132 views

Uploaded by Sergio Flores

- Sandstone vs Carbonate Reservoir
- drive mechanisms
- Reservoir Simulation
- 4D Seismic Basics
- Oil Recovery by SWAG
- Theoretical validation of fluid substitution by Hashin-Shtrikman bounds
- Petroleum Geology Course Book (Practical)
- Productivity Index and Inflow Performance of Hydraulic Fractured Formations
- zqa2.txt
- Identification of pitfalls in PVT gas condensate modeling using modified black-oil formulations
- Carbonates-10
- NV Resource Assesment Methods-jordanov Ddrakch Belogushev
- Instrucciones de Acceso a Plataforma
- Overview of CO2 EOR
- APOGCE 2ND STAGE.xlsx
- PGE 361 Lecture 14 Reservoir Capillary Pressure [Compatibility Mode]
- SPE-187621-MS
- SC RE Chap11-Drive Mechanisms
- Chun 2015
- 220 GC2012 Estimating Reservoir Oil Volume

You are on page 1of 11

Material-Balance Methods

J.L. Pletcher,* SPE, Marathon Oil Co.

Summary

Experience with material-balance data sets from the field and from

simulation has revealed some procedures that can be used to improve analysis of both oil and gas reservoirs:

Failure to account for a weak waterdrive can result in significant material-balance errors.

The assertion of previous authors that weak waterdrive exhibits a negative slope on the Cole (gas) and Campbell (oil) plots

has been confirmed. A weak waterdrive is much more unambiguous on these plots than on commonly used plots, such as the p/z

plot for gas.

A modified version of the Cole plot is proposed to account

for formation compressibility.

The reservoir drive indices are a useful tool for determining

the correctness of the material-balance solution because they must

sum to unity. The drive indices should never be normalized to sum

to unity because this obscures their usefulness and leads to a false

sense of security.

A modified version of the Roach plot (for gas) is proposed

that improves interpretation in some waterdrive situations.

Material balance has not been replaced by reservoir simulation; rather, it is complementary to simulation and can provide

valuable insights to reservoir performance that cannot be obtained

by simulation.

Introduction

Classical material balance is one of the fundamental tools of reservoir engineering. Many authors have addressed the difficult

problem of solving the material balance in the presence of a waterdrive (Refs. 1 through 5 are just a few of the more significant

ones). The emphasis in the literature has been on strong and moderate waterdrives. In this paper, examples of weak waterdrives

are shown in which the effects on the material balance are significant. All aquifers studied here are of the pot aquifer type, which

is time-independent.

In gas reservoirs, the plot of p/z vs. cumulative gas production,

Gp, is a widely accepted method for solving the gas material balance1 under depletion-drive conditions. Extrapolation of the plot to

atmospheric pressure provides a reliable estimate of original gas in

place (OGIP). If a waterdrive is present, the plot often appears to

be linear, but the extrapolation will give an erroneously high value

for OGIP. Many authors have addressed this problem (including

those in Refs. 2 and 5 through 8), especially in cases of strong or

moderate waterdrives. The p/z plot is actually more ambiguous in

weak waterdrives than in strong or moderate ones.

The Cole plot7,9 has proven to be a valuable diagnostic tool for

distinguishing between depletion-drive gas reservoirs and those

that are producing under a waterdrive. The analogous plot for oil

reservoirs is the Campbell plot.10 The literature has emphasized

strong and moderate waterdrives, the signature shapes of which are

a positive slope and a hump-shaped curve, respectively, on these

plots. Previous authors have recognized that weak waterdrives can

produce negative slopes on these two diagnostic plots, but this

paper shows examples, using simulation and actual field data,

wherein a negative slope clearly reveals a weak waterdrive. These

plots are much more diagnostic than the p/z plot. Once a weak

waterdrive has been diagnosed, the appropriate steps can be taken

in the material-balance equations to yield more accurate results.

The Cole plot assumes that formation compressibility can be

neglected, which is frequently the case with gas. However, in those

reservoirs in which formation compressibility is significant, a

modification to the Cole plot is presented that incorporates formation compressibility and gives more accurate results.

The reservoir drive indices have been used to quantify the

relative magnitude of the various energy sources active in a reservoir. It is shown here that the drive indices are also a useful

diagnostic tool for determining the correctness of a materialbalance solution because they must sum to unity. If they do not

sum to unity, a correct solution has not been obtained. In some

commercial material-balance software, the drive indices are automatically normalized to sum to unity, which not only obscures

their usefulness but also leads to the false impression of having

achieved a correct solution.

The Roach plot has been presented11 as a tool for solving the gas

material balance when formation compressibility is unknown, with or

without the presence of waterdrive. This paper shows that for waterdrives that fit the small pot aquifer model, incorporating cumulative

water production into the x-axis plotting term improves the linearity of the Roach plot and gives more accurate values for OGIP.

Finally, it is argued that even in those reservoirs for which a

simulation study is performed, classical material-balance evaluation should be performed on a stand-alone basis. Simulation should

not be viewed as a replacement for material balance because the

latter can yield valuable insights that can be obscured during simulation. Performing a separate material balance study usually will

improve overall reservoir understanding and enhance any subsequent simulation study. Material balance should be viewed as a

complement to simulation, not as a competing approach.

In this paper, formation compressibility, cf, is assumed to be

constant and unchanging over the reservoir life under investigation. References are given for recommended methods to be used in

those cases in which cf is variable.

Gas Reservoirs

Cole Plot. The Cole plot7,9 is a useful tool for distinguishing between waterdrive and depletion-drive gas reservoirs. The plot is derived from the general material-balance equation for gas reservoirs:

F = GEg + Efw + We , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 1)

where Fcumulative reservoir voidage,

F = Gp Bg + Wp Bw ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2)

Egcumulative gas expansion,

Eg = Bg Bgi ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3)

and Efwcumulative formation and water expansion,

* Now retired.

Copyright 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 75354) was revised for publication from paper SPE 62882, first presented

at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 14 October. Original

manuscript received for review 7 December 2000. Revised manuscript received 10

September 2001. Paper peer approved 1 October 2001.

Efw = Bgi

Swi cw + cf

pi p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4)

1 Swi

gas reservoirs, Efw is negligible compared to Eg and can therefore

49

expressed as

Gp Bg

We Wp Bw

= G+

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5)

Bg Bgi

Bg Bgi

Cole proposed plotting the left side of Eq. 5,

Gp Bg

, on the

Bg Bgi

is depletion drive (i.e., no water influx), the term on the far right

side of Eq. 5 goes to zero and the points plot in a horizontal line

with the y-intercept equal to G, the OGIP. If a waterdrive is

present, the far right-side term is not zero, and the points will plot

above the depletion-drive line with some type of slope. In other

words, the existence of a sloping line vs. a horizontal line is a

valuable diagnostic tool for distinguishing between depletion drive

and waterdrive.

Cole and others have suggested that the sloping waterdrive line

can be extrapolated back to the y-intercept to obtain the OGIP.

However, the slope usually changes with each plotted point; thus,

the correct slope for extrapolation is very difficult, if not impossible, to establish, so this method for estimating OGIP is not recommended. This does not, however, detract from the plots qualitative value in establishing that the reservoir is under waterdrive,

as opposed to depletion drive.

Dake7 showed two types of curving Cole plots in his Fig. 6.6,

a strong waterdrive curve and a moderate waterdrive curve, depicted here in Fig. 1. (Actually, Dakes plot is a slightly modified

version of Coles plot because Dake incorporated water production

into the y-axis plotting term; that is, he in effect moved the waterproduction term to the left side of Eq. 5. The net effect on the curve

shapes is negligible.)

Wang and Teasdale12 stated that in the presence of a weak

We Wp Bw

waterdrive, the far right-side term in Eq. 5,

, would

Bg Bgi

decrease with time because the denominator (gas expansion)

would increase faster than the numerator (net water influx). Therefore, the plotted points will exhibit a negative slope, as shown in

Fig. 1; indeed, this has been observed in practice, as will be shown

later in this paper. As reservoir depletion progresses, the points

migrate down and to the right toward the true OGIP; the smaller

the aquifer, the closer the plot will approach the true OGIP.

Note that the negative slope of the weak waterdrive curve represents an unexpected anomaly. The y-axis plotting term

Gp Bg

Bg Bgi

no waterdrive is present. Therefore, under a weak waterdrive, the

apparent OGIP decreases with time, contrary to that for a strong or

moderate waterdrive.

Actually, before developing the signature negative slope, the

weak waterdrive curve begins with a positive slope in the very

early stages of reservoir depletion, as shown in Fig. 1. The very

because they frequently exhibit a great deal of scatter that is introduced by even small errors in pressure measurement early in the

reservoir life. Technically, then, the curve is hump-shaped like

Dakes moderate waterdrive curve in Fig. 1, except that the positive-slope portion of the hump is over with very early and in

practice will not show up at all unless frequent and accurate very

early time data are obtained.

Modified Cole Plot. In some gas reservoirs, formation compressibility is not negligible, in which case Efw should not be ignored

and Eq. 5 should be written:

We

F

= G+

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6)

Et

Et

where Ettotal reservoir expansion,

Et = Eg + Efw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 7)

The left side of Eq. 6,

the energy contribution from formation (and water) compressibility, as well as from gas expansion. The modified Cole plot consists

F

of plotting on the y-axis vs. Gp on the x-axis. Curve shapes will

Et

be the same as in Fig. 1. Vertically, the points will lie closer to the

true value of OGIP than the original Cole plot.

In reservoirs in which formation compressibility (cf) is a significant contributor to reservoir energy, such as abnormally pressured reservoirs, the original Cole plot will exhibit a negative

slope, even if no waterdrive is present. The modified Cole plot,

however, will plot in a horizontal line, assuming the correct value

F

of cf is used in calculating the term. Thus, constructing both

Et

the original and modified Cole plots will distinguish between those

reservoirs that are subject to both a weak aquifer and significant

formation compressibility and those reservoirs in which formation

compressibility is significant but there is no aquifer attached; for

the former, both plots will have a negative slope, and for the latter,

the original Cole plot will have a negative slope while the modified

plot will be horizontal. This assumes, of course, that formation compressibility is known with certainty, which is often problematical.

Actually, negative slopes on the original and modified Cole

plots can result from any unaccounted-for source of energy that is

decreasing with time relative to gas expansion. This could include,

for example, communication with other depleting reservoirs.

Drive Indices. Drive indices have been defined for oil reservoirs13

to indicate the relative magnitude of the various energy forces

contributing to the reservoir. Similarly, drive indices can be defined for gas reservoirs as follows.

Gas drive index:

Moderate

ICD =

Waterdrive

Weak

Depletion drive

GEfw

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 9)

Gp Bg

Waterdrive index:

Waterdrive

Gp , Mscf

50

GEg

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 8)

Gp Bg

Waterdrive

OGIP

IGD =

Strong

F

, now incorporates in the denominator

Et

IWD =

We Wp Bw

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 10)

Gp Bg

the cumulative gas expansion, cumulative rock and connate water

expansion, and cumulative net water influx, respectively, all at

reservoir conditions. The common denominator is the cumulative

hydrocarbon voidage at reservoir conditions. If the material balFebruary 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

GAS-SIMULATION MODEL

GAS-SIMULATION MODEL

Node area

Node thickness = net pay thickness

Porosity

Gas reservoir pore volume

Aquifer original water in place

640 acres

200 ft

15%

74.510 6 res bbl

74.510 6 res bbl

15%

100.8 Bcf

100 md

6106 psi 1

3106 psi 1

239F

5M

OGIP

Permeability

?B

?M

Reservoir temperature

Cumulative

Water

Cumulative

Pressure

Produced

Produced

Water Influx

(psia)

(Bscf)

(STB)

(STB)

Year

ance has been solved correctly, the sum of these three fractions

equals unity.

Cumulative

Gas

6,411

0.000

5,947

5.475

378

273,294

5,509

10.950

1,434

552,946

5,093

16.425

3,056

817,481

4,697

21.900

5,284

1,068,632

4,319

27.375

8,183

1,307,702

3,957

32.850

11,864

1,535,212

3,610

38.325

16,425

1,752,942

3,276

43.800

22,019

1,962,268

2,953

49.275

28,860

2,163,712

10

2,638

54.750

37,256

2,359,460

If the drive indices do not sum to unity, a correct material-balance

solution has not been obtained.

In practice, drive indices calculated from actual field data rarely

sum exactly to unity because the data are not perfect. The summed

drive indices typically vary between values somewhat larger than

unity and somewhat smaller, with the degree of deviation from

unity a function of data quality. However, if the summed drive

indices are consistently greater than or less than unity, or show a

consistent increasing or decreasing trend, this is an indication that

a correct solution to the material balance has not been obtained.

Gas-Simulation Model. A simple two-cell gas model was constructed with the Eclipse14 reservoir simulator to study the effects

of weak water influx on gas reservoir material balance. One cell

contained gas at irreducible water saturation (i.e., a tank model

ideally suited to material-balance analysis), and the other cell contained an equal pore volume containing 100% water saturation.

OGIP was approximately 101 Bcf. A single well was produced at

a rate of 15 MMscf/D for 10 years, recovering a little more than

one half (54.3%) of the OGIP. Other properties of the model are

found in Table 1.

The simulator output at 1-year intervals was used to perform a

material-balance evaluation of the reservoir. Production and pressure histories used in the material balance are given in Table 2, and

pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) properties are given in Table 3.

The p/z plot is shown in Fig. 2, where each point represents year-end

conditions for Years 1 through 10. Because formation compress-

ibility in this case is significant, the p/z plotting term was modified

to account for the energy contribution from rock compressibility

with a method equivalent to that of Ramagost and Farshad.15

The plotted p/z points in Fig. 2 appear to lie on an almost

perfect straight line (R20.9998 after 10 years), giving the impression that an extrapolation to OGIP could be made with confidence. However, an extrapolation of the points made after 2

years, when 11% of the true OGIP had been produced, would yield

a value for OGIP of 109 Bcf, or 8.2% too high. After 5 years, the

error would be +6.5%. Even after 10 years and recovery of 54% of

the OGIP, the error would still be +4.0%. Errors of this magnitude

are not insignificant, even though this aquifer is very small.

Existence of a waterdrive would be practically impossible to

detect from well performance because even after 10 years, the well

made only 1.5 STB of water per MMscf of gas. In the simulation,

the well produced water only because the encroached water is

dispersed uniformly throughout the single cell. In an actual reservoir, the well would likely produce less water because of saturation

gradients, depending on the proximity of the well with regard to

the original gas/water contact.

Cole and Modified Cole Plots. The Cole plot (Fig. 3) for this

weak aquifer data set exhibits a negative slope. The plot corroborates Wang and Teasdales contention that the Cole plot clearly

indicates the presence of even a weak waterdrive, whereas the p/z

6,000

After 2 yrs.

(Cum.=11%)

G=109 Bcf

After 5 yrs.

(Cum.=27%)

G=107 Bcf

After 10 yrs.

(Cum.=54%)

G=105 Bcf

Pressure

Gas Deviation

Bg (RB/Mscf) Bw (RB/STB)

Year

(psia)

6,411

1.1192

0.6279

1.0452

5,947

1.0890

0.6587

1.0467

5,509

1.0618

0.6933

1.0480

5,093

1.0374

0.7327

1.0493

4,697

1.0156

0.7778

1.0506

4,319

0.9966

0.8300

1.0517

3,957

0.9801

0.8910

1.0529

3,610

0.9663

0.9628

1.0540

3,276

0.9551

1.0487

1.0551

Factor,

2,953

0.9467

1.1532

1.0560

10

2,638

0.9409

1.2829

1.0571

GAS-SIMULATION MODEL

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

0

20

40

60

G p , Bcf

80

100

Actual OGIP=101 Bcf.

51

Original

1.12108

110

1.06108

105

=

-intercept

1.00108

100

20

40

60

80

4,000

G p , Bcf

communication with the hydrocarbon reservoir, and permeabilities

are sufficiently high, the aquifer can be represented with the pot

aquifer model, and original hydrocarbons in place (OHIP) can be

obtained from the pot aquifer plot1,16 or by using Tehranis

method.4 This type of aquifer should apply in high-permeability

reservoirs having a hydrocarbon/water contact where the water

leg is isolated from large regional aquifers by permeability pinchout or faulting. Examples would be found in the U.S. Gulf Coast,

where high-permeability sands typically are broken up into relatively small reservoirs by faulting. An example from the U.S.

midcontinent is shown later in the paper.

For the pot aquifer model, any drop in reservoir pressure is instantaneously transmitted throughout the entire aquifer. Mathematically,

We = cw + cfWpi p, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 12)

where Waquifer original water in place (OWIP), res bbl.

Substituting Eq. 12 for We and Eq. 4 for Efw in Eq. 1 and then

rearranging yields an equation of a straight line:

F

pi p GBgi Swicw + cf

= G+

+ cw + cfW . . . . . . . . . . ( 13)

Eg

Eg

1 Swi

Plotting

F

pi p

on the y-axis vs.

on the x-axis yields a straight

Eg

Eg

line with the y-intercept equal to G. This is the pot aquifer plot.

The value of this plot is that it permits determination of OGIP

without any prior knowledge of aquifer size, rock or water com52

&

8,000

P/E

12,000

16,000

psi-Mscf/RB

Fig. 3Cole plot, original and modified, for two-cell gas simulation.

weak waterdrive system from the strong waterdrive (positive

slope), moderate waterdrive (hump-shaped), and depletion-drive

(horizontal line) systems (Fig. 1).

Note that the ordinate values plotted in Fig. 3 appear to be

migrating toward the true OGIP value, 101 Bcf, as reservoir depletion proceeds. Thus, the most recent plotted point on the Cole plot

could be taken as the maximum possible value of OGIP, approximately 107 Bcf after 10 years (Gp54% of OGIP).

Because formation compressibility is significant in this example, the modified Cole plot should be used. As expected, the

points lie closer to the true value of OGIP than the original Cole

plot, Fig. 3. The ordinate value after 10 years is 104.4 Bcf, more

nearly approaching the true OGIP than the original Cole plot.

Included in Fig. 3 are values from the first year of production

at 1-month intervals, plotted with smaller symbols. The early time

points exhibit a steep positive slope. The negative slope develops

after approximately 10 months, when 4.5% of the true OGIP has

been produced. To obtain this early-time portion of the plot in an

actual reservoir, it would be necessary to obtain frequent and very

accurate pressure measurements. Even then, the points do not plot

with a constant slope, rendering impractical the extrapolation back

to Gp0 for the purpose of obtaining OGIP.

'

End of

year

"

Mscf

Modified

115

F/Eg ,

After 2 yrs.

(Cum.=11%)

=105 Bcf

After 5 yrs.

(Cum.=27%)

=102 Bcf

After 10 yrs.

(Cum.=54%)

=101 Bcf

1.18108

120

pressibility, or even initial water saturation. The sequence of plotted points will be from right to left.

The slope of the pot aquifer plot is given by the term in brackets

in Eq. 13. The water in place in the aquifer, W, can be calculated

from the slope if, in fact, cf is known with some degree of confidence. Rearranging the slope term,

A

W=

GBgi

S c + c

1 Swi wi w f

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 14)

cw + cf

where G and the slope are obtained from the least-square fit

straight line.

Fig. 4 shows the pot aquifer plot for the two-cell gas-simulation

example. As before, each plotted point (large symbols) represents

conditions at the end of each year. Also shown are straight lines

fitted to the data using the least-squares method, assuming that

analyses had been performed at several times during the reservoirs history (after 2, 5, and 10 years). Values of OGIP are obtained from extrapolation of those straight lines to the y-intercept.

Typically with this plot, the early-time points fall below the true

straight line that eventually develops, and such is the case with this

data. After 2 years of performance, an analysis would consist only

of points from Years 1 and 2, and the true straight line would not

yet be apparent, giving a value for OGIP approximately 4% too

high. Analyses conducted after 5 and 10 years would likely have

excluded the Year 1 data from the least-square fit. In all cases, the

OGIP values are significantly closer to the actual value of 101 Bcf

than the corresponding values obtained from the p/z plot (Fig. 2).

In Fig. 4, data points during the first year are plotted at 1-month

intervals with the smaller symbols. These points have a negative

slope and do not start turning over toward the correct positive

slope until approximately three-quarters of the way through the

year. This is typical of the pot aquifer plot; therefore, the plot may

not be usable in the very early life of the reservoir.

Table 4 summarizes the OGIP values obtained using the three

evaluation methods (modified p/z, modified Cole, and pot aquifer),

as well as the percent errors. Even the modified Cole plot solution

is closer to the true OGIP than the p/z plot. The reason the modified Cole plot is so near the true OGIP is that the aquifer is so small

for this example. For larger aquifers, neither the original nor the

GAS-SIMULATION MODEL

Modified

% of

for

OGIP

% error

Produced

11 109.0 8.2

27 107.3 6.5

54 104.8 4.0

p/z

cf

% error

<108.9 <8.0

<107.2 <6.3

<104.4 <3.6

G

% error

105.3 4.5

101.6 0.8

101.0 0.2

G

GAS-SIMULATION MODEL

Modified

p/z

Solution

Modified

Year

IGD

ICD

Total

IGD

IWD

ICD

Total*

0.916

0.066

0.982

0.868

0.073

0.062

1.003

0.924

0.061

0.985

0.875

0.068

0.057

1.000

0.934

0.056

0.990

0.885

0.062

0.053

1.000

0.944

0.051

0.996

0.894

0.057

0.049

1.000

0.954

0.047

1.001

0.904

0.052

0.045

1.000

modified Cole plot will give a value so close to the true OGIP as

in this example.

The slope of the solution line in Fig. 4 after 10 years is 1,103

RB/psi, giving a calculated W of 69.1 million res bbl using Eq. 14,

some 7% low compared to the true value of 74.5 million res bbl.

Cumulative water influx can be calculated from Eq. 12 as

2,346,000 res bbl after 10 years, approximately 6% less than the

2,494,000 res bbl from the simulation. Accuracy of the calculated

W and We would be improved by excluding from the least-squares

fit additional early data points after Years 2 and 3 that deviate

slightly from the true straight-line trend. However, when analyzing

actual field data, such subtle deviations are difficult to detect owing to normal data scatter.

Note that if in fact there is no aquifer, the pot aquifer plot still

applies. In this case, W goes to zero in Eq. 13. The formation

compressibility can then be calculated from the slope:

cf = A

GAS-SIMULATION MODEL

1 Swi

Swi cw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 15)

GBgi

If for this data set it had been assumed that no aquifer were present,

a cf of 14.3106 psi1 would have been calculated from Eq. 15,

significantly larger than the known value of 6106 psi1. In a

real-world setting, this would be another indication that an unaccounted-for energy source is present. Case 1 of Wang and Teasdale12 shows an application of this method to an actual reservoir

believed to have no waterdrive.

Drive Indices. Drive indices were calculated for the two-cell

simulation model, assuming that the OGIP obtained from the modified p/z solution was correct, and compared with drive indices calculated with the more accurate pot aquifer solution. Table 5 compares the two calculations after 5 years of performance, and Table 6

compares the two after 10 years of performance. Drive indices for

the pot aquifer solution add up to unity as expected, except for

Year 1, which was excluded from the least-square solution fit.

For the incorrect p/z solution that does not account for the

aquifer, drive indices do not add up to unity until later in the

respective time periods. This would be an indication to the engineer making the analysis that his solution is incorrect. Therefore,

the criterion of whether the drive indices sum to unity is an indicator of the correctness of the material-balance solution. This point

is made because some commercial material-balance computer programs normalize the drive indices, which forces them to sum to

unity. This practice is counterproductive because it deprives the

engineer of a tool for evaluating the correctness of his solution and

gives the false impression that a valid solution has been obtained.

Only the raw calculated drive indices should be reported and

summed; they should never be normalized. This applies regardless

of the aquifer model being fitted to the reservoir.

In Tables 5 and 6, observe that not only do the drive indices for

the incorrect solution using modified p/z fail to sum to unity, but

they also show a consistent trend of increasing with time. This

trend is typical of incorrect solutions and can be used to distinguish

incorrect solutions from those solutions that are correct, yet have

drive-index sums that deviate from unity owing to normal data

scatter. That is, the latter will exhibit sums that are sometimes

February 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

p/z

Solution

Year

IGD

ICD

Total

IGD

IWD

ICD

Total

0.895

0.064

0.959

0.863

0.080

0.062

1.005*

0.903

0.059

0.962

0.870

0.074

0.057

1.001

0.912

0.055

0.967

0.880

0.068

0.053

1.000

0.922

0.050

0.972

0.889

0.062

0.048

0.999

0.932

0.046

0.978

0.898

0.057

0.044

1.000

0.942

0.042

0.984

0.908

0.052

0.040

1.000

0.951

0.038

0.989

0.917

0.047

0.037

1.000

0.960

0.034

0.994

0.925

0.042

0.033

1.000

0.969

0.030

0.999

0.934

0.037

0.029

1.000

10

0.977

0.027

1.004

0.942

0.033

0.026

1.001

consistently increasing trend.

To summarize, evaluation of this reservoir taking the common

approach of considering only the p/z method (modified to include

cf effects) would, on the surface, give every indication that a correct material-balance solution had been obtained for depletion

drive. Yet OGIP would be erroneously high, with the error ranging

from approximately 4 to 8%, depending on the stage of reservoir

depletion considered. Constructing the modified Cole plot or calculating drive indices would signal that the solution was, in fact,

not correct. The Cole plot, original or modified, indicates unambiguously that a weak waterdrive exists, in which case the pot aquifer

plot should be used to calculate the most accurate value of OGIP.

Oklahoma Morrow Gas Reservoir. Production history and

other data for an Oklahoma Morrow sand gas reservoir are given

in Table 7. The lack of water production, together with the decline

in reservoir pressure, suggested that no aquifer was present. The

p/z plot, Fig. 5, also gives no hint of aquifer support. The modified

p/z extrapolation gives G6.02 Bcf. (Note that even though cf is

only 3106 psi1, extrapolation of the conventional p/z that ignores cf gives G6.32 Bcf, some 5% greater.)

The Cole and modified Cole plots are shown in Fig. 6 and

exhibit the characteristic negative slope of a weak waterdrive system. (Note that the maximum possible value of OGIP from the

modified Cole plot is slightly less than OGIP from the modified

p/z.) Therefore, the pot aquifer plot was used to determine OGIP

and aquifer size (Fig. 7). OGIP of 5.44 Bcf results from the extrapolation of a line fit to the three data points using the leastsquares method (R20.934). Thus the p/z extrapolation gave a

value nearly 11% too high, even after being modified to account

for formation compressibility.

The slope of Fig. 7, 58 RB/psi, was used with Eq. 15 to calculate a value for cf of 12106 psi1, much greater than the estimated value of 3106 psi1 and too high for hard rock country.

Therefore, the estimated cf3106 psi1 was used with Eq. 14 to

TABLE 7OKLAHOMA MORROW GAS RESERVOIR

PERFORMANCE

Pressure

Days

0

Bg

(psia)

(RB/Mscf)

5,482

1.0471

0.5770

Gp (Mscf)

p/z

5,235

72

5,099

0.9960

0.5901

157,000

5,119

237

3,818

0.8286

0.6556

814,000

4,608

332

3,016

0.7341

0.7353

1,350,000

6

psi

; cw = 3 x 10

4,108

6

psi

and Sw = .3.

53

7,500,000

Conventional

5,000

Modified

p/z , psia

Conventional

4,000

Modified

3,000

2,000

1,000

6,000

Original

Modified

7,000,000

6,500,000

6,000,000

5,500,000

5,000,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

2,000,000

G

4,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

, Mscf

6,000,000

reservoir.

, Mscf

with reservoir size by first calculating the original pore volume of

the hydrocarbon reservoir from:

PV =

GBgi

1 Swi

coworkers11 expanded Roachs solution to incorporate water influx. (Poston and coworkers described this approach as the solution plot method, but the Roach plot terminology is retained in

this paper as a more distinctive title.) Equation 6.10 from Ref. 11

can be expressed in modified form as

p zi p z 1 1 p zi p z Gp

=

pi p

G

pi p

=

1 .3

Then, the aquifer is 6.74 million res bbl/4.48 million res bbl1.5

times as large as the gas reservoir. Cumulative water influx of

99,800 res bbl after 332 days is calculated with Eq. 12. This

equates to only 3% of the original hydrocarbon pore volume

(HCPV) of approximately 3,139,000 res bbl, yet it represents approximately 10% of the cumulative hydrocarbon voidage

(GpBg1,350,000 Mscf0.7353 RB/Mscf992,700 res bbl).

Drive indices are shown in Table 8 for the modified p/z solution and the pot aquifer solution. Drive-index sums based on the

OGIP obtained from p/z show a trend from too low at early time

to near unity at late time. Had the drive indices been normalized to

sum to unity, the fact that a problem existed with the p/z solution

would have been obscured. Drive indices based on the OGIP obtained from the pot aquifer solution fluctuate around unity, exhibiting scatter typical of field data.

Roach Plot. Roach17 rearranged the p/z relationship to solve for

the correct OGIP when formation compressibility is significant but

7,500,000

Swi cw + cf We Wp Bw

+

. . . . . . . . . . . ( 17)

1 Swi

pi pGBgi

The Roach plot consists of plotting the left side of Eq. 17,

p zi p z 1

p zi p z Gp

on the x-axis.

, on the y-axis vs.

pi p

pi p

slope. The y-intercept is the term in brackets on the right side of

Eq. 17 and incorporates formation and water compressibility, as

well as water influx and water production.

The difficulty in interpreting the plot in the presence of a waterdrive is that the y-intercept is not constant because the waterinflux and water-production terms in brackets do not remain constant. Thus, the correct slope is difficult to ascertain, and significant errors in OGIP can easily result.

Modified Roach Plot. The problem can be solved, provided

that the aquifer is of the pot aquifer type. Eq. 12 is substituted for

We in Eq. 17, which is then rearranged to move the waterproduction term into the x-axis plotting term, resulting in:

p zi p z 1 1

=

pi p

G

7,000,000

F/Eg , Mscf

6,500,000

p zi p z Gp +

pi p

Wp Bw

Bgi

Swi cw + cf cw + cf W

+

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 18)

1 Swi

GBgi

6,000,000

GAS RESERVOIR

5,500,000

OGIP=5,440,000 Mscf

Days

IGD

5,000,000

0

5,000

10,000

P/E

15,000

g,

20,000

25,000

30,000

psi-Mscf/RB

54

ICD

Total

IGD

IWD

ICD

Total

72

0.849

0.080

0.929

0.767

0.167

0.072 1.007

237

0.886

0.060

0.946

0.801

0.126

0.055 0.982

332

0.959

0.048

1.007

0.868

0.101

0.043 1.012

GAS-SIMULATION MODEL WITH FETKOVICH AQUIFER

Cumulative

Cumulative

Gas

Water

Gas

Pressure

Produced

Produced

Deviation

Year

(psia)

(Bscf)

(STB)

6,411

0.000

1.1192

0.6279

1.0452

6,130

5.475

2,163

1.1008

0.6459

1.0460

5,849

10.950

9,293

1.0828

0.6659

1.0470

5,565

16.425

22,286

1.0652

0.6885

1.0478

5,280

21.900

43,807

1.0482

0.7141

1.0488

4,992

27.375

78,152

1.0316

0.7434

1.0496

4,700

32.850

132,011

1.0158

0.7774

1.0505

4,403

38.325

219,211

1.0005

0.8174

1.0515

4,101

43.800

358,536

0.9865

0.8653

1.0524

3,787

49.275

607,252

0.9731

0.9243

1.0534

10

3,459

54.750

1,034,275

0.9610

0.9994

1.0544

pi p

, and the

brackets, is now constant; thus, the plotted points will have a

constant and correct slope. The method is demonstrated with a

simulation example.

Simulation Model. The gas model described previously was

modified to give a much stronger aquifer. The water-filled cell was

removed, and aquifer strength was provided by attaching a Fetkovich-type aquifer18 to the single-cell gas reservoir. Aquifer OWIP

was 633 million res bbl, or 10 times the HCPV. Aquifer productivity index (PI) was set to a high value, 485 RB/D/psi, and aquifer

compressibility (sum of cw and cf) was set to 9106 psi1. The

model was run for 10 years, as before. Simulation results and PVT

data are given in Table 9, and the conventional and modified

Roach plots are shown in Fig. 8. Plotted points migrate from left

to right with time.

Examining Fig. 8, the conventional plot appears to be linear. In

reality, however, the points are deviating slightly to the left with

increasing time because water production causes the y-intercept (in

brackets in Eq. 17) to migrate upward with time. The slope of

the conventional plot is 1.042105 MMscf 1, giving G1/

(1.042105)96.0 Bcf, almost 5% low to the true OGIP100.8

Bcf. The modified version straightens out the later time points and

gives G1/(0.9853105)101.5 Bcf, less than 1% high compared to the true value.

The y-intercept in Eq. 18 can be rearranged to solve for W,

provided that cw and cf are known. A value of 629 million res bbl

is calculated from the modified plot, only 0.7% too low.

The modified Roach plot has been tested for varying Fetkovich

aquifer volumes with this model, using values of W larger and

smaller than the 10HCPV used in the example. As W increases,

the deviation of the late-time points on the conventional plot becomes more visible; for W of 1 billion res bbl, it is clearly noticeable, and the late-time points are excluded from the least-square

fit. For W5HCPV, the conventional plot gives essentially the

correct G because water production is not too great. In application,

both the conventional and modified plots could be constructed as

in Fig. 8 and compared to determine the amount of deviation. If

only one plot is to be constructed, it should be the modified plot,

to be on the safe side.

A word of caution: the modified Roach plot has not been verified with actual field data because suitable field data have not

become available. Two questions come to mind when considering

field cases: first, whether an actual aquifer could be as large as that

used in the simulations and still perform like a pot aquifer, and

second, whether water volumes sufficiently large to cause the

February 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Bg

Bw

(RB/Mscf)

(RB/STB)

be produced before the wells load up. The method might at least

find application in enhanced recovery projects in which gas reservoirs are aggressively dewatered.

Oil Reservoirs

Campbell Plot. For oil reservoirs, the Campbell plot10 is the counterpart to the modified Cole plot for gas. It is based on an equation

analogous to Eq. 5 for gas:

F

We

= N+

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 19)

Et

Et

where NOOIP in STB and Fcumulative reservoir voidage,

F = Np Bt + BgRp Rsi + Wp Bw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 20)

Etcumulative total expansion,

Et = Eo + mEg + Efw ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 21)

Eocumulative oil expansion,

Eo = Bt Bti ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 22)

Egcumulative gas expansion,

Eg =

Bti

B Bgi; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 23)

Bgi g

Efw = Bti 1 + m

Swi cw + cf

pi p; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 24)

1 Swi

and mthe ratio of initial gas-cap volume to initial oil-zone volume, at reservoir conditions. Bt is the total formation volume factor:

Bt = Bo + BgRsi Rs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 25)

Wp Bw

Bgi

p zi p z Gp +

Factor,

Conventional:

y = 1.04210 5 x1.08210 4

R 2 = 9.99710 1

0.00020

0.00016

Modified:

y = 9.85310 6 x9.64510 5

2

R = 9.99910 1

0.00012

Conventional

Modified

0.00008

18

22

26

30

55

F / Et , STB

POT AQUIFER

Strong

Waterdrive

Sw

cf

cw

OOIP

Moderate

Waterdrive

Reservoir temperature

Bubblepoint pressure

Weak

Waterdrive

Depletion drive

Bobp

OOIP

Aquifer OWIP

20.8%

28%

26106 psi 1

2.28106 psi 1

158F

2,648 psia

1.2697 RB/STB

20 million STB

80 million STB

F , RB

Fig. 9Campbell plot curve shapes.

Plotting

F

on the y-axis vs. F on the x-axis will yield a plot

Et

is analogous to Fig. 1 for gas. In other words, like the Cole plot, the

Campbell plot is useful in a qualitative sense for distinguishing

between depletion-drive reservoirs and strong, moderate, and weak

waterdrives. If the reservoir is depletion drive, the plot can be used

quantitatively because the y-value of the plotted points equals the

OOIP. But if a waterdrive exists, the slope of the plot is changing

continuously, so extrapolation back to the OOIP is hazardous and

is not recommended.

As with the Cole plot for gas, the weak aquifer curve on the

Campbell plot again exhibits a negative slope except for a brief early

period of steep positive slope. Thus, the apparent OOIP, calculated

assuming no waterdrive (i.e., NF / Et), exhibits the counterintuitive

trait of decreasing with time in the presence of weak waterdrive.

This was recognized at least as early as 1963.16 The negative slope

has been observed in field data and in data from simulation.

Oil-Simulation Model. A multicell simulation model of an undersaturated oil reservoir with an attached pot aquifer was constructed

with the Eclipse14 reservoir simulator. The model used PVT and

other properties similar to those encountered in U.S. Gulf Coast

sandstones: high permeability, porosity, and formation compressibility. Reservoir properties are shown in Table 10.

Pressures and produced volumes from the simulator output

were used to perform a material-balance evaluation of the reservoir. Performance data are given in Table 11, and PVT data are

given in Table 12.

MODEL WITH POT AQUIFER

Cumulative

Cumulative

Oil

Water

Gas

Pressure

Produced

Produced

Produced

Days

(psia)

(STB)

(STB)

(Mscf)

2,855

305

2,779

192,821

94,513

Cumulative

700

2,627

633,942

312,064

1,285

2,457

1,314,880

710,670

1,465

2,402

1,524,400

850,934

2,005

2,223

2,152,960

26

1,355,720

2,365

2,080

2,572,000

60

1,823,250

2,905

1,833

3,200,560

822

2,732,860

3,235

1,665

3,584,680

11,135

3,397,740

3,595

1,460

4,003,720

97,443

4,216,120

56

production for 8 years could lead to the interpretation that no

aquifer is present. The recommended method16,19 for solving the

material balance for an undersaturated oil reservoir without water

influx is the plot of F vs. Et, which should be a straight line with

OOIP equal to the slope. Fig. 10 is the plot for these data. Leastsquare straight lines were fit to the data, assuming that evaluations

were performed at various stages in the life of the reservoir, after

3, 7, and 20% of the true OOIP had been produced (after 700,

1,285, and 3,595 days, respectively). Calculated values of N

(shown in the legend of Fig. 10) are in error by +160%, +90%, and

+50%, respectively. For this perfect data set, it is obvious that the

points do not lie in a straight line, but for real field data, the

curvature could be obscured easily within normal data scatter,

leading to the false conclusion that no aquifer is present.

The Campbell plot for these data, Fig. 11, clearly shows the

signature negative slope of a weak waterdrive, even after just the

first two or three data points (700 and 1,285 days, respectively). As

with the modified Cole plot for gas reservoirs, the points migrate

toward the true OOIP with time.

Because a weak waterdrive is present, the correct materialbalance solution for this case is obtained from the pot aquifer plot

that has been derived for oil,16 similar to that for gas. Because the

F

p

oil is undersaturated,

is plotted on the y-axis vs.

on the xEo

Eo

axis (see Ref. 16 for derivation). The y-intercept gives the OOIP.

The plot for this case is shown in Fig. 12; the sequence of plotted

points is from right to left.

Several solutions were obtained from the pot aquifer plot at the

same point in the reservoirs life as before. The initial data point at

305 days lies below the correct straight-line trend that has become

apparent after 1,285 days (third plotted point) and so is excluded

from that least-square fit. The solution at 1,285 days gives a value

of N of 21.7 million STB, within <10% of the true value. Sometime after 1,285 days (that is, after the third plotted point), it

becomes apparent that the second data point at 700 days is off

trend as well. Therefore, the second point is excluded from subsequent fits, giving increasingly accurate answers.

Aquifer OWIP is calculated from the slope of the pot aquifer

plot, using the oil version of Eq. 14 (i.e., N replaces G, and Bti

replaces Bgi; formation compressibility is known in this simulation

example). After 3,595 days, the slope is 3,090 RB/psi, from which

W of approximately 79 million res bbl is calculated, very close to

the known value of approximately 80 million res bbl. Oil reservoir

pore volume is approximately 35.7 million res bbl, so the aquifer

is about 2.2 times as large as the reservoir.

Drive Indices. Drive indices for oil reservoirs as defined in Ref.

13 are presented here in modified form.

Depletion-drive index:

IDD =

NEo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 26)

F Wp Bw

February 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Days

Pressure (psia)

2,855

1.2665

0.5010

0.9201

1.2665

1.0222

305

2,779

1.2677

0.5010

0.9637

1.2677

1.0224

700

2,627

1.2681

0.4973

1.0502

1.2720

1.0228

1,285

2,457

1.2554

0.4671

1.0977

1.2926

1.0232

1,465

2,402

1.2512

0.4574

1.1146

1.2998

1.0233

2,005

2,223

1.2383

0.4269

1.2010

1.3273

1.0237

2,365

2,080

1.2278

0.4024

1.2825

1.3543

1.0240

2,905

1,833

1.2074

0.3579

1.4584

1.4161

1.0246

3,235

1,665

1.1949

0.3277

1.6112

1.4741

1.0250

3,595

1,460

1.1802

0.2908

1.8526

1.5696

1.0254

ISD =

NmEg

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 27)

F Wp Bw

Waterdrive index:

IWD =

We Wp Bw

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 28)

F Wp Bw

formation and connate water compressibility drive index is defined

as follows:

ICD =

N1 + mEfw

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 29)

F Wp Bw

The common denominator in Eqs. 26 through 29 is the hydrocarbon voidage. If the material balance has been solved correctly, the

sum of the four drive-index fractions equals unity; that is,

IDD + ISD + ICD + IWD = 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 30)

Table 13 shows drive indices for the oil-simulation case for the

depletion-drive solution and the pot aquifer solution after 3,595

days. Drive indices for the depletion-drive solution do not add to

unity. Had the values been normalized to add to unity as in some

commercial software, the fact that the depletion-drive solution is

incorrect would have been obscured. Indices for the waterdrive

solution add to unity as expected, excluding the first two points at

305 and 700 days, which were not used in the least-squares solution fit; thus, their indices would not be expected to add to unity.

In conclusion, the presence of a weak waterdrive acting on this

oil reservoir would likely be overlooked without examining the

Campbell plot or the raw (not normalized) drive indices, just as

with the gas reservoir cases discussed earlier. Significant errors in

12,000,000

Other Considerations

In this paper, water compressibility, cw, considers only the liquid

phase. That is, the energy contribution from gas dissolved in the

water, coming out of solution as reservoir pressure declines, is

ignored. Fetkovich et al.21 examined this problem for highpressure gas reservoirs and concluded that the energy contribution

from gas dissolved in the water is usually important only late in the

reservoir life (below approximately 1,500 psia). To account for

this additional energy, they defined water total formation volume

factor, Btw, analogous to oil total formation volume factor:

Btw = Bw + BgRswi Rsw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 31)

They also defined water total compressibility, ctw:

ctw =

Btw Btwi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 32)

Btwi pi p

incorporated in the equations presented in this paper by substituting Btw (Eq. 31) for Bw and ctw (Eq. 32) for cw. The Campbell and

modified Cole plots would be affected, but not until later in the

reservoir life when pressure has declined. The pot aquifer plot no

longer applies because the slope is no longer constant, and the

Roach plot no longer applies because the y-intercept is no longer

3,595

days

8,000,000

60,000,000

F / E t , RBL

F,

RB

50,000,000

=52 million STB

After 1,285 days (Cum.=7%)

=38 million STB

After 3,595 days (Cum.=20%)

=30 million STB

4,000,000

0

the calculated values of OOIP would be obtained using the depletion-drive solution (compare the calculated values of N in Fig. 10

with those in Fig. 12).

Carlson20 pointed out that even when material-balance results

are ambiguous or do not provide very accurate quantitative answers, valuable qualitative insights may still be obtained. For this

oil-simulation case, the pot aquifer material-balance solution after

700 days is considerably in error, and even after 1,285 days, it is

not particularly accurate (Fig. 12). However, the negative slope of

the Campbell plot (Fig. 11) clearly shows the presence of a weak

waterdrive even after only 700 days (first two data points), a valuable

piece of information obtained early in the life of the reservoir.

0.0

30,000,000

1,285 days

700 days

305 days

0.1

40,000,000

Et,

0.2

RB/STB

0.3

20,000,000

0.4

February 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

F , RBL

57

210,000,000

305

days

170,000,000

STB

F / Eo ,

50,000,000

=

-intercept

N

10,000,000

1,285 days

3,595

days

20,000

p/ E, ,

40,000

psi-STB/RB

60,000

reservoirs under these conditions.

In this paper, formation compressibility, cf, is assumed to be

constant and unchanging over the reservoir life being investigated.

Fetkovich et al. presented a method to account for changing formation compressibility in gas reservoirs, and Yale et al.22 presented a method for oil reservoirs.

Various workers have investigated the effect of errors in measured reservoir pressure on material-balance results. However, to

this authors knowledge, such an evaluation has not been performed on weak aquifer material balance such as presented in this

paper. Further study is needed of the sensitivity of these relationships to errors in pressure.

Material Balance and Reservoir Simulation

The perception exists among some that classical material-balance

methods have been rendered obsolete by reservoir simulation. Because simulation incorporates material balance on a cell-by-cell

basis, it may be argued that stand-alone material balance is superfluous and therefore serves no utility on those reservoirs that are

subject to a simulation study.

In response, it is argued that material balance and simulation

are complementary rather than competing tools. Material balance

can provide valuable insights into reservoir mechanisms and processes that may be obscured by the multitude of parameters that go

into simulation.

Consider the cases shown in this paper in which weak waterdrives are not apparent from performance data. Simulations performed on these reservoirs without benefit of a prior materialbalance study might well have resulted in rock and fluid parameters being adjusted to achieve matches on the wrong values of

OHIP. If the waterdrive is of the pot aquifer type, as in this paper,

material balance can solve for OHIP and aquifer size simultaneously and unambiguously, without resorting to trial and error

(provided that sufficient reservoir history is available). Even in

cases in which the material-balance solution is more ambiguous,

the analysis often yields qualitative insights that are as valuable as

quantitative results.

Material balance should be performed before a simulation

study to help narrow the range of the many parameters that can be

adjusted during simulation as well as the magnitude of adjustments

that are considered reasonable. And, of course, it is impractical to

perform a simulation study on every reservoir.

Dake provided an especially cogent discussion of this issue in

Ref. 7. He summarized the situation appropriately: numerical

simulation and material balance must not be regarded as competitive techniques: we have too few tools in reservoir engineering to

discard any of them.

Conclusions

1. The Cole plot (gas) and Campbell plot (oil) diagnose the presence of a weak waterdrive unambiguously. Depletion-drive

plots, such as the p/z, are ambiguous in the presence of a weak

waterdrive and can give OHIP values that are erroneously high

58

p/z

Solution

IGD

ICD

Total

IGD

IWD

ICD

305

0.151

0.405

0.556

0.100

0.700

0.269

1.069*

700

0.209

0.368

0.577

0.139

0.636

0.244

1.019*

1,285

0.454

0.293

0.747

0.301

0.506

0.194

1.001

1,465

0.489

0.282

0.771

0.325

0.486

0.187

0.998

2,005

0.582

0.256

0.838

0.386

0.442

0.170

0.998

2,365

0.643

0.240

0.883

0.427

0.415

0.160

1.001

2,905

0.739

0.214

0.953

0.491

0.369

0.142

1.002

3,235

0.806

0.196

1.001

0.535

0.336

0.130

1.001

3,595

0.892

0.174

1.065

0.592

0.290

0.115

0.998

Days

=39 million STB

After 1,285 days (Cum.=7%)

=21.7 million STB

After 3,595 days (Cum.=20%)

=20.3 million STB

90,000,000

Modified

700 days

130,000,000

OIL-SIMULATION MODEL WITH POT AQUIFER

Pot Aquifer Solution

Total

weak waterdrive signature on the Cole and Campbell plots is

shown to be a negative slope.

2. The negative slope of the Cole and Campbell plots amounts to

the counterintuitive characteristic of decreasing apparent OHIP

with time.

3. The modified version of the Cole plot should be used in cases in

which formation compressibility is not negligible compared to

gas compressibility, such as abnormally pressured reservoirs.

4. If a correct solution to the material balance has been obtained, the

drive indices will sum to unity (allowing for normal scatter). If the

drive indices do not sum to unity, a correct solution has not been

obtained. The drive indices should never be normalized to sum

to unity because this obscures their usefulness as a criterion for

determining the validity of the solution and gives a false sense

of security. Only the raw calculated values should be reported.

5. The Roach plot can be modified to improve gas reservoir interpretation in the presence of a pot aquifer by incorporating cumulative water production in the x-axis plotting term. This procedure has not been tested on field data, however.

6. Reservoir simulation does not eliminate the need for classical material-balance analysis. Material balance can reveal insights into

reservoir performance that cannot be obtained from simulation,

such as the presence of a weak aquifer that is not otherwise obvious, as in examples presented in this paper. Material balance is

complementary to, not competitive with, reservoir simulation.

Nomenclature

A slope

Bg gas formation volume factor, L3/ L3, RB/Mscf

Bo oil formation volume factor, L3/ L3, RB/STB

Bt total or two-phase oil formation volume factor

(Eq. 25), L3/ L3, RB/STB

Bw water formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB

Btw total or two-phase water formation volume factor

(Eq. 31), L3/L3, RB/STB

cf formation compressibility, L3/L3/(m/Lt2), vol/vol/psi

cw water compressibility, L3/L3/(m/Lt2), vol/vol/psi

ctw total or two-phase water compressibility (Eq. 32),

L3/L3/(m/Lt2), vol/vol/psi

Eg cumulative gas expansion, L3/L3, RB/STB in oil

reservoirs, RB/Mscf in gas reservoirs

Efw cumulative formation and water expansion, L3/L3,

RB/STB in oil reservoirs, RB/Mscf in gas reservoirs

Eo cumulative oil expansion, including original

complement of solution gas, L3/L3, RB/STB

Et cumulative total expansion, L3/L3, RB/STB in oil

reservoirs, RB/Mscf in gas reservoirs

F cumulative reservoir voidage, L3, res bbl

February 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Gp cumulative gas production, L3, Mscf

ICD formation and connate water compressibility drive

index, L3/L3, fraction

IDD depletion-drive index, L3/L3, fraction

IGD gas drive index, L3/L3, fraction

ISD segregation (gas cap) drive index, L3/L3, fraction

IWD waterdrive index, L3/L3, fraction

m ratio of gas cap OGIP to oil zone OOIP at reservoir

conditions, L3/L3, dimensionless

N original oil in place (OOIP), L3, STB

Np cumulative oil production, L3, STB

p pressure, m/Lt2, psia

Rp cumulative produced gas/oil ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB

Rs solution gas/oil ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB

Rsw solution gas/water ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB

Swi initial water saturation, fraction

W aquifer original water in place, L3, res bbl

We cumulative water influx, L3, res bbl

Wp cumulative water production, L3, STB

z gas deviation factor, or compressibility factor, dimensionless

Subscripts

bp bubblepoint

f formation

fw formation and water

g gas

i initial

o oil

p cumulative produced

s solution

t total

w water

Acknowledgments

I thank Marathon Oil Co. for permission to publish this paper

following my retirement, particularly Jim Gilman for his special

efforts. Teresa Schaller ran the oil-simulation case presented in the

paper. Stuart Cox provided the Morrow Gas data and consulted on

the interpretation. Lois Fitzpatrick provided valuable help formatting this paper.

References

1. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1978) 2729, 303337.

2. Bruns, J.R., Fetkovich, M.J., and Meitzen, V.C.: The Effect of Water

Influx on p/z-Cumulative Gas Production Curves, JPT (March 1965) 287.

3. Chierici, G.L., Pizzi, G., and Ciucci, G.M.: Water Drive Gas Reservoirs: Uncertainty in Reserves From Past History, JPT (February

1967) 237; Trans., AIME, 240.

4. Tehrani, D.H.: An Analysis of a Volumetric Balance Equation for Calculation of Oil-in-Place and Water Influx, JPT (September 1985) 1664.

5. Vega, L. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: New Approach for Simultaneous

Determination of the OGIP and Aquifer Performance With No Prior

Knowledge of Aquifer Properties and Geometry, paper SPE 59781

presented at the 2000 SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, 35 April.

6. Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J.: The Importance of

Water Influx in Gas Reservoirs, JPT (November 1965) 1336; Trans.,

AIME, 234.

7. Dake, L.P.: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994) 73, 8284, 97, 133134, 472476.

Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1996) 5, 236.

9. Cole, F.W.: Reservoir Engineering Manual, Gulf Publishing Co.,

Houston (1969) 285.

10. Campbell, R.A. and Campbell, J.M. Sr.: Mineral Property Economics,

Vol. 3: Petroleum Property Evaluation, Campbell Petroleum Series,

Norman, Oklahoma (1978) 26.

11. Poston, S.W. and Berg, R.R.: Overpressured Gas Reservoirs, SPE,

Richardson, Texas (1997) 105106.

12. Wang, B. and Teasdale, T.S.: GASWAT-PC: A Microcomputer Program for Gas Material Balance With Water Influx, paper SPE 16484

presented at the 1987 SPE Petroleum Industry Applications of Microcomputers, Del Lago on Lake Conroe, Montgomery, Texas, 2326 June.

13. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F., revised by Terry, R.E.: Applied

Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, second edition, Prentice-Hall Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1991) 63.

14. Eclipse 100 Reference Manual, 19821999, Schlumberger.

15. Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F.: P/z Abnormally Pressured Gas

Reservoirs, paper SPE 10125 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 57 October.

16. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an Equation of

a Straight Line, JPT (August 1963) 896; Trans., AIME, 228.

17. Roach, R.H.: Analyzing Geopressured ReservoirsA MaterialBalance Technique, paper SPE 9968 available from SPE, Richardson,

Texas (1981).

18. Fetkovich, M.J.: A Simplified Approach to Water Influx CalculationsFinite Aquifer Systems, JPT (July 1971) 814.

19. Wang, B., Litvak, B.L., and Bowman, G.W.: OILWAT: Microcomputer Program for Oil Material Balance With Gascap and Water Influx, paper SPE 24437 presented at the 1992 SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston, 1922 July.

20. Carlson, M.R.: Tips, Tricks, and Traps for Oil Material Balance Calculations, paper 9507 presented at the 1995 Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Banff, Alberta, 1417 May.

21. Fetkovich, M.J., Reese, D.E., and Whitson, C.H.: Application of a

General Material Balance for High-Pressure Gas Reservoirs, paper

SPE 22921 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference

and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October.

22. Yale, D.P. et al.: Application of Variable Formation Compressibility for

Improved Reservoir Analysis, paper SPE 26647 presented at the 1993

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 36 October.

acre 4.046 873

E01

bbl 1.589 873

E01

ft 3.048*

E01

E02

ft3 2.831 685

F (F32)/1.8

psi 6.894 757

E+00

E01

psi1 1.450 377

scf/bbl 1.801 175

E01

ha

m3

m

m3

C

kPa

kPa1

m3/m3 (st)

Technology Center in Littleton, Colorado. He was an advanced senior engineer working in the areas of reservoir evaluation and reservoir engineering training. His career spanned

more than 30 years, all with Marathon. Previous assignments

were in production and reservoir engineering in Illinois, Texas,

Louisiana, and the general office in Findlay, Ohio. Pletcher holds

a BS degree in petroleum engineering from Marietta College.

59

- Sandstone vs Carbonate ReservoirUploaded byTri Haryanta
- drive mechanismsUploaded byprateekcool
- Reservoir SimulationUploaded byEslem Islam
- 4D Seismic BasicsUploaded byosama-hasan-khan-9429
- Oil Recovery by SWAGUploaded byswaala4real
- Theoretical validation of fluid substitution by Hashin-Shtrikman boundsUploaded bymakdim07
- Petroleum Geology Course Book (Practical)Uploaded byDavidandy
- Productivity Index and Inflow Performance of Hydraulic Fractured FormationsUploaded bymoncho000
- zqa2.txtUploaded byharde2lah
- Identification of pitfalls in PVT gas condensate modeling using modified black-oil formulationsUploaded byChávez Ibarra Sergio Kevin
- Carbonates-10Uploaded bySanjeev Singh Negi
- NV Resource Assesment Methods-jordanov Ddrakch BelogushevUploaded byDedy Dayat
- Instrucciones de Acceso a PlataformaUploaded byfelix
- Overview of CO2 EORUploaded byrecsco2
- APOGCE 2ND STAGE.xlsxUploaded byPrap
- PGE 361 Lecture 14 Reservoir Capillary Pressure [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byegv2000
- SPE-187621-MSUploaded byBarbara Pinto
- SC RE Chap11-Drive MechanismsUploaded byweldsv
- Chun 2015Uploaded byAmr Hegazy
- 220 GC2012 Estimating Reservoir Oil VolumeUploaded byHafidz Galant
- Vol2 HydrocarbonsUploaded byJoao Artur
- Summer Project-University of ManchesterUploaded byMaximiano Ferraz
- Production Sharing AgreementUploaded bycia12
- Intrinsic PorosityUploaded bydownbuliao
- Basin Centered Gas System PresentationUploaded byraja ariff
- SPE_101674 Simulation of Gas Oil Displacements in Vuggy and Fractured ReservoirsUploaded byAlan Ramirez Orozco
- PGE 361 lecture 14 reservoir capillary pressure [Compatibility Mode].pdfUploaded bysifat
- 1_pod Introduction (2)Uploaded byGhifahri Damara
- SPE-144208-MSUploaded byKilaparthi Satyavamma
- L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8yMDc4NjM=Uploaded byegv2000

- SPE-169945-MS.pdfUploaded bySergio Flores
- 231000419-The-Role-of-Cutoffs-in-Integrated-Reservoir-Studies-2.pdfUploaded bySergio Flores
- Raiza, Mansoori.-simple Equation of State Accurately Predicts Hydrocarbon DensitiesUploaded bySergio Flores
- Lawal.-prediction of Vapor and Liquid Viscosities From the Lawal-Lake-Silberberg Equation of StateUploaded bySergio Flores
- Claridge., Prats.-a Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Foamy Heavy Oil BehaviorUploaded bySergio Flores
- Cook.-special Considerations in Predicting Reservoir Performance of Highly Volatile Type Oil ReservoirsUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-950083-GUploaded byEdwin Vargad
- MUD CHEMISTRY BOOKUploaded bypajamas94117
- SPE-124441-MSUploaded bySergio Flores
- API-44-053Uploaded bySergio Flores
- Schilthuis, R.J. Active Oil and Reservoir EnergyUploaded bySolenti D'nou
- SPE-16484-MSUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-71726-MSUploaded bySergio Flores
- PETSOC-99-44Uploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-54006-MSUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE38855Uploaded bySalah Gad Foda
- SPE-18276-MSUploaded bySergio Flores
- API-38-435Uploaded bySergio Flores
- admin-A-10-1-24-3990618Uploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-172359-MSUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-57886-PA.pdfUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-16036-MSUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-124-PAUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-6721-PAUploaded bySergio Flores
- Humphreys.-the Material Balance Equation for a Gas Condensate Reservoir With Significant Water VaporizationUploaded bySergio Flores
- SPE-56850-PAUploaded bySergio Flores
- NM(Carito-Mulata)Khan Et Al.-field Operations Strategy Under Uncertainty in El Carito Field, North of Monagas, VenezuelaUploaded bySergio Flores
- A(San Joaquin)Almeida, Todd, et al.-Reservoir Engineering Study of C02 Enhanced Oil Recovery for the Nipa 100 Field, Venezuela.pdfUploaded bySergio Flores
- El-Banbi, Sayyouh, Nassar.-modified Black Oil PVT Properties Correlations for Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate ReservoirsUploaded bySergio Flores

- 5400348b67d92Uploaded byinaca4
- Module 2 VelocityUploaded bybunty
- Projeect ReportUploaded byadi342
- The Effect of Climate to the Fruit Set of Nutmeg PlantUploaded byDwik Rachmanto
- Tutorial 10 SSR Search AreaUploaded byryithan
- WC3550_Ph3635_Service_manual 22.02.2013Uploaded bysanchoss
- POWER FACTOR 3.docUploaded bySuda Krishnarjunarao
- BoilerTube FialuresUploaded byProsenjit Ghosh
- Welding consumables for lean duplex stainless steels.pdfUploaded bysusanweb
- 4.1 Thermal EquilibriumUploaded byAzrul Wahid
- Memory, Mental Arithmetic and MathematicsUploaded byduyhoa83
- IC025WSU PatentlyUploaded byAllan B
- 000. CHI6005E specs.pdfUploaded byAyman Shams
- PlanarUploaded byAgung Tarmudi
- Cad Cam Lab VivaUploaded byAnonymous dYDY4Eha
- Implant Materials - Wrought 18_ Chromiickel--2.5_ Molybdenum Stainless Steel.5_ Molybdenum Stainless SteelUploaded byGagan Bajpai
- Advantages of CSPF over EERUploaded byChia Yi Meng
- JoSAA 2017Uploaded byashwin
- Fourier Analysis SummaryUploaded byMuhammad Awais
- C FIX Report1Uploaded byBebo Hamza
- Aluminum 3003 H14Uploaded bymercab15
- Alalysis of Magnetic Resonance Wireless Power TransferUploaded byHoan Le
- Pages from STC processing.pdfUploaded byKP
- water structure and properties.pdfUploaded byfajar_setia
- Ernst Mach Analysis of Sensations 2000Uploaded byjgomespinto
- Friction Stir Welding FINAL SEMNAR PPTUploaded byMangesh Shinde
- [IJCST-V5I1P21]:Sujaya Kumar Sathua, Arabinda Dash, Aishwaryarani BeheraUploaded byEighthSenseGroup
- A Transient BEM for Room AcousticsUploaded byLuis de Freitas
- lmp91200Uploaded bybrandt_br7991
- Boiler MountingsUploaded byMeghali Borle