A New Depletion-Performance Correlation for

Gas-Condensate Reservoir Fluids

B. A. EATON THE U. OF TEXAS
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME AUSTIN, TEXAS
R. H. JACOBY PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.
MEMBER AIME TULSA, OKLA.

ABSTRACT the development of an improved correlation. The data, as

This paper presents the depletion-performance correla-
tions developed using data from PVT studies and well-
completion tests of 27 rich gas-condensate and volatile-
oil reservoir fluids. The PVT behavior for each fluid was
determined experimentally in the laboratory, and the de-
pletion performance of each fluid was then calculated.
Well-completion test data consisting of reservoir pressure
and temperature, initial total gas-oil ratio, and stock-tank
oil gravity were used with the depletion-performance data
to develop general performance correlations.
Three correlations are presented. The first equation
shows the empirical relation of gas in place per barrel of
hydrocarbon pore space with reservoir pressure and tem-
perature, and initial total gas-oil ratio. The second equa-
tion is the correlation of stock-tank oil in place per bar-
rel of hydrocarbon pore space. The third equation re-
lates stock-tank oil production (to 500-psia depletion pres-
sure) with pressure, temperature and oil gravity. All three
correlations are also presented in convenient graphical
form. Gas production to 500-psia depletion pressure is
approximately 92.6 per cent of the gas in place for each
fluid, so no correlation was developed for gas production.
INTRODUCTION
listed in Tables 1 and 2, are for 25 gas-condensate and two
volatile-oil systems that were studied. The problem was
to correlate the data for in-place fluids and the produc-
tion data with the initial total gas-oil ratio, initial reser-
voir pressure and temperature, and stock-tank oil gravity.
These correlations were obtained by multiple regression
analysis, whereby the data were fitted to an equation by
the method of least squared error!
BASIS OF THE CORRELA nONS
1. The data used in the development of these correla-
tions were obtained from depletion-performance calcula-
tions· and well-test or production measurements.
2. All of the independent variables used in the cor-
relations are available from the usual well-test comple-
tion data.
3. The reservoir volume considered is 1 bbl of hydro-
carbon pore space (HepS).
4. The gas-oil ratio used is the total standard cubic feet
of gas (at 14.7 psia, 60F) coming off the entire separator
train per barrel of stock-tank oil. This minimizes the effect
of separator conditions which might vary from system to
system.

The rate of discovery of shallow, low-pressure and low-

TA8lE I-INPUT DATA
temperature oil reservoirs in the United States has been Reservoir Data Separator Data
declining in recent years. For this reason, the search for Dew
oil has gone to greater depths where high pressures and Reservoir Original Point Sep. Separator Separator Total STO
Temp. PresSlure Pressure GOR Pressure Temp. GOR Gravity
temperatures are encountered. A high-pressure and high- System ~~ (psio) (scf/ST8) (psio) ~(scf/ST8) (oMIl
temperature reservoir is the environment in which many S-1 200 3283 3283' 2139 300 70 2395 63.3
F·l 246 5070 4836' 2363 500 65 2741 51.2
rich gas condensates and highly volatile oils are found. S-3 200 4022 4022 4180 300 70 4419 63.0
Because of this trend, the performance prediction of such F-3
F-4
247
269
5452
6312
5340
5590
4983
5844
500
400
100
100
5186
5853
56.7
55.0
reservoirs has become an important task of the reser- S-50 163 4525 4525 7635 300 70 7847 62.5
S-5b 200 4550 4550 7635 300 70 7848 62.5
voir engineer. The need and usefulness of a performance S-5c 230 4530 4530 7635 300 70 7850 62.5
correlation based on field data that are available from F-5
S-6
257
200
6160
5020
6160
5020
15290
15490
1000
300
95
70
15725
15606
50.5
61 .8
the usual well-completion tests have previously been estab- S-7 200 5118 5118 20886 300 70 21081 61.4
F-6 225 6435 6435 23340 1000 95 23669 50.6
lished.' These earlier attempts have shown that the phase F-8 221 6130 6130 27480 1000 95- 2n60 54.4
behavior of rich gas-condensate systems and volatile-oil F-9
8-1
250
275
8246
6247
7550
2480
59900
5911
1000
1000
110
120
62755
8297
42.7
61.4
systems can be correlated with fluid properties, pressure 8-2 270 6290 3000 6633 1000 120 8605 59.8
8-3 217 5074 4414 5890 900 60 6832 56.6
and temperature.'-' However, very little information on 8·4 283 6105 3075 5321 965 90 6486 59.0
gas-condensate depletion performance' was available at 8-5
8·6
285
230
11760
9679
8000
8200
42434
29759
1165
1165
110
110
42855
30178
47.7
48.5
the time of these earlier attempts. 8-7 237 9862 9300 15446 1165 110 16262 46_5
8-8 276 6245 3465 5293 1000 120 6106 61.8
The availability of more recent data has made possible 8-9 218 8934 8934 16580 750 30 17360 51.8
8-10 218 8934 8934 19551 750 30 20313 49.6
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleunl Engineers 0:'- 8-11 160 6342 6202 12537 615 70 13058 54.6
fice March 3. 1965. Revised manuscript of SPE 1152 received June 8-12 190 4855 4200 25743 500 70 26163 60.8
11. 1965. 8-13 220 4095 3890 7056 400 70 7656 57.5
tlReferences given at end of pnper. ·Bubble Points.

852 JOURNAL OF PETROLEIJM TE(:HNOLOGY

 5. The correlated pressures are the actual reservoir
pressures which might or might not be the saturation
pressure of the reservoir fluid.
6. The reservoir temperature is measured in of and
the stock-tank oil gravity in ° API at 60F.
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CORRELATIONS
Tables 1 and 2 list the reservoir data, primary separa-
tor data, in-place fluids data and the recovery data for
all the systems used in the correlations.
These data are extremely random in bot:h independent
and dependent variables. The best approach to correlat-
ing such data is regression analysis, in which the data
are fitted to an equation of the form *
Y = Bo - B, (X') + B, (X,) + .... By
Here the type of equation, or the arithmetic modeL
had to be predetermined (see Appendix for the detailed
procedure). Then a computer program was used to cal-
culate the regression coefficients of each term (B values),
which gave the least squared error.
A correlation for total standard cubic feet of gas in
place had a standard deviation of the percentage errors of
3.57 per cent. The one extreme data point was the volatile
oil system which was in error by 14 per cent. If the four
largest errors were removed from the standard deviation
determination, it would be reduced from 3.57 to 1.57 per
cent. A set of statistical tests' indicated a very good cor-
relation of the variables. The "t" test indicated that stock-
tank oil gravity should not be included in the gas-in-place
correlation. Therefore, gas in place was correlated with
gas-oil ratio, pressure and temperature only. The correla-
tion in its final form is:
In (G) = 4.5484+0.0831 In (R t ) +0.4265 In (p)
-0.3185 In (T).
This correlation is presented in graphical form in Fig. 1.
No correlation was made for the gas production from
the original pressure to 500 psia. The percentage recov-
eries varied so little that an average value of 92.6 per cent
of gas in place will predict the production to 500 psi a with
a sufficient degree of accuracy.
A correlation for the stock-tank oil in place was easily
obtained and is useful for cross checking the in-place cor-
reIations. The stock-tank oil-in-place correlation is:
In (N) = 2.60977-0.90398 In (R t ) +0,48940 In (p)
-0.30084 In (T) +0.29243 In (0 API).
This correlation is shown in Fig. 2. Stock-tank oil in
place can also be found by dividing the total gas in place
by the initial total gas-oil ratio. The values obtained by
both methods should be in reasonable agreement.
The incremental production of stock-tank oil from the
original pressure to 500 psia was correlated, since the per-
centage recoveries varied over a wide range. The form of
(Xx).
the arithmetic model was chosen by trial and error. The
model which gave t:he best over-aIl fit to the data was sim-
ilar in form to the gas-in-place model, except that stock-
tank oil gravity (0 API) replaced reservoir temperature as
the third independent variable. The correlation equation of
the stock-tank oil production as a function of total ~as-oil
ratio, pressure and oil gravity, in its final form, is
In N p = -20.243 -0.65314 In (R t ) + 1.3921 In (p)
+2.7958 In (OAPI).
This correlation is presented graphically in Fig. 3. The
standard deviation of the percentage errors is 14.1 per
cent for all 27 systems.
When the two extreme errors are removed, the standard
deviation is reduced to 9.25 per cent. Many other forms
of equations were tried with reservoir temperature as a
variable, but the inclusion of temperature lowered the
quality of the correlation each time. These other forms
are listed in Table 4.
CONCLUSIONS
An improved performance correlation for gas-conden-
sate and highly volatile oil-reservoir fluids has been devel-
oped, whereby field data for initial reservoir pressure and

OSee nomenclature for an explanation of the symbols.

TABLE 2-INPUT DATA Based on Dew

Based on Original Pressure Point Pressure Il
.::!
In Place Recovery to 500 psio
Per Per Ree. to F
Gas In Place 500 psia iii
Gas Cent Cent ;X
scf/bbl STB/bbl scf/bbl of In STB/bbl of In STB/bbl STB/bbl
SystelT HCPS HCPS HCPS Place HCPS Place HepS HCPS
~'1018 0.42500 ~ 89.9 o:o99i4 23.3 0.42500 0.09914
F·l 1052 0.38397 927 88.1 0.08016 20.9 0.3B030 0.07649
S·3 1240 0.28074 1145 92.3 0.06450 23.0 0.28070 0.06450
F·3 1249 0.24040 1164 93.2 0.04850 20.0 0.24080 0.04600
F·4 1311 0.22320 1277 97.4 0.06250 28.0 0.20950 0.04970
S·5a 1483 0.18900 1347 90.8 0.03788 20.0 0.18900 0.03788

·
S·5b 1364 0.17380 1245 91.3 0.04390 25.3 0.17380 0.04390
S·5c 1277 0.16260 1182 0.05000 30.8 0.16260 0.05000
F·5 1481 0.09420 1368 92.4 0.03720 39.5 0.09420 0.03720
S·6 1472 0.09435 1337 90.8 0.03603 38.2 0.09435 0.03603
S·7 1509 0.07157 1364 90.4 0.03245 45.3 0.07157 0.03245
F·6 1654 0.06990 1521 92.0 0.02510 35.9 0.06990 0.02510
F·8 1585 0.05710 1452 91.6 0.02610 45.7 0.05710 0.02610
F·9
B·l
B·2
1824
1551
1571
0.03030
0.18695
0.18250
1698
1436
1455
93.1
-- ··· 0.01454
0.12065
0.10900
50.0
64.5
59.7
0.02906
0.11681
0.01330
0.05051 .g
0.12818 0.05472
~
B·3 1465 0.21450 1357 0.0820 38.2 0.20104 0.06849
B·4 1375 0.21220 1335 97.1' 0.11101 50.3 0.15214 0.05095
B·5 2036 0.04780 1920 94.3 0.02800 58.6 0.03967 0.01984
B·6 1945 0.06444 1820 93.6 0.02930 45.6 0.05991 0.02496
B·7 1913 0.11840 1835 95.9 0.04160 35.1 0.11580 0.03896
8-8 1299 0.21040 1211 93.2 0.13820 65.7 0.16027 0.08808
8·9 1847 0.10640 1747 94.6 0.05260 49.4 0.10640 0.05260
8-10 1865 0.09179 1757 94.2 0.04750 51.7 0.09179 0.04750
8·11 1729 0.13120 1596 92.3 0.06010 45.8 0.13035> 0.05926
8·12 1496 0.05720 1348 90.1 0.03480 60.8 0.05194 0.02950
8-13 1236 0.16140 1137 92.0 0.04640 28.7 0.15509 0.04009
Avg. = 92_6% TEWERATUAE ·F
*Inconsistent with in-place values due to changes in separator conditions during
depletion. FIG. I-GAS-CONDENSATE GAS-IN·PLACE CORRELATION.

JULY, 1965 853

 temperature, initial total gas-oil ratio, and stock-tank oil
gravity can be used to predict the total- recovery of gas and
condensate. The correlations are presented in convenient
form for estimating field reserves. Care should be exercised
in applying the correlations to reservoirs which have pa-
rameters outside the range of the data used to develop
them: reservoir pressure, 4,000 to 12,000 psia; reservoir
temperature, 160 to 290 F; total separator gas-oil ratio,
2,500 to 60,000 scf/STB oil; and oil gravity, 45 to 65
°API.

NOMENCLATURE
Bn = regression constants
C = constant
R, = total scf of gas off the whole separator train per
barrel stock-tank oil, scf/STB
NI' = ultimate oil production from the original pressure
to 500 psia, bbljbbl HCPS
N = stock-tank oil in place, bbljbbl HCPS
p = original reservoir pressure, psia
T = reservoir temperature, OF
G = total gas in place, scf/bbl HCPS
Y = any dependent variable
z = gas deviation factor.
REFERENCES
1. Curtis, R. C. and Brinkley, T. W.: "Calculation of Natural
Condensate Recovery", Drill. Prod. Prac., API, New York
(1949) 166.
2. Eilerts, C. K., et al.: Phase Relations of Gas-Condensate Fluids,
AGA, New York (1957).
3. Brown, G. G., Katz, D. L., Oberfell, G. G. and Alden, R. c.:
Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons, NGAA, Tulsa,
Okla. (1948) Fig. 29, 38.
4. Anderson, R. 1. and Bancroft, T. A.: Statistical Theory in
Research, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1952) 153.
5. Berryman, J. E.: "Predicted Performance of a Gas-Condensate
System, Washington Field, Louisiana", Trans., AIME (1957)
210, 102.
6. Jacoby, R. H., Koeller, R. C. and Berry, V. J., Jr.: "Effect of
Composition and Temperature on Phase Behavior and Depletion
Performance of Rich-Gas Condensate Systems", Trans., AIME
(1959) 216,406.

PRESSURE
PSIA

DEGREES A,P,I.

FIG. 2-GAs-CONDENSATE OIL-IN-PLACE CORRELATION. FI(;. :l-CAS-( :ONUENSATE OIL RECOVERY CORRELATION.

854 ,10URNAI. OF PETROI.EUM TECII:\OLO(;Y

 APPENDIX a suitable regression model is obtained:

TOTAL GAS-IN-PLACE CORRELATION In G = Bo+B, In (p) +B 2 In (T) +B, In (R,) . (A-5)

Previous correlations have shown that gas in place can
be correlated as a function of gas-oil ratio, pressure, tem-
perature and oil gravity for rich gas-condensate systems.
Having obtained the depletion performance data for 27 of
these systems, a correlation was made. The method of ap-
proach was by regression analysis: using an IBM 704 com-
puter. The form of the regression equation had to be de-
termined before the regression analysis calculations were
made.
In searching for a scientific law to base the regression
equation on, it seemed logical to use the gas law for the
gas-in-place correlation. The gas-law equation is
pV = znRT .
Solving for the number of moles n, we obtain
n = pV/zRT . (A-2)
Because V is equal to 1 bbl, and n when multiplied by
379 equals standard cubic feet or G, Eq. A-2 becomes
G = 379/R· (p/zT) .
Eq. 3 has the deviation factor z as a variable, which could
not be used in the correlation, since it is not measured in
the field. Thus the question arose as to whether z was, in
some way, related to the gas-oil ratio. Referring to a gen-
eralized compressibility correlation: in the range of reser-
voir pressures (p,.=5 to 15) and temperatures (T,.= 1.2 to
I .5), z can either increase or decrease with T, depending
on P" Since p,.=p/p,., and p, is less sensitive to the pro-
portions of light and heavy hydrocarbons (R,) in the res-
ervoir fluid than is T" it is expected that low R, systems
would have a higher T, and lower T, than high R, sys-
tems (T, increases with molecular weight). Thus, although
the value of z can be reflected in the R" the dependance
via T,. can be either direct or inverse. However, by taking
logarithms of the expression,
G = (constant)( 3~~)( ~ )(RI)
The sign of the R, coefficient is determined by the least
squares criterion of fit, avoiding the conflicting depend-
ence of z on R,.
The regression coefficients were calculated by the meth-
od of least squares, using the input data of the 27 sys-
tems. This multiple-regress ion-analysis technique produced
the following final equation.
In (G) = 4.5484+0.0831 In (R,) +0.4265 In (p)
-0.3185 In (T) (A-6)
The preceding procedure is not a theoretical, mathemat-
ical derivation, but simply represents the chain of thought
(A-I) that finally produced the empirical Eq. A-6, which repre-
sents the best correlation of the data.
Table 3 lists the actual values of the gas in place as well
as the calculated values, per cent errors and standard devi-
ations.
GAS PRODUCTION TO 500-PSIA DEPLETION
(A-3)
PRESSURE
A correlation is not needed to determine the cubic feet
of gas production to a depletion pressure of 500 psia.
Since the recoveries for the 27 systems only varied be-
tween 88.1 and 97.4 per cent of the in-place gas, an aver-
age value of 92.6 per cent is considered sufficiently accu-
rate.
STOCK-TANK OIL-IN-PLACE CORRELATION
Since oil in place can be calculated by dividing the gas
in place by the initial total gas-oil ratio, it at first seemed
unnecessary to correlate oil in place. However, a plot of
stock-tank oil in place vs gas-oil ratio indicated that a very
good correlation was possible. This led to alternate ap-
proaches in determining in-place fluids. First, gas in place
, (A-4) is found by Eq. A-6 or Fig. 1. Then oil in place is calcu-
lated by:

TABLE 3-CORRElATION RE5UL T5

Gas In Place Stock-Tank Oil In Place _ _ _--'Stock-Tank Oil Recovery
Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent
System Actual * Calculated Error Actual* Calculated Error Actual* Calculated Error

5-1 1018 1053 + 3.5 0.42500 0043050 + 1.3 0.09914 0.08566 -13.6
F-l 1052 1201 + 14.1 0.38397 0041545 +8.2 0.08016 0.07925 - 1.1
5-3 1240 1209 - 2.4 0.28074 0.27293 -2.8 0.06450 0.07516 -;- 16.5
F-3 1249 1304 f· 4.4 0.24040 0.24941 + 3.7 0.04850 0.07702 +58.8
F-4 1311 1365 + 4.1 0.22320 0.23202 +3.9 0.06250 0.08014 +28.2
5-5a 1483 1423 - 4.0 0.18900 0.18255 -304 0.03788 0.05952 +57.1
5-5b 1364 1336 - 2.0 0.17380 0.17209 -1.0 0.04390 0.05997 +36.6
5-5c 1277 1276 - 0.1 0.16260 0.16462 + 1.2 0.05000 0.05960 + 19.2
F-5 1481 1488 _l-
OA 0.09420 0.09278 -1.5 0.03720 0.03200 -14.0
5-6 1472 1476 t- 0.3 0.09435 0.09669 f 2.5 0.03603 0.04253 -;- 18.0
5-7 1509 1526 t- 1.1 0.07157 0.07423 t 3.7 0.03245 0.03256 + 8.7
F-6 1654 1636 1.1 0.06990 0.06821 - 2.4 0.02510 0.02618 + 4.3
F-8 1585 1633 3.0 0.05710 0.05922 3.7 0.02610 0.02700 -I- 3.4
F-9 1824 1907 4.6 0.03030 0.02940 -- 3.0 0.01454 0.01217 -16.3
B-1 1551 1389 -lOA 0.18695 0.17276 --7.6 0.12065 008556 -29.1
B-2 1571 1405 -10.5 0.18250 0.16735 -8.3 0.10900 0.07835 -28.1
B-3 1465 1348 - 7.9 0.21450 0.19504 -9.1 0.08200 0.0'792 -29.4
B-4 1375 1335 .- 2.8 0.21220 0.20913 -104 0.11101 0.08706 -21.6
B-5 2036 2061 -1- 1.2 0.04750 0.04901 +3.2 0.02800 0.03487 ~24.5
B-6 1945 1973 1.4 0.06444 0.06561 . 1.8 0.02930 0.03502 + 19.5
B-7 1913 1871 - 2.2 0.11840 0.11335 -4.3 0.04160 0.04786 ,15.0
B-8 1299 1352 + 4.1 0.21040 0.22808 -8,4 0.13820 0.10640 -23.0
B-9 1847 1852 0.3 0.10640 0.10780 -;- 1.3 0.05260 0.05406 -I- 2.8
B-l0 1865 1877 0.6 0.09179 0.09230 .,. 0.5 0.04750 0.04320 - 9.1
B-ll 1729 1725 0.2 0.13120 0.13136 +-0.1 0.06010 0.04680 -22.1
B-12 1496 1544 3.2 0.05720 0.06026 j 5.3 0.03480 0.02768 -20.5
B-13 1236 1237 I 0.1 0.16140 0.158'1 ---1.8 0.04640 0.04169 -10.2

Standard Deviation -- 3.57 c__ 2.64 Absolute Average % = 20.4

Standard Deviation
Standard Deviation = 14.1
Standard Deviation * *::-:: 9.3
"'Actual derived by depletion calculations.
Standard Deviation of Per Cent Errors
**When two extreme errors are omitted.

JULY, J965 355

 TABLE 4-A COMPARISON OF THE DEGREE OF CORRELATION FOR VARIOUS EQUATION FORMS
R2 ••
Equation Fraction u*·* Comments
Go. In Place
'G = - 245.53 + 104.209 (R)M + 0.09678 (p) + 138~736 - 4.2838 (0 AI'I) 0.941 78.6 low , test for 0 API 'erm
'In (GI = 4.86 + 0.1102 In (R) + 0.4714 In (p) - 0.503 In (T) - 0.003891n (OAP1) 0.937 0.0579 low t test for D API term
1n (GI = 4.54 + 0.0831 1 n (Rtl + 0.426' 1n (p) - 0.3185 1 n (T) 0.925 0.0527 Best over-all fit of the data
Oil In Place
In (N) = 2.61 - 0.904 In (Rtl + 0.489 In (pi - 0.3 In (T) + 0.29 In (OAPI) 0.995 0.0488 Nearly perfect correlation
Stock-Tank Oil Production

Np = - 0.289 + 16~;95 + 0.0000055 (pi + 0.00038 (T) + 0.0035 (OAPI) 0.702 0.0193 low t test for T term
In (Np) = - 21.66 - 0.61 In (Rd + 1.21 In(p) + 0.4641n (T)+ 2.81n (OAPI) 0.826 0.249 low t test for T 'erm
In (Np) = - 20.243 - 0.653 In (Rd + 1.39 In (pi + 2.79 In (OAPI) 0.814 0.252 Best over-all fit of the dato

*Bosed on primary separator gas and GOR

···a
"''''R2 is Q statistical measure of the quality of the correlation that fonges from 0.0 for no correlation to 1.0 for perfect correlation.
is the unbiased estimate of the standard error of the dependent variable.

' I _ gas in place was no approach to building a regression model except

STO In pace - GOR (A-7)
by trial and error.
After many forms were tried, the following regression
The second approach is to determine the oil in place by model was selected:
the following correlation:
In (N) = 2.60977 -0.90~98
In (R t ) + 0.48940 In (p)
In (N p ) = InBo+B,ln (R,)+B,+(p)+B,ln (T)
+B, In (OAPI) . (A-9)
-0.30084 In (T) +0.29243 In (0 API) . (A-8)
The regression coefficients are calculated in the same man-
The results of the two methods should agree reasonably. ner as before, and Eq. A-9 becomes:
The oil-in-place correlation represents a very good fit
of the data for all 27 s¥stems. Table 3 shows the actual In (N p ) = 21.6646 - 0.607ln (R t ) + 1.21 In (p)
ia-place oil, the calculated in-place oil, per cent errors and +0.4644 In (T) +2.804 In (OAPI) (A-lO)
the standard deviation. The standard deviation of the per- Eq. A-lO has a standard deviation of the percentage er-
centage errors is only 2.64 per cent, including all systems. rors of 13.46 per cent. However, the "t" tests indicated
It is interesting to note that the "t" test indicated that that reservoir temperature was dependent upon the other
all four independent variables should be included in Eq. independent variables and should not be included in the
A-S. This differs from the gas-in-place correlation, which correlation. Therefore, temperature was eliminated from
d@es not include stock-tank oil gravity. It also differs from Eq. A-9 as an independent variable and the remaining
the stock-tank oil production correlation, which does not regression coefficients recalculated. A somewhat better cor-
include temperature as an independent variable. relation was obtained:

STOCK-TANK OIL PRODUCTION TO 500-PSIA In (N p ) = -20.243 -0.65314 In (R,) + 1.3921 In (p)

DEPLETION PRESSURE +2.795Sln(OAPI) . (A-ll)
The per cent recoveries of the stock-tank oil in place Eq. A-II is the final correlation of stock-tank oil pro-
varied over a wide range (20 to 65.7 per cent), and duction to 500-psia depletion pressure. The actual values
therefore a correlation of this variable is needed for per- of N p, the calculated values, the per cent errors and
formance predictions. The data were so random that there standard deviations are given in Table 3. ***

856 JOUR"'AL OF PETROLEUM TECHIiOl.OGY