Basic Engineering PDF

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 PVT ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5
Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 5
Determination of Crude Helium and Native Gas Compositions........................................... 6
Temperature ........................................................................................................................ 12
Native Gas and Crude Helium Properties ........................................................................... 12
4.2 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 14
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 14
Bubble Maps ....................................................................................................................... 15
Helium Content in the Production Stream .......................................................................... 16
Production Data................................................................................................................... 17
Splitting of Total Production into Native Gas and Crude Helium Production ................... 19
Analysis of Helium as a Tracer........................................................................................... 20
Completions ........................................................................................................................ 22
4.3 PRESSURE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 23
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 23
Data Sources........................................................................................................................ 23
Correction to Reservoir Datum ........................................................................................... 24
Quality Control.................................................................................................................... 25
Compartmentalization ......................................................................................................... 27
Average Reservoir Pressure ................................................................................................ 34
4.4 MATERIAL BALANCE ................................................................................................. 38
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 38
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 39
First Approach: Single-Volume Material Balance.............................................................. 42
Change in Contacted Reservoir Volume............................................................................. 46
Material Balance of Period 1............................................................................................... 48
Material Balance of Period 2............................................................................................... 51
Other Material Balance Runs .............................................................................................. 56
Summary of Results ............................................................................................................ 56
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 62
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. 63
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................. 64
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the basic engineering analysis and results divided in four sub-sections:
PVT Analysis, Production Analysis, Pressure Analysis, and Material Balance.
The PVT Analysis Section shows the determination of the composition and the
characterization of the native gas and the crude helium, the two gases present in the Bush
Dome Field operations and used in the material balance.
The Production Analysis Section provides an overview of the production history of the field
and presents hypotheses about connectivity regions drawn from the helium
injection/production analysis. The gross production is split into native gas and crude helium.
Bubble maps and production plots are included in this section.
The pressure data is a key input in any material balance calculation. The Pressure Analysis
Section, describes the quality review performed on the pressure data and the building of the
final pressure data set. The pressure analysis provides information about
compartmentalization that improves the understanding of the dynamics of the reservoir fluids
in the Bush Dome Field. A methodology was developed to calculate the average reservoir
pressure to be used as input in the material balance calculations.
Finally, the information analyzed in the first three sections serves as input for the material
balance calculations. The last section of this report shows the results from the application of
a two-gas (native gas and crude helium) volumetric-depletion material balance model. Two
types of material balance analyses were performed: predictive material balance and P/z
straight line.
Initially, the conventional material balance study yielded unsatisfactory results. After further
analysis, we found that a series of re-completions in 1961 had reduced the pore volume that
was being contacted by the wells after that date, and a different material balance approach
needed to be applied. The solution was to perform two material balance calculations: one
before the re-completions and another after the re-completions. The computed results are
NITEC LLC Page 4-1 BLM

excellent. A detailed explanation of the procedure and results is presented in the Material
Balance Section.
Throughout the report, some figures and tables are embedded in the text to help the reading
flow naturally. All the figures are located at the end of the Basic Engineering Section,
including repetitions of embedded figures and tables, for easier visualization (larger figures).
The rest of the figures are included in appendices.

CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions drawn from the basic engineering study are the following:
1. In 1961, a series of workovers reduced the reservoir pore volume contacted by the wells.
The upper layers of the reservoir in the Panhandle Formation, in contact with the wells
prior to 1961, were closed-off in 1961 and the contacted pore volume was reduced.
2. An acceptable match could not be obtained in the material balance study performing a
single-period material balance because of the change in contacted reservoir volume that
took place in 1961. Two material balance calculations, before and after 1961, linked by
the reservoir pressure at 1961, had to be performed.
3. The two-period material balance calculations yielded an excellent match in both periods.
The initial gas in place was determined to be 330.04 bcf with an initial pressure of 812.3
psia.
4. The inventory shows 137.45 bcf of native gas and 44.20 bcf of crude helium (72.11%
helium content) being currently in contact with the wells. The reduction of contacted
pore volume at 1961 (29.1%) left 82.06 bcf of native gas behind the casing in the upper
layers of the reservoir.
5. From reservoir engineering perspective, nothing prevents the operator from re-opening
the layers in the upper zone that are currently not connected to the wells, and to produce
the native gas that is behind the casing in these layers. Prior to this action, consultation
with workover specialists is recommended.
6. The pressure analysis and the production analysis show compartmentalization in the field.
This compartmentalization is more noticeable in the south-western region which, without
being total isolated, presents some lack of connectivity with the rest of the field.
7. The connectivity hypotheses drawn from the pressure and production analyses are in
good agreement with the observation of other sources of data such as net-to-gross

thickness maps, fracture characterization, and geological depositional trends. These
hypotheses have to be proved in the simulation phase.
8. The compartmentalization of the field causes a non-uniform pressure distribution in the

reservoir, especially after 1963 when the main crude helium injection started. This
compartmentalization had to be accounted for in the estimation of the average reservoir
pressure; consequently, a methodology was developed to calculate the pressure to be used
as input in the material balance calculations.
9. The availability of a large number of gas samples in the field allowed an accurate
determination of the native gas for the material balance study. The observed specific
gravity of the gas slightly increases over time, probably due to the vaporization of the
heavy components of the gas. This issue will be resolved in subsequent phases of this
study with a full compositional PVT characterization and numerical simulation.

4.1 PVT ANALYSIS
Introduction
There are mainly three types of components present in the Bush Dome Gas Field:
hydrocarbons, helium, and others, of which nitrogen is the most important. Throughout the
life of the field, these components are mixed in different proportions in the injection and
production streams, and consequently in the reservoir. Determination of the native gas
composition and the PVT characterization of the native gas and injected crude helium are
crucial to obtaining reliable results both in the material balance and in the numerical
simulation.
The main objectives of the PVT analysis are the following:
1. Determine the composition of the native gas
2. Characterize the PVT properties of the native gas. This characterization will be used in
the material balance
3. Determine the composition of the injected crude helium and characterize its PVT
properties. This characterization will be used in the material balance
It is important to remark that a compositional PVT analysis will be needed for the simulation
phase. The native gas composition determined here will serve as an input for this analysis,
which will be performed later.
Data Sources
Together with the production data, BLM provided information about the helium content in
the injection stream in digital format. BLM also provided gas analyses for 28 wells in digital
format. The gas analyses contain information about specific gravity of the gas (SG) and
molar percentage of methane (C1), ethane (C2), propane (C3), butane (iC4, nC4), pentane (iC5,
nC5, cC5), heavier hydrocarbons (C6+), Argon (Ar), Hydrogen (H2), Helium (He), Nitrogen

(N2) and carbon dioxide (CO2), for each of the wells at specific dates. These analyses do not
provide information about the specific gravity or molecular weight of the C6+ component.
Determination of Crude Helium and Native Gas Compositions
Determination of Crude Helium Composition
Figure 4.1-1 presents the helium content of the injection stream and the monthly injection
volume of crude helium (CH) throughout the life of the field. More detailed discussion on
production data is provided in the Production Analysis Section in this report. The injected
crude helium is mainly composed of helium and nitrogen, plus some other components that
are present in non-significant amounts. The helium content in the crude helium varies with
time. The early injection period between 1945 and 1963 has 100%-helium content. Only a
small volume (592,280 MSCF) was injected within that period. Starting in 1963, the injected
helium content varied from 58% to 83%. For material balance purposes, the average content
of helium in the crude helium (HeCH) is determined as follows:
GiHe 46,841,874
HeCH = = = 0.7211
GiCH 64,961,755
where,
GiHe = Cumulative helium injection (as of Jun-2002), MSCF

GiCH = Cumulative crude helium injection (as of Jun-2002), MSCF
Thus, the average composition of the crude helium was determined to be 72.11% He and
27.89% N2. The specific gravity of this mixture is 0.369 and the critical properties are Pc =
161.3 psia and Tc = 70 °R.

Injection Data vs. Time
700,000 100
90
600,000
80
Helium Content in Injection Stream (%)

500,000
70
Injection Rate (MSCF/mth)
60
400,000
50
300,000
40
30
200,000
20
100,000
i (MSCF/mth)
10
He Content (%)
0 0
28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.1-1: Monthly injection volume and helium content in the injection stream vs time.
Determination of Native Gas Composition
To calculate the PVT properties of the native gas its composition has to be determined. The
analyses of the various gas samples in different wells show changes both in specific gravity
and in the content of the components over time. The values of specific gravity over time
were first analyzed and the native gas specific gravity was determined. Then, each of the
components was individually analyzed, an initial content of each component was estimated,
and the final composition of the native gas was determined (Table 4.1-1). The details of this
analysis are shown in this section.

Table 4.1-1. Composition of Native Gas.
Critical Critical
Mole Molecular Press. Temp.
Comp. Percent Weight (psia) (R)
C1 66.80 16.043 666.4 343.00
C2 3.50 30.070 706.5 549.59
C3 1.65 44.097 616.0 665.73
iC4 0.24 58.123 527.9 734.13
nC4 0.36 58.123 550.6 765.29
iC5 0.15 72.150 490.4 828.77
nC5 0.12 72.150 488.6 845.47
cC5 0.08 72.150 486.0 860.00
C6+ 0.08 110.000 436.9 913.27
CO2 0.70 44.010 1071.0 547.58
N2 24.42 28.013 493.1 227.16
Ar 0.10 39.950 705.6 271.50
He 1.80 4.003 33.0 9.36
Mixture 100.00 20.447 614.6 327.3
Gas gravity 0.706 (air=1)
Figures 4.1-2 and 4.1-3 show the specific gravity measured at every well vs. time using two
different scales. Figures 4.1-4 to 4.1-29 are plots of the molar percentage of each component
vs. time. All the wells with gas samples are presented in each plot, and two plots, each one
with a different scale, are presented for each component. Figures 4.A-1 to 4.A-28 describe
the evolution of SG, He and N2 with time in each well.
SG shows a slight increase with time (Figures 4.1-2 and 4.1-3). This increase in SG is
believed to be caused by the vaporization of oil or heavy hydrocarbons as the reservoir is
being depleted. Prior to 1961, the field was being depleted and only native gas (NG) was
involved in the measurements. In 1961, crude helium (CH) injection started, and the wells
invaded by helium showed a decrease in SG after the CH breakthrough. However, the
injected helium did not reach every well in the field (more discussion about this subject is
provided in the Production Analysis Section). Therefore, to determine the initial SG of the
NG, an SG trend as a function of time is used, using only those wells not invaded by injected
helium. In addition, the SG calculated from the initial molar percentage of each of the
components was tuned to match the initial SG. Using these two methods, the initial specific
gravity of the native gas was calculated as 0.706.

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
SG
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
BIVINS A-1 BIVINS A-2 BIVINS A-3 BIVINS A-4 BIVINS A-5 BIVINS A-6 BIVINS A-7 BIVINS A-9 BIVINS A-11 BIVINS A-13
BIVINS A-14 BIVINS A-15 BIVINS B-1 BIVINS B-2 BUSH A-1 BUSH A-2 BUSH A-3 BUSH A-4 BUSH A-5 BUSH A-7
BUSH A-8 BUSH A-9 BUSH A-10 BUSH A-11 BUSH B-1 FUQUA A-1 FUQUA A-2 FUQUA A-3
Figure 4.1-2: Specific gravity vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
0.75
0.74
0.73
0.72
0.71 SGi=0.706
SG
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.66
0.65
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.1-3: Specific gravity vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.

The helium content prior to 1961 was approximately constant and equal to 1.8% (Figures
4.1-4 and 4.1-5). After 1961, the frequency of the sampling increased and after 1984 the
accuracy of the measurements improved. The He content of the wells that where not reached
by the injected helium confirms the 1.8% content of He in the NG. There is one particular
well, Bu-A7, that shows a smaller Helium content of about 1.4%. This well is located at the
north of the field and is probably located in an isolated compartment, with a different native
gas composition. Well Bu-A7 has not been produced and is not included in the material
balance study.
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
Hei=1.8
1.8
He Content (%)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.1-5: He content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
The N2 content in the samples before 1961 shows an approximate value of 24.5% (Figures
4.1-6 and 4.1-7). The values of N2 content show more variation than those observed in the
helium plots. The change in N2 content in those wells reached by the injected crude helium
is much smaller than the change observed in SG and He content. This is due to the smaller
difference between the N2 content in the NG (24.5%) and in the CH (27.89%). Some
additional observations on Figures 4.1-6 and 4.1-7 can be made. Between 1980 and 1992,
some gas samples show extremely high or low N2 content; these are assumed to be wrong

readings. Well Bu-A7 also shows a lesser N2 content than the rest of the wells (20.5%
approximately) which is in agreement with the nearly constant regional helium-nitrogen ratio
(Gold and Held, 1987). After reviewing the molar percent of every component, the N2
content had to be slightly adjusted to make the summation of all fractions equal to one,
making the N2 content equal to 24.42%.
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
N2 Content (%)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.1-6: N2 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
The hydrocarbon-component content in the NG was similarly determined (Figures 4.1-8 to

4.1-25). Based on the hypothesis that the SG increases because of the liberation of heavier
hydrocarbon components, a trend in the evolution of the content of each hydrocarbon
component was determined. The initial value of each trend is used as the molar percentage
of each component in the NG. It can be noted that, for some components, this trend is not
very clear (e.g.: nC4, C6+), and for some other components, there are values, especially in the
measurements before 1944, that do not follow the trend (e.g.: C1, C2). In these cases, the
trends were qualitatively determined following the previously mentioned hypothesis. A more
detailed study will be performed when doing the compositional PVT analysis. However, for

material balance purposes, the absolute values of the content of these hydrocarbon
components are so low, that at this point the results are not sensitive to these variations.
CO2, Ar, and H2 content in the NG gas are determined using the same methodology (Figures
4.1-26 to 4.1-29). With the content of every component already determined, the composition
of the native gas is presented in Table 4.1-1. Assuming a value of 110 for the molecular
weight of component C6+, the SG of the NG is calculated to be 0.706, which is in agreement
with that one determined from the SG vs. time trend.
Temperature
The average reservoir temperature is 90°F. Figure 4.1-30 shows the temperature profile with
depth obtained from well Bi-A2 (Anderson et al, 1939).
Native Gas and Crude Helium Properties
For the material balance, the formation volume factor and the z-factor of the native gas (NG)
and the crude helium (CH) need to be determined. Geoquest’s PVTi software was used to
generate EOS and determine the PVT properties. Constant composition expansion and
differential liberation experiments were simulated using the Peng-Robinson EOS. Table 4.1-
2 and Figure 4.1-31 show the formation volume factor and the z-factor for NG and CH in the
pressure range of interest.

Table 4.1-2: Native Gas and Crude Helium PVT Properties.
NG CH
Pressure Z-Factor Bg Z-Factor Bg
psia cf/std-cf cf/std-cf
14.695 0.998 1.040 1.001 1.058
100 0.989 0.151 1.005 0.155
200 0.978 0.076 1.010 0.078
300 0.968 0.050 1.014 0.052
400 0.958 0.037 1.019 0.039
500 0.949 0.029 1.024 0.031
600 0.940 0.024 1.029 0.026
700 0.932 0.021 1.034 0.022
800 0.924 0.018 1.039 0.019
900 0.917 0.016 1.043 0.017
1100 0.904 0.013 1.053 0.014
1300 0.894 0.011 1.063 0.012
1500 0.887 0.009 1.073 0.010
1700 0.882 0.008 1.083 0.009
PVT Properties - Material Balance
1.10 1.20
1.05 1.00
NG z-factor
CH z-factor
1.00 NG Bg 0.80
CH Bg
Bg (cf-stdcf)
Z-Factor
0.95 0.60
0.90 0.40
0.85 0.20
0.80 0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
Figure 4.1-31: PVT properties for native gas and crude helium.

4.2 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS
Introduction
The BLM provided the production data in digital format. The data was loaded into NITEC’s
Styx database and was analyzed both using Styx and Microsoft’s Excel.
The main objectives of the production analysis are the following:
1. Build bubble maps of yearly and cumulative production and injection of gas. These
maps, together with the geological information, will help the geologist develop a static
model of the field. They will also help understand the history of the development of the
field
2. Split the gross production data into native gas and crude helium production
3. Build a database for the field. This will include production and injection data,
perforations, and workovers for every well. This database will serve as a basis for the
material balance and the numerical simulation phases of this study
4. Analyze the volumes of production and injection of native gas and crude helium. This
analysis will help establish hypotheses about the connectivity of the field which must be
tested later in the simulation phase of this study. It also helps understand the areal
location of the injected crude helium in the field
Figure 4.2-1 shows the location of all wells in the field and can be used as reference
throughout this section.

Figure 4.2-1: Base Map.
Bubble Maps
Four different types of bubble maps were generated: two of them showing cumulative gas
production and injection data on a yearly basis, and other two showing yearly production and
injection volumes. They are presented in Figures 4.B-1 to 4.B-312.
As of 1961, 87% of the production occurred in the wells located at the center of the field (Bi-
A1, Bi-A2, Bi-A3, Bi-A4, Bi-A5, Bi-A6, Bu-A1, Bu-A2, Bu-A3, and Bu-A5). Some gas had

also been produced in Bi-A7 and Bu-A4, and in the peripheral wells Bu-B1 and Fu-A1 by
1961. The south-west wells of the field (Bi-A9, Bi-A11, Bi-B1, Bi-B2, Bu-A8, and Bu A-
11) started producing in 1965. Also starting in 1965, some wells (Bi-A9, Bi-A14, Bi-A15,
and later Bi-A13) contributed to the production of gas from the center of the field. Fu-A2
produced a very small amount of gas. Wells Fu-1, Bu-A6, Bu-A7, Bu-A10, and Bi-A10 have
not produced gas.
Injection of helium in Bush Dome Gas Field started in 1945 with the injection tests in Bi-A6,
but the main injection of gas started in 1963. Four injectors, Bi-A3, Bi-A6, Bi-A13, and Bi-
A14, account for 95% of the cumulative injection as of 2001, while the remaining of the
crude helium was injected in Bi-A4 and Bu-A2. These injection wells also served as
production wells during some periods.
Helium Content in the Production Stream
An interpolated data set of helium content in the production stream (He%) was generated for
each well and used in the material balance calculations. The BLM provided three sources of
data that describe He%: production data, gas samples, and the helium injection tests
performed in Bi-A6 starting in 1945. By far, the most complete set of data regarding He% is
the gas samples. Merging these three sets of data, a final set of He% was created for each
well (Figures 4.A-29 to 4.A-54). The production data has long periods where no He% is
reported for some wells. For example, practically no He% was reported in the production
data for Bi-A3 in the period 1982-2002, but several gas samples are available for that period
in that well. On the other hand, there are no gas samples for Bi-A6 between 1953 and 1958,
but the report on the helium injection and recovery tests performed in this well have He%
data. The wrong readings from gas samples were removed (e.g.: Bi-A7, 1985; Bi-A14,
1985, 1990; Bu-A3, 1991) and He% data was interpolated when missing.

Production Data
Production Data vs. Time
Figures 4.2-2 to 4.2-6 show production and injection data of the Bush Dome Gas Field vs.
time. Monthly production and injection rates, cumulative production and injection, helium
content in the production stream, and the number of active production and injection wells are
presented in these figures using different displays. A 12-month moving average of the
production and injection data is presented in Figure 4.2-3 together with the monthly data for
easier visualization. These graphs present gross production data, making no distinction
between native gas and crude helium at this point. 100% of the injection is crude helium.
Production and Injection Data vs. Time
700,000 140,000,000
q (MSCF/mth)
i (MSCF/mth)
600,000 GpHe (MSCF) 120,000,000
Gp (MSCF)
Cumulative Gas Production and Injection (MSCF)

Gas Production and Injection Rate (MSCF/mth)
Gi (MSCF)
500,000 100,000,000
400,000 80,000,000
300,000 60,000,000
200,000 40,000,000
100,000 20,000,000
0 0
28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.2-4: Field cumulative production and injection vs. time.
Cumulative crude-helium injection rose from practically zero in 1963 to 55 BCF in 1974
(Figure 4.2-4); this period accounts for 85% of the total injection that occurred in the field as
of 2001. Production and injection cycles do not show a clear periodic pattern, and no
significant amount of helium has been injected in the field since 1999.

Number of Active Wells vs. Time
20
Production Wells
18
Injection Wells
16
14
Number of Active Wells
12
10
0
28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.2-6: Number of active wells vs. time.
Corrections and Modifications
Some corrections and modifications had to be done to the production/injection data.
Production and injection available information starts on January 1929. Wells Bi-A1, Bu-A1,
Bu-B1, and Fu-A1 were drilled before that date and the only available production data for
these wells in this early period is the cumulative production as of January 1929; so, the
production rate of these wells prior to January 1929 was assumed to be constant. This
assumption resulted in smoothing and improving of the pressure calculations during the first
years in the material balance and has no effect in the final results.
Wells Bi-A1, Bi-A9, Bi-A13, and Bu-A3 show data with negative production at some points.
(see Figures 4.A-29, 4.A-36, 4.A-38, and 4.A-45). The origin of this data is being
investigated. For example, the Bi-A9’s negative data is related to helium injection tests
performed in this well. Also, well Bi-A4 has undergone pure helium injection tests during
the late 1970s and 1980s, but these tests are not included in the production data at this point.

The cumulative gas injection during these tests is 46,149 MSCF, which represents
approximately 0.1% of the current helium inventory. The corresponding corrections of the
production database will be completed prior to the start of the simulation. It is important to
remark that these are minor discrepancies that do not affect the material balance results.
Splitting of Total Production into Native Gas and Crude Helium Production
We assume that the injection gas was always crude helium; but to perform the material
balance, the produced gas has to be split into NG and CH production. This subsection
describes the methodology used to perform this split.
The helium content in the production stream of each well at every date is known from the
production data. The composition of the NG is also known; consequently, the helium content
in the NG (HeNG) is known. Similarly, we know the helium content in the CH gas (HeCH).
Thus, the helium content in the production stream (HeM, where the M stands for mixture) is
used as an indicator to split the gross production data into NG production and CH production.
Given that
VM = VNG + VCH
where
VM = Volume of Mixture, or gross gas production

VNG = Volume of native gas, or NG production
VCH = Volume of crude helium, or CH production
And that
HeM He NG HeCH
VM = V NG + VCH
100 100 100
where
HeM = Per cent content of helium in the mixture, or production stream

HeNG = Per cent content of helium in the NG
HeCH = Per cent content of helium in the CH
The volumes of NG and CH produced are calculated as
 HeCH − HeM 
VNG = VM   VCH = VM − VNG
 HeCH − HeNG 
Analysis of Helium as a Tracer
Helium injected for storage (crude helium) serves as tracer. The analysis of helium content
in the production stream (He%) is a powerful tool to determine connectivity between wells,
reservoir transmissibility trends, and transmissibility barriers. The observation of the helium
content in the production stream also indicates the location of the helium within the field.
Figures 4.A-29 to 4.A-54 show production/injection monthly volumes, and helium content
for every well.
The well-by-well analysis of production and injection data shows some connectivity patterns.
This is a first approach to a reservoir transmissibility analysis and the preliminary
conclusions drawn here are hypotheses that must be proved later in the simulation phase of
this study.
It was mentioned in the PVT Analysis Section that the injected crude helium (CH) has not
reached every well in the field. In some wells, the helium content in the production stream
does not change in their entire production history, and, consequently, they do not show a
decrease in their specific gravity. Considering Figure 4.1-4 (He content vs. time for all wells
with gas samples), we can observe that there are four types of wells regarding their He%
behavior:
1. Wells where He% do not change after the CH injection started in 1963.
2. Wells where the increase in He% is small (from 1.8% to up to 12% He% approximately)
3. Wells where the He% is moderate (from 1.8% to 15%/55%)

4. Wells where the He% levels reach almost those of the injected crude helium (65%/76% in
He%).
No change in He%
Very little change
Some change
Large change
Injection well
High Connectivity between wells
Figure 4.2-7: Helium content in production stream.
This information is mapped and shown in Figure 4.2-7. This figure is a direct indicator of
the location of crude helium in the reservoir, which is located mainly at the center of the
field.

As expected, all of the injectors show a large change in the He% when produced. There is
only one production well, Bu-A3, that has reached a 70% helium content in its production
stream. Analysis of the production and injection responses of wells Bu-A3 and Bi-A14
indicates a high level of connectivity between these two wells. Also, Bu-A2 reached high
He% levels even before its CH injection had started. The source of this helium production
seems to be Bi-A6. Analysis of wells Bi-A2, Bi-A4, and Bi-A14, indicates that although not
reaching such high levels of He%, Bi-A2 also shows a rapid response to Bi-A4 and,
somehow, to Bi-A14 CH injection. On the other hand, Bu-A11, Bi-A15, Bi-A11, and the
other wells in the south-west region of the field, show either very little or no change in the
He%. These observations allow us to establish some connectivity hypotheses, also presented
in Figure 4.2-7, indicating some higher connectivity in the WSW-ENE direction in the south
of the field. In the north of the field, Bu-A5, Bi-A7, and Bu-A4 show some response to the
injection of CH in Bi-A3, but the response is not as fast as the one observed in the south
portion of the field.
Completions
The workover and completions data was obtained from a summary provided by the BLM
(Roby, 1992). Some minor corrections needed to be done and the corresponding well drilling
and workover files were used when necessary.
The data was loaded into Nitec’s Styx and will serve as a database for both material balance
analysis and simulation. Schematics of the changes in well completions over time are
presented in Figures 4.A-55 to 4.A-87.

4.3 PRESSURE ANALYSIS
Introduction
The pressure data is a key input in any material balance calculation. The BLM provided
pressure data in digital format, and additional data was gathered from the well files. The
main objectives of the pressure analysis are the following:
1. Perform a quality control on the pressure data
2. Merge the pressure data of different sources into a single reliable pressure data set to be
used in the material balance and the simulation phase of this study
3. Use the pressure information to improve the understanding of the dynamics of the
reservoir fluids in the Bush Dome Gas Field
4. Establish a methodology to calculate the average reservoir pressure to be input in the

material balance calculations
Data Sources
There are two sources of pressure data: a data set provided by BLM in digital format and the
data gathered from the well files.
The data provided by the BLM includes the pressure measurements and the depth at which
these measurements were made. It also includes a correction of the pressure measurement to
the datum (50 ft above sea level). In the majority of the cases, especially in early
measurements (before 1960 approximately), the pressure was measured at the wellhead and
corrected to the datum depth, while in fewer cases (most of them after 1961) the pressure was
measured downhole. In some cases, it is not clear whether the pressure was measured at the
wellhead or at the bottomhole. The specific gravity and the compressibility factor of the gas
(z-factor) used in the correction of the data to the datum were also included in the electronic
file.

The second source of pressure information is the well files. All the well files were
thoroughly reviewed and 457 pressure data points were gathered. Depending on the type of
test, different kinds of information were available. The gathered information includes: date,
static pressure, depth at which the pressure was measured, estimation of correction to specific
depth, specific gravity, extrapolated pressure (P*), shut-in time, deliverability parameters (C,
n), flowing pressure, flowing rate, interpretations of permeability and skin factor, and any
kind of relevant observation about the test. While loading the data into the database a first-
level quality control was performed. The static pressure data is the most relevant information
for the material balance study, but all the other information that was gathered will help
qualify the data and potentially will be used later in the simulation phase.
After a second quality control, the two sources of data were merged and a single pressure
data base was created. More detail follows.
Correction to Reservoir Datum
The datum used in the Bush Dome Field was 50 feet above sea level. The average
temperature and z-factor method, with two iterations, was used to correct the pressure
measurement and take it to the datum level (Lee and Wattenbarger, 1996). The average
temperature used in the pressure correction to datum was calculated using the data in Figure
4.1-30.
When the specific gravity (SG) information was available for a particular test, that specific
gravity value was used in the pressure correction. When not available, SG was obtained by
interpolating data from the gas analyses data or from the closest well with available data at
the corresponding date.
For the pressure data set obtained from the well files, the measured pressure data was
corrected to the datum level. Among the pressure data points from the BLM data set, the
same criterion was used, and the measured pressure data was corrected to the datum level;
but in the cases where it was not clear whether the pressure was measured at the wellhead or
at the bottomhole, and both data were available, the pressure was assumed to have been

measured at the wellhead. This approach was selected because, statistically, wellhead
measurements are more frequent than bottomhole measurements.
During a test, the gas in the wellbore may be pure native gas (NG), pure crude helium (CH),
or a mixture of the two. The z-factor used in the datum correction was obtained mixing the
properties of the NG and the CH in the appropriate proportions. The SG of the NG is 0.706
and the SG of the CH is 0.369. Between these two extremes, the SG of the produced gas was
used as an indicator of the quantity of NG and CH present in the mixture. SG was used
instead of helium as an indicator of the NG and CH content in the mixture because SG
measurements are more frequent data in the well tests than helium content. After splitting
the mixture gas in the wellbore into NG and CH, the mixture pseudo critical properties were
calculated and the z-factor was calculated using the Dranchuk Abou-Kassem equation
(McCain, 1990).
The z-factors calculated using the described methodology are in good agreement with those
used by BLM in their reported pressure corrections. As a quality control, a comparison
between the z-factors used here and those reported by BLM is shown in Figure 4.3-1. The
maximum difference between the two z-factors occurs at a z-factor of 1.02 approximately.
This difference is of 0.02 in z-factor and it results in a 0.5-psia difference in the bottomhole
pressure determination, which is not significant.
Quality Control
The ultimate objective of this pressure data review was to merge the two sources of data and
create a reliable merged pressure data set to be used in the material balance calculation. To
do this, a quality control was performed.
Figures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 show plots of pressure vs. time for both pressure data sets before the
quality control. It is clear that pressure data from BLM is more abundant and there is
practically no pressure data in the well-files data set from 1973 to 2001. However, the nature
of the data obtained from the well files allowed us to perform a better quality control on that
data set.

There were different criteria to perform the quality control on the BLM data set and on the
data set from the well-files.
There is not sufficient information about the origin of the data among the BLM data.
However, the data is abundant. So, we assumed that there was enough data to statistically
consider that any data point that did not lie within the main pressure trend in each well was
incorrect data, and was consequently not used in the final data set. This criterion was not
strictly applied in the last period (1988-2000 approximately) were the pressure data is too
scattered.
In the data set from well-files all the pressure data points had undergone a first-level quality
control when loading the data into the data base. In this second level of quality control, two
types of pressure data points were re-examined: pressure data points that were off the main
trend in each well, and pressure data points at critical time periods: 1961-1967 minimum
pressure and 1970-1975 maximum pressure. On each of these cases, all the information
available was thoroughly reviewed. The data was confirmed or corrected when the
information allowed us to do so, or was not used when it was considered unreliable.
Examples of correction of the pressure data are short shut-in times where the extrapolated
pressure in the semi-log plot was used instead of the last pressure reading, and use of shut-in
pressure previous to the test when this value was higher than the last reading in a build-up
test. Examples of unreliable data are the following: build-up tests with short shut-in times,
build-up tests were pressure decreases towards the end of the test, and wells that have
reported water load-up in the wellbore.
Both pressure data sets are presented as single plots by well in Figures 4.A-88 to 4.A-113.
These plots also show the data that were not used in the merged data set and the reasons for
not using the data, when it is not clear from observation of the plot.
The outliers were not actually removed from the database. We keep track of the data we did
not use in the merged data set. For material balance purposes, the main trends in pressure are
what one should be after, because material balances are calculated based on average reservoir
pressures. Thus, not using the “off-the-trend” data points in this merged data set is an

appropriate criterion; but these points will be reviewed again during the simulation phase as
some of them may be correct off-the-trend readings caused by local phenomena.
P vs. Time - Merged Pressure Data Set
BIVINS A-1
850
BIVINS A-2
BIVINS A-3
BIVINS A-4
BIVINS A-5
BIVINS A-6
800
BIVINS A-7
BIVINS A-9
BIVINS A-11
BIVINS A-13
BIVINS A-14
750 BIVINS A-15
P@Datum (psia)
BIVINS B-1
BIVINS B-2
BUSH A-1
BUSH A-2
700 BUSH A-3
BUSH A-4
BUSH A-5
BUSH A-6
BUSH A-7
650 BUSH A-8

BUSH A-9
BUSH A-11
BUSH B-1
FUQUA A-1
FUQUA A-2
600
FUQUA A-3
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.3-4: Merged pressure data set.
Figure 4.3-4 shows a plot of the merged pressure data set used in the material balance. The
pressure data of all the wells is presented in a single plot. Among the wells used in the
material balance study, 1466 pressure data points were available (1106 from BLM electronic
file and 360 from well files), 60 were not used (38 from the BLM data set and 22 from the
well-file data set), leaving 1406 pressure data points in the merged data set (1068 from BLM
data set and 338 from the well files).
Compartmentalization
As well as the helium content in the production analysis, the pressure data was used to
determine connectivity between wells. From pressure data observation, we can determine
that even though all wells are hydraulically connected, the field shows some
compartmentalization. The analysis of the pressure data revealed two main conclusions: the

wells in the south-east of the field show less connectivity with the rest of the field, and the
areal distribution of pressure in the reservoir is not uniform throughout the life of the field.
Thus, four reservoir regions were determined to calculate the average reservoir pressure to be
input in the material balance calculations.
The compartmentalization of the reservoir due to pressure observation was first analyzed and
is presented first in this sub-section. Then, the final reservoir regions used for the material
balance reservoir pressure are shown.
We observe three main periods in the life of the Bush Dome Gas Field (Figures 4.2-4 and
4.3-4):
1. The Initial Depletion (ID) period, from 1924 to 1963, where pressure declines and the
native gas is being produced;
2. The Storage Injection (SI) period, from 1963 to 1973, characterized by an increasing
pressure with injection of crude helium greater than gross production; and
3. The Storage Depletion (SD) period, from 1973 to present, where pressure declines again
and gross production is greater than crude helium injection.
The reservoir depletion was uniform during the ID period, where the pressure data
measurements in all the wells decline on a relatively tight band. In the SI period, the
pressure data is more scattered. During this period some wells at the center of the field were
used for injection (Bi-A3, Bi-A4, Bi-A6, Bi-A13, Bi-A14) while some of the surrounding
wells were used for production, causing the pressure near the injection wells to be higher,
and further away from the injectors to be lower. Later in the SD period the injection was
irregular. Injectors were on and off from time to time, and they even produced in some
periods. This caused the pressure data to be even more scattered, especially by the end of
this period.

Pressure Map – 1943-1945 Pressure Map – 1971-1973
Pressure Map – 1978-1980 Pressure Map – 1994-1996
Figures 4.3-5 to 4.3-8: Pressure maps for periods 1943-45, 71-73, 78-80, and 94-96.
Figure 4.3-5 presents a pressure map of period 1943-1945. The map shows lower pressure
values at the center of the field, where most of the gas was being withdrawn, and higher
pressure values in the surrounding wells, which were lagging behind the main depletion.
However, the pressure range in this map is small and goes from 763.8 to 769.0 psia, which
indicates that the depletion was uniform. A pressure map of period 1971-1973 (Figure 4.3-
6) presents a similar picture, but in opposite direction: the pressure was high at the center of
the field where the crude helium was being injected and was lower towards the flanks, where
there was only production. In this case, the pressure range is much larger and goes from a
minimum of 728.8 psia to a maximum of 798.6 psia. Figures 4.3-7 and 4.3-8 show that the
pressure distribution in the SD period depended on the status of the wells. For example, well
Bi-A3 was injecting in the 1978-1980 period and showed a higher pressure, but it was not
injecting in the 1994-1996 period. While the opposite happened with well Bi-A14, which
injected in the 1994-1996 period showing a high pressure and did not inject in the 1978-1980

period. Although not very clearly defined, the average pressure distribution pattern in the SD
period shows the center of the field with lower pressure values than the flanks which lag
behind (reservoir depletion pattern).
Besides the pressure maps, we can also observe this pressure lagging behavior in the P vs
time plot (Figure 4.3-4). The analysis of this plot allows us to divide the wells in four main
groups (see Figure 4.3-12), of which the group of wells in the south-east of the field is the
more clearly defined. The following paragraphs describe the details of the grouping
exclusively done by pressure time-lag analysis.
During the ID period, especially between 1952 and 1961, pressure in wells Fu-A1 and Bu-
B1, which are located at the east of the field, were slightly higher than the main trend (see
Figure 4.3-4). Particularly well Fu-A1 has not produced continuously in the period 1940-
1961, making its pressure data be reliable static pressure readings.
P vs. Time - Final Data Set

(wells at the center of the field)
BIVINS A-1
850
BIVINS A-2
BIVINS A-3
BIVINS A-4
BIVINS A-5
BIVINS A-6
800
BIVINS A-7
BIVINS A-9
BIVINS A-11
BIVINS A-13
BIVINS A-14
750 BIVINS A-15
P@Datum (psia)
BIVINS B-1
BIVINS B-2
BUSH A-1
BUSH A-2
700 BUSH A-3
BUSH A-4
BUSH A-5
BUSH A-6
BUSH A-7
BUSH A-8
650
BUSH A-9
BUSH A-11
BUSH B-1
FUQUA A-1
FUQUA A-2
600
FUQUA A-3
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.3-10: Pressure vs. time, wells at center of the field.
The time lag in pressure is much more noticeable in the SI period. The pressure data of
injectors Bi-A3, Bi-A6, Bi-A13, Bi-A14, and Bu-A2 are to the left of the cloud of points

during the 1963-1973 period (compare Figures 4.3-4 and 4.3-9). The pressure data of some
of the wells that are located close to these injectors (Bi-A2, Bi-A7, Bu-A2, Bu-A3, Bu-A4,
and Bu-A5) constitute the main trend of increasing pressure in the SI period (Figure 4.3-10).
And clearly lagging behind this main trend, are the wells located at the south-west of the
field Bi-A9, Bi-A11, Bi-B1, Bi-B2, Bu-A8, and Bu-A11 (Figure 4.3-11). The time lag
between these two groups is on average four years.
P vs. Time - Final Data Set

(wells at the center of the field and wells in SW region)
BIVINS A-1
850
BIVINS A-2
BIVINS A-3
BIVINS A-4
BIVINS A-5
BIVINS A-6
800
BIVINS A-7
BIVINS A-9
BIVINS A-11
BIVINS A-13
BIVINS A-14
750 BIVINS A-15
P@Datum (psia)
BIVINS B-1
BIVINS B-2
BUSH A-1
BUSH A-2
700 BUSH A-3
BUSH A-4
BUSH A-5
BUSH A-6
BUSH A-7
BUSH A-8
650
BUSH A-9
BUSH A-11
BUSH B-1
FUQUA A-1
FUQUA A-2
600
FUQUA A-3
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.3-11: Pressure vs. time, wells at center of the field and at south-west region.
The pressure values of other wells lie in between these two extreme groups. By using the
well location, we divided this last set of wells into two groups: (1) those wells that are to the
west and south of the group that constitute the main pressure trend (Bi-A4, Bi-A5, and Bi-
A15), and (2) those wells that are to the east and north of the field (Bu-A9, Fu-A2, Fu-A1,
Fu-A3, Bu-B1).
The grouping described in the previous paragraphs, exclusively done by pressure time-lag
analysis, is shown in Figure 4.3-12. This map is related to the connectivity of the wells and
it compares reasonably well to that one obtained from the injected helium analysis (Figure

4.2-7) with the exception of well Bi-A4. Further analysis of the connectivity among wells
and its significance will be done in the simulation phase.
We have shown that the pressure was not uniform in the reservoir throughout the life of the
field. Consequently, we had to define regions that would be used to calculate the average
reservoir pressure ( P ) for the material balance calculations. One way of defining
compartments to calculate P would be simply by selecting the groups mentioned earlier and
shown in Figure 4.3-12; but the irregularity of the production/injection schedule in the SD
period prevented us from doing so. So, we proposed a modification of that grouping. The
regions finally used to calculate P for the material balance calculations were named with the
letters A, B, C, and D and are shown in Figure 4.3-13. The criteria to select these regions
follows.
Firstly, there is only one region that was clearly defined: the wells at the south-west of the
field (Region C). This region shows some lack of connectivity with the rest of the field.
Secondly, the proximity of the main injectors (Bu-A2 excluded) in the center of the field
suggested that they should be included in a single group (Region A). Well Bi-A1, although
not an injector, was also included in this group because of its location. Thirdly, the wells
surrounding these injectors were included in a different group (Region B). These wells either
follow the main trend of pressure in the field or are very close to it. And finally, the last
group was the group of wells at the west of the field (Region D). Table 4.3-1 shows a list of
the wells in each region.

B
D
A
Figure 4.3-13: Regions used for average pressure estimation in the material balance calculations.
Table 4.3-1: Regions used for average pressure estimation in the material balance calculations.
A B C D
Bi-A1 Bi-A2 Bi-A9 Bu-B1
Bi-A3 Bi-A5 Bi-A11 Fu-A1
Bi-A4 Bi-A7 Bi-B1 Fu-A3
Bi-A6 Bi-A15 Bi-B2
Bi-A13 Bu-A1 Bu-A11
Bi-A14 Bu-A2 Bu-A8
Bu-A3
Bu-A4
Bu-A5
Bu-A9
Fu-A2

In addition to these criteria for grouping the wells, some runs of material balance were
performed with different groups and the best results were obtained using the regions
presented in Table 4.3-1 and Figure 4.3-13. Discussion about these additional material
balance runs are presented at the end of the Material Balance Section.
Average Reservoir Pressure
Once the regions that would be used in the material balance were determined, the average
reservoir pressure ( P ) in the field over time had to be calculated. Ultimately, P would be
the input and matching data for the material balance calculations. This sub-section describes
the methodology used to calculate P and the first-approach determination the weight factors
of each region.
First, we grouped the pressure data per well and per year. When there was more than one
data point for one well, for a certain year, the average was taken (Table 4.3-2). To calculate
P , we assigned weight factors to each region. Consequently, a weight factor was assigned
to each well and P at each date was calculated as the weighted average of all the available
pressure data.
Let’s call wA, wB, wC, and wC the weigh factors of regions A, B, C, and D, respectively.
With 6 wells in group A, the weight of each well in this group is
wA
wA,1 = wA, 2 = ... = wA, 6 =
6
The weight factors for each well in the other groups were calculated similarly. The weighted
average reservoir pressure at every year was then calculated as
NA NB NC ND
Pw = ∑ wA,a Pa + ∑ wB ,b Pb + ∑ wC ,c Pc + ∑ wD ,d Pd
a =1 b =1 c =1 d =1
where
Pa = Yearly pressure data of the ath well in group A

Pb = Yearly pressure data of the bth well in group B
Pc = Yearly pressure data of the cth well in group C
Pd = Yearly pressure data of the dth well in group D
The weight factors of each group (wA, wB, wC, and wC) are directly related to the volume
contacted in each region. Thus, the larger the hydrocarbon pore volume in a region, the
larger the weight factor for that region.
As a first approach the weight factors were determined using production data. During the
first depletion period (1924-1963) the reservoir was uniformly depleted. With the wellhead
pressure of the wells connected with each other at the surface through the production
facilities, it is a reasonable assumption to think that the production was controlled by
reservoir pressure. Using this concept, with all the wells producing, the cumulative
production of each well must be proportional to the volume that each well is draining. We
found that the period 1940-1941 was the period with the largest number of wells in
production and with producing wells in every region during the Initial Depletion (ID) period.
Therefore, in this first approach we made the weight factors proportional to the volume
produced in each region during this 1940-1941 period. The results are presented in Table
4.3-3.
Table 4.3-3: First approach weight factors before Region-C correction.
Gp 1940/1941 Normalized
Group
(MMSCF) Weight Factors
A 507 0.176
B 1630 0.566
C 0 0.000
D 743 0.258
Region C had no production in the whole ID period and obviously, neither during 1940-
1941; therefore, the calculation of wC yields wC = 0. However, because this region has both
production and pressure data during the Storage Injection and Storage Depletion periods, its
volume has to be accounted for. So, being that its area is approximately equal to that of

Region D, we made wC equal to wD. Finally, after normalization, the final weight factors are
shown in Table 4.3-4.
Table 4.3-4: First approach weight factors.
Normalized
Group Corrected
Weight Factors
A 0.140
B 0.450
C 0.205
D 0.205
This first-approach weight factors calculated using production data are approximately
proportional to the area of each region. wB is slightly larger than the area it represents, which
may be due to a larger net thickness and porosity in that region.
Weighted Average Pressure vs. Time

First-approach weight factors
850
800
Average Pressure @ Datum (psia)
750
700
W eight Factors
A= 0.140
650
B= 0.450
C= 0.205
D= 0.205
600
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
W -Avg Non-W -Avg Pressure Data
Figure 4.3-15: Weighted average pressure, using the first-approach weight factors.

Using these weight factors the weighted average pressure ( Pw ) was calculated. Pw and the
non-weighted average pressure ( Pnw ) are shown in Figure 4.3-15. Although at this point,
using the first-approach weight factors, Pw and Pnw were very close to each other, the weight
factors would prove to be of greater influence in subsequent analyses. Figure 4.3-16 shows
a plot of Pw together with the average pressure of each region. The pressure lag between
regions can be clearly observed in this plot.

4.4 MATERIAL BALANCE
Introduction
The objective of the material balance calculation is to use the dynamic information about the
reservoir to develop an estimate of the volume of original gas in place that is independent of
the geologic study and mapping. Ultimately, the numerical simulation to be performed in a
subsequent phase of this study will help adjust the volumes and understand the dynamics of
the reservoir in much more detail.
There are three main inputs in any material balance study: fluid properties, production data,
and pressure data. The previous three sections present the analyses done and the quality
control performed on each of these three pieces. Finally, the data was conveniently arranged
to be used in the material balance calculations.
The material balance was performed using Microsoft’s Excel spreadsheets and it involves
two gases: native gas (NG) and crude helium (CH). A standard gas volumetric-depletion
material balance model was used and the rock and water compressibilities were also included
in the model, although their influence is minor. No water influx effect was observed. To
carry out this two-gas material balance, the partial pressure and partial volume of each gas in
the reservoir was taken into account. Two types of material balance analyses were
performed: predictive material balance and P/z straight line. A more detailed description of
the technique is presented below in the Methodology Section.
Initially, the conventional material balance study yielded unsatisfactory results. After further
investigation, we found that the series of re-completions in 1961 had reduced the pore
volume that was being contacted by the wells after that date, and a different material balance
approach needed to be applied. We decided to perform two material balance calculations:
one before the re-completions and another after the re-completions. The computed results
are excellent. A detailed explanation of the procedure and results is presented in this section.

Additional runs describing the sensitivity of the results to the way in which the average
reservoir pressure was calculated were performed and are shown for reference. A summary
of the results and a comparison with other studies are also presented at the end of this section.
Methodology
Material balance calculations can be performed in two ways: predictive material balance or
P/z straight line. The procedures for this two-gas material balance do not differ from those
widely known and are the standard used in the industry. The flow of data in the material
balance calculations and the particular implications of having two gases involved in the
calculations are explained in this section.
The Flow of Data in the Material Balance Calculations
There are two separate sections in our material balance calculations. The P/z straight line
analysis and the predictive material balance.
For the P/z straight line analysis, the input data is the weighted average reservoir pressure
( Pw ) and the cumulative gas production. The spreadsheet calculates the best-fit straight line
in the P/z vs Gp plot and returns initial gas in place (IGIP) and initial P/z. With the gas
properties, initial pressure (Pi) can be estimated.
In the predictive material balance the main input variables are IGIP and Pi. The rock and
water compressibilities are also input, though they do not play a significant role because of
the much larger compressibility of the gas. Knowing the initial conditions (IGIP and Pi) and
fluid properties at those conditions, the spreadsheet calculates the reservoir withdrawal (or
injection) of the first timestep from production data and fluid properties, and calculates the
pressure and gas in place at the end of the first timestep. Subsequently, the pressure and gas
in place are calculated at each monthly time-step of the entire history period. This is similar
to the numerical simulation calculations. This technique allows us to visualize and compare
plots of P/z vs. Gp as wells as plots of P vs. time.

In principle, the results from both analyses should coincide; but that is not always the case.
There are different ways to proceed and obtain a final result, and these depend on the quality
and nature of the input data.
One way to proceed is get the output of the straight line analysis (IGIP and Pi) and set it as
the input for the predictive material balance calculations. Then a comparison of the material-
balance calculated pressure (PMB) and the observed Pw will indicate the accuracy of the
results. If the Pw data points show good straight-line behavior with small spread in the P/z
vs. Gp plot, this is the best method to perform the material balance calculations.
Another way to proceed is to guess the values of IGIP and Pi in the predictive material
balance calculations and then iterate on IGIP and Pi until the error between PMB and the
observed Pw is minimized. If the data points show good straight-line behavior with small
spread in the P/z vs. Gp plot, the results will coincide with those obtained from the P/z vs Gp
straight line analysis. However, if the Pw /zM data show deviation from a straight-line in the
P/z vs. Gp plot, then the results obtained using both techniques could be different.
Furthermore, if for some reason the initial pressure is known (like in the material balance
calculation of Period 2, as shown later), the best way to perform the material balance
calculations is to fix the value of Pi and minimize the error of the P vs. time plot (PMB and
Pw match) by iterating on IGIP. The predictive material balance calculation provides this
flexibility.
These different methods of performing the material balance calculations allows us not only to
handle different options and iterate between both methods to validate these procedures, but
also to apply our best judgment to determine the optimal and applicable result.
As a final comment, we know from theory that the two gases move along the same line in the
P/z vs. Gp analysis. However, in our material balance spreadsheet there is a discrepancy
(1%) that causes a minor hysterisis in the Storage Injection Period. At this time we were
unable to detect the exact source of this discrepancy, but have determined that it does not
change the conclusions.

The Implications of the Two-Gas Material Balance
There are three particular issues to address in the two-gas material balance: the use of gross
Gp in the P/z vs. Gp straight line analysis, the calculation of the z-factor of a mixture, and the
calculation of the P/zM at each time step.
The cumulative gross production can be used in the P/z vs. Gp straight line analysis,
regardless of the content of native gas or crude helium in the production or injection stream.
Since Gp is measured at standard conditions, the z-factor of both gases is equal to one at
standard conditions and Gp is directly proportional to the number of moles. The constant of
proportionality is the same for both gases, so the two amounts become additive without any
modification. Knowing this, a conventional P/z vs. Gp analysis can be performed through
the two-gas material balance calculations using the gross production data to calculate Gp.
Secondly, let’s address the calculation of the z-factor of a gas mixture. We know the
properties of the native gas (NG) and crude helium (CH) (see PVT Analysis Section). For
ideal mixing of gases:
VM = VNG + VCH
where
VM = Volume of mixed gas

VNG = Volume of native gas
VCH = Volume of crude helium
or,
nT RTz M n NG RTz NG nT RTz M

= +
P P P
where
T = Reservoir Temperature
P = Reservoir Pressure

R = Gas constant
zM = z-factor of the mixture
zNG = z-factor of the pure NG
zCH = z-factor of the pure CH
nT = Total number of moles
nNG = Number of moles of NG
nCH = Number of moles of CH
From this equation, the z-factor of the mixture can be calculated as
z M = y NG z NG + yCH z CH
where
yNG = Mole fraction of NG

yCH = Mole fraction of CH
The third issue to address in this two-gas material balance is the calculation of the P/zM at
each time step of the predictive material balance calculation. In the Production Analysis
Section of this report we described how to split the gross production into NG and CH
production. So, keeping track of the inventory gases (both NG and CH) is quite simple. At
each time-step, the equivalent change in volume in the reservoir for the each of the gases can
be calculated using the formation volume factor of each gas. From this, the partial P/z for
each gas is determined and the total P/zM is calculated simply as:
P P  P
  =  + 
 z  M  z  NG  z  CH
First Approach: Single-Volume Material Balance
Initially, the single-volume material balance calculations were performed. As mentioned

earlier, this single-volume approach did not yield good results and a different approach had

to be applied. The results of the first-approach material balance calculations are presented
here.
Using first-approach weight factors (Table 4.3-4) to calculate the average reservoir pressure,
the initial gas in place and initial pressure calculated from the straight line are the following:
Pi = 816.0 psia
IGIP = 319.85 bcf
A connate water saturation value of 50%, a water compressibility value of 3.0x10-6 psia-1, and
a rock compressibility value of 3.0x10-6 psia-1 were used in the calculations. However, these
values do not have significant effect in the results, since gas compressibility is much larger
than rock and water compressibility.
P/z vs. Gp
First Approach Material Balance - Single Volume
900
IGIP = 319.85 bcf
Pi = 816.0 psia
850
800
P/Zmix
750
700
650 W eighted Average Pressure
Material Balance Calculations
600
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Net Gp (MMscf)
Figure 4.4-1: First approach material balance, single volume. P/z plot.

Pressure vs Time
First Approach Material Balance - Single Volume
850
IGIP = 319.85 bcf
Pi = 816.0 psia
800
750
P (psia)
700
650
W eighted Average Pressure
600
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.4-3: First approach material balance, single volume. P vs. time plot.
Figure 4.4-1 shows the P/z plot for this run. Figure 4.4-2, at the end of the Basic
Engineering Section, shows the same plot with a different display (includes the observed
pressure data and non-weighted average pressure for reference). Hereafter, two plots with
these two different displays are presented for the material balance results, one of them
located at the end of the Basic Engineering Section. The fit looks reasonably good for the
depletion period (Gp < 48,000 MMSCF) but it is not acceptable after the helium injection
started. Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4 present a comparison between Pw and the predictive
material balance pressure (PMB) vs. time. Again, the match is fairly good in the depletion
period, although PMB is high compared to Pw . However, the match is poor in the second
period, after the start of crude helium injection.

Pressure vs Time
First Approach Material Balance - First Period Matched
850
IGIP = 330.00 bcf
Pi = 811.0 psia
800
750
P (psia)
700
650
600
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.4-5: First approach material balance. First period matched. P vs. time plot.
Pressure vs Time
First Approach Material Balance - Second Period Matched
900
IGIP = 243.00 bcf
Pi = 865.0 psia
850
800
P (psia)
750
700
600
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.4-7: First approach material balance. Second period matched. P vs. time plot.

Figures 4.4-5 to 4.4-8 show that a good match is not possible by performing a single material
balance calculation; either the Initial Depletion period can be matched using Pi = 811 psia
and IGIP = 330 bcf, or the Storage period can be matched using Pi = 865 psia, IGIP = 243
bcf; but an acceptable match is not possible by performing a single-period material balance
analysis. Neither of the previous two sets of results is correct.
An alternative to improve the material balance match is to change the weight factors and
evaluate their effect on the average reservoir pressure. When the match was optimized by
varying the weight factors, the resulting weight factors did not look physically correct (wA =
0.012, wB = 0.138, wC = 0.264, and wD = 0.585). In addition, the match was still
unsatisfactory (Figures 4.4-9 and 4.4-10).
This analysis clearly suggests the occurrence of a change between 1960 and 1965 that affects
the material balance calculations.
Shortly prior to the beginning of main helium injection in 1963, a number of wells were re-
completed. These re-completions had an effect on the reservoir volume contacted by the
wells and, consequently, on the pressure readings, and are the reason for the discrepancy in
the material balance.
Change in Contacted Reservoir Volume
Between 1961 and 1966, 11 wells underwent workovers and changed the reservoir volume
contacted by these wells. Eight of them that had open-hole completions were cased and
perforated (Bi-A2, Bi-A3, Bi-A4, Bi-A5, Bi-A6, Bi-A7, Bu-B1, and Fu-A1) (Figures 4.A-56
to 4.A-61, 4.A-82, and 4.A-84). Three of them were re-cased and perforated (Bu-A3, Bu-A4,
and Bu-A5) (Figures 4.A-73 to 4.A-75). In all cases, the perforated interval after the re-
completion was significantly smaller than before. Ten of the workovers occurred in 1961
while the remaining workover (Bi-A2) took place in 1966. The average date of the re-
completions is July 1961; so, from this point on, for simplicity, we will refer to two periods:
Period 1, before 1961 and Period 2, after 1961, even when we know that one of the re-
completions occurred in 1966.

Note that, in general, Period 1 coincides with the Initial Depletion (ID) period, and Period 2
coincides with the Storage Injection and Depletion periods, defined at the Pressure Analysis
Section of this report (sub-section Compartmentalization). However, there is a small
difference between the ends of the ID period and Period 1, because of the specific dates at
which the re-completions were done. For material balance purposes, we will use the Period 1
and Period 2 definition, which divides the timeline into before and after 1961.
Table 4.4-1: Completions Summary. Wells with logs only.
Layer Bi-A2 Bi-A3 Bi-A4 Bi-A5 Bi-A6 Bi-A9 Bi-A11 Bi-A13 Bi-A14 Bi-A15 Bi-B1 Bi-B2 Bu-A3 Bu-A4 Bu-A5 Bu-A8 Bu-A9 Bu-A10 Bu-A11 Fu-A2 Fu-A3
P-1
P-2
Pan Handle
P-3
P-4 0. 0
P-5 1.0 1. 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
P-6 1.0 1. 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
P-7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1. 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
L-1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1. 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2. 0
L-2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1. 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2. 0
Brown Dolomite
L-3 3.0 1.0 1.0 3. 0 3.0 2.0 2. 0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
L-4 3.0 1.0 3.0 3. 0 3.0 2.0 2. 0 2.0 2. 0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
L-5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3. 0 3.0 2.0 2. 0 2.0 2.0 2. 0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2. 0
L-6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3. 0 1.0 2.0 2. 0 2.0 2.0 2. 0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2. 0
L-7 1.0 3.0 1.0 2. 0 2.0 2.0 2. 0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2. 0
L-8 3.0 2. 0 2.0 2.0 2. 0
1.0
Open in first period only

2.0
Open in second period only

3.0
Open in first and second period
Table 4.4-1 shows a summary of the layers that were perforated in each well before and after
1961. Only the wells with logs are presented in this table. Before 1961, the wells were open
in both the Pan Handle Formation (layers P-5 to P-7) and in the Brown Dolomite Formation
(layers L-1 to L-8). In Period 2, the wells are open only in the Brown Dolomite. The
pressure data after 1961 measure the pressure-production behavior of the Brown Dolomite
only. This explains why it was not possible to match both periods with a single-volume
material balance calculation (Figures 4.4-5 to 4.4-8).
Porosity, vertical communication among the layers, and the areal communication within a
layer, together with perforations, will play important roles in the determination of the volume
contacted after 1961. The material balance calculations will provide an estimation of the
reduction in contacted pore volume in Period 2. With the knowledge about the effect of the

1961 re-completions a different material balance approach had to be applied. The solution
was to perform two material balances: one for Period 1, before July 1961, at full contacted
reservoir volume; and another for Period 2, after 1961, which will reflect the reduced
contacted volume. The two material balance studies are linked by the reservoir pressure at
1961.
Material Balance of Period 1
The first-period material balance analysis starts in 1924 and ends in Jul-1961. First, the
determination of the weighting factors used in the calculation of the average reservoir
pressure in this period was improved and adapted to the specific conditions of Period 1.
Determination of Pressure Weight Factors
Previously, in the Average Pressure Section of this report, the so-called first-approach weight
factors were estimated and used in the single-volume material balance calculation (Table
4.3-4). However, no wells were drilled in region C in the first period (see Figure 4.3-13),
which means that there is no pressure data for this region from 1924 to 1961, and makes the
value of wC irrelevant in the calculation of Pw during this period. Even though there are no
available pressure data in region C before 1961, the gas in this region feeds the production in
other regions, and its pressure has to be accounted for in the Pw calculation.
According to the pressure analysis, the pressure at both flanks of field (region D and
especially region C) lags behind the main pressure disturbance at the center of the field (see
Figures 4.3-5 to 4.3-8 and Figure 4.3-16). We can expect the pressure in Region C to
behave and be similar to the pressure in Region D during Period 1. Therefore, to account for
the lack of pressure data in region C, we doubled the weight factor that corresponds to region
D. Having done this, the weight factors used are wA = 0.140, wB = 0.450, wC = 0.000, and wD
= 0.410.
Another alternative to determine the weight factors is to select the weight factors that
minimize the error in the material balance match. Thirty material balance runs were

performed covering a wide range of IGIP and Pi and optimizing the weight factors; these
runs showed that the difference between Pw and PMB in Period 1 is so small, that the error
information is not useful to determine the weight factors using that technique.
The determination of the weight factors in Period 1 affects the results of the material balance
in Period 2 because both periods are linked by the reservoir pressure at July 1961.
Subsequent analyses showed that the selected weight factors for Period 1 yield good results
when the material balance calculations are performed for both periods. Changes in the
weight factors in Period 1 cause only moderate changes in the results for that period (Pi and
IGIP). However, those moderate changes result in changes in the starting point of Period-2
(pressure at July 1961), which significantly affects Period 2 match.
Results of Period-1 Material Balance
Figures 4.4-11 to 4.4-14 show the material balance results for Period 1. Pi = 812.3 psia and
IGIP = 330.04 bcf were obtained from the P/z straight line analysis. The comparisons of the
calculated material balance values (PMB and PMB/zM) and the average reservoir pressure
values ( Pw and Pw /zM) in both plots (P/z vs. Gp and P vs. time) are excellent.
The sensitivity of the material balance calculations to the weight factors was also studied.
We studied a range of IGIP and Pi values in combination with ranges of weight factors. The
value of a weight factor was considered to be within an acceptable range if it was
approximately proportional to its area in the field. Within acceptable weight factor values
and acceptable pressure matches, the IGIP varies from 315 bcf to 335 bcf, and Pi ranges from
815 psia to 811 psia respectively. However, the material balance in Period 1 cannot be
studied separately from the material balance in Period 2, because it determines the starting
point of the second material balance. The linking of the material balance models, together
with the large amount of pressure data available, gives more confidence to the Period 1
material balance and the range of acceptable results is narrowed to IGIP = 325 to 335 bcf and
Pi = 811 to 813 psia.

P/z vs. Gp
Material Balance - Period 1
900
IGIP = 330.04 bcf

Pi = 812.3 psia
850
800
P/Zmix
750
700
650
600
- 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00 50,000.00
Net Gp (MMscf)
Figure 4.4-11: Period-1 material balance. P/z plot.
Pressure vs Time
850
IGIP = 330.04 bcf
Pi = 812.3 psia
800
750
P (psia)
700
650
600
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64
Figure 4.4-13: Period-1 material balance. P vs. time plot.

With an initial pressure of 812.3 psia, the initial gas in place for Period 1 was determined to
be 330.04 bcf. By the end of Period 1, 48.73 bcf of native gas and 0.1 bcf of crude helium
had been produced and 0.45 bcf of crude helium had been injected. This yields 281.31 bcf of
native gas and 0.35 bcf of crude helium in the reservoir at July 1961.
Material Balance of Period 2
Period 2 goes from July 1961 to present. The 1961 pressure calculated in the material
balance performed in Period 1, sets the starting pressure of Period 2. Our calculations show
this value to be P1@Jul-61 = Pi2 = 700.6 psia.
Due to the workovers, the contacted volume in Period 2 is smaller than the contacted volume
for Period 1. Since the amount of crude helium (CH) in the reservoir is insignificant at the
end of Period 1, all of the reduction in contacted volume was assumed to correspond to NG.
Determination of Pressure Weight Factors
The weight factors in this period may differ from those of Period 1 because the reservoir
volumes contacted are different. In addition, this period presents a wider range of pressure
and larger difference in the pressure values of each region. Therefore, a minimization of the
error in the material balance match can be performed by varying the weight factors that are
used to calculate Pw .
Being that the initial pressure of this period was defined by the material balance of Period 1,
the only variable left to determine was the initial NG in place at the beginning of this period
(IGIP2). A wide range of IGIP2 values was analyzed. For different values of IGIP2 ranging
from 165 to 240 bcf, the best set of weight factors was determined by minimizing the error in
the P vs. time material-balance match in Period 2 (ε2) (Table 4.4-2). ε2, which is an inverse
measure of the goodness of the match at each IGIP2, is calculated as:

N
∑ (P − Pw )
2
MB
y =1
ε2 =
N
where
y = year index
N = Number of years in the 1961-2002 period
In the P/z vs. Gp match, the error is similarly calculated, using P/z instead of P.
Weight Factor Determination

9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
εΠ22
7.0
6.5
6.0
P vs. t
5.5
P/z
5.0
160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 230,000 240,000
IGIP (MMSCF)
Figure 4.4-15: Optimized weight factor determination. ε2 for the P vs. time and P/z matches.
This analysis defined the best set of weight factors and helped determine the NG in place at
the beginning of Period 2 (IGIP2). As expected, ε2 shows the same behavior when it is
calculated for the P vs. time and the P/z vs Gp comparisons (Figure 4.4-15). It presents a
minimum at approximately IGIP2 = 200 bcf, and the optimized weight factors at 200 bcf (wA
= 0.081, wB = 0.345, wC = 0.154, and wD = 0.419) are physically reasonable (Figure 4.4-16).

wD may seem high at first glance, but an increase in net pay towards the east of the field can
be expected, especially in the bottom layers of the Brown Dolomite Formation.
Weight Factor Determination

0.8
A
0.7 B
D
C
0.6
Normalized Weight Factors
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 230,000 240,000
IGIP (MMSCF)
Figure 4.4-16: Optimized weight factors determination. Weight factors for groups A, B, C, and D.
Results of Period-2 Material Balance
Figures 4.4-17 to 4.4-20 show the material balance results for Period 2. The results of
Period-1 material balance are also included in these plots. IGIP2 was calculated by
minimizing the error in the P vs. time match using the weight factors determined in the
previous section. Such minimization resulted in IGIP2 = 199.25 bcf.
The match in both plots is very good. There is a minor difference between PMB and Pw in the
beginning of the second period (1961-1965), but in general, the calculated material balance
gives an excellent match when compared to PMB. As expected, the P/z plot shows two
slopes: one for Period 1 before 1961 and a larger one for Period 2 caused by the reduction in
contacted hydrocarbon volume.

P/z vs. Gp
Material Balance - Periods 1 & 2
900
IGIP 2 = 199.25 bcf

Pi @Jul-61 = 700.6 psia
850
IGIP = 330.04 bcf

Pi = 812.3 psia
800
P/Zmix
750
700

650
600
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Net Gp (MMscf)
Figure 4.4-17: Period 2 material balance. Period-1 results are also plotted. P/z plot.
Pressure vs Time
Material Balance - Periods 1 &2
850
IGIP = 330.04 bcf IGIP 2 = 199.25 bcf
Pi = 812.3 psia Pi @Jul-61 = 700.6 psia
800
750
P (psia)
700
600
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00 04
Figure 4.4-19: Period 2 material balance. Period-1 results are also plotted. P vs. time plot.

An observation of the results together with the optimized weight factors (Figures 4.4-15 and
4.4-16) shows that acceptable matches are obtained for IGIP2 ranging from 185 bcf to 205
bcf. Beyond these limits, either the weight factors look unreasonable or the material balance
match is unacceptable.
To determine the reduction of contacted hydrocarbon volume, it is erroneous to compare

IGIP = 330.04 and IGIP2 = 199.25 because of the production that occurred during Period 1.
The amounts to compare should be the inventory of NG at the end of Period 1 (281.31 bcf)
and the inventory of NG at the beginning of Period 2, or IGIP2 (199.25 bcf). Thus, the
reduction in contacted pore volume (CPVred) is
CPVred = InvNG@Jul-61,Period_1 – IGIP2 = 281.31 – 199.25 = 82.06 bcf
This reduction of 82.06 bcf in contacted pore volume corresponds to a reduction of
CPVred 82.06
CPVred % = = = 29.1%
Inv NG @ Jul −1961, Period _ 1 281.31
Native Gas and Crude Helium Inventory

Material Balance - Periods 1 & 2
350,000,000
300,000,000
250,000,000
Inventory (MSCF)
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
CH Inventory
50,000,000 NG Inventory (82.1 bcf behind the csg)
NG Inventory
0
28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Figure 4.4-24: Inventory of native gas and crude helium vs. time.

Figures 4.4-21 and 4.4-22 show the production and injection volumes of NG and CH vs.
time. The cumulative production, net production and injection of NG and CH are shown in
Figure 4.4-23. Figure 4.4-24 presents the evolution of the inventory of NG and CH with
time, showing that 44.20 bcf of CH, 137.45 bcf of NG are present in the currently contacted
reservoir volume, and 82.06 bcf of NG are present behind the casing in the top layers of the
reservoir.
Other Material Balance Runs
A two-volume material balance (separating Period 1 and Period 2) was performed using
simple arithmetic average to calculate a non-weighted reservoir pressure, Pnw . The P vs.
time match is not as good as that one obtained using the weight factors to calculate Pw
(Figures 4.4-25 and 4.4-26). This confirms the need for weight factors in the P estimation.
The results are presented for reference: IGIP = 315.87 bcf, Pi = 813.84 psia, Pi2 = 696.95
psia, IGIP2 = 189.43 bcf, contacted volume reduction = 77.70 bcf, PVred = 29.1%.
Three additional two-period material balance runs were performed using different groups of
wells to calculate the average reservoir pressure, Pw . The procedure shown above for Period
1 and Period 2 material balance calculations was followed. The results, in general, did not
differ significantly from those presented above, but the calculated weight factors were less
realistic.
Summary of Results
This section describes the main steps in the procedure in which we were involved when
doing the material balance analysis. It also provides a summary of the material balance
calculation results and a comparison of the results with previous material balance studies.
The composition of the native gas was determined using gas samples from 28 wells. The
composition of the crude helium was determined from the average helium content in the
injection stream and the PVT properties of these two gases were determined using EOS.

Production data was studied and the helium was analyzed as a tracer to determine some
preferential transmissibility hypotheses and connectivity regions in the field. A database of
production data, workovers, and perforations for every well was created. The gross
production was split into native gas and crude helium production, which would be used as
input in the material balance calculations.
The pressure analysis provided several tools to understand the behavior of the fluids in the
reservoir. A set of pressure data was received in digital format from the BLM and an
additional pressure data set was obtained by reviewing and collecting data from the well
files. Both data sets were merged and a thorough quality control was performed on the data.
The analysis of the merged pressure data set showed different regions of connectivity in the
field and the need for compartmentalization of the reservoir to calculate the average reservoir
pressure, which would be used in the material balance. The field shows a pressure behavior
pattern of a “leading” or main pressure at the center of the field (low pressure during
depletion periods and high during the main injection period), and a “delayed” pressure that
time-lags behind the main pressure at the flanks of the field (higher pressure during depletion
periods and lower during the main injection period), especially in the south-west region,
which shows some lack of connectivity with the rest of the field. The connectivity
preliminary conclusions drawn from the pressure analysis are in good agreement with those
hypotheses obtained from the production analysis. Four regions were defined for the
reservoir compartmentalization and a methodology to calculate the weight factors and the
average reservoir pressure was established.
Once all the input data necessary for the material balance study was analyzed, the two-gas
material balance was run. The results showed discrepancies and an acceptable match could
not be obtained in this first approach by doing a single material balance. Either the initial
depletion period could be matched or the storage period could be matched; but both periods
could not be acceptably matched in a single run.
Further analysis of the available data showed that in 1961, 11 wells had been re-completed
and the perforated interval after the workovers was significantly smaller than before. The
lower layers of the Panhandle Formation that were open before 1961 were closed in 1961.

These workovers have an effect on the reservoir volume contacted by the wells and,
consequently, on the pressure readings, and were the reason for the discrepancy in the
material balance. With this knowledge, a different material balance approach had to be
adopted. The solution was to perform 2 material balances: one for Period 1, before July
1961, at full contacted reservoir volume; and another for Period 2, after 1961, which reflects
the reduced volume contacted.
A summary of the results of the two-period material balance is presented in Table 4.4-3. The
calculated initial gas in place is 330.04 bcf with an initial pressure of 812.3 psia. The
inventory shows 137.45 bcf of native gas and 44.20 bcf of crude helium currently in contact
with the wells. The reduction of contacted pore volume at 1961 (29.1%) left 82.06 bcf of
native gas behind the casing in the upper layers of the reservoir. The weight factors used to
calculate the average reservoir pressure were defined mainly using production data in Period
1 and by optimizing the material balance pressure match in Period 2. Both periods showed
an excellent match.
Table 4.4-3: Summary of results. Periods 1 and 2.
Period 1 Contacted Period 2

Volume
1924 Jul-61 Reduction Jul-61 2002
Inventory NG 330.04 281.31 (82.06) 199.25 137.45

(bcf) CH 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 44.20
Pressure (psia) 812.3 700.6 700.6 651.3
A 0.140 0.081
Weight B 0.450 0.350

Factors C 0.000 0.153
D 0.410 0.416
Cum. Prod. NG 0 48.73 48.73 110.52

(bcf) CH 0 0.1 0.1 20.76
Cum. Inj. NG 0 0 0 0
(bcf) CH 0 0.45 0.45 64.96
Cum. Net Prod. NG 0 48.73 48.73 110.52

(bcf) CH 0 (0.35) (0.35) (44.20)

The reduction in contacted pore volume after 1961 (29.1%) obtained from the material
balance study was compared to the reduction in gross thickness in those wells that were re-
completed. The results compare reasonably well. Table 4.4-4 shows the gross thickness of
the re-completed wells with logs before and after 1961. If perfect areal communication
within each layer is assumed, the gross thickness reduction in these wells from Period 1
(layers P-5 through L-8 were open) to Period 2 (layers L-2 to L-8 are open) is 34% on
average, ranging from 21% in Bi-A2 to 46% in Bi-A5 (see dashed line in Table 4.4-4). A
well-by-well analysis shows that the perforated gross thickness intervals in these wells has
been reduced by 53% on average (ranging from 30% in Bi-A2 to 72% in Bi-A6) at the re-
completions. Gross thickness gives only an indication of the reduction in contacted pore
volume, because porosity, vertical communication between layers, and the areal
communication within a layer will play an important role in the determination of the actual
hydrocarbon volume that was in contact after 1961. These results (34% and 53% reductions
in gross thickness) are in good agreement with the reduction of contacted pore volume
determined from the material balance study (29%). Later, the numerical simulation will
provide a more detailed analysis of this issue.
This reduction is only a reduction in contacted pore volume, and that there is no indication of
loss of hydrocarbon from the reservoir. For our knowledge, nothing prevents the operator
from re-opening the layers in the upper zone that are currently not connected to the wells and
produce the native gas that is behind the casing in these layers.
The compartmentalization, determined from the helium-as-a-tracer analysis and the pressure
analysis, was also compared to other sources of data, showing good agreement and
confirming the analyses. Region C (see Figure 4.3-13) clearly shows lower net thickness in
most of the layers, while the total porosity also decreases towards the south-east of the field.
Matrix and fracture porosity also show trends that indicate the compartmentalization of this
region, especially in the upper layers of the Brown Dolomite, with the exception of well Bi-
B1. The fracture presence in the neighborhood of well Bi-A14 is also in agreement with the
high connectivity region shown by the helium-as-a-tracer analysis.

Two material balance studies, with different results, were performed in 1959 (Burnet et al,
1959) and 1962 (Kaveler, 1962). A summary of these results compared to the current
material balance study is presented in Table 4.4-5. The differences in initial pressure and
initial P/z values are small (0.5% in the worst case). The differences in initial gas in place
(IGIP) are significant, but within an acceptable range. These differences are explained
below.
Table 4.4-5: Comparison of current results to previous material balance studies.
2002
Using non- 1962 1959
Using weighted
weigthed
average P
average P
Pi (psia) 812.3 813.8 815.0 816.7
Pi/zi (psia) 880.2 882.0 881.0 883.3
IGIP (bcf) 330 316 244/321 298
The 1959 study shows IGIP = 298 bcf while our current study yields IGIP = 330. The main
difference is given by the absence of weight factors in the 1959 study. If the 1959 results are
compared with our current material balance performed without weight factors (IGIP = 316
bcf) the difference between the two is of 5.7%. This difference is within an acceptable range
in the analysis and maybe due to different factors, such as: different available technology in
1959 and 2002, different quality control performed on the pressure data, or different z-factors
used for the P/z analysis.
The 1962 report shows two sets of results. The first set shows estimations of IGIP = 293 and
IGIP = 321 bcf when slopes were taken at different portions of the P/z plot in the 1929-1961
period. These results are in good agreement with both the 1959 and the current study. The
second set of results reports a final IGIP “no greater than 244 bcf”, which is significantly
smaller than both the 1959 and the current study IGIPs. However, this difference can be
explained. The higher pressure in wells Fu-A1 and Bu-B1 after 1950 was noted in the 1962
study, and the pressure data corresponding to these two wells were removed from the
analysis. This removal “pulls down” the IGIP estimation. The cause of this higher pressure

data was reported to be a small amount of water encroachment. At the time of the analysis,
an important piece of information was not available. The higher pressure observed in these
wells during the Initial Decline Period, actually turns into lower pressure during the Storage
Injection Period, which was simply caused by the delay in pressure propagation.
In conclusion, taking into account all the sensitivity analyses done and the different
approaches studied, the material balance results presented in this report are robust and are
within the level of confidence expected from a material balance study. The results are
consistent and are in very good agreement with analyses performed using different sources of
information. In the following stages of this study, numerical simulation will provide more
detailed results, fine tune the volumes, and help understand the dynamics of the reservoir to a
higher degree.

REFERENCES
T. Gold and M. Held: “Helium-Nitrogen-Methane Systematics in Natural Gases of Texas and

Kansas,” JPT, 10(4), pp 415-424, 1987.
Anderson, C. C., Schroeder, H. J., and Hinson, H. H.: “Geologic and Engineering Report,
Cliffside Structure, Potter County, Texas – with Special Reference to Reservoir Conditions
and Gas reserves in Bush Dome,” USBM, p63 (April, 1939).
D.S. Roby: “Bush Dome Field Well Completion Work-Over Data and Well Schematics,”
USBM, (February 1992).
J. Lee and R.A. Wattenbarger: “Gas Reservoir Engineering,” SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 5,
p59, (1996).
W.D. McCain: “The Properties of Petroleum Fluids,” p510, (1990).
P.Burnett, D.Ball, and A.M.Bieber: “The Cliffside Gas Field for Helium Storage,” USBM,
p31, (September 1959).
H.H.Kaveler: “Geology and Engineering Report,” p19, (July 1962).

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1-1: Composition of Native Gas.

Table 4.1-2: Native Gas and Crude Helium PVT Properties.
Table 4.3-1: Regions used for average pressure estimation in the material balance
calculations.
Table 4.3-2: Yearly pressure per well.
Table 4.3-3: First approach weight factors, before Region C correction.
Table 4.3-4: First approach weight factors.
Table 4.4-1: Completions summary, before and after 1961. Wells with logs only.
Table 4.4-2: Optimized weight factor determination. Period 2 material balance.
Table 4.4-3: Summary of results. Periods 1 and 2.
Table 4.4-4: Gross thickness of re-completed wells, before and after 1961. Wells with
logs only.
Table 4.4-5: Comparison of current results to previous material balance studies.

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1-1: Monthly injection volume and helium content in the injection stream vs time.
Figure 4.1-2: Specific gravity vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-3: Specific gravity vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-4: He content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-5: He content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-6: N2 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-7: N2 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-8: C1 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-9: C1 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-14: iC4 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-15: iC4 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-16: nC4 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-17: nC4 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-18: iC5 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-19: iC5 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-20: nC5 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-21: nC5 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-22: cC5 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-23: cC5 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-24: C6+ content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-25: C6+ content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-26: CO2 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-27: CO2 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples. Large scale.
Figure 4.1-28: Ar content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-29: H2 content vs. time for all wells with gas samples.
Figure 4.1-30: Temperature profile, from Bi-A2.
Figure 4.1-31: PVT properties, material balance.

Figure 4.2-1: Base Map.
Figure 4.2-2: Field production and injection volumes vs. time.
Figure 4.2-3: Field production and injection volumes vs. time with 12-month moving
average.
Figure 4.2-4: Field production and injection volumes vs. time with cumulative production
and injection.
Figure 4.2-5: Field production and injection volumes vs. time with number of active wells.
Figure 4.2-6: Number of active wells vs. time.
Figure 4.2-7: Map of change in helium content in production stream.
Figure 4.3-1: Comparison between Z-factor used in BLM and current corrections to datum.
Figure 4.3-2: BLM Pressure data set, before quality control.
Figure 4.3-3: Well-Files Pressure data set, before quality control.
Figure 4.3-4: Merged pressure data set.
Figure 4.3-5: Pressure Map, 1943/44/45.
Figure 4.3-9: Pressure vs. time, 5 injectors.
Figure 4.3-10: Pressure vs. time, wells at center of the field.
Figure 4.3-11: Pressure vs. time, wells at center of the field and at south-west region.
Figure 4.3-12: Pressure grouping for period 1963/1973.
Figure 4.3-13: Regions used for average pressure estimation in the material balance
calculations.
Figure 4.3-14: Pressure time-lag. P vs. time for three wells.
Figure 4.3-15: Weighted average pressure, using the first-approach weight factors.
Figure 4.3-16: Weighted average pressure, using the first-approach weight factors, together
with region average.
Figure 4.4-1: First approach material balance, single volume. P/z plot.
Figure 4.4-2: First approach material balance, single volume. P/z plot (observed pressure
and non-weighted average pressure also displayed).
Figure 4.4-3: First approach material balance, single volume. P vs. time plot.
Figure 4.4-4: First approach material balance, single volume. P vs. time plot (observed
pressure and non-weighted average pressure also displayed).
Figure 4.4-5: First approach material balance. First period matched. P vs. time plot.

Figure 4.4-6: First approach material balance. First period matched. P vs. time plot
(observed pressure and non-weighted average pressure also displayed).
Figure 4.4-7: First approach material balance. Second period matched. P vs. time plot.
Figure 4.4-8: First approach material balance. Second period matched. P vs. time plot
Figure 4.4-9: First approach material balance. Optimized weight factors. P vs. time plot.
Figure 4.4-10: First approach material balance. Optimized weight factors. P vs. time plot
Figure 4.4-11: Period 1 material balance. P/z plot.
Figure 4.4-12: Period 1 material balance. P/z plot (observed pressure and non-weighted
average pressure also displayed).
Figure 4.4-13: Period 1 material balance. P vs. time plot.
Figure 4.4-14: Period 1 material balance. P vs. time plot (observed pressure and non-
weighted average pressure also displayed).
Figure 4.4-15: Optimized weight factor determination. ε2 for the P vs. time and P/z matches.
Figure 4.4-16: Optimized weight factors determination. Weight factors for groups A, B, C,
and D.
Figure 4.4-17: Period 2 material balance. P/z plot.
Figure 4.4-18: Period 2 material balance. P/z plot (observed pressure and non-weighted
average pressure also displayed).
Figure 4.4-19: Period 2 material balance. P vs. time plot.
Figure 4.4-20: Period 2 material balance. P vs. time plot (observed pressure and non-
weighted average pressure also displayed).
Figure 4.4-21: Production and injection monthly volumes of native gas and crude helium vs.
time.
Figure 4.4-22: Production and injection monthly volumes of native gas and crude helium vs.
time, with 12-month moving average.
Figure 4.4-23: Cumulative Production and injection of native gas and crude helium vs. time.
Figure 4.4-24: Inventory of native gas and crude helium vs. time.
Figure 4.4-25: Non-weighted average reservoir pressure Material balance. Periods 1 and 2.
P vs. time plot.
Figure 4.4-26: Non-weighted average reservoir pressure Material balance. Periods 1 and 2.
P vs. time plot (observed pressure also displayed).

Basic Engineering PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basic Engineering PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... 1

NITEC LLC Page 4-1 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-2 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-3 BLM

8. The compartmentalization of the field causes a non-uniform pressure distribution in the

NITEC LLC Page 4-4 BLM

The main objectives of the PVT analysis are the following:

1. Determine the composition of the native gas

NITEC LLC Page 4-5 BLM

Determination of Crude Helium and Native Gas Compositions

Determination of Crude Helium Composition

GiHe = Cumulative helium injection (as of Jun-2002), MSCF

NITEC LLC Page 4-6 BLM

Helium Content in Injection Stream (%)

Determination of Native Gas Composition

NITEC LLC Page 4-7 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-8 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-9 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-10 BLM

The hydrocarbon-component content in the NG was similarly determined (Figures 4.1-8 to

NITEC LLC Page 4-11 BLM

Native Gas and Crude Helium Properties

NITEC LLC Page 4-12 BLM

PVT Properties - Material Balance

NITEC LLC Page 4-13 BLM

The main objectives of the production analysis are the following:

NITEC LLC Page 4-14 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-15 BLM

Helium Content in the Production Stream

NITEC LLC Page 4-16 BLM

Production Data vs. Time

Production and Injection Data vs. Time

Cumulative Gas Production and Injection (MSCF)

Figure 4.2-4: Field cumulative production and injection vs. time.

NITEC LLC Page 4-17 BLM

Figure 4.2-6: Number of active wells vs. time.

Corrections and Modifications

Some corrections and modifications had to be done to the production/injection data.

NITEC LLC Page 4-18 BLM

VM = Volume of Mixture, or gross gas production

HeM = Per cent content of helium in the mixture, or production stream

NITEC LLC Page 4-19 BLM

The volumes of NG and CH produced are calculated as

Analysis of Helium as a Tracer

3. Wells where the He% is moderate (from 1.8% to 15%/55%)

NITEC LLC Page 4-20 BLM

High Connectivity between wells

Figure 4.2-7: Helium content in production stream.

NITEC LLC Page 4-21 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-22 BLM

1. Perform a quality control on the pressure data

4. Establish a methodology to calculate the average reservoir pressure to be input in the

NITEC LLC Page 4-23 BLM

Correction to Reservoir Datum

NITEC LLC Page 4-24 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-25 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-26 BLM

P vs. Time - Merged Pressure Data Set

650 BUSH A-8

Figure 4.3-4: Merged pressure data set.

NITEC LLC Page 4-27 BLM

NITEC LLC Page 4-28 BLM