Separate Discussion

DISCUSSION By Rhrt G. Nisle, Phillips Petroleum Co., Barthesville, Okla. The subject paper presents the results of a reservoir behavior analyzer study of the pressure-production performance of five Ellenburger pools in West Texas. These five pools are Wheeler, TXL, Andector, Embar, and Martin. This laboratory has also made reservoir behavior analyzer studies in this area and arrived at substantially the same conclusions. Although the principal results of the studies made in this laboratory are confirmed by the results in the subject paper, there are certain points of difference. The points of difference are (1) the subject paper includes the Martin pool in the common aquifer, whereas our studies indicate that it is not, and (2) the subject paper concludes that the effective aquifer is considerably smaller than that derived from studies made in this laboratory. In terms of reservoir analyzer data, our rejection of Martin is based on the inability to obtain a satisfactory match of the pressure curve when Martin is considered as lying within the common aquifer. A satisfactory match was possible, however, when Martin was run as an isolated pool. This indicates that the pressure disturbance resulting from production at Martin had not reached Embar, Andector, TXL, or Wheeler at the time of our study. A similar situation exists relative to Dollarhide. In tern of geological data, our rejection of Martin is based on the presence of a faulted zone between Martin and Embar. This condition is indicated in Fig. 4 and again in Fig. 10 of the subject report. If a permeable connection between Martin and the other fields does exist, it is probably by way of a detour around this fault. The second point of difference between the two studies is illustrated by a comparison of Fig. 4 of the subject paper with Eg. A. Fig. A is obtained from an internal report on one of the studies made by this laboratory. It will be noted that the area indicated in Fig. 4 is roughly that marked "Pool Unit" in Fig. A. The additional portion of the aquifer shown in Fig. A was simulated on the reservoir analyzer by means of the water drive network. A satisfactory pressure match could not be obtained without this additional network. The differences involved here stem from a more fundamental consideration concerning reservoir analyzer operating techniques. The true source of these differences in reported results cannot at this time be determined because of the incompleteness of the subject paper. It is not stated, for instance, whether the pressure match was induced by altering the field resistance or the field capacitance, or both. Changing analyzer