Subsurface Pressures in Oil Wells and Their Field of

Application
By D. G. HAWTHORN, * TULSA, OKLA.

(Ponca City Meeting, October, 1932)

THE widespread interest shown during the past year in the study of
subsurface pressures warrants brief reference to its early development.
Though it is impossible to set an exact date when constructive thinking
on the subject first began, nevertheless, evidence is available that thought
was given to the problem as far back as 16 or 17 years ago. There is
record in one of the foreign journals of actual subsurface tests made by
crude methods in one of the Rumanian fields in 1918 and 1919. 1 These
tests were performed in conjunction with studies made on wells produced
by bailing and, incidentally, the final outcome of the work led to the
development of the so-called "duplex bailer" which is reputed to have
trebled volumetric bailing efficiency. From this time on to 1927 a
few scattered bottom-hole pressure determinations were made with make-
shift instruments of one form or another, but probably not unti11927 was
any great amount of concerted effort directed to the subject.
At this fall meeting of the Petroleum Division four years ago was
presented one of the first papers2 to appear in this country written for the
express intent of advocating the value and importance of subsurface pres-
sure determinations. It is thought to have been the first to present direct
data on subsurface pressures obtained through the use of a specially
designed recording instrument. As might be expected, the instrument
had its limitations, but reasonably accurate results were obtained and, to
say the least, it constituted a progressive step in the right direction.
During the period from 1927 to 1931, many noteworthy improvements
were made in the design and perfection of subsurface pressure instruments
suitable to meet all conditions. Because of the magnitude of this task
much credit is due the men who pioneered this work. They should feel a
keen sense of satisfaction in the thought that their efforts have paved the
way for the continuation of this most valuable study.
At the present time more than a dozen companies are operating sub-
surface pressure instruments in the Mid-Continent field. Engineers in
* Production Engineer, Barnsdall Oil Co.
1 Test performed by J. T. Hayward, Rumanian Consolidated Oil Fields, Ltd.
2 K. C. Sclater and B. R. Stephenson: Measurement of Original Pressure, Tem-
perature and Gas-oil Ratio in Oil Sands. Trans. A.I.M.E., (1928-29) 82, Petro Dev.
and Tech., 119.
148
 D. G. HAWTHORN 149

charge of the work report regularly to their operating and executive

managements the information obtained through their work. Although
with several companies the work has become almost routine, nevertheless,
many persons not closely associated with the work are unfamiliar with its
scope of application and the importance of its future possibilities. It is,
therefore, the purpose of this paper to present a more or less general
resume of the subject of subsurface pressures, to point out their applica-
tion and to illustrate in detail a few of the many instances which offer
interesting and valuable interpretations.
Herein the term subsurface pressure is used to partly replace the more
commonly used expression bottom-hole pressure. It is felt that the gen-
eral but frequent improper use of the term bottom-hole pressure has
created much misunderstanding and has been responsible in some degree
for the erroneous impression held that all information gathered in making
subsurface pressure tests relates to the bottom of the hole. Inasmuch as
numerous other terms are used, all of which have a more or less specific
meaning which may be misleading if not correctly applied, it may be of
possible advantage to list a table of definitions.
Definition8
Subsurface Pressure.-That pressure within the flow column taken at any point
from top to bottom and while the well is under any status of operation.
Depth Pressure.-This term is synonomous with subsurface pressure. However,
it is thought to be less clear and descriptive.
Bottom-hole Pre8sure.-The subsurface pressure taken at a point opposite the
average depth of the producing formation. Unmodified, it usually implies static
conditions.
Reservoir Pressure.-The pressure existing at any local point within the reservoir.
This term is synonomous with bottom-hole pressure.
Static Pressure.-A subsurface pressure taken while the well is shut in and usually
means reservoir or bottom-hole pressure unless modified by a specific depth.
Flowing Pressure.-A pressure taken while the well is producing and usually
refers to a pressure taken at the face of the formation. This term is frequently called
bottom-hole producing or bottom-hole flowing pressure.
Differential Pres8ure.-The difference in pressure between bottom-hole static
pressure and bottom-hole flowing pressure.
Datum Pressure.-A bottom-hole pressure corrected to a specific sea level or subsea
level for the purpose of making comparison.
The above terms have become somewhat standard throughout the
Mid-Continent field. Since subsurface conditions are so vastly different
in California, it may be necessary, as subsurface work progresses in that
area, to develop a new and qroader terminology in order to facilitate
correlation of the work in the two districts.
CALCULATING BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE FROM SURFACE PRESSURE
Opinion is greatly diversified regarding the use of surface pressures
in calculating bottom-hole pressures. Due to obstacles of one form or
150 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

another there are cases in which it is impractical, if not impossible, to run

the average pressure bomb; likewise, there are many instances where the
surface pressure holds no relation to the bottom-hole pressure and accu-
rate calculation of such a pressure is impossible. It may be, therefore, of
value in clarifying the problem to draw up a few "rules and regulations"
whereby one may be reasonably guided in his interpretations of sur-
face pressures.
RULES AND REGULATIONS

To facilitate satisfactory understanding and ease of explanation it

will be convenient to divide all wells into two classes, as follows: (A) Wells
in which all gas is in solution at the bottom of the hole, such as wells in the
East Texas field, and in which the head of oil is sustained purely through
hydrostatic pressure. Further, for the sake of convenience, let us call
such a well, whose pressure is more than sufficient to maintain a solid
column of fluid to the top of the hole, an artesian well, and one whose
pressure will maintain only a partial column, a semiartesian well. (B)
All wells not included in A and in which free gas exists in the formation.

A
1. Bottom-hole flowing pressure cannot be accurately calculated on either an
artesian or a semiartesian well due to continuously changing temperature and to the
liberation of gas from solution.
2. The calculation of bottom-hole static pressure for semiartesian wells is imprac-
tical due to the necessity for making subsurface observations of fluid level each time
a calculation is desired.
3. By taking a few simple precautions the bottom-hole static pressure in an
artesian well can be easily calculated from the following formula:
P = D X 0.4343 X G +p
Where P is desired subsurface pressure.
D is depth of desired pressure.
G is flow column specific gravity of oil.
p is surface pressure.
K is 0.4343 (weight per foot of water).
The specific gravity of the oil within the flow column may be readily obtained
from one single static gradient test with a pressure bomb. The calculation is simply
the ratio of the pressure drop within the flow column per unit of length to the pressure
drop or weight of an equal length column of water. An example of this calculation
is shown in curve 1, Fig. 1.
4. To obtain accurate results, care must be taken regarding the temperature of the
oil in the flow column. Preferably, no tests or observations should be made less than
24 hr. after the well has been flowed, thus giving the oil in the column a chance to
reach stable earth temperature.
5. Precaution also must be taken in bleeding off the small pocket of gas which
accumulates at the top of the hole. This must be done slowly so as not to decrease
the pressure sufficiently to cause the gas to come out of solution aIi'd produce a frothy
condition of the oil at the top of the flow column.
 D. G. HAWTHORN 151
Wells in the East Texas field furnish a striking example of the application of this
method of calculating bottom-hole or subsurface pressures. By closely observing
the above directions, results under 0.5 per cent of error should be obtained.
B
1. To calculate static or shut-in pressure on wells of this type, in which free gas
exists at the bottom of the hole, is usually impossible as conditions are virtually the
same as in a "semiartesian well." Occasionally in wells with very high gas-oil ratio
the formation pressure may be closely calculated due to the fact that on closing the
well in pressure is built up so rapidly that no fluid head is allowed to accumulate.
An illustration of this instance is shown in curve 1 of Fig. 5.
2. Unless a well of this type is tubed, the bottom-hole flowing pressure can in no
way be reliably calculated. Acknowledgment is made to those men who have
studied and are studying the derivation of formulas for calculating pressure drop in
flow columns, but as yet it is believed the work is still in the experimental sta,ge.
3. If it is certain that the fluid within the static column is depressed to the botto~
of the tubing while the well is flowing, the bottom-hole pressure, or more correctly
speaking, the pressure at the bottom of the tubing can be accurately calculated from
either of the following formulas:

LoglOP sxz
122.82 X T
+LoglO p. 3
Where P is bottom-hole pressure, absolute.
Z is depth of tubing inlet in feet.
S is specific gravity of gas.
T is absolute temperature of gas (to F. + 460).
P is surface pressure, absolute.
[p = p(eO.0000347GL _ 1) + p.'
Where P is bottom-hole pressure, absolute.
p is surface pressure, absolute.
e is base of Nap. log (2.71828).
G is specific gravity of gas.
L is length of producing string.
(An average temperature of 80 0 F. is assumed.)
These formulas were derived for the purpose of calculating the weight of a static
column of gas. A practical application of each of these formulas is shown in Fig. 5.
The results are seen to check very closely with the pressure obtained at the corre-
sponding depth from the pressure bomb.
4. It is impossible to mention here all of the cases where bottom-hole pressure on
this type of well can or cannot be calculated from surface pressure. The greatest
difficulty is probably encountered in making sure that the static column is completely
filled with gas. Frequently, bridges of colloidal rotary mud or slugs of more or less
permanent oil froth may be entrapped in the column. Also the position of the bottom
of the tubing with respect to the point at which oil is entering the hole is of great
importance. Undoubtedly, many qther features enter into the problem and extreme
precaution and good judgment must be exercised to insure correct application
and results.
Derived by Marian Dice, General Petroleum Corporation of California.
3
Derived by Pierce and Rawlins. U.S. Bur. Mines, Repts. of Investigations No.
4

2929,9.
152 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

SUBSURFACE TESTS
Subsurface pressure tests in general may be divided into two classes,
namely, static tests and flowing tests. In either case pressure may be
obtained at any point within the flow column to which a pressure bomb
can be lowered, thus giving information from which curves, or pressure
gradients, can be plotted; see Fig. 1, where curve 1 is the static pressure
gradient, curve 2 is the flowing pressure gradient and curve 3 is obtained
by plotting bottom-hole pressure against rate of production of the well
during the test. This constitutes all the information in regard to pres-
sure that is directly obtained in making a subsurface test. If desired,
the bottom-hole temperature may be easily obtained by attaching a
maximum indicating thermometer to the bomb. A few pressure bombs
are designed in such a manner as to give a continuous temperature record.
The importance of these data, simply through their obvious meager-
ness, has been greatly underestimated. The question is still frequently
asked, "What information can bottom-hole pressures render other than
local formation or reservoir pressures?" The value of subsurface pres-
sure data, like many other classes of field information, lies not in the data
but in the interpretation and application. A knowledge of subsurface
pressures has long been the "missing link" in the chain of study relative
to oil and gas flow in earth reservoirs and well bores. This information
is now available and, as our fund of knowledge grows, subsurface pressures
are destined to become the "nucleus" around which much practical and
theoretical work will be centered and from which valuable interpretations
will be made both in the field and in the laboratory.
USE AND ApPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE PRESSURES
The practical application of subsurface pressures embodies a great
variety of problems. So extensive and complicated has the study of their
application become that it is necessary, in order to obtain a comprehensive
impression, to divide the subject into its component parts. The subject
naturally separates itself into two main divisions: (1) the application to
oil reservoirs and (2) the application to individual wells. The following
discussions will be divided accordingly.
ApPLICATION TO OIL RESERVOIRS
Equitable proration and unitization during the past few years have
been two of the foremost problems confronting the industry. In turn,
both have presented and made necessary the solution of difficult problems
of evaluation. In attacking these problems geologists and engineers
have frequently found themselves with but a few facts and figures upon
which to proceed. Subsurface pressures offer a new line of attack and
furnish valuable and concrete information relative to exIsting conditions
in reservoirs.
 Production in Bbl". per Hour'
o "25 .so 15
1200

-------
/'
1100 r--- /'
CX/ff:;;-
1000
Prcdueh on- Pre ,", d",l'..t ~ /
0;1 CoIOMY O;lGoIY
/'

~
Ilt.hc Gr.. dian4
./
V /
/'
~
~reillk.i~PciI"~ ill Cur~.
Pre~sul"&
~~.J. p-I' 100 Ga$ Ili iolb0"\ .f 0011,14;"
$""700 :.S~Gr. - 3.1 _ .76Z
..'. ,,,.' /
V ~~
L

&..
. 600 / ./ Flowi'!!. Gr.di...~

.Il
..J
~
~ /' /'
1 L /""
/"
"i
j
:! ./
/' /
e... Colu",On V ~ ~e.. MUlture CoIUMfI

100

o
o
----- --- lax> lro:t cOOO" CSOO .
Well Depth in Feet
FIG. l.-8UBSURFACE TESTS ON EAST TEXAS WELL,
1M SUBSURFACE PRESSURES 1,. OIL WELLS

FORMATION C HARA CTER ISTICS

Subsurface pressures and, morc specifically bottom-hole Howing and

static pressures, present valuable information relative to conditions and
characteristics existing in t he reservoir, information which heretofoi'e
could only be supplied in purt by laboratory analysis . One of the most
valuable contribu tions that bottom-hole pressures have to offer is the
so-caUed "productivity factor. " . This factor may be defined as "II.
measure of the capacity of a well to produce. " More specifically, it is the
rate at which oil is produced from a well per uni t of differential pressure.
. . Rate of Production
ProductlVlty Factor = Differential Pressure

Inasmuch as the value of this productivity factor directly depends on the

same identical factors as permeability, i. e., porosity, saturation, texture,
properties of the Huids, etc., it iRalso a measure of the permeability of the
drilled form ation. However, in order to render this measure of
permeability capable of use it is necessary to reduce it to a work-
able basis, therefore;
.. Productivity Factor
Permeability Factor = Sand Pcnetration X K

where K is a factor depending on the diameter of the hole. Thus the

permeability factor may be defined as the capacity of the reservoir
in the immediate vicinity of a well to produce oil per unit of differential
pressure, per unit of form ation penetrated. This furnishes a prac-
tical unit upon which investigation of formation charactcristics may
be conducted.
Fig. 2 is an analysis of sand conditions in the East Texas field. The
productivity factor has been plotted against sand penetration for wells
in various parts of the field. It might be called a permeability chart
inasmuch as the slope of each of the curves indicates the relative factor of
permeability for t he respective districts. This factor is computed and
shown on the chart. Considering the limited data at hand it is not desir-
able to make too literal an interpretation. Nevertheless, it is thought to
be indicative of actual cond itions and is cited to illustrate a method of
comparing reservoir characteristics in individual wells, leases or even an
entire pool.
ULTIMATE RE COVERY

Attempts have been made to predict ultimate recovery from rcservoirs

by plotting cumulative production against reservoir pressure and extend-
I H. D. Wilde and T. V. Moore: A Method for Determining Production Allowance
in Prorated Fields. A.P.I. Product.ion BuU. 207, 71.
 D. G. HAWTHORN 155

II

:-'~ r:xt
Cl/~ 't= 4'/
ILGOR ~ AEA
II
I
1
Fe"F 'S<ln:I Pen
Where is atb', ..,
9..:6..lQQ sli!.&'
10
Co J, .
vi
II
6 I W

V
~
.-La hl'llp 'HeI.
"'-\(,
@-(;;; ~We
I.
n.pc nemlle ~.II.

4
i!
.3 // .
.
.
Cl/,If'V,
..
2
011 ~RTON - 1..0NOOr .. JOINE ~VILLE A ~AI!.

-~
&Q

/
c
R.r. 1.88
..r
".!
-+ 'l
u
"
.."
2
0.

I
1
I
1/ . ~
~
~

.~ ~
o~
~

o
~ ... ~ 4150 BI 11
~&ncl. f'n.h.+i .. n 'In .....s.

FIG. 2,-RELATIONSHIP OF PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR TO SAND PENETRATION FOR EAST

TEXAS WELLS.
156 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

ing the curve as a straight line. Little is known at present as to the

nature and trend of these pressure decline curves. The writer believes
these curves will seldom, if ever, be a straight line. Arguments are pre-

FIG. 3.-RESERVOIR PRESSURE CONTOUR PLOTS OF THE EAST TEXAS FIELD. CON-
TOURED ON -3300-FT. DATUM.
Data compiled through the cooperation of the following companies: Humble Oil &
Refining Co., Gulf Production Co., Amerada Petroleum Corporation, Tidal Oil Co.,
Atlantic Oil & Production Co., Barnsdall Oil Co., Sun Oil Co., Shell Petroleum Corpo-
ration, Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., Sinclair-Prairie Oil Co.
and Arkansas Fuel Oil Co.

sented to the effect that any method of evaluating ultimate recovery is

essentially an estimate and that this "pressure drop method" should be
as reliable as any other. The argument is further supported by the fact
 D. G. HAWTHORN 157
that no percentage recovery factor is necessary, the value of this factor
invariably being a moot question. Nevertheless, to proceed with such a
calculation is to accept a major premise about which we know little or

GREGG
RUSK

i.fGENt)

I!!IlII!lllI UP llJ/aJO'

[\iliillI -=:"//a>'

~/_:..~'
c:J /Mtl-iEV'

~ na!)'-NOO'

c::=J Afa:7'-/.IO'

A~T-4UZ

FIG. 3.-Continued.

nothing and which common reason tells us is wrong. To give much

merit to such a method of calculation seems illogical.
The above method may be reasonably correct for confined fields pro-
ducing their oil solely through the medium of gas energy. In such cases
the pressure drop curve may approximate a straight line although it is
known that the gas-oil ratio generally rises with declining production,
thus giving evidence of an accelerated pressure drop as the life of such a
158 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

field progresses. However, the application of this method of estimating

ultimate recovery from water-drive fields and especially one similar to
East Texas, in which all gas is in solution in the reservoir, is unsound and
without reason. It is impossible to predict the nature of pressure decline
in such fields because at present no method is available for evaluating the
pressure maintenance of a water drive as the differential pressure in the
formation varies. Further, there is no way in which to foretell the effect
of gas energy on the reservoir pressure when such a pressure is reached
that dissolved gas begins to come out of solution in the formation.
Certainly, common thought among engineers is that "Utopia" will be
reached when such a time comes that water-drive fields are produced at
such a rate as to allow the water encroachment to keep pace with
the rate of extraction, thereby effecting and maintaining a constant
reservoir pressure. If such thought is valid the estimated ultimate
production under such conditions would be infinite, thus proving the
fallacy of this method of estimating ultimate recovery from water-
drive fields.
It is believed, however, entirely possible that sooner or later subsurface
pressures will be used in estimating ultimate recovery from oil reservoirs.
It should be possible, by correlating subsurface information to develop a
method for analyzing and comparing these data in such manner as to
arrive at a reasonably close estimate of reserves. Like other methods,
this of course would not be infallible. It should be particularly well
adapted to natural flowing fields similar to East Texas in which the
boundaries are defined early in the development. Further, it should be
superior to other methods in that the subsurface pressure data would
supply us for the first time with tangible information in which all the
indeterminates of reservoir characteristics would be reflected. The
practical development and application of such a method should prove a
valuable contribution to the study of reservoir capacities and ulti-
mate production.
RESERVOIR PRESSURE DECLINE

A definite means for observing the nature and trend of reservoir

pressure decline is rendered through the use of subsurface pressures. It
has been previously brought out that no dependable relationship exists
between reservoir pressure decline and the rate of extraction from a pool.
Therefore, the only method for obtaining this information is through
actual tests. If a sufficient number of tests are taken over a pool, pres-
sure contour plats may be drawn.
Fig. 3 shows an assembly of several of these plats. If the area between
the corresponding contour lines on each of the plats is filled in with colors,
each representing a different pressure area, it is possible to note at a
glance the various changes taking place in the reservoir pressure. A
 D. G. HAWTHORN 159
clear, detailed discussion of the use and interpretation of pressure contour
maps has been given by H. D. Wilde, Jr.6
BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE RELATIVE TO PRORATION

Much has been written during the past year or two on the use of
bottom-hole pressures as a guide for equitably prorating restricted fields.
Nothing can be added to the subject in this short space since its study is a
complicated subject in itself. Suffice to say that the proposed plans
appear to have merit and the outcome of their practical application will be
awaited with interest.
ApPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL WELLS

Considerable comment has been published on the application of sub-

surface pressures to the study of oil reservoirs. As yet, little has been
said relative to their application in studying the mechanics and thermo-
dynamics of oil and gas flow in well bores. The writer feels that this
subject presents one of the most interesting possibilities in the field of
study and research in applying subsurface pressures. The diversion of
attention from this work is probably due in part to economic conditions
and also to the immediate need for all possible information and assistance
relative to the problems of proration and unitization. The two divisions
of application of subsurface pressures somewhat overlap in that the
method for analyzing and comparing formation characteristics in individ-
ual wells and leases is identical with that for an entire reservoir. How-
ever, the study of pressures in flow columns is separate from the rest and
remains within itself a distinct part of the subject of subsurface pres-
sure applications.
Undoubtedly, it has been noted that the pressures used in studying
reservoirs refer mostly to the bottom of the hole, such as bottom-hole
pressure, bottom-hole flowing pressure, differential pressure, etc. This is
not the case for flow column studies since it is the correlation of all the
pressures from the top to the bottom of the hole and the construction
of pressure gradient curves that provide the significant facts. Thus, it is
believed an examination into this field of application is best conducted
through a study of graphic representations of actual tests. Therefore, an
analysis of a few charts is made and the manner in which the curves
portray certain definite conditions is noted. It is surprising to observe
how directly and with what degree of certainty conclusions can be drawn.
Fig. 1 illustrates an actual test performed on an East Texas well. The
static gradient indicates the well to be of the semiartesian type, inas-
much as the pressure is insufficient to raise the column of oil to the top of
the hole. By projecting the static oil column gradient downwards, the
6 H. D. Wilde, Jr.: Why Measure Bottom Hole Pressures? A.P.I. Mid-year
Meeting, Tulsa, Okla., June 3, 1932.
160 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

point at which the curve crosses the horizontal axis would indicate the
height in the tubing to which oil could be sustained by the existing forma-
tion pressure, if the gas on top of the oil column were released. As pre-
viously mentioned, the gravity of the oil may be calculated from the static
gradient. If any appreciable amount of water happened to be present at
the bottom of the hole it would be immediately reflected by showing a
curve of even greater slope than that for the oil column. This apparently
unimportant feature is already proving of value in East Texas. It is
possible under certain conditions for wells to have formation water in the
bottom of the hole and yet produce 100 per cent oil. Pressure bombs are
continually detecting ,veIls of this type, which were previously thought to
have no water.
The flowing gradient in this same figure is of interest in that through
it several theories are substantiated. It is seen that for a distance of
nearly a thousand feet up from the bottom of the tubing the flowing
gradient is a straight line and is parallel to the static gradient. The
gradient then breaks off into a curve with a gradually decreasing slope.
The only logical way of interpreting this curve is that all gas is in solution
in the formation and that it remains in solution for a considerable distance
up the tubing. When a point in the curve is reached at which the pres-
sure approximates 700 lb., gas starts out of solution. As the pressure
decreases upward in the tubing more and more gas is liberated from solu-
tion, thus causing a corresponding lightening effect of the column.
Emphasis is placed on the fact that this chart represents no mere coinci-
dence, for the conditions as shown in these curves are duplicated in almost
every test performed in the field.
An interesting experiment is shown in Fig. 4, in which a bottom-hole
choke has been placed in an East Texas well. The curve itself is virtually
self-explanatory, but accompanying this pressure data are some occur-
rences worthy of mention. Although the paraffin situation in East
Texas is not serious because at present it is so readily controlled, never-
theless, it is very prevalent. The first thought in connection with the use
of bottom-hole chokes in such a field is that due to the liberation of more
dissolved gas at the bottom of the hole, a greater cooling effect will occur,
thus greatly aggravating paraffin deposition. Strangely enough, this
analysis is not in accord with actual facts. True enough, gas is liberated
immediately on top of the choke as seen from the flow gradients. From
the solubility analysis it is known that for the existing pressure the
amount of gas liberated must be small, probably not over 15 to 20 per
cent of the total gas in solution. What concentrated cooling occurs on
top of the choke is immediately offset by the reheating effect of the hot oil
surrounding the tubing. This reheating effect continues most of the way
up the tubing as:more and more gas is liberated and expanded. Thus,
inasmuch as the average flowing temperature with and without the choke
 D. G. HAWTHORN 161
will be only slightly different, what actually happens is a greatly
diminished occurrence of paraffin due to the increased velocity in the flow

...
~
.~

1\\ \\ i
~':" 1

I~ \
\ ':f
~=i
.~~J. !:!!

r\ i"'.,..
0:1'"
!Ii.! " "80
~!2
1lc!)Q...~
A'ii
.-

\
~\
~!
"'I
1:l
~~.
~ l!l
!!l
-20~ .
o \ ~#
J
J
~
,..

\
III
i

..,
r:
10
"1\
~l
d \ if)
\
1\
t

\ \
"l""
I!
~:
U;,
...
.2 1\
II

c
o
->=

e
U
:J

0.
I
\ \
o
$ 0
~ ~ ~
1\ ~
\ C)
o

column which results from the presence of the free gas. Further, from
the experiment an idea is obtained as to the minimum pressure required
to flow the average East Texas well. The figure heretofore accepted as
 o 'IS

anrv~'5- a-wv.. .,.

dl'Ofr!!)." I-~
K 1s+'+io Gr..tie
eeu.. IYJo. Oil Ii14Ho
eUHV4.'

10000 SO

~ /
a-
Ro'C~i
31~:I' n. up
T.~i'lb

1\ FI"":-7~i l-up

\ y
~ll1l~'-dI':r j)~

V~Jtif~Y~ Is"
'M~~ a~r+t.wj
. flGt'
4' bini."

~
// 0

\ ~
",
A~
~.~
op,.-j

~t.\~i"
~
"'(ll

-~
/

~V /
F"'"" ,/
/

eIXlJ 10 / /-- JfFI_~Gooodien f"r

t:'tM'YE ;:
6~C~

/
V v./
J
L - - I--~~
o 01:7 , , ,
1000 ISOlr ZOOO
Oefioh o~ ~&\\ in fWl.
FIG. 5.-8ERIES OF SUBSURFACE TESTS MADE ON EXPERIMENTAL WELL IN SEMINOLE FIELD.
 D. G. HAWTHORN 163

the final flowing pressure has been in the neighborhood of 700 to 800 lb.
This figure appears rather high as from the above tests it would seem
reasonable to expect flow to continue until the bottom-hole pressure has
dropped to at least 300 to 400 lb. This should be of considerable interest
to those companies operating in the field as it means an even greater
flowing life than heretofore anticipated.
A series of experiments were conducted on a Seminole well for the pur-
pose of studying the nature of oil and gas flow in various types and sizes of
columns. The results are shown graphically in Fig. 5. Attention is
called to the extremely low bottom-hole pressure of 14.8 lb. while produc-
ing through the 6%-in. casing. Curves 3 and 4 show the well flowing
through 3-in. tubing set at different levels. The nature of the break in
the curves at the bottom of the tubing is significant. With the tubing set
3110 ft., the gradient shows an oil-gas mixture coming up the hole and
approaching the bottom of the tubing, while with the tubing set at
3133 ft., the break in the curve is sharp, thus indicating a condition where
gas enters the tubing and lifts oil off the top of a more or less solid column.
Curve 5 is a flow column gradient for a tapered string of tubing. Due
to the replacement of 971 ft. of 3-in. tubing with 4-in., the pressure at the
bottom of the tubing was decreased approximately 16 to 18 per cent.
The relationship between the production-pressure drop curve and the
gas-oil ratio curve (Fig. 5) indicates the existence of a critical point and
apparently such points coincide closely at the same corresponding rate
of production. This should not be taken as conclusive as data relative
to the nature and correlation of these curves are limited.
In Fig. 6 are shown the results of a recent subsurface test made on a
high-pressure, high gas-oil ratio well in the new Burrton area of Reno
County, Kansas. Inasmuch as no back-pressure control test was made
on the well only two points were available for drawing the production-
pressure drop curve. This curve is probably not a straight line but more
likely takes a trend somewhat similar to that shown by curve 6, Fig. 5. A
peculiar condition is observed by noting the difference in slope between
the static gradient and the flowing gradient. The static gradient is seen
to be steeper with a greater pressure drop in the column than the flowing
gradient. With the exception of the East Texas type wells, it is believed
this condition will occur only in wells having high gas-oil ratios and high
reservoir pressures. The flowing gradient also shows that while the well is
producing at the rate of 12,000,000 cu. ft. of gas and 180 bbl. of fluid per
day, a pocket of fluid exists at the bottom of the hole. This clearly
indicates the stratification of oil and gas in the formation. At a depth of
3327 ft. the well tested 6,000,000 cu. ft. of gas and no fluid. After deepen-
ing the well to a total depth of 3390 ft. and allowing it to produce for a few
days, it tested 12,000,000 cu. ft. of gas and 180 bbl. of fluid. It was at
first thought that more gas as well as the fluid had been encountered.
164 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

However, the flowing gradient disproves this theory, in that certainly

no fluid could remain at the bottom of the well if the additional

,
I-

j j
,v 9"'II'W9~~ .1: ~
~ t ...... ,L~~~ 1'1) ON -.
.09 'a~
-twl"O-I- .1:.:", a.. :J
!U,~. ~

~n;:-

t~~
AM.
gS20

:;; :E.
~ ~
~ ",.,
:s: ~
~1t
""'"
,......., :0 8
i li\-
~'
L
:Jo

fa
~.u
oR -
.j,!;

r
-:;

r'
~ gg

',:1i
";.
;- ..
~! "
.lIIi
'-)C

J: q
>c:f!f
~ g~
f:j~~
~ ~~i
..l!;
'i~
3:_
.<!J
~~
~.!!
iij
...a:;:.. .~ ~o \j~
~ ~ j.;:i~
~ij ;;:

....s: ...
~
.
':d
0....

,-...

T
QJ
ai'
.'.:0 ... ~ 1;
:! "'N /
~<') 0 M
~.!!
\jl!.,
Q.
to
-l
-....!-
... "-

/
/

/
A ~
Cl.-

/
-"ll!
~:
~d:
Ij,
c
0
'+'
.

/~
V 1
C) / j

6,000,000 cu. ft. of gas were being produced with the oil. This lends cre-
dence to the belief that the first test was made too soon after cleaning out
 DISCUSSION 165
the rotary mud. Evidently some of the mud and water remained in the
formation, thus holding back approximately 50 per cent of the well's
potential gas production. This singular bit of information might prove of
great value in that if the formation were found to be lenticular it should
be possible to cement the last string of casing through the gas zone, drill
and produce the oil and conserve the gas until such time as it is needed.

SUMMARY
General impressions regarding subsurface pressures and their field of
application have been somewhat narrow and confined. An attempt has
been made to correct these impressions and portray to some extent the
value and importance of this study. Certainly, no recent development in
production engineering has opened so wide a field for research. Although
at present our fund of knowledge is extremely small regarding the intri-
cacies of subsurface pressures and their application, it is, nevertheless,
sufficient to clearly indicate the tremendous scope of their usefulness both
in practical and theoretical work. Undoubtedly, in the near future sub-
surface pressures will be regarded as an indispensable part of produc-
tion engineering.

DISCUSSION
(C. V. MiZlikan presiding)
K. C. SCLATER, * Dallas, Texas.-Mr. Hawthorn's paper is ample evidence of the
amazing progress that has been made during the last two years in the application
and interpretation of subsurface pressure data in producing operations.
Two most important terms have been derived, the Productivity Factor and the
Permeability Factor. The first is a measure of the capacity of a well to produce, and
the second a measure of the capacity of a sand to produce under differential pressure.
While we do not know the exact physical conditions within the sand surrounding the
well, it is possible by means of these derived factors to study the effect of these physical
conditions on oil flow.
Pressure gradients taken in a well will reveal conditions that may not be suspected.
I had occasion recently to examine some subsurface well pressure records, which were
plotted on charts, wherein it was shown that certain wells in the East Texas field
had several hundred feet of water in the bottom of the hole. Because of the restricted
rate of production no trace of water could be observed for the well produced clean
oil. This is a good example of the highly practical purpose to which subsurface
information, properly studied and interpreted, can be put.
In a field where a water drive and a gas drive are present, it is desirable to know
in what proportion these contribute to the supply of expulsive energy when the field
is being produced and how these expulsive forces vary with the rate of withdrawal
of the reservoir contents. Subsurface data provide a valuable means of making
positive and accurate determinations of changing reservoir conditions; they have an
important application bearing on the nature of the present decline in a field and the
relationship of this decline to the rate of withdrawal from the field.

* Production Editor, The Petroleum Engineer.

166 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

'One significant value that subsurface data have is that they can be correlated
with scientific laboratory research and thus be a great aid to progress in analyzing
and solving all types of field development and production problems.

C. E. REISTLE, * Bartlesville, Okla.-There is one important application of

subsurface pressure data that has not been discussed. I refer to the determination
of shrinkage in volume of the oil-gas solution after it leaves the sand due to the
liberation of dissolved gas and gasoline vapors. The determination of shrinkage by
using bottom-hole pressure data is only applicable to fields similar to East Texas at
the present time where all the gas produced with the oil is in solution and no free
gas enters the well with the oil. The method is as follows: First, the density of the
oil and gas solution is determined at the bottom of the well while the well is closed in,
as described in Mr. Hawthorn's paper; second, the gravity and quantity of gas
produced per barrel of oil and the density of the oil after the gas is liberated from the
oil are determined at the oil and gas separator at the surface while the well is flowing.
The change in volume of the oil-gas solution can then be calculated. The weight of
the gas produced with each barrel of oil is calculated and added to the weight of the
barrel of oil after the gas is liberated, the latter being calculated from the specific
gravity of the oil determined at the separator. This figure is the weight of the oil
and gas solution in the sand produced by one barrel of oil as measured at the surface.
The weight of the oil and gas solution produced by one barrel of oil is divided by the
weight of one cubic foot of the solution of oil and gas as determined by the bottom-
hole pressure instrument and this gives the original volume of the oil and gas solution
which produces the one barrel of oil at the surface. Dividing this volume by 5.61
(the volume in cubic feet of one barrel) gives the factor by which to mUltiply the
volume of oil as measured at the surface to convert it into its original volume in the
sand when it had the gas dissolved in it. Some tests we have conducted in East
Texas indicate that each barrel at the surface is equivalent to 1.203 bbl. of oil in the
sand. While this method is not as accurate as a laboratory method, it should be
sufficiently accurate for estimating reserves when laboratory results are not available.

G. L. NYE,t Kilgore, Texas.-I would like to comment on Mr. Hawthorn's

curves on the bottom-hole choke in relation to the low flowing pressures. At an
approximate depth of 3500 ft., the well pressure is 575 lb. while flowing at the rate
of 16 bbl. per hr. Notice the static pressure of the well is over 1400 lb. I am inclined
to think you cannot get those operating conditions in the Joiner area, where pressures
lower than 800 lb. exist. What is your interpretation where you say, "It seems
reasonable to expect flowing to continue until a bottom-hole pressure of 300 or 400 lb.
exists?" It seems to me there should be some qualification to that statement.
D. G. HAwTHoRN.-Most of our experience with minimum flowing pressures
has been had while stop-cocking the wells, that is producing under proration restric-
tions. Stop-cocking wells of this nature kills them when too low a bottom-hole
pressure exists and they must be swabbed to start them flowing again. The experi-
ments with bottom-hole choking should be sufficient evidence for the prediction
that East Texas wells will flow with bottom-hole flowing pressures in the neighborhood
of 400 lb. The static pressure will of course have to be higher by an amount equal
to the differential pressure.
G. L. NYE.-That would not then be practical application in good field practice,
if you had to swab a small well to get your allowed production.

* Petroleum Engineer, U. S. Bureau of Mines.

t Production Engineer, Tide Water Oil Co.
 DISCUSSION 167

D. G. HAWTHoRN.-Once running the swab should kick one of these wells off. It
should be a simple matter to adjust this swabbing operation with the handling of
the wells so as to reflect much better economy than pumping.
G. L. NYE.-On the other hand, your work has indicated that the hydrostatic
fluid column is above 575 lb. Could you expect those conditions in the Joiner area?
D. G. HAWTHORN.-I do not quite understand the question. However, as stated
before, regardless of the area in the pool, an East Texas well should flow until a static
reservoir pressure is reached equal to approximately 400 lb. plus the differential
pressure for the rate of flow desired.
W. V. VIETTI, * Wink, Texas.-I would like to ask Mr. Hawthorn something
not in the paper. Have you done any work on trying to correlate the amount of
gas to barrels of oil on these production pressure drop gradients, so we can get infor-
mation on what the equivalent is in cubic feet of gas to barrels of oil under these condi-
tions? In Fig. 4 did you try to consider this production curve in terms of feet of
gas to oil?
D. G. HAWTHoRN.-In this regard may I refer to Fig. 1. I have tried by drawing
tangents to the flowing gradient at different points and formulating equations to
calculate the gas-oil ratio in the flow column. I find invariably the result is lower
than that obtained by use of the solubility or gas separation curves. It appears
that even in this type of well, some slip and friction are present.
W. V. VIETTI.-We have been interested in this volume of gas on some of our
potential work in West Texas and New Mexico. For instance, we have a well making
10,000 bbl. of oil with gas-oil ratio of 1200 ft. We find the potential in a year will
be cut in half but the gas is greatly increased. Gas has taken the place of the oil;
in the potential test you have a certain fixed amount of permeability-you can only
get so much fluid through it. If we can get some relationship between oil and gas
at the bottom-hole pressure, or rather flowing pressure, we have the answer to many
of our problems.
R. D. WYCKOFF, t Pittsburgh, Pa.-Throughout this discussion, it has been
assumed that the saturation pressure in the East Texas field is about 700 or 800 lb.,
which is considerably below the pressures measured in the reservoir. If this is true,
it means that water is flowing into the field at the same rate that oil is withdrawn.
I do not see how water can be coming in at the same rate, for if this were so, the
pressure would remain constant, whereas actually the pressure has already declined
about 200 lb. and is still declining.
H. D. WILDE,t Houston, Texas.-Part of the decline in average reservoir pressure
is due to a pressure gradient set up across the field. Originally the pressure over
all the field was uniform, but when the oil started to move from west to east, pressures
toward the east had to fall to set up the necessary pressure differential and this
lowered the average pressure below the original.
R. D. WYCKOFF.-Quite true, but if the saturation pressure is 700 lb., the fact
that pressures toward the east are still above 700 lb. implies that the rate of water
encroachment is equal to the rate of.oil production, and if this were true, there should
be no decline in pressure at the western edge where the oil and water meet.

* The Texas Co.

t Gulf Research Laboratory.
t Humble Oil & Refining Co.
168 SUBSURFACE PRESSURES IN OIL WELLS

H. D. WILDE.-I disagree with this argument, for I believe the water can keep
up with the oil as it is withdrawn and still be accompanied by a declining pressure at
the water-oil boundary. There must be a pressure differential set up in the Woodbine
sand lying west of the field to cause the water to flow into the field itself. If water
were absolutely incompressible, the pressure at the boundary would fall almost
immediately to the new low value and then remain constant. However, because
water is compressible, the pressure is now falling gradually instead of immediately
to the new value and hence the decline in pressure now being observed. The com-
pressibility of the water is small, of course, but there are such tremendous quantities
present in the Woodbine section to the west of the field that the effect on retarding
the decline in pressure is very substantial. Computations of the rate at which the
pressure at the water-oil contact should decline have been made and they agree
reasonably well with the observed decline. This fact, together with the evidence as
to the low saturation pressure, convinces me that the water encroachment is keeping
pace with the oil removal.

MEMBER.-All of my work along this line has been in East Texas. What I say
is particularly the case there and possibly true in other fields. It is very possible
that differences in flowing permeability factors of different producing sand beds may
be detected and determined by use of the bottom-hole bomb. When neighboring
wells producing from the same formation, but with different degrees of penetration,
have a different permeability factor per foot of penetration, it is apparent that the
permeability of the section is not uniform. I have in mind one case where two offset
wells were tested, one had a penetration of 30 ft. into the pay sand, the other 9 ft.
The permeability factor per foot of penetration of the well with 30 ft. of sand was
considerably higher than the one with only 9 ft. This indicates, I believe, that the
lower sands are the more permeable, and the better producers of oil.
When considering the permeability factor of sand it is important that we consider
the difference between per foot of formation, and per foot of actmil sand penetration.
Mr. Hawthorn shows in curve 2 a method of correlating the various sections of
the field by a permeability factor. I also tried a similar method but used actual
sand penetration instead of total formation penetration. The results obtained in
this manner agree a little more closely than those where total penetration is used.
It is probable that the pressure at which gas starts coming out of solution is
largely dependent upon the degree of agitation. We have conducted tests of a some-
what different nature than Mr. Hawthorn's but with a similar aim. In our test
we obtained pressure at which the gas came out of and went back into solution.
The values we obtained were slightly higher than Mr. Hawthorn's, but may be
accounted for by greater agitation. I believe the time factor and rate of flow must
be considered as well as the agitation.
Mr. Nye brought up the subject of whether or not wells will flow at the solution
pressure. I think that the wells will flow at what is commonly considered the solution
pressure (70Gto 800 lb. gage). We must bear in mind the difference between flowing
pressures and shut-in pressures. You cannot talk of flowing pressures in respect to
shut-in pressures, but rather of flowing pressures at some definite rate of flow. It
is possible that these wells can be flowed intermittently down to these low pressures
without swabbing. I know of one well in an area where there is no free gas that has
a flowing pressure of less than 600 pounds.
In the main, I consider Mr. Hawthorn's paper to be a very good presentation of
the subject, but there is one point with which I cannot agree. He writes as if it were
impossible to determine rates of; pressure decline for wells or for a fi.eld in general, such
as East Texas. To date there have been sufficient records of well pressures taken to
determine rather accurately the rate of pressure decline for the field. This is espe-
 DISCUSSION 169
cially so where a definite daily withdrawal is being taken from the field. At the
present time it is generally considered that the pressure decline is close to one
pound per million barrels of oil produced. This pressure decline should continue
until the solution pressure of the gas is reached, or until the effect of the water drive
is materially increased. This pressure decline rate must, of course, be determined
experimentally from field observations.
The pressure bomb allows us to bring the laboratory to the well and thereby obtain
far better results than would otherwise be possible. Whereas it was previously
only possible to use the irregular and unreliable surface pressures, it is now possible
by use of a bottom-hole bomb to obtain precision measurements.
D. G. HAWTHORN.-I see no reason because in the past the pressure has declined
at the rate of one pound per million barrels of oil extracted, for expecting or predicting
that this relationship will continue to hold true even though the rate of withdrawal is
held constant. The time necessary to set up or establish a producing differential or
gradient in the reservoir is a vital factor and must be considered.