Section II/C, Paper 3

AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE

BY

D. R. HORNER ( * )

SYNOPSIS. I t i s believed that conventional methods for determining m e a n reservoir pressure

are incorrect in that t h q ignore the existence of localized pressure sinks surrounding the produ-
cing wells. I n consequence the quantity of oil initially in place in a reservoir will be over-estimated
if i t i s derived f r o m the material balance equation using a conventionally determined m e a n
reservoir pressure. T h e report therefore treats the material balance equation as a single functional
relation connecting two u n k n o w n s ( t a n k oil initially in place and m e a n reservoir pressure) and
derives a second relation connecting these same two quantities, based o n observed bottomhole pres-
sures and including a correction term f o r the eflect of the pressure sinks. Both functional rela-
tions are plotted o n the same graph and the point of intersection o f the two curves gives values
f o r the tank oil in place and the m e a n reservoir pressure. An example i s given of the applica-
tion of the method, which i s at present restricted to reservoirs w i t h n o initial gas-cap and n o ap-
preciable water-drive.

RI?SUMB. Suivant l’duteur, 1;s methodes ordinaires de determination de la pression moyenne

de gisement sont inexactes parce qu’elles n e tiennent p a s compte de l’existence, autour des p u i t s
de production, de zones caracterisees p a r des chutes locales de pression. De ce fait, la quantiti
d’huile minerale initiale d’un gisement donne sera estimee p a r excds s i l’on emploie l’dquation
de balance de materiel e n tenant compte d’une pression moyenne de g i s e m m t dCterminCe suivant
(( ))

les mkthodes habituelles. L e present rapport envisage l’equation de U material balance N comme u n e
equation fonctionnelle unique reliant deux inconnues (l’huile rdcuperable a u ddbut duns un gise-
ment et la pression nzoyenne de gisement) et obtient u n e deuxikme expression q u i relie d son
tour ces deux memes inconnues; cette dernikre expression, basee sur les pressions mesurees a u
fond d u puits, comprend un terme de correction tenant compte de l’effet des abaissements de pres-
sion autour des puits. Ces deux expressions fonctionnelles sont reportees sur le meme graphique et
le point d’intersection des deux courbes donne les valeurs de l’huile recuperable existant duns
un gisement mesurke a u x condition de surface, ainsi que la pression inoyenne de gisement. L e memoire
donne rcn exemple d’application de cette methode, q u i n e saurait 2tre adoptee d l’heure actuelle que
pour des gisements sans U gas-cap et n e produisnnt p a s p a r poussde de l’eau.
))

RIASSUNTO. I metodi comuni per la deterrninazione della pressione media d i un giacimento

Sono inesatti per il fatto che essi n o n tengono conto dell’esistenza d i zone attorno a i pozzi produttivi,
nelle quali s i hanno degli abbassamenti locali d i pressione. Di conseguenza la quantitd d i olio ini-
zialmente esistente in un giacimmto verra stimata per eccesso qualora s i impieghi l’equazione d i
U material balance D, adottando una pressione media d i giacimento determinata secondo i metodi
comuni. I1 presente rapporto tratta l’equazione d i material balance come una singola reazione
(( ))

funzionale che collega due incognite (l’olio ricuperabile inizialmente in giacimento e la pressione
media d i giacimento) e ricava u n a seconda relazione che coUega fra loro queste stesse d u e inco-
gnite, relazione basata sulle pressioni misurate a fondo pozzo e che comprende un termine d i cor-
rezione per tenere conto dell’effetto degli abbassamenti d i pressione attorno ai pozzi. Entrambe le
relazioni funzionali vengono riportate sul medesimo grafico e i l p u n t o d i intersezione delle due
curve favorisce i valori dell’olio ricziperabile esistente in giacimento e della pressione media d i
giacimento. V i e n e fornito un esempio d i applicazione d i questo metodo, il quale k per ora applicn-
bile solo a giacimenti che n o n abbiano (1 gas-cap iniziale nd spinta d’acqua apprezzabile.
))

( * ) Instituto Colombian0 de Petroleos, Bogota, Colombia.

e
132 PROCEEDINGS F O U R T H WORLD P E T R O L E U M C O N G R E S S - S E C T I O N
Tntroduetion
The so-called material balance equation (1)
for a reservoir producing by dissolved-gas drive
connects three different groups of quantities.
They are:
a. The quantities of oil and of free gas
initially present in the reservoir,
b . The quantities of oil, gas and water
withdrawn from the reservoir since the com-
mencement of exploitation, and
c. Certain volume conversion factors de-
pendent upon the P. V. T. relationships of the
reservoir fluids.
Furthermore, in order to be able t o evaluate
the quantities in group c, i t is also necessary t o
know:
d. The initial reservoir pressure and the
solution G. 0 . R., and
e. The present mean reservoir pressure.
The usual method of application of the mate-
rial balance equation is to determine the quanti-
ties in groups b , d and in the field and the
P. V. T. relationships of group c in the labora-
tory. The equation then reduces t o a single
relation between the quantities in group a, i. C .
the quantities of oil and of free gas which were
initially present in the reservoir. Thus, in the
case of a reservoir in which it is knoyrn that n o
free gas-cap existed initially, the equation may
be solved t o give the quantjity of oil initially
in place. In view of the extreme simplicity of
the concepts involved in the theory of the ma-
terial balance equation, there can be little doubt
that the results derived from its use must lic
well within the limits of accuracy required for
reservoir engineering purposes, always provided
that the basic data enumerated under groups
b, c, d and e above are known with sufficient
accuracy.
Of these data, it is here assumed that good
production records have been kept, that good
P. V. T. data are available and that both the
initial reservoir pressure and the solution G. 0. R.
are well-established. All these requirements are
so fundamental t o reservoir enginwring studies,
and present-day techniques of measurement are
of such high relat,ive accuracy, that it should be
possible to eliminate these data as sources of
serious error. With the data of groups b, c and
d excluded, the only possibility of major error
lies in the determination of the mean reservoir
IT/C
pressure (M. R. P.) required under e. I t is
with the problem of the accurate determination
of a representative M. R. P. that this report is
concerned. As with nearly all studies of re-
servoir flow, it is necessary t o make a number of
sweeping assumptions in order to obtain a set
of equations which can be solved. In conse-
quence the results of this analysis must remain
suspect until they have been verified in practice.
In this particular case, the normal assumptions
are made as to the homogeneity and isotropy
of the formation, and the constancy of the com-
pressibility of the single flowing phase, although
the method is later generalized somewhat arbi-
trarily t o include deviations from these highly
idealized conditions.
In addition, it should be pointed out that
the present method was originally developed
for application t o one particular field t and is
therefore specifically designed for the conditions
of that field. For this reason, the method is
restricted to fields producing by dissolved-gas
drive in which no significant water-drive is active
and in which no large gas-caps were present
initially. The presence of either initial gas-caps
or a detectable water-drive would complicate
the problem. No study has been made of this
more complicated system, but i t would seem
likely that, used in combination with the method
of Hurst and van Everdingen (3) for the eval-
uation of the volume of encroaching edge-water,
a modified form of the present method could
be devised.
Conventional Methods for the Determination
of the M. R. P.
Before proceeding with a discussion of the
proposed new method, it is perhaps of interest
to review the conventional methods for deter-
mining the M. R. P. Any such method must
automatically resolve itself into two stages,
namely, the determination of a representative
pressure corresponding t o each surveyed well
and then the averaging process to be applied
to these individual pressures. These two stages
may conveniently be considered separately:
a. Determining a representative pressure
corresponding to each of the wells surveyed.
t Casabe field, Yondo Concession, Antioquia, Co-
lombia, S. A.
 D. R. HORNER-AVERAGE
It used t o be common practice t o close in
an arbitrarily selected group of wells and then
to make a spot reading of their bottom hole
pressures after some fixed closed-in period,
which was often set a t 24 hours. I t is now
known that, in the majority of wells, such a
pressure reading is no more than a single point
on a pressure build-up curve and is essentially
without significance for the determination of
the M. R. P. When it was realized that the
pressure build-up process was frequently of long
duration, i t became the custom t o assume that
if a well were left closed-in for a sufficiently long
period, the static pressure (ps) which was finally
reached was the correct one on which t o base
the calculation of the M. R. P.
This use of pa has a number of disadvantages.
The build-up process in a new well is fairly rapid
and of easy interpretation, and so the determi-
nation of pa in a new well presents no serious
problem, but new wells will usually be drilled
t o regions of higher-than-average pressure, and
if the M. R. P. is to be based on such values
of pa an excessively high value will result. On
the other hand no satisfactory method is known
t o the writer for the determination of ps in an
old well short of leaving the well closed-in for
a period of perhaps many months until its pres-
sure finally reaches a state of approximate equi-
librium. The loss of production so entailed is
frequently so costly that very few determina-
tions of pa can be made in old wells, while this
same cost factor will also severely restrict the
number of permanently closed-in observation
wells.
There is a further objection to the use of pa.
A producing reservoir may be thought of rough-
ly as a region of gradually varying pressure
on which is superimposed a set of pressure sinks
centred upon the wells. These sinks, although
of small areal extent, represent large pressure
drops, and in the case of old wells make a con-
siderable contribution t o the average pressure
drop which has occurred in the reservoir. By
closing-in any particular well and permitting
its pressure t o stabilize, the effect of its own
pressure sink is dissipated over the entire reser-
voir and is thus almost wholly lost to obser-
vation. Thus the use of values of p a obtained
from old wells will give a value for the M. R. P.
which corresponds almost entirely to what was
termed above the ‘lregion of gradually varying
R E S E R V O I R PRESSURE 133
pressure ” and which almost wholly ignores the
effects of the set of localized pressure sinks.
Thus, in general, the use of the pressures p.
will give too high a value for the M. R. P.
b . Applying some averaging process to
the individual well pressures to obtain the re-
quired M. R. P.
A straight arithmetic average may be taken
of the individual well pressures. This has the
disadvantage that undue weight may be given
to some portions of the reservoir while other
portions may not be adequately included. This
difficulty is often overcome by drawing equi-
pressure contours based on the pressure values
to be used and then calculating an areally weight-
ed M. R. P. Apart from the great difficulty
of achieving good accuracy when contouring a
few pressure readings, this method can have no
exact basis in theory, for each pressure observa-
tion is normally made a t different producing
conditions -f and so the observed pressures are
values of different functions and thus theoretic-
ally may not be contoured; the effect of the
individual pressure sinks is still excluded from
consideration.
General Considerations Applicable
to any Method for Determining an M. R. P.
What, then, are the conditions which have
to be fulfilled by a set of pressure readings and
by the averaging process which is applied to them
in order to obtain the M. R. P. ?
Theoretically, it is necessary to know the
pressure a t every point in the reservoir in order
to determine its mean value, but this is, of course,
impossible t o achieve. The alternative is to
use the pressure data from a particular well to
calculate in some manner the mean pressure p
for some portion of the reservoir surrounding the
well and then t o apply a further averaging process
6
t o the set of values of corresponding t o all the
wells surveyed in order t o obtain the M. R. I?.
The portion of the reservoir surrounding a well
and whose mean pressure p is t o be determined
from pressure observations in the well may con-
veniently be termed the “ associated reservoir
volume ”, or A. R. V., of the well.
t The wells will not all be closed-in simulta-
neously during the pressure survey.
134 P R O C E E D I N G S FOURTH WORLD PETROLEUM CONGRESS-SECTION
I t follows that the entire reservoir must be
divided into A. R. V.’s with one A. R. V. corre-
sponding to each well t o be surveyed. Further-
more, when the values of the quantities p have
been obtained (by some as yet unspecified meth-
od), these values may not be contoured, both
for the reasons given in paragraph 2a above and
also because j5 is, by definition, a mean pressure
over a volume and is not the pressure a t a single
point. Thus, to obtain an M. R. P. for a reservoir,
a value of p has to be determined separately for
every well in the reservoir. t However, for the
method being developed here, it seems that the
individual well surveys do not need to be exces-
sively long (either a 3- or a 6-day build-up is
usually sufficient) and so the disadvantage of
having t o survey every well is not as serious as it
at first appears.
Finally, the exact type of averaging process
to be used must be decided upon. It has been
tacitly assumed in the past that an arithmetic
mean is a sufficiently good approximation; this
assumption is also used in this report. It prob-
ably does not involve a serious error and has
the great advantage of simplifying the calcul-
ations. The NI. R. P. is thus finally t o be deter-
mined as the arithmetic mean of the values of
- or hexagonal A. R. V.’s (for wells drilled on a
p weighted in proportion t o the A. R. V.’s.
The Choice of the Boundaries of the A.R.V.’*
An A. R. V. must be assigned t o each well
in such a manner that the methods of the fol-
lowing paragraph may be applicable. It will
be shown later that, for the application of the
proposed method, the A. R. V.’s only have t o
satisfy two criteria. -t-f These are:
a. The boundary between two A. R. V.’s
should be situated as far as possible from the
wells.
b. The individual wells should be situated
as closely as possible t o the geometrical centres
of their A. R. V.’s.
t Obviously a few wells will usually have t o be
omitted from the survey because of mechanical dif-
ficulties. So long as the number of omitted wells
is small, this will not seriously affect the accuracy
of the final M. R. P.
t t It should be observed that these criteria in no
way involve the thought of a drainage area D. In
((
general, the concept of an A. R. V. as here defined
is wholly distinct from that of a drainage area.
II/C
1
Fig. 1. Typical division of a reservoir
i n t o A. R. V.’s.
These are the only criteria which need t o
be laid down for the application of the present
theory and it is therefore proposed that the
A. R. V. boundaries be chosen geometrically.
In that the present theory has principally been
designed for the case of a reservoir withasym-
metric well pattern, wells will normally have
square A. R. V.’s (for the case of a square grid)
triangular spacing). Fig. 1 shows the A. R. V.’s
as they might be chosen for a group of wells
drilled on a square grid in which drilling is not
yet complete.
This method of choosing the boundaries of
the A. R. V.’s has the disadvantage that there
is some degree of freedom left in the choice of
the exact position of the A. R. V. boundaries;
in practice, it is believed that this will not be a
serious source of error.
The Basic Equation for p
The theory being developed is essentially
for use in bounded reservoirs, but it is precisely
the presence of boundaries which makes the
interpretation of bottom-hole pressure surveys
difficult. It is therefore postulated that it is
possible t o locate a hypothetical set of image
wells outside the reservoir boundaries so that,
il the existing producing wells and this set of
image wells had been simultaneously produced
from an infinite reservoir, there would at no
time have been any flow in the infinite case
across the surfaces which correspond to the
 D. R. HORNER-AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 135

reservoir boundaries in the finite case. The corresponding image wells must also be consid-
flow within these surfaces in the infinite reservoir ered to be closed-in, while wells B, C, ..., K
would therefore have been identical with that and their image wells continue on production.
flow which has in fact occurred in the bounded The pressure build-up in well A is thus identical
reservoir. Such a set of image wells may be in form with that of a well in an infinite reser-
easily constructed for a number o l simple geo- voir until such time as its pressure is noticeably
metrical shapes (e. g. for a reservoir with rectan- altered by the interference effects attributable
gular boundaries) and there would seem to be either to the closing-in of its own image wells or
no basic reason why a set of image wells could to the continued production of wells B, C, ..., K
not be constructed for an irregularly shaped and of their image wells.
reservoir although the wells would probably Now the pressure build-up curve of a single
be infinite in number and might even be infi- well in an infinite field becomes a straight line
nitely dense over portions of the reservoir. -f to + e
Any reservoir may thus be considered as an when the pressure is plotted against log _ _
e
infinite one with the necessary image wells in- (e = closed-in time,
serted. cumulative production
A basic requirement for the ensuing analysis to = last production rate before closing=)
is what may be termed the “ superposition theo- and the extrapolation of this straight line to some
rem ” which states that the pressure drop at pressure p* at infinite closed-in time (corre-
any point in a producing reservoir may be ob-
tained by evaluating the individual pressure drops
at that point due to the various disturbing
to + e
e 1
sponding to Iog -= 0 gives the undisturbed
pressure at the well ( 4 ) .
causes as if these were acting i n d e p e n d e n t l y and Thus the corresponding plot for well A will
adding these individual pressure drops. This also be a straight line until the interference
result follows directly from the linearity of the effects mentioned above become serious, which
basic differential equation of reservoir flow, normally takes a considerable time, even in
which is: a very old well; the extrapolation of this straight
f P C dp
v2 p = ---
k dt line to log - 0 will thus give a pres-
__
to
9
where p is the pressure at a point in the reser- sure p * which is the ‘‘ undisturbed ” pressure
voir a t time t and P, P, c, k are the porosity, visco- at the well A, that is to say, which reflects
sity, compressibility and permeability respec- the pressure drop which has occurred at the
tively, all assumed to be constant. well due to the production of wells R , C,..., K
Consider now the total pressure drop which and all the image wells (i. e. specifically includ-
has occurred at a point in the reservoir close ing the image wells corresponding to well A
to some well A. This pressure drop is the sum but excluding well A itself). The value of p * thus
of the pressure drops due to the following includes all the pressure drops due to the causes
causes, evaluated as if each well were producing (ii), (iii) and (iv) above, and only excludes the
independently from an infinite reservoir: effect of well A itself.
i. Well A itself, In paragraph 2a above, it was stated: “ A
ii. The image wells corresponding to producing reservoir may be thought of roughly
well A, as a region of gradually varying pressure on
...
111. The other existing wells, say B, C,..., E(, which is superimposed a set of pressure sinks
iv. The image wells corresponding to wells centred upon the wells ”. In the region o f
B , C,..., K. well A, the pressure p* may be considered as an
Now suppose well A to be closed-in for a observation made in this region of gradually
bottom-hole pressure build-up test. Then the varying pressure. Thus if the A. R. V. corre-
sponding to the well A is so chosen that its boun-
t This concept of a set of image wells is not daries are not close to any other well, and further-
essential to the development of the theory; it is more so that well A is roughIy in its centre, it
introduced solely because it simplifies the ensuing follows that the value of p* observed at the well
argument. is approximately a mean for the region of gra-
 ~-

136 PROCEEDINGS FOURTH WORLD P E T R O L E U M CONGRESS-SECTION II/C

dually varying pressure surrounding the well j-. Combining equations [i]and [4] it therefore
If, then, 8 is the mean pressure drop over the follows that the mean pressure over the A. R. V.
A. R. V. of well A due to itself, it follows that of a well is given approximately by
the arithmetic mean p of the reservoir pressure
over the entire A. R. V. is
- -
p=p*-6 [I1 where @ is defined by equation [5].
To determine 8, it may be noted that the
pressure drop 6 a t distance r and time t after An Improvement in the Basic Equation for 5
the commencement of production of a well,
and due solely to the well itself, is There are two theoretical sources of error
in equation [6]. They are caused by:
i. The use of a cylindrical form for the
A. R. V.
ii. The assumption that the value of p*
where q is the well’s rate of production (assumed at the well is a true average for the “ region of
t o have stayed constant since the commencement gradually varying pressure ” surrounding the
of production), h is the producing‘sand thick- well. This may conveniently be termed the
ness and the Ei-function is defined by “ p*-assumption ”.

X
The first error could be eliminated by per-
forming the integration of equation [3] over the

/
n

known A. R. V. However, as has been pre-

Ei(-x)- -du viously stated (para. 4 ) , the theory is developed
:e
m
J mainly for a field drilled on a regular spacing
pattern in which case the majority of the
The required mean value 8 of this variable 6 A. R. V.’s will be regular polygons.
may now be obtained by integrating equation [2] For example, in the case shown in Fig. 1,
over the A. R. V. of the well. Assuming the there are only 5 or 6 A. R. V.’s out of 22 in which
A. R. V. t o be a circular cylinder of radius a and the well is seriously off centre in its A. R. V.
height h, we have and only in these cases would the approximation
t o the circular form of the A. R. V. be seriously
n h (az-r:) 8 = in error. I t is believed therefore that, although
i t is theoretically possible to correct equation [6]
/
,Pa

- ,,“Lh E j (-= r2fpc

)2xrhdr
for the non-circularity of the A. R. V.’s, the
[3] amount of additional work involved is not
J warranted by the small improvement in theo-
TW
retical accuracy which would thereby be
achieved.
where rw is the radius of the well.
The second error mentioned a t the beginning
To a very close approximation, equation [3]
of this paragraph may also be expected t o be
may be reduced to
of minor importance: in this case, however, it
is possible t o estimate the order of the error
involved and t o modify equation [SI so as par-
tially t o eliminate it, without actually increasing
where the amount of work involved.
Consider a single well producing from the
[51 centre of a finite circular reservoir. Then the
pressure drop a t any point in this reservoir may
7 The errors in this approximation may be some- be calculated exactly from the well-known solu-
what reduced by the considerations of t h e next pa- tion for the flow in this case (4). The algebra
ragraph. is somewhat tedious and is therefore omitted,
 D. R . H O R N E R - A V E R A G E RESERVOIR PRESSURE 137

but written in a similar form to that of equa- 3. In practice, the diflerences hetween
tion [6], the mean pressure p in the entire reser- equations [6] and [7] are small;
voir may be shown to be: 4. It is thus probably preferable to use
equation [7] throughout.
-
p p* - - CIF [3/2 -y + ln (I)
4nkh
The Quantities A and +
For convenience, define a quantity A b y the
equation:
where

Then, from equation [5], it follows that

rb is the radius of the circular reservoir
tln is the nth positive root of JI (x) = 0
[91
Jo,JI are the Bessel functions of the first
kind of orders zero and unity respectively,
In is the Napierian logarithm
and y is Euler's constant = 0.5772...
and so, eliminating
4nkh
-= by the use of equation
Now equation [6], by its derivation, should [9], equation [6] becomes
also apply to this case of a single well at the
centre of a finite circular reservoir, with the
reservation that equation [6] includes the errors
which are inherent in the " p*-assumption ".
The difference between equations [6] and [7] In a similar manner, equation [7] may be
thus represents the error in equation [6] due written
to the p*-assumption for the special case of
a circular reservoir boundary coinciding with
the A. R.' V.
It is therefore proposed to use equation [7] in
place of equation [6] for all cases, for the reason
that equation [7] completely eliminates the whilebothequations [io] and [11] may be written:
errors of equation (6) in the one case which it -
is possible to investigate completely and will thus p = p*-A + [I21
presumably reduce these errors in other cases.
This appears t o be a very unscientific argu- where J, is a function of @ defined by either:
ment. However, in a practical field application
it will normally be found that equations [6] and
[7] give very similar final results. For example
,+ = 1- e-'/@ - -1 Ej (-
CD
i) 131
in the Casabe field, Colombia, a difference of or
only 2.8 oh in the quantity of oil initially in
place resulted from using equation [7] instead of 141
equation [6] (see para. 12). The argument in
favour of using equation [7] may be briefly
recapitulated thus: dependent upon whether equation [B] or [7] is
1. Equation [6], although derived for very to be used.
generalized conditions, contains an error due The two equations [13], [14], giving J, as a
to the p* -assumption; function of @, have been plotted in Fig. 2. Fur-
2. For the very restrictive case of a single thermore, the second (preferred) form of the
well at the centre of a circular reservoir, equa- function J, has been tabulated, for greater ease
tion [7] is exact; of calculation, in Appendix B.
138 PROCEEDINGS FOURTH WORLD
fl
Fig. 2. J , as 8 function
The Determination of jj
The present paper is based on the premise of
the inaccuracy of the conventional methods for
determining the M. R. P. and thus on the un-
reliability of the value of N (the volume of tank
oil initially in place in the reservoir) obtained
directly from the material balance equation for
the entire reservoir, but the validity of the equa-
tion per se is nowhere questioned. The mate-
rial balance equation may thus be thought of
as a single equation connecting two unknowns,
namely N and the M. R. P., and so, given only
the cumulative productions of oil, gas, and water
of the wells, and the necessary P. V. T. data, a
curve may be drawn using the material balance
equation for the entire reservoir showing N as
a function of the M. R. P. The calculation of
this curve requires no further comment. It
would, a t first sight, appear to be necessary next
t o determine the correct value of the M. R. P.
P E T R O L E U M CONGRESS-SECTION II/C
Of @
in order t o read off N, but in fact any second
functional relationship between N and the
M. R. P. may also be plotted on the graph of
the material balance equation and the required
value of N (and also of the M. R. P.) may then
be read off at the point of intersection of the two
curves. Such a method is the one proposed
here. In order to derive this second functional
relationship, a value is assumed for N and a
corresponding value is derived for the M. R. 1’.
using the method described below; by taking
a suitable suite oE values for N this required
second functional relationship between N and
the M. R. P. is obtained. In the following
discussion, N is therefore treated as a known
quantity.
From a pressure build-up survey in a par-
ticular well, values may be derived for the quan-
tities p * and wh-
q c L If the yuantity A can
also be determined, equations [9] and [12],
 D. R. HORNER-AVERAGE
together with the + - a relation of equation [13]
or [14], are sufficient t o determine p for the
A. R. V. Again, from the geometry of the
-4.R. V., the quantity a, may be calculated
where a is defined as the ratio of the volume of
the particular A. R. V. t o the volume of the
entire reservoir. It then follows that the
YUP
M. R. P. is ~ where the summation ex-
la
tends over all the A. R. V.'s. The problem
is thus reduced t o the determination of
A =
'
nazfhc'
Now theoretically all the quantities
g, t, a, f , h, and c may be considered as known,
but in practice considerable difficulties may
arise in the determination of any or all of them.
What value, for example, should be taken for
the compressibility c, or how should the volume
rate o l production q be interpreted in a well
producing at other than the solution G. 0. R. ?
Such questions are difficult t o answer in practice.
Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that
the various equations here presented have been
derived for a highly idealized reservoir with a
single flowing phase of constant compressibility
being produced a t rates which are constant for
the individual wells. It is thus desirable as
far as possible t o eliminate the use of in-
dependently determined parameters and only
to use those quantities which may be direct-
ly determined from reservoir observations. -f
Furthermore, the quantity A as defined by
equation [8] must be generalized as far as pos-
sible t o permit the practical application of the
theory t o actual oil-field conditions.
Now equation [8] may be written:
A =
-
Cumulative production of well
(Gross sand volume of A. R. V.) x (porosity) x (compressibility)
or A x (compressibility) =
Total fluid volume initially within A. R. V.
~~
t This ideal has already been achieved with respect nition of
to the quantities 4shby determining them from
the build-up curves of the individual wells. This
eliminates the diflculties attendant upon the deter-
mination o f the correct values to be used for the
individual quantities q, p, k and h.
RESERVOIR PRESSURE 139
From this form of equation [ 8 ] , it now be-
comes possible t o give a physical meaning t o the
quantity A , for the above form implies that A
is the pressure drop which would have occurred
within the A. R. V. due t o the production of the
well if the A . R. V . had been a sealed reservoir.
Equation [8] may thus be generalized by
adopting this definition for A , and A may then
be determined from a subsidiary material ba-
lance equation (S. M. B. E.) made for the well
and its A. R. V., assuming no flow t o have occur-
red across the A. R. V. boundaries. In order
t o set up this S . M. B. E. it is necessary t o
know:
a. The quantity of oil initially in place
in the A. R. V.
b . The initial pressure conditions to be
used for the S . M. B. E.
Point a above presents no problem. As
was explained above, the quantity N may be
considered as known, and so a N , the quantity
of oil initially in place in the A. R. V., is known
also.
Point b , namely the choice of initial pressure
conditions t o be used for the S . M. B. E., presents
a more difficult problem. Equation is], which
was generalized in an attempt t o give a practical
definition t o the quantity A, gives no clue on
this point, for the theory has been derived assu-
ming c t o be constant and it is precisely the
variability of the compressibility which makes
it necessary t o lay down the initial pressure for
the S . M. B. E.
The initial pressure for the S . M. B. E. is
unknown, and so is the final pressure. Suppose,
then, that these two pressures are pi and pi
at
xazh x f x c
Cumulative production of well
respectively. Then, from the generalized defi-
A, it follows that
A = Pi - Pf ~ 5 1
the S. M. B. E* is to be used, in
to determine a mean compressibility for the
reservoir fluids in the A. R. V. for the particular
140 P R O C E E D I N G S FOURTH WORLD P E T R O L E U M CONGRESS-SECTION
withdrawal conditions imposed by the well under
examination. The mean pressure in the entire
A. R. V. is, by definition, p; it would seem to be
reasonable t o set this pressure equal to the av-
erage pressure prevailing in the A. R. V. during
the period of the S. M. R. E., i. e. to set
1
P = 2 (pi + pi) [161
The problem of determining p has already
been reduced to one of determining A . The
introduction of the two pressures pi and pi t o
define A thus requires the setting up of two equa-
tions to define pi and pf. Equation [16] is one
such equation; a second equation can be derived
as follows.
As stated in paragraph 1, i t is assumed that
no free gas-cap was originally present, and that
there is no active water drive. The oil originally
in place in the A. R. V. was o! N and so the
S . M. B. E., when made from original reservoir
conditions, may be written
UN
~ (Vt- Vto) = s
cb
where N is measured in barrels of tank oil
is the shrinkage factor from reservoir
cb
oil a t bubble-point to tank oil
Vt is the reservoir volume a t some pres-
sure p occupied by unit volume of
bubble-point oil and any gas liher-
ated therefrom
Vto is the volume a t initial reservoir con-
ditions of unit volume of bubble-
point oil
and S is the reservoir volume at pressure p of
the cumulative production of oil, gas
and water of the well under exami-
nation.
Equation [17] may be written
0,. (Vt-Vto) - [‘*I
s Cb - N
and in this form the left-hand side of the equa-
tion is a known function of the pressure p. Thus
from equation [is] there may be constructed a
curve (which may be conveniently termed the
“compressibility curve”) showing p as a function
1 the well’s actual cumulative production provided
of -;
N this compressibility curve may be used
directly to determine, for example, the value
II/C
of N required t o give a known pressure drop
from the init,ial reservoir pressure po due to the
gauged withdrawal of the well, but it may not be
used immediately when starting from any other
pressure, although in fact it is required that the
S. M. B. E. be made from pressure pi to pf.
This difficulty may be overcome as follows.
The compressibility curve corresponding t o
equation [IS] may be thought of as expressing a
functional relationship between two variables,
1 1 1 1
p and -N; then let - - be the two values of ~-
Ni’ Nf N
which correspond to the pressures pi and pf.
Then it follows from the definition of Ni that
if there had been a quantity Ni of tank oil ini-
tially in place in the reservoir, the known pro-
duction of the well would have been sufficient
t o have caused a pressure drop from po to pi in
the (supposed sealed) A. R. V.. Now if p is
any quantity, it follows that the same pressure
drop from po t o pi would have occurred in the
(sealed) A. R. V. if there had been a quantity p Ni
of tank oil initially in place and if there had
been a withdrawal from the A. R. V. of a vo-
lume 13 x (actual withdrawal from the well).
N
Setting p = - i t follows that this same pres-
Ni
sure drop from po to pi would occur with
N
x Ni = N tank oil initially in place conse-
N
quent upon a withdrawal of - x (actual with-
Ni
drawal from the well).
Similarly, a pressure drop from po t o pi would
be caused by the production of x (actual
K
withdrawal from the well), assuming the tank
oil initially in place to be 1\.
The implications of this reasoning are thus
that, always with N tank oil initially in place,
the pressure in the (sealed) A. R. V. drops t o
N
pi after producing a fraction - Ni of the well’s
known Production and then drops to Pf after
producing a further fraction f:‘( - Ei)
of the
The pressure thus falls from Pi to pf due t o
“ g
Ni-Ni=
 D. R. HORNER-AVERAGE
or
-1_ - 1 1 build-up curve, equation [12] is now used to
Nf Ni = N [191
1 1
N being considered as known, and N-i, Ni being
known functions of pi and pi, this equation [I91
thus represents the additional equation required
to determine pi and pr mentioned above.
It must be strongly emphasized that this
discussion is not intended to suggest that the
boundaries of the A. R. V.’s are sealed, or alter-
natively that there has been no flow across
them; there is similarly no suggestion that the
pressures pi and pi have had, or will have, any
special physical significance in the pressure his-
tory of the A. R. V., nor has the S. M. B. E.
any physical meaning. The whole concept of
the S . M.B. E. made within a sealed A. R. V. is
introduced solely as an artifice t o enable A t o
be generalized and evaluated in practice, and
must only be considered as such.
Equations [RI, [12], [15], [16] and [19j to-
gether with the curves of Fig. 2 (or the tabulation
of Appendix B) and the particular compressi-
bility curve for the A. R. V. corresponding t o
the S. M. B. E. [is] now suffice t o determine a
value of p given a value of N, thus: ?
1 Assume that the pressure at all points in the
a. A suite of trial values is chosen for r\l
b. Using the assumed value of N, equation
[19] is used t o determine a corresponding suite
of values of -
1 when i t was measured a t time t , it would have
Ni
c. A pair of values of pi and pi correspond-
1 1
ing t o each pair of values of - and -is read
Ni Nf
off the compressibility curve for the A. R. V.
d ) A corresponding suite of trial values
of A is derived from equation [is].
e. The value of qEL for the well being
known from the build-up curve, a suite of values
of D
I is determined from equation [9].
f . Corresponding values of + are derived
from the curves of Fig. 2, corresponding to equa-
tions [13j or [14j. (If equation [14] is to be used,
8 may be determined more easily from the tab-
ulation of Appendix B).
t An alternative method for determining p,
which may sometimes be preferable t o this one, is
given in Appendix A.
RESERVOIR PRESSURE 141
g . Using the value of p* derived from the
calculate a suite of trial values of p.
h ) At this stage, there are available suites
of trial values of pi, pi and p. In order t o se-
lect the correct value of 6, pi +
pi is plotted
against p and the required value of p is read off
in accordance with equation [16].
It therefore follows that the precise values
of the intermediate quantities A, +, @, etc., are
never actually determined in the course of the
calculations, although they could, of course, be
determined by subsequent interpolation.
The Time Correction
By following the method outlined above, a
set of values of p for the A. R. V.’s may be de-
rived for every value of N assumed, and a weight-
ed average? of these values of p may then be
obtained. That this weighted average is, in
fact, the required M. R. P. is not immediately
clear for the case when the pressure survey has
extended over a long period, for it would be
expected that some time correction would have
to be applied. This time correction may be
eliminated, however, in the following manner.
reservoir falls at some constant rate w psi/month
during the period of the survey. Then if the
mean pressure in a particular A. R. V. was p
been p - (t - tl) w a t some datum time t.
A t this datum time f. therefore.
1 U [p - (i. - t l ) w]
NI. R. P. =
XU
i. e.
M’.R..P. =
X U p
__
C U
if
Thus, by choosing the datum time t as the
weighted mean of the observation times for the
individual wells, there is no need to apply time
corrections t o the values of p in order to deter-
mine the M. R. P.
t Weighted, of course, in proportion to the qua.n-
tities a.
142 PROCEEDINGS FOURTH WORLD P E T R O L E U M CONGRESS-SECTION Il/C

1500

1250

.-mU
0

1000
c
K
i

750

500
50 75 100 125 150 175
N, MILLIONS OF BARRELS OF TANK OIL

Fig. 3. Calculation of N

The Two N - M.R.P. Curves sities in centipoises, times in seconds, lengths in

Finally, therefore, two curves are derived
exhibiting functional relationships between N
and the M. R. P.
Curve 1 is obtained from the material ba-
lance equation for t,he entire block made a t
time t as defined by equation [21j.
Curve 2 is derived by plotting the M. R. P.
calculated from equation [20] against the values
assumed for N.
The point of intersection of these two curves
gives the required value of N (and also, inci-
dentally, of the M. R. P. at, time %).
Dimensions, Units, etc.
In the derivation of the equations so far, no
mention has been made of the units which are
to be used, although it is implicit in the deriva-
tion of the equations that such a system of
units must be self-consistent. The obvious
system is that used in the definition of the
darcy, namely pressures in atmospheres, visco-
centimetres and volumes in cubic centimetres.
However, in the final forms in which the equa-
tions are presented, CD and + are dimensionless,
A, p * , P, Pi, Pf, and m
" all have the di-
mensions of a pressure and the quantities N,
Ni and Nf have the dimensions of a volume.
I t thus follows that all calculations may be
made measuring the pressure terms in any
convenient units (say Ib./sq. in2 or kg/cmz) and
the volume terms in any other convenient units
(say in millions of barrels or of cubic metres)
provided that the S . M. B. E. [is] be set
up in these units. Theoretically, the build-up
curves should be plotted against In __
to + ', where
e
In is the Napierian logarithm, in order that the
slopes of the build-up curves should have the
correct values, but it is usually more convenient
to use the logarithm to base 10 for the abscissae
of the build-up curves. In this case it must
not be forgotten that the slope of the build-up
curve must be factored by log10 e = 0.4343 in
- ~~

D. R. HORNER-AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 143

leaks with rising well-head pressure, and so a

fairly extensive repair programme had t o be
undertaken. This introduced considerable de-
lays, and even so some of the older wells could
not be satisfactorily surveyed at all, due t o the
presence of subsurface leaks which could not
be easily located. A number of other operating
difficulties further delayed the completion of the
survey, which was not finally finished until
February 1954.
Of the wells which did not leak, three gave
build-up curves a t variance with normal build-up
theory and two were not surveyed because i t
was considered to be unsafe to do so. Finally,
usable build-up curves were obtained from only
71 y0 of the wells in the block.
I t is to be feared that 29 y0 of unsuccessful
surveys may well prove to be a normal fraction
of rejects in any future application of this method,
and it is strongly recommended that every
effort be made t o eliminate casing leaks before
commencing the survey, even t o the extent of
undertaking major workover jobs in troublesome
wells.
The first step in the calculations consists
of calculating the mean tjme 5 (as determined
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 by equation [21]) a t which the material balance
to + 0
for the entire block should be made. In this
log10 7 particular case, this time 5 corresponds to 13th

Fig. 4 . Build-up curve

order t o obtain the correct values for ~ qII.

k x .
In the following example, volumes are meas-
ured in millions of barrels and pressures in
psia.

A Practical Application
P

A test of this method was commenced in one

fault-block of the Casabe field in the spring of
1952. As the wells were almost wholly pumping
wells, the technique was t o pull the rods and
then t o close in the tubing and run the bomb
as quickly as possible to the bottom of the
tubing. It was found t o be possible t o have
the bomb in position a t about 2,500 feet within
0 ,005 01 015 02 ,025 .03 035
2-3 hours of stopping the well pumping, so that
satisfactory build-up data could be obtained. -
N
However, considerable difficulty was experienced
wit8hthe older wells as most of them developed Fig. 5. Compressibility curve
144 PROCEEDINGS FOURTH W'ORT,D PETROLETJM CONGRESS-SECTION II/C

Pi + P f
Fig. B. Dctermination of I, for N = I00

December 2952 a t which time the material 1

then, assuming N = 100, - - 0.01, the calcula-
balance equation was used to determine curve N-
1 of figure 3 . Lion of p is performed thus (using the @ - 4
This is the first of the two functional rela- relation of equation [14]):
tionships between N and the M.R.P. -1 1
With regard t o the determination of the second Ni
.~
Nf
Pi Pi A @ 4 +A G Pi + P f
of these functional relationships, it would be te- 0 .010 1586 969 617 31.6 .I385 85.5 710.5 2555
.005 .015 1221 777 444 22.8 .I776 78.9 717.1 1998
dious to reproduce the entire calculations made for .010 .020 969 619 350 17.9 .2127 74.4 721.6 1588
all the wells, and so the results of one well only will .015 .025 777 483 294 15.1 .2409 70.8 725.2 1260
.020 .030 619 367 252 12.9 .2698 68.0 728.0 986
be examined in detail here; the calculations for the
other wells are made in an identical manner. and finally, plotting p against pi
A 72-hour closed-in bottom-hole pressure equation [16] gives a value p = 723 psia.
+ pi in Fig. 6,
survey was made in this well, the well being Proceeding in this manner with all the
closed-in on July 25th, 1952; the results of this A. R. V.'s, and finally determining a weighted
survey are plotted in Fig. 4. From this build-up average of the values of p, a value of 959 psia
curve two results may be directly calculated. may be determined for the M. R. P. a t 13th
They are: December, 1952, based on N = 100.
a. Slope of straight-line portion = This calculation of the M. R. P. is now
qP repeated using other assumed values of N,
4txkh -
45 psi/loglo cycle whence ___ -
45 x 0.4343 =
and the corresponding N - MRP relationship
19.5 psi and b. p * = 387 psig at 2190 feet S S is plotted as curve 2 in Fig. 3; the point of in-
which is equivalent to p* = 796 psia a t the tersection of this curve with that corresponding
chosen datum of 3253 feet SS. to the material balance equation for the entire
For this particular well, the 8. M. B. E. [is] block finally gives the required value N = 107
gives the compressibility curve of Fig. 5, and million barrels.
 L). R. HOKNER--AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE i 45

Fig. 3 also shows the curve corresponding the instantaneous compressibility at p. In this case,
to the @ - J, relation of equation [13], resulting instead of the above three equations there must be
in N = 110 million barrels, which is only 2.8 y0 substituted:
/ d D \
in excess of the previous result. [22j
From this same Fig. 3 i t can be seen t h a t
the result of using p = p*, is t o give N = 134
million barrels, some 25 :/,, in excess of the which is the result of substituting the tangent to the
previous result. compressibility curve at for the chord between
pi and pr. This somewhat shortens the tabulation
of paragraph 12, which takes on a somewhat different
Conclusions form. The initial step now is the assumption of a
suite of values for p, thus:
This is the first test which has been made of 1
the method and i t is therefore early t o draw N = 100, - - 0.01
N-
any conclusions, but i t is of interest to note
that this value of N = 107 millions agrees very
well with the figure of 102 millions determined
900 38,500 385 19.7 .1981 76.3 719.7
volumetrically. 800 35,100 351 18.0 .211S 74.3 721.7
700 31,800 318 16.3 .2278 72.4 723.6
600 29,000 290 14.9 .2342 70.5 725.5
Acknowledgement and then, plotting the assumed value o l p against its
The writer wishes, to express his thanks to calculated value, one may derive immediately jJ =
723 psia which agrees exactly with the value
Coricesionaria de Petroleo Shell-Condor, Bogota, previously calculated. It is coincidental that in
Colombia, for permission to publish this paper. this particular case there is no detectable diffe-
rence between the two methods of calculating p,
APPENDIX A but it appears t o be safe to say that normally the
difference between t h e two methods will be so small
An Alternative Method for Using that equation [22] may be substituted at will for
the Compressibility Curves equations [15], [16] and [19]. However, the useof
the equation [22] has the disadvantage that it
The essential equations which are used in conjunc-
is necessary to calculate
dP -
(i)
graphically, which
tion with the compressibility curve t o determine A are
A=pi- Pf [ 151
makes the method both somewhat inaccurate and
time-consuming. It is t>hereforerecommended that
- 1 the method given in paragraph 12 be used normally
P = 2 (Pi + Pi) [if31 and that equation [22] be only used either:
U . when the compressibility curve has a very
small slope (i. e. for wells with relatively small cumu-
lative offtake)
or b. when either pi or pf Pall off the compres-
These equations have been derived with t h ~ sibility curve and are thus not defined. This is an
thought that the S.M. R. E. is being used to determine unusual phenomenon, but is not theoretically impos-
the compressibility of the reservoir fluids over the sible, and then the use of the method o f this Appendix
pressure range pi to pf. It might easily be argued enables a value to be determined for p whrn the
that the S.M. R . E. should be used t o determinr ... method using equations [is],[ 1 R ] and [19] breaks down.

Proceedings 4th W . P . C. - Section rr 10.

 P R O C E E D I N G S FOURTH W O R L D PETROLEUM CONGRESS-SECTION II/C

APPENDIX B

Table of the Function

CD .oo .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .oa .09

.o 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
.1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
.2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9999 .9999 .9999
.4 .9999 .9998 .999a .9997 .9997 .9996 .9995 .9994 .9994 ,9992

.5 .9991 .9990 ,9988 .99a7 ,9985 .99a3 .9981 .9978 ,9976 .9973
.6 .9970 ,9967 .9962 .9959 .9955 .9951 .9947 .9942 .9937 .9933
.7 .9927 .9921 .9916 .9910 .9903 .gag7 .9890 .9sa3 .9a75 .9a6a
.a .9860 ,9852 .9844 .9a35 .9az6 .gal7 .98oa .979a ,9789 .9779
.9 .9769 .975a .974a .9737 .9726 .9714 .9703 .9692 .9680 .ma
1.0 .9656 .9643 .9631 mia .9605 ,9592 .9579 .9566 .9552 .9539
1.1 .9525 .9512 .9497 .94a3 .wa .9454 .9440 .9425 .9410 ,9395
1.2 ,9380 ,9365 .9350 .9335 .9320 .9304 .wag .9273 .9257 .9242
1.3 .9226 ,9210 .9194 .917a .9162 .9146 .9130 .9114 .9098 .g081
1.4 .go65 .9049 .9032 .9016 .go00 .ma3 .a967 .8950 .a934 .8917

1.5 .ago1 .a884 .a867 .a851 .a834 ,8818 .a801 A784 .ma .a751
1.6 .a735 mia .8701 .a685 .a668 A652 .a635 .a618 .a602 .a585
1.7 .a569 ,8552 .8536 .a519 .a503 .a486 .a470 .a454 .8437 .a421
1.8 .a405 .a388 .a372 .a356 .a340 .a324 ,8307 .ami .a275 .a259
1.9 .a243 .a227 .8211 .8!95 .a180 .a164 .a148 ,8132 .8116 .a101

2.0 .a085 ,8069 .a054 .a038 .a022 .a007 .7992 .I977 .7961 .7946
2.1 .7931 .7916 .7900 .7aa5 .~WO .7855 .~MO .7825 .7aio .'I796
2.2 .77ai .'I766 .7751 .7737 .7722 .7707 .7693 .ma .7664 .7649
2.3 .7635 .7621 .7606 .7592 .757a .7564 .7550 .7536 .7522 .750a
2.4 .7494. ,7480 .7466 .7452 .7439 .7425 .'I411 .739a .73a4 .7370

2.5 .7357 .7344 .7330 .7317 .7304 .7290 .7277 .7264 ,7251 .ma
2.6 .7225 .7212 .7199 .na6 .7173 .7160 .7147 .7135 .7122 .7109
2.7 .7097 .7oa4 .7072 .7059 .7047 .7034 .7022 .7010 .699a .69a5
2.8 .6973 ,6961 .6949 .6937 .6925 .6913 .6901 .mag .6877 .6a65
2.9 .6a54 .6a42 .WO .6ai9 .6ao7 .6795 mac .6772 .6761 .6749

3.0 .6na .6727 .6715 .6704 .6693 .66m .6671 .6660 .6649 .ma
3.1 .6627 .6616 .6605 .6594 .65a3 .6572 .6561 .6551 .6540 .6529
3.2 .6519 .65oa .6497 .64a7 .6476 .6466 .6456 .6445 .6435 .6425
3.3 .6414 .6404 .6394 .63a4 .6374 .6363 .6353 .6343 .6333 .6323
3.4 .6313 .6304 .6294 .e284 .6274 ,6264 .6255 .6245 .6235 .6226

3.5 .6216 .6206 .6197 .6i7a si168 .6159 .6149 .6140 .6131
3.6 .6121 .6112 .6103 .6094 .6oa5 .6075 .6066 .6057 .6048 .6039
3.7 .6030 .6021 .6012 .6003 .5994 3977 .ma A959 .5950
3.8 .5942 .5933 .5924 .5916 .5907 .5a9a .5a90 .5asi .5873 .5a64
3.9 .5856 .5a47 .5a39 .5831 . 5 a ~ .sa14 .5ao6 ,5797 .5m9 mal
4.0 .5713 .5765 .5756 .574a .5740 .5732 .5724 ,5716 .uoa A700
4.1 .5692 .56ac .5676 .ma .5661 .5653 .5645 .5637 .5629 .5621
4.2 .5614 .5606 .5599 .5591 .55a3 .5576 .556a .5561 .5553 .5546
4.3 .553a .5531 .5523 .5516 .5508 .5501 .5494 .54a6 .5479 .5471
4.4 .5464 .5457 A450 3443 A436 .5429 .5422 .5414 .5407 A400

4.5 3393 .53a6 .5379 .5372 A365 .535a .5351 .5344 .5337 .5331
4.6 .5324 5317 .5310 .5303 .5296 .5290 .5za3 3276 .5269 .5263
4.7 .5256 .5249 .5243 .5236 .5230 .5223 ,5216 .5210 .5203 .5197
4.8 .5190 ma4 .5J78 3171 ,5165 .si58 .5152 3146 .5139 3133
4.9 .5127 .5120 3114 A108 .5101 .5095 .5oa9 ,5083 5077 .5071
 U. R . H O R N E R - A V E R A G E RESERVOIR PRESSURE 147

(I, .oo .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09

5.0 .5064 .5058 ,5052 3046 .5040 3034 3028 .5022 3016 5010
5.1 3004 .4998 .4992 .4986 .4980 .4974 .4969 .4963 .4957 .4951
5.2 .4945 .4939 .4934 .4928 .4922 .4916 .4911 .4905 .4899 .4893
5.3 ,4888 .4882 .4876 .4871 .4865 .4860 .4854 .4848 .4843 .4837
5.4 .4832 .4826 .4821 .4815 .4810 .4804 .4799 .4794 .4788 ,4783

5.5 .4777 .4772 .4761 .4761 .4756 ,4751 .4745 .4740 .4735 .4729
6.6 .4724 .4719 .4714 .4709 .4703 .4698 .4693 .4688 .4683 .4676
5.7 .4672 .4667 ,4662 .4657 .4652 .4647 .4642 .4637 .4532 .4627
5.8 ,4622 .4617 .4612 .4607 ,4602 .4597 .4592 ,4587 .4582 ,4577
5.9 .4572 .4568 .4563 .4558 .4553 .4548 .4543 ,4539 .4534 ,4529

6.0 .4524 .4520 .4515 .4510 .4505 ,4501 .4496 .4491 .4487 .4482
6.1 .4477 .4473 .4468 .4463 .4459 ,4454 .4450 .4445 .4440 .4436
6.2 .4431 .4427 .4422 ,4418 .4413 .4409 .4404 ,4400 .4395 .4391
6.3 .4386 .4382 .4317 .4373 .4369 ,4364 .4360 .4355 .4351 .4347
6.4 ,4342 .4338 .4334 .4329 .4325 ,4321 .4316 ,4312 .4308 .4304

6.5 .4299 ,4295 .4291 ,4287 .4282 .4278 .4274 ,4270 ,4266 ,4262
6.6 .4257 .4253 .4249 ,4245 .4241 .4237 .4233 .4229 .4224 .4220
6.7 .4216 .4212 .4208 .4204 .4200 .4196 .4192 .4188 ,4184 .4180
6.8 .4176 ,4172 .4168 .4164 .4160 .4156 ,4152 ,4148 ,4145 .4141
6.9 .4137 .4133 ,4129 .4125 .4121 .4117 .4113 .4110 ,4106 .4102

7.0 ,4098 .4094 .a091 ,4087 .4083 .4079 ,4075 .4072 .4068 .4064
7.1 ,4060 .4057 .4053 .4049 ,4046 .4042 .4038 .4034 .4031 .c027
7.2 .4023 ,4020 .4016 .4012 .4009 .4005 ,4002 ,3998 .3994 3991
7.3 .3987 .3984 ,3981 .3977 .3973 .3969 .3966 ,3962 .3959 .3955
7.4 ,3958 ,3948 ,3945 .3941 .3938 .3934 .3931 .3927 .3924 .3920

7.5 .3917 .3913 ,3910 .3907 .3903 ,3900 .3896 .3893 .3890 .3886
7.6 ,3883 ,3880 ,3876 ,3873 .3869 .3866 ,3863 .3859 .3856 .3853
7.1 .3849 .3846 ,3843 .3840 .3836 ,3833 .3830 .38'L6 .3823 .3820
7.8 .3817 .3813 .3810 .3807 .3804 ,3800 .3797 ,3794 .3791 .3788
7.9 .3784 ,3781 .3778 ,3775 ,3172 .3769 .3765 .3762 .3759 .3756

8.0 .3753 .3750 .3747 ,3743 .3740 ,3737 .3734 .3731 .3728 .3725
8.1 .3722 .3719 .3716 ,3713 .3710 ,3707 .3703 .3700 .3697 .3694
8.2 .369l ,3688 .3685 .3682 .3679 .3676 .3673 ,3670 .3667 .3664
8.3 .3661 .3659 ,3656 .3653 ,3650 3647 .3644 .3641 .3638 .3635
8.4 .3632 ,3629 ,3626 3624 .3621 ,3618 .3615 .3612 ,3609 .3606

8.5 .3603 ,3600 .3598 .3595 ,3592 .3589 .3586 ,3584 .3581 .3578
8.6 .3575 .3572 .3570 .3567 ,3564 .3561 .3558 .3556 .3553 .3550
8.7 .3547 .3545 .3542 .3539 ,3536 .3534 .3531 ,3528 ,3525 ,3523
8.8 .3520 .3517 .3515 ,3512 .3509 .3506 .3504 .3501 .3498 .3496
8.9 .3493 ,3490 .3488 .3485 ,3482 .3479 ,3471 .3475 .3472 ,3469

9.0 .3467 .3464 .3461 .3459 .3456 .3454 .3451 .3448 .3446 .3443
9.1 .3441 .3438 .3436 .3433 ,3430 .'3428 ,3425 ,3423 ,3420 ,3418
9.2 .3415 ,3413 .3410 ,3408 ,3405 .3403 ,3400 .3398 ,3395 .3393
9.3 .3390 .3388 .3385 ,3383 .3380 .3378 ,3375 .3373 .3370 .3368
9.4 .3365 .3363 ,3361 ,3358 ,3356 .3353 .3351 .3348 .3346 ,3344

9.5 .3341 .3339 .3336 .3334 .3331 .3329 .3327 .3324 .3322 .3320
9.6 .3317 .3315 ,3312 .3310 ,3308 .3305 ,3303 ,3301 .3298 .3296
9.7 .3294 .3291 .3289 .3287 ,3284 .3282 .3280 .3278 .3275 .3273
9.8 .3271 .3268 ,3266 .3264 .3261 .3259 .3257 .3255 .3252 .3250
9.9 .3248 ,3246 .3243 ,3241 ,3239 .3237 .3234 .3232 ,3230 .3228

10.0 ,3225
148 PROCEEDINGS FOURTH WORLD P E T R O L E U M CONGRESS-SECTION II/C

(D .o .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
10 .3225 .3203 .3182 .3160 .3139 .3118 .3098 .3078 .3058 .3038
11 .3019 .3000 .2981 .2962 .2944 .2926 .2908 .2891 .2874 .2857
12 .2840 .2823 .MO7 .2791 .2775 .2759 .2743 .2728 .2713 .2698
13 .2683 .2668 .2654 .2640 .2625 .2611 .2598 .2584 .2571 ,2557
14 .2544 .2531 .2518 ,2506 .2493 .2481 .2468 .2456 .2444 .2432
15 .2421 .2409 .2397 .2386 .2375 ,2364 .2353 .2342 .2331 .2320
16 .2310 .2299 .2289 .2278 .2268 .2258 .2248 .2238 .2229 .2219
17 .2209 .2200 .2191 .2181 .2172 .2163 .2154 .2145 .2136 .2127
18 .2118 .2110 .2101 .2093 .2084 ,2076 .2068 .2060 .2051 .2043
19 .2035 .2027 .2020 .2012 .ZOO4 .1997 .1989 .1981 .1974 .1967
20 .1959 .1952 .1945 .1938 .1931 .1924 .1917 .1910 .1903 .1896
21 .1889 .1883 .1876 .1869 .1863 .1856 .1850 .1843 .1837 .1831
22 .1824 .1818 .1812 .1806 .1800 .1794 .1788 .1782 .1776 .1770
23 .1764 .1759 .1753 .1747 .1742 .1736 .1731 .1725 .1720 .1714
24 .1709 .1703 .1698 .1693 .1687 .1682 .1677 .1672 .1667 .1662
25 .1657 .1652 .1647 .1642 .I637 .1632 .1627 .1622 .1617 .1613
26 .1608 .1603 .1598 .1594 .1590 .1585 .1580 .1576 .1571 .1567
27 ,1562 .1558 .1554 .1549 .1545 .1541 .1536 .1532 .1528 .1524
28 .1520 .1515 .1511 .1507 .I503 .1499 .1495 .1491 .1487 .1483
29 .1479 .1475 .1472 .1468 .1464 .1460 .1456 .1453 .1449 .1445
30 ,1441 .1438 .1434 .1430 .1427 .1423 .1420 ,1416 .1412 .1409
31 .1405 ,1402 .1398 .1395 .1392 .1388 .1385 .1381 .1378 .1375
32 .1371 ,1368 .1365 .1362 .1358 .1355 .1352 .1349 .1345 .1342
33 .1339 .1336 .1333 .1330 .1327 .1324 .1321 .1318 .1315 .1312
34 .1309 .1306 .1303 .1300 .1297 .1294 .1291 .1288 .1285 .1282
35 .1279 .1277 .1274 .1271 .1268 .1265 .1263 .1260 .1257 .1254
36 .1252 .1249 .1246 .1244 .1241 .1238 .1236 .1233 ,1231 .1228
37 .1225 .1223 .1220 .1218 .1215 .1213 .1210 .izon ,1205 .1203
38 .1200 .1198 .1195 .1193 .1190 .1188 .1186 .1183 .1181 .1178
39 .1176 .1173 .1171 .1169 .1167 .1164 .1162 .1160 .1157 ,1155
40 .1153 .1151 .1148 .1146 .1144 .1142 .1140 .1137 .1135 .1133
41 .1131 .1129 .1127 .1124 .1122 .1120 .I118 .1116 .1114 .1112
42 .1110 .1108 .1105 .1103 .1101 .1099 .1097 .1095 .1093 .1091
43 .1089 .1087 .1085 .1083 .1081 .1079 .1077 .1076 .1074 .1072
44 .1070 .1068 1066 .1064 .1062 .1060 .1058 .1057 .1055 .1053
45 .1051 .1049 .1047 .1045 .1044 .1042 .1040 .1038 .1037 .1035
46 .1033 .1031 .1029 .1028 .1026 .1024 .1022 ,1021 .1019 .1017
47 .1016 .1014 .1012 .1010 .loo9 .loo7 .loo5 .loo4 .10n2 .1000
48 .0999 .0997 .0996 ,0994 .0992 .0991, .0989 .0987 .0986 .0984
49 .0983 .0981 .0979 .0978 .0976 ,0975 .0973 .0972 .0970 .0968
50 .0967 .0965 .0964 .0962 .0961 .0959 .0958 .0956 .0955 .0953
51 .0952 .0950 .0949 .0947 ,0946 .0945 .0943 .0942 .0940 .0939
52 .0937 .0936 .0934 .0933 .0932 .0930 .0929 .0927 .0926 .0925
53 .0923 .0922 .0920 .0919 .0918 .0916 .0915 .0914 .0912 .0911
54 .0910 .0908 .0907 .0906 .0904 .0903 .0902 .0900 .os99 .0598
55 .OS96 .OS95 .OS94 .OS92 .OS91 .os90 .OS89 .OS87 .OS86 .0585
56 .OS84 .OS82 .OS81 .OS80 .OS79 .OS77 .OS76 .OS75 .OS74 .0572
57 .OS71 .OS70 .OS69 .OS68 .OS66 .OS65 .OS64 .OS63 .OS62 .0560
58 .0859 .OS58 .OS57 .OS56 .OS54 .OS53 .OS52 .OS51 .OS50 .0549
59 .OS48 .OS46 .OS45 .OS44 .OS43 .OS42 .OS41 .OS40 .OS38 .0537
60 .OS36 ,0835 .OS34 .OS33 .OS32 .OS31 .OS30 .OS28 .OS27 .0526
61 .OS25 .OS24 .OS23 .OS22 .OS21 .OS20 .os19 .OS18 .OS17 .0516
62 .OS15 .OS13 ,0812 .os11 .os10 .os09 .osos .OS07 .OS06 .0505
63 .OS04 .OS03 .os02 .os01 .os00 .0799 .0798 .0797 .0796 .0795
64 .0794 .0793 .0792 .0791 .0790 .0789 .0788 .0787 .0786 .0785
65 ,0784 ,0783 .0782 .0781 .0780 .0779 .0778 .0777 .0777 .0776
66 .0775 .0774 .0773 .0772 .0771 .0770 .0769 .0768 .0767 .0766
67 .0765 .0764 .0763 .0763 .0762 .0761 .0760 .0759 .0758 .0757
68 .0756 .0755 .0754 .0754 .0753 .0752 .0751 .0750 .0749 .0748
69 .0747 .0747 .0746 .0745 .0744 .0743 .0742 .0741 .0740 .0740
 D. R. H O R N E R - A V E R A G E RESERVOIR PRESSURE 149

- -
@ .o .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

70 .0739 .0738 .0737 .0736 .0735 .0735 .0734 .0733 .0732 .0731
71 .0730 .0730 .0729 .0728 .0727 .0726 .0725 .0725 .0724 .0723
72 .0722 .0721 .0721 .0720 .0719 .0718 .0717 .0717 .0716 .0715
73 .0714 .0713 .0713 .0712 .0711 .0710 .0709 .0709 .0708 .0707
74 .0706 .0706 .0705 .0704 .0703 .0703 .0702 .0701 .0700 .0699

75 .0699 .0698 .0697 .0696 ,0696 .0695 .0694 .0693 .0693 .0692
76 .0691 .0691 .Of390 .0689 .0688 .0688 .0687 .0686 .0685 .0685
77 .0684 .0683 .0683 .0682 .0681 .0680 .0680 .Of579 .0678 .0678
78 .0677 .0676 .0675 .0675 .0674 .0673 .0673 .0672 .0671 .0671
79 .0670 .0670 .0669 .0668 .0667 .0666 .0666 .0665 ,0664 .0m4

80 .OM3 .0662 .0662 .0661 .0660 .0660 .0659 .0658 .0658 .0657
81 .0656 .0656 .0655 .0654 .0654 .0653 .0653 .0652 .0651 .0651
82 .0650 .0649 .0649 .0648 .0647 .0647 .0646 .0645 .0645 .0644
83 .0644 .0643 .0642 .0642 .0641 .0640 .0640 .0639 .0639 .0638
84 .0637 .0637 .0636 .0635 .0635 .0634 .0634 .0633 .0632 .0632

85 .0631 .0631 ,0630 .0629 .0629 .0628 .Of328 .0627 .0626 .0626
86 .0625 .0625 .0624 .0623 .0623 .0622 .0622 .0621 .0621 .0620
87 .0619 .0619 .0618 .0618 .0617 .0617 .0616 .0615 .0615 .0614
88 .0614 .0613 .0613 .0612 .0611 .0611 ,0610 .0610 .0609 .0609
89 .Of308 .Of307 .0607 .Of306 .0606 .0605 .0605 .0604 .0604 .0603

90 .0603 .0602 .0601 .0601 .0600 .0600 .0599 .0599 .0598 .0598
91 .0597 .0597 .0596 .0596 .0595 .0594 .0594 .0593 .0593 .0592
92 .0592 .0591 .0591 .0590 .0590 .0589 .0589 .0588 ,0588 .0587
93 .0587 .0586 .0586 .0585 .0585 .OB4 .0584 .0583 .OS3 .0582
94 ,0581 .0581 .0580 .OM0 .0579 .0579 .0578 .0578 .0577 .0577

95 .0576 .0576 .0576 .0575 .0575 .0574 .0574 .0573 .0573 .0572
96 .0572 .0571 .0571 .0570 .0570 .0569 .0569 .0568 .0568 .0567
97 .0567 .OM6 .0566 .0565 .0565 .0564 .0564 .0563 ,0563 .0562
89 .0562 .0562 .0561 .OM1 .0560 .0560 .0559 .0559 .055S .0558
99 .0557 .OM7 .0556 .0556 .0556 .0555 .0555 .OM4 .0554 .0553

100 ,0553

For @ > 100, 9 1

= - [.9228 +In @]
CD

APPENDIX C h Sand thickness

Jo Bessel function of the first kind of
List of Symbols order zero
Ji Bessel function of the first kind of
A. 13. V. Associated Reservoir Volume (see the order unity
text) k Permeability
a Mean radius of A. R. V. (assumed cylin- in Logarithm t o base e
drical) 1% Logarithm, base unspecified
Cb Shrinkage factor from reservoir oil log,, Logarithm t o base 10
at bubble point to tank oil. M. R. P Mean reservoir pressure
Ei The exponential integral function, de- N Volume of tank oil initially in place
fined by Nf The value of N corresponding to pressure
E
pr read from the compressibility curve
of the S.M. B. E.
Ni The value of N corresponding to pressure
m
pi read from the compressibility curve
e The base of Napierian logarithms = of the S. M. B. E.
2.7183 ... P Pressure
f Porosity PO Initial reservoir pressure
150 P R O C E E D I N G S F O U R T H W O R L D P E T H O L E U M CONGRESS-SECTION
Pf The final pressure 01 the S. M. B. E.
Pi The initial pressure of the S. 111. B. E.
PE The static pressure eventually reached
in a closed-in well.
- 3
P The mean pressure in the A. R. V.
P* The pressure obtained by the extra-
polation t o infinite 0 of the straight
line portion of the pressure build-up
curve, when p is plotted against lop
to+
____ e
e .
q Well rate of production, assumed to be
constant
r Distance from well centreline
I’b Radius of finite circular reservoir
rw Well radius
S Reservoir volume at pressure p oI tlic
cumulative production of oil, gas and
water of the well under examination.
S.M. €3. E. Subsidiary material balance equation
t Time
t Datum time for block material balance
equation
tl Time at which a particular well is closed
in for BHP survey
- ~-
Well’s cumulative production
to
Last production rate before closing-in
U A real variable
vt Reservoir volume at pressure p occupied
by unit volume of bubble point oil
and any gas liberated therefrom.
Vto Volume at initial reservoir conditions of
unit volume of bubble-point oil
w Rate of fall of reservoir pressure during
survey (assumed constant)
X A real variable
tc Volume of the A. R. V. expressed as a
fraction of the entire reservoir volume
Kn The nth positive root (in order of in-
creasing magnitude) of Jl(x) = 0
B An arbitrary constant, later put equal
N if the original (absolute) Permeability were quite
t o -.
NI’
Y Euler’s constant = 0.5772...
A - _ _q
- _t _
xaahfc
6 Pressure drop a t distance r from a well
and time t after the commencement of
production, due only t o the well
~
itself
6 The mean value of 6 over the A. Ft. V.
e Closed-in time
tL Viscosity
x = 3.1416
\x Summation
II/C
(D - -4 k t
-
a’fpc
0 A function of @, defined by either equa-
tion [13] or [14]
3
c’ The Laplace operator = *-
d X
+ +
Bibliography
(1) M. Muskat: “Physical Principles of Oil Production ”.
378 et seq.
(2) Ibid, 188, Eq. 6 (Assuming density to be a linear
function of pressure)
(3) A. F. van Everdingen and W. Hurst: The Ap-
plication of the Laplace Transformations to
Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Truns. A I M E
(1949).
( 4 ) I). R. Horner: Pressure Build-up in WeZZs. Proc.
Third World Petroleum Congrms, The Haguc,.
1951.
This paper was presented on June 10th, 1955
by D. R. HORNER.
Discussion
W. R. VAN WIJK ( N . V . de Bataafsche Pe-
troleum Mij. - Wageningen, N L ) . Mr. Horner
has asked for some suggestions f o r improving the
calculations. I should like to put a question from
which Mr. Horner could perhaps derive such
a n improvement. He states that a constant
permeability is assumed for the oil in the field.
But, in the practical case quoted by Mr. Horner,
we have a reservoir in which there are very im-
portant pressure differences, and at lower pres-
sure oil releases more gas than i t does at higher
pressures. Since the evolution of gas reduces
the permeability t o oil, you may expect that
you will have to take into account a systema-
tically varying effective permeability to oil even
constant throughout the field.
I should like t o ask Horner whether he has
any suggestions for taking this phenomenon into
account.
D. R. HORNER:replies. With regard to the
problem that Prof. van Wijk raises, I must admit
t o not having thought of it directly, although I
must agree with him entirely when he says that
systematically varying oil permeabilities will
exist. I have considered this only as a part of
the more general problem in which neither per-
meability, porosity, compressibility nor any of
 D . H. HORNER-AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 151

the other parameters are constant. All these that you are probably quite right on both points.
things tend t o make the build-up curves di- Perhaps I may say why so many wells were
verge considerably from the theoretical form. omitted. This was a matter of finance, as it
This is the sort of practical difficulty which we was costing a lot of money t o do this survey,
get in the field with this type of study. and I did not feel justified in going t o extreme
At the beginning of the build-up curve, one lengths on a first trial.
gets a “ swans-neck ” period, and I think that In reply to the next remark, the only sug-
it is during this period that van Wijk’s varying gestion which I have for avoiding this error is
permeability is going t o be of major importance. t o repair and survey all wells. I believe this
I believe that once we get into the region of t o be economically justified in many cases even
straight-line build-up the effect of this varying when workovers means are expensive.
permeability will not be so very serious. 1 As for the proposed use of an average pres-
would ask you t o remember that the extrapola- sure sink for the case of a well which has not
tion of these straight lines over a tremendous been surveyed, this seems t o me to be some-
distance is so extremely doubtful anyway, and what dangerous. The basic equation:
there are so .many other factors which can give -
rise t o the most erratic behaviours in the build-up p=p*-YA
curves that I rather doubt whether any system- implies that the mean value of pis the mean value
atic improvement could be made along the lines of p * minus a mean value for YA correction.
suggested by van Wijk, although it is certainly Now p * is the important quantity. It is the
something t o be looked into. To put the prob- one which the well gives you directly, but it is
lem simply: suppose that a well gives us a unfortunately not known with great accuracy
straight line. If it does, we may hope (perhaps although it is the p * which makes the major
fallaciously) that its slope is a fair value, and contribution t o the 6. The YA is only la cor-
that we may use the value which the well gives rection term. Now if a well is omitted from the
as a fair mean for the conditions which existed survey, its p* is lost, and if that quantity is
in the well a t that time. lost I am not certain that there is any logical
J. VAN HEININGEN(Koninklijke Shell La- justification for trying t o estimate a mean PA.
boratorium - Amsterdam, N L ) . In connection If it is argued that the mean value of p* is the
with the practical test of the method, Mr. Hor- same for the surveyed as for the unsurveyed wells,
ner says that 29 yoof the wells were not surveyed. it might just as well be said that the mean value
He also says that some of the older wells could of p is the same for both groups of wells, and
not be satisfactorily surveyed a t all, due t o the this is what the paper does for Casabe. What I
presence of subsurface leaks which could not should like t o emphasize is that p* is the major
be easily located. This would make one think source of error, and not YA.
that the older wells may perhaps have been I should like t o make a point here about
unfairly excluded from the survey, as this may averaging processes in general, because in oil
have unfairly weighted the results, perhaps fields many daily jobs are done by arithmetic
with the result of giving somewhat too high a averaging. This is usually adequate for routine’
mean pressure. Does the author agree and operations, but I do not think it is good enough
has he any suggestion for the avoidance of this for this sort of problem. I think it is very
possible source of error? Finally, has he in doubtful indeed whether taking arithmetic aver-
particular given any thought t o the possibility ages of rather, complicated expressions such as
of evaluating an average correction for an aver- YA or --__ CIP
age pressure sink t o be used with his unsurvey- 4 x k h can have any significance. I feel
ed wells ? that the type of average that would have t o
be used would be quite complicated.
D. R. HORNERreplies. To your first re-
mark, Dr. Van Heiningen, which was that per- J. BIRKS(British Petroleum Co. Ltd. - North
haps some of the older wells have been unfairly Newark, Notts, G B ) . This seems t o be a very
excluded, and that this may have resulted in worrying paper, because it is also a very good
too high a mean pressure: Yes, Sir, I think one and ‘Mr. Horner should be thanked for his
152 PROCEEDINGS FOURTH WORLD PETROLEUM CONGRESS-SECTION
careful thought and detailed mathematical ar-
guments. What is really worrying and will
intimately concern most of our reservoir engin-
eers, is that in the past they have managed
quite well and have been very satisfied with
their agreements between oil in place calculated
by material balance and oil in place calculated
by the volumetric method. T have the feeling
that although Mr. Horner has made a good
logical case for his method, i. e., that the pressure
sinks should be included as well as the average
extrapolated reservoir pressure, it is not a prac-
tical one in general. I feel that Mr. Horner had
a difficult field t o deal with where there was a
high viscosity oil, and this amount of mathemat-
ical argument has probably been necessary t o
get any reasonable agreement between the
volumetric and the material balance method?.
One of the fundamental requirements of the
method is that a detailed pressure survey should
be made in a large number of wells in order t o
calculate the original oil in place. If there are
a large number of wells, there appears no reason
why they should not have been adequately
sampled either by coring or by logging tech-
niques. Since in his conclusions the strength
of the method relies on its agreement with the
volumetric one, I would suggest that in itself
it is not a practical method for determining the
original volume of reservoir oil. We must
bear in mind that Mr. Horner has been very
fair about the limitations of the method par-
ticularly in those fields which have variations
in permeability, variations in oil characteristics,
a partial water drive or an original gas cap. It
is appalling t o think of the ‘‘ mathematical
tricks ” that must be necessary t o solve these
particular cases.
However we must remember that pressure
surveys must be made for a very good practical
reason, that is, to maintain a reasonable con-
trol of the gas oil level and the oil water level in
oil fields. It is’ usually this data on which re-
servoir engineers have t o base their calculations
and not on the specialised reservoir pressure
programme.
I do not wish Mr. Horner t o feel that I dis-
agree with the subject matter of his paper
because I consider that it is an excellent piece
of mathematical logic.
My own particular interest is in the fissured
type of field and I would like t o mention that
II/C
the pressures measured in such fields are
pressures in the fissures.
Since the distances between fissures are
usually less than 100 feet there is virtually
complete pressure equilibrium between fis-
sures and rock matrix. Perhaps Mr. Horner
would like t o comment this point.
Finally I would say that the method proposed
for determining oil in place should not replace the
volumetric method since both methods require
sampling of a large number of wells. Would
the author agree that, in the fissured type of field,
this method ceases t o have any application ?
D. R. HORNERreplies. I first of all wish
to thank Dr. Birks for his complimentary re-
marks. Birks said that a lot of reservoir engin-
eers have been happy with their material bal-
ances in the past, and suddenly some one comes
along and says that their method is wrong.
That is not wholly true, for what I am proposing
is a refinement of the conventional method for
the case of an older field. It is only in old
fields (or rather, fields with large withdrawals)
that pressure sinks are so big that i t becomes
advisable t o worry about correcting for them as I
have done. The case of a new field reduces t o
YA = O a n d s o p = p * .
In the particular case of Casabe, we had
produced something of the order of 50 % of
the expected recovery of the block and so it
was really a very old field for a material balance,
and even there the average YA correction was
only about 80 psi. in a block with a mean pres-
sure of about 1000 psi. The effect is not too big.
An engineer who had done a material bal-
ance without including the YA corrections,
but who had extrapolated his build-up curves
t o their p* values would have found about
134 million barrels in place instead of 107 mil-
lion. However, that same engineer perhaps
may not have extrapolated the build-up curves
to obtain p* values. He may perhaps have
used spot readings of the bottom hole pressures
made after a few hours or days closed in, without
further extrapolation. It is possible that this
engineer could have obtained pressure readings
in this manner which were of the order of 80
psi less than the p* values. In this case two
compensating errors would have cancelled each
other, and he may well have come very near t o
the true mean pressure.
 Birks says that the method is not practical
for two reasons. @ne is that the mathematics
is involved. and one is the pas and/or water
problem.
As for the amount of computation involved,
I think it is surprising that thP computations
can hcl done almost entirely by comparative1)-
untrained. labour; the computing time runs a t
between one and two hours per well using a desk
calculator. I do not think this is unpractical as
far as the amount of arithmetic is concerned.
The paper does sa?; specifically that the>
method is not designed to cope with Ihe gas and/or
water problem, but I don't think t h e water drive
case would be difficult to handle.
I do not know about the gas cap problem,
and I a m rather unhappy about it. I havc
said i n the paper that it could perhaps he han-
clled, but I a m now not reallysure that i t could br.
With regard to the coring and logging of a
large number of wells, i t is surely an accepted
principle that sampling is rarely. if ever. adc-
quate. Furthermore, many older fields exist
which have never been adequatel>- core(1, and
even today many operators core wholly ina(lr-
quately. T do not, of course, appeal to tho
volumetric calculations to justify the material
balance - nor d o I use the material balance equw -
tion to justify the volumetric calculations. Thrl
point is that the fact that both methotls agrw
is grounds for confidence that the)- arr hotli
correct. [ feel that Birks has allowed himselC
l o be influenced surriewhat by his own partic-
ular interest in fissured limestone fields, for which
1 believe the method to be wholly inapplicable.
Whereas in such fissured limestones pressurc'
survey may be made for gas/oil and oil/water
contact observation purposes, this docs not
apply in the more common sandstone reser-
voirs of my own experience, wlierr pressure
surveys are frequently instigated f'(ir material
balance purposes.
I a m not proposing that thci niaterial h 1 -
ance equation should s u p
metric one. nor can I agree that the volumetric
one should supersedp the material balancc eqiin -
tion. Both have their uses, and i f both can
be rmployetl satisfactoril\-, so milch thc he tter.