SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AThiE

Fidelity Union Building

Dallas, Tex.

PAPER

NUMBER

10 2 9 - G

THIS IS A PREPRIN'l' --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

GRAVITY DRAINAGE CONCEPTS IN A STEEPLY

DIPPING RESERVOIR
By

P. L. Essley, Jr., Skelly Oil Co.

G. L. Hancock, Jr., Gulf Oil Corp
K. E. Jones, Skelly Oil Co.
Junior Members AThiE
ABSTRACT
The only additional recovery resulting from
gravity drainage will be that oil which is displaced by gas from wi thin an expanding gas cap
volume. Much of the confusion concerning gravity
drainage results from not understanding the difference between drainage from within the gas cap
and total drainage. Drainage from within the gas
cap is directly related to time while total drainage, which includes oil displ~ced at the gas-oil
contact, is independent of time. Dissimilar
movement of the oil and gas phases causes certain
difficulties when attempting performance calculations during pressure decline. To dat~ these
problems have not been completely solved. A simplified method is presented for calculating future performance when the reservoir pressure is
maintained. Results from calculations indicate
that the ultimate recovery, to any assumed economic limit, is essentially independent of variations in producing rate. The only factors affecting recovery, which can be controlled, are the
reservoir fluid properties.
INTRODUCTION
Gravity drainage is the least understood of
all the basic producing mechanisms. Much of the
presently published literature pertaining to
gravity drainage appears contradictory and a review of the literature often leaves a reader confused. This paper presents certain basic concepts
which the authors found extremely helpful in understanding the phenomenon of gravity drainage
and its effect on ultimate recovery from a reservoir. It is hoped, that by presenting these concepts, and by pointing out some of the unsolved
problems encountered in performance calculations,
that an interest in gravity drainage will be stimulated that will lead to the solution of many of
these problems.
References and illustrations at end of paper

When the reservoir pressure is maintained

by gas injection in a steeply dipping reservOir,
the effect of gravity drainage can be readily
calculated, under certain conditions, from existing theory. A simplified method is presented
which can be used to predict future reservoir
performance in a steeply dipping reservoir during
pressure maintenance. The calculations can be
readily performed using data normally required in
the analysis of most reservoir engineering problems.
In a "solution gas drive" reservoir the
energy necessary for producing the oil is derived
from expansion of the reservoir fluids, which
occurs with reduction in the reservoir pressure.
Since liquids are only slightly compressible,
most of the reservoir energy is obtained from expansion of the gas released from solution in the
oil. However, as the reservoir pressure declines
and the reservoir gas saturation increases, gas
production increases rapidly due to the increasing permeability to gas. This results in the removal of much of the gas from the reservoir, so
that most of the potential energy of the reservoir fluids is dissipated.

If all, or a portion, of the gas normally

produced could be retained within the reservoir
the amount of energy available to produce the oil
would be increased. The gas retained would displace additional oil, resulting in a greater ultimate recovery from the reservoir. However, due tc
the relative permeability characteristics of reservoir rock, there are practical limits to the
gas saturation that can exist throughout the reservoir without causing excessive producing gasoil ratios. In fact, the only way that gas can
be retained within the reservoir is to segregate
the oil and gas and not produce that portion of
the reservoir containing the gas.
The effect of gravity is to tend to cause
segregation of the fluid phases within a

GRAVITY DRAINAGE CONCEPl'S IN A STEEPLY

DIPPING RESERVOIR

reservoir. Unless the producing forces acting on

each unit volume of the reservoir fluids are very
large compared to the gravitational force acting
on each unit volume of the reservoir fluids, the
oil and gas will effectively segregate and a portion of the gas will flow updip and form a gas
cap.
For gravity drainage to be effective in increasing recovery from a reservoir, gas must accumulate at some point within the reservoir and
form an expanding gas volume. This pOint should
be emphasized since the only additional recovery
resulting from gravity drainage will be that oil
which is displaced by gas from within an expanding gas cap volume. Therefore, to calculate the
effect of gravity drainage on recovery from a
reservoir, it is necessary to determine the rate
at which oil is migrating from a secondary gas
cap, or to determine the rate at which gas is
accumulating and expanding at that pOint. To do
so requires a knowledge of both the rate ~d the
direction of movement of the reservoir fluids
throughout the reservoir, and the mechanism by
which gas displaces oil from within a porous
media.
In a steeply dipping reservoir, in which
gravity drainage is effective, gas will usually
accumulate updip at the crest of the structure.
The result is that updip wells will produce mostly gas while downdip wells will produce mostly
oil. In a flat reservoir, gas will accumulate in
the top portion of the sand over much of the
entire reservoir area. The result is that most
wells will be exposed to both a high gas saturation at the top of the sand and a low gas saturation at the base of the sand. While the same
physical principles control gravity drainage in
both flat reservoirs and steeply dipping reserVOirs, the over-all behavior in the two types of
reservoirs will appear quite different. Somewhat
different considerations will be necessary to
calculate gravity drainage in a flat reservoir or
a low dip reservoir than in a steeply dipping
reservoir. Some of the following discussion is
applicable to flat or low dip reservoirs; however,
it was specifically written to apply to steeply
dipping reservoirs.
DISCUSSION

Forces Acting on the Oil

and Gas Phases within a Reservoir

To understand fully the effect that gravity

has upon recovery from a reservoir it is necessary to examine the forces acting on each unit
volume of the reservoir fluids. For simplicity
of analysis, capillary forces will be neglected,
and it will be assumed that all flow occurs parallel to the bedding plane of the reservoir.
While such assumptions will lead to a non-rigorous expression of flow, they are sufficient for
our purpose. For an exact and comprehensive

1029-G

study of the flow of fluids in a porous solid the

reader'is referred to the work of Hubbert. l ,2,3
For our analysis we will initially assume a
segment of a reservoir such as is shown in Fig.
la, where all flow i~ parallel to the bedding
plane of the re&ervolr and in the direction of
the dip of the formation. Such flow conditions
result when all production is obtained either updip or dawndip from the segment studied. When
the reservoir pressure is less updip than dawndip
there will be a p.ressure gradient tending to
cause movement of the fluids updip. This gradient will be opposed by the dip component of the
force of gravity acting on each unit volume of
the reservoir'fiuids. The resultant force Z acting on a unit volume of each fluid phase will be
the algebraical sum of ~ and ~pg si~.
The fluid movement in the segment. may be expressed by the following adaptations of Darcy's
law:

,A.,Ys;nq )

.[1]

=
In these equations L,OI"
and. ~ are all assumed
to be positive updip. For oH to flow downdip
the pressure gradient ~must be less than
pog sin~, the static ~ent 'of the oil column.
For gas to flow updip the pressure gradient must
be greater than Pgg sin~, the static gradient of
a gas column. When the pressure gradient 2 is
less than Pog sino( but is greater than Pgg ~ 0<
the bil and gas phases will flow in opposite
directions.

Fig. lb more nearly represents usual reser~

voir conditions. In this figure a producing well
is included in the reservoir segment studied.
Fluid withdrawals from additional 'wells are also
assumed both updip and downdip from this segment.
Production from the well within the segment will
alter the forces acting on the fluid phases so
that the pressure gradient will no longer be in
the direction of dip. However, the resulting
pressure gradient can be resolved into two components, one ~ in the direction of dip, and another towardsMthe producing well bore. This is
illustrated in Fig. lb for two different positions relative to the producing well. It should
be noted that the gradient ~, as used in this
analysiS, has a fixed magni~de throughout the
segment at any given time, and a fixed direction
parallel to the dip of the reservoir. Since the
pressure drawdown from the producing well is generally radial, the component g will vary in both
magnitude and direction throughout the segment.

P. L. ESSLEY

l029-G

JR., G. L. HANCOCK, JR. AND K. E. JONES

Observations Concerning Segregation and

Rate of Drainage
From an analysis of Fig. lb, several conclusions concerning gravity segregation are possible If the component Q greatly exceeds the
other components, the resultant forces acting on
each unit volume of oil and gas will be generally
similar in magnitude and direction and the produced fluids will be drained from approximately
the same reservoir area. Under these conditions,
the only gas that will migrate updip and not be
produced will be from above the top row of producing wells. Therefore, little segregation will
occur.
If the component Q is small compared to the
other components, except near the wellbore, the
resultant forces acting on each unit volume of
the oil and gas phases will diverge, and the oil
and gas produced will be drained from different
portions of the reservoir. In this case, much of
the gas will escape being produced and a secondary gas cap will form and expand. From this it
can be inferred that the effective amount of oil
and gas segregation will be inversely related to
the producing rate J and will always be less than
when all flow is parallel to the dip of the reservoir.
To signify the net movement of oil and gas
parallel to the direction of dip; Eq. 1 and 2 can
be modified as shown below:

= ,,~

(jf - ;Oo,jS/I?oi).o
[3]

= '):

(~'f - ~5'S/n d,)-4

[4]

In these equations the fractions fso and fsg are

fUnctions of the producing rate, well spacing,
the spacing pattern, and the manner of completion
of the individual wells. While useful from an
intuitive approach to gravity drainage problems,
Eqs. 3 and 4 have only limited analytical value
due tQ the difficulty encountered in evaluating
the value of fso and f sg
Additional observations concerning gravity
drainage are possible from examination of Fig. lb
and Eq. 3 and 4. Initially, when the reservoir
is in static equilibrium, the gradient ~_iS
equal to that of a static oil column. ---rJuring
normal depletion the average pressure gradient
within the oil column will decrease from pog sindat discovery to approximately p g sind-. when the
reservoir is depleted. The dec~ine in gradient
observed in a steeply dipping southern Oklahoma
reservoir is illustrated in Fig. 2. Since the
gradient
will decrease during the primary
producing life, the magnitude of the factor
pog sincl..] will increase as the reservoir

@t

[it -

pressure declines, obtaini~ a maximum value of

the reservoir pressure is depleted.
Also, as the amount of segregation is inversely
related to the producing rate, the tendency for
oil drainage will increase as the reservoir pressure and producing rate decline. These conditions explain the usual lack of noticeable effects of gravity drainage during the early life
of a solution gas drive reservoir.

~g sin~when

The gradient ~ within the oil column at any

M,

time is influenced by the magnitude and relative

position of the fluid withdrawals from the field.
For instance, if most of the reservoir production
is obtained downdip the gradient ~ will decrease
M,

and the rate of oil migration downdip will increase. Conversely, if large withdrawals occur
from the gas cap, or from the updip area, the
updip pressure will be reduced relative to the
downdip pressure resulting in reduced oil flow
downdip, or possibly oil flow updip. This explains the desirability of limiting withdrawals
from the gas cap area during primary producing
operations
The pressure gradient.~ will vary above the
.6L

gas-oil contact depending upon the direction of

gas flow. At the crest of the reservOir, expansion of the gas will cause downdip migration of
gas and ~ will be less than Pgg sino<.

Imme-

diately above the gas-oil contact, gas will be

migrating updip from the oil column and ~ will
be greater than p~ sin~. Throughout most of
the gas cap, however, the magnitude of ~ will be
M,

approximately equal to Pgg sino(.

other Factors Affecting the Rate of
Gravity Drainage
Pressure will influence the rate of drainage
within a reservoir since the fluid properties are
a function of pressure. The net effect 9f a reduction in reservoir pressure is to decrease the
k
oil mobility ~ which will retard the drainage of
)..Lo

oil. Thus, when the reservoir pressure is depleted, and the effect of the force of gravity on
the reservoir oil is greatest, the reservoir permeability and fluid properties are least favorable for gravity drainage.
Most Favorable Conditions for Gravity Drainage
To increase the benefit from gravity drainage it is desirable to conduct operations at a
high reservoir pressure, where the fluid properties and saturation conditions are more favorable,
and to reduce artificially the updip pressure
gradient to a minimum. This can be accomplished
by injecting gas into the crestal areas and maintaining the reservoir pressure. By control of

GRAVITY DRAINAGE CONCEPI'S IN A STEEPLY

DIPPING RESERVOIR

injection volumes it should be possible to obtain

conditions where the updip pressure approaches
the downdip pressure, or where ~ Pff sin-<.
In this case, the rate of gravity drainage will
always be greater than if the reservoir pressure
were being depleted. However, to prevent downdip
flow of gas through the oil column, it will be
necessary to control injection so that ~ does

tiL

1029-G

noted from, Eq. 5 that the maximum rate of drainage is a function of the permeability to oil below the gas-oil contact, and is completely independent of the permeability to gas. It is not
necessary that counterflow of oil and gas exist,
or that t.hp rate .of flow of the different fluid
phases be of equal magnitude.
Drainage from the Gas Cap and Displacement
at the Gas-Oil Contact

not become less than a static gas gradient.

It is interesting to postulate regarding
initial effect that gas injection will have on
the performance of individual wells. As gas is
injected, the factor [~ _ Pgg sin~] will be reduced, eventually approaching zero. Therefore,
much of the gas that was previously migrating updip will instead be produced, causing increased
GORs throughout the oil column. The increasing
GORs could easily be misinterpreted as evidence
of gas channeling. However, as the drainage rate
increases, the gas saturation in the oil column
will be reduced and the producing GORs will again
decline, approaching a solution GOR.
Maximum Possible Rate of Gravity Drainage
As mentioned previously, the only additional
recovery resulting from gravity drainage will be
that oil displaced by gas from within an expanding gas cap volume. Since the displaced oil must
flow downdip from the expanding gas cap to be produced, the maximum rate of gravity drainage will
be a function of the gradient ~
immediately

liLaoc

below the gas-oil contact. Expressing this gradient as a function of depth, an equation for
drainage may be written as follows:

where

~jZ = ~'b

Sin 0{

This equation, while not related to recovery, imposes a maximum limit on the producing rate which
cannot be exceeded without increasing the gas
saturation below the gas-oil contact.
It should be noted that the following equation, often called the gravity reference rate,

G.R.R. = /./27~g..sln q . . . [6]

represents the rate of gravity drainage that is
possible only for the particular conditions where
~
is equal to Pgg, and fso = 1.00. These conLillGOC
'ditions exist only when the reservoir pressure is
depleted, or under certain conditions when the
reservoir pressure is maintained, and not throughout the life of the reservoir. It should also be

To understand the performance of a granty

drainage reservoir requires recognition of the
difference between oil.drainage from the secondary gas cap volume and oil displacement at the
gas-oil contact. Total drainage from belOW the
gas-oil contact for any given time period will be
the volume of oil draining downdip from within
the secondary gas cap plus the amount of oil displaced at the gas-oil contact.

The amount of drainage from within a secondary gas cap can be calculated, under certain conditions, by displacement equations such as those
presented by Buckley and Leverett,4 or from the
equations derived in the appendix of this paper.
It is seen from these equations, and from discussion in the appendix, that drainage from the gas
cap is essentially independent of producing rate
but is directly related to time and saturatior
conditions. Since the oil saturation in any portion of the gas cap is continually declining, the
rate of drainage will decrease with time. However, as the gas cap expands, due to gas migration updip or by gas injection, additional oil
will be displaced at the gas-oil contact. Therefore; the total rate of oil flow below the gasoil contact may remain constant, or even increase.
The rate of movement of the gas-oil contact,
downdip is directly related to the rate of oil
displacement at the gas-oil contact, which'is
limited only by the maximum rats at which oil can
flow downdip. Under certain conditions the gasoil contact will move downdip very rapidly. However, since the residual saturation in the gas
cap is a direct function of time, a rapid expansion of the gas cap will result in a comparatively high residual oil saturation and a low recovery at gas breakthrough. This was shown
experimentally in the work by Terwilliger,
et al. 5
When the volume of displacement at the gasoil contact is relatively small compared to the
drainage from the gas-cap, a sharply defined gasoil contact, or stabilized zone, will exist across
which the oil saturation will change rapidly.
However, when displacement at the gas-oil contact
greatly exceeds drainage from the gas cap, a zone
of rapid saturation change will not exist and the
gas-oil contact will be difficult to define.
These conditions were observed in the experimental work of Terwilliger, et al,5 and can be explained very simply. When there are no saturation

P. L. ESSLEY

1029-G

JR., G. L. HANCOCK, JR. AND K. E. JONES

changes below the gas-oil contact the rate of

gravity drainage cannot exceed the producing
rate. For a low producing rate the gradient
~
in the oil column will be large, whereas "in
AUGOC
the gas cap the gradient ~ will be small.
lillGC
Therefore, the resulting downdip force acting on
each unit volume of oil will be much greater in
the gas cap than in the oil column. Since the
oil saturation in the gas cap increases with
depth, the rate of migration will also increase
with depth until a point is reached where

belOW which point the rate of oil migration is

limited to that of the production rate and cannot
increase. Between this point and the gas-oil
contact the oil saturation will increase rapidly.
However, since the oil rate does not change, the
increase in oil permeability kro must be offset
by a decrease in the factor [~ _ Pog] so that
lill

Ko (ib -;4J)

= constant

The "stabilized zone" will then be that portion

of the gas cap where the rate of o"il migration is
constant.
From a similar intuiti ve analysis, when
~GO~pgg, as may exist at high producing rates,

which withdrawals occur:throughout the reservoir.

Calculation of the amount of drainage from within
the gas cap also presents certain difficulties
during primary depletion since the BuckleyLeverett displacement eCi.uations, and modified
forms of these eCi.uations, are valid only for displacement at constant pressure.
In a gravity drainage reservoir it is also
difficult to relate gas production with oil production because of the difference in drainage
area between the two phases. This problem is
further complicated in reservoirs with thick sand
sections where gas tends to migrate vertically
upward and then flow along the top of the sand to
the crest of the structure. In such cases gas
production will be virtually independent of the
average gas saturation, being more dependent upon
how the individual wells are completed and the
relative withdrawals in different portions of the
reservoir. Therefore, the conventional gas-oil
ratio eCi.uation, which is usually used to relate
gas production to oil production is not valid
when gravity drainage is significant. This condition has been observed by the authors, and also
by Martin. 6
The above analYSis indicates several of the
difficulties encoun~ered when attempting to predict reservoir performance during primary depletion where gravity drainage is an important factor. To date these problems have not been
completely solved.
Pressure Maintenance by Gas Injection

a zone of constant oil migration and a well defined gas-oil contact will not develop.
RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS

When the reservoir pressure is to be maintained by injection of gas the future performance
of the reservoir can be calculated assuming the
follOwing data are available:

Primary Depletion
To predict future reservoir performance
where g-ravity drainage is important, it is necessary to -relate pressure, time, and oil saturation
distribu\ ion throughout the reservoir. When the
reservoir pressure is constant, the relationship
between these factors is easily determined. However, when the reservoir pressure declines it is
necessary to relate pressure, production, and the
amount of gravity drainage through some form of a
material balance eCi.uation. Unfortunately, a material balance eCi.uation becomes Ci.uite complex
when the effect of gravity drainage is included.
To determine the rate of total drainage during pressure decline necessitates a relationship
such as ECi.. 5. To use this eCi.uation, the gradient
~
,and the effective segregation factor fs

lillooc

As shown previously, ~
lillGOC
and fs are difficult to predict being dependent
upon the producing rate, well density, spacing
pattern, completion practices, and the manner in
must be determined.

1. Relative permeability characteristics of

the reservoir rock
2. Reservoir pore volume vs depth [~V vs
Depth]
3. Correlation of porosity, perm~ability
and connate water vs Depth
4. Reservoir fluid properties
For any period of time the total drainage
below the gas-oil contact is eCi.ual to the amount
of drainage from within the gas cap plus the volume of oil displaced at the gas-oil contact. It
also must be eCi.ual to the volume of oil produced
from below the gas-oil contact plus the decrease
in pore volume occupied by gas below the gas-oil
contact. These eCi.ualities can be expressed in
the following eCi.uations:
t

Of;)
i-I

GRAVITY DRAINAGE CONCEPI'S IN A STEEPLY

DIPPING RESERVOIR

(joe

2 (~ So )(
//1/lu';

.6

case the total rate o~ migration below the gasoil contf;l.ct must e~ual the producing rate.

~)
. [8]

(joe

To obtain a proper balance the gas-oil contact

must be located at the depth [position] that satis~ies these e~uations.
E~. 8 represents the drainage ~rom the gas
cap plus the displacement at the gas-oil contact.
To determine values ~or the solution o~ E~. 8 the
saturation changes within the gas cap can be predicted using a displacement e~uation. The ~ollow
ing simpli~ied e~uation can be used ~or this purpose, under most conditions, with only small
error:

A plot o~ the data ~rom E~. 10 is re~uired to obtain the saturation changes in the gas cap. This
is illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4.
E~. 7 is used to calculate the position o~
the gas-oil contact. To solve this e~uation and
accurately determine the position o~ the gas-oil
contact at the end o~ any time period it is necessary to determine the average gradient ~

~GOC

and the average e~~ective permeability to oil below the gas-oil contact. Injection into a gas
cap will increase the updip pressure relative to
the downdip pressure and thus will cause a reduction in the gradient ~
As a result the rate
~C

drainage will increase ~ollowing injection. To

determine the e~~ective permeability to oil during any time interval re~uires a knowledge o~ the
saturation changes in the oil column, which in
turn is related to the amount o~ drainage. There~ore, to obtain a balance between E~s. 7, 8 and 9,
a trial and error solution is re~uired. However,
since drainage ~rom the gas cap is independent o~
conditions below the gas-oil contact, an error in
estimating these ~actors will not a~~ect the calculated ultimate recovery, provided the rate o~
drainage exceeds the producing rate and resaturation of the oil column is eventually obtained.
This suggests a short cut method o~ calculation
when it is not necessary to know the position o~
the gas-oil contact immediately ~ollowing the injection. I~ resaturation o~ the oil column is
eventually obtained so that the f'inal oil saturation is known, E~s. 8 and 9 can be balanced without re~erence to E~. 7. E~s. 8 and 9 can also be
balanced independently o~ E~. 7 when there are no
saturation changes in the oil column. In this
o~

1029-G

When tpe position o~ the gas-oil contact is

determined ~rom a balance o~ E~s. 7 and 8, the
decrease in gas saturation within the oil column
is calculated from E~. 9. I~ the calculated
change in gas saturation is e~ual to the value
assumed to determine kro in E~. 7, then the solution is complete. I~ not, then it is necessary
to assume a new value o~ ~g and repeat the calculations.
APPLICATION OF CALCULATION PROCEDURE

An example o~ the calculation procedure is

presented ~or a steeply sipping southern Oklahoma
reservoir in which it is assumed that the reservoir pressure will be maintained constant by gas
injection. In this reservoir the pore volume,
permeability, porosity and water saturation all
vary with depth. To account ~or the variation o~
these properties re~uired a modi~ication o~ the
calculation procedure. This was done by utilizing average properties ~or the depth interval
studied in each individual calculation. Since it
is necessary to calculate distance, or depth,
this re~uired a trial and error solution o~ the
displacement e~uation. Another method to account
~or the variation o~ reserv9ir properties with
depth would be to divide the reservoir into a
series o~ assumed isotropic segments, o~ di~~er
ent volumes and properties, in the manner suggested by Shreve and Welch. 7 This would not re~uire a trial and error solution but would introduce saturation discontinuities across the
segment boundaries.
The ~ollowing stepwise analysis shows the
procedure used by the authors to predict per~orm
ance o~ the reservoir:
Step 1. The position o~ the gas-oil contact
at the start o~ gas injection was estimated ~rom
~ield observations.
The saturation distribution
above the gas-oil contact was calculated using
E~. 10 by assuming average fluid properties ~or
the period ~rom discovery to the estimated date
of initial gas injection.. Since E~. 10 is valid
only ~or conditions o~ constant pressure, this
introduces an error into the calculation. However, as the relative volume o~ the gas cap at
the beginning o~ injection is small compared to
the volume o~ oil column, this error should not
materially a~~ect the calculated ultimate recovery. From a plot o~ saturation distribution
above the gas-oil contact [Figs. 3 or 4] and a
knowledge o~ pore volume distribution [Fig. 5],
the average saturation conditions above the gasoil contact were determined. From this the average saturation conditions below the gas-oil contact were determined by material balance.
Step 2. A time interval o~ 17 years was
selected ~or the ~irst calculation period. It

1029-G

P. L. ESSLEY, JR.

G. L. HANCOCK JR. AND K. E. JONES

was assumed that the gas saturation in the oil

column would be reduced to an equilibrium value
of 4 per cent during this time interval. The
saturation distribution in the gas cap at the end
of this period was determined by solving Eq. 10
and plotting the results as shown in Figs. 3 and
4. Tabulation headings used in the trial and
error solution of Eq. 10 are shown in Table 1.
The position of the gas-oil contact at the end of
this period was obtained from a balance of Eqs.
8 and 9. These equations were balanced by plotting the solution for each equation at various
depths. The point of intersection of the two
curves determined the position of the gas-oil
contact that balanced the equations. Eq. 7 was
then used to check the validity of the assumption
that complete resaturation of the oil column
would be obtained during this time period.
Step 3. A period of 25 years was selected
for the second time interval. Since the gas
saturation in the oil column was reduced to a
minimum value in the previous time period, the
rate of drainage below the gas-oil contact must
be equal to the producing rate. The position of
the gas-oil contact at the end of this period was
determined from Eq. 8.
Step 4. The volume of drainage and the
final position of the gas-oil contact for each
subsequent time period was calculated from Eq. 8.
However, when the gas-oil contact moves below
-2900 ft a number of the wells required to maintain a constant producing rate will begin to make
gas. To determine the approximate producing rate
that can be maintained with the gas-oil contact
at various positions below -2900 ft, a maximum
capacity was arbitrarily assumed for each well
remaining below the gas-oil contact and the total
rate determined accordingly.
Results of Calculations
Performance of the reservoir was calculated
for two assumed initial rates of production. The
results of these calculations are shown in Figs.
3, 4, and 6. It is noted that when the reservoir
is produced at the higher rate the gas-oil contact moves downdip much faster, with the result
that "it is necessary to reduce the producing rate
much earlier to prevent gas breakthrough into the
lowest wells. The ultimate recovery, the rate of
production, and the over-all performance of the
reservoir were identi"cal for the two calculations
when the economic limit was reached. These calculations show that when the reservoir pressure
is maintained, the ultimate recovery at any assumed economic limit will be essentially independent of variations in the producing rate. Furthermore, for any given pressure, the economic
limit will be reached after a definite time interval. From an analysis of Eq. 10, it can be concluded that the only means of control an operator
hap on the ultimate recovery from a reservoir is
through regulation of the fluid properties, which

are related to the reservoir pressure. Therefore, to obtain the greatest possible ultimate
recovery from a reservoir the formation pressure
should be maintained at the highest possible
level.
CONCLUSIONS
1. For gravity drainage to be effective in
increasing recovery from a reservoir, gas must
accumulate at some point in the reservoir and
form an expanding gas volume.
2. Total drainage from below the gas cap
during any time period is equal to the amount of
drainage from within the expanding gas cap volume plus the volume of oil displaced at the gasoil contact. The amount of drainage from within
the gas cap determines the increased recovery
resulting from gravity drainage. The rate at
which oil is displaced at the gas-oil contact determines the rate of movement of the gas-oil contact downdip.
3. The rate of drainage below the gas-oil
contact can be expressed by a maximum rate equation such as Eq. 5. This equation is not directly related to recovery, but imposes a maximum
limit on the producing rate which cannot be exceeded without increasing the gas saturation below the gas-oil contact. The Gravity-ReferenceRate equation (Eq. 6] is a special case of Eq. 5
and applies only for certain limited reservoir
conditions.
4. Drainage from within any portion of the
gas cap is a function of saturation and will continually decline with time. The amount of drainage is essentially independent of the producing
rate, except in so far as the fluid properties
are controlled by the producing rate.
5. The rate at which oil is displaced at
the gas-oil contact is limited only by the rate
at which oil can flow downdip below the gas-oil
contact. It is directly related to producing
rate and is independent of time.
6. In a steeply dipping reservoir the oil
and free gas volumes produced will be drained
from different portions of the reservoir. The
dissimilar movement of the fluid phases cause
certain difficulties when predicting future performance of a reservoir. To date these problems
have not been completely solved, except for the
limiting case of constant pressure
7. When the reservoir pressure is maintained by gas injection, the future performance
of a steeply dipping reservoir can be predicted
using methods presented in this paper. Computation time and data required are similar to that
normally required for most reservoir analyses.
8. Results from calculations indicate that
when the pressure is maintained the recovery at
gas breakthrough into the lowest producing wells
is an inverse function of the average producing
rate. However, the ultimate recovery, to any assumed economic limit, is essentially independent
of variations in the producing rate. In fact,
the only factors affecting the ultimate recovery

GRAVITY DRAINAGE CONCEPl'S IN A STEEPLY

DIPPING RESERVOIR

from a gravity drainage reservoir which can be

controlled by the operator are the fluid properties. Therefore, to obtain the greatest possible
ultimate recovery the reservoir pressure should
be maintained as high as possible.

4.
5.

NOMENCLATURE
A
B
c
D
fs
GOC
GC
g

k
L

oc
p
q
q

Q
S
t

Vp
~
~

Z
Q

Ml
M2
~

- Area perpendicular to the dip of the formation.

- Formation volume factor.
- Constant.
- Depth.
- Fraction, indicating effective amount of
segregation.
- Subscript, indicating position below the
gas-oil contact.
- Subscript, indicating position in the gas
cap.
- Acceleration of gravity.
- Permeability.
- Length, positive updip.
- Subscript, ail column.
- Pressure.
- Producing rate.
- Rate of migration in the reservoir positive updip.
- Total drainage for any time period.
- Saturation.
- Time.
- Pore Volume.
- Angle of dip - positive updip.
- Difference
- Resultant force/unit volume, acting on
the reservoir fluid phases.
- Component of the pressure gradient, acting generally towards the nearest producing well.
- Slope of In kro/krg vs So curve.
Slope of In k ro vs So curve.
- Viscosity.
- Density.
- Porosity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express appreciation to
F. M. Stewart and to M. King Hubbert for their
assistance and helpful suggestions concerning the
phenomena of gravity drainage and the nature of
the flow of fluids through a porous solid. Acknowledgment is also given to the management of
Skelly Oil Co. and Gulf Oil Corp. for permission
to publish this paper.

6.

7,

l029-G

Buckley, S. E., and Leverett, M. C.: ''Mechanism of. Fluid Displacement in Sands", Trans.
AIME [l942] l46, l07.
-Terwilliger,~ L., Wilsey, L. E., Hall,
H. N., Bridges, P. M., and Morse, R. A.: "An
Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of
Gravity Drainage Performance", Trans. AIME
[l95l] 192, 285.
-Martin, To C.: "Reservoir Analysis Based on
Gravity Segregation for Pressure Maintenance
Operations", Paper presented 32nd Annual Fall
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME in Dallas, Oct. 6-9, 1957.
Shreve, D. R., and Welch, L. W., Jr.: "Gas
Drive and Gravity Drainage Analysis for Pressure Maintenance Operations", Trans. AIME
[l956] 207, l36.
--

APPENDIX
Derivation of Displacement Equations
A relationship between saturation distribution and time can be determined when gas displaces oil at a constant pressure. The change in
saturation during any time interval ~t, wi thin
any horizontal element of area [AH] and of infini tesimal thickness L'ill can be expressed by the
following balance:

b. So AH II t1 D
)C

" :: L1 fm" L1 t

[c K~~IO~ (215 - Ag

).51170{

dKro]L1i

Rearranged and expressed in differential form:

[A-l]
The rate of movement of a given oil saturation
can be calculated directl~from Eq. A-l if the
pressure gradient ~ and
ro are known. If ~
UJ.)
dS o
L'ill
is not known, then d%!o can be determined from
dS o
the following modification of the fractional flow
formula:

REFERENCES
l.
2.
3.

Hubbert, M. King: "The Theory of Ground-Water

MoUon " , Jour. Geol. [l940] 48, 785.
Hubbert, M. King: "Entrapmentof Petroleum
Under Hydrodynami c Conditions", Bull. AAPG
[Aug., 1953] 37, 1954.
-Hubbert, M. King: "Darcy's Law and the Field
Equations of the Flow of Underground Fluids",
Trans. AIME [l956] 207, 222.

Eqs. A-l and A-2 can be used to calculate the

saturation conditions above the gas-oil contact
at any given time. However, the factor ~ varies
L'ill

above the gas-oil contact and usually isn't known.

l~-G

P. L. ESSLEY

JR., G. L. HANCOCK, JR .AND K. E. JONES

In addition, the total f'low rate qtm usually is

dif'f'icult to determine except f'or the particular
condition where there are neither saturation
changes or counter f'low within the oil leg.
It can be snown that f'or low oil saturations, or when qtm _
CWo that the error caused
by neglecting qtm in Eq. A-2 is negligible.
Since a low oil saturation occurs throughout most
of' the gas cap, except near the gas-oil contact
where qtm _
~o the f'ollowing simplified equations can be used to calculate Clmo with small
error:

'/,.,. =
/./27

/ +

k", -%,'
k,.~o

Eq. A- ~ can be dif'f'erentiated with respect to So

to obtain a solution f'or
directly:
dt So
.

(dD)

(*2 =
0

b[

~Q&

M,

'--

k,.~A

/+ "kca~q,
*ry,#-.

M]
[A-4J

It also can be shown that throughout most of'

the gas cap the pressure gradient ~ will be
close to Pgg. Eq. A-I can theref'ore be modif'ied
to give a simplified equation which will express
with suff'icient accuracy the rate of' movement of'
a plane of' given oil saturation.

Comparison of' calculated results using Eqli. A-4

and A-5 with calculated results using Eqs. A-I
and A-2 indicates that the error resulting f'rom
using Eq. A-5 will usually be less than the error
resulting f'rom Eq. A-4.

..

~~--------~---------4----

..,

~
1>.... "
~

1:1>

""e

'z

....

~~

1500

.J
.J

<>
~

\9 A&

II:

::>

en
en
w

\9A9

lOOO

II:

"'

\9~O

Q.

\9,.1

195Z

500

(al

(bl

Flow parallel to
direction of dip

Flg.l

Direction of
flow varies

Forces acting on each unit volume

of the reservoir fluids.

1000

2000-

400

3000

DEPTH

Flg.2

Change In pressure gradient In

a southern Oklahoma reservoir;

I
CALCUL lrlOH I

CALCULA ION I

I
I

-t__-,~~~r----t----1~~IG~I~~~...
~-~~L~~~A~C~T+---~~--~

0r-__
0

~~

GOC AT BEGINNIN

.~ 0

-1000

f-

a.
w
o
'2

oeRM- so'

GOC A.

SEC,""

or

~\\ ,.
'\ "

21ZYF

\~\

II

42 YRS.

GOe AT

VAS.

vos

GO

. Goe

be

AT -

AT-s)o

--.,'

-2~'

1-

I : \\\1\ f\'T~. GOC A..~. /

i'l

+--/

.20001f----f----L---t-'\\~~--~::::::+==E=b-JL---J

1//

en

_./ 1/

\\l\\
V/
11
.3OOO'r----+-------t---'-+!-----+\-\-~\\w
\.;!.!!!!.
VR'.~OCA~TI>oo~j.4-----L-J
i

\ \ \, TAS- GO ATO /

{I

I.,I

--1--I

l i : \ \\ .

Goe AT -147.'

17 VAS.

~.

IMJ (TIO" P OCR ..... -

~~~~
I

OIL

lO

TIOH P

'" IN

I\.

\~ ~\ \
\ ~1\
\ \~ ~\
1\ ~ ~\51

Flg.3

~
~"l

ORIGIN'"L GAS-OIL GONTAC

I___+

____+_ -4-----+____\_
\\ \

.40001.--+--+--+---1-

VO'. G

AT->I

.- "

~ "' TO' =CATFt

OIL

++-----l----1

IFf' ;;T;;~

WATEit

40
70
eo
go
20
30
50
eo
LIQUID SATURATION- PERCENT Of PORE \{OLUME

o
100

Calculated Saturatlon-Tlme-Depth
profile _ southern Oklahoma reservoir.

Flg.4

10

20
30
40
50
eo
70
80.'
90
LIQUID SATURATION- PERCENT OF PORE VOLUME

100

Caluclated Saturatlon-Tlme-Depth
profile _ southern Oklahoma reservoir.

r-ORIGINAL POSITION OF GAS-OIL CONTAC T

0-

t--- r--

1000

.\

2000

I
l-

P'OC ~N."" E

ll.
W

--

1---

3000

4000

~NDIP

i-"

16

. 20

............

v-~

---

1--/

//

k-::::::="' ~

--

V/

CALCULA ION

CALCULA 10M

"\

./"

""

17/1/

V/

"-

"-

r--- t--"'- j::::- t-_

-==""

24
0

PORE VOLUME-MM BBLS/IOO' INTERVAL

Fig.5

/ /'

I='r~-

12

ClMLAT E """"" TION

10

20

30

50

40

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

TIME- YRS.

Fig.5

Pore volume distribution in a

southern Oklahoma reservoir.

Calculated performance during pressure

maintenance - southern Oklahoma reservoir.

TABLE 2

TAlI'" 1
sot.uTION CF EQu.AIlQN (8) FOR TIME INTERVAL FROM 17 YlW!3 TO 42 !EARS

EXAMPlE SHCWIK:- TRIAL AND ERRCft SOurTIOO: OF DlSPLlCEHENt EQUATION

POROSITI, ~ILITI, AND WATER SATURATION VARY WITH IJEPrH

(1)

(2)

(J)

(4)

(5)

(6)
Avg.

(7)

(B)

(9)

(10)

(ll)

dKro

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)
Check
Column

(16)

Years

D!:[s

So

Initial
AD
Depth

SL

!l!.l!!h

Cale.
Depth

(~).
AD
".pth
Sv
~
Eat. Eot. Est. Eot. Eat.
(4)+i(5) From From. From (3).(9) From Constant (7)X(ll)X (2)XU3) chinie (4)-(14)
From
in (7).
(12)t(B)
Curve
Curve Curve Curve
Previous
(B),(ll)
Calc.
-141
63
.0069
.196
60 _lOS .)80 .215 .08B .288 .020
-7B
17 - 42 9130 20
-385
171
.0187
25 -214 170 -299 .380 .214 .088 .33B .054-709
316
.D346
.099
.08B
.J88
-550
.380
.213
-393
312
30
-ill9
no
.0566
517
35 -602 51D -857 .371 .2ll .090 .440 .164
yes
.0866
790
.493 .257
40 -785 760 -1l65 .358 .208 .093
yes
llBO
.129
45 -illB 920 -1578 .270 .199 .109 .559 .485
yes
1500
.164
.645 .975
50 -1476 ll80 -2070 .156 .182 .145
-1585
810
.0886
.493 .265
2nd Trial
40 -785 780 -1l75 .355 .208 .093
no
-224l
1123
.123
.566
.510
.ll6
-1683
.24l.
.196
-illB
ll30
Calculation
45
-2918
no
.158
1442
.656
1.060
50 -1476 1420 -2186 .135 .178 .156
Time

Interval. l:lt

6.33g3in'"

Oil
Saturation
17

D100 -

100
200

200 -

300
300- 400
400 - 500
500 - 600
600 - 700

700-

BOO

BOO- 900

900 - 1000
1000 - llOO

llOO - 1200

1200
1300
1400
1476
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900

2QCX) -

2100
2200
2300
2400

1300
1400
1476
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500

42

Pore Volume Cum. P.v.

Change iIi Pore
Oil Sat.
~ ~ ~
LlSo

.183

.OOB

.201

.026

.260

.22)

.289
.312
.331
.366
.391
.410
.426
.440
.453
.464
.475
.484

.242
.258
.277
.292
.307
.318
.331

.037
.047
.054
.058
.076
.084
.092
.095
.099
.100
.101
.101
.101
.465
.456
.440
.425
.410
.395
.379
.364
.349
.334
.317

.191
.227

.B53

.849
.843
.B37
.B3O

.823
.815
.807
.BOO

.792
.783

.341
.353
.363
.374
.383
.388
.393
.403
.412
.420
.428
.436
.443
.451
.458
.466

flVp

3090
4.57
5.25
5.94
6.65
7.41
8.22
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
6.96
2.19
9.15
9.1~

9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15
9.15

.650 x.Wp

.03
.12
.19
.2B

.36
.40
.63
.79
.84

.87

.90
.91
.92
.93
.70
1.02
4.18
4.03
3.89
3.75
3.62
3.47
3.34
3.20

3.06

2.90

I0so dVp)
.03
.15
.34
.62

.98

1.38
2.01
2.80
3.64
4.51
5.41
6.32
7.24
8.17
B.87

9.89
14.07
18.10
21.99
25.74
29.36
32.83
36.17
39.37
42.43
45.33