Determination of Oil-well Capacities from Liquid-level Data
By CHARLES C. RODD, * JUNIOR MEMBER A.I.M.E.
(New York Meeting. February 1942)
ABSTRACT
PRIOR to 1938, proration procedure in Kan-
sas required the physical testing of wells in
order to set up a basis for allocating production.
Subsequently the use of liquid-level data and
bottom-hole pressure data was authorized on
certain types of wells as a basis for calculating
well capacities, thereby permitting wells to be
tested at low rates and with small volumes
of production.
This paper gives some attention to the
equipment used for obtaining liquid-level data
but in general it is devoted to the theoretical
and physical factors involved in well testing
by drawdown methods. These tests are divided
into two classifications: (I) liquid-level data
used directly to calculate capacities, and (2)
liquid-level data and liquid-level measuring
equipment used in connection with other data
to determine bottom-hole pressure. Equations
and calculations for both types are shown.
Well capacities calculated from fill-up data
have not been used generally but offer a simple
means of testing some wells. Theoretical factors
and calculations for such tests are shown.
IN the state of Kansas, proration laws
required that the "ability of a well to
produce" be given consideration in state
allocation orders and for many years this
was the only factor used in prorating the
allowed oil. The "ability of a well to
produce" was the quantity of oil that
could be obtained from a well in a. pre-
scribed period, usually 24 hr. Early in
the history of State-regulated proration,
Kansas operators realized that, unless
some restriction were placed upon equip-
Manuscript received at the office of the Institute
Jan. 2, 1942. Issued in PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY,
July 1942.
* Gulf Oil Corporation. Chase, Kansas.
ment, the competition between producers
to obtain large well "potentials" might
result in a race to install the largest
pumping equipment. Consequently, restric-
tions were placed upon the size of tubing
and length of pump stroke that could be
used in pumping wells during potential
tests. Later, restrictions were placed also
upon the size of tubing and chokes that
could be used in flowing walls.
Despite the restriction setup, better
pumping equipment was designed and
installed, pumps were improved, and
various devices were invoked to obtain high
rates of production for short periods of
time. By 1937 pumping cycles of forty to
forty-five 54-in. strokes per minute were
not uncommon, and numerous wells had
produced at the rate of 3500 bbl. per day
for short periods. Such production was
far beyond any rate that could be long
sustained. Equipment necessary to take
"potentials" was several times larger
than that needed for normal producing
purposes, and repairs and replacements
required by the high pumping speeds were
excessive. Also, many operators suspected
that the high rates of production main-
tained during " potential" tests were
conducive to early water encroachment.
By 1938 large-scale physical testing of
wells in Kansas ended, the use of the
bottom-hole pressure gauge had become
common, engineers and operators were
becoming familiar with the term "pro-
ductivity index," and bottom-hole pressure
was being used as a factor in allocation
in many areas. There were many draw-
backs, however, to large-scale use of
 CHARLES C. RODD
bottom-hole pressure gauges for deter-
mining well capacities, although numerous
operators had used such equipment to
obtain engineering data and, from a
technical standpoint, had proved that the
use of the equipment was feasible.
FLUID-LEVEL MEASURING EQUIPMENT
In 1937, representatives of the Deptho-
graph Company conducted experiments in
Kansas with equipment that had been used
in California to obtain data for determining
well capacities. This equipment consisted
essentially of: (I) a pressure chamber for
releasing a charge of compressed air or
gas into the annulus between tubing and
casing, thereby setting up a wave front that
would be reflected by the liquid surface
as well as by fixed objects or reflectors in
the well; (2) a diaphragm for detecting
wave reflections; (3) apparatus for timing
and recording the reflections. At that
time measurements were dependent upon
velocity calculations and correlation be-
tween these and fixed objects in the wells,
such as tubing catchers and liner tops.
Although the method had been quite
successful in California it was not con-
sidered suitable for requirements in Kansas,
for several reasons, among them the
following:
1. Most wells in Kansas did not produce
sufficient gas to maintain a homogeneous
mass in the annulus above liquid level;
velocity computations accordingly were
complicated.
2. Few wells were equipped with tubing
catchers or objects that could be used for
correlation and in most wells liquid levels
would have been above such objects had
they been used.
3. Velocity computations were not con-
sidered accurate enough for official use by
proration engineers.
It was known that reflections from
tubing couplings could be obtained and
as a result of the experiments in Kansas
it was decided to make tubing the basis
49
of measurement and modify equipment
accordingly.
While the Depthograph Company was
developing equipment to determine depths
to liquid levels in oil wells, the International
Geophysics Company of California devel-
oped an instrument-the Echometer-
using a cartridge for setting up a wave
front, a Tucker hot-wire microphone for
detecting wave reflections, and an elec-
trically controlled, direct-recording appa-
ratus for obtaining a record of the wave
reflection from tubing collars and liquid
levels.
During the early part of 1938 a series of
tests was conducted in Kansas with an
Echometer. Although the tests brought out
some of the deficiencies of equipment and
methods, they established the practicability
of using tubing collars as a basis of measure-
ments, and the feasibility of testing Kansas
Arbuckle dolomite wells by liquid-draw-
down methods. In the latter part of 1938,
the Kansas Corporation Commission gave
official sanction to the use of Depthograph
and Echometer equipment for testing
certain types of wells. The use of bottom-
hole pressure gauges also was approved
and, later, a method, known as the "back-
pressure method," for determining bottom-
hole pressures from liquid levels and other
data was included.
A third instrument, called the Sonic
meter, for determining depths to liquid
level in wells, was developed by the Gulf
Oil Corporation. This instrument is elec-
trically controlled; an ordinary blasting
cap is used to initiate a wave front, a
carbon-button microphone picks up reflec-
tions from tubing collars and the liquid
level, and an oscillograph transmits the
reflections to a camera recording device.
The development of liquid-level meas-
uring equipment provides a ready means
of measuring the liquid dra wdown of a
producing oil well. All of the instruments
can, under proper conditions and within
varying limits, determine the number of
SO DETERMINATION OF OIL-WELL CAPACITIES FROM LIQUID-LEVEL DATA
tubing couplings between the wellhead
and the liquid level. Knowing the length
of the tubing joints, it is then a simple
matter to compute the distance to the
level of liquid in the annulus. The relation-
ship of these data to bottom-hole pressure
and to well testing involves numerous
factors.
THEORETICAL AND PHYSICAL FACTORS
IN WELL TESTING
"Potentials" determined from bottom-
hole pressure or liquid-level measurements
are based on a straight-line relationship
between pressure at the bottom of the well
and the rate of production. Under certain
conditions, liquid levels are proportional
to pressures and the height of the liquid
column may be substituted therefor.
Well tests utilizing the relationship between
pressure, or liquid level, and production
rate eliminate the necessity for high rates
of production. Tests taken in this manner
have commonly been referred to as draw-
down tests; that is, a drawing down of the
pressure or liquid level by increasing the
rate of production.
When the drawdown of pressure or liquid
level is directly proportional to liquid
production, the pressure-flow relationship
may be expressed by a constant, commonly
called the "productivity index," which is
usually expressed in barrels per day per
pound reduction in bottom-hole pressure,
or barrels per day per foot drawdown.
In all but a few of the tests made in
several thousand wells in Kansas the
relationship between pressure and liquid
production approximated a straight line
between the limits of the production rates
obtained. Numerous wells, with liquid
capacities up to 2000 bbl. per day, have
been tested to near capacity without
deviating from the straight-line relation-
ship, and tests made on wells producing
as much as 2800 bbl. per day show no
deviation (Fig. I). Many wells have shown
exceptionally large indicated capacities
when drawdown data were extrapolated
to zero bottom-hole pressure, and the
accuracy of such indicated capacities has
been questioned. Facilities for obtaining
comparative data between drawdown and
physical tests at rates above 3000 bbl. per
day have not been available and for this
reason, and others, it was considered
advisable to set a maximum rating of
3000 bbl. for wells tested in Kansas by the
drawdown method.
The straight-line relationship between
pressure and producing rate may be
expressed algebraically as follows:
where:
C = productiVity index factor, bbl. fluid
per day per lb. pressure drop.
P r = static reservoir pressure, lb. per
sq. in.
P p = equilibrium bottom-hole pressure,
lb. per sq. in. at stable flow rate Q.
Q = production rate, bbl. fluid per 24 hr.
Then:
Qmax = CPr [2]
Also:
C = Q2 - QI [3]
PI - P2
where:
QI = oil-production rate, bbl. per 24 hr.
at pressure Pl.
Q2 = oil-production rate, bbl. per 24 hr.
at pressure P 2•
From this equation the well capacity
may be expressed as:
Qmax = CP I + QI = CP 2 + Q2, etc. [4]
Thus the factors needed for determining
a well's capacity are the stable pressures
at two producing rates, or the static
pressure and stable pressure at one rate.
For accuracy in testing, the former is
preferred.
The components of bottom-hole pressure
are: (I) the pressure due to the weight of
the liquid column in the annulus, (2) the
 CHARLES C. RODD
pressure due to the weight of gas in the
annulus and (3) the pressure at the well-
head. Algebraically:
P bh = hd+ +p. PeA [5]
where
P bA = bottom-hole pressure, lb. per sq. in.
h = height of liquid column, ft.
d = mean column weight of liquid, per
ft. per sq. in.
p. = pressure due to weight of gas column,
lb. per sq. in.
PeA = pressure at wellhead, lb. per sq. in.
TESTS FROM LIQUID LEVELS ONLY
In certain types of wells, notably
Arbuckle dolomite wells in Kansas, operated
under controlled condition, the density
of the liquid column in the annulus between
tubing and casing remains constant at
varying rates of production. In such wells
the change in pressure due to the weight
of the gas column becomes negligible and
the wells usually can be produced with
zero casinghead pressure. Under such
conditions, factors 2 and 3 in Eq. 5 may be
neglected and bottom-hole pressure con-
sidered proportional to the height of the
liquid column. Then:
[6]
Cl productivity index, bbl. per day per
= usually are taken at restricted rates,
ft. drawdown.
Ql = production rate, bbl. liquid per day.
h = distance from wellhead to static
liquid level, ft.
hi = distance from wellhead to liquid
level at production rate Ql, ft.
and
where
L = depth from wellhead to top of produc-
ing formation, ft.
The use of static liquid levels has not
been found satisfactory in most places
because many wells produce water and,
under static conditions, water constitutes
51
part of the liquid in the annulus preventing
the density from remaining constant.
Under producing conditions oil will tend
to displace the water until a stable condi-
tion is reached and only oil remains in the
annulus. The well must be tubed to the
producing formation, of course, so that
water will not accumulate below the tubing.
When the static level is not used to deter-
mine a well's capacity to. produce it
becomes necessary to determine the liquid
level in the well at two producing rates.
Then:
[8]
where hi and h2 are, respectively, the
distances in ft. to the stable fluid levels at
rates QI and Q2.
Then:
Qmax = e(L - hi) + Ql = CI(L - h2)
+ Q2, etc. [9]
In general, tests determined from liquid
levels alone have been satisfactory on
wells producing negligible quantities of" gas
where a liquid of constant density can be
maintained in the annulus. Most Kansas
Arbuckle wells produce no free gas and
saturation pressures usually are less than
100 lb. per sq. in. As drawdown tests
pressures seldom are reduced so much that
appreciable gas is released into the annulus.
In order to minimize difficulties met when
making tests, Kansas regulations require
that wells be tubed to bottom during
official tests. Sample data and calculation
for a test utilizing liquid-level data only
are shown in Fig. 1.
BACK-PRESSURE METHOD
Wells producing considerable gas with
the oil normally have a varying liquid
density at different rates of production
and normally are produced with some
pressure at the wellhead. The height
52 DETERMINATION OF OIL-WELL CAPACITIES FROM I_IQUID-LEVEL DATA

of the liquid column is seldom proportional the pressure at the liquid surface may be
to the bottom-hole pressure; consequently computed from the following equation:
it cannot be used directly in computing
the productivity index and consideration SD
LOgIO-Pb = - 8 l' + LoglOP, [101

-
I22. 2
1200 I
Pressure-gauge data __
l- f-., :fPI=12's9 i where:
.S 1000
go
- = JindcawlJ.720bb~-
...",
P b = absolute pressure at bottom of gas
I / -r--"'~ ~ column (top of liquid surface), lb.
11800
Liquid-level data converted Iv , per sq. in.
,/:?' equivalent pressure ,
~ 600 P.I =12. 93 ! S = specific gravity of gas.
Indcap.=1J.880bbl
~ D = length of gas column, ft.
w
i
] 400
I ,
T = mean temperature of gas, deg. F. abs.
E ! I I I
.E P, = casinghead pressure, lb. per sq. in .
j; 200
I
, ~--;-- abs.
i
H-
I
I
By control of the casing pressure,
o i
many wells can be produced without an
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Production rote. bbl per doy appreciable quantity of liquid in the
FIG. I.-COMPARATIVE PRESSURE-GAUGE AND
annulus_ In such wells the effect of the
LIQUID-LEVEL TEST SHOWING STRAIGHT-LINE
RELATIONSHIP TO 2800 BARREl.S. liquid column becomes negligible and
bottom-hole pressure may be determined
must be given to. all the factors in Eq. 5, from casing pressure and gas-column
either by measuring the pressure directly pressure. However, where it is impossible
with a bottom-hole pressure gauge or by or impracticable to lower the liquid level
determining the three constituents of to the pump or tubing perforations, con-
bottom-hole pressure separately. These sideration must be given to the height of
can be determined with reasonable accu- the liquid in the annulus.
racy from liquid-level and surface data by The determination of the pressure due
the back-pressure method. to the weight of the liquid involves the
Casing pressures can be obtained directly establishment of two or more stable liquid
by use of suitable gauges. The determina- levels, while maintaining a constant rate
tion of the pressure due to the weight of of production, by changing the casing
the gas column involves the measurement pressure, either by permitting the well to
of the specific gravity of the gas by labora- build up pressure or by using a compressor.
tory methods or, under certain conditions, In this manner casing pressure is sub-
empirically. One service company has stituted for liquid pressure and, by dividing
developed an empirical method of deter- the change in pressure at the liquid surface
mining specific gravity of the gas from by the change in liquid level, the column
the velocity of the wave used to determine density may be determined. The average
the liquid level. The method has given density will normally remain constant,
satisfactory results under some conditions if the production rate is constant. The total
but may cause errors when it is necessary pressure of the liquid column may be com-
to use a compressor to maintain required puted by multiplying the column density
pressures at the wellhead. by the height of the column above the
According to C. P. Walker, in U. S. desired datum, which must be at or above
Patent No. 2161733, knowing the pressure the tubing perforations. Any change in
at the wellhead and the specific gravity annular area may affect the column
and temperature of the gas in the annulus, density of the liquid and a liner in the well
 CHARLES C. RODD 53
may necessitate a separate determination on a well. Although the method has not
for this section of the liquid column. been widely used, and sometimes does not
Adding the total liquid-column pressure give satisfactory results, many wells
to the pressure determined by Eq. 10 gives that produce little gas and ordinarily can
the bottom-hole pressure at that particular
2400',----r--r-.,---r-,---,---r-.,.--r--,
rate of production. When the bottom-hole Stable p/oductlon mte-l98 bbl percby
Column densdy, determined by
pressure has been determined for two or depressmq IIqu;d level fromD tol{
~ ?9.6Ib per 100ft
more stable rates of production, the well 2600 Pressure at "qUid level fde/ermmed
capacity may be computed from Eq. 3 f----+ __~c-+-from [q IO)plus pressureofh uld
([J7lS-0Jlmes 0?96)
and Eq. 4 (Fig. 2). o B h0 ,- 4J51b er sq In
1j2800
Bottom-hole pressure tests usually
require considerably more time than deter- ~
01
minations of liquid levels. When bottom- 15 3000
hole pressure gauges are used it is difficult .;::
OJ
to determine when stabilization of flow has ~
occurred and tests frequently are extended -i> 3200
~
for some hours to assure reliable data.
The use of bottom-hole pressure gauges
in pumping wells requires pulling and
rerunning rods, and occasionally tubing,
before and after the tests, thereby involving
considerable expense. Also, even under the
most favorable conditions, the gauges are
38000 100 200 300 400 500
subject to damage from the shocks and Pressure 01 liquid surfoce,lb.persq.in_
vibration of a pumping well, and occa- FIG. 2.-GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION OF BACK-
sionally tests must be repeated. PRESSURE METHOD OF DETERMINING BOTTOM-
HOLE PRESSURE.
Determination of bottom-hole pressure
by the back-pressure method sometimes
requires a compressor to maintain casing be tested by the liquid-drawdown method
pressure, and when the well itself builds up can also be tested by use of fill-up data.
pressure a regulating valve is necessary The theoretical factors in the procedure
to maintain a constant pressure. The for determining capacities from fill-up
liquid-level measuring equipment used for data were expressed by Muskat li in 1936
back-pressure tests is essentially the same as follows:
as for other tests except that it must be
AH, H. - H.
designed for high pressures. Q= T log. H. _ H [II]
Back-pressure and pressure-gauge tests
require extreme care, both in obtaining where:
data and in the interpretation and analysis Q = well capacity, cu. ft. per min.
of results. It has been found that, in certain A = area of pipe or annulus, sq. ft.
types of wells, conditions arising through T = time between H. and H, min.
acidizing, and the attendant loading of the H. = liquid height above formation at
well, may temporarily affect the normal static level, ft.
pressure drawdown, causing the test data H 0 = liquid height above formation at
to reflect an erroneous index. zero time, ft.
H = liquid height above formation at
TESTS FROM FILL-UP DATA
time T, ft.
Liquid-level measuring equipment pro-
vides a means for obtaining fill-up data • References are at the end of the paper.
54 DETERMINATION OF OIL-WELL CAPACITIES FROM LIQUID-LEVEL DATA

From which it follows that: When:

K = linear equivalent of one cycle on the
A H, - Ho
C~ = "flog. H. _ H [12] log scale, expressed in minutes on the
arithmetic scale.
C", = constant equivalent to productivity R = slope of line.
index expressed in cubic feet per Theoretically, liquid-level and time
minute per foot drawdown. measurements sufficient to establish three
To convert Eq. 12 into barrels per day points on the graph should be enough to
per foot drawdown, the following factors determine the straight-line relationship
must be introduced: and well capacity. However, it has been
found desirable to obtain a comparatively
7.48 X 24 X 60 X 2.3 A large number of data to ensure maximum
42 X 144 X T accuracy. Muskat has pointed out also
H. - Ho that measurements should not be taken
X logio H. _ H [13]
very close to the equilibrium value of H.
_ 4·IA I
-
H. - Ho
T OglO H, - H
because small errors in fI
will give rela-
tively large errors in the calculated value
of C or Q.
When A = area of pipe or annulus, sq. in.
CI = productivity index, bbl. fluid TABLE I.-Sample Data and Calculations,
per day per ft. drawdown. Official Kansas Drawdown Test
Then: LIQUID-LEVEL DATA ONLY

Qma. = CH. [IS] Production Data

The determination of H,-the static Production

liquid level-can be made graphically Depth to 24- hr.
Period Hours Lipt d , Rate,
by plotting H. - H against T (time in Gauged Liquid, Water,. Bbl.
Bbl. Per
minutes) on semilogarithmic paper with Cent
H. - H on the log scale and time in - - --- --
minutes on the arithmetic scale. Different I 3 1,143 9 2 .70 2 742
2 3 95 2 66.00 5 28
assumed values of H. must be used until 3 3 850 50 . 8 7 407
a straight-line relationship is obtained.
Well Data
The value of H. that gives a straight line
Producing formation ............ Arbuckle dolomite
is, theoretically, the true static liquid Well depth, ft ............................. 3,284
Depth to top of producing formation, ft ...... 3,272
level. In 60 per cent of the tests the Casing size, inches D.d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Depth to casing seat, ft ..................... 3,271
straight-line relationship could be obtained Tubing size, ft.... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
and the calculated capacities closely Length of tubing, ft ........................ 3,281
Number of tubing joints.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
approximated the capacities determined Average length of tubing, ft.. .... . . . . . . . . . .. 30.9
Pump size, in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2~~
from pumping drawdown tests. Depth of perforations, ft .............. 3,267-3,270
After a straight-line relationship is Calculations
determined and the true value of H, is Productivity index (low-high rates)
742 - 40 7 _ I I
obtained, the productivity index can be II43 - 850 - . 43
calculated by using any two points on the
straight-line curve in Eq. 14. The produc-
P.I. (low-intermediate rates) = 5 28 -
952 -
i 07
50
= 1.186

tivity index can be determined also Average P.I. = 1.143 +2 1.186 = 1.165
graphically by the following relationship: Indicated liquid capacity
= (3272 - 850) X 1.165 407 +
= 3229 bbl. per day
I Well rating = 3000 - (2 per cent of 3000)
C =KX R X A X 4.1 [16] = 2940 bbl. per day
 CHARLES C. RODD 55
Data on a fill-up test and the results of 10 per cent of the higher one.) If the calcu-
plotting the data on a semilogarithmic lated capacity is less than 3000 bbl. of
chart are shown in Fig. 3 and Table 2. :fluid per day the well is given a rating equal
to the calculated capacity if no water was
TABLE 2.-Data and Calculations, Fill-up
300
Test I"- r--..
200
I~
H.- H
~ I""--
r--
Time
Depth to
Li~~~d,
Lii\uid
in ole,
Ft. H.=
2790
H. =
2780
H.=
2786
150

100 I'\.
~
~~ -- I'-
I'-~~
--- - - - - - - --- - - - --- 80
0 ....:
3'-25"
722
702
2,5 8 1
2,601
209
189
199
179
205
185 <t-.60 ~ r-....
\ r--; ~ r-....
6'-55" 681 2,622 168 158 16 4 ~50 <'&00
11'-55"
16'-55"
659
640
2,644
2,663
146
127
136
II7
142
123 ~40 l" t':: J'-.. ~
26'-55" 609 2,694 96 86 92
l'\ "- ~ ~
4 1 '-55" 576 2,7 27 63 53 59 30
~
56'-55" 556 2,747 43 33 39
[\~ ~'>
J"..,
Casing (7 in.) 24 lb. bottomed at 3303 ft. 20
Total depth, 3319 ft. \
Tubing (3 in.) 9.30 lb. upset. 15
Area of annulus, 21.91 sq. in.
Calculations (H. = 2786):
10
C
=
4. 1 X 21.91 L
56.9
205
Og'03"9"" 1.13
8 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 10
Time, minutes
Capacity = 1.138 X 2786 = 3170 bbl. per day
(Capacity determined by drawdown test was 3317 bbl. FIG. 3.-DETERMINATION OF STATIC LIQUID
per day.) LEVEL (H.) FROM FILL-UP DATA.

RULES FOR OFFICIAL DRAWDOWN TESTS
IN KANSAS
Fluid-level Tests
For the initial test of a well, liquid levels
at three stable rates of production must
be determined. The lowest rate of produc-
tion must be at least 5 bbl. per hour; the
intermediate and high rates must be at
least 10 and IS bbl. per hour, respectively.
A spread of 10 bbl. per hour between high
and low rates and 4 bbl. per hour between
any two rates is required. (Exceptions are
made for wells with capacities of less than
30 bbl. per hour.) Stabilization of the liquid
level, within a limit of 5 ft. per hour, is
required for each production rate and the
well must be gauged for 3 hr. at each rate
after stabilization is reached.
The productivity indices between the
low and high rate and the low and
intermediate rates are determined and
the average of the two used to compute the
capacity. (A retest may be required if the
difference between the indices is more than
produced. If water was produced the rating
is reduced by the percentage of water
produced during the highest rate of produc-
tion. If the calculated capacity is more than
3000 bbl. per day the well is given a rating
of 3000 bbl. minus the percentage of water.
On subsequent tests only two rates of
production are required. The high rate
must be at least IS bbl. per hour and a
spread of 10 bbl. per hour between high
and low rates is required. Other conditions
are the same as for initial tests. All wells
must be tubed to the top of the producing
formation during official tests.
Bottom-hole Pressure Tests
Either a bottom-hole pressure gauge or
the back-pressure method may be used.
Pressures at two stable rates of production
are required, and bottom-hole pressures
must not vary more than 3 lb. per hour
during each gauging period. The high rate
must be at least IS bbl. per hour and a
spread of 10 bbl. per hour between high and
low rates must be obtained. The high rate
56 DETERMINATION OF OIL-WELL CAPACITIES FROM LIQUID-LEVEL DATA
must be taken first and the stable period
must be preceded by the production of 240
bbl. of liquid. Three-hour gauges at each
rate are required. The maximum rating is
3000 bbl. per day with a deduction for
water production on the same basis as for
fluid-level tests. Wells must be tubed to the
top of the producing formation.
ECONOMICS OF LIQUID-LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
The advantages of conducting well tests
without interfering with production are
apparent, particularly where production is
not restricted and down time means loss
of income. Even where runs are rt;stricted
and down time does not involve loss of
allowable, the expense of pulling rods and
tubing is more than the cost of an extended
study with liquid-level measuring equip-
ment, which in Kansas has been largely
in connection with official tests for alloca-
tion purposes. Prior to the use of drawdown
tests, physical tests were required, which
on most pumping wells necessitated the
installation of large-capacity equipment
costing from $7,000 to $12,000 per well, and
required pumping the wells at rates that
often were considered to be injurious to the
reservoir. As well allowables were extremely
low, the capacity of the equipment was not
utilized, except for physical tests, for
several years after installation. Since the
adoption of drawdown tests, most operators
are installing smaller equipment costing
from $2,000 to $5,000 per well, and are
pumping the wells at much lower rates
than formerly.
The service cost of testing a pumping
well varies from approximately $40,
where liquid-level data alone are used, to
approximately $140 for a back-pressure
test requiring the use of a compressor.
Labor cost varies from $10 to $25, depend-
ing on the type of test. The average cost
of taking capacity physical tests, including
labor and repairs to equipment, but
excluding depreciation of pumping equip-
ment, is approximately $125 per well.
Most flowing wells (and some pumping
wells if properly equipped) can be tested
more cheaply with bottom-hole pressure
gauges than with liquid-level measuring
equipment. Pressure gauges, however, are
costly, and only a few operators own them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the
cooperation of the Conservation Depart-
ment of the Kansas Corporation Commis-
sion; The Depthograph Company, Mr.
George Vaughn, Manager, Great Bend,
Kansas; and The Halliburton Oil Well
Cementing Company.
REFERENCES
1. C. P. Walker: Determination of Fluid Level in Oil
Wells by the Pressure-wave Echo Method.
Trans. A.l.M.E. (1937) 123.32.
2. H. C. Miller, E. S. Burnett and R. V. Higgins:
Oil Well Behavior Based upon Subsurface Pres-
sures and Production Data. Trans. A.I.M.E.
(1937) 123.97·
3. G. Weber: Fluid Level Indicator Used in East
Texas. Oil and Gas Jnl. (Dec. 'S, 1938).
4. J. J. Jakosky: Bottom-hole Measurements in
Pumping Wells. Trans. A.l.M.E. (1939) 132.62.
5. M. Muskat: Use of Data on BUIld-up of Bottom-
hole Pressure. Trans. A.l.M.E (1937) 123.45.