Calculation of Theoretical Productivity Factor
By H. H. EVINGER* AND M. MUSKAT*
(New York Meeting, February 1941)
A METHOD has been developed whereby one
may calculate the productivity factors of
producing formations from a knowledge of the
reservoir conditions. Account is taken not only
of the heterogeneous character of the gas-oil
flow system but also of the detailed variations
with pressure of the shrinkage and viscosity
of the oil, the solubility of the gas in the oil, and
even the variability of the gas viscosity and the
deviation of the gas from ideal behavior.
Curves are shown giving the results of numeri-
cal calculations on the production rate as a
function of the pressure differential for a high-
pressure and a low-pressure system, three
values of gas-oil ratio being treated in each
case. 'Curves are also given showing the varia-
tion with distance from the well of the pressure,
oil saturation, and permeability. The effect of
connate water is briefly discussed in relation
to the apparently large discrepancies between
the calculated and observed productivity-
factor values.
INTRODUCTION
The significance of the productivity
factor as a measure of the capacity of an
oil-bearing formation to produce is well
recognized; for it is the composite and
integrated resultant of the physical prop-
erties of both the porous medium and the
fluid stream passing through it with respect
to the ease with which the particular petro-
leum fluids present in the formation can
flow through it and into producing wells.
The most direct method of determining
the productivity factor of a well consists, as
is well known, in the simultaneous measure-
ment of reservoir-pressure differentials
Manuscript received at the office of the Institute
Feb. 7, 1941. Issued as T.P. 1352 in PETROl.EUM
TECHNOLOGY, September 194I.
* Gulf Research and Development Co., Pittsburgh,
Pa.
126
and rates of production and the expression
of the data in terms of rate of flow per unit
pressure drop.l Actual measurements car-
ried out in this manner on producing wells
have given factors that generally lie in the
range of 0 to 100 bbl. per day per pound
pressure drop. This wide range arises not
only from variations in permeability but
also from the varying sand thickness of
producing formations.
One of the aims of developing a theory of
the mechanics of oil production obviously
is that of predicting what the productivity
factor should be from a knowledge of the
individual characteristics of the producing
formation and the fluids produced, For
homogeneous fluid systems passing through
a porous medium into a producing well, it
has been known for some time that the
steady-state rate of liquid flow Q is given
by the formula:*
Q_ 27rkhAP
[I]
- J.l.log r./rw
where k is the sand permeability, hits
thickness, J.l. the liquid viscosity, AP the
pressure drop between the well and the
distant parts of'the reservoir, in particular
that at a radius r., and r.. is the well radius.
This gives the productivity factor:
f Q 27r [2]
= kht:..p = J.l.log rejr..
which will have a numerical value for a
liquid of I centipoise viscosity of 0.9316 or
1 From the point of view of field determinations of
productivity factors, much has already been pub-
lished. For instance. see references I to 4 at the end
of the paper.
* See, for example, M. Muskat.'
 H. H. EVINGER AND M. MUSKAT
0.8987 bbl. per day per pound drop per
foot of sand per darcy, as the radius r. is
taken to be 500 or 660 ft., and the well
radius is ~ ft. The productivity factor has
been expressed here in terms of unit thick-
ness and unit permeability in order to avoid
specification of their numerical values.
Moreover, the sand thickness, being an
extensive property, does not reflect the
intensive dynamical characteristics of the
flow system as long as the sand is uniform.
The permeability k in principle, of course,
is also an intensive property of the porous
medium. It is separated out here, however,
because, as will be seen later in the discus-
sion of heterogeneous fluid systems, it will
reduce essentially to a scale factor.
As already indicated, formulas 1 and 2
apply only to systems producing a homo-
geneous liquid. Such a condition will obtain
when the oil is undersaturated with gas
throughout the producing formation; that
is, when the fluid pressure even at the well
exceeds the saturation pressure of the gas.
This is not entirely a hypothetical situa-
tion; for it has been established in recent
years that in many fields the oil actually is
undersaturated, an example of which is
the well-known and celebrated case of the
East Texas field. However, in by far the
great majority of producing oil fields the oil
is saturated with gas at the initial reservoir
pressure, and any drop associated with
movement of oil to the producing wells
will lead to an evolution of gas and the
development of a heterogeneous fluid sys-
tem passing through the sand. In such
cases the simple flow formulas given above
no longer apply. The simplified form of
Darcy's law for a homogeneous fluid system
breaks down and must be replaced by the
more complex equations characterizing the
flow of heterogeneous fluid systems. Dur-
ing the last five years a number of investi-
gations6 - I4 have been carried out to define
and develop empirically the generalizations
of Darcy's law, which describe the flow of
heterogeneous fluid systems. The essential
12 7
result of these studies is that with each
phase of the heterogeneous fluid system
can be associated a permeability deter-
mined only by the local volumetric dis-
tribution within the pores of the sand; that
is, the permeability concept must be gen-
eralized so as to represent a composite
dynamical characteristic of the sand and
each individual fluid phase. Moreover, it
must be considered as variable, depending
upon the specific form of the phase dis-
tribution within the sand as this varies
from point to point.
These empirical relationships between
the permeability to the several fluid phases
and the local phase distribution within the
sand or fluid saturations have been formu-
lated into a system of the hydrodynamics
for the heterogeneous flow of fluids through
porous media. I5 To show the applications
that might be made of this formulation,
solutions were developed for the flow of
a heterogeneous fluid system through a
linear column of sand and also through a
radial system. The latter, of course, corre-
sponds to the practical situation of the
flow of gas and oil into a well. The nu-
merical calculations reported in that work,
however, were carried out on the basis of
several simplifying assumptions. Among
these are: (I) the sand is unconsolidated or
has the permeability saturation relation-
ships found by Wyckoff and Botset for an
unconsolidated sand; (2) the gas phase is
ideal; (3) Henry's law is obeyed; (4) there
is no oil shrinkage or expansion; and (5) the
oil viscosity is constant.
It is the purpose of this paper to provide
similar calculations for corresponding sys-
tems without the restriction of these
assumptions.
The permeability saturation relationship
used is that obtained by Botset1 3 for a
consolidated Nichols Buff sandstone. The
data reported for this sand are the only
ones published thus far that give both the
gas and liquid permeabilities for a consoli-
dated sand. They were used therefore
128 CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR
throughout the present calculations, even
though it is realized that they may not
apply in detail to all other types of con-
solidated sand.
In the calculations made on the low-
pressure reservoirs, the gas phase was still
taken as ideal. since no data were available
regarding the deviation factors for the gas
phase. For the higher-pressure systems,
however, deviation factors were derived
and used in the calculations, as will be
explained later.
In all the computations to be reported,
the solubility of the gas in the oil was taken
to be that determined empirically and, of
course, did not follow Henry's law with
any precision. Likewise, shrinkage or
expansion factors were applied to the liquid
phase in accordance with direct empirical
observations.
With respect to the oil viscosity, the
effect of the gas in solution was taken into
account in all the computations, as will
be explained in detail in the discussion.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
The general hydrodynamic formulation
of the flow of heterogeneous fluids through
porous media can be expressed by the
equations 3a and 3b
kl
V' ( - VP
)
=
a Cp/{3}
f -at
{3!1-1
V' .( -s -kl VP + "(ko)
-!1-Q VP =
a ~Sp
f -at -{3
{3 P.l
+ "(I - p) ~
where kl and ko are the empirically deter-
mined permeabilities to the liquid and
gas phases, !1-1 and !1-0 are the viscosities
of the liquid and gas phases, P is the fluid
pressure, S is the solubility of the gas in
the liquid expressed as total gas dissolved
per unit volume of residual liquid, {3 is
the expansion factor of the oil in terms of
the residual oil volume and corresponds to
one plus the factor generally termed
"shrinkage fa tor," "( is the density of the
gas phase, p is the local liquid saturation,
f is the sand porosity, and t is the time
variable.
These equations are identical with
those previously given 15 except for the
inclusion of the expansion factor {3. Only
two equations have been written here,
on the assumption that there will be only
two mobile phases. Of course, if there
should be a third mobile phase, such as
the connate water, a third equation similar
in structure to 3a must be added. In fact,
its exact form will be identical with that
of 3a, with the term (3 omitted and the
variables kl, !1-1 and p referring to this
third phase, except as one might take
into account still further refinements
such as the solubility of the gas in the
third phase.
Under steady-state conditions, the right
sides of Eqs. 3a and 3b must be set equal
to zero. Strictly speaking, there will be
no such thing as a steady state in a hetero-
geneous fluid system producing gas and
oil, except as it is subject to a complete
water drive-and even then the external
boundary of the system will not be con-
stant. For practical purposes, however,
the actual transient history of oil and gas
reservoirs may be represented by a slowly
varying succession of steady states. It
is such equivalent steady-state conditions
to which the determination of a productiv-
ity factor is generally referred, and which
will form the basis for the present calcula-
tions. This question of the assumption of
steady-state conditions enters specifically
in the numerical calculations and also in
the choice of the permeability saturation
relationship expressed by k = k(P); for
in Botset's experiments 13 it was shown
that steady-state conditions of flow could
not be maintained with liquid saturations
above the equilibrium value. In practical
field operations, however, the drop of the
oil saturation everywhere at least to the
equilibrium value would imply an appreci-
able total production from the reservoir,
 H. H. EVINGER AND M. MUSKAT
and hence that the field has already passed
through a large part of its productive
history. To obtain results corresponding
to the early part of the production history
of a reservoir, therefore, we have assumed
that the flow systems are in substantially
steady states even at liquid saturations
higher than the equilibrium value. More-
over, in accordance with this assumption,
we have arbitrarily extrapolated the gas-
permeability curve in a parabolic manner
so as to fall to zero values only at 100 per
cent saturation rather than the equilibrium
saturation, as it would if the systems were
operating under strictly steady-state condi-
tions throughout. In this respect also
the calculations presented here for the
low gas-oil ratios differ from those previ-
ously published. 15
Applying Eqs. 3a and 3b for the steady-.
state conditions directly to radial flow
systems, we may write down at once their
first integrals as:
27rrh k! dp
Q! = T i:zdr
Q = 27rrh (~~ + "(ka) dp
a (j JI-! Jl-a dr
where h is the sand thickness, Q! is the
volume rate of production of residual oil,
and Q. is the rate of gas flow expressed in
mass or volume units under standard
conditions.
A simple division gives:
R =~=S + a(p)"i(p)
where
"i(p) = ka/k l
R represents the gas-oil ratio, a(p) is a
composite factor varying only with the
pressure (since the systems are assumed
to be isothermal throughout this work),
and 'l1(p) depends only upon the liquid
saturation. Thus a(p) depends exclusively
on the properties of the fluid system
whereas 'l1(p) is determined essentially
by the nature of the sand. At the same time
the integral of Eq. 4a can be formally
expressed as:
~ 10 ~ = (P. kdk. dp [6]
g r
27rhk. Jp JI-{j
where p. is the effective reservoir pressure-
that is, the fluid pressure at the radial
distance r ,-and k. is the homogeneous
fluid permeability. The evaluation of the
integrals and manner of the calculations
may then be carried out as follows:
Choosing the value for the gas-oil ratio,
the relationship between p and p can be
computed by means of Eq. 5. Applying
this relationship to the integrand of Eq. 6,
the indefinite integral can be evaluated,
thus giving the pressure distribution. in
the system. The numerical value of the
rate of oil production is obtained from the
evaluation of the integral for the pressure p
corresponding to the well pressure. In
fact, by varying the well pressure, the
relationship between the production rate
and pressure differential is obtained.
The latter, of course, gives directly the
productivity factor. Going back to Eq. 5,
the saturation and permeability distribu-
tions can be obtained from the pressure
distribution. As can be seen at once from
the nature of this procedure, the absolute
values of the rates of oil production and
of the productivity factors depend upon
the gas-oil ratio. Moreover, in view of the
variable character of the integrand of
[5] Eq. 6, it may be anticipated directly that
the productivity factor will not be a
constant even for a fixed gas-oil ratio,
but will depend also upon both the reser-
voir pressure and the pressure differential.
NUMERICAL ApPLICATIONS
Low-pressure Reservoir
For this system the gas-solubility, oil-
expansion factor, and oil-viscosity varia-
tion used in the calculations were those
given in the curves of Fig.. I. The solubility
130 CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR

and expansion factors were those actually
measured for an oil from an Illinois field.
Its gravity was 39.SoA.P.I. at 60F. The
viscosity of this particular oil was not
300
in the manner outlined above, are shown
in Fig. 3 for a reservoir pressure p. of
725 lb. gauge. The external radius r.
was chosen to be 500 ft. and the well
2.0 0

250 ~~~ V V I8 /
1\ . .dIJ ~ 5i
.s. I6
I
V

- -
200
~
150 \ /
7'

.!.!
~ I4
o8
V
100
) 1\1/ V-ofi.1JS eX
~

~I 2

[// "'" t'---- lJll 8

.'>1
" o 0.6
J
50
VI
700 81X:P 8
/
00 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure ObsJ
FIG. I.-SOLUBILITY, EXPANSION FACTORS,
AND OIL VISCOSITY UNDER RESERVOIR CONDI-
II
TIONS FOR THE LOW-PRESSURE RESERVOIR SYS- J
TEM AS A FUNCTION OF THE PRESSURE (GAUGE).
EXPANSION FACTORS ARE EQUIVALENT TO (3 - I.
~~ k,V
determined directly. Rather, the values 0.2 .- ..
-

i"-vV
""'-.
shown in Fig. I are those corresponding to

curve 2 of the viscosity-pressure curve
published by Rocott and Buckley 16 which
happen to have approximately the same
terminal solubility and expansion factors
as those given by the directly measured
solubility and expansion curves. * As
previously indicated, gas-deviation factors
were not available for the gas phase of this
particular system and the gas phase
therefore was assumed to be ideal. Its
viscosity was taken to be 0.01 centipoise.
The permeability vs. saturation function
'l1(p) that was used throughout all the
calculations was based on the data of
Botset 16 for the Nichols Buff sandstone,
with the modification previously indicated.
The individual permeability curves for
the liquid and gas phases are shown in
Fig. 2, for the ranges of p entering in the
calculations.
The results of the calculation of flow
rate vs. prf'ssure differential, as obtained
* The authors are indebted to Mr. Rex
Woods of the Gulf Oil Corporation for the
data on solubility and expansion factor, and to
s. E. Buckley and C. R. Hocott for the viscos-
ity and related information for the oil they
used in their experiments.
1--
'/
f--.--- I.----"" I--
o 07 08 09 0
06
P
FIG. 2.-PERMEABILITY-SATURATION RELA-
TIONSHIP FOR RESERVOIR SAND IN THE HIGH-
SATURATION REGION.
P = liquid saturation expressed as fraction
of pore space; ko = homogeneous fluid permea-
bility; kl and kg are permeabilities to liquid and
gas phases.
radius r .. as H ft. The calculations were
carried out for gas-oil ratios of 297, of
500 and 2000 cu. ft. per bbl., the figure
297 representing the case in which the
fluid at r. is entirely a saturated liquid.
The ordinates represent the rate of flow in
barrels per day per foot of sand and for a
homogeneous fluid permeability of
darcy.
The slopes of these curves should give
the value of the productivity factor, as
defined by Eq. 2. The dashed curves corre-
spond to a system where the oil viscosity
remains fixed at its surface value of 1.87
centipoises, whereas for the solid curves the
variation of the viscosity with pressure,
according to the viscosity curve of Fig. 2,
was taken into account. If the problem
 H. H. EVINGER AND M. MUSKAT 131

under consideration referred to a homo-
geneous fluid system of 1.87 centipoises
viscosity, with no expansion due to dis-
solved gases, the curves of Fig. 3 would all
500r---T---,----r---r---r--~--_.--_,
The solid curves, on the other hand, include
the composite effect of variable permeabil-
ity and variable viscosity, and show that
the decrease in viscosity due to the dis-

400~--+---~--~--~---+-

1001----t7"7""-t-:::.,......,;,j-::,;;.....""f'---+

300 400 500 600 700 800

lip (lbsl
FIG. 3.-PRODUCTION RATE VS. PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL FOR RESERVOIR PRESSURE OF 725-LB.
GAUGE.
R = gas-oil ratio, cu. ft. per bbl. Q/koh = bbl. per day per ft. sand per darcy. For dashed
curves liquid viscosity is taken as fixed at 1.87 centipoise. For solid curves the viscosity variation
is taken into account.

fall on the straight line through the origin solved gases may raise the effective pro-
of slope 0.498, as given by Eqs. rand 2. ductivity factor so as to be materially
In contrast to this, the actual curves not higher than if the viscosity were the same
only diverge among themselves but they in the sand as it is at the surface. The
are all convex upward, indicating a de- divergence of the curves for the different
creasing effective productivity factor with gas-oil ratios shows the importance of
increasing pressure differential. This means taking into account the heterogeneous
that even for a fixed gas-oil ratio and fixed character of the flow system; for as the
behavior of the fluids produced, the pro- gas-oil ratio increases the increased free gas
ductivity factor is not a constant, but space required to carry the excess gas again
varies with the rate of production, as is forces a contraction in the oil saturation
actually observed in practice. The reason and hence lower liquid permeabilities and
for this variation lies, of course, in the over-all productivity factors. To obtain a
heterogeneous character of the flow. In quantitative measure of these' various
particular, it is a consequence of the fact effects involved in the present discussion.
that as the pressure differential increases we may compare the limiting slopes at
the greater evolution of gas from the oil zero pressure differential of the curves of
near the well requires an increased free gas Fig. 3 with the slope of the straight line
space or lower oil saturation. The decreas- that would correspond to the homogeneous
ing permeability for the oil as the saturation fluid system for an oil of 1.87 centipoises;
goes down leads to a greater over-all sand - namely, 0.498. Thus, considering this
resistance and hence lower productivity productivity factor as unity, the relative
factor. productivity factors corresponding to the
The dashed curves of Fig. 3 are of inter- various curves of Fig. 3 would be for the
est in showing directly the effect of the dashed curves-the oil viscosity kept fixed
variable liquid saturation and fluid perme- --0.86; 0.67, and 0.38 for gas-oil ratios of
abilities through the sand, since the oil 297, of 500, and 2000 cu. ft. per bbl. For
viscosity is kept fixed at its surface value. the solid curves the relative factors would
 13 2 CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL PRODUCTMTY FACTOR

be and 0.61 for gas-oil ratios of

1.71, 1.25, at the reservoir radius r The rather sharp
297, of 500, and 2000 cu. ft. per bbl. From initial drop in the saturation and permea-
these numbers we see at once that except bility curves results from the vanishingly
for the gas-oil ratio of 2000 the effect of slow rise in the 'l' (P) curve as the saturation
10 10
p
~V /
1/ ~) V p
~
V 0.8
/
08 V
~
.---"
/ V
V
06 / Qlo/ 0.6
,,&,.- V
V V
/
0.4
/
04
II
V
/
/
//

II
~ -
/ \(,/k

02
/ 1.6
II
1.6 32
Log 'I'w
FIG.
4.-SATURATION, RELATIVE LIQUID
PERMEABILITY, AND PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS
IN RESERVOIR SAND PRODUCING AT GAS-OIL
RATIO OF 297 CU. FT. PER BBL. WITH RESERVOIR
PRESSURE OF 725-LB. GAUGE.
rw = well radius; r = radial distance from
well center; p = saturation; k!/ko = relative
liquid permeability; pip. = pressure at radius
r/reservoir pressure.
the dissolved gas in reducing the oil
viscosity more than counterbalances the
drop in liquid saturation and oil permeabil-
ity due to the heterogeneous character of
the flow. The importance of taking into
account the variation of the oil viscosity
with the dissolved gas will be quite obvi-
ous, therefore, especially in view of the
fact that in many cases the total range of
variation of viscosity with the solution
pressure may be considerably larger than
that shown in Fig. I.
The details of the saturation, permeabil-
ity, and pressure distributions for gas-oil
ratios of 297 and 2000 cu. ft. per bbl. are
shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Since the smaller
of these gas-oil ratios corresponds to the
solution ratio at the reservoir pressure of
725 lb., both the saturation and permea-
bility curves begin at the unit ordinate
/
3.2
Log '/r;.
4.8 64 80
FIG. 5.-SATURATION, RELATIVE LIQUID
48 64 80 PERMEABILITY, AND PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION IN
RESERVOIR SAND PRODUCING AT GAS-OIL RATIO
OF 2000 CU. FT. PER BBL. WITH RESERVOIR PRES-
SURE OF 725-LB. GAUGE.
rw = well radius; r = radial distance from
well center; p = saturation; k!/ko = relative
liquid permeability, pip. = pressure at radius
r /reservoir pressure.
is decreased from unity. As was observed
in the case of the previously published
calculations,15 the major drop in the satura-
tion and permeability curves takes place
right near the well surface, this effect also
obviously explaining the curvature of the
pressure-distribution curve. The break in
the permeability curve at the abscissa value
of about 1.5 arises from the break in slope
of the basic permeability vs. saturation
curve occurring at a saturation of 0.9, as
may be verified from Fig. 2.
In the case of the gas-oil ratio of 2000
cu. ft. per bbl., the limiting values of the
permeability and saturation are no longer
unity, since even at the reservoir boundary
the sand must carry an excess of gas beyond
that which is in solution. Here the liquid
saturations are less than 0.9 throughout
the sand, thus explaining the absence of
the previously mentioned break in the
permeability curve. The concentration of
 H. H. EVINGER AND M. MUSKAT
the drop in saturation and permeability
about the well bore is present here too, and
in the same way as before explains the
deviation from linearity of the pressure
280
240
200
.Q..
160
k.,h /
120
/ /
---
./
80
V
40
/ V
o~
~
/
0 IJO ISO
FIG. 6.-PRODUCTION RATE VS. PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL FOR RESERVOIR PRESSURE OF SOO-LB.
R = gas-oil ratio, cu. ft. per bbl.; Q/koh = bbl. per day per ft. sand per darcy.
distribution curve. The saturation, permea-
bility, and pressure distribution for the
gas-oil ratio of 500 cu. ft. per bbl. obviously
will be intermediate between those shown
in Figs. 3 and 4.
If the reservoir pressure should be
5oo-lb. gauge, the relationship between the
flow rate and pressure differential will be
as shown in Fig. 6. For this case the gas-oil
ratio of 254 corresponds to the solution
ratio at the reservoir pressure. The general
features of the curves of Fig. 6 are similar
to those of Fig. 3 and need little further
discussion. It may be observed, however,
that again the relative productivity factors
corresponding to the slopes of these curves
near the origin as compared to the slope of
0.498, which would obtain in the case of a
homogeneous fluid system, are: 1.608,
0.998, and 0.534 for the gas-oil ratios of
254, 500, and 2000 cu. ft. per bbl. Recalling
the values previously found for a reservoir
pressure of 725 lb., we see that the pro-
ductivity factor will decrease with decreas-
ing reservoir pressure. This effect, however,
is to be expected both as a result of the
133
average higher viscosities in the low-reser-
voir-pressure system, and the fact that the
average liquid saturation and liquid
permeability must be lower in order that
V
v --- f--
~
/ ~
/
,V---
--
-
~~
200 2SO 300 350 400 450 50o
~p (lbs)
GAUGE.
the system may have the same total gas-oil
ratio with the lower solution pressures.
High-pressure Reservoir
The calculations to be reported in this
section are based upon data of Sage and
Lacey obtained in the study of the oil
and gas produced from the Fifth Calendar
zone of the Dominguez field. 17 The reservoir
pressure to be considered here-namely,
2500 lb.-is certainly not high when com-
pared with those encountered in the drilling
of recent years. However, it is approxi-
mately the highest for which complete data
have been published, including not only
the solubility and expansion factors for the
gas and oil, but also the viscosity of
the gas-saturated oil. These basic data are
plotted in Fig. 7 for formation temperatures
of 190F. and gauge pressures to 2500 lb.
Here again the solubility and expansion
factors are expressed in terms of residual
oil. The liquid viscosities were obtained by
interpolation from the data of Sage and
Lacey. The gas viscosity was here taken to
be variable according to the curve shown in
I34 CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL PRODUCTDnTY FACTOR

Fig. 7. This curve was obtained by inter-
polation from the viscosity-pressure curve
determined by Sage and Lacey 18 for a lean
natural gas. The high mol percentage of
Densities of the gas phase were calcu-
lated by subtracting the bubble-point for-
mation volumes at various pressures from
the composite two-phase formation vol-
2o

~
I--

-- ---
600 1.8

500 ~ 16

400 V
V
/" ~1i 14

~
./"
300 X @'P'
6<3$ ~ 12
I--- ~~
"'" ,,7
-::.:
1'(l

-
200 LO

~ c::-
........
.......
~
100 08
,/ V ~-- r-- I",6
~lO ICJO IOU ~W ~~ J\)
Pressure ObsJ
FIG. 7.-S0LUBILITY, EXPANSION FACTORS, AND OIL AND GAS VISCOSITIES UNDER RESERVOIR
CONDITIONS FOR IDGH-PRESSURE RESERVOIR SYSTEM AS FUNCTION OF PRESSURE (GAUGE). ExPAN-
SION FACTORS ARE EQUIVALENT TO {3 - I.

methane (87.78 per cent) and the low gaso-
line content of the gas used in the study
of the Dominguez field indicated that the
gas was more like the lean gas than the rich
gas used in their gas-viscosity investigation.
Fig. 7 shows that the solubility and
expansion curves are here everywhere
concave upward in contrast to those of
urnes. On subtraction of the bubble-point
gas solubility from the total gas-oil ratio,
the surface volume of gas in the gas phase
was obtained. By dividing this surface
volume by the actual formation volume of
the gas phase, the effective density was
obtained. These are plotted in Fig. 8.
2~r----r----.----r----T----'

Fig. I, which are convex upward through

out the range plotted there. The latter
200~--~----+----+--~
behavior, of course, is that commonly
observed in normal gas-crude oil systems. ..<;::
The different type of variation shown in ~ 1501----~----+----+~~.p;.-.<:...-7l
Fig. 7 is explained by Sage and Lacey as
being due to the fact that the systems are
1~IOO
approaching a critical state. Presumably &
this critical state would correspond more
501----~~~+_--~----+_--~
to the type obtaining with pure substances,
since the accelerated rise in the solubility
and expansion curves seems to indicate an 1000 1500 2000 2500
Pressure (lbsJ
increased condensation of liquid out of the FIG. 8.-RELATIVE GAS DENSITIES AS FUNC-
gas phase. In any case this behavior does TION OF PRESSURE (GAUGE) FOR VARIOUS GAS-
not imply that the system is in the retro- OIL RATIOS.
Dashed line represents ideal gas behavior.
grade region and is approaching the dew
point; for under those circumstances the The method of calculation just outlined
expansion factor would decrease with is subject to error because of the assump-
increasing pressure and the gas dissolved tion that the formation volume of the
in the liquid phase would drop off in a liquid in the two-phase system is the same
similar manner. as the bubble-point formation volume.
 H. H. EVINGER AND M. MUSKAT
However, because of lack of more directly
determined data, the results obtained by
the procedure indicated were taken to be
sufficiently accurate for the practical
ISOO
~
/
--- --
500
V ,,-/ .-/
~ ~500 1000
FIG. 9.-PRODUCTION RATE vs. PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL FOR RESERVOIR PRESSURE OF 25 0 0-LB .
GAUGE.
R = gas-oil ratio, cu. ft. per bbl.; Q/koh = bbl. per day per ft. sand per darcy.
purposes of the present problem. The gas
densities are different for the different
gas-oil ratios (Fig. 8). This, however, is to
be expected because of the differences in
gas composition of the gas phase in the
various gas-oil ratio combinations. From
the same consideration one can see why
the higher gas-oil ratio systems would
involve greater degrees of dilution of the
gas phase with the dry gas and hence
result in lower gas phase densities. The
ideal gas-law behavior for the gas phase
is indicated by the dashed line of Fig. 8.
If the deviations of the calculated curves
from the straight line be interpreted in
terms of the conventional pv vs. pressure
plot it will be noted that for the gas-oil
ratios of 525 cu. ft. per bbl. the curve
throughout the whole range of pressure
is on the downward segment. For the gas-
oil ratio of 1500 cu. ft. per bbl., the pv plot
would already show an approach to a
minimum, and for the highest gas-oil ratio
curve the minimum would be reached at
about 2000 lb. and the curve would have
traversed an appreciable part of the rising
segment by the time the pressure of 2500
lb. was reached.
135
The productivity calculations were car-
ried out as in the previous case. The results
for a reservoir pressure of 2500 lb. gauge
-
are shown in Fig. 9. The general features of
V
~~ ---
/
~
'f.',1;ffJ-
~
-
/
~O
1500 2000 2500
6pObs)
these curves are the same as those previ-
ously found for the low-pressure reservoir
system, and again show the dependence of
the productivity factor both upon the gas-
oil ratio and the absolute value of the
pressure differential. To get a measure
of the quantitative effect of these factors,
we may note that since the surface viscosity
of the oil is in the present case 1.38 centi-
poises the productivity factor for a
homogeneous liquid of this viscosity and
with no expansion would be 0.675 bbl. per
day per lb. per darcy. Considering this
homogeneous value once more as unity,
the limiting values of the productivity
factor for the heterogeneous system and
variable viscosity will be, for vanishing
pressure differentials, 1.85, 1.12, and 0.4 1
for gas-oil ratios of 525, 1500, and 10,000
cu. ft. per bbl., respectively. * Thus we see
that for the low gas-oil ratios the effect
of the variability in viscosity more than
counterbalances that due to the expansion
* Because of the steep character of the saturation
and permeability curves at the reservoir radius for
the saturation gas-oil ratios (Figs. 4 and 10) the Q vs.
ll.p curves for these cases will rise very sharply at
vanishing IIp. As this detailed variation cannot be
shown on the graphs, the apparent productivity
factors for these cases as read off the curves will be
somewhat lower than the true factors.
 CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR
factor and the drop in permeability, so as to
give a relatively high productivity factor,
whereas for the gas-oil ratio of 10,000
cu. ft. per bbl. the drop in fluid saturation
10
p t?" V'
OB
V""'" ~ ./"
~-- -:?
/ /
06
/ P
04 7 7
T /
02
/ 02
00 1.6 3.2 4.B 64
Log r/r.
FIG. ro.-SATURATION, RELATIVE LIQUID
PERMEABILITY, AND PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS
IN RESERVOIR SAND PRODUCING AT GAS-OIL
RATIO OF 525 CU. FT. PER BBL. WITH RESERVOIR
PRESSURE OF 2500-LB. GAUGE.
rw = well radius; r = radial distance from
well center; p = saturation; kd ko = relative
liquid permeability; pip, = pressure at radius
r /reservoir pressure.
and permeability is evidently the pre-
dominating factor. The fluid saturation,
permeability, and pressure-distribution
curves for the two extreme gas-oil ratios
(525 and 10,000 cu. ft. per bbl.) are shown
in Figs. 10 and II, respectively. Since the
gas-oil ratio of 525 cu. ft. per bbl. is the
saturation ratio at the reservoir pressure
of 2500 lb., the saturation and relative
permeability at the effective reservoir
radii are unity in this case. As a whole the
curves of Figs. 10 and II are similar to
those previously found for the low-pressure
reservoir, and need no further discussion.
CONCLUSIONS
As a whole, the results discussed in the
preceding sections give a rather discourag-
ing picture regarding the possibility of
calculating productivity factors theoreti-
cally from simple homogeneous fluid con-
siderations. They show definitely that in a
heterogeneous fluid system the produc-
tivity factor will depend not only upon the
detailed characteristics of the fluid and
sand, but also upon the gross and over-all
parameters such as the gas-oil ratio,
1.0
/"
p V
OB
/' v
/
06
~~
/
0.4
/
--
/ kjk,
f-
B.O
1.6 3.2 4B 64 80
Lo~ rlr.
FIG. ll.-SATURATION, RELATIVE LIQUID
PERMEABILITY, AND PRESSURE DISTRffiUTIONS
IN RESERVOIR SAND PRODUCING AT GAS-OIL
RATIO OF 10,000 CU. FT. PER BBL. WITH RESER-
VOIR PRESSURE OF 2500-LB. GAUGE.
rw = well radius; r = radial distance from
well center; p = saturation; k/ko = relative
liquid permeability; p/ P. = pressure at radius
r/reservoir pressure.
pressure differential, and absolute reservoir
pressure. In fact, because of the curvature
of the plots of flow rate vs. pressure
differential, there is in a strict sense no
productivity factor at all that can be
assigned to a gas and oil-producing system
with any range of validity. Perhaps the
only practical definition therefore would
consist in restricting the productivity
factor to the limiting slope of the curve of
flow rate vs. pressure differential as the
pressure differential is made vanishingly
small. These are the productivity factors
used in the comparisons made above. But
even they, as has already been indicated,
depend upon both the gas-oil ratio and
absolute reservoir pressure as well as
upon the fluid and sand properties.
Unfortunately, there is no simple cor-
relation evident between the various
productivity factors found in the above
calculations and the variations in the
 H. H. EVINGER AND M. MUSKAT 137

parameters defining the individual cases. if one knows the numerical values of the
About all that can be definitely stated is variables, the abscissa of Fig. 12 can be
that in the limit of vanishing pressure computed, and the effective value of the
10

08
\
(~6 \
04
'"
4
'-
---
r---;

8 12
--
16 2Q
W
---1
24
100 }1.(R-S)tY.a).l.
FIG. 12.-PLOT OF EFFECTIVE LIQUID PERMEABILITYVS. PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF FLOW SYSTEM.
_ko = homogene01!S fluid permeabilit~; Jl.o, Jl.l, are viscosities of gas and liquid phases;
'Y - ~~s-phase denslty; and (3 = expanSlOn factor, all at reservoir pressure. S = saturation
solublhty and R = gas-oil ratio.

differential the productivity factor can be
expressed by a generalization of Eq. 2 in
the form:
f = _Q- = 27r(klk o ). [7]
koMp r.lr ..
p.. log
where again ko is the homogeneous fluid
permeability and the quantities (klko).
and p.. represent the effective values of the
actual relative liquid permeability and
viscosity within the flow system.
On the assumption that the total
pressure drop over the sand is vanishingly
small, one may take for p.. the liquid
viscosity at the reservoir pressure and for
the effective relative permeability that
obtaining at the reservoir radius r.
Under these conditions one may relate the
effective value of the relative liquid
permeability to the other physical parame-
ters of the system; namely, the gas viscos-
ity, the gas-phase density, the oil-expansion
factor, the reservoir-pressure solubility,
and the over-all gas-oil ratio. This rela-
tionship, which is difficult to express in
simple mathematical form, is shown in
Fig. 12, where the relative permeability is
plotted against the composite function
of the above-mentioned variables. Thus
relative permeability can be read from
the curve. Putting this value into Eq. 7, the
limiting productivity factor for vanishing
pressure differentials will be obtained. In
this way can be avoided at least the neces-
sity of going through the detailed cal-
culations and integrations required for
establishing the complete curves of flow
rate vs. pressure differential and the
saturation-permeability and pressure-dis-
tribution curves.
It will be noted from Fig. 12 that up
to abscissa values of 25, which includes
the numerical cases previously considered,
the maximum reduction in productivity
factor due to the heterogeneous character
of the flow will correspond to a ratio of
4.5 between the homogeneous and hetero-
geneous factors. This ratio seems to be
far too small to account for the empirical
curve of Pyle and Sherborne 19 relating
the productivity index with the average
sand permeability. According to this latter
curve (Fig. 21 19) the observed productivity
factor might be even less than ~o of that
calculated from the average sand permea-
bility on the basis of homogeneous fluid.
As has already been indicated, no account
 CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR

has been taken in the calculations or in tive theoretical prediction of the pro-
Fig. 12 of the possible effect of connate ductivity factor one should take into
water on the productivity factor. To see account the connate-water saturation as
whether the discrepancy between Fig. 12 well as all the other vadous factors already
and the implications of Fig. 21 of Pyle considered.
and Sherborne might be accounted for A final limitation to the applicability
by the effect of connate water, additional of these results arises from the assumption
calculations were carried out for the of the steady-state character of the flow
limiting productivity factors for systems system, already discussed. It must be
in which the connate-water saturation admitted that herein lies a real uncertainty
was either 30 or 40 per cent. The per- in the application of any formulas or
meability-saturation data used for these method for the calculation of productivity
calculations were obtained from the work factors. However, it is felt that when a
of Leverett and Lewis14 for an unconsoli- well has been producing at a fixed rate
dated sand. The results are shown in for an extended period of time the steady-
Table I. The values in column 2 cor- state approximation should be reasonably
accurate. In any case, it would be desirable
TABLE I.-Calculations for Systems Con-
to obtain definite evidence on this point
taining Connate Water
from direct well measurements.
(k,/k.l.
R, Cu.
Factors Ft. per ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Bbl.
pw = 0 pw = 03 p .. = 04
--- --- --- --- The authors are indebted to Dr. Paul D.
p. = 725 297 I.oao 0310 o. ISO Foote, Executive Vice-President of the
p.. = 094 500 0.815 0.280 o. lIS
fj. = 1. 163 2,000 0.487 0.207 0.073 Gulf Research and Development Co.,
254 0310 O. ISO
for permission to publish this paper.
P. = 500 1.000
"'8:=11 0.96 500 0.725 0.268 0.109
fj.=1. I 47 2,000 0440 0.183 0.061
REFERENCES
p. = 2500 525 1.000 0.310 O. ISO
p.o = 0.57 1,500 0.620 0.250 0.100
I. T. V. Moore, A.P.I. Prod. Bull. 206 (1930).
fj. = 1.305 10,000 0.308 0.097 0.038
2. M. L. Haider: Drill. and Prod. Practice. Amer.
Petro lnst. (1936) 181.
a P1D = water satu~ation; pe, lJe, fl. = pre~sure,. oil 3. E. Kemler and G. A. Poole: Drill and Prod.
viscosity, and expansIOn factor at the .r~serv01.r rad1us; Practice, Amer. Petro lnst. (1936) 140.
(k,fk.). = effective over-all permeablhty ratto. 4. W. S. Walls: Drill. and Prod. Practice. Amer.
Petro lnst. (1938) 146. Here still other refer-
ences are cited.
responding to a water-free sand do not 5. M. Muskat: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids through
agree exactly with those given previously Porous Media. 153. New York, 1937. McGraw-
Hill Book Co.
and plotted in Fig. 12, because the per- 6. R. D. Wyckoff and H. G. Botset: Jul. APPlied
Phys. (1936) 7 325
meability-saturation relationship of un- 7. G. L. Hassler. it R. Rice. and E. H. Leeman:
Trans. A.I.M.E. (1936) 1I8. 1I6.
consolidated sand was used here, as well S. F. B. Plummer, J. C. Hunter, Jr., and E. H.
Timmerman: Oil and Gas Jnl. (April S. 1937)
as for the sands containing water, so as to 35.42
9. E. N. Dunlap: Trans. A.I.M.E. (I93S) 127. 215.
obtain a more direct indication of the 10. L. S. Reid and R. L. Huntington: Trans. A.I.M.E.
effect of the connate water. It will be noted (I93S) 127. 226.
II. N. Van Wingen: Oil Weekly (Oct. 10, I93S) 91. 26.
that the connate water may have a very 12. M. C. Leverett: Trans. A.I.M.E. (1939) 132. 149.
13. H. G. Botset: Trans. A.I.M.E: (1940) 136.91.
material effect in cutting down the observed 14. M. C. Leverett and W. B. LeWIs: Trans. A.I.M.E.
(1941) 142. 107
productivity factor, although it seems IS. M. Muskat and M. W. Meres: Jnl. Applied
Phys. (1936) 7. 346
that not all of the discrepancy between 16. C. R. Hocott and S. E. Buckley: Trans. A.I.M.E.
the theoretical predictions and the obser- (1941) 142. I3I.
17. B. H. Sage and W. N. Lacey: Drill and Prod.
vations of Pyle and Sherborne can be Practice, Amer. Petro Inst. (1935) 141.
IS. B. H. Sage and W. N. Lacey: Trans. A.I.M.E.
thereby explained. In any case, it is clear (1938) 127. lIS.
19. H. C. Pyle and J. E. Sh~rborne: Trans. A.I.M.E.
that in order to make even a semiquantita- (1939) 132. 33
 DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
(C. A. Warner presiding)
E. G. TRosTEL,* Alhambra, Calif.-The
authors say that theoretical calculations show
that the productivity factor should vary over
wide limits with changes in pressure differential
and gas-oil ratio. It has been my experience
that the productivity factor, or productivity
index, as actually measured will usually
remain sensibly constant over a wide range of
variance in pressure differential and often
gas-oil ratio. This fact has been reported in
the literature by several investigators. I should
like to ask how the authors reconcile the theo-
retical considerations with such experimental
field data.
M. MUSKAT (author's reply).-Mr. Trostel's
comments are well taken. For the theoretical
calculations of the paper do show that the
productivity factors of producing sections may
Union Oil Co.
139
vary over wide limits, depending upon the gas-
oil ratio, and possibly by a factor of two with
variations in the pressure differential. These
calculations, however, refer to steady-state
conditions and are not directly applicable to
the interpretation of short-period transient
fluctuations. Thus they imply that there should
be a gradual decrease in the' productivity fac-
tor in gas-drive fields as the gas-oil ratio in-
creases during the course of the production
history, but do not apply to the prediction of
the results of production' tests under varying
conditions over periods of the order of a few
days. Mr. Trostel's remark that his experience
shows a constancy of the productivity factor is
of value in suggesting the need for further
detailed study of individual well performance.
However, this would be greatly assisted by the
presentation of the quantitative field data and
conditions of tests upon which his conclusions
were based. It is only when such detailed data
are available that interpretations can be made
of individual well behavior.