Papers - - Estimation of Petroleum Reserves - Acre-foot Yields of Texas Gulf Coast Oil Fields

The figures listed in a table for Gulf Coast fields given by L. P. Teas1 in 1934 are so greatly at variance with results that I have obtained from a serious study of this subject over a number of years, that I am disposed to challenge the correctness of Mr. Teas' figures as an accurate representation of acre-foot yields of Gulf Coast fields, and as regards at least two of the fields listed by Mr. Teas I desire to "put into the record" some figures that, according to my study, are more nearly in accord with what I conceive to be the actual facts. Upon investigation I find that Mr. Teas' figures, inadvertently no doubt, arc not what they purport to be. Apparently the figures were arrived at by considering as thickness of the producing formation the net thickness of producing rock corresponding "to the total of the net portions of the producing zones which actually yield oil into the drill hole"—and in following this method I am under the impression that Mr. Teas was acting under instructions of the Institute in the preparation of this paper, in order to get comparable figures from the several fields of the United States. Apparently the author interpreted these instructions to mean that in the absence of cored thicknesses of producing horizons the actual number of feet of screen set in the various producing zones was to be taken as the basis for arriving at the thickness of these zones and the "acre-foot" yields. It is obvious that in many instances only 20 ft. of screen, or even 10 ft. of screen, might be set in a well, when there might be actually 100 ft. of oil sand present. In the early operations in the Gulf Coast it was usual to set much less screen than the amount of sand. It follows that the "acre-foot yields" so arrived at would be much greater than those found by using the full 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 in Table 1. A casual inspection of these yields will show that certainly they do not properly reflect the amount of oil produced from an acre-foot of the