinctly limited. There-
fore, we looked for other reasons for the lag in
pressure after shut-in. One idea was that layers of
different permeabilitieswere present in the same
well (the analysis is given in the foregoing).
Inspection of the straight line with layers of dif-
ferent permeabilities showed that same skin effect is required to obtain the straight-lineportion of the
present if one mistakenly assumes that the formation curve depends on the size of the limited reservoir.
is homogeneous. The analysis showed the skin effect
to be small even in cases where the permeabilities
differed by a factor of 10.
It was then assumed that one of the two reser-
voirs could be limited in extent, or bounded. A
pressure decrease of 1 atm can only deliver a fixed
amount of oil from these reservoirs; the amount of
oil depends on the extent, thickness, porosity, and
compressibilityof the fluid and the formation.
most of the bounded reservoirs were exhausted down to
the flowing pressure of the well. In buildup, the
infinite reservoir replenishes fluid lost before the
pressure increase creates the straight-linerelation-
ship so often observed in buildup plots. The relation-
ship, the strafght line coming off the top curve,
then reflects the characteristicsof the infinite
layer only.
Because all AP’s in this report are plotted as
prescribed by Horner, it is evident that the total
pressures reached by two infinite reservoirs with
the same characteristics. The pressure differences
decrease when the thickness of the infinite reservoir
increases as a percentage of the total. When the
limited reservoir thickness equals 10 percent of the
total, the resulting buildup curve is so nearly a
straight line that the presence of a limited reservoir
in the formation is haxdly noticeable.
In all cases, the production life of 10 days was
used. Even a cursory review of the curves shows that
shut-in periods in excess of 1 day are required before
the curve becomes a straight line. The shut-in time
In many cases, the straight line coning off the bottom
of the curve has been interpreted &s a reflection of
the kh values of the tested reservoir; however, the
straight line coming off the top of the curve reflects
the kh vfiluesof the infinite reservoir. The curves
shift to the right with increase in the size of the
bounded reservoir; this indicates that, for limited
reservoirs of more than 10 acres, a very long shutdown
period is required before the curve reveals its full
character.

Bounded reservoirs covering 1, 2, 5, and 10 acres coNcLUs~ONS

were considered. Each bounded reservoir had a perm-
eability of 10 md; the infinite reservoir had a 100-
md permeability. The thicknesses of both types of
reservoir varied as before. In all cases, it was
assumed ;hat an 8%-in.(10.4775-cmradius) hole was
drilled in the center of the limited reservoir.
All other conditions were the same as used for the
infinite cases in Part I.
In order to make the pressure computations,we
‘began by establishing the first 20 roots of Eq.(XVI)
for the various R’s pertaining to the aforementioned
areas. The roots are listed in Table III. These
roots are dependent only on the ratio of the area
of the bounded reservoir to the area of the hole
drilled. The roots can be used for wells of differ-
ent radii provided the areas of the bounded reser-
voirs are corrected proportionately.
Pressure-buildup data were computed for all R’s
listed and for h values used in the infinite cases.
The values have been plotted on the graphs on
figures 2-6. An example compute~ for a 10-acre
drainage area appears in Table IV. The graphs give
the pressure-buildup curves of all R’s considered for
one value of hl(or h2). The broken line on each
graph represents the buildup of a coui~inationof two
infinite reservoirs as described in Part I.
When an infinite and a bounded reservoir are
producing together, the bounded reservoir rate starts
to decrease; therefore, the infinite reservoir rate
must increase to maintain the same unit rate. During
the 10 days that the combinationhas produced here,
.
From the foregoing, it is evident that reservoirs
could be less homogeneous than generally assumed. Thi
heterogeneity could result from the formation being
deposited in a “pancake” configuration in which the
“cakes” could be extensive in some directions, limited
in other directions, and bounded by shale layers above
and below. Moreover, the cakes can have many forms,
and a well may penetrate such a cake layer at any
point. We have presented formulations that explain
some of tliecharacteristicsof buildup curves caused
by the limited extent of a reservoir in the intervals
open to production. A limited layer is far less likel
to be depleted than an infinite layer unless the
limited layer is open to production in several wells.
If the layer is open in one well only, the most oil it
can give up is an amount equal to the pressure drop
times reservoir volume and compressibilityfactor. An
equivalent amount of fluid will be pushed back into
the limited layer during the next pressure buildup.
Thus, closer spacing is recommended whenever a
recovery efficiency is less than expected. What re-
covery should we expect? Is the 85-percent efficiency
of the East Texas field attainable elsewhere?
East Texas is developed on 5- to 6-acre spacing,
and it has had a good water drive from the outset.
The demand on the drive was reduced by injection of
all produced water. Compare this to the average,
50-PerCent recovery of the best documented water-drive
cases in Ref. 3 which were developed on larger spacing
Is spacing the only important factor? The amount of
oil originally in place generally is accurately known
SPE 7’427 A. F. Van EVERDINGEN AND HYLA SWESNIK KRISS 7

because well logs leave little room for doubt about

oil in place. Only a careful analysis of pressure
buildup will yield information on the continuity of
NOMENCLATURE
the sands. Therefore, byildup tests should receive
the utmost attmkion, particularly regarding pressure-
$ = Porosity, ~raction
measuring technique and obtaining and reporting of
production data prior to shut-in. Moreover, the tests
M = Viscosity, centipoise
should be of sufficient duration to show any irregu-
larities ex$sting in the productive formation.
c = Compressibility/atm;includes,oil, water,
and formation
A long time is required to refill discontinuous
sands present in a well; therefore, they provide an
r = Radius of well
opportunity for measuring the continuous efflux and w
influx of flu.tdoccurring in such a shut-in well, kn = Permeability of layer n, darcys
either directly or from side effects. For gas-filled
reservoirs, temperature measurements may help to locate h
= Sand thickness of layer, cm
this movement. For oil-filled reservoirs, accurate n
ways to measure fluid mov~lent in a shut-in well are
an = l/root of the time conversion factor for
urgently needed.
layer n
The average pressure in the drainage area of a
Gn = Dimensionless ratefcm of formation of
well_is widely used in reservoir analysis. Engineers
eat% layer
use P values on the asmunption that the sands seen in
logs are continuous; this assumption may or may not be ~
= 211knhn/v
valid. However, if we consider the mediocre recovery n
estimates and the fact that the deep, expensive wells = LaPlace variable
P
are now drilled on wider spacing than ever before,
then it would be worthwhile to investigate the as- = Dimensionless time
sumption in every way possible. ‘D
= Rate of production, cc/see at reservoir
When the pressure increase in a well after shut- %
conditions
in is plotted versus At/(t+At) in the manner prescribed
by Horner, the position of the pressure increase on = Dimensionless rate
the logarithmic time scale is determined by assuming ‘t
that the production rate after shut-in continues and R = Radius of limited resertoir in multiples of
that a negative rate of equal magnttude is effective well radius
simultaneously. Hence, without taking anything out of
the reservoir, the resulting pressure curve promises
to increase to its P* value when the indentation in
the pressure surface caused by the wellts production
Yn = Root of
[ 1
J1(Yn R)Yl(Yn)- J1(Yn)Yl(YnR) = O

is completely filled. If a well is the only well iu

a great infinite accumulation,the pressure returns
to its original value. ~f other wells exist, the
pressure drop below original pressure reflects the
interference of surrounding wells. P* values rep-
resent maximum pressure values at the point of measure-
ment, hence P* values should not knd cannot be used in
flow equations.
The P% values obtained over the entire field at
regular intervals can be easily adjusted so that all
reflect the value at a specific time and at the sam=
subsea depth. Such a map can be contoured; the iso-
bars reflect the pressure distribution of the accumu-
lation after all indentations caused by production
from point sources have been removed.
Using the thicknesses of oil-bearing formations,
pressure data, PVT data, production rates, dates of
first appecdvmce of water, information on completion
depths of wells and on sections open to production,
the reservoir engineer is now in a position to analyze
the field and its behavior under the adopted production
pollcy. He can study and trace any abnormal.lttesin
the reservoir’s behavior. Only then WX1l he be able
to obtain the full benefit of the material-balance
equations, logs, and sophisticatedcomputers at his
disposal and eventually improve the mediocre recovery
efficiencies estimated for most of the last 20 years.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to William Hurst for
his time, interest, and constructive comments.
Gn = Root Of [JdCnR)yo(Ln)-YI(cnR)Jo(cn)=o
1
REFERENCliS
1. API. Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquidsf
and Natural Gas in the United States and Canada
as of December 31. 1976, API, Vbl. 31, May 1977,
2. Van Everdingen, A.F. Letter in JPT Vol. 30,
pp. 209-21O, February 1978. —
3. API. “A Statistical Study of Recovery Effi-
ciency,” API Bulletin D14, First Edition,
October 1967.
4. Lefkovits, H. C.; C.S. Matthews; and others.
“A Study of the Behavior of Bounded Reservoirs
Composed of Stratified Layers,” SPE Journal,
‘Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 43-58, March 1961.
5. Van Everdingen, A.F’.;and W. Hurs%. “The Appli-
cation of the LaPlace Transformationto Flow
Problems in Reservoirs,” Technical Paper 2732,
~~., MME, VO1. 186, Pp. 305-324, 1949.
6
Earlcugher, R. C., Jr. fldvancesin Well Test
“
Analysis. Monograph 5, 41ME, p. 39, 1977.
7. Hildebrand, F. B. Introduction to Numerical
Analysis. InternationalSeries in Pure amd
Applied Mathematics,McGraw-Hil&pp.368-b12,1956,
 TASI-E XX
TABLE X

3 YR. MOVING AVG.

3 YR. MOVING AVG. 3 YR. i%OVING AVG. 1976 ULT. REC./
YEAR 1976 LLT . RECOVERY 1976 OIL IN PLACE OIL IN PLACE
---- ----------- ------- ----------------- -----------------
*=. l U=.3CP c = .0002/atm rw = 10.4775 cm Bo; = 1..25
kl = 0.1 OARCY kz . 0.ol DARcY
19E!1 I, 798,080 7,149,807 25.15
Q1 = 0.08116 02 = 0.25665
1922 1,407,329 4, S28,554 31.08
61 = 418,88 82 . 188.50
1-323 1,101,964 3,655, 104 30.15
c, = ~.55S60
1924 1,003,541 3,600,918 .27.87
c. ● 0.28369
19!25 2,.204,714 6,847,672 32..20
M’= 31.0,?3
19.26 2,481, 76S PRDOUCTION TINE = 10 OAYS
7,408,008 33.50 qt . 11.910
RATE OF PROOUCTICN = 500 m3/OAy ‘i = 7,1?33.80cc/8Ec
1927 3,0’37,306 8,744,504 35.42
BII(8]+13z. ) = 0.68966 82/(6,+6 )= 0.31034
1928 2,784,046 7,848,932 35.47”
192’3 4,767,120 10,805,069 PRESSURE OROP PR1OR TO SHUT-IN = 111.49 d02
44.12
d9Xl 4,629,429 10,083,880 45.91
la_
JIl_D-u3=
--—.._——
1’331 3,571,892 7, 198,507 49.62
DELTA
-. 1
-------
UUIH If
1932 1,534, s53 4,019,845 38.18
(MIN) (T+ OEL’TAT) Qt4+LN TERFI Qt*cl qt t* C2*q( tD)TERM DELTA P
1933 1,973, 3S6 5, 160,,?04 38.24 ------- ------------- -------
------- ---------- . ----------
1334 t?,614,973 6,771,437 38.62
1935 4,?86,781 11,921,774 35.96
5 3. 471E-04 33.96379 30. 471?72 0.39145 64.15
7 4. S58E-04 35. 9666S 34). 47E-H 0.27047 66.17
1936 4, 161,917 11,647,806 35.73
10 6. 935!S-04 3s. 08340 30.4727.2 0. 249s9 6S. 31
1937 4,676,288 1.2,789,645 36.56
.2 S. 326E-04 33. 1742s 30.47272 0.23342 69.41
193s 3, 127,68S 8, 173,758 38.26
15 1. 040E-03 40.50187 30.47272 0.22741 70.75
1933 3,26.?,119 8, S33, S84 3s. ?3
1940 2.6S1,719 7,436,071 36.06
1.1732-03 41.24638 30. 47!5!7.2 0..32087 71.50
1.3862-03 42.21294 30.47.372 0.21259 7!? .47
1’341 2,504,500 6,981,374 35.87 z
30 2. 079E-03 44.6.? 33+ 30.47272 0. 1928s 74.90
1 94.? 1, 6?3, 646 5, t52,24Z 32.48
40 i?.770E-03 46. 33=36 30.47272 o. 1796s 76.63
1943 1,777,075 5,459, Wo 32.55
50 3.4602-03 47.65705 30.47272 O. 16985 77. %
1944 1,991,087 6,176,552 32.24
1945 .S’,038,693 .6,218,747 3?. 78
60 4. 149E-03 48.73865 30.47.5’72 0. 16-?07 79.05
90 6.!311E-03 51. 140s4 30.47272 0.14555 81.47
1946 1,716,862 5, S66, 019 30.85
120 8. F464E-03 52.84t66 30.47272 0.13444 83.18
1947 2, 197, 14s 6,073, ~4 36.18
180 1. 234E-02 55.23164 30.47.272 0.11958 8’3.58
i 948 2,825,526 10,745.459 26.30
240 1.639E-02 56. ?-2032 30.47272 0.10958 87.28
1949 3.174,715 11,271,721 .28 .17
1’350 ?, 580,684 10,653,959 24.22
300 2.0402-02 58.22478 30.47272 0.10211
1.3s1 1,8s8,816 30.89 360 2.43SE-02 59. 2S624 30.4727’2 0.0%20
6,114,009
19S2 1,706,278 6,292,104 27.12 420 E!.8WE-02 50.18005 30.47272 0.09133
1953 1,844,297 6,641,705 .?7 .77 480 3. 225E-02 60.95116 30. 4727.? 0.087.20
i954 1,920,49s 600 4.000E-02 6?.23214 30. 4727?2 0.0805CI
6,9’36,219 27.45
1955 1,838,910 6,449,552 r38. 51
72o 4. 761E-02 63.27041 30.47272 0.07520 93.67
840 5.511E-02 64.14130 30.47272 0.07084 94.54
19s6 1.881.276 ‘6,274,741 29. m
960 6..??5OE-O2 64. 8S977 30. 47Z?7Z 0.05.716 9s. 30
1957 1;762;814 5,726,390 30.78
1,080 6. 976E -02 6S . S4482 30. 47.?72 0.06338 95.95
1958 1,377.594 4,515, 8S9 30.51
1,200 7.6922-02 66.12626 30.47272 0.061S0 96.54
1953 945,637 3, ?07 ,762 z8. 59
1 ?X.o 720,015 .?, 636,857 27.31
i , 31?0 8.3362-02 66.64S19 30.47272 0.05873 97.06
1,440 9. 090E-02 67.12106 30.47.272 0.05651 97.54
1361 79s, S44 2,608, 1S7 30.50
1,600 i.ooOE-ol 67. 6S863 30.47272 0.05388 98.11
1962 692,909 2,313,883 .?3. -35
1, Soo 1. lllE-01 68.31505 30.47272 0.05101 98.74
1%3 813,3?0 .s,660, 186 30.57
1, 9s0 1. ZOSE-01 68. s1”/81 30.47272 0.04874 99.24
1964 953,750 3, 23s, 680 28.94
1965 905,619 3, .?50. 709 27.86
2,160 1.304E-oi 69.27088 30. 4727.? 0.04670 33.70
1966 z, Sso 1.65.6E-01 70. 7s0ss 30.47272 0.04028 101.16
853.350 3,111,495 27.43
4,320 2. 307E-Ot 72. 6S346 30.47272 0.03204 lo3. il
1967 3,843,788 lo,;~:. om 36.46 10{,. 3g
5,760 2.857E-01 73.94029 30.47272 0.025.81
1.368 3,864,752 10,63*,790 36.33
7, ,?00 3. 333E-01 74. s5825 30.47272 0.02313 105.31
1969 3,858.861 10,521,333 36.68
1970 586,441 2,132.508 27.50
9,000 3.8462-01 75.71041 30.47272 0.01978 106.16
12,000 4. 545E-01 76.70521 30.47272 0.01s% 107.16
1’371 482,726 1,695,331 E!8.47
18,000 5. 555E-01 77.90020 30.4727.2 0.01151 108.36
1972 406, 110 1,481,856 ?7.41
24,000 6. 250E-01 7s, 60160 30.47272 0.00898 109.07
1973 294,449 1,174,335 25.07
1.374 30,000 6.7562-01 79. 065S6 30.47272 0.00735 109.53
281,’311 1,069,110 26.37
1975 148.677 534,046 25.0:
36,000 7. 14Z’E-01 79.33677 30.47272 0.00621 109.86

1 ACRE Z ACRE 5 ACRE 10 ACRE

R = 342.5513817132 R = 484.4416583632 R= 765.32.95169458 R= 1083.2444791220
------- ------ ------ ---------------- --- ------------------- ---- -- - -------- ----
1.825323183772E-03 1.249E?33018079E-03 7.5906573Z8344E-04 5.217368734539E-04
-- 1.21832136073ZE-02 8.5E.7324131997E-03 !i.384344210691E-03 3.7915020S14122-03
2.15928287305 lE-02 1.5209E.6935566E-OZ 9.577863933738E-03 6.753561305775E-03
3.09065153603ZE- 02 12. 178579567897E-02 1.37306600377EK-02 9.687355960532E-03
4.01847722.521 8E-02 2.833781628101E-O5 1.786889610672E-O2 1.261117167846E-02

4.944470282687E- )S? 3.487749324492E -02 2.19997815Y+62E -02 1.552’339’334966E: 02

5.869339833849E- 02 4.140968014587E-02 2.6126245621 65E-02 1.844585059064E-OZ
6.793446717465E-02 4.7936738483932-02 3.024975152821 E-012 2. 135972363048E-02
7.716WY3147645E-02 5.4460Z5477995E-02 3.4371132452582-02 2.41?72183374i 7E-02
8.6401Z87Z5487E-OZ 6.O38O9Z81O644E-O2 3.8490907550127E-02 2.718357998214E-02

‘3.56E3Z400494 lE-02 6.74994074626 IE-02 4.Z609412245855E -02 3.00341434812E.E-02

1.0485447601 77E-01 7.40161O758484E-O2 4.6726913ZOOIOE-02 3.300404166464E-02
I.14077455261OE-O1 8.053133214408E-02 5.084357411459E-02 3.5913385975722-02
1.232985265103E-O1 8.704531O5%51E-O2 5.495951986696E-02 3.88222664741 8E-02
1.3.?5179608353E-01 9.3558Z2086174E-02 5.907485892873E-02 4.173075097281E-02

1.417359737373E-01 1.00070Z039032E -01 6.318967ZZ1176E-02 4.463889287104E-O2

1.503527391394E-01 1.065813734932E-01 G.730402480770E-02 4.7546735021442-02
1.6016840006S9E-01 1.130918228575E-01 7.1417969925852-02 5.045431237560E-02
1.6’33830754735E-01 1. 1’360162947752-01 7.553155166934E-02 5.336165384451E-02
1.785%8655303E-01 1.261108584356E-O1 7.964480703329E-02 5.626878J63857E-02
 TASl_E I V

TWO LAYER FIJDL4

‘0=.1 u = .3 Cp = .000Z/atm 10.4775 cm

‘w =
k, = 0.1 DARCY k: = 0.01 DARCY
‘J1 = o.o&!15 ~2 = 0.i?6164
s] = 418.8s = 18s.50
PRODUCTION TIME = l%DAYS
RATE OF PRODUCTION . 500 ins/DAY qt = 7,E!33.80 CC/SEC
PRESSURE DROP PRIOR TO SHUT-IN = 163.43

E3UIl_D-Ul=
——— ___ __
DELTA T DELTA T/ q+*T ‘t*DE!.TAT qt+6(T+oELTA T)
(FIIN) (T+DELTA T) qt*LN TERM ShATION SUMMATION SUMMATION DELTA P
-----.- ---- -- - - --- ---------- ---------- --------- --- ----- - -------

3.471E-04 99.60 4.96 78.!57 4.95 21.06

; 4.858E-04 102.51 4.96 78.88 4.95 23.60
10 6.339E-04 105.59 4.96 79.27 4.95 26.32
12 8.326E-04 107.16 4.96 79.42 4.95 27.73
Is 1.040E-03 109.08 4.% 79.58 4.94 29.48

17 1.179E-03 110.16 4.96 79.66 4.34 30.46

!20 1.38EIE-03 111.56 4.’36 79.81 4.94 31.75
30 Z.079E-03 115.06 4.36 80.04 4.93 34.93
40 2.770E-03 117.54 4.96 80.20 4.32 37.32
50 3.460E-03 113.46 4.96 80.28 4.31 39.14

60 4.149E-03 121.03 4.36 80.35 4.51 .40.64

30 E..211E-O3 124.51 4.96 80.43 4.88 44.01
120 8.E!64E-03 126.98 4.96 80.43 4.86 46.44
180 1.234E-02 130.44 4.96 80.35 4.81 49.31
240 1.E.33E-02 132.89 4.96 80.ZO 4.76 52.46

300 E!.040E-OZ 134.78 4.36 79.97 4.71 54.54

360 13.43’3E-02 136.3S 4.96 79.66 4.66 56.37
420 Z.83+E-OZ 137.62 4.36 79.27 4.62 58.03
480 3.225E-02 138.73 4.96 78.72 4.57 53.5’3
600 4.000E-OZ 140.59 4.96 77.60 4.48 62.52

720 4.761E-02 14s.10 4.96 76.28 4.39 65.25

840 5.511E-02 143.36 4.96 74.86 4.30 , 67.8!5
“360 6.250E-02 144.45 4.% 73.38 4.22 70.34
1,080 6.976E-02 145.40 4.96 71.a5 4.14 72.73
1,200 7.63E!E-02 146.24 4.96 70.31 4.06 75.04

1,320 8.33EE-02 147.00 4.36 68.7s 3.98 77.27

1,440 3.090E-OZ 147.68 4.96 67.20 3.91 73.43
1,600 1.000E-01 148.50 4.96 65.15 3.81 82.E!l
1,800 1.lllE-01 149.41 4.96 6Z.E.2 3.69 85.53
1,380 1.208E-01 150.14 4.96 60.33 3.59 88.38

2, 160 1.304E-01 150.80 4.96 58.2S 3.49 ‘31.11

2,880 1.666E-01 152.92 4.’36 50.13 3.13 100.96

4,320 E!.307E-01 155.73 4.96 36.91 2.56 116.41

5,760 Z.857E-01 157.57 4.96 27.14 2.13 127.60
7.200 3.333E-01 158.90 4.96 20.01 1.81 135.74
‘3, 000 3.846E-01 160.14 4.96 13.78 1.51 142.91
12,000 4.545E-01 161.58 4.96 7.64 1.18 150.16
18,000 5.555E-01 163.31 4.96 2.82 0.83 156.36
24,000 E..t25OE-Ol 164.33 4.96 1.43 0.66 158.60
30,000 6.756E-01 165.00 4.96 0.94 0.56 153.66
36,000 7.14E?E-01 165.48 4.96 0.72 0.48 160.28
 1925 1930 1933 1940 1s43 1950 1955 196C 1965 1970 19?5
YEARS
Fig.1- Recovery
efficiency
in theU.S.A

1DAY 3 DAYS
175,
II
1
II
I

CASE I I
150 I

125 — —

g 100
0
#~
~ /
;- 75 -
/ / b-

50
I I
I I
I I
I I
25 “
I I
I I
I I
I 1
n
0:0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0

A~/(t +At)
Fig.2- Pressure
buildupof a composite
reservoir
- CaseI
 1 DAY 3 DAYS
140 I I
I 1
CASEII I
I
I
I

120 I I
i I
I I
I I

100 I I
I I
I 1.

80

60

i i

I I
t I
I I
I I
1 1
I I
I I
1 1
I I

0:0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0

At/(t+At)
Fig.3- Pressure
bui1dupof a composite
reservoir
- CaseII

1 DAY 3 DAYS
70

60 “
CASE X
---l--k
50

40

I I
II I
30

I I
— I
I
I
20 I
I I
I I
I I
1 1
10 - I I
I I
t I

I
I I

01 0.1 1.0
0.0001 0.001 0.01

Atf(t +At)
Fig.4- Pressure
buildupof a composite
resarvoir
- CaseII!
 ,
lC Y 3 DAYS .

CASEI,SZ I
I

60 I

I
I
I
,
50 I
I
I
I

--4----
I I
I I
I I
I
20 1

I
I
I

10 I
I

I I
I I
I I
I I

0:0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0

At/(t +At)
Fig.5- Pressure
bui1dupof a composite
reservoir
- CaseIV

1 DAY 3 DAYS
70 I 1
( I

CASEXI I
I
I
I
I
I
60 I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
50 I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
40

30

I I
I I
20
I I
I I
I I

10
I I
I I

{ 1
I

0 I

0:0001 0.001 001 0.1 1.0

At/(t +At)
Fig 6- Pressure
bui1dupof a composite
reservoir
- CaseV