OTC-26649-MS

Modifying the Hall Plot for Analysis of Immiscible Gas Injection Wells
O. A. Talabi, Schlumberger

Copyright 2016, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–25 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
The Hall plot is a proven, useful tool for evaluating performance of injection wells. It was originally
developed for single-phase, steady-state, radial flow of liquids. It continues to be used to analyse
water-injection wells and has also been modified and applied to the injection of polymer micellar solutions
for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). However, published studies into its applicability for gas injection
scenarios are very limited. This paper discusses the applicability of, and modifications to, the Hall plot for
evaluating injection of gas into a reservoir under specific conditions—particularly immiscible gas
injection into a gas cap.
Three commonly used expressions of the Darcy equation applied to gas wells exist—the low pressure
approximation, the high pressure approximation and the method of real-gas pseudopressures. For this
study, a methodology similar to that which was originally used to derive the Hall plot for liquids is applied
to these expressions in order to derive modified ‘Hall’ expressions for gas wells, making appropriate
assumptions. The validity of the resulting derived expressions was then verified using results from a
commercial reservoir simulator. Published correlations were used to evaluate pressure-dependent prop-
erties for the plot, where required.
Based on the analysis, it was found that at low pressures, using the original expression of the Hall plot
introduces a nonlinearity that could be misinterpreted as a change in injectivity. The modified expression
for the Hall plot, based on the low-pressure approximation and published correlations, removes this
artificial nonlinearity and straightens the plot, greatly improving its diagnostic value. It was also seen that
at high-pressures, the attempts to re-derive a Hall plot expression for gas flow lead to an expression of the
same form as the original Hall plot. Therefore the original Hall plot can be used without modification as
it produces a straight line with no curvature. The method of pseudopressures gives the most comprehen-
sive solution over the entire pressure range as expected, although it is more difficult to evaluate due to the
need for numerical integration.
The results from this work indicate that modified versions of the Hall plot can be used qualitatively by
engineers to identify injectivity problems during injection of gas into a reservoir under specific condi-
tions—immiscible gas injection into a gas cap—as long as the appropriate approximations and correla-
tions are used.
2 OTC-26649-MS

Introduction
Gas injection into reservoirs is usually done when there is a readily available supply of gas. This gas
supply typically comes from produced reservoir solution gas or gas-cap gas, gas produced from a deeper
gas-filled reservoir, or gas from a relatively nearby gas field. The gas may be injected into an existing gas
cap of an oil column or directly into the oil column. In both cases, the aim is generally partial or complete
pressure maintenance, gas storage, oil vaporization or prevention of condensate dropout, displacement,
and oil swelling. In particular, gas injection into the gas cap is effective because gravity drainage helps
control the movement of the injected gas. Good displacement efficiencies and high oil recoveries are
typical of such reservoirs, for example, the Tensleep pool in the Elk Basin field in Wyoming (Stewart et
al. 1955).
The interpretation of injection pressures and rates associated with gas injection is important to the
efficient surveillance and monitoring of gas injection projects. The Hall plot is a proven, useful tool for
evaluating performance of injection wells. It was originally developed for single-phase, steady-state,
radial flow of liquids. Since then it has also been modified and applied to the injection of polymer micellar
solutions for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) (Buell et al. 1987). This paper discusses the applicability of,
and modifications to, the Hall plot for evaluating immiscible gas injection.
Gas flow through porous media is complicated due to the complexity of compressibility, pressure
dependence of properties, and relative permeability variation as phase saturation changes with injection.
Because of this, it is suggested that the modified Hall plot presented be used only for single-phase gas
injection into a gas phase (such as with reinjection into a gas cap). In addition, exact analytical solutions
for flow of gas through porous media are not pursued. Instead, approximate solutions are developed and
supplemented with documented numerical methods and correlations. To verify the methods presented, a
numerical reservoir simulator model was used. The simulation model factors in the full complexity of gas
inflow by a full compositional pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) description and using the generalized
pseudopressure equation. The results from the model show that the Hall plot can be used qualitatively to
identify and diagnose injectivity problems in gas injection wells as long as an approximation based on
appropriate correlations is used.

Background of the Hall Plot

The Hall plot was originally proposed to analyse the performance of water injection wells. In general, the
slope of the Hall plot is interpreted qualitatively as an indicator of the well injectivity. At normal
conditions, the plot is a straight line. Changes in the slope of the plot indicate changes of injection
conditions that need to be investigated.
The Hall plot derivation starts at Darcy’s law for single-phase, steady-state, flow of a well centred in
a circular reservoir:
(1)

Eq. 1 assumes that the fluid is homogenous and incompressible, the reservoir is vertically confined and
uniform, both with respect to permeability and thickness, the reservoir is horizontal, the flow is radial and
steady state, and the mobility ratio is close to 1 (essentially; k, h, ␮, re, rw, and S are constant). Therefore
replacing the constant values with a single constant gives and equation of the form:
(2)

Hall then integrated both sides with respect to time to obtain

OTC-26649-MS 3

(3)

(4)

For liquids, which are incompressible, the bottomhole pressure and wellhead pressure can be related
directly by the hydrostatic head and friction losses in the wellbore, which are usually assumed constant.
Therefore, a plotted cumulative wellhead pressure versus cumulative injection gives a straight line; this
plot came to be known as the ⬙Hall plot⬙ (Hall 1963). By plotting in this format, Hall observed that if an
injection well was stimulated, the slope decreased, and if a well was damaged, the slope increased. An
ideal undamaged well exhibits a straight line. Although Hall’s conclusions regarding changes in slope are
valid, it is important to note that changes in the slope of the Hall plot can be the result of other factors.
Early in the life of an injection well, the radius of the fluid zones can increase with cumulative injection
and cause the value of C to increase, resulting in a concave upward trend in the Hall plot. Also, if the
mobility ratio is greater than 1, then the Hall plot can trend concave downwards. Conversely and if
mobility ratio is less than 1.0, it can gradually trend concave upwards. Also, changes in fluid saturation
due to injection can lead to a changing average relative permeability to the injected phase. This can also
affect the slope of the plot (Smith and Cobb 1997).
Calculating the y-axis on the Hall plot is very easy if the reservoir pressure (PR) is assumed constant.
However, as has been shown by Silin et al. (2005), ignoring the reservoir pressure or using significantly
incorrect values of reservoir pressure can lead to apparent changes in the slope of the plot. These changes
in slope are caused by changes in rate, which affect the integral when PR has been neglected.
To determine whether average reservoir pressure is changing, it is necessary to conduct regular
pressure buildup/falloff tests and to monitor monthly voidage replacement ratio (VRR) plots. The
objective of the Hall plot is to detect changes in the injection well skin factor. The Hall plot is a
steady-state analysis method, whereas falloff tests, injection tests, and type-curve analysis are transient
methods. Transient pressure analysis methods determine the reservoir properties at essentially one point
in time. The Hall plot is a continuous monitoring method (i.e., reservoir properties are measured over a
period of weeks and months). The Hall plot, therefore, can help identify changes in injection character-
istics that occur over an extended period. Another advantage of the Hall plot is that integrating the
pressure data has a smoothing effect. Although only cumulative injection and surface pressure measure-
ments are required, these are subject to noise, and surface pressures must be converted to bottomhole
pressures (BHPs), correcting for hydrostatic head and friction loss. The integral smooths out this data,
making it easier to interpret. It is not a perfect tool, but can, under certain conditions, provide reasonable
insight on skin changes and guide decisions as to when more data need to be gathered or a properly
designed, well-executed, and fully analysed pressure falloff test is required.
It is immediately obvious that most of the assumptions used in the original Hall plot do not apply to
gas injection. The primary complexities are related to compressibility and viscosity. Gas is so highly
compressible that equations for liquid flow cannot be used. Therefore, the Hall plot derivation from
Darcy’s law must follow a different path. In addition, where gas is being injected into an oil phase, there
is a significant difference in mobility. The mobility ratio is much less than 1, which will lead to an upward,
concave trend in the Hall plot. This is investigated separately and will be the subject of a follow up paper.
This, however, does not imply that the Hall plot cannot be used to analyse any gas injection cases. For
the case of gas injection into a gas cap, the mobility problem is not encountered and therefore only
pressure-dependent compressibility and viscosity need be considered.
4 OTC-26649-MS

Modifying the Hall Plot for Gas Injection

There exist three commonly used expressions of the Darcy equation applied to gases. The first is a
low-pressure approximation, which can be written as
(5)

A second approximation occurs at high pressures and is generally written as

(6)

Shortcomings exist for both methods as both are only approximations valid for given conditions and
both require and to be evaluated at some ⬙average pressure⬙.
These difficulties are usually overcome by using the method of real-gas pseudopressures (Al-Hussainy
et al. 1966.) This method evaluates the gas pseudopressure (or real-gas potential) as an integral:
(7)

which reduces Darcy’s law for gas to a similar form as that for incompressible fluids
(8)

The method of pseudopressures is the most effective method as it is applicable for all pressure ranges
and does not require the averaging of pressure to evaluate average and . Using this method, the form
of Darcy’s equation for gas is similar to that for liquids and therefore it is easily inferred that the writing
a ‘Hall’ plot for gases becomes trivial with m(p) replacing p, a different constant C1 replacing C and Qg
replacing Qw .
(9)

Unfortunately, this method is computationally intense in the evaluation of the real-gas pseudopressure
m(p) as it requires both the use of correlations and a numerical integration method such as the trapezoidal
rule to evaluate. This means that it is not so easily implemented. However, in order to use the Hall plot
for gases, the low- and high-pressure approximations provide simpler methods with sufficient accuracy to
monitor injectivity as the following sections show.

The Low-Pressure Formulation

We begin at the low-pressure steady-state solution of Darcy’s law for a gas, which can be written as
(10)

Since and are functions of pressure, they cannot be assumed constant. However, when injecting gas
into a gas phase at a steady state, k, h, T, and S may be assumed to be independent of pressure and
constant, grouped as C1 .
Therefore, we get an expression of the form
OTC-26649-MS 5

(11)

which we can integrate with respect to time after the method of Hall to get
(12)

The rigorous analytical evaluation of viscosity and compressibility factor as functions of pressure
would require utilization of an equation of state. The complexity of this approach and the requirement of
critical (or pseudocritical) properties, acentric factors, and binary interaction parameters make it unfa-
vourable.
However, the integral can be evaluated relatively easily as a cumulative. This leads to the modified Hall
plot for low pressure gas injection:
(13)

This can be plotted as a straight line with slope 1/C1.

This implies that to utilize the plot for gas wells at low pressure, the viscosity and compressibility factor
must be evaluated at the mean pressure between the reservoir and bottomhole pressures at every point.
This can be done reasonably easily using published correlations. For viscosity, Carr et al. (1954) and
Lee et al. (1966) provide methods. For compressibility factor, methods such as Beggs and Brill (1973),
Kumar (2004), Heidaryan et al. (2010), Azizi et al. (2010), Sanjari and Lay (2012), etc., exist.
Although the application range of some empirical correlations is limited and some correlations require
iterative procedures, such as that for z-factor by Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem (1975), they generally give
good results when applied to the right situations.
In this paper, we use the Begg’s and Brill (1973) correlation for z-factor and the Lee et al. (1966)
correlation for viscosity. They are chosen for their applicability to typical pressure ranges and ease of
implementation.

The High-Pressure Simplification

It has been shown that at high pressures (typically above 4,000 psia); the product ␮z varies linearly with
pressure and the gas behaves like a liquid.
This is also supported from the fact that observation of the Standing and Katz (1942) z-factor
correlation charts indicate that for a given gas, at a reduced pressure (, which is the ratio of gas pressure
to critical pressure) of ⬎ 4, the z-factor variation with pressure becomes linear. All this means that Darcy’s
law for gases using the high-pressure solution
(14)

can be written when the gases are at high pressure as

(15)

(16)

which we can integrate after the method of Hall to get

6 OTC-26649-MS

(17)

(18)

This is exactly the same form as the original Hall plot for steady-state incompressible injection.
Furthermore, even if we are in a pressure region where the low-pressure approximation is still valid but
the reduced pressure is ⬎ 4 due to the composition and conditions of the gas, we can then start at the
low-pressure solution of Darcy’s law for gases
(19)

Writing as a linear function of related by constant C2 and grouping all the constants into C3 this
can be written when the reduced pressure is ⬎ 4 as
(20)

(21)

which we can integrate after the method of Hall:

(22)

(23)

This can easily be evaluated.

However, it can be seen that therefore, the equation reduces to
(24)

(25)

Noting that 2C2 is the same as constant C3, the equation becomes
(26)

which, again, is the same as the derivation from the high-pressure solution (Eqn. 18) and also the same
form as the expression as the original Hall plot for steady-state liquid injection (Eqn. 4).
This corroborates the observation that at high pressures, gases tend to behave like liquids and that at
high pressures (⬎ 4,000 psia) and/or such that the reduced pressure (Pr) is ⬎ 4, the original form of the
Hall plot can be used to analyse gas injection without modification.

Verification Using Simulation Model

A commercial reservoir simulator is used to validate the results of this analysis.
OTC-26649-MS 7

A simple, generally homogenous model with one injector and one producer is used to investigate the
validity of the modification. It utilizes a Cartesian 10 ⫻ 10 ⫻ 10 grid with each grid cell having
dimensions of 100 ft ⫻ 100 ft ⫻ 10 ft. Average permeability throughout the model is ~ 200 md and
porosity is ~ 0.15. These properties are uniformly distributed.
A fully compositional fluid model is used to define the fluid in the reservoir and is characterized using
seven components and the Peng-Robinson equation of state at a temperature of 244°F. The component
mole fractions and equilibrium pressure are defined such that the model is fully saturated with gas, as in
a reservoir gas cap. Details are given in Table 1.

Table 1—Composition of gas injected

Component Molecular Weight Mole Percent (%)

CO2 4.40E⫹01 0.9

N2 2.80E⫹01 0.1
C1 1.60E⫹01 86
C2⫹ 3.50E⫹01 10
C4⫹ 6.90E⫹01 1
C10⫹ 1.87E⫹02 1
C35⫹ 4.56E⫹02 1

The wells in the model are placed at opposite corners of the model, as shown in Fig. 1 and are
completed through the entire vertical extent of the model. To model well flow equations in the simulator
as accurately as possible, the full gas pseudopressure option is enabled. The model was saturated with gas
and the injection process simulated by injecting gas evenly into each layer.

Figure 1—Simulation model layout

Three cases were run: a low-pressure scenario (case 1), a high-pressure scenario (case 2) and a
mid-pressure scenario (Case 3).
In case 1, the low-pressure scenario, the model was saturated with gas at a datum pressure of 1,500 psia,
and throughout the injection period, the average model pressure was kept close to 1,500psia with a
maximum of 2100 psia and minimum of 770 psia, which is in the low-pressure range and within validity
8 OTC-26649-MS

of the Beggs and Brill correlation. This was achieved by adjusting the nominal gas production rates while
keeping the gas injection rate constant. The simulation schedule is given in Table 2.

Table 2—Schedule used for the three simulation scenarios

Days Injection Well Rate (MMscf/D) Production Well Rate (MMscf/D) Injection Well Skin

0 2,000 1,500 0
180 2,000 1,500 0
360 2,000 1,500 20
720 2,000 4,500 20

After 360 days, the skin of the injection well was changed from 0 to 20. The simulation was ended after
1,080 days.
In case 2, the high-pressure scenario, the model was saturated with gas at a datum pressure of 6,000
psia and throughout the injection period, the average pressure was kept within the range of 7,200 to 4,790
psia which is well into the high-pressure injection range. As with the previous case, after 360 days, the
skin value in the well was changed from 0 to 20. The gas injection and production rates were also changed
according to the schedule in Table 2. The simulation was ended after 1,080 days.
For case 3, the mid-pressure scenario, the model was saturated with gas at a datum pressure of 3,000
psia which is in the mid-range pressure region and injection used to slowly increase the pressure over time
for 720 days after which there was a rapid pressure decline. Consequently, throughout the simulation, the
average pressure was kept in the range of 3,700 to 2,150 psia, considered to be in between the high and
low pressure ranges. As with the other cases, after 360 days, the skin value in the well was changed from
0 to 20 and the gas injection and production rates were also varied. The schedule is the same as in Table
2 and ended after 1,080 days.
Bottomhole pressure limits of 500 psia were used on the gas production well. No other limits were
imposed.
Once the simulations for the three cases were completed, the bottomhole pressure, average field
pressure, and cumulative gas injection volume were extracted and plotted using the three expressions
outlined in the previous section:
a. The original expression for the Hall plot
b. The low-pressure approximation derived above
c. The pseudopressure expression
The integral of the pseudopressure expression was evaluated using the trapezoidal rule with an arbitrary
base pressure of 20 psia and pressure ranges subdivided into 10 psia intervals using a method similar to
that presented in Al-Hussainy et al. (1966).
The high-pressure approximation was not plotted separately as it has already been shown that at high
pressures, this reduces to the same expression as the original Hall plot.
Results
Case 1 - Low Pressure Scenario
The results of BHP, Average reservoir pressure and cumulative gas injection for the low-pressure
simulation case are taken and plotted.
Using the original expression of the Hall plot, it can be seen (in Fig. 2) that although the explicit change
in skin value can be seen clearly (point A) as a true change in slope, it also introduces a nonlinearity and
an apparent change in slope (point B) that could be misinterpreted as a change in injectivity.
OTC-26649-MS 9

Figure 2—Original Hall/High Pressure approximation plot results for Case 1.

This nonlinearity is simply the effect of not accounting for the changing viscosity and compressibility
with pressure. The apparent change in slope is most prominent at the end of the simulation when gas
production is increased while injection rates remain constant. This leads to increasing average field
pressure in the simulation and consequently, changing compressibility and viscosity which the using the
original Hall plot expression, is not accounted for.
Using the low-pressure expression removes this artificial nonlinearity from the low-pressure injection
results and straightens the plot during the changing compressibility and viscosity range, (Fig. 3),
improving its diagnostic value. Using this plot, only the true change in skin is indicated by a change in
slope at point A.

Figure 3—Low-pressure approximation results for Case 1.

10 OTC-26649-MS

Next, results from the low-pressure scenario are plotted using the pseudopressure solution. (Fig. 4)

Figure 4 —Pseudopressure solution results for Case 1.

Since the pseudopressure solution is valid over all pressure ranges, it accounts for the changing
compressibility and viscosity range and only the true change in skin is indicated by a change in slope at
point A. It produces a similar plot to the low-pressure approximation, thus validating that approximation
in this low pressure range.
Case 2 - High Pressure Scenario
The results of BHP, Average reservoir pressure and cumulative gas injection for the high-pressure
simulation case are also retrieved and plotted using the same three expressions as before. The results are
shown below in Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.

Figure 5—Original Hall plot results for Case 2.

OTC-26649-MS 11

Figure 6 —Low-pressure expression results for Case 2.

Figure 7—Pseudopressure expression results for Case 2.

In the high-pressure case, the explicit change in skin value is also seen clearly using the original
expression of the Hall plot, the low-pressure approximation and the pseudopressure solution; however, in
this case, the original Hall plot (high-pressure solution) now also produces a straight line with no artificial
curvature and no apparent change in slope in late time when pressure (and consequently compressibility
and viscosity) is changing. Comparison with the other two plots shows almost no difference, which
indicates that the low pressure solution provides a good approximation even at high pressures.
12 OTC-26649-MS

In this high pressure range the gas is now supercritical and behaves as a single phase fluid, conforming
to the assumptions made in deriving the high-pressure approximation. Thus, in this case the original Hall
plot expression can be used without modification.

Case 3 - Mid Pressure Scenario

In order to test the robustness of methods, both the high and low pressure approximations were tested in
the mid-pressure range and compared to the pseudopressure solution. As with the previous scenarios, the
results of BHP, average reservoir pressure and cumulative gas injection for the high-pressure simulation
case were also retrieved and plotted using the three expressions as before. The results of the original Hall
(high-pressure approximation) are shown below in Fig. 8.

Figure 8 —Original Hall/High-pressure expression plot of results for Case 3.

For this mid-pressure scenario, the true skin change at point A is easily detected but as with Case 1,
at low pressure, the plot shows an apparent change in slope (point B) that could be misinterpreted as a
change in injectivity when average reservoir pressure is rapidly declining. However, the nonlinearity is not
as pronounced as in the low pressure scenario.
Plotting the same results from this scenario with the low pressure approximation and the pseudopres-
sure solution (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) appears to eliminate this problem. Using both plots, only the true change
in skin is indicated by a change in slope at point A.
OTC-26649-MS 13

Figure 9 —Low-pressure expression plot of results for Case 3.

Figure 10 —Pseudopressure expression plot of results for Case 3.

As expected, the low pressure approximation gives good results at low pressures and the high-pressure
approximation gives good results at high pressures.
Similar results were obtained at different input values of model permeability and porosity.
It is interesting to note that the low-pressure approximation even at the mid and high pressure ranges
gives a good linear plot and tracks closely with the pseudo-pressure solution. This seems to indicate that
as long as the variation of viscosity and compressibility with pressure is accounted for, despite the
14 OTC-26649-MS

pressure range, the low-pressure expression can give a good estimate of the pseudopressure results without
the need for complicated numerical integration required of a full pesudopressure solution.
Therefore by choosing the appropriate expression based on the pressure range, the generation of an
accurate and useful Hall plot for gas injection may be simplified as shown in Table 3.

Table 3—Suitability of Hall Plot Expressions for Gas at Different Pressure Ranges
Low Pressure High Pressure Mid-Range Pressure

Original Hall (High Pressure Approximation) Very Poor Good Poor

Low Pressure Approximation Good Good Good
Pseudopressure solution Good Good Good

Conclusions and Recommendations

It has been demonstrated using modified equations validated by a reservoir simulator, that the Hall plot
can be used as a qualitative diagnostic tool when gas phase hydrocarbon fluids are being injected into
another, similar hydrocarbon gas phase. A low-pressure approximation can easily be used to create the
Hall plot as long as viscosity and compressibility changes are accounted for using established and
applicable correlations. This approximation gives a good estimate of the full pseudopressure solution and
can be used for low, intermediate and high pressures. For high-pressure gas injection, the original Hall plot
may be used without any modification. Further work to determine the required modifications needed when
injecting gas phase hydrocarbons into a liquid phase is in progress.

Nomenclature
Pwi : Injection well bottomhole pressure
PR : Average reservoir pressure
Pr : Reduced pressure
pb : Arbitrary base pressure used for evaluation of pseudopressure integral
k : Permeability
re : Effective reservoir radius (to pressure boundary)
rw : Well radius
S : Skin
h : Reservoir interval thickness
T : Reservoir temperature
qg : Gas injection rate
Qg : Cumulative Gas Injection volume
qw : Water injection rate
Qw : Cumulative Water Injection volume
: Average of reservoir and bottomhole pressures
␮ : Viscosity
: Viscosity evaluated at
Z : Gas compressibility factor
: Gas compressibility factor evaluated at
m(p) : Real-gas pseudopressure evaluated at P
C, C1, C2, C3 : Constants
OTC-26649-MS 15

References
Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Crawford, P.B. 1966. The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media. J Pet Technol
18 (5): 624 –636. SPE-1243-A-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1243-A-PA.
Azizi, N., Behbahani, R., Isazadeh, M.A. 2010. An Efficient Correlation for Calculating Compressibility Factor of Natural
Gases. Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 19 (6): 642–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1003-9953(09)60081-5.
Beggs, D.H. and Brill, J.P. 1973. A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes. J Pet Technol 25 (5): 607–617.
SPE-4007-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/4007-PA.
Buell, R.S., Kazemi, H., and Poettmann, F.H. 1987: Analysing Injectivity of Polymer Solutions with the Hall Plot.
Presented at the SPE ATCE, Dallas, Texas, 27–30 September. SPE-16963.
Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D.B. 1954. Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure. J Pet Technol 6 (10):
47–55. SPE-297-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/297-G.
Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H. 1975. Calculation of z Factors for Natural Gases using Equations of State. Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology 14 (3), 34 –36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/75-03-03.
Hall, H.N. 1963. How To Analyze Waterflood Injection Well Performance. World Oil: 128 –30.
Heidaryan, E., Moghadasi, J., and Rahimi, M. 2010. New Correlations to Predict Natural Gas Viscosity and Compress-
ibility Factor. Journal of Petroleum Sci and Eng 73 (1–2), 67–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2010.05.008.
Kumar, N., 2004. Compressibility Factor for Natural and Sour Reservoir Gases by Correlations and Cubic Equations of
State. MS thesis. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E. 1966. The Viscosity of Natural Gases. J Pet Technol 18 (8): 997–1000.
SPE-1340-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1340-MS.
Sanjari, E., and Lay, E.N. 2012. An Accurate Empirical Correlation for Predicting Natural Gas Compressibility Factors.
Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 21 (2): 184 –188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1003-9953(11)60352-6.
Silin, D. B., Holtzman. R, Patzek, and T. W., Brink, J. L. 2005. Monitoring Waterflood Operations: Hall Method Revisited.
Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Irvine, California, USA, 30 March–1 April. SPE-93879-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/93879-MS.
Smith, J.T. and Cobb, W.M. 1997: Water Flooding. Midwest Office of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council:
Champaign.
Standing, M.B., and Katz, D.L. 1942. Density of Natural Gases. Trans. AIME 146, 140 –149. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
942140-g.
Stewart, F.M., Garthwaite, D.L., and Krebill, F.K. 1955. Pressure Maintenance by Inert Gas Injection in the High Relief
Elk Basin Field. Trans. AIME 204: 49 –57. SPE-380-G.