Discussion - Additional Discussion of Above Papers

This DaoerAA calls to attention for the first time, to the writer's knowledge, a purported recovery of oil by substantially horizontal gas cycling that is considerably in excess of 50 per cent of the oil originally in place. The average angle of dip along the path of travel of the gas is less than one degree of arc. The best recovery by gas cycling previously brought to the writer's attention1 occurred in the case of the Mile Six Field in Peru, where about 68 per cent of the original oil in place has so far been recovered. In this case, however. the recovery was greatly aided 1)y the high dip angle of about 17.5". An approximate estimate of recovery was made by the method developed by the writer' for the case of the Cook Ranch Field, using an average relative permeability ratio function dictated by past experience with a number of good quality sandstones. A result of about 40 per cent recovery of the original oil in place wa* obtained after the 8.5 pore volumes of cumulative gas cycling undergone by the Cook Ranch Field. Tile writer desires to emphasize what appears to him as the sound engineering practiced at Cook Ranch, and also the care attending the taking of data and the high quality of the calculations made. It is impossible to take issue on factual grounds with any of the conclusions drawn in the paper. It is, however, desired to point out the difficulty of explaining the unexpectedly favorable oil recovery on ordinary theoretical grounds. It would be of interest to know whether relative permeability ratios have been measured on the Cook sand. The operator is inclined to attribute some of the excess benefit to settling of the oil across the bedding planes into the lower part of the sand. It is difficult for the writer to appreciate the importance of such an effect, inasmuch as the concomitant opening of excessive vacated pore space in the upper part of the sand would he expected to cause excessive bypassing of the gas. REFERENCE 1. Welge. H. J.: "A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery by (Gas or Water Drive." Trans. AIME, (1952), 195, 91. AUTHOR'S REPLY TO MR. WELGE Welge has poined out clearly the difficulty of applying material-balance procedures in calculating the Performance of low-pressure, dispersed gas injection operations. There can be no argument that even with the most favorable assumptions of K,/K,, and with cumulative gas cycling in excess of normal expectations, the calculated oil recovery will be considerably less than the 72.5 per cent recovery realized from this project to Jan. 1, 1951. There probably are at least two reasons for the unusually high recovery from this reservoir, the effects of which would be difficult or impossible to calculate by known methods: 1. The operator did not use the same injection wells for the entire operation, and exercised considerable control over producing GOR by changing the locations of injection wells whenever well performance indicated excessive bypassing. Fifty-six wells were used for injection, not over 29 of which were in use simultaneously. This procedure resulted in frequent shifting of the fluid movement patterns in the reservoir and undoubtedly increased the ultimate recovery. The writer knows of no satisfactory procedure for calculating the effect of this practice. 2. Vertical movement of oil across the bedding planes of the reservoir rock hy gravity drainage tended to maintain a relatively high oil saturation, and hence a favorable K,/K, ratio, in the lower sections of the reservoir. As pointed out by Welge, this condition has aggravated the tendency for high producing GOR, but at the same time it has resulted in increased oil recovery. As may be seen from the performance charts for the various battery areas, operating (GOR'S have been quite high for the last several years of reported history.