A Statistical Study of Recovery Efficiency Api - Oct 1967

-~----------- ------- ---

-

¡·

-

F - .1\ P 1 8 U L D-14

1 9 6 7

illllllliiidiihümanimm1111111uu116UDU1HülliUWIIUDillRUIIIUIIIUUUIIIIIIHIIIIIIIUIIHIIIIIIUIUIUWIIIIIIUIUIIllllmmm111m111111111111nmnumrnmnmnmnmmllllllllllllll1

'1 '

APJ BUL DH First Edition Odoher 19fi7

A STATISTICAL STUDY OF RECOVERY EFFICIENCY

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE New York, N. ·y. 10020

'

---o----·

r;;-B"",l' ci1· e .,.'E LAS ~:·.,2.'.CNES';n1' ,,., ,, •1 , • u

1

•

F'TUDiOS', • ~ '~

.... " ( ;' _,,,, .¡ • J . 1 . • .

ec

¡:

1976

FES.

§

l, .

..te

1!

[~fE:~¡~-;~~L~~~:;~D Déll '

Issued by AMEHJCAN PETROLEUM INSTl'l'lJ'l'E

Division of Produdion Dallas. Texas 75201

UllWIIIIIIIIIIIWHUWYUIRPRIIIPR"IHHR!UIUDIIUIIIIRIIIIUHIIIUIHIHHIIIIIIIUIIIIRRDDDDWllllmtlllDllmlllllllllllllllWWIIDIIIUIWWWIIJUUJUUUUWJllllltrUIIIIUlltrrrrmmmHHIIIIWllllUIUWIIWlllllllUUIIIIIIIIIHIIUIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIUWmnmnn

Copyright© 1967 hy American Petroleum Institute

A STATISTICAL STUDY OF RECOVERY EFFICIENCY A Report By The API Subcommittee on Recovery Efficiency Chairman

J. J. Arps Petroleum Consultant Dallas, 'l'exas Currenl Memf¡ership

F. H. Brinkman Esso Production Research Co.

Houston, Texas *Prof. Folkert Brons U niversity of Texas

of

the S11l,r,om111if./ec

T. M. Geffen Pan American Petroleum Corp. Tulsa, Oklahoma

Austin, Texas

R. K. Guthrie R. K. Guthrie & Assoc. San Antonio, Texas

R. W. Buchwald Sun Oil Company Dallas, Texas

Gulf Oil Corp. Houston, Texas

R. C. Craze Esso Production Ilesearch Co. Jlouston, Texas

G. L. Hancock

G. K Hendrickson

W. J. Rog-ers Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. Tulsa, Oklahoma

A. E. Smith

Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Petroleum Consultant Dallas, Texas

T. S. Hutchinson

E~. F. Egan Texaco lnc.

Prof. H. T. Kennedy Texas A&M Universi~y College Station, Texas

*L. F. Elkins Sohio Petroleum Co. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

J.M. Miller Standard Oil Co. of Calif., Western Operations, lm~. San Francisco, California

Cities Service Oil Co.

J. N. Dew Continental Oil Co. Panca City, Oklahoma

Houston, Texas

*V. T. McGhee Phillips Petroleurn Co. Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Atlantic Richfield Co. Dallas, Texas

L. C. McColloch Sun Oil Co. Dal1as, Texas

*A. F. van Everdingen DeGolyer & MacNaughton Dallas, Texas ,!,O. E. Van Meter, .J r. Mohil Oil Col'p. Shreveport, Louisiana

,J. W. Wilson Union Oil Co. of California Brea, California

Requests for,· permi..001 O I 103 SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS Í

..> "

~. ó,

100

' ' 1 1 1

'

1 .050

500

1 1

\

' '

>-

·ººº

1

\

~

ü

n:

l

WATER ORIVE WITH k> .010 D 72 SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

./

1 1 \..

o..

5,000

1

' \

---1

10.000

.

1

w

w

98

'1

~

(/)

a:

95

90

1

:500

":,e

80

.

-

'

w

70

.

\

¡¡;

60

SANDSTONE PERMEABILITIES

1

1.000

50

~

\

_, .

'1'\

1

'"'-

¡¡; 050

a:

1

1

.010

w o..

\

\

\.

1

j

:,e

'"'\

'

f.:,,:.~

\

.

'\

010 \

"

.

005

. 005 1

1

'

+o-__!_J_

L-o-

'

' 1

11

.1

z

~

ow

,. 1

.001 2

5

10

1

' 20

30

40

50

60

70

80

001 90

95

98

-+ PERCENTAGE OF CASES LARGER THAN Fig .. 3 - Cu_mulative Frequency Distribution of Permeabilities for. Water Orive

and Solution Gas Orive Cases - Sandstone Reservoirs

BULLETIN

D1 ,¡: A

11

STATISTICAL STUDY OF RECOVERY EFFICIENCY

-

PERCENTAGE OF CASES LARGER THAN 2

10

5

20

10.000

30

40

50

l

'

60

70

80

90

95

98

1 1

LI MESTONE PERMEABILITIES

5,000

10.000

5,000

'1 '

---

!.000

1

1 ' 1

1

' 1

1

1

.ooo

1

'1 \

.500

500

\

1

\

\

.

\

/'

l

\_

.Jj.100

WATER ORIVE WITH k > ,010 D 23 LIMESTONE RESERVOlRS

1/

1

\

' '

-'

f-

-' ~ w

\"-,__

\

1\ 90

95

98

ºº'

PERCENTAGE OF CASES LARGER THAN Fig. 4 - Cumulative frequency Distribution of Permeabilities for Water Orive and Solutión Gas Orive Cases - Limestone Reservoirs

12

J. J. ARPS,

FOLKERT BRONS, A. F. VAN EVF.RD1NGEN,

R

W. BUCH\VALD, ANDA. E. SMITH

Table 7 Median Volues of Recovery Efficiency by Recovery Mechonisms Predominant Recovery Mechanism Water Drive ............................. Water Drive ............................. Gas Cap Orive ..................... , ..... Solution Gas Drive .... ·................... Solution Gas Drive ....................... Solution Gas Drive .......................

Whether

Median Value of Recovery Efficiency (RE), Percent 51.1 43.6 32.5 28.4 21.8 21.3 17.6

Róck Type*

Supplemented

SS LS

. . . . . .

Solution Gas Drive ...................... , .

Yes Yes Yes No

SS & LS SS LS

No

LS

SS

*SS= Sand and Sandstone. LS = Limestone, Dolomite and other. Table 7 shows: a, that dissolved gas asan expulsive force is the least efficient.rccovery mechanism; arnl b, that it works somewhat better in reservoir rock with intcrgranular porosity, sueh as sa1Íd and sandstone, than in reservoirs with the intermediate typc of porosity ( carbonate rocks)., The table further underscores the much higher efficiency of water drive. This mechanism also seems to work better in sands and sa11dstones than in carbonate rocks. The number of gravity cases (8) was too small to permit a well-founded comparison. However, under ideal con- ,_

ww

,_ __ ,_ ·- -,

1RE-75

oc z

>O

1

.......

98

5

'

1

1

h-----CT 1

+CT~. z

~~

1

o

w

~

1

1 2

5

'º

-

1

1

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 90

95

98

PERCENTAGE OF CASES LARGER THAN

fig. 5 - Cumu1otive .Distribution of Recovery Efficiencies for four Orive Mechanisms

lllUI

BULLETIN

Dl4: A STATISTICAI, STUDY OJ

6

_,

"::,o

¡;; w