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 SPE 7427
c
both the “Estimates of Original Oil Ln Place” and computed permeabilities (from buildup curves)
“EstimateofUltimate Recovery!’as Given on page 25 of could easily be dismissed.
Ref. 1. From these arerages, IiP”Ledin Table 1, a
recove~ efficiency was calculated, and it is also 6. A skin effect as defined was found present in
shown on Fig. 1. The graph shows an undeniable many wells; usually, a skin effect was
----
decrease in the efficiency during the post-World War 11 blamed for mediocre recovery results.
~eriod. Conceivably, one might infer that the volume
Ifthe oil discovered in prewar years was understated Fracturing improved productivity of many wells.
o that recovery percentages of the older fields are ells which originally had radial flow and a positive
lot as high as shown on Graph I. This remoning leads kin factor could be made to flow at higher rates with-
,0the conclusion that now as in former Years only 30 ut increasing the pressure drop; pressure analyses
~ercentof the oil found is being recovered. ndicated that those wells had negative skin factors
,fterbeing fracture treated. Actually, fracturin$
In this analysis we have accepted figures as rested completely new flow patterns. Although many
;iven in the API reports. We find it especially ells are fracture treated, the cumulative effect of
Lifficultto understand why there was a decrease in uch treatments on ultimate recovery cannot be gleaned
riew of the following: ‘remthe recovery curve in Enclosure 1.

1. Schlumberger logging services were a~ailable, Thus, with all our innovations, we are not doing
they were better understood, and Schlumberger m well as in prewar days, and the recovery efficiency
provided many new types of logs which made werages a dismal 30 to 32 percent. It appears to us
possible still better analysis. ;hatthe industry either does something fundamentally
rrongor omits doing something fundamentally right. Ir
2. Flow of compressible fluids in permeable ;his respect, the recovery efficiency of the huge East
strata became better understood. ?exas field is intriguing. The latest analysis,
‘eferredto in a letter to most parties interested in
3. The relationshipbetween reservoir volume of ]il (Ref. 2), shows that the field will produce 85
oil and its complement of gas for various ~ercentof the oil in place, an efficiency which is not
pressures was obtained accurately and Iuite reached by other water-drive reservoirs. Fifty-
routinely so that material-balance equations >ercent efficiency is a more generally accepted figure
cotld be and were used extensively. ;he average for the 72 cases reported on Fig. 5 of
~ef. 3. If 50-percent recovery is obtained for the
4, High-speed, sophisticated computers became >est-doctsnentedwater-drive reservoirs, then there
available and were used extensively for nust be recoverable oil left even in those reservoirs
analytical work. %nd appreciably more oil must.remain in those reser-
voirs less amenable tc water driv~. In Ref. 2, the
Several possible explanations for this decrease can recoverableoil left m known reservoirs is placed at
be suggested: mound 130 billion barrels, an amount equal to the
total ultimately expected from all known fields.
1. M&ny forma of secondary recovery were applied
in fields discovered prior to World War II; It was puzzling that the skin effect appeared
use of secondary methods might have increased repeatedly throughout the producing life of some wells
the recovery efficiency of these older fields even though these wells maintained high production
measurably, although this reasoning appears rates from the beginning. ‘l?h~refore,we surmised i.hat
daubtful. this skin effect resulted from the presence in swell
of multiple layers with different permeabilities. It
2. Wider well spacing was used in the postwar 1s assumed that these layers are separate “andthat no
than in the prewar years. TIIiSwas done :ross flow is possible except through the wellbore.
partly because oil prices kept denser devel- ?or simplicity, we have investigated only two-layer
opment frombeing profitable, partly because :ases instead of multiple-layer cases.
computations for homogeneous reservoirs
failed to indicate a relationship between FORMULATIONS
well spacing and recovery efficiency even
though considerabletime was spent on finding Turning to the algebra of the problems, our first
such a relationship from the best documented considerationwill be reservoirs of “infinite” extent,
data available. i.e., Those whose boundary effects cannot be observed
in buildup curves; the second part will deal with the
3. The general belief was that many reservoirs cor.blnatZonof an infinite and a limited reservoir.
were homogeneous; this was augmentea by the
fact that pressure-buildupanalyses for most Part I - Both Reservoirs are “Infinite”
producing wells show a straight-line function
for the pressure increase versus log Let 13n= 2nknhn/u
(At/(t+At)), the fmous Horner-tYPe curve.
and
4. Small vertical permeabilities were believed
an= (@cr#kn)% .
sufficient to equalize pressure differences
in sands of any complex away from the well;
hence, it became general practice to obtain This nomenclature follows closely that used by Matthew
kh values from buildup curves and to use and Lefkovits (Ref. h). Because only large, dimension
sand thickness cbtained from logs to derive less times are used in well analyses, the LaPlace
k values. trsnsfomn of the time derivative of the p(t) finctiQn

Coring of forr.ations
was done only occasion- can be representedby KO(an@ which can be split into
5.
ally; differencesbetween measured and
 .
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
—. A. F. Van EVERDINGEN AND HYLA SWESNIK KRISS 5

#here the radius of the hole, 10.4775 cm, i.e., a diameter

of 8% in. For these conditions, the numerical value
J12(cn@
H=* . of the time conversion factors is constant.
Jo2(LnR)-J12(@
Table IT contains the details of the computations
for one case. All five caaes were computetisimilarly;
and they differ in that, in Case 1, the thickness of the
~n is a root Of Jl(cnR)Yo(qn)-Y
l(c;)Jo(cn)=O](XVI) most permeable layer (k=100 md) was taken as 200 cm
[ and increased by 200 cm in each succeeding case. The
thickness of the layer with lower permeability in
I’heseroots are designated as Cn because the an Case I is 900 cm and decreases to 200 cm.

symbols have already been used. llhus,the pressure- The computations require accurate values of the
drop function can now be written as 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

61 + f3zP Ko(~al)

(;“=] —–-’
N“
pa22+C2n
)
(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.
A first approximatio~to this is:
The results of all five cases were plotted versus
.- (XVIII
. log (At/(t+At)) as prescribed by Horner. Even though
,-
the transfer functions are accounted for, the pressure
-. increasea always form straight lines. Using the
complete formulation, even the pressure increase com-
After making an inversion, the pressure function for a put~d for a shut-in time of 1 second falls on the
unit ~ate expressed in cc/see is: 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
‘(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
bebweenthe p(t) and
Q(t)
functions referred to on

n~,RnYo(a~cn/a2) e .?
—. — Lit”
page 314 of Ref. 5, where equation VI-32 shows that
/o 2t “
1
t
“t. These straightlines would
/ o P&-)Q(t-)~t
In our examples, we computed AP above flowing Pressurc
This was done similarly to the case with the two ordinarily indicate one homogeneous reservoir for
infinite reservoirs by the formula . which the k value could be obtained by reading the
pressure increase above a shut-in time of 1 second

‘p=qT[‘(t) + ‘(At)- ‘(t+At) “ 1 (xx)

where the pressure increase is equal to
~ln m ‘ + %ln L +.40454) ; t is the production
.- Q’
4uCrW2
DISCUSSION ON EXAMPLES
time in seconds, and q represents the dimensionless
Part I - Both Reservoirs are “Infinite” t
rate obtainable from the slope. When we applied the
When we began this study, we felt that reservoirs foregoing one-layer analysis to our plots, we obtained
are too easily considered homogeneous and that there a k value; this k value was the weighted average of
should be some relation between a reservoir’s permea- the k values of two layers. Using this avev.~e k
bility and recovery efficiency. We began the study value, we found a skin effect in our plots; therefore,
by computing the pressure-buildup data of a well which we concluded that skin factors observed do not neces-
produced from two sands which had different permea- sarily represent formation damage. Skin factors can
bilities and which were not connected except through also indicate the presence of several sands of
the wellbore. Both sands were assumed to be of “infi- varying quality which are not in communicationexcept
nite” extent; therefore, no boundazy effects appear. through the wellbore.
Although we investigated many,cases, we have
included only five in this study. Each of the five The contributionsby the q(t)-functionsgenerally
cases used a production rate of 500 cubic meters per
day (625 m3/day, or 7,233.8 cc/see at reservoir con- are too small to be measurable, except for a short
ditions) during 10 days; the well was then shut in time after shut-in. During that short time, the
for 36,000 minutes, and the pressure increase above casing effect may not yet have died out. Only if it
flowing bottom-hole pressure was computed at 41 dif- is found possible to detect, by logging during the
ferent intervals. The permeabilities of the two shut$in time, the small quantities of liquid leaving
sands were 100 md and 10 md. The viscosity of the one formation and entering another, can we hope to
fluidwss 0.3; the formation volume factor, 1.25; th< find out more about the permeability of formations
combined compressibilityof the fluid, ‘theformation, present.
and the connate water content, 0.0002/atm; the por-
osity (oil-filledpore space only), 10 percent; and
 6 RECOVERY EFFICIENCY SPE’7427

Part II - One Reservoir “Infinite,

” One most of the bounded reservoirs were exhausted down to
Reservoir of Limited Extent the flowing pressure of the well. In buildup, the
infinite reservoir replenishes fluid lost before the
When reviewing pressure-buildup curves teken at pressure increase creates the straight-linerelation-
yearly intervals on the same well, we noticed the ship so often observed in buildup plots. The relation-
similarity in the shape of these curves. If swell ship, the strafght line coming off the top curve,
was a good producer and displayed an S-factor in the then reflects the characteristicsof the infinite
buildup, the same S-factor would be present every layer only.
year. It is hard to understand why, in such a pro-
ducer, the S-factor d.. not decrease with time. Because all AP’s in this report are plotted as
Another difficulty was presented by the fact that prescribed by Horner, it is evident that the total
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 pressures reached by two infinite reservoirs with
the standard straight line exhibited by wells in the same characteristics. The pressure differences
infinite reservoirs. Packers are usually present decrease when the thickness of the infinite reservoir
between casing and tubing at a short distance above increases as a percentage of the total. When the
the perforations, thereby minimizing the casing limited reservoir thickness equals 10 percent of the
effect; hence, the time required to reach the point total, the resulting buildup curve is so nearly a
where the pressure becomes a straight line in the straight line that the presence of a limited reservoir
buildup curve should be distinctly limited. There- in the formation is haxdly noticeable.
fore, we looked for other reasons for the lag in
pressure after shut-in. One idea was that layers of In all cases, the production life of 10 days was
different permeabilitieswere present in the same used. Even a cursory review of the curves shows that
well (the analysis is given in the foregoing). shut-in periods in excess of 1 day are required before
Inspection of the straight line with layers of dif- the curve becomes a straight line. The shut-in time
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 In many cases, the straight line coning off the bottom
to be small even in cases where the permeabilities of the curve has been interpreted &s a reflection of
differed by a factor of 10. the kh values of the tested reservoir; however, the
straight line coming off the top of the curve reflects
It was then assumed that one of the two reser- the kh vfiluesof the infinite reservoir. The curves
voirs could be limited in extent, or bounded. A shift to the right with increase in the size of the
pressure decrease of 1 atm can only deliver a fixed bounded reservoir; this indicates that, for limited
amount of oil from these reservoirs; the amount of reservoirs of more than 10 acres, a very long shutdown
oil depends on the extent, thickness, porosity, and period is required before the curve reveals its full
compressibilityof the fluid and the formation. 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- From the foregoing, it is evident that reservoirs
md permeability. The thicknesses of both types of could be less homogeneous than generally assumed. Thi
reservoir varied as before. In all cases, it was
heterogeneity could result from the formation being
assumed ;hat an 8%-in.(10.4775-cmradius) hole was deposited in a “pancake” configuration in which the
drilled in the center of the limited reservoir. “cakes” could be extensive in some directions, limited
All other conditions were the same as used for the in other directions, and bounded by shale layers above
infinite cases in Part I. and below. Moreover, the cakes can have many forms,
and a well may penetrate such a cake layer at any
In order to make the pressure computations,we point. We have presented formulations that explain
‘began by establishing the first 20 roots of Eq.(XVI)
some of tliecharacteristicsof buildup curves caused
for the various R’s pertaining to the aforementioned by the limited extent of a reservoir in the intervals
areas. The roots are listed in Table III. These open to production. A limited layer is far less likel
roots are dependent only on the ratio of the area to be depleted than an infinite layer unless the
of the bounded reservoir to the area of the hole limited layer is open to production in several wells.
drilled. The roots can be used for wells of differ- If the layer is open in one well only, the most oil it
ent radii provided the areas of the bounded reser- can give up is an amount equal to the pressure drop
voirs are corrected proportionately. times reservoir volume and compressibilityfactor. An
equivalent amount of fluid will be pushed back into
Pressure-buildup data were computed for all R’s
the limited layer during the next pressure buildup.
listed and for h values used in the infinite cases.
The values have been plotted on the graphs on Thus, closer spacing is recommended whenever a
figures 2-6. An example compute~ for a 10-acre
recovery efficiency is less than expected. What re-
drainage area appears in Table IV. The graphs give covery should we expect? Is the 85-percent efficiency
the pressure-buildup curves of all R’s considered for of the East Texas field attainable elsewhere?
one value of hl(or h2). The broken line on each
graph represents the buildup of a coui~inationof two East Texas is developed on 5- to 6-acre spacing,
infinite reservoirs as described in Part I. and it has had a good water drive from the outset.
The demand on the drive was reduced by injection of
When an infinite and a bounded reservoir are all produced water. Compare this to the average,
producing together, the bounded reservoir rate starts 50-PerCent recovery of the best documented water-drive
to decrease; therefore, the infinite reservoir rate cases in Ref. 3 which were developed on larger spacing
must increase to maintain the same unit rate. During Is spacing the only important factor? The amount of
the 10 days that the combinationhas produced here, 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
Gn = Root Of [JdCnR)yo(Ln)-YI(cnR)Jo(cn)=o
1
to its original value. ~f other wells exist, the
pressure drop below original pressure reflects the
interference of surrounding wells. P* values rep- REFERENCliS
resent maximum pressure values at the point of measure-
ment, hence P* values should not knd cannot be used in 1. API. Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquidsf
flow equations.
and Natural Gas in the United States and Canada
as of December 31. 1976, API, Vbl. 31, May 1977,
The P% values obtained over the entire field at
regular intervals can be easily adjusted so that all 2. Van Everdingen, A.F. Letter in JPT Vol. 30,
reflect the value at a specific time and at the sam= pp. 209-21O, February 1978. —
subsea depth. Such a map can be contoured; the iso-
bars reflect the pressure distribution of the accumu- 3. API. “A Statistical Study of Recovery Effi-
lation after all indentations caused by production ciency,” API Bulletin D14, First Edition,
from point sources have been removed. October 1967.
Using the thicknesses of oil-bearing formations, 4. Lefkovits, H. C.; C.S. Matthews; and others.
pressure data, PVT data, production rates, dates of “A Study of the Behavior of Bounded Reservoirs
first appecdvmce of water, information on completion Composed of Stratified Layers,” SPE Journal,
depths of wells and on sections open to production, ‘Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 43-58, March 1961.
the reservoir engineer is now in a position to analyze
the field and its behavior under the adopted production 5. Van Everdingen, A.F’.;and W. Hurs%. “The Appli-
pollcy. He can study and trace any abnormal.lttesin cation of the LaPlace Transformationto Flow
the reservoir’s behavior. Only then WX1l he be able Problems in Reservoirs,” Technical Paper 2732,
to obtain the full benefit of the material-balance
~~., MME, VO1. 186, Pp. 305-324, 1949.
equations, logs, and sophisticatedcomputers at his
disposal and eventually improve the mediocre recovery 6
Earlcugher, R. C., Jr. fldvancesin Well Test
efficiencies estimated for most of the last 20 years. “
Analysis. Monograph 5, 41ME, p. 39, 1977.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
7. Hildebrand, F. B. Introduction to Numerical
The authors are grateful to William Hurst for Analysis. InternationalSeries in Pure amd
his time, interest, and constructive comments. 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