SPE 105982

Material Balance Revisited

K.P. Ojo, Marathon Oil Company, S.O. Osisanya, U. of Oklahoma

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 30th Annual SPE International Technical
Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, July 31 - August 2, 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The material balance is a very important part of the reservoir
engineers toolbox that is being relegated to the background in
todays reservoir evaluation workflow. This paper examines
some issues that normally preclude its regular use especially
as a pre-step before moving into full reservoir simulation and
the use of a new method of analyzing the material balance
equation called the dynamic material balance method for
solving some of these issues.
The dynamic material balance method allows the simultaneous
determination of the initial oil-in-place (N) or initial gas-inplace (G), ratio of initial gas to oil (m), reservoir permeability
(K) or skin factor (S) and average pressure history of a
reservoir from the combination of solution to the material
balance equation and pressure transient analysis theory.
Cumulative production history and PVT data of the reservoir
are used with limited or no pressure data.
By introducing a time variable into the classical material
balance equation (MBE) and combining the solutions of the
resulting equations with the theory of pressure transient
analysis, the cumulative production history of the reservoir
and readily available PVT data of the reservoir fluids, we can
estimate not only the original reserves in place, but also
determine the average reservoir pressure decline history as
indicated by the net fluid withdrawal from the reservoir. The
reservoir permeability and skin factor as seen within the
drainage area of each producing well can then be estimated
from the already determined average pressure decline history.
This method is expected to improve the use of material
balance by expanding the list of problems that can be tackled
using material balance especially to reservoirs in marginal
fields and reservoirs in which limited pressure data is
available.

Introduction
The material balance equation (MBE) is a very import tool
used by reservoir engineers in the oil and gas industry. MBE
can provide an estimate of initial hydrocarbon in place
independent of geological interpretation and can also serve the
purpose of verifying volumetric estimates. It can also help
determines the degree of aquifer influence, understanding the
applicable drive mechanism and in some cases estimate
recovery factor and recoverable reserves.
Conventionally, MBE is applied by considering different time
intervals in the production history of the reservoir and
maintaining that there exists a volumetric balance in the
reservoir at these different time intervals. Several methods
have been developed and published on applying the MBE to
various types of reservoirs and solving the equation to obtain
the initial oil-in-place (N) or initial gas-in-place (G) and the
ratio of the initial free gas to oil (m) in the reservoir. One of
such methods is the straight-line method popularized by
Havlena and Odeh2,3 which instead of considering each time
interval and corresponding production data as being separate
from other time interval, combines all time intervals and
obtain a solution that satisfies all the intervals together.
In applying the straight-line method however, it is usually
required that an independent source of determining the value
of m exist. Most application uses an m that is derived from
geological data on relative ratio of gas cap to oil column
volumes. Another important requirement is the need to
accurately estimate the average reservoir pressure at the
various time intervals. The standard practice is to estimate the
average reservoir pressure from well test conducted on
individual wells producing from the reservoir. In thick
formations with high permeability and low viscosity
hydrocarbons, average pressures obtained from the individual
well tests are good estimates of the average reservoir pressures
in the drainage area of the well. But for thinner formations of
lower permeability and higher viscosity hydrocarbons, there
are often large variations in reservoir pressure throughout the
reservoir and obtaining an average drainage area reservoir
pressure usually require longer testing times and obtained
values are often inaccurate. Accurately determining this
average reservoir pressure is critical to the accuracy of the
reserves estimate obtained from the MBE.
This paper presents some result of applying a technique of
analyzing the MBE dymanically, by introducing a time
variable in terms of the derivative of the MBE. By solving the

SPE 105982

combination of the original MBE and its time derivative, we

can simultaneously determine the initial oil-in-place N, ratio
of initial gas to oil m, reservoir permeability K, and average
pressure decline history of the reservoir from just the
cumulative production history and PVT data with no or
limited pressure data.

Traditional MBE Application

The material balance equation (MBE) has been conventionally
applied using three main approaches. The first approach
applies the MBE at successive time intervals individually.
These intervals must represent significant pressure decline in
the reservoir while the second approach apply MBE at the
time intervals together by using the XY plot popularized by
Havlena and Odeh 2, 3.
These two approaches use observed pressures and production
in MBE and aquifer model to calculate N and m. An
independent means of estimating m and aquifer model is
required, if not, some iteration may be required to estimate m
and the aquifer properties. Some of the problem with these
methods is that it is not applicable in cases where available
pressure data for the field is sparse and production rates
erratic.
A third method have become popular with improvement in
computer technology by using observed production, aquifer
model, and assumed values of N and m in the MBE to
calculate average reservoir pressures. The problem with using
this method is that an estimate of initial hydrocarbon in place
usually from geological interpretation is required with no way
of confirming the connectivity of this volume to production.
By introducing a time variable into the hitherto static tank
model, we can simultaneous determine the initial oil-in-place
(N) or initial gas-in-place (G), ratio of initial gas to oil (m),
and average pressure history of a reservoir from the
production history data and PVT data only.
Dynamic Material Balance Equation
The dynamic material balance equation (DMBE) is
represented by the equations 1 through 8 below. The
derivation of dynamic material balance equation as presented
by Ojo et al.4 and the solution techniques utilized for solving
the equations are presented in Appendix A.

A = N + NmB L1
C = N + NmD L 2

F 1 W
e

P
t

=A
E f,w
E o

+ B ti

and

E f, w
1 E g

+
P
B gi P

= B L6
E f, w
E o

+ B ti
P
P

F We
= C L7
(E o + B ti E f,w )

B ti E f, w + B ti E g

B gi

= D L8
(E o + B ti E f,w )
Solving the above system of equations, we can obtain the oil
in place, N and ratio m, which are expected to remain constant
at successive time intervals and also the average reservoir
pressure.
DMBE for Gas Reservoirs
The DMBE represented by equations 1 through 8 above can be
extended for gas reservoirs by recognizing that NpRp = Gp and
NmBti = GBgi resulting in the equations
B

A = GB L9
C = GD L10
From which we can obtain

Where

CA
N = AB
L3
DB
m=
Also

1 CA
L4
N DB

L5

AD
= 0 L11
B

and

G=

A
L12
B

The average reservoir pressure and initial reservoir gas-inplace can be calculated numerically from equations 11 and 12
respectively. From the General MBE for gas reservoirs, we

SPE 105982

N
R
W 1
F 1 Np
= Bt
+(Rp Rsoi)Bg p + Np p +Bw p
t P t
t
t
t P
t
t
Bg
B
+ Np t +(Rp Rsoi) L23
P
P

can write;

F = G p B g + B w Wp L13
E g = (B g B gi )

L14

c S + cf o
E f, w = w wi
P
1 S wi

L15

Also for the oil expansion term Eo;

With the general equation;

F We = G (E g + B gi E fw ) L16

E o B t
=
P
P

Taking the derivative of equation 16 with respect to pressure

gives

For the gas case, the net reservoir production term, F

derivative is given as;

F 1 W
E f,w
E g
e

= G
+ B gi
P
t P P
P

Bg P
Wp
F Gp
= Bg
+ GP
+ Bw
L25
t
t
P t
t

L17

The variables in equations 11 and 12 can be written as;

L 24

For the gas expansion term, Eg;

E g

B g

L 26

A = F We L18

and finally for Ef,w , the expansion of formation and water;

B = E g + B gi E fw

E f, w

L19

F 1 W
e

C=
t P P

E f, w
E g
D =
+ B gi
P
P

c S + cf
w wi
P
1 S wi

L 20

L 21

Derivatives Determination
The derivatives in equation 5, 6, 20 and 21 can be determined
as follows;
For the net reservoir production term in the oil case, F;

F Np
=
Bt + (Rp Rsoi)Bg
t t
Bg P
Wp
B P Rp
+ Np t +
Bg + (Rp Rsoi)
L22
+ Bw
P t
t
P t t

Assuming a constant Bw. If we rearrange and simplify

equation 22 we get

L 27

By taking the PVT data of the reservoir fluid and fitting a

cubic spline curve on each of the parameters, we can obtain a
representative pressure equation for each of the properties
which can then be inculcated into the solution routine in
determining the average reservoir pressure at each time step,
and the value of N and m or G as the case may be. This
method can be used for water flood and gas floods by
including the injected water and gas volumes in the Wp and
Gp terms respectively before estimating the various terms in
the equations.
Cubic Spline Application
We can use spline curve theory6 to evaluate cubic splines for
each of the reservoir fluid properties including Bo, Bg and Rso.
The cubic spline interpolate to a function say Rso(P) is given
by the space S3() which is a set of cubic functions s(P) C2
[Pi, Po ] which satisfies the interpolatory constrains

s (Po ) = R so (Po )
s(Pi ) = R so (Pi ), 0 i n
s (Pn ) = R so (Pn )
L 28
where n is the number of points of measured data on the PVT

SPE 105982

data. s(P) is called the cubic spline interpolate to Rso(P).

Variational theory in mathematics assures the existence and
uniqueness of such cubic spline interpolate which is not only
continuous but also twice differentiable. This implies that after
obtaining the cubic spline, we can also estimate the derivative
of each of the PVT properties at any desired pressure.
To evaluate the cubic spline interpolate, we use basis functions
of the space S3() which are given for n equally space knots,
Pi= Po + I*h where h is given as (Pn Po)/n and I is between 0
and n. Po and Pn is the first and last pressure point on the PVT
table respectively. n is the number of data points on the PVT
data. The basis of the spline space can be evaluated using the
equation 25 as;
(P Pi 2 )3
if P [Pi 2 , Pi 1 ]
3
2
3
2
h + 3h (P Pi 1 ) + 3h (P Pi 1 ) + 3(P Pi 1 )
1 3
2
3
2
B i (P) = h + 3h (Pi + 1 P ) + 3h (Pi + 1 P ) + 3(Pi + 1 P )
h
3
if P [Pi +1 , Pi + 2 ]
(Pi + 2 P )
0
otherwise

L 29

n +1

X B (P ) = R (P )

s(Pj ) =

i = 1

so

n +1

X B (P ) = R

i = 1

s(Pn ) =

so

f 2y
f 3y
M
f ny

L x
i

f 2z L y i

f 3z L z i

M
M

f nz L

f 1z

f 1

2
= f 3

f n

L 32

with each function and partial derivative functions evaluated at

(xi, yi, zi, ) and each subsequent approximations given as

x i +1 = x i + x i
L 33

z i +1 = z i + z i
M

The interpolate s(P) is then obtained from the basis using the
following system of equations 30;

s(Po ) =

f 1y

y i +1 = y i + y i

if P [Pi 1 , Pi ]
if P [Pi , Pi + 1 ]

f 1x

f 2x
f
3x
M

f nx

(Pj ) for j = 0,1,2......n L30

The solution approach used is different for the oil and the gas
case. In the oil case, we consider two time intervals at once
resulting in four sets of non-linear equations in four unknown
namely, N, m and average pressure for each time interval with
the added condition that N and m must remain more or less
constant throughout. For the gas case however, one time
interval is used resulting in two sets of non-linear equations in
two unknown namely, G and the average pressure for that time
interval.

n +1

X B (P ) = R (P )

i = 1

so

The system of equations 30 leads to a set of n+3 linear

equations given by

AX = b L31
where X = (X-1, X0, ..Xn+1)T , b= (Rso(Po), Rso(Po), Rso(P1)
.. Rso(Pn), Rso(Pn) )T and A is the coefficient matrix
obtained by evaluating the basis functions given by equation
29 at the pressure knots (points) on the PVT data.
Similar equations 29 through 31 can be written and used to
obtain the cubic spline interpolate for Bo and Bg. After
obtaining the interpolates for the PVT properties, we can
numerically solve the DMBE equations for each dual time
steps for the oil case to obtain the N, m and average pressure,
Pavg and every time step for the gas case to obtain G and
average pressure, Pavg.
B

Numerical Solution Scheme

The numerical solution scheme employed in solving the
systems of non-linear equations is a modified Newtons
method, which can be written for a system of n equations as10
follows

Reservoir Permeability and Skin Estimation

The average reservoir permeability is conventionally estimated
from pressure transient test conducted on individual wells. A
method of estimating the average reservoir permeability
within the drainage area of the well or skin factor in the near
wellbore area from the variable production rate data and
limited pressure data has been presented by Ojo et al.4
The derivation of the relevant equations is included in
Appendix A for completeness.
Example 1
Consider a simulated reservoir and well production data using
the Boast98 reservoir simulator. The reservoir is saturated
producing from a single well under primary depletion. Table 1
shows the production rate history of the single producing well
while tables 2 and 3 shows the cumulative production history
and the PVT data of the reservoir respectively.

The aim is to:

1.
2.

3.

Estimate the original oil-in-place, ratio of initial gas to oil

and determine the average reservoir pressure history.
Determine the average reservoir permeability in the
drainage area of the well earlier in its productive life
assuming a skin factor of zero.
Determine the skin factor for the well from later part of
the variable rate history.

SPE 105982

3.

Determine the average reservoir pressure history.

Solution
1.

2.

The DMBNP program was able to achieve a good

convergence on the calculated N and m. Figure 1 show
calculated N and m values at various time intervals while
Figure 2 shows a comparison of estimated average
pressure with measured pressure. The estimated N
compares very well to the result from the BOAST98
simulator, which is 8.81 MMB and m value of 0.4.
The part of the well rate history and other data used for
determination of the average reservoir permeability in the
drainage area of the well earlier in the productive life
assuming a skin factor of zero. The DMNPB program
applied equations 55 and 57 of Appendix A, assuming a
skin factor of 0, to obtain a permeability value of 42.7md
compared to the average reservoir permeability of 100md
used in simulating the data from BOAST98 simulator.
This indicates that there is some damage to the near
wellbore area which can be determined as below
The part of the well rate history and other data used for
determination of Skin factor assuming a K of 42.7md is
presented in figure 3 below. The DMB program applied
equations 55 and 58 to estimate a skin factor of 3.4
confirming the damage to the wellbore area.

Solution
1.

2.

The DMBNP program was able to achieve a good

convergence on the calculated N and m. Figure 6 show
calculated N and m values at various time intervals. The
estimated N was 108.11 MMSTB compared to 108.7
MMSTB obtained using traditional MBE method and the
available pressure history. The estimated m was 0.26
compared to 0.54 from the other method. This is
suspected to be connected to the unavailability of the
actual time history from the production data that had to be
assumed.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of estimated average
pressure with measured pressure for this gas reservoir
which is very comparable.

The aim is to:

Conclusions
a. A new method of analyzing the material balance equation
is presented by introducing a time factor to the hitherto
static tank model equation. This approach enables the
simultaneous determination of the initial oil-in-place (N)
or initial gas-in-place (G), ratio of initial gas to oil (m),
and average pressure decline history of a reservoir from
the reservoir production history data and PVT data only
without any pressure data.
b. Equations that allow the estimation from well rate history
of each producing well in a fully developed reservoir, the
permeability and/or skin factor is also presented. These
equations are useful for analyzing production
performance of well and estimating as a function of time,
the skin factor from the well production rate history. A
field example is analyzed and the results showed the
validity and usefulness of the technique.

1.
2.

Acknowledgment

3.

Example 2
Example 2 is a gas reservoir in the Gulf of Mexico. The
original gas gravity and reservoir temperature is 0.94 and
266oF respectively. The connate water saturation is 0.35 and
water compressibility is 3.5x10-6 psi-1. Tables 4, and 5 show
the cumulative production history and the PVT data of the
reservoir respectively.

Estimate the original gas-in-place, and

Determine the average reservoir pressure history.

Solution
1.

2.

The DMBNP program was able to achieve a good

convergence on the calculated G. The calculated G was
96BCF of gas which compares favorably to the estimated
gas-in-place using conventional material balance and
available pressure data of 93 BCF.
Figure 5 shows a comparison of estimated average
pressure with measured pressure for this gas reservoir.

The authors would like to thank the Mewbourne School of

Petroleum and Geological Engineering for encouragement and
permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature

= viscosity, cp
Bg

= gas formation volume factor, bbl/SCF

Bgi

= initial gas formation volume factor, bbl/SCF

Bo

= oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB

Boi

= initial oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB

Bw

= water formation volume factor, bbl/STB

C0

=oil compressibility, psi-1

Cf

= formation isothermal compressibility, psi-1

The aim is to:

Cw

= water isothermal compressibility, psi-1

1.
2.

= correction factor that corrects the sum of all

equivalent constant rates to the cumulative reservoir

Example 3
Example 3 is a gas cap reservoir presented on Page 208 of
reference 9 with additional assumption that the presented
production history spanned a 10 years period. The assumed
time interval for the indicated cumulative production is shown
in table 6 while table 7 shows the PVT data of the reservoir.

Estimate the original oil-in-place,

Estimate the ratio m and

SPE 105982

production

8. Matthews, C. S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A

= Nm =initial reservoir gas volume, SCF

Gf

= amount of free gas in Reservoir, SCF

= formation thickness, ft

= formation permeability, md

= initial reservoir oil-in-place, STB

Np

= cumulative Oil produced, STB

= pressure, psi

Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a

Bounded Reservoir, Trans, AIME (1954), 201, 182-19
9. Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M.: Applied Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering, Second Editions, Published by
Prentice Hall 1991.
10. Dake, L. P.:Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering,
Published by Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
1978.
11. Curtis, G. C. and Wheatley, P. O.: Applied Numerical
Analysis, Pg 204., October 1998, Published by AddisonWesley.

Pi

= initial reservoir pressure, psi

PRj

= average reservoir pressure at certain time tj

Table 1: Simulated Well Production Rate History

= flow rate, stb/day

qp

= last measured flow rate at time tp, stb/day

qkj

= equivalent constant flow rate at time tj, stb/day

qTj

= total equivalent constant flow rate at time tj,

stb/day

Rp

= cumulative produced gas-oil-ratio

Rso

= solution gas-oil-ratio, SCF/STB

Rsoi

= initial solution gas-oil-ratio, SCF/STB

Swi

= initial water saturation

tp

= cumulative production time, hrs

Vf

= initial void space, bbl

We

= water influx into reservoir, bbl

Wp

= cumulative water produced, STB

Time
(Days)
0.10
1.23
10.16
20.37
28.09
28.51
36.61
40.09
47.32
52.25
62.05
70.17
80.25
90.25
101.46
106.94
114.37
123.07
127.71
134.17
140.45
148.59
156.07
164.26
168.89
169.34
178.19
186.91

References
1. Ralph J. Schilthuis,: Active Oil and Reservoir Energy,
Trans. AIME (1936), 118, 33.
2. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A. S.: The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line, Part I. Jour. Of Petroleum
Technology (Aug. 1963) 896-900
3. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A. S.: The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line, Part II - Field Cases,. Jour.
Of Petroleum Technology (July 1964) 815-822
4. Ojo K. P., Tiab D. and Osisanya S. O.: Dynamic
Material Balance Equation and Solution Technique Using
Production and PVT Data, JCPT, March 2006, Volume
45, No. 3

5. Omole, O. and Ojo, K. P.: A New Method for Estimating

Oil in Place and Gas Cap Size Using Material Balance
Equation, SPE Paper 26266.
6. Printer, P. M.: Splines and Variational Methods. Pure and
Applied Mathematics, A Wiley-Interscience Series of
Texts, Monographs and Tracts, 1934. Pg. 77 111
7. Horner, D.R.: Pressure Buildup in Wells, Proc., Third
World Pet Cong., The Hague (1951) Section II, 503-523.

Rate
STB/D
1247.00
1246.00
1239.00
1233.00
1228.00
1228.00
1223.00
1221.00
1217.00
1214.00
1209.00
1205.00
1200.00
1196.00
1190.00
1188.00
1184.00
1180.00
1178.00
1175.00
1172.00
1169.00
1165.00
1161.00
1159.00
1159.00
1155.00
1151.00

Time
(Days)
187.20
200.16
216.12
260.88
310.83
335.18
336.04
347.23
363.32
383.72
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
801.24
900.00
950.33
1000.00
1045.86
1090.78
1121.25
1168.57
1179.41
1194.20
1200.00

Rate
STB/D
1151.00
1145.00
1138.00
742.00
682.00
609.00
667.00
600.00
602.00
653.00
726.00
595.00
599.00
567.00
508.00
485.00
531.00
480.00
444.00
438.00
463.00
375.00
440.00
417.00
440.00
448.00

SPE 105982

5700

Table 2: Cumulative Production data for Example 1

Gp
MMSCF
0.000
0.154
0.303
0.488
0.619
0.701
1.023
1.139
1.474
1.590
1.817
1.967
2.413

Pressure (psia)

Np
MMSTB
0
0.121
0.238
0.324
0.367
0.395
0.495
0.527
0.612
0.637
0.686
0.716
0.807

tp
Days
0
100
200
302
368
410
570
625
780
830
930
995
1200

5200

Wp
STB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4700
4200
3700
3200
2700
2200
0

500

1000

1500

Tim
e (Days)
Estimated
Average
Pressure (Psia)
Actual Average Pressure (Psia)

Figure 2: Estimated vs. Measured Average Reservoir

Pressure

Table 3: PVT data for Example1

Bo
STB/RB
2.350
1.827
1.695
1.565
1.500
1.435
1.295
1.207
1.150

Bg
SCF/RB
2.17E-03
3.64E-03
4.55E-03
6.06E-03
7.27E-03
9.06E-03
1.80E-02
3.52E-02
6.79E-02

Rso
SCF/STB
2984
1618
1270
930
775
636
371
180
90.5

Figure 3: DMBP Module showing determination of

Permeability

1.E+01

0.50

8.E+00

0.40

6.E+00

0.30

4.E+00

0.20

2.E+00

0.10

0.E+00
0

500

1000

m (ratio)

Oil in Place , N (Bbls)

Pressure
Psia
9014.7
5014.7
4014.7
3014.7
2514.7
2014.7
1014.7
514.7
264.7

0.00
1500

Time (Days)
N (bbl)

m ratio

Figure 1: Estimated N and m with Time using DMBP

Figure 4: DMBP Module showing determination of Skin
Factor

SPE 105982

Table 4: Cumulative Production data for Example 2

0
69
182
281
330
373
456
509
586
631
666
804
987
1183
1377
1550

Gp
BCF

Wp
MMSTB
0
0.416
1.737
3.412
4.504
5.818
7.972
9.252
11.11
12.427
13.516
18.233
24.14
29.624
34.218
38.604

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Table 5: PVT data for Example 2

Pressure
Psia
9597
9292
8970
8595
8332
8009
7603
7406
7002
6721
6535
5754
4766
4295
3750
3247

Bg
SCF/RB
0.003112
0.0031354
0.0031769
0.0032127
0.0032451
0.0032888
0.0033482
0.003379
0.0034507
0.0035063
0.0035432
0.0037356
0.0042118
0.0044392
0.0048817
0.0054671

ZFactor
1.44
1.418
1.387
1.344
1.316
1.282
1.239
1.218
1.176
1.147
1.127
1.048
0.977
0.928
0.891
0.864

Pressure (psia)

Time
Days

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Tim e (Days)
Estimated Pavg

Measured Pavg

Figure 5: Estimated vs. Measured Average Reservoir

Pressure

Table 6: Cumulative Production data for Example 3

tp
Days
0
182.5
547.5
1058.5
1752
2591.5
3650

Np
MMSTB
0
3.295
5.903
8.852
11.503
14.513
17.73

Gp
MMSCF
0
3459.75
6257.18
10268.32
14206.21
18358.95
23049

Wp
MMSTB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Table 7: PVT data for Example 3

Pressure
Psia
3330
3150
3000
2850
2700
2550
2400

Bo
STB/RB
1.2511
1.2353
1.2222
1.2122
1.2022
1.1922
1.1822

Bg
SCF/M RB
0.00087
0.00092
0.00096
0.00101
0.00107
0.00113
0.0012

Rso
SCF/STB
510
477
450
425
401
375
352

SPE 105982

120
100
N (MMSTB)

80
60
40
20
0
0

1000

2000

3000

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4000

E o = (Bt Bti ) L3

E g = (B g B gi )

L4

c w S wi + c f
E f ,w =
P
1 S wi

L5

where F represents the net production from the reservoir, Eo

represents the expansion of oil, Eg represents the expansion of
gas and Ef,w represents the expansion of formation and water.
Substituting equation 2 through 5 into 1 gives

Tim e (Days)
N

F = N p Bt + (R p Rsoi )B g + BwW p L 2

Figure 6: Estimated N and m with Time using DMBP

F = NE o + N (1 + m) Bti E f , w +

NmBti
E g + We L 6
B gi

which is the straight-line representation of the MBE by

Havlena and Odeh2 . Omole and Ojo4 rearranged equation 6 to
obtain the general form

3500

Pressure (psia)

3000

B
F We = N (Eo + Bti E f ,w ) + Nm Bti E f ,w + ti E g L7

Bgi

2500
2000
1500
1000

Dividing both sides of equation 7 by (Eo + Bti Ef,w ) gives

B

500
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Tim e (Days)
Estimated Pavg

Measured Pressure

Bti E f , w + Bti E g

B gi
F We

L8
= N + Nm
(Eo + Bti E f ,w )
(Eo + Bti E f ,w )

Figure 7: Estimated vs. Measured Average Reservoir

Pressure

Taking the time derivative of equation 6 using the chain rule

we have

Appendix A

F 1 W
E f , w
E f , w
E
1 E g
e

= N o + Bti

+ NmBti P + B P L9

P
P
t P P

gi

Material Balance Equation

The material balance equation as presented by Schilthuis1 is
given as;

From which we can obtain by simplifying

NmBti
(Bg Bgi ) + (1 + m)NBti cwSwi + c f P + We
Bgi
1 S wi
(
)
= N p Bt + R p Rsoi Bg + BwW p L1

N (Bt Bti ) +

where

Boi = Bti

Bt = Bo + (Rsoi Rso )B g

Havelena and Odeh2,3 presented a straight-line method of

solving the MBE of equation 1 by introducing the following
terms;

F 1 W
e
Ef ,w 1 Eg

t P P
+
P B P

gi
t
L10

= N + NmBti
Ef ,w
Ef ,w
Eo
Eo

+ Bti
+ Bti
P
P
P
P
Equations 8 and 10 are both linear equation of a straight line.
The common thing about the two equations is that at
successful time intervals, the average reservoir pressure must
satisfy both equations. This means that with accurate

10

SPE 105982

cumulative production data and reliable PVT data, we can

numerically solve for the average reservoir pressure at each of
the time intervals that will satisfy both equations.

Derivatives Determination
To estimate each of the derivatives in equation 10, we
consider the definition of each term as presented in equations
2 through 5 as follows;

If we set from equation 10

F 1 W
e

t P P

=A
E f , w
E o

+ Bti
P
P

in equations 17 and 18 at successive time intervals.

For the net reservoir production term, F;

F Np
=
Bt + (Rp Rsoi)Bg
t t
B P
W
B P R
+ Np t + p Bg + (Rp Rsoi) g + Bw p L19
P t
t
P t t

L11

Assuming a constant Bw. If we rearrange and simplify

equation 19 we get

and

E f , w
1 E g

+
P
B gi P

= B L12
E f , w
E o

+ Bti

P
P

and also from equation 8 set

Wp 1
Rp
Np
F 1 Np
+ Bw
+ Np
+(Rp Rsoi)Bg
= Bt

t P
t
t
t P t
t
t
Bg
B
+ Np t +(Rp Rsoi) L20
P
P
Also for the oil expansion term Eo;

F We
(Eo + Bti E f ,w ) = C L13

E o Bt
=
P
P

L 21

and

For the gas expansion term, Eg;

E g

B g

Bti E f , w + Bti E g

B gi

= D L14
(Eo + Bti E f ,w )

and finally for Ef,w , the expansion of formation and water;

Then the two equations become

E f , w

A = N + NmB L15
C = N + NmD L16
Solving equations 13 and 14 simultaneously gives

N = A B
m=

CA
L17
DB

1 CA
L18
N DB

The oil in place, N and ratio m is expected to remain constant

L 22

c w S wi + c f

P
1 S wi

L 23

By taking the PVT data of the reservoir fluid and fitting a

cubic spline curve on each of the parameters, we can obtain a
representative pressure equation for each of the properties
which can then be inculcated into the solution routine in
determining the average reservoir pressure at each time step
and also the value of N and m.
This method can be used for water flood and gas floods by
including the injected water and gas volumes in the Wp and
Gp terms respectively before estimating the various terms in
the equations.

Cubic Spline Application

We can use spline curve theory4 to evaluate cubic splines for

SPE 105982

11

each of the reservoir fluid properties including Bo, Bg and Rso.

The cubic spline interpolate to a function say Rso(P) is given
by the space S3() which is a set of cubic functions s(P) C2
[Pi, Po ] which satisfies the interpolatory constrains

.. Rso(Pn), Rso(Pn) )T and A is the coefficient matrix

obtained by evaluating the basis functions given by equation
25 at the pressure knots (points) on the PVT data.

Similar equations 24 through 26 can be written and used to

obtain the cubic spline interpolate for Bo and Bg. After
obtaining the interpolates for the PVT properties, we can
numerically solve equations 17 and 18 and obtain for each
time interval considered, the N, m and average pressure, Pavg.

s ( Po ) = Rso ( Po )

s ( Pi ) = Rso ( Pi ), 0 i n
s ( Pn ) = Rso ( Pn )
L 24
where n is the number of points of measured data on the PVT
data. s(P) is called the cubic spline interpolate to Rso(P).
Variational theory in mathematics assures the existence and
uniqueness of such cubic spline interpolate which is not only
continuous but also twice differentiable. This implies that after
obtaining the cubic spline, we can also estimate the derivative
of each of the PVT properties at any desired pressure.

To evaluate the cubic spline interpolate, we use basis functions

of the space S3() which are given for n equally space knots,
Pi= Po + I*h where h is given as (Pn Po)/n and I is between 0
and n. Po and Pn is the first and last pressure point on the PVT
table respectively. n is the number of data points on the PVT
data. The basis of the spline space can be evaluated using the
equation 25 as;
(P Pi 2 )3
if P [ Pi 2 , Pi 1 ]
3
2
3
2
h + 3h (P Pi 1 ) + 3h(P Pi 1 ) + 3(P Pi 1 )
1
2
3
Bi ( P) = h 3 + 3h 2 (Pi +1 P ) + 3h(Pi +1 P ) + 3(Pi +1 P )
h
3
if P [ Pi +1 , Pi + 2 ]
(Pi + 2 P )
0
otherwise

if P [ Pi 1 , Pi ]
if P [ Pi , Pi +1 ]

L 25

The interpolate s(P) is then obtained from the basis using the
following system of equations 26;

Reservoir Permeability and Skin Estimation

The average reservoir pressure is conventionally estimated
from pressure transient test conducted on individual wells.
Consider a fully developed multi-well reservoir system. For a
particular well (to be represented by subscript k) in this
reservoir producing at a constant rate qkj from inception to a
certain time tj assumed to be in the pseudo-steady state (PSS)
flow regime.

Let the initial reservoir pressure be = Pi. Also let average

reservoir pressure at this time tj in the production history of the
reservoir be = PRj. Therefore initial reservoir pressure, Pi =
PR0. Since PSS prevail in the reservoir at this time, considering
the material balance equation for a bounded drainage volume7
we have

q kj t j Btj = ct Ak hk k ( pi p Rj ) L 28
The above equation assumes that the well rate qkj remains
constant throughout the production period t=0 to t = tj. Btj is
the two-phase formation volume factor in bbl/STB at the
current average reservoir pressure, hk is height of producing
zone in ft, Akj is the drainage area of well at time tj, k is the
porosity, and ct is the total compressibility in psi-1.

n +1

s ( Po ) = X i Bi ( Po ) = Rso ( Po )
i = 1

n +1

s( Pj ) = X i Bi ( Pj ) = Rso ( Pj )
i = 1

for j = 0,1,2......n L 26

Under the PSS condition, the pressure measured at the well at

time tj is given by5

n +1

s ( Pn ) = X i Bi ( Pn ) = Rso ( Pn )
i = 1

The system of equations 26 leads to a set of n+3 linear

equations given by

AX = b L 27
where X = (X-1, X0, ..Xn+1)T , b= (Rso(Po), Rso(Po), Rso(P1)

p wf kj = pi

162.6qkj Btj
khk

4 Akj
0.2339qkj Btj t j

log

2
Akj hk k ct
1.781C Ak rwk

L 29

where Pwfkj is the bottom-hole flowing pressure at well in psi

at time tj, qkj is the constant flow rate from well for time t=0 to
time t=tj in hours. K is the formation permeability in md, CAk
is the system shape factor for the well due to its location in
the reservoir, rwk is wellbore radius in ft, k is the porosity and
ct is the total compressibility in psi-1.

12

SPE 105982

If we write equation 29 in terms of the well drainage area

average pressure, Pkj we have4

p wf kj = Pkj

162.6q kj Btj
khk

4 Aj

log
L30
2
1.781C Ak rwk

tj. Applying5 the principle of superposition to the log

approximation of the line source solution of diffusivity
equation, we have for the bottom-hole flowing pressure;

Pi p wf
qj

j (q q

p
p 1 )
= m
log(t j t p 1 ) + b L 34
qj
p =1

where
where

Pkj = pi

0.2339q kj Btj t j
Akj hk k ct

= PR 0

0.2339q kj Btj t j
Akj hk k ct

L 31

The average reservoir pressure, PRj is the volumetric average

reservoir pressure required to evaluate the fluid properties in
the material balance equations and is defined as follows4:
n

PRj =

P V
k =1
n

kj

V
k =1

kj

kj

P
k =1
n

kj

kj

hk k

L 32

Pkj is the well drainage area average pressure at time tj due to

the current drainage area Akj. It is usual for the drainage area
or volume of a well to vary throughout its production history
as a result of transients caused by its variable production rate
and the influence of other wells draining from the same
reservoir

The reservoir pore volume is given as

n

V p = Akj hkk =
k =1

and

m =

162.6 Btj

Akj hk k

A
k =1

3.2275 + 0.86859 s L 35
b = m log
2
ct rw

NBti (1 + m )
L33
(1 S wi )

khk

L 36

If we assume the well was produced with a single constant rate

qkj from time t=0 to t=tj within the infinite acting region of the
reservoir, the pressure drawdown in the well is given by5,6

Pi Pwf =

162.6qkj Btj
k
3.2275 + 0.86859s L37
log t j + log
2

khk
c
r

t w

If we equate the pressure drawdown (Pi Pwf ) in equation 34

to that in equation 37 we have
j
(q p q p 1 ) log(t t ) + q b
Pi Pwf = mq j
j
p 1
j
qj
p =1

162.6qkj Btj
k
3.2275 + 0.86859s
log t j + log
2
khk
c
r

t w

L 38

N is the original oil-in-place in the reservoir, Bti is the initial

two-phase formation volume factor and m is the ratio of initial
free gas to initial oil volume, Swi is the initial water saturation
and n is the total number of wells producing the reservoir.
Because production rates vary across wells producing the
reservoir in real field scenarios, we would therefore obtain the
rate history for all the wells producing the reservoir and
calculate for each well an equivalent constant rate at various
time periods being used in the MBE calculations.

Where qkj is the required constant equivalent rate

representing the variable rate history of the well from time t =
0 to time t = tj and can be obtained from equation 38 as
follows:

In practice, producing wells undergo production rate changes

during different times of their production history. Under this
condition, the infinite acting approximation to the diffusivity
equation is applicable. If we assume for the well under
consideration, a production rate change from 0 to q1 at time t1,
from q1 to q2 at time t2 and so on till the last rate of qj at time

which is given as follows:

j (q q

p
p 1 )
mq j
log(t j t p 1 ) + q j b

qj
p =1

q kj =

162
.
6

k
tj

3.2275 + 0.86859 s
log t j + log
2
kh
k
ct rw

SPE 105982

13

j (q p q p 1 )
k

3.2275 + 0.86859s
log(t j t p 1 ) + log

2
qj
ct rw
p =1
L 39

q kj = q j

3.2275 + 0.86859 s
log t j + log
2

c
r

t
w

Because of effects of the changing production rates in real

field operations and the influence of other producing wells in
the reservoir, the drainage area of the well will vary right from
when the well is placed on production till PPS condition is
established in the reservoir. We sought to be able to obtain the
drainage area of the well at any given time during production.

q kj
q
=
qT qTj

L 44

Then

Vkj =

Vpq
qT

V p q kj
qTj

L 45

where
The well drainage area is usually estimated using the PSS
region of the pressure data. If we take the derivative of
equation 28 with respect to lnt we obtain

q kj Btj t j
p R
=
ct Ak hk k
ln t

L 40

Taking the derivative of equation 31 we obtain

p R p wf

=0
ln t ln t

p wf
p R
=
L 41
ln t ln t

Np

k =1

tj

qTj = q kj = D

L 46

Vkj is the drainage volume of well at time t=tj and qkj is the
equivalent constant rate calculated from equation 39. q is the
last measured actual flow rate of well while qT is the total of
the last measured flow rate of all wells producing the
reservoir. qTj is the sum of qkj for all the wells producing the
reservoir. Vp is the total reservoir pore volume given by
equation 33 and D is a correction factor that corrects the sum
of all equivalent constant rates to the cumulative reservoir
production.
If we substitute equation 33 into 45 we have

But

p wf
ln t
p wf
t

= tj
=

p wf
t

Vkj = Akj hk k =

q kj Btj
ct Ak hk k

q kj Btj t j
ct Ak hk k

Substituting equation 47 into equation 42 we obtain

L 42

Equations 41 and 42 imply that we can obtain the drainage

area of the well from the PSS region of average reservoir
pressure derivative or individual well bottom-hole flowing
pressure derivative curve.
Mathews, Brons and Hazebroek6 showed that the drainage
area of each well producing from the same reservoir can be
estimated with reasonable accuracy irrespective of the
prevailing condition from the equation

Vkj =

Vpq
qT

But since

L 43

NBti (1 + m ) q kj
L 47
(1 S wi ) qTj

p wf
t

(1 S wi )qTj Btj
ct NBti (1 + m )

L 49

Note that equation 49 is only valid during the PSS regime, so

that accurately identifying the PSS region is critical to its
usage. Already, the initial oil-in-place in the reservoir (N), the
ratio of initial free gas to oil (m) and pressure derivative from
the average pressure history is already determined. Then
equation 49 is combined with the following derivations to
obtain K and S for each well.

If we substitute equation 46 into 49 for qTj we have,

14

SPE 105982

p wf

Np

=D

t
p wf

N p D(1 S wi )Btj

tj

(1 S wi )Btj
ct Bti N (1 + m )

t j ct Bti N (1 + m )

Note that the left hand side of equation 54 is purely a function

of readily available production rate history of the well and the
correction factor D computed from equation 50.

L50

Note that the rate of change of flowing bottom hole pressure

with time in equation 50 is the same as the rate of change of
the average reservoir pressure with time as indicated by
equation 41 since we are in the PSS region. At PSS at a given
time in the reservoir production history, this value is expected
to be constant throughout the reservoir.
As mentioned earlier, D is the correction factor that corrects
the sum total of the equivalent flow rates to the cumulative
production. That is we can write D as;

qTj = q kj = D q p
k =1

(t

t p 1 )
tj

k =1 p =1

=D

Np
tj

L 51

(t

p =1

t p 1 )
tj

L 52

Where qp is the actual production rate from the production rate

history of the well from time tp-1 to time tp. We can therefore
estimate the correction factor D from equation 50.

If we substitute equation 39 for qkj into equation 52 we obtain;

j

q kj = D q p

(t

p =1

t p 1 )

If we rearrange equation 53 we obtain

we can then obtain a linear equation from equation 54 given

by

3.2275 + 0.86859s

= E L 56

Equation 56 can be solved for the average reservoir

permeability by assuming a skin value of 0 or if we have a
good handle on the permeability K, we can estimate the value
of the skin factor S for the well as follows;

In field units

k = 8.580 x1012 c t rw2 *10 E + 3.2275+ 0.86859 s md L 57

tj

j (q p q p 1 )

k
3.2275 + 0.86859 s
log(t j t p 1 ) + log

2
qj
c t rw
p =1

= qj
L 53

log
log
3
.
2275
0
.
86859
t
s

+
+

c r 2
t w

k
log
2
ct rw

j (q q
j

(t p t p 1 )
p
p 1 )
log(t j t p 1 ) D q p
log t j
q j
qj
tj
p =1

p =1

E=
L 55
j
(t p t p 1 )

qj
D q p

tj

p =1

k
log
2
c t rw

From equation 51 we can deduce that

q kj = D q p

Equation 54 can therefore be used to estimate from each well

production rate history during the PSS flow regime, the
reservoir average permeability as seen from the well, and skin.
This can be done by considering different time intervals in the
production history of the well known to exist in the PSS
region. By obtaining at each time interval the group E from
equation 55 as

3.2275 + 0.86859s

j (q q
j

(t p t p 1 )
p
p 1 )
log(t j t p 1 ) D q p
log t j
q j
t
q
p =1

p =1
j
j

j
(t p t p 1 )
qj
D q p

tj

p =1

L 54

and

S=

k
1
E + 3.2275 + log
12
2
0.86859
8.58 x10 c t rw

L 58

This method is especially suitable for variable well production

history. By using the "equivalent constant rate" concept, the
variable rates are converted to a single rate that represents
same pressure depletion as the variable rates. Stimulating the
well will not affect the Material balance solution. It however
affects the drainage radius of the well after pseudo-steady state
is reached. As far as pseudo-steady state region is used, the K
or Skin of the stimulated well can be determined using the
method.