Predicting

Gravity-Drainage

Performance

Using a Three-Dimensional
H. N. HALL
MEMBER AlME

Abstract
Reservoir and prod[tcing Awictetlstics
can :overn the
deci.riou 10 me either a one-, nvo- or tllvee-dittrensiotzal
nwdcl for I)]aking prcdic(ions for gravity-drainage re.rerwir.~. Examples of conditions rcqniring one-, IWO- and
rhree-ditt tensional calc[dtuion r are given. In 196 I rhe author prcsen!ed a me[hod for predicting t)tte.dit??el~.sior?al
gvavi[y-drainage performance. Titi.~ work iws been extended
m ohluin a [ilreeditnensional
nmdel, wilici~ is desctvi~ed
and
jor )ri~icil a saitlple proi)lenz is pre.rentrd.

Introduction
Marry pnpcrs on gravity drainage or gas-cap drive- have
been presented for conditions where the reservoir is treated
as a single arcaI segment so that, in effect, only one-dimensional flow is considered, Other authors- have given evidence showing that the one.dimensional concept would be
unsatisfactory to predict reservoir performance for cerutin
(ypcs of reservoirs. Experience has indicated that specific
reservoir and producing conditions govern whether one-.
two- or three-cfimensional concepts must be used as a basis
for reliable reservoir performance predictions,
Previously the author presented a paper outlining a
method for predicting the performatlce of gravity-drainage
reservoirs? That paper treated the reservoir as a single
areal segment so that it was applicable for only one-dimensional flow. The work has been extended to obtain a threedimensional model that can be used to predict performance
of gravity-drainage
reservoirs. Although capable of being
three-dimensional, it can be used equally weII for one. and
two-dimensional predictions.
This paper discusses those reservoir and producing conditions governing the choice of model, and also describes
a three-dimensional
model suitable for predicting reservoir
performance in the more complex situations.

Discussion

PAN AMERICAN
TULSA, OKLA.

Model
PEWtOIEUM

CORP.

to predict the movement of oil and gas with~n the reservoir. The word model is used here to connote the combination of both a physical model and a mathematical
model based on the physical model. Certain types of
reservoir situations may be predicted suitably with a onedimensional model, whereas two- and three-dimensional
models may be required for other situations. This section
illustrates reservoir conditions associated with the use of
a specific type of model.
Many types of reservoir structures are such that gravity
drainage possibly could be an important factor in oil production. Production practices, as well as the nature of the
structure, can influence the type of model that should be
used. Obviously, it is impossible to discuss all combinations of reservoir structure and production practices that
might be encountered in gravity-drainage
reservoirs, The
following arc typical examples of conditions where a choice
must be made among a one-, two- or three-dimensional
model to predict reservoir performance satisfactorily.
Conditions Requiriog a
One-Dinlensionttl Model
Fig. la shows contours for an asymmetrical anticline in
which gravity drainage might bc expected to be important.
Fig. Ib depicts a cross-section along Line A-A in Fig. 1a.
Existence of a gas cap is a good clue that gravity drainage
will be an important factor in producing oil from this
type of reservoir. However, it is not essential since a gas
cap will form as oil is produced from the reservoi!, If the
proper combination
of reservoir permeability and withdrawal rates is present, the reservoir will behave like a

The Choice of Model

To predict reservoir performance, it is necessary to represent the reservoir by a physical model. A mathematical
model, based on the assumed physical model, then is used
Original
manuscript
received
in Society of Petroleum
Engineers
office
Revised manuscript
received
March S1. 1968. Paper
(SPJ2
1878) was $wesentcd at SPIi 42nd Annuat
Fall hleeting held in Houston,
Tex,
Ott: 1-4, 1!!67. 0 Copyright
l!J68 A.nericwn
Institute
of Mininr!,
Metallurgical,
and Petroleum
Engineers,
Inc.

AUK.11, 1967.

References 8iven at end of

This paper
cover 1968.

will

be

printed

Paper.

in

Tran8actioms

volume

243,

which

will

l-a
STRUCTURAL CONTOUR
Fig. lTypical

l-b
SECTION A-A

reservoir, one-dimensional

model.

.-

tank in that the gas-oil contact will move down-structure

as a level discontinuity, and there will be no significant
regional pressure gradient throughout
the reservoir. Oil
displaced by movement of the gas-oil contact spreads out
evenly and, in the case of operations not using pressure
maintenance,
gas evolved throughout
the structure will
move upward uniformly through the oil column into the
gas cap. The dominant movement of gas is updip, and the
movement of oil is downdip, therefore, it is one-dimensional. These conditions would be expected where properties (such as porosity and permeability)
are uniform
throughout the reservoir, where well spacing is uniform
and where the producing rate from the field is Iow in
comparison with the gravity reference rate.
Fig. 2a shows how the reservoir is separated into vertical
blocks, (In this paper, %ertical blocks denotes blocks
stacked in a vertical direction and horizontal
blocks
refers to blocks lying in the same horizontal plane, ) The
final physical model of the reservoir to be used in onedimensional calculations is shown in Fig. 2b. The reservoir
is characterized by a series of stacked blocks. The area of
ddch
block is assigned in such a way that the pore volume
of each block corresponds to the actual portion of the
reservoir it represents.
Conditions Requiring a
Two-Dimensional Model
Fig. 3a is a contour map for a slightly dipping reservoin Fig. 3b is a cross-section view along Line A-A. Cook
stated that even in reservoirs having low vertical perme.
ability (less than 10 md ), gas liberated from solution can
segregate to the top of the sand and then flow through a
secondary gas cap along the top of the sand into the mail;
gas cap at the crest of the structure. He stated that this
type of performance
was recognized as an important
mechanism active in massive sand reservoirs in western
Venezuela. Cook also concluded that gravity-segregation
performance
could be influenced greatly by a downdip
concentration of withdrawal in this type of reservoir. Fig.

~~#-

4 shows the gas-oil contacts that could result. Gas saturation that can build up subsequently in downdip areas
will lead to early GOR problems, Other authoma have
investigated the tilting of a gas-oil contact for crestal
gas-injection operations.
The general flow patterns that would exist under conditionsshown in Fig. 4precludethe
use of a one-dimensional
model for predicting reservoir performance.
If there are
no regional lateral variations in reservoir properties (dip,
permeability and porosity) and well concentration
is laterally unform, then this type of performance
could be
predicted with a two-dimensional model.
Fig. 5a depicts how the reservoir would be modeled by
breaking it up into areal segments that are further divided
into vertical blocks, The reservoir model is shown in perspective in Fig. 5b, with dashed lines showing the direction
in which oil and gas are assumed to flow.
Conditions Requiring a
Three-Din~eosiooal
Model

Theasymmetrical
anticline shown in Fig. 1 is used again
for illustrating reservoir and production ~~.ditions requiring a three-dimensional
model. Instead of having equal
well spacing, it is specified that a certain production rate
is to be maintained from the reservoir with a limited num.
ber of wells. The main question is whether there will be
sufficient lateral migration of oil to achieve a condition
similar to that shown in Fig. 6a where the gas-oil contact

A-

-A

GAS-OIL CONTACT

GAS-OIL

CONTACT

3-a
STRUCTURAL

CONTOUR

2-a
CROSS SECTION

3-b
SECTION A-A
Fig. 3Typical

reservoir, mwdimensionai

model.

PRODUCTION
(
GAS-OIL CONTACT
2-b
PERSPECTIVE
Fig. 2Physical

model

of reservoir for one-ditnerrsional

model.

Fig. 4-Gas-oil
contact profi!e, segregated flow
cross-section oj reservoir.

moves down uniformly. or whether there would be a

pronounced lowering of the gas-oil contact in the vicinity
of the production wells as shown in Fig, 6b, If movement
of the gas-oil contact is not uniform, it will be necessary
to consider the actual location of producing wells and
regional changes in porosity, thickness and permeability
to calculate this type of performance. Actual well production rates obviously cannot be estimated on average conditions; the true pressure in the vicinity of the well and
location of the gas-oil contact at the well also must be
considered.
Fig. 7 shows how a reservoir similar 10 that shown in
Fig. 1 worrId be modeled to make three-dimensional
reservoir predictions. The reservoir is separated into a large
number of areal segments. each subdivided into vertical
blocks. Each block is assigned a value of area, porosity,
permeability and fluid content corresponding to that ac.
[ually occurring in the reservoir. The three-dimensional
mathematical model constructed using this physical model
would account for oil and gas fiow in two lateral direc.
tions, and for the vertical direction. These are denoted in
Fig. 7 by arrows.
Three-Dimensional

process was described to solve these equations, and thus

predict gravity-drainage
performance for one-dimensional
systems,
Fig. 8 shows saturations obtained throughout a onedimensional gravity-drainage
model produced under primary.type depletion (i.e., no gas injection). The production
rate was a low percentage of the gravity reference rate,
and pressure was allowed to decline with time. Gas coming
out of solution in the oil column migrated updip into the
gas cap as oil flowed downward. The dynamic conditions
encountered were such that a near-constant
average gas
saturation was maintained in the oil column. Note that

S-OIL CONTACT
VARIOUS TIMES

Model

The one-dimensional
method previously referred to
is applicable for conditions of either complete or partial
pressure maintenance. or for normal pressure depletion.
Provisions were made to account for vertical variation in
permeability and fluid composition. The method was based
on representing the reservoir by a series of vertically
stacked blocks, similar to that shown in Fig. 2b, The
mathematical model that was developed accounts for the
flow of oil and gas at all points ~hroughout the section
while simultaneously satisfying material balance considerations. The numerical expressions developed consisted of
gas and oil material balance equations for each block in
the reservoir in conjunction with expressions describing the
flow of oil and gas between blocks. These equations are
implicit; i.e.. they involve unknown values of pressure and
fluid saturation at the end of a time step. An iterative

1
6-a
EQUAL MOVEMENT

L CONTACT
IOUS TIMES

6-b
UNEQUAL MOVEMENT

CROSS SECTION

--+-DIRECTION

5-b
PERSPECTIVE
Fig, 5Physical

M jy

OF OIL

R GAS MOVEMENT

11

${

model of resert,[)ir
calcltladons.

I PRODUCTION
Fig. 7Physicrd model oj reservoir f,,r three-dimemionrd
crrlculrrtimz.s,

behind the front, especially near the top of the structure.

most of the change in saturation occurs as a result of oil
shrinkage rather than from flow.
A three-dimensional
calculation method was developed,
based on the one-dimensional method previously described.
by considering a large number of one-dimensional
(vertical) areal segments linked together by specifying the
migration of oil and gas between adjacent blocks in the
segments. Fig. 9 shows a typical block in an areal segment
with four surrounding blocks in adjacent areal segments.
All these blocks are considered to be at the same eleva.
tion. At the start of a time step, pressures and saturations
are known for each block, Actual migration that will
occur during a time step cannot be specified because
the values of pressure and saturation in the surrounding
blocks at the end of a particular time step will not bc
known. Therefore, it was decided to specify the migration
during any time step by explicit methods. In other words.
for calculating horizontal migration of oil and gas, pressure
and saturations for the five horizontal blocks in Fig. 9
were estimated at the mid-point of the next time step by
extrapolating
from previously calculated
values at the
previous two time levels. For the first time step, pressure
it time I 1 is assumed to be equal to pressure at time I.
[n starting from static conditions, very little error is made
by this assumption since the system is in equilibrium and
the first time step is short. Subscripts a, j and i in Fig. 9
correspond to vertical, x and y indicators, respectively.
for designating blocks, Eq. 1 is an expression for pressure
at any general point (designated as the point at space
location a, i, j) at a time midway between time I and
timet +1.

(P)l+i = W)f +

Y2

[(i), (P)f.1l

.,.

(l]

Eq. 2 expresses the rate of oil migration at 14.7 psi and

60F between blocks <t, i, j, and a, i 1, j.
(E,.-),+,
[(P

),+,

A similar expression
is given as Eq. 3.

= (M-)
_ (p%!.,.,

)t+il

for giis migration

(2)

at 14.7 psi and 60T

1.0
-.

5
F .8
u
2 ,7

\t

w
z
g ,5

\,

&
~ .6

Z
F .4
~
g .3
a
w
WI,2
w

ORIGINAL
GAS-OIL
CONTACT

$.,.!,l.l,,

).

(Was.,.,

.!.,)

In Eqs. 2 and 3, # and Q are evaluated on the basis of

saturation existing at the start of each time step.
Writing expressions for flow between the a, i, j block
and the three adjacent blocks, the totaI horizontal migration of oil and gas into the a, i, j block is given by Eqs. 4
and 5. This is designated as the a block to be consistent
with terminology in the previous paper (i.e., it is the ath
vertical block of an areal segment).
(E,,+),., (1:,,,

(fib.,),.:

-, (f;,,,,
(E,,;),,,
T

)..

(E*.)!,)

)! :

(E,,;),,j

(~h,,,..,

(4)
Ll)t>

J. ,

(5)

), , (.E*.),,,

(E,,,,

~hmc migration terms then are used as a pseudoproduction term in the one.dimensional
gravity-drainage
prediction method, For example. Eq. 6 gives a materiaI balance
on the gas content of a block in the oil column (this
equation is the same as Eq. 13, in the Appendix of Ref. 7).
1

(.s;),.,
(P)

1.1(~)l+1

[
(R,),
-(K),
[

- R:-]
(B.,),.,

(R,),., (
1

(eC),

~ ($[p)~

-r (e.,),,,
~

.
1[

(1

.s ,)

(B:.,

$-

At j (e.,), -t (e. ),.,

~
( v+) ~[
1[

::::~:1

(R,-), -t (R, I,.,

(n,), i- (B, ),., 1

(!<,)! + (ft. ),.,

(B2), + (B,),., 1

)(p ) (8) Y) (): (J

([

(eu), (), (8<), + (t,.)(., (p

(aa)fl

(&f.!

(R,*),+,
[(P),+* (p ),+~]. ~E=
+ (w..)
-./) .
0+
(n:)
. [( P)(.) (P) t+tltl ( P*)fsi (~*)1.:
. . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

-[-

. (#;{-)

1
o (~~-j,.:

),,*

(1%,

2)-

q) [K4)~(]{)

1
), r

1:)

e.,,+,,.
@

OIL

GAS

\l

.I

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

LIQUIDSATURATION(FRACTION)
Fig. S-Satwation
distribution determined
one-ditnensional lnodel,

by

6)

Fig. 9Blctck configuration for three-ditwtssionai

calculations.

This equation is modified by Eqs. 4 and 5 to include

horizontal migration of oil and gas, and becomes Eq. 7.
1

(s,,), , - -

(P<)t,l(~)l.l -

(R:) , ;,-
@~,
.
.

(R:),
(B7-),

[-

-S)

-$:+::1S;)r[(p)()
f-%%l+(;a)
,,. l), ~ (r,, .-,),.,
_
-_
(R.-),
+ (l?,),+,
(e,
(Boo-),+, 1
2
1
[ -(B.-),+
{1
_ ~,,,.: ),+- (e,,),:, (R.), + (R.),., .
.
2
(B.,), + (B,,),; 1
1[
[
(ej ), (P
)i(8)t
-: (~.; a)(+!
(Po-)
t.l(~aO])t.l
.

Esmnplc of Predicted Reservoir

Performance Using a Three-Dimensional
Gravity-Drainage
Model

~-

[--

([

(1,,

~,(p?,.

fl.,

),

~*J

),

(e,),., (p),.

.,.

. .

(7)

131. 16 In th~ previous paper is a material balance cm the

oil con[cvst of a block in the oil column, and becomes Eq
8 on modification
by including horizontal oil and ga.
migrali(~n

(B,:),

(M )(+)

+ (B.,),.l

p)=(Rr)(+))-{[
(P) (p.,)

(p),

144

[
(E>,.),.,
[1

-1-

(q;),

(B,,j,-~

_:,
1
1
(v+)

A-i

(l-.s,,
) (.s,,), [
.$,.) (s,) !.!
,(
(B,,),
(N),l
-

Fig. IO is a contour map of a hypothetical reservoir.

Origin~l oil in place was 650 million bbl, and original
reservoir pressure was 4,100 psia at a datum of 7,200 ft
subsea, Fig 11 represents values of permeability
times
thickness, and Fig. 12 shows porosity times thickness
values used. Connate water saturation used was 18 percrmt.
A gas-oil contact existed at 7,070 ft subsea cm discovery.
Production wells are located as indicated. Total oil production was maintained constant at 20,000 STB/D with wells
being produced al equal rates. All oil production came
from blocks below the gas-oil contacl. ~-he section open in
tiny well was at least 10 ft below the location of the gas-oil
contac!. No coning was assumed in this example during a
time step.
Fluid properties were selected in such a way that they
varied with structure in the reservoir. Fluid at the gas-oil

1(l?.,)=
((.),

1[ (BO);+-(-B7),.;
(e,,),+ (e,,-),.,
(bV*j7+@}*jT

A similar procedure is used for modifying all other oil

and gas material balance equations listed in the Appendix
of the paper describing the one-dimensional
method for
predicting gravity-drainage performance.
By using this technique to specify horizontal migration
for gas and oil flow, the reservoir can be divided into a
large number of areal segments and the implicit approach
for a single segment can be utilized for each segment to
predict three-dimensicmal performance.

(8;

B
#
AL
IL
CT

Fig. 10SlrucVurol cotllwr~,

Fig. 1 lPermeabifi/y

.wnple problew.

fhickness cm~lwws, sclmpk

reservoir (darcy-feef).

TABLE 1 FLUID

PROPERTIESSAMPLE

PROBLEM

Bottom of
Reservoir

Top of

Reservoir
.
..
Saturation pressure (psig)
Oil viscosity (cp)
Oil reservoir volume factor
Gas in solution (scf/STB of oil)

2,150
0.7

4,300

0.26

1.26

1,84
1,720

700
..-

contact had a saturation pressure of 4.300 psi and decreased downdip to a value of 2,150 psi. Fluid properties
are given in Table 1. Variations in saturation pressure and
msociated fluid properties were not linear,
The reservoir was represented by the type of physical
model shown in Fig. 7, and 22 rectangular, areal segments
were used. In the j direction (along the major axis of the
reservoir).
blocks were five times the length in the i
direction. Each block was25 ft high.
Fig. 13 shows pressures and GORs calculated for 25
years of production from this reservoir. The solid line in
the pressure. vs-time curve in Fig. 13 represents the calculated, volumetrically
weighted average reservoir pressure
at a datum of 7,200 ft subsea. The circles represent an
average of reservoir pressuie in the vicinity of producing
wells at various times, Note that the average of the pressures in the vicinity of the wells is lower than the average
reservoir pressure. This is emphasized further by Fig. 14.
which represents pressure contours throughout the reservoir after 20 ytars of production history. The shape of
the reservoir pressure-vs-tirne
curve is characteristic
of

undersaturated
conditions existing in the reservoir at the
start of production. Pressure declines rapidly to the saturation pressure, and then declines at a slower rate due to
evolution of gas in the oil column. The fact that saturation pressure changes with structure makes this a very
gradual change as compared with predicted performance
using standard material balance calculations where an oil
with a single saturation pressure is considered.
The produced GOR shown in Fig. 13 increased slightly
from an initial value of 970 scflbbl during the first 5
years of production. This reflects the fact that all wells
were producing from the oil column only, and due to
permeability variation the largest amount of oil came from

4000

3000

u
:
m
w
~

2000

1000

10

YEARS

15
OF PRODUCTION

20

25

2000

2500

Ffg. 14Presswe

PRODUCING
WELLS

conrours, sample problem

ptductirm).

(20 ye[m

,Ij

low in [he structilrc. MOSI of the produccri oil was still

undcrsaturatwi duc to the variation in saturation pressure
with elevation. The decline in GOR with time indicates
that cmmtcrcurren[
flow existed in the oil column below
the gas.l. il contact, As rcwrvoir prcssuiw declined, produced
GORs were only slightly higher than solution GOR, since
most of the gas evolved in the reservoir migrated updip
into the gas cap. The liquid saturation at wrrious times
changcxi in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. 8 where
u iow gas saturation is observed heiow the gas.oii contac[
at all times.
Figs. 15a and 15b represent the location of the gas-oil
contact aiong Lines A-A and B-B of Fig. 10 after 20
years of production. It is obvious that horizontal migration
has been ineffective in maintaining a uniform rate of advance of the gas-oil contact throughout the reser joir. Oil
has migrateci from the edges of the reservoir; however,
most of the produced oii has come from movement of
the gas-oii contact in the vicinity of the producing wells.
Aiong the iine A-A only the section at the extreme edges
is underwturated,
whiie along B-B, a large portion of the
southern end of the field was under.saturated.
A I(hough constant
production rates for each wcii were
considered in the sampie problem, actuai ikid practices
may be such !hat individual weli.producing rates wouhi he
aiiocated on tnc basis of equal drawdown, equal wellheati
llowing pressures or some other criteria. The uneven movement of gas-oil contact with time, and regional variations
in pressure throughout the reservoir, indicate that individual weli productivity wili not rermin constant throughout
the iife of a reservoir, anti that it cannot he cstimate[i
accurately by considering average reservoir conditions.
ro obtain the best estimate possibie regarding future performance of a reservoir of this type, it is essential to
consider actual Ioctition of wells and regional changes in
porosity, thickness anti structure.

B,, = oil formation volume factor (bbl at reservoir temperature and pressure) /(bbl at
60F and 14.7 psi)
e. = oii influx rate in verticaI dirwtion, cu ft/
day at reservoir temperature and pressure
Cfl= gas influx rate in verticai direction, cu ft/
day at reservoir temperature and pressure
E,. = horizontal oii migration rate between acijacent blocks at the same elevation, cu
ft/day at 14.7 psi and 60F
E,, = horizontal gas migration rate between adjacent blocks at the same elevation, cu
ft/day at 14,7 psi and 60F
F = eievation difference between points in the
reservoir (used to determine gravity gradient between blocks ), ft
k = absolute permeability, darcies
k , = relative permeability to oii
k,, = relative permeability to gas
L = distance from mid-point of block to edge
of other block, ft
M = 6,33 X absolute permeability X cross-sectional area, da rcics X sq ft
P = pressure, psi
q = oii producing rate, cu ft/{iay (measured al
60F and 14.7 psi)

SECTION B-B

R=

producing GOR, cu ft/cu ft (measured a

60F and 14.7 psi)
R. = soiutiors GOR (gas soIubiihy in oii). cu ft/
cu ft (measured at 60F anti i4.7 psi)
connate water saturation
gas saturation
total pore spacc$ cu ft
lempcrature, F
time intcrvai, days
gtis compressibility fachw
#/a, i.t. <#.
l

1,1 ~

ctlcctive oii pcrmcabiiit y

(iength X ofi viscosity)
=

(k,:{ ),(k,o-),

. ..
.- - -.. _
[(k,: (),(U-J~+
(k,o-)J)]J)]
l/(ft x Cp)

1
(/I.,,*),

p,, = ciensity of oii, lb/cu ft

S = conversmr factor = (ii i 4.7). 1520/(460

T)] < (l/z)

t% = oii viscosity, cp
l% = gas viscosity, cp
# = porosity
Superscripts
a = number

of vertical blocks in areal segment

i = areal segment in ith row of areal array o
segments
j = areai segment in jth column of areal array
of segments

The following superscripts

blocks rr, i-l, j and a, i, j,

arc dcscrihed

in terms

of

(I,i, j;a, i 1,j = conditions between hi~cks (I, i, j and G

i1, j
* = Value existing between blocks referred to
for p,,, N,,, 8, p.. h,, and p, this superscript indicates the average value at the
boundary of Mocks r?,i 1. i and 6,i, j

t = vaiue at time I
t+l = value at time (t+l)
r-l-% = value at mid-point of time interval
References
1, Stewart, F. M., ffarthwaite, D. L. and Krebil, F, K.: Pressure Maintenance by Inert Gas Injection in the High Relief
Elk Basin Field, Trans., AIME ( 195S) Vol. 204, 49-55.
2. SI_sreve,D. R, and Welch, L. W., Jr.: Gas Drive and Gravity
Drainage Analysis for Pressure Maintenance Operations,
Trans., AIME (1956) Vol. 207, 136-143.
3. Kirby, J. E., Jr., Stamm, H. E. IIJ and Schnitz, L. Il.: Calculation of the Depletion History and Future Performance of
a Gas-Cap-Drive Reservoir, Tram., AIME (1957) Vol. 210,
218.226.
4. Martin, John C.: Reservoir Analysis for Pressure Maintenance Operations Based on Complete Segregation of Mobile
Fluids, Trans., AlME (1958) Vol. 213, 220-227.
5, Cook, Robert E.: Analysis of Gravity Segregation Perform-

S24

During Natural Depletion, SOC. Pet, Eng. J, (Sept,,

1962) 261-274.
6, Sheldon, J, W. and Fayer~, F. J,: The Motion of an Interface Between Two Fluids m a Slightly Dippi~lg Porous Medium, SOc, Pel. .Errg.J. (Sept., 1962) 275-282.
7, Hall, H, N,: Analysis of Gravity Drainage, J. Pet, Tech.
**
(Sept., 1961) 927-936,
anee

Ii. N, Hall is u .sfafl reseurch en~inrw

working in ihe Prrxlwtion
Research
Peir,>leuttt C[>rp,,v
Div. cjf P(IIIA tnericu)t
Re.wircil Cm ter, IuI.Yu. HiIll received
a

BS

}ro)u

drgrw
Tul.wl.

JfJURNA1.

degree

in

okkihot)u:

chcinical
Stuie

itl tmi IIwt }I(ifirs

OF

PRTROI.F.VM

tw.gineerittg

U. atrd UN MS
frf utl Tk,
V. 0/

TECHNOLOGY