This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Chapter 1 GAS MATERIAL BALANCE

1.1 Introduction

Material balance is the application of the law of conservation of mass to oil and gas reservoirs and aquifers. It is based on the premise that reservoir space voided by production is immediately and completely filled by the expansion of remaining fluids and rock. As demonstrated later in this chapter, material balance is a useful engineering method for understanding a reservoir's past performance and predicting its future potential. To understand and analyze gas reservoirs, the following conditions will be applied. 1. Reservoir hydrocarbon fluids are in phase equilibrium at all times, and equilibrium is achieved instantaneously after any pressure change; 2. The reservoir can be represented by a single, weighted pressure average at any time (Pressure gradients in the reservoir cannot be considered by the method.) 3. Fluid saturations are uniform throughout the reservoir at any time (Saturation gradients cannot be handled.) 4. Conventional PVT relationships for normal gas are applicable and are sufficient to describe fluid phase behavior in the reservoir. Material balance calculations can be used to: 1. Determine original oil and gas in place in the reservoir; 2. Determine original water in place in the aquifer; 3. Estimate expected oil and gas recoveries as a function of pressure decline in a closed reservoir producing by depletion drive, or as a function of water influx in a water-drive reservoir; 4. Predict future behavior of a reservoir (production rates, pressure decline, and water influx); 5. Verify volumetric estimates of original fluids in place; 6. Verify future production rates and recoveries predicted by decline-curve analysis; 7. Determine which primary producing drive mechanisms are responsible for a reservoir's observed behavior, and quantify the relative importance of each mechanism; 8. Evaluate the effectiveness of a water drive; 9. Study the interference of fields sharing a common aquifer. Data requirements to accurately apply the material balance method consists of: (1) cumulative fluid production at several times (cumulative oil, gas, and water); (2) average reservoir pressures at the same times, averaged accurately over the entire reservoir; (3) fluid PVT data at each reservoir pressure as well as formation compressibility.

1.1

1.2 Basic concepts

The general material-balance equation for a depletion-drive gas reservoir, neglecting water and formation compressibilities is expressed by: Gp ⎞ p pi ⎛ ⎜ ⎟ = 1− (1.1) z zi ⎜ G ⎟ ⎝ ⎠

It is one of the most often used relationships in gas reservoir engineering. It is usually valid enough to provide excellent estimates of original gas-in-place based on observed production, pressure, and PVT data. During the life of a gas reservoir, cumulative production is recorded, and average reservoir pressures are periodically measured. At each measured reservoir pressure the gas z-factor is determined to calculate P/z, and the result plotted as shown in Figure 1.1 below. Notice that Equation 1.1 results in a linear relationship between P/z and Gp. That is, as gas is produced from the reservoir, the ratio P/z should decline linearly for a volumetric reservoir. Note that for an ideal gas, pressure alone would decline linearly.

4000 3500 3000 p/z, psia 2500 2000 1500 1000 (p/z)a 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Gpa=8.5 Bscf 6 7 8 9 G=10 Bscf 10 11 12 extrapolate Last measured data point

(p/z)i

Cumulative gas produced,Bscf

Figure 1.1 Example of linear relationship between p/z and gas produced for a volumetric reservoir.

1.2

5 Bscf. the measured data points will be extrapolated to an optimistically high value of OGIP. and extrapolation to OGIP would have exceeded 10. as in an unconsolidated sand reservoir. 1.822 3650 0.1. p/z. 1) 2) 3) 4) In the example. thus (p/z)a = 529 psia. if a water drive were acting on the gas reservoir. If this extra stored energy is not accounted for. Secondly. but the formation was unconsolidated and had significant compressibility. the data points formed a easily-recognizable straight 1ine. Theoretically. (Example shown in Fig. the three measured reservoir pressures after production had begun would have been greater. average reservoir pressure may not have been accurately determined. However. where Gp must equal G. it is possible to estimate ultimate recovery efficiency (RE) in a depletion-drive gas reservoir with negligible water and formation compressibilities by: 1. In the example. if the reservoir actually had an OGIP of 10. Formation compressibility may be significant. but in practice this may not always be the case. Alternatively.0 Bscf.1. and the plot of p/z versus Gp frequently shows more fluctuations from a straight line than in Figure 1. Plot P/z versus GP. This is a common problem.0 Bscf.816 3431 0. From Figure 1. the ultimate recovery is estimated to be 8.1 G = 10. mmscf 0 580 1390 3040 P. pressure support would occur and the plot of p/z versus Gp would give an overly optimistic OGIP.0 Bscf. or 85% of the OGIP. psia 0. Finally.945. Extrapolate the straight line to p/z = 0. Gp. 5) Ultimate recovery is estimated from an abandonment pressure of 500 psia and z = 0.1) Draw a straight line through the data points. the OGIP. in practice there are several factors that may cause the relationship to be nonlinear.3 . From Fiqure 1. there should be a linear relationship between p/z and G.Example 1.1 Determine the original gas-in-place and ultimate recovery at an abandonment pressure of 500 psia for the following reservoir. In this example the recovery factor was estimated simply by the ratio of ultimate recovery to the original gas-in-place.815 2540 Steps: Determine z-factor and calculate P/z. psia 3000 2800 2550 2070 z.810 3148 0. Gas specific gravity = 0.70 Reservoir temperature = 150°F Original reservoir pressure = 3000 psia Abandonment reservoir pressure = 500 psia Production and pressure history as shown in the following table.

such as adding compression. where permeability is in the milli. reservoir variables and economics.4 .⎛ B gi ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ = ⎜1 − RFvol = ⎜ − 1 ⎜ ⎜ B ga ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ p a zi z a pi ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (1. Figure 1. From this general material balance equation we will investigate the affects of water influx. nonlinearity can occur in the p/z vs Gp relationship as a result of water influx. resulting in slower pressure decline. [ ] ( ) 1. The added benefit can be quite substantial. such as adding plunger lift or capillary tubes.3) ⎤ 1 ⎛ p ⎞ (p / z )i ⎡ Wp B w − WinjB w − We ⎥ ⎢G p − G inj + Wp R sw + ⎜ ⎟ − G ⎢ B ⎝ z ⎠i ⎥ g ⎦ ⎣ where Ginj and Winj are gas and water injection. ultimate recovery efficiency can be estimated from Equation (1. linear extrapolation of the water-drive cases to determine OGIP would lead to optimistically high values.3 Advanced Topics The previous section provides the basic concepts in material balance for simple. or in the wellbore.2) For the example. the incremental gain in recovery would be approximately 1 Bscf. In all cases. volumetric gas reservoirs. abandonment pressures are being reduced by a variety of methods targeting bottomhole flowing pressure. the higher the reservoir permeability the lower the abandonment pressure. In general. 1. 1.2 shows p/z curves for gas reservoirs with varying strengths of aquifer support. However. A comprehensive form of the gas material balance equation is given by: p 1 − c e( p ) ( p i − p ) = z (1. However. For instance.3. in the previous example if the abandonment pressure could be reduced in half. rock/water compressibilities and low-permeability systems. and ce(p) is an average effective compressibility term. Subsequently. respectively.to microdarcy range.2). or changes in rock and water compressibilities in geopressured reservoirs. or the inability to achieve average reservoir pressure such as in low permeability reservoirs. gas reservoirs associated with aquifers show a flattening of the p/z curve. 529 ⎞ ⎛ RFvol = ⎜1 − ⎟ = 85% of OGIP ⎝ 3650 ⎠ The decision on selection of an appropriate abandonment pressure is dependent on operational considerations.1 Water-drive Gas Reservoir The impact of water influx is to provide pressure support. in tight gas sands. Rsw is solution gas in the water phase. These methods can be on the surface.

then the general material balance equation reduces to: ⎤ p ⎛ p ⎞ ⎡ Gp 1 (1. They showed that the size and properties of the aquifer and the withdrawal rates. For example. The material balance equation must reflect this addition.4) = ⎜ ⎟ ⎢1 − + We − Wp B w ⎥ z ⎝ z ⎠i ⎢ G GB ⎥ g ⎦ ⎣ ( ) where. (1. ⎧original volume⎫ ⎧remaining volume⎫ ⎧ net water ⎫ ⎨ ⎬=⎨ ⎬+⎨ ⎬ ⎩ of GIP.(p/z)i (p/z)a strength water drive p/z (p/z)a Depletion drive Gp Figure 1. Agarwal.5 . al. et. rcf ⎭ ⎩ of GIP. a high withdrawal rate coupled with a strong aquifer could lead to early coning and/or pockets of trapped gas. in 1965 attributed the low gas recovery in water drive reservoirs to the trapped residual gas saturation and a volumetric displacement efficiency less than unity. rcf ⎭ Assuming no injection has occurred. along with residual gas saturation and volumetric sweep efficiency impact the ultimate gas recovery and thus are major factors in designing field development strategy. that rock and water compressibility changes are small and the solubility of gas in the water is negligible. Then Wp can be expressed in stb] Rearranging Eq. rcf We Wp = cumulative water production. the net volume of water influx reduces the gas volume. rcf [Note: an alternative expression is WpBw where Bw is the water formation volume factor in rbbl/stb. we can write. = cumulative water influx into the gas reservoir. When water invades a gas reservoir.2 Water Drive Gas Reservoir p/z Curve The rate of the gas withdrawal is directly proportional to the ability of water to encroach. 1. subsequently.4) to solve for gas-in-place results in the following expression. rcf ⎭ ⎩influx.

To estimate the ultimate recovery efficiency in a water-drive gas reservoir requires an estimate of residual or trapped gas saturation. a modified form of Eq. Ev. % Unconsolidated sand 16 Slightly consolidated sand 21 (synthetic) 17 Synthetic consolidated sand Selas Porcelain Norton Alundum 24 Consolidated sandstones Wilcox 25 Frio 30-38 Nellie Bly 30-36 Frontier 31-24 Springer 33 Torpedo 34-37 Tensleep 40-50 Limestone Canyon Reef 50 Table 1. Porous Material Formation Sgr. Subsequently.6) ⎜ B ga Sgi ⎟ ⎜ z a p i Sgi ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ Implicit in the derivation of Equation (1. to obtain accurate results. gas saturation at abandonment (called residual or trapped) does not equal original gas saturation: Sgr = Sgt ≠ Sgi. (1.7) ⎟ B ga ⎜ S E gi v ⎝ ⎠ Some published values of residual gas saturation were given by Geffen (1952) and are shown in Table 1.1 Residual gas saturation after waterflood as measured on core plugs (Geffen. therefore.G= G p B g − We − W p B g − B gi ( ) (1. (1. bypassed portions of the reservoir. In a water-drive gas reservoir.1 below. al. 1952) 1.6 .6) is: B gi ⎛ Sgr 1 − E v ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ RFwd = 1 − E v + (1. Subsequently. is 100%.6) is the assumption that volumetric sweep efficiency for gas. the difference in the denominator is small and therefore could lead to erroneous values of gas-in-place.5) Early in the producing life of a reservoir. Eq. increasing the trapped gas saturation. ⎛ B gi Sgr ⎞ ⎛ p a z i Sgr ⎞ ⎟ = ⎜1 − ⎟ RFwd = ⎜1 − (1. This assumption is optimistic as frequently the displacement of gas by water results in unswept.et.5) should be used over longer periods of time.

In general. therefore it is not required to obtain the entire relative permeability curve.2q w μ w ln(ro / rt ) Δpinv = po − pt = (1.7) results in RFwd = 32%. Given: Sgi = 75% and Sgt = 35%. Assume that the entire gas reservoir is swept by water. and recovery efficiency would improve. Both are much less than typical recovery efficiencies in depletion-drive gas reservoirs.2 The reservoir is the same as described in the previous example except that pressure is fully maintained at its original value by a strong water drive. ⎛ Sgr ⎞ ⎟ = 1 − 0. (1. recovery efficiency in a gas reservoir is much better under depletiondrive than under water-drive. 141. Previous theory assumed the invaded zone pressure is equivalent to the reservoir pressure and is constant. a simplified form of Eq..8) k rw kh where po = pressure at the original reservoir boundary pt = pressure at the current reservoir boundary ro = radius at the original reservoir boundary rt = radius at the current reservoir boundary The relative permeability to water is evaluated at the endpoint. qw = dWe/dt.6) becomes. (1. Both water influx calculations and reservoir performance predictions are influenced by the pressure gradient term.Example 1. The residual gas saturation is assumed constant throughout the entire invaded region. then Eq. i. What if Ev = 60%? Since the pressure is constant for the life of the reservoir.e.7 . et al (1993) to account for pressure gradients that develop across the invaded region. The water flow rate can be estimated using the water influx term. A modified material balance for water drive gas reservoirs was proposed by Hower and Jones (1991) and Schafer.75 ⎠ ⎝ Similiarly.35 = 53% RFwd = ⎜1 − ⎜ Sgi ⎟ 0. and thus would allow some gas production by pressure depletion. The resulting modified material balance equation becomes: G p B g = G ( B g − B gi ) + Gt ( B gt − B g ) + We − BwW p (1. The modified approach accounts for pressure gradients in the invaded zone due to capillary pressure. if the volumetric sweep efficiency is accounted for. at residual gas saturation.9) 1. Note that a partial water drive does not maintain pressure completely. The method predicts a higher pressure at the original reservoir boundary and a much lower pressure in the uninvaded region of the reservoir. The pressure drop in the invaded zone is given by the steady state radial flow equation. respectively.

Also. When applying the material balance equations for oil and gas reservoirs the typical solution is to rearrange to solve for N and then used to compute OOIP or OGIP at different times during a reservoir's life. 1. Results from the proposed modified material balance method agreed with a numerical simulation model and demonstrated the influence of relative permeability on the reservoir performance. there are often major questions about the correct value for OOIP or OGIP. Use the DEMO.8 . 1991) Example 1.3 Comparison of reservoir performance for conventional and modified material balance methods and numerical simulation. Thus. notice the difference in reservoir performance between the conventional and modified material balance techniques.where Gt is the volume of trapped gas in the invaded region of the reservoir and is a function of Sgr and average pressure in the invaded region. (Hower and Jones. Figure 1.06 is assumed.3 GWINFLUX is a software application for the modified gas material balance method provided by GRI. Figure 1.3 from Hower and Jones (1991) illustrates the excellent match with the simulator if a krw = 0. especially if a gas cap or water influx is present. Naturally the results of each calculation vary somewhat from one time to another.DAT file and determine the OGIP.

and F = total net reservoir voidage F = G p B g + W p Bw Et = Eg + Ecf = total expansion Eg = expansion of gas in reservoir E g = B g − B gi Ecf = connate water and formation expansion * Bgi (1. the original gas in place.13) Since G and Gp are usually expressed in SCF. The linearized material balance equation for gas reservoirs is: W B F =G+ e w Et Et where G represents the original gas in place at standard conditions. the units of Bg and Bgi are in RCF/SCF.12) (1. The procedure requires plotting one variable group versus another. the second presents field case studies. Havlena and Odeh's method rearranges the material balance equations into an algebraic form that results in an equation of a straight line. A plot of F/Et vs WeBw/Et should result in a straight line with intercept of G.10) ⎡⎛ S wi c w + c f Ecf = B gi * ⎢⎜ ⎢⎜ 1 − S wi ⎣⎝ ⎤ ⎞ ⎟ p −p⎥ ⎟ i ⎥ ⎠ ⎦ ( ) (1.11) (1.4 Material balance linear plot for gas reservoirs with aquifer support 1. The first paper presents the theory. B We too small We correct We too large F/Et .stb Intercept=G We Bw Et Figure 1.4).A powerful method of removing much of the doubt concerning the accuracy of computed results was presented by Havlena and Odeh in two papers in 1963 and 1964. The shape of the plot and sequence of plotted points provide important insight into the validity of the assumed reservoir drive mechanism. and slope related to water influx (see Figure 1.9 .

For example. The drive indices for a gas reservoir are defined as follows: Gas drive index: GDI = GE g G p Bg We Bw − W p Bw G p Bg GEcf G p Bg (1.10 . the material balance equation must be coupled with a water influx model. a straight-line slope provides an estimate of the water influx constant. In the former. If the data does not plot as a straight line then different aquifer properties must be estimated. k.4. the slope of the straight line should be equal to one. 1.15) Compressibility drive index: CDI = (1. different aquifer properties must be used.14) Water drive index: WDI = (1. Further discussion on water influx properties is beyond the scope of this chapter. For details the reader is directed to the references at the end of this chapter. for the Fetkovich aquifer model. In the latter.16) Where the sum of the drive indices is equal to one. If not. Others are the unsteady state Van Everdingen and Hurst and steady state Schilthuis water influx models. the slope is equal to the water influx constant. B.To appropriately interpret Figure 1.

925 429366 0.993 733260 1.855 140817 0.905 392389 0.132 1074335 1.843 52191 0.152 1109657 1.4 The example is setup to demonstrate the influence of water influx on identifying the correct straight line.107 Bscf of gas-in-place (See Figure 1.11 .952 618738 0.894 313742 0.407 1463357 1. A cumulative water influx of 831 mbbl.035 825832 1.868 210174 0.104 991534 1.Example 1.221 1275411 1.2 Performance history data for Example 1. results in a straight line and estimate of 2. The GDI is approximately constant at 60% and the WDI at 40% for the +2 years of production history. resulted in a concave upwards trend and an increase in cumulative water influx of 1427 mbbl resulted in a concave downwards trend.289 1315925 1.2 below.316 1353185 1.488 Wp stb 0 0 0 0 16563 37934 54497 75868 108994 120036 144969 183615 221015 259662 297061 335708 385396 396082 478896 516296 554942 571505 612823 651469 688869 721995 754052 853428 958326 Table 1.885 260921 0.067 909022 1. time days 1 31 61 92 123 153 184 214 245 276 304 335 365 396 426 457 488 518 549 579 610 641 670 701 731 762 792 823 854 Gp Bg mscf rbbl/mscf 816 0.442 1501825 1. 1.167 1145626 1.185 1196897 1.837 25299 0.360 1427744 1.930 504400 0.340 1385369 1. Solve for the correct gas-in-place using the linearized method. A decrease in cumulative water influx of 484 mbbl.4 The performance history for a gas reservoir with water influx is given in Table 1.849 83814 0.5).098 949839 1.117 1031923 1.

6 4.0 4.4 3.0602x + 2. (1.5).2 Abnormally pressured gas reservoirs In high-pressure. (1.0 1. then Eq.0 We/Et 2. Extrapolation of this initial slope will result in an overestimation of gas-in-place and reserves.9843 2 Figure 1.0 3.5 3. The rate of decrease of pressure during the early time is reduced due to support of these compressibility components.17) A plot of F vs Et should be a straight line through the origin with slope of G. the standard expression for gas material balance with water drive. Figure 1.0 1.12 .5 2.4 4.1074 R = 0.5. (1.8 4. 1.2 3. depletion drive type reservoirs formation and fluid compressibility effects result in a nonlinear p/z vs cumulative plot.6.2 F/Et 4.6 is a schematic illustrating this behavior.8 3.4 Note if no connate water and formation expansion occurs. if the reservoir drive mechanism is purely by gas expansion (depletion drive).10) reduces to: F = GEt (1.5 Influence of water influx on gas material balance for Example 1.10) reduces to Eq.0 y = 1.3. This accounts for the second slope in Figure 1.6 3. 1. As pressure reduces to a normal gradient. Also. then Eq. the formation compaction influence on the reservoir becomes negligible and thus the remaining energy comes from the expansion of the gas in the reservoir.

2 x 10-6 psi-1 cw Swi = 0. Assuming no water influx or production and no injection. then the general material balance equation (1.(p/z)i Gas expansion + Formation compaction + Water expansion p/z Gas expansion Overestimate of G Gp Figure 1. Given: = 9. To determine gas-in-place. Apply both the conventional and geopressured material balance equations.507 psia pi = 3.3) reduces to: ⎛ Gp ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ G p ⎝ ⎠ = z 1 − c e( p ) ( p i − p ) [ pi zi ] (1. p ⎡ (c w S wi + c f )(p i − p) ⎤ ⎢1 − ⎥ vs G p z⎣ (1 − S wi ) ⎦ Example 1.843 psi/ft 1.6 nonlinear p/z vs Gp plot due to formation and water compressibility effects.24 = 19.19) (1 − S wi ) Average values were assumed thus removing the complication of pressure dependency. An early definition of ce(p) by Ramagost and Farshad (1981) where in terms of constant pore and water compressibilities.5 x 10-6 psi-1 cf Original pressure gradient = 0. c S + cf c e = w wi (1.5 Estimate the original gas-in-place for the data given by Duggan (1972) for the Anderson L sand. the p/z term (y-axis) is linearized by plotting.13 .18) where ce(p) is a pressure-dependent effective compressibility term.

Gas-in-place is estimated to be 89.679x + 6667.176 1.3 Bcf. the gas-in-place will be overestimated by more than 25%.2625 22. psia 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 G=89.7 Bscf.3925 1.7892 17. Volumetric (normal pressured) 8000 7000 6000 y = -74.854 Gp.3 Gp.5667 36.282 1.239 1.048 0.2258 4.7 Conventional material balance solution for Example 1.9929 p/z. 1.5 Figure 1.891 0.7589 12.977 0.418 1.218 1.Bcf 0 0.316 1.147 1.127 1.8908 28.2603 5.5381 8.14 .7492 10.7 displays the results of the conventional material balance. Thus if the conventional approach is taken.5093 11. Bcf Figure 1.387 1.8 shows the results when using the geopressured approach.5035 7. The resulting gasin-place is 70.8199 Figure 1.6425 3.psia 9507 9292 8970 8595 8332 8009 7603 7406 7002 6721 6535 5764 4766 4295 3750 3247 z 1.5 R2 = 0.1446 32.344 1.440 1.928 0.p.

5 and estimate both gas-in-place and formation compressibility.8 Bscf 13. 1000 G= = 75. However.9979 G=70.6 Repeat example 1.5 x10−6 psi −1 The deviation from the straight line at early time is due to the pore fluids supporting the overburden pressure.20) − 1⎟ ⎟ = G ⎢ (p − p ) pz ⎥ − 1 − S (p i − p ) ⎜ ⎢ ⎥ i i wi ⎝ pz i ⎠ ⎣ ⎦ If the formation compressibility is constant then a straight line will develop with a slope = 1/G and an intercept = -(Swicw + cf)/(1-Swi). Example 1. c f = −bx10−6 (1 − S wi ) − S wi cw = 12.Volumetric (geopressured) 7000 modified p/z. Roach (1981) developed a material balance technique for simultaneously estimating formation compressibility and gas-inplace and was later applied by Poston and Chen (1987) to the Anderson L example.2 R2 = 0.5 The above example assumed that formation compressibility was both known and constant. Figure 1. and is difficult to obtain in the laboratory.9 shows the results from this analysis.15 . The revised material balance equation is: 1 ⎛ p i z ⎞ 1 ⎡ G p p i z ⎤ S wi c w + c f ⎜ (1.336x + 6532. Bcf Figure 1. frequently formation compressibility varies during pressure depletion. thus transferring more of the support on the rock matrix.7 60 80 100 Gp. The original gas-in-place is estimated from the slope. psia 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 20 40 y = -92. However. 1. as fluids are withdrawn the formation compacts.199 and the formation compressibility from the intercept.8 High-pressure material balance solution for Example 1.

reservoir (net pay) property . ctw. is composed of water expansion due to pressure depletion and the release of solution gas in the water and its expansion. and external water volume found in limited aquifers.6 Fetkovich.Geopressured 150 y = 13.16 . The resulting expression accounts for pressure dependency.aquifer property . psi 1 100 - 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 x.22) where nnp r aq hn/hg . et al.199x .993 y.9 Simultaneous solution of gas-in-place and formation compressibility for a volumetric geo-pressured gas reservoir. The associated water-volume ratio. M accounts for the total pore and water volumes in pressure communication with the gas reservoir.21) (1 − S wi ) The cumulative total water compressibility.non-net pay property . ctw( p) S wi + c f ( p) + M [ctw( p ) + c f ( p) ] ce( p ) = (1. Historical pressure and production data is coupled with an assumed gas-in-place value to 1. The authors defined both terms as: M = M NNP + M aq = φnnp ⎛ 1 − hn / hg ⎞ ⎜ φr ⎜ hn / hg ⎝ ⎠ 2 ⎤ ⎡ r ⎞ ⎛ ( ) φ h aq aq ⎢ ⎟+ ⎟ − 1⎥ ⎜ ⎥ ⎟ (φh ) ⎢⎜ r ⎟ r ⎝ r ⎠ ⎢ ⎣ ⎥ ⎦ (1. Example 1.17. This includes non-net pay water and pore volumes such as in interbedded shales and shaly sands.net to gross ratio The proposed method of obtaining gas-in-place requires a trial and error solution. mmscf/psi Figure 1. in 1991 further expanded the effective compressibility term by including both gas solubility and total water associated with the gas reservoir volume.511 R2 = 0.

respectively. (1.11 shows the performance match and prediction using the variables listed above. Additionally. and compared to values determined from rock and fluid properties in Eq. et al method are the requirement of rock and water properties to build the effective compressibility correlation.21). (1. psi 1 - ce(back) assuming OGIP pressure.10 do not fit the correlation drawn. Figure 1. and thus the same explanation is believed valid for this method as well. the following results were obtained.24 was maintained.10 the original Swi = 0.23) ⎜ ⎟ (p − p ) ( ) p / z G ⎢ ⎥ i ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎣ The effective compressibility from Eq. ⎡ (p / z )i ⎛ G p ⎞⎤ 1 ⎜1 − ⎟⎥ (c e )backcalculated = ⎢1 − (1. and M = 2. and the non-uniqueness of the solution since multiple combinations of the 1. et al tested their method on the Anderson L sand data from Duggan (1971). (The authors also varied Swi and decided on Swi = 0.17 . These points correspond to the same data points which deviate from the straight line in Figure 1.7 Fetkovich.35.2 x 10 -6 psi -1. psia Figure 1. and G.back-calculate values of effective compressibility from a rearranged material balance equation. the assumption that cf is constant. Using their values of ctw. cf = 3. A reasonable fit between the two methods provides an estimate of gas-in-place and a measure of physical significance to the results. they calculated total water compressibility as a function of pressure.10 shows best fit results after varying M. In Fig 1.23) can be plotted as a function of pressure. The disadvantages of the Fetkovich.9. Example 1. a G = 72 Bscf.10 Comparison of back-calculated effective compressibility assuming OGIP with the rock and fluid property derived values.) Figure 1. 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 ce(p) generated from rock & w ater properties ce.25. cf. Notice the first data points at high pressure in Figure 1. The estimated gas-in-place of 72 Bcf is within the range of the previous methods.

variables can yield the same outcome.12).11 Performance match and prediction for the Anderson L reservoir. tight gas reservoirs do not exhibit this type of behavior.3 Low permeability gas reservoirs Gas material balance in conventional. volumetric reservoirs is described by a linear relationship between pressure/z-factor (p/z) and cumulative production. but instead develop a nonlinear trend (see Figure 1.18 . 1. Bscf Figure 1.12 P/z response for conventional gas reservoir and a tight gas reservoir. which is not amenable to conventional analysis. (p/z)i m ? 2 = m m (p/z)int p/z 1 1 Tig ht g as r e en tio na lr esp spo on nse se Co nv Gp G Figure 1.3. The advantage is the addition of the pressure dependency of the water compressibility and the development of a physical basis for the analysis. psia 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Gp. Unfortunately. 7000 6000 5000 historical performance data model p/z. 1.

notice in Figure 1. To analyze low-permeability reservoirs the following constraints are applied: (1) no water influx. Coupled with this behavior is the inability of the pressure measurement technique to capture reservoir pressure within the testing time. μgi = 0. Referring to Figure 1. the magnitude of the pressure measurement observed is significantly below the average reservoir pressure. During the early time period a rapid decrease in pressure occurs.1970) (Brons and Miller. and (4) only single phase dry gas. 1983). A reasonable assumption for dry gas wells controlled by surface line pressure. the gas-in-place (G) will be seriously underestimated. even though. no phase changes occur in the reservoir.e. Subsequently. as the drainage radius is expanding the testing pressure deviates more and more from the average reservoir pressure.12. t pss = 3790 φμ i cti A k t DApss (1. however.012 cp. The intermediate period exhibits uniform slope over an extended period of time.The nonlinear trend is a function both of the pressure measurement technique and the reservoir characteristics. a single buildup pressure measurement after seven days of shut in will not achieve such a boundary condition. (2) constant reservoir temperature. Furthermore. Typical shut in periods are not of sufficient duration to achieve a representative average reservoir pressure. This concept can be reinforced by examining the criteria for reaching pseudosteady state flow. Several researchers (Stewart. For example. If this trend is extrapolated to p/z = 0. The behavior has been previously explained as the response to transient flow (Slider. consistency of the data suggests that a similar region is being repeatedly investigated by the pressure test. the flush production associated with such a condition.001 psi-1). i. the test time is too short to capture the average pressure response. however. (3) no rock compressibility effects. in simple terms.13 the difference in pws and pr is approximately constant for an extended period of time. results in a time to reach pseudosteady state of 2 years for an 80acre drainage area and 16 years for a 640-acre drainage area. 1961) have presented methods to correct measured data to average reservoir pressure by pressure buildup techniques. Subsequently. During this period. additional analysis did not confirm this hypothesis. An alternative solution is the rapid depletion of a stimulated well in a reservoir consisting of a natural fracture network. k = 0.24) Assuming a well located in the center of the drainage area and substituting typical reservoir and gas properties for a tight gas formation (φ = 11%.1 md. to simplify the analysis the bottomhole flowing pressure will be assumed to be constant over the life of the well. 1.19 . cti = 0. three trends are exhibited on the p/z plots for low permeability reservoirs...

28) The difference in gas-in-place between the two lines is due to the initial reservoir pressure difference.20 . results in an expression to determine Vhc. Furthermore. three scenarios can be developed to determine the gas-in-place as illustrated in Figure 1. i.472re rw re Figure 1.Pi Pwf ri .13 Schematic of a partial buildup response in a tight gas reservoir. Gas-in-place can readily be obtained from. TP 1 Vhc = sc * Tsc m (1. m1 = m2. ⎛p G=⎜ i ⎜z ⎝ i ⎞ 1 ⎟* ⎟ m ⎠ (1. The problem is defining the relationship between the determined slope and the actual slope if one could measure the actual reservoir pressure. indicating the difference in measured pws and average reservoir pressure. m= Δ (p / z) ΔG p (1.14. Case A exhibits two parallel trends of constant slope. and not the hydrocarbon pore volume. Vhc = 43560Ahφ(1 − S w ) thus providing a method to determine the drainage area. which is the same for both lines. The constant slope provides an opportunity to estimate the hydrocarbon-pore volume.27) (1. pr. from the observation of a constant slope.26) From volumetrics. Defining the slope (m) as.25) and substituting into the gas material balance equation..e. Vhc. 1.

Subsequently. To solve for the correct Vhc requires the substitution of m2 into Eq. ri ≈ constant* re over an extended period of time. ri → 0.14. For this behavior to occur means the investigative volume seen during subsequent pressure tests is approaching the average drainage volume of the well. 1. but the intersection point occurs at the same gas-inplace.29) where the (p/z)int is the intercept value from the identified pressure trend.21 .472re. The magnitude of gas-in-place will be overestimated by this method and therefore provides an upper bound to the well. In case B the slopes are different.m2 P/z P/ z Case A m 1 Case C P/z =m 2 m m 11≠ ≠ mm 22 Gp G 1≠ G 2 Gp G 1≠ G2 Case B P/z (p/z)int m 1≠ m 2 Gp G1= G2 Figure 1. This is as expected for depleted reservoirs where the pressure gradient is approximately uniform throughout the reservoir. p 1 ⎛ ⎛ p⎞ G=⎜ ⎟ * =⎜ i z ⎝ z ⎠ int m1 ⎜ ⎝ i ⎞ 1 ⎟* ⎟ m 2 ⎠ (1. the hydrocarbon pore volume is corrected to reflect the difference in reservoir pressures. Estimation of G is obtained by. To have equal slopes suggests the radius of investigation of the pressure test is expanding at the same rate as the radius of drainage of the reservoir. (1. Three possible relationships between the conventional response and the tight gas response.26). In other words. That is.

converging to the actual average reservoir pressure. i. psi 1131 Table 1. sandstone to shaly sandstone gas reservoir found at a depth of approximately 3200 feet and developed on 160 acre spacing (Dutton. A final stage of the life of the well occurs when depletion has been significant (see Fig. deg F 106 Sw. The best is to estimate a range for gas-in-place using Case A as the upper bound and case B as the lower bound.67 γg Tr . Notice the typical tight gas well response of a rapid decrease in pressure within the first year. The long history of production and pressure data make this well an excellent candidate for investigation. et al. This behavior does not correspond to the end of the transient period.3 Input well and reservoir properties Figure 1. which occurs 8 to 10 years later according to decline curve analysis. 0. The majority of time and hence cumulative production exhibits case B behavior.The third and final scenario (Case C) exhibits both a different slope and intercept between the measured pressure trend and the actual reservoir behavior.22 . ft 40 -1 -4 cti. In many cases the gas-in-place was estimated by extending a straight line from the initial p/z point through this late time point.. as Fetkovich. Applying Eq. (1. Experience has shown this method typically underestimates gas-in-place. The example well (No. the measured data does not reflect the actual reservoir behavior.15 is the p/z vs cumulative production plot for this well.229 Pi. (1987) correctly point out. At this time the measured pressure curve flattens and becomes constant. cp h.al. Other well and reservoir data are listed below. ft. Also.e. constant p/z decline. a rise in pressure can be a rebound effect due to a decrease in withdrawal from the reservoir. The primary purpose of collecting this information was for deliverability testing and proration. psi x 10 5. Unfortunately. % 44 rw. 1.12). et.114) was initially completed in 1958 and included a hydraulic fracture treatment to be commercially productive.77 0. pressure data is recorded over a 7-day shut in period and reported annually until 1974 and every other year until 1990. due to the late time measured pressure slightly underpredicting the actual reservoir pressure. In the San Juan Basin.29) this trend results in an estimate of 660 mmscf of gas-in-place.0134 μgi. Picture Cliffs is a low permeability. 1983). 1.8 The example well produces from the Pictured Cliffs sandstone in the San Juan Basin of northwest New Mexico. 11 φ 0. Example 1.

23 . A rate – cumulative plot (Figure 1. therefore 80% of the gas-in-place has been recovered. This is the same conclusion as drawn by Fetkovich. These pressure points were acquired during a time of extended cycles of shutin and production due to external constraints. et al. 1.15 is an extrapolation between the initial p/z and the anomalous increase in p/z found in the latest data points. Frequently this extrapolation is applied to tight gas wells to estimate gas-in-place and recovery. mmscf Figure 1. Cumulative production (through 2006) for this well is 526 mmscf.16) also provides a linear trend. 114 1600 1400 1200 P/Z.P/Z vs. in 1987. which when extrapolated results in gas-in-place of 700 mmscf or 75% recovery. Cumulative Production No. resulting in 520 mmscf of gas-in-place.15. Both methods are within reasonable agreement. The validity of the last points is pivotal to this method being successful or not. The resulting bottomhole flowing pressure is increased which subsequently translates into an increase in recorded shutin bottomhole pressure. Unless this pressure data is obtained very late in the life of the well it is likely this method will underestimate gas-in-place and reserves. Field example of tight gas response (Case B) on p/z plot and estimation of gas-in-place.8367x + 552.88 R2 = 0. psia 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 y = -0. Also shown on Figure 1.958 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Cumulative Production.

a thinning of the reservoir net pay thickness over the areal extent of this well would increase the drainage area. a single well.4500 4000 flow rate. Furthermore.29) to adjust the slope. First. Using Equation (1. Extrapolation of Rate – cumulative trend for gas-in-place. the reservoir properties were assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic.544 mmrcf. The analysis suggests this well has drained 70 to 90 acres of the dedicated 160-acre proration unit and has recovered approximately 70% of the gas-in-place within that volume.24 . pressure behavior. mscf/month 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Cumulative production. then the two wells are sufficiently close enough to provide interference. For example if thickness is reduced by half then the drainage area doubles to approximately 160 acres. The paradox is the boundary-dominated flow exhibited by the decline curve.16. the exact direction of these two wells. Two explanations can be given. which is in agreement with the previous methods. the drainage calculations are based on isotropic conditions and therefore a circular drainage pattern. The well was bottomhole pressure constrained. if anisotropy exists. Figure 1. This change reflects the actual pressures measured during the annual deliverability tests. A key to tight gas development is the drainage area of existing wells and the feasibility of infill drilling. mmscf Figure 1. initially at 250 psi and then reduced to 150 psi ten years later. simulation model was developed for single-phase flow. Second. Investigation of production and geological trends show a dominant northwest/southeast direction.17 illustrates the excellent match between the results from the simulator with the measured data for both gas rate and shutin bottomhole pressure. to obtain this match the areal extent of the simulation model was 86 acres. 1. the hydrocarbon pore volume is calculated to be 7. Substitution of the known gas and well properties results in a drainage area calculation of 70 acres. As a simplification. To further investigate the tight gas. farther than the estimated drainage area. The success of the model verifies the linear trends seen on the gas material balance plots and the slow pressure response of tight gas reservoirs. However. The nearest well is approximately 1850 feet away from the subject well.

25 . psi 10 400 200 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 time.17 Comparison of simulation results with measured data for Pictured Cliffs example. years 0 Figure 1. 1.1000 simulated production rate. mscf/mo measured 100 1200 1000 800 600 SIBHP.

:”A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure Readings.Finite Aquifer Systems”. Fetkovich.S. Havlena.J. G. D. Vienot.D. and Odeh.F and Miller. Hammerlindl.. (Feb.S.E. presented at the ATCE in Dallas. W. Jr. Brons.W.J.S. and Kiesow.: “An Improved Method for Calculating Water Influx”. D.R.J..M.J. pp 29-38 (1952). (Oct 1971).G. presented at the ATCE in Dallas. JPT (Mar.F. R. presented at the ATCE in Dallas.: “The Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight Line.26 . Al-Hussainy.” paper presented at the SPE ATCE in New Orleans. 1960) Duggan. 1965). W. Fetkovich.M. GRI/BEG Report No. SPE # 62883.M.S. U...” Trans.” (1961) Trans. La. R. Hamilton.: “The Importance of Water Influx in Gas Reservoirs”. Haynes. and Ramey. Dutton. “ JPT 24.M. Hower. 1972). 211 (1993) Engler. (October 1991) Geffen. (Dec. H.D. AIME Part 1: 228 I-896 (1963). SPE 22937. R. and Laubach. and Jones.W. TX.S. pp.. : ”Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves-Case Histories.W... JPT. (July 1971). Clift. J.M. TX (Oct. “ Predicting Gas Reserves in Abnormally Pressure Reservoirs. AIME 222. JPT. 1991) 1. 803-805..: “Efficiency of Gas Displacement from Porous Media by Liquid Flooding”. D.A.: “Application of a General Material Balance for High-Pressure Gas Reservoirs”.: “Predicting Recovery of Gas Reservoirs Under Waterdrive Conditions”. Bradley. Howard. No. Hamlin.J. T.References Agarwal.. G.C. TX (2000). SPE 22921. T.L. R.E..: “A Simplified Approach to Water Influx Calculations. Hentz.” SPEFE (Dec.E. “The Anderson L – An Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoir in South Texas.E. and Tracy. Reese.E. D.D.. Fetkovich. Parrish. T..R. A.. M. and Morse. 1987) 637-656.P..S.H. T.. Akhter. 132-138. M. C.: “A New Approach to Gas Material Balance in Tight Gas Reservoirs”. p814.G. 2.. Carter.O.J..H. Trans AIME 195. Part 2: 231 I-815 (1964).S. and Whitson.: “Major Low Permeability Sandstone Gas Reservoirs in the Continental United States”.

Trans AIME 186. Schafer. F. Vol 5. and Owens.A.: Managing Water-Drive Gas Reservoirs. pp 305-324. Ramagost.W. R. Van Everdingen. Hower.: Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering.U.: Low-Permeability Gas Well Performance at Constant Pressure.R. Krieger Publishing Co. TX 1996. R. A.27 ..” SPE 10125. and Wattenbarger. presented at the ATCE in San Antonio. Poston.: Gas Reservoir Engineering.F. OK (1983) Stewart. Roach.. J.C. (Sept. Richardson. Pennwell Publishing.Ikoku. T..” SPE 16227 presented at the 1987 Production Operations Symposium in OKC. published by GRI (1993) Slider.S.: “Simultaneous Determination of Formation Compressibility and Gas-in-Place in Abnormally Pressured Reservoirs. H-Y. W. Tx.H.” SPE paper 9968. W. 1981). and Hurst. 1981).P. S. and Farshad.: Worldwide Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Methods. Tulsa. (1949) 1. (Dec. Malabar. 1970) 1149-1156. Dallas.P. :”Analyzing Geopressured Reservoirs – A Material Balance Technique. FL (1992) Lee. TX (Oct. C.F: “p/z Abnormal Pressured Gas Reservoirs.” JPT.L. R.H. SPE Textbook Series.: “Application of the Laplace Transform to Flow Problems in Reservoirs”. and Chen. OK (March 1987). B. P.

psi-1 x 10-4 6.0131 μgi. γg Thickness of reservoir.66. Estimate the areal extent of this reservoir.5 5.4. Reservoir temperature is 180ºF.8 in the range of reservoir pressures and T = 600ºF.0 97. ft.5 10.0 7. Well and reservoir properties are given below.88. 2. all at the given standard conditions.229 Pi. psi 1045 1. % 0. 60 (air = 1) = 10 ft = 10% Swi = 35% After producing 400 MMscf the reservoir pressure declined to 2000 psia. calculate the initial gas-in-place and the remaining reserves to an abandonment pressure of 500 psia. From the following production data.9 355. h Porosity of the reservoir. cp h. Assuming a volumetric reservoir. ft 67 cti. Initial water saturation.22 0. One well has been drilled in a volumetric (closed) gas reservoir. Assume z = 0. completed in the Picture Cliffs Formation in the San Juan Basin as described in Example 1. Standard conditions are 16 psia and 80ºF.0 4.28 . % 44 rw.67 γg Tr . and from this well the following information was obtained: Initial reservoir temperature.4 500. A gas field with an active water drive showed a pressure decline from 3000 to 2000 psia over a 10-month period. 3. The material balance plot below is for Well No . 11 φ. time months 0. match the past history and calculate the original hydrocarbon gas in the reservoir. Reservoir pressure has declined from 3400 to 2400 psia while producing 550 MMscf. pi Specific gravity of gas.6 218. deg F 103 Sw.0 2. = 175ºF = 3000 psia = 0. Gas gravity is 0. Ti Initial reservoir pressure.Problems 1. 0.0 p psia 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 Gp mmscf 0.

29 .22 = 3.005 0.033 1. assuming a geopressured reservoir and known cf c.73 215.34 197.2 x10-6 psia-1 cw p.330 1. = 11.psia 11444 10674 10131 9253 8574 7906 7380 6847 6388 5827 5409 5000 4500 4170 z 1.01 160. assuming a normally pressured gas reservoir b.444 psia pi = 19.054 1.397 1.36 145. what has been the recovery factor? 1400 1200 1000 p/z.74 245.496 1.62 53.42 120.230 1.92 28. Ramagost and Farshad (1981) provided the following information for an offshore Louisiana gas reservoir.084 1. psia 800 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 cumulative production.122 1. mmscf 5. 1.988 Gp.66 235.63 182.Estimate the gas-in-place and drainage area for this well.67 101. but constant cf.Bcf 0 9.60 77. If cumulative production was 752 mmscf.438 1.90 p/z 7650 7423 7252 6957 6698 6428 6191 5933 5693 5375 5132 4840 4478 4221 Estimate the original gas-in-place a. assuming a geopressured reservoir with an unknown.192 1.154 1.5 x 10-6 psia-1 cf Swi = 0.280 1.