Acre-foot Yields of Texas Gulf Coast Oil Fields
- Alexander Deussen (Member A.I.M.E. Consulting Geologist)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Transactions of the AIME
- Publication Date
- December 1936
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 53 - 55
- 1936. Original copyright American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. Copyright has expired.
- 1.6 Drilling Operations, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 165 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
The figures listed in a table for Gulf Coast fields given by L. P. Teas in1934 are so greatly at variance with results that I have obtained from aserious study of this subject over a number of years, that I am disposed tochallenge the correctness of Mr. Teas figures as an accurate representation ofacre-foot yields of Gulf Coast fields, and as regards at least two of thefields listed by Mr. Teas I desire to "put into the record" somefigures that, according to my study, are more nearly in accord with what Iconceive to be the actual facts.
Upon investigation I find that Mr. Teas figures, inadvertently no doubt, arenot what they purport to be. Apparently the figures were arrived at byconsidering as thickness of the producing formation the net thickness ofproducing rock corresponding" to the total of the net portions of theproducing zones which actually yield oil into the drill hole"-and infollowing this method I am under the impression that Mr. Teas was acting underinstructions of the Institute in the preparation of this paper, in order to getcomparable figures from the several fields of the United States. Apparently theauthor interpreted these instructions to mean that in the absence of coredthicknesses of producing horizons the actual number of feet of screen set inthe various producing zones was to be taken as the basis for arriving at thethickness of these zones and the" acre-foot" yields.
It is obvious that in many instances only 20 ft. of screen, or even 10 ft. ofscreen, might be set in a well, when there might be actually 100 ft. of oilsand present. In the early operations in the Gulf Coast it was usual to setmuch less screen than the amount of sand. It follows that the" acre-footyields" so arrived at would be much greater than those found by using thefull amount of sand.
In Mr. Teas table, it was indicated that up to the end of 1933"acre-foot" yields had been obtained in the several fields as listed inTable 1.
|File Size||188 KB||Number of Pages||3|