Blowout Impact Assessment and Reservoir Management of a
Partial Water Drive Gas Reservoir
Chaitanya Behera, *V.K. Gupta, **M. Sreekanth, *A.M. Krishna
ONGC, IRS, Ahmedabad, India, cbehera@hotmail.com; *ONGC, Rajahmundry Asset, India, **MIT,

Pasarlapudi field, one of the biggest onshore gas fields in Krishna-Godavari Basin, Eastern India is
bestowed with multiple pays of Eocene age. PS3 is the largest amongst them which was affected by a
major blow out in 1995. It continued with burning of gas @ 12.75 MMm3/d for about 65 days. The
blow out caused a huge drop in reservoir pressure by 765 psi, significant decline in flowing well head
pressures of all the six producers and loss of about 14% of Initial In Place Gas. The major impact on
the reservoir was in the form of change in the pressure scenario, formation of pressure sink around
the blow out well, encroachment of water from connected aquifer and subsequently ceasure of wells
in north-eastern part of the reservoir. As water from the connected aquifer encroaches into the
reservoir because of pressure sink, the water bypasses and entrap a portion of the gas that is left as
residual saturation. The study shows that the residual gas saturation can be as high as 30 - 40% of
pore volume in case of water drive gas reservoir. The premature ceasure of wells, high abandonment
pressure, high residual gas saturation and poor volumetric displacement efficiency are the main
factors resulting in poor recovery efficiency. The volumetric displacement efficiency is affected by the
rate of exploitation and placement of wells.
Change in pressure regime in addition to drop in reservoir pressure is marked as effect of blowout on
PS3 reservoir. The shifting of low pressure zone from western to the eastern part of the reservoir is
observed from the isobar map of the reservoir pressure data recorded in both before and after the
blow out. The solution plot, a modern analytical method of material balance study for estimating Initial
Inplace Gas, volume of water influx and time of aquifer activity reveals both Type-2a and Type-3
pattern of curves. The Type-2a pattern at initial stage indicates increasing apparent compressibility
because of interaction between the formation, water and gas compressibility at the early stage of
production while the Type-3 pattern indicates water encroachment at later stage. A new method for
determining ultimate reserve from the end point of pressure at variable volumetric displacement
efficiency has been used.
Co-production of both gas and water and production of water at higher rate through ceased wells are
desired to save other wells to cease, remobilization of the trapped gas and ultimately to increase the

Key words: Residual gas saturation, partial water drive reservoir, solution plot, apparent
compressibility, blow out, volumetric displacement efficiency, recovery efficiency, isobar map

It has long been recognized that exploiting gas at faster rate is an effective way of maximizing
recovery from the water drive gas reservoir as the mobility of gas is about 100 times greater than the
mobility of water. It helps to evacuate the gas before the less mobile water can catch up and trap
significant quantities of gas behind the advancing flood front. On contrary uneven withdrawal with
poor volumetric displacement efficiency and ceasure of wells due to high water production may lead
to entrapment of gas as residual gas saturation at higher reservoir pressure which ultimately results in
poor recovery. As water from the connected aquifer encroaches into the gas reservoir caused by
pressure drop from producing portion, the water bypasses a portion of gas that is left as residual gas
saturation. Geffen et al1&2 in 1952 predicted it could be as high as 35% of total pore volume. Naar and
Henderson3 confirmed that the residual non wetting phase saturation under imbibition should be about


Continuous bottom hole pressure recording was done in the nearby Well – 8 which revealed a pressure drop of 765 psi. 1995 by the help of experts from M/s IWC. 1995 while retrieving the stuck up string at depth 2777m in Well . Geological Settings Pasarlapudi field is one of the biggest onland gas filed in Krishna-Godavari basin. 1995 and well was completed in PS3 as target depth to reach PS2 could not be achieved due to frequent stuck up and operational constraints. The popular P/Z material balance method of reserve estimation results in over estimation of GIIP because of aquifer support. PS3 sand is an elongated body trending NE and SW direction bounded by faults in north and lateral facies change in south and eastern side. The sand has excellent petrophysical properties with average porosity about 25% and water saturation 45%.75 MMm3/d.2509m at Well-1) The sand is lying at depth of -2509m and having Gas Water Contact (GWC) at 2528m. The sands are clean especially in northern and western part and gradually becoming silty in south-eastern part. which is lying about 172m below the PS3 at a differential pressure of 0. It has the gross pay more than 100m and net pay of more than 50m at the crestal part.one half of the initial non-wetting saturation.22 EMW. It was one of the worst blowouts that continued for 65 days with burning of gas @ 12. In the following section effect of blowout on pressure regimes. It had the flame height of 300 ft.19 . 2 . Qualitative and quantitative estimate of impact of blowout on the reservoir and advance classical method of material balance analysis is the main focus of discussion in this paper. Blowout happens to be one of the main factors for uneven exploitation that lead to poor volumetric displacement efficiency because of premature ceasure of wells because of pressure sink as observed in PS3 of Pasarlapudi field. Reservoirs are mainly stratigraphic traps deposited in deltaic environment. It was directional well drilled to achieve the target sand PS2. Figure-1: Structure contour map on top of PS3 (. Hoston. The drilling activities was further resumed from 17th July. The field is bestowed with multiple pay sands of Eocene age. Havlena and Odeh interpretation technique and solution plot method of material balance study have been discussed. The sand is having two structural culminations one in eastern part around the Well -20 and another in western part around the Well-17 (Figure-1). The well was capped on 14th March. P/Z method. Blow Out The PS3 reservoir was affected by a major blow out on 8th January.

5000 Blow out in W ell -19 50.0 3000 30.0 Aug/05 Aug/04 Aug/03 Aug/02 Aug/01 Aug/00 Aug/99 Aug/98 water prod bbl/d Aug/97 Aug/96 Aug/95 Aug/94 Aug/93 Aug/92 Aug/91 Aug/90 Gas. MMscf/D 60. It was major producing sand contributing about 30% of the total gas production of the Krishna-Godavari project. The blowout had resulted drop in reservoir pressure by 765 psi and FTHP by about 500 psi globally. When water from a connected aquifer encroaches into the reservoir caused by the pressure drop from producing a portion of the reservoir.Production Performance Commercial gas production started since January. 3 . To know the effect on the pressure regimes of the reservoir. the high producing well due to water loading. psia Gas production. The location of non-flowing wells due to water loading is shown in Figure-4. Initial reservoir pressure recorded at datum was 4526 psig. Jun’04 and Jan’05 respectively due to water loading. 12. 1991 from PS3 reservoir with drilling of Well-4. The gas production in Well-4 also dropped to 4. the water bypasses a portion of gas that is left behind as gas-water as residual saturation. Pressure Regimes The impact on reservoir pressure and Flowing Well Head Pressure (FTHP) due to the blowout is shown in Figure -1.5 MMscf/d in May’02 almost to half in two months due rise in water production. The water production started with production of brine @100 bbl/d in May’97 which gradually increased and peaked at 1550 bbl/d in Feb’05. The gas production has almost become half due to drop in reservoir pressure. The ceasure of wells as shown in Figure-4 and rise in water production in well-4 are evident as flooding by aquifer in entire northern fringe of the eastern culmination. FTHP and production data plot of PS3 reservoir The average FTHP of the flowing wells and average reservoir pressure corrected to the datum plot has been constructed which shows plunging of FTHP and reservoir pressure as an impact of blow out in Well-19. though the field was discovered in 1987. The plateau rate was achieved with 40 MMscf/d gas and negligible rate of water production.5% of original gas inplace as on 1st April. MMscf/d Reservoir Pressure. 15 and 19 were ceased to flow in Feb’01. All non-flowing wells are located in the northern fring of eastern culmination lying along the same high permeability track. psia FTHP. Currently the sand is producing @24 MMscf/d with increasing water production even after adding two producers after zone transfer. The pressure and production data plot is shown in Figure-2. The production from 10 wells peaked in 1st half of 1999 and continued till 2003. The plots are shown in Figure-3 and 4 respectively. Well-12. bwpd/ Pr. The areal spread of water encroached zone indicates a significant amount of gas trapped in northeastern part of the reservoir. ceasure of four wells (8. isobar maps have been constructed using the SBHP corrected to datum recorded both prior to the blow out (Nov’94) and after blow out (Mar’00).0 1000 10.0 2000 20.0 Qw. Well-8 was ceased in Feb’99. 15 &19) and dropping of gas production almost to 1/4th in Well-4. 2006.0 4000 40. Original gas-inplace in the reservoir is estimated at 327 BCF by volumetric calculations. psig Figure-2: Reservoir pressure.0 0 0. The water production was dropped due to either closing/ceasure of high water producing wells due to high back pressure and water loading. It has produced about 57.

before blow out shows a low pressure area around Well -11 and 17. The material balance equation in standard condition can be written as /Zi (1Gp/G) P/Z = Pi ………………………………………………………………………. 12 and 8 even though the rate of withdrawal was remained same.Eq-1 Where. P is the average reservoir pressure in psia.The isobar map of the pressure data of Nov’94.e. Zi is the initial Z factor. This was the major impact which ultimately resulted in start of water production in well -8 and subsequently in 12. Nov’95 (Before Blowout) Figure -4: Isobar map of data corrected to datum. This is because 2/3rd of the total production was produced from Well no. located in the western part of the reservoir. 11 and 15 located in the western side. Gp is the gas production in Bcf and G is the GIIP in Bcf. 4 . after blow out indicates reversal of pressure regime and formation of pressure sink around Well – 19. i. March’ 00(After Blowout) Material Balance Studies P/Z interpretation technique is the most common and popular method for estimation of Gas Initial Inplace (GIIP).4. Z is the dimensionless Z factor of gas. Pi is the initial average reservoir pressure. The isobar map of the pressure data recorded in Mar’95. \ Figure -3: Isobar map of data corrected to datum. 15 and 19 and finally ceasure of all wells producing from the northeastern part of the reservoir.

hence disregarding Efw term. Mrbbl/d Pressure/Z. Eg = (Bg – Bi) = Underground gas expansion (rcf/scf) Efw = Bgi (CwSwc + Cf)∆P/(1– Swc) = expansion of the connate water and reduction of pore spaces (rcf/scf). If the reservoir is of volumetric depletion type. Wp = water production in bbl.63 BCM).BCF Figure-5: Gp versus Pressure/Z and production rate of gas in reservoir volume. and Gp verses F/Eg are plotted in X and Y axes. a line has been drawn along these points that indicate a GIIP of 340 Bcf (9.Eq-2 Where. the equation reduces to F/Eg = G + WeBw/Eg ……………………………………………………………………Eq-3 If the reservoir is of volumetric depletion type. 150 4000 Reservoir voidage. psia 5000 100 3000 Gas production. Inmost practical cases Efw << Eg. The curve shows that initial few points are 5 . Gp = cumulative gas production in scf. This is one of the advance analytical ways of drive analysis of gas reservoirs and estimation of GIIP. The P/Z plot has been constructed for PS3 reservoir considering the volume of gas flared during blowout and is shown in Figure-5. then plot must necessarily be linear and its extrapolation to the abscissa (P/Z = 0) enables the effective GIIP to be determined as Gp = G. reservoir Mbbl/d 2000 50 P = 1000 psia 1000 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 400 Cumulative Gas production. expansion and influx as Production (rcf) = Gas expansion (rcf)+ Water expansion/ Pore compaction (rcf) + Water influx (rcf) In mathematical terms it can be expressed as F = GEg + GEfw + WeBw ……………… …………………………………………….. Alternatively if the reservoir is affected by natural water influx then the plot of F/Eg will usually produce a concave downward shaped arc whose exact shape is dependent upon the aquifer size. The same plot has been made and is shown in Fig -6 and 7. It is higher than the volumetric estimation of Initial-Inplace Gas by 13 BCF. shape and gas production rate. The main advantages in the F/Eg versus Gp plot however. We = 0. F = GpBg + WpBw = the total reservoir volume of gas and water production (rcf). Mbbl/d Diagnostic material balance plot has also been constructed following Havelena – Odeh interpretation method. the curve remain parallel to abscissa and the Y intercept value is the GIIP. We = volume of encroaching water in stb. Bw = water formation volume factor. Assuming depletion drive during the initial stage of exploitation. Material balance in simplest way can be expressed in terms of reservoir volume of production. is that it is much more sensitive than other methods in establishing whether the reservoir is being influenced by natural water influx or not.It is a simple relationship between P/Z and the fractional gas recovery. The plot shows that the initial few points fall in straight line while at the later part points are deviating from the line that evident as partial aquifer support. G = GIIP in scf.

Swi)]+ Gp/(G(Pi – P) )(PiZ / ZiP) …….. It indicates. initially the reservoir was under volumetric depletion till the aquifer become active and subsequently it was affected by moderate aquifer support as evident from low slope of the curve.91 Figure-7: Month versus F/Eg (BCF) plot (Havlena. S. and Hardikar6.It was evident from the start of water production in Well-8 near the Well-19 even though.Odeh interpretation method 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 S t a r t o f w a te r i n f l u x May-05 Jan-04 Sep. effective formation compressibility and volume and time of water influx are the outcome variables while production. it was at structurally better position than Well-12 and 15.Odeh Interpretation method) Solution Plot This is one the advance and latest method of material balance technique recognized by Roach. Poston. It is clear from the plot that aquifer became active possible due to formation of pressure sink in the eastern part of the reservoir because of blowout in Well-19 in Jan’95. The GIIP estimated from the initial portion of curve lying parallel to abscissa is 320 Bcf (9.Eq4 6 . 1/(Pi – P) [(PiZ/PZi) – 1] = [198. Berg9 presented the generalized material balance equation as follows. The interpretive method also helps to estimate the GIIP and the time frame over which each drive mechanism influences reservoir performance. Solution plot is another way of classical interpretation method from which the volume of water encroachment with time can be calculated. Poston and Chen8 described how the shape of the data plot can be utilized to know the presence or absence of water influx. pressure and Z factor terms are the input variables.02 Apr-01 De c-9 9 Jul-98 Mar-97 Oc t-95 Jun-94 Jan-9 3 Sep.W Poston & R.lying in a straight line after June’95 and is forming an upward curve. …….4 (We – Wp)BwPi / ((Pi – P)GZiT) +(SwiCw + Cf)/(1 .06 BCM).R. F/Eg (BCF) 800 600 400 G = IG IP = 3 2 0 B C F 200 0 0 50 100 G p (B C F ) 150 200 F/Eg (BCF) Figure-6:Gp versus F/Eg (BCF) of PS3 reservoir after Havlena. The GIIP.

t3)]/198.. -P))*((PiZ/P*Zi)-1) 10^--5 psi 50 30 10 -10 t2 t0 (Nov'92) t1 0 50 t1 t3 t4 t5 100 TaFigure-8: ble-1: Reservoir data results of calculation of solution Solution plotand of PS3 reservoir of Pasarlapudi field.4BwPi Following the above method solution plot has been constructed and shown in Figure-8. Simplifying the Eq. Yintercept = .Applying the equation of straight line to the above equation.5 for two different times at t3 and t4. -Y t4 intercept.plot 7 .(Ce + Wen) in psi-1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 (We – Wp)BwPi / ((Pi – P)GZiT) +(SwiCw + Cf)/(1 .Eq-7 [-(Yintercept. the X and Y variables will be as follows. the water encroachment can be expressed as = (Pi – P)GZiT Wen …………………………………………. X variable = Gp/(Pi – P)(PiZ/ZiP) in scf/psia Y variable = 1/(Pi – P) [(PiZ/PZi) – 1] in psia-1 Y intercept = [198.Eq-5 Y intercept can be expressed in material balance terms in a shortened form as sum of the net water influx and effective formation compressibility as follows.Eq- 6 m = 1/G in scf-1 . The water encroachment with time is estimated using the Eq -7. The reservoir data and calculated parameters for construction of solution plot are given in Table-1.Swi )] in psia-1 ……………. m is the slope of the straight line plot reflects the GIIP of the reservoir.

96 132.42 16.00 6.325 0.50 3.40 79.924 0.06 27.36 2. The time of deviation indicates the time of water encroachment.8309 Wp (MMBW) 0.009 0.974 7.981 0. When reservoir is assumed to be pressure depleting.71 58. it exhibit Type-1 pattern and all the points remain in a straight line indicating constant compressibility and the inverse of slope gives the value of GIIP.912 0. Tr = 250 F.2737 142. and gas compressibility values during transition from very high to moderate pressure condition or by inelastic compression of the formation as the pore pressure is reduced by production of reservoir fluid.21 104.95 66. Any rightward deviation from the straight line is an indication of the effect of water encroachment.38 7.35 29.00 4.915 0.50 4.034 0.54 103.009 0.969 0.0 2 .0 W p. Sw = 0. The calculated water encroachment and water production plot with time is constructed and is shown in Figure -9. Shale water influx could effect on same manner also.22 17. This may be caused by the interaction between formation.0 Figure-9: Plot of water influx and water production with time 0 .41 83.949 -1 Wp/We MMBW 8 .0 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 The constructed solution plot shown in figure-8 is having concave downward shape at early portion which is evident of Type-2a pattern as described by Poston and Chen8. water.3833 175.Pressure (psia) 4541 4455 4376 4274 4241 3478 3299 3082 3016 2897 2751 2585 2444 2234 Gp (Bscf) 0.903 X (psia) Y 10e-5Bscf/psia Intercept 10e-5 psia e-1 51.931 0.13 112.976 0.234 0. Generally in case of pressure depleting overpressure gas reservoirs. Bw = 1.009 0.8976 159.94 95.76 17.765 4.43 95.000 0.97 23. It is evident from the plot is that.80 62.917 0.66 21.796 Z factor 0. the equation-5 will be reduced to Yintercept = .88 129.00 72.25.11 31.112 0.37 33.40 117.60 5.(SwCw + Cf)/1 – Swi 8 .07 89.70 5.904 0.165 0.905 0.40 25.908 0.000 0.0 W e.89 16. Wen = 0. M M B W 6 .48 141.05 18.053 RB/STB and Cw = 3. From time t0 to time t1 an increase of apparent compressibility of the reservoir is indicated.56 37.356 0. the time of water encroachment and water production are more or less synchronous and volume of water production is proportional to the volume of encroachment.986 0.26 116.60 47.522 0.503 4.34x 10 psia We (MMBW) 3. M M B 4 .50 0 -6 Φ = 0.003 0.39 26.66 15.50 6.970 0. From time t1 to t2 the points are more less falling in a straight line and after which the data points are deviating downward indicating Type-3 pattern of the curve.45.

or Cf= . BCF Volumetric Sweep Efficiency (Vd) Residual gas saturation (Sgr) Initial gas saturation (Sg) Abandonment pressure (Pn).50 0. The equation is written as follows.8 320 0.30 0.75 x 10-6 psi-1. Pn is abandonment pressure in psia and Zn is the Z factor at pressure Pn. P/Z method. It is true that the quantity of trapped gas is directly proportional to the entrapped 9 . Gp = G [1-Vd (Sgr/Sg + (1-Vd)/Vd)PnZi / PiZn]…………………………………………. Sgr of 50% and pressure of 2234 psia to compare with the actual production. residual gas saturation. Gp also been calculated with Vd of 80%. less gas trapped as residual gas in the water swept region. Agarwal et al2 developed one additional material balance equation for water drive reservoir which states that the gas recovery at any pressure is equal to the GIIP. Original Gas Inplace calculated from the slope of the straight line is 320 BCF which is same as estimated from the Havlen – Odeh interpretation plot method and is very close to 327 BCF estimated by volumetric method.Eq-9 Where.35 0. It is higher than the value 3.Yintercept(1-Swi) . It seams that the ultimate reserve as estimated considering 1000 abandonment reservoir pressure can’t be achieved.55 2234 1000 1500 1500 1000 172 (*175. But the rate of reservoir volume of gas production which is plotted with the P/Z diagram as shown in figure-5 indicates faster decline of gas production due to water loading and subsequently ceasure of wells. It indicates either Vd will be very less or Sgr will be very high indicating the ultimate recovery will be less.(SwiCw) ………………………………………………………Eq-8 From Yintercept of the straight line. apparent formation compressibility calculated using the Eq-8 is 13.55 0. Recovery The GIIP estimated from volumetric method. This confirms the type-2a pattern of the solution plot curve indicating marginal influx of water or shale water influx.5 x10-6 psi-1calculated from Hall’s sandstone corelation. Entrapment of gas because of flooding water is possible the main reason for poor recovery. less gas in regions not swept by water breakthrough but unavailable to production because of water breakthrough at existing producing wells.8 320 0. the recovery efficiency from gas reservoir depends upon the interplay between the volumetric sweep. Table-2: Ultimate reserves calculated at different abandonment pressure and Sgr GIIP (G). aquifer size and the practical level of abandonment pressure.7 83 77 79 * Actual production at Pressure of 2234 psia 86 The volumetric displacement efficiency is mainly affected by the rate of gas production and placement of producing wells. Havlena-Odeh method and finally from solution plot method is ranging from 320 to 340 BCF.55 0. The GIIP calculated from P/Z method is 340 BCF which is at higher side possible due to partial aquifer support.8) 267 247 254 276 53. Moreover.8 320 0.8 BCF. Ultimate reserves calculated from the P/Z plot shown in Figure-5 at the abandonment pressure of 1000 psi is 255 BCF which is about 75% of GIIP. BCF Recovery % 320 0.55 0. Ultimate reserves calculated at abandonment pressure of 1000 psia and 1500 psia and Sgr of 30% and 35% have been calculated and given in Table-2. Gp calculated from the Agarwal equation is 172 BCF as against actual value of 175.8 0. psia Gp(Ultimate reserves). Sgr is the residual gas saturation.8 320 0.35 0.30 0.55 0. Vd is the volumetric sweep efficiency.

The material balance data plots especially solution plot and Havlena-Odeh method reveal aquifer became active at later part of the exploitation..S. The ultimate reserve estimation by P/Z method and following Agarwal et al method indicates very poor volumetric displacement efficiency and/or high residual gas saturation. The laboratory studies on relative permeability by Fishlock and Fircozabadi4&5 shows that at least saturation for remobilization should be 1/3rd higher than the residual gas saturation. Hulme. as the pressure must be lowered to below the trapping pressure so that the saturation can expand above residual saturation and gas flow can occur7 & 10. Firoozabadi. 10 .M. The authors are also grateful to Sri Kalyan K. (1965). Dr Puspa Sharma. MS Thesis. Sept. Manager (R).P. References: 1. after the blowout. Shri K. and Van Golf-Racht. typically having value of 30 – 40% of PV in case of water drive reservoir.M. (1987). 15 and 19.N. 16-29. SPE. 6. T. IRS. Very large area in the north-eastern part of the reservoir is flooded with water as evident from ceasure of Well-8. Agarwal.. A. November. Fairchild. Marathe. Production of high volume of brine is required to be produced in order to remobilize the gas trapped by water.. J. et al : “The importance of water influx in gas reservoirs”. it can be determined by water-gas imbibitions flooding experiments. (1982) 4. G. P. P x (Pore volume flooded)Sgr = ZnRT ………………………………………………………. Therefore. Society of Pet.. Co-production of both gas and water and production of water at higher rate through ceased wells are desired to save other wells to cease. Ancell. The amount of trapped gas can be calculated from the area of encroached water from the simple equation of EOS as follows. a significant amount of gas could be trapped in gas-water which will be unavailable for production if these well are not put on production. SPE -15455. Manager (R) for their encouragement and inspiration to write this paper.V. Hardikar.pressure and residual gas saturation (Sgr). DGM (Res) – Head Monitoring Offshore. R. Olsen.G. Smith. (1990) 2. However. SPE – 20753. remobilization of the trapped gas and ultimately to increase the recovery. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Roy. (December-1992) 7..1336 3. (1986). Dwivedi. R.A et al: Experimental studies on the water flood residual gas saturation and its production by blow down”. Paper 11158. Fishlock. CM(R). Texas A&AM U. Conclusions • • • • • • The blowout in Well-19 in PS3 reservoir of Pasarlapudi field has resulted in change of pressure regimes and creation of pressure sink around the well. Eq-10. W. GM – Head IRS and Shri M.: “Remobilization of Natural Gas Trapped by Encroaching Water” . Common method of GIIP estimation by P/Z method could not be used as it gives higher value. 12. Boyd. et al: “Optimizing recovery from a strong water drive West Texas gas reservoir through integrated reservoir simulation studies”. Ahemedabad for giving permission to publish this paper. Jha.R. The residual gas saturation is usually high. The pressure sink created has caused flooding of water in the north-eastern part of the reservoir and subsequently ceasure of wells.30716 (1995). Manager (R) and Sri Anupam Saxena. 5.L.E..: “Solution Plot Technique – Analysis of water Influx in Gas Reservoir using simulation Studies”. S. K. D. and Trousil. Engg. T. P. Annual Meeting. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to Dr R. et al: “Secondary gas recovery from a watered-out reservoirs”.: Residual gas saturation in water drive gas reservoirs” SPE – 16355.

Inc. and Beg.. (1987) 9. USA. Robert R. 11 .21486 (1991).W. :”Overpressured Gas Reservoirs”. Randolph.: The Simultaneous Determination of Formation compressibility and Gas Inplace in Abnormally Pressures Reservoirs”.8. Richardson.Y. S. SPE . Poston. C. (1997) 10.G. Steven W. H. Poston. Texas. and Chen. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE – 16227. et al: “Maximizing gas recovery from strong water drive reservoirs”.