Material Balance

NADJI Ammar Ingénieur reservoir SH/PED

Objectives: In the end of this course
you will
Be able to list the 3 major objectives of material balance calculation

 Be able to develop :
- the material balance equation
- straight–line plotting function for black-oil
 Be able to develop :
- the material balance equation
- straight–line plotting function for dry and wet gas

 Be able to calculate original hydrocarbons in-place using the correct material balance
equation to estimate :
- original hydrocarbons in-place
- Gas cap volume

Be able to calculate -water influx volumes

 Identification of the dominant Production Mechanisms and contribution

 Analytical model understanding
outline
 Concepts
 Basic theory & OIIP “N” calculation and generale
material balance equation
 Material balance analysis
volumetric oil reservoirs

aquifer driven reservoirs

Reservoirs with Gas Cap

volumetric gas reservoirs

Concepts
The material balance concept
 Suppose we have two tires, both at a pressure of 45 psia. One of
the tires is very large (a tractor tire) and one is very small (a
bicycle tire). If we take the same amount of air out of each tire
(10 scf), what will happen to the pressure in each tire?
If you take the same amount of air out of two tires, one being very
large (tractor tire) and one being very small (bicycle tire) the
change in pressure will be much different.
In the example above, there is very little change in the pressure
of the tractor tire; however, the bicycle tire is essentially flat.
Hydrocarbon reservoirs react in much the same way as the tires
above.
 For example, if we produce 100,000 stb of oil from a large
reservoir, then the average reservoir pressure does not drop
significantly. If we produce the same amount of oil from a small
reservoir, the pressure drop is much more dramatic.
what is material balance?

 Relationship between reservoir pores volume, reservoir

pressure ,and cumulative production/injection application
estimate volume of hydrocarbons in place
estimate average reservoir pressure
estimate average fluid saturations in reservoir
 Material balance is the relationship between reservoir pore
volume, reservoir pressure, and cumulative production from (and
injection into) the reservoir. By recording cumulative production
and the average reservoir pressure over time, petroleum
engineers can estimate the volume of hydrocarbons in place, the
average reservoir pressure, and the average fluid saturations in
the reservoir using material balance relationships.
Numerical model is not a diagnostic tool of production mechanisms,
STOOIP or water influx (We), These are input of the simulator

 MB calculations are a complement to numerical simulation

The material balance equation can be applied to determine the
volume of original hydrocarbons in place when the volume of
fluids produced, the fluid PVT relationships, and the average
reservoir pressure are known.
Also, when the volume of original
hydrocarbons in place, volume of fluids
produced, and fluid PVT relationships are
known, the average reservoir pressure and
the fluid saturations can be calculated.
In this course, we will present the basic theory
and concepts of material balance as it applies
to petroleum reservoirs. After the basic
concepts have been reviewed, we will show
how we can estimate initial hydrocarbons in
place, average reservoir pressure, and
average reservoir fluid saturations using
material balance methods.
Depending on the type of reservoir we are
analyzing, we will use slightly different
material balance relationships. We will learn
to apply material balance techniques to
volumetric oil reservoirs, volumetric gas
reservoirs, and aquifer driven reservoirs.
compressibility
 Coefficient of isothermal compressibility (C):
The coefficient of isothermal compressibility is
defined as the relative change in volume
resulting from a unit change in pressure.
Isothermal compressibility generally describes
how “spongy” or expansive a reservoir fluid is.
We can use the coefficient of isothermal
compressibility to determine the change in
volume of a reservoir fluid due to a change in
pressure at constant temperature. The
coefficient of isothermal compressibility has
units of 1/psi.
Fluid and rock properties
 Solution gas/oil ratio
 Oil formation volume factor
 Gas formation volume factor
 Total formation volume factor
 Formation compressibility
 Water compressibility
 To derive and apply the material balance
equation, we must understand how the
reservoir fluids expand and how the pore
volume compresses as a function of pressure;
therefore, we will begin by reviewing the
basic reservoir fluid PVT relationships and
rock compressibility.
Solution gas/oil Ratio (Rs)
The quantity of gas dissolved in an oil at
reservoir conditions is called solution gas/oil
ratio. Solution gas/oil ratio is the amount of
gas that evolves from oil as the oil is
transported from the reservoir to surface
conditions. This ratio is defined in terms of
the quantity of gas and oil which appear at
the surface during production.
The surface volumes of both gas and liquid are
referred to standard conditions so that the
units are standard cubic feet per stock tank
barrel, scf/STB. Solution gas/oil ratio is also
called dissolved gas/oil ratio and occasionally
gas solubility.
The figure above shows the way the solution gas/oil ratio of
typical black oil changes as reservoir pressure is reduced at
constant temperature. The line is horizontal at pressures above
the bubblepoint pressure because at these pressures no gas is
evolved in the pore space and the entire liquid mixture is
produced into the wellbore. When reservoir pressure is reduced
below the bubblepoint pressure, gas evolves in the reservoir
leaving less gas dissolved in the liquid. Black oil is said to be
saturated when a slight decrease in pressure will allow release of
some gas. The first bubblepoint pressure is a special case of
saturation at which the first release of gas occurs. When the
black oil is above the bubblepoint pressure, it is said to be
undersaturated. An undersatruated oil could dissolve more gas if
the gas were present.
oil formation volume factor (Bo)
The volume of oil that enters the stock tank at
the surface is less than the volume of oil
which flows into the wellbore from the
reservoir. This change in oil volume, which
accompanies the change from reservoir
conditions to surface conditions, is due to 3
factors.
The most important factor is the evolution of
gas from the oil as pressure decreases from
reservoir pressure to surface pressure. This
causes a rather large decrease in volume of
the oil when there is a significant amount of
dissolved gas.
The reduction in pressure also causes the
remaining oil to expand slightly, but this is
somewhat offset by the contraction of oil due
to the reduction of temperature. The change in
oil volume due to these 3 factors is expressed
in terms of the formation volume factor per oil.
Oil formation volume factor is defined as the
volume of reservoir oil required to produce 1
barrel of oil in the stock tank. The units for
formation volume factor are reservoir barrels
per stock tank barrel.
The figure above shows the initial reservoir pressure to be
above the bubblepoint pressure of the oil. As reservoir
pressure is decreased from initial pressure to the
bubblepoint pressure, the formation volume factor
increases slightly because of the expansion of the liquid
in the reservoir. A reduction in reservoir pressure below
the bubblepoint pressure results in the evolution of gas
in the pore spaces of the reservoir. The liquid remaining
in the reservoir has less gas in solution, and
consequently, a smaller formation volume factor. If the
reservoir pressure could be reduced to atmospheric, the
value of the formation volume factor would nearly equal
1.0 rbbl/stb.
Gas formation volume factor(Bg)
 The gas formation volume factor is defined as the gas in reservoir
conditions required to produce 1 standard cubic foot of gas at the
surface.
 The units for gas formation volume factor vary.
 Sometimes units of reservoir cubic feet per standard cubic feet are

used. Reservoir cubic feet simply represent the gas volume

measured or calculated at reservoir temperature and reservoir
pressure. Often the units are reservoir units of gas per standard
cubic foot, such as:
ft3/scf
bbl/scf
ft3/Mscf
 The figure above shows the shape of a plot of gas formation volume

factor vs. reservoir pressure at constant temperature for a typical

dry gas.
Basic theory & OIIP “N”
calculation
- generale material balance
equation -
Balance material application
Given find

Volume of fluid produced original hydrocarbons

average reservoir pressure in place

Fluid PVT relationships

Volume of fluid produced average reservoir pressure

Original hydrocarbons in place average fluid saturation
Fluid PVT relationship
Development of equation
The reservoir is filled whith fluid
(oil,gaz,water) at all times:
The change in reservoir pore volume=
The change in reservoir oil volume
+the change in reservoir free gas volume
+the change in reservoir water volume
The material balance equation for
hydrocarbon reservoirs is developed by
performing a volume balance on the reservoir
pore volume. In petroleum reservoirs, the
pore volume is filled with oil, gas, and water
at all times; therefore:
The change in reservoir pore volume =
The change in reservoir oil volume +
The change in reservoir free gas volume +
The change in reservoir water volume
How does the reservoir remain
filled whith fluids during
production?
 Fluid expansion
 Pore volume compression
 Natural water influx
 Fluids (water,and/or gas) injection
How does the reservoir remain full of fluid
when oil, gas, and water are being produced
from the reservoir?

As fluids are produced from the reservoir, the

reservoir pressure drops and:
1) the remaining fluids expand
2) the overburden pressure on the reservoir
causes the pore volume to compress
3) water from adjacent aquifers flows into the
reservoir
Basic nomenclature
We can visualize the reservoir pore volume as a closed tank containing
water, oil, solution gas, and free gas, where:

Np = Cumulative Oil Production

Gp = Cumulative Gas Production
Wp = Cumulative Water Production
Gi = Cumulative Gas injection
Wi = Cumulative Water Injection
Sw = Average Water Saturation
m = Ratio of Initial Reservoir Free Gas Volume to Initial Reservoir Oil
Vol.

Also, not shown in the figure are:

N = Original oil in place at standard conditions (OOIP)

G = Original free gas in place at standard conditions
W = Original water in place at standard conditions As we have discussed
previously, the volume of fluids at standard conditions is much
different from the volume of fluids at reservoir conditions.
Derivation MBE undersaturated
reservoir
“Gas solution drive”

Assumption
 P>Pb
 No original or final gas cap
 No water influx or production
By volumetric balance
Original volume = Final volume

Original volume = NBoi

Final volume = (N-Np)Bo + volume occupied
by water and rock expansion as pressure
declines

Rock and water expansion are important in

undersaturated Reservoir.
From definition of compressibility:

Thus, change in reservoir water volume due to

pressure change:
Subscript “w” denotes water.
Compressibility is defined as unit change
(reduction) of volume per unit pressure
change.
p = pi – p is the difference between initial and
current values of average reservoir pressure.
As pressure decreases ,matrix supporting
structures collapses into pore space

Thus, change in pore volume due to pressure

change :
Subscript “f” denotes formation.
Vp is pore volume.
Compressibility is defined as unit change
(reduction) of pore volume per unit pressure
change
Total change in water volume and, pore
volume:

Note that:

 Thus:
Also;

Thus

Original oil in place occupies Vpi Soi = Vpi

(1-Swi)
 The volumetric balance become:

Solving for N:
To simplify, note:
V is oil volume.
Recall: formation volume factor is defined as
ratio of volumes of a mass of oil at reservoir
and standard conditions.
 Then;

 Substituting,
 Define;

Finally:
The equation should be used for estimating
OOIP above bubble point where rock and
water expansion are not negligible. Difficulty
in measuring cf and cw may limit accuracy
EXERCISE 1
Determine the OOIP for the undersaturated
reservoir given the data
Assumption
“Gas solution drive+Gas cap”

 No original gas cap

 No water influx or production
 Negligible rock and water expansion
By volumetric balance
Original volume = Final volume

Original oil volume = NBoi

Original free gas volume = 0
Final oil volume = (N-Np)Bo

Rock and water expansion are negligible compared

to gas expansion in saturated reservoirs
 Determine final free gas volume by
performing a gas balance

Therefore
 The volumetric balance becomes:
 To simplify note that:

 Also, since no gas evolved at

 BT is total formation volume factor

 Finally:
- general material balance
equation -
 Solving for the volume of the gas cap gives:
 Initial volume of the gas cap = G Bgi = m N

Boi
 The total volume of the hydrocarbon system

is then given by:

 Initial oil volume + initial gas cap volume =

(P.V) (1 − Swi)
 N Boi + m N Boi = (P.V) (1 − Swi)

1
1
Ginj Bginj +Winj Bw
The general MBE with account for water
encroachment, injection, production; as well
as gas injection and production is presented
here.
As we have seen in previous two examples, by
considering a case only above or only below
bubble point, some terms are zero or
negligible and the general equation can be
simplified. Further simplifications can be
made depending on a particular case of
reservoir drive mechanism, for example if no
aquifer present We =0.
Material balance
analysis
 Data requirement
 Assembling the data set
 Data QC
 Water influx
Now that we have derived the general form of
the black oil material balance equation, we
will focus on its application in black oil
reservoirs. Later, we show how the material
balance equation can be applied in natural
gas and aquifer driven reservoirs.
 Data requirement

- estimate the average reservoir pressure vs

time

-reservoir fluid PVT relationship

-reservoir cumulative production and injection

volumes
Fluid PVT relationship

 Methods for obtaining relationship

reservoir fluid study (laboratory analysis)
correlation
Potential Errors Associated With Reservoir Fluid
Studies
Sampling errors
-recombination
-unrepresentative samples
Potential Errors Associated With Correlations
Incorrect reservoir fluid description
Correlations may be inaccurate for a given
reservoir fluid
Cumulative production /injection data
 Operator records of monthly production and
injection

 Potential error
-date of first recor date of first production
- innacurate reporting of non comercial
phases
-wrong set of wells
Cumulative production data volumes are
generally the easiest information to obtain.
Most operators keep records of monthly
volumes of oil, gas, and water production from
a reservoir. Public data can have many errors
associated with them. Old wells may not have
early production reported. Also,
noncommercial phases (water and injection
volumes) may not be reported. Injection
records are rarely available from public
records.
Data preparation

 Convert all pressure data to common datum

 Plot pressure vs time for all wells
 Calculate cumulative production/injection

from reservoir
 Assemble fluid PVT data
Average reservoir pressure
Average reservoir pressure can be estimated by
shutting in wells and observing their pressure
response over time as shown by the figure
above. If a well is shut in long enough, the
bottomhole pressure in the well may
represent the average reservoir pressure.
Methods for Estimating Average Reservoir Pressure
 1) Long term shut-in
 2) Pressure transient analysis (well testing)

Potential Errors Associated With Average Reservoir

Pressure Estimates

1) Insufficient shut-in time (wells not built up)

2) Pressure gradients in reservoir
3) Inconsistent data for pressure readings
Converting pressure to common
datum

Select a datum depth corresponding to the midpoint of the

reservoir and normalize all pressures to this datum using the
equation above.
Plot of pressure vs. time
 Plotting pressure vs. time for all wells makes
it easy to identify erroneous pressure data
and wells producing from separate reservoirs.
In this plot, Well #2 appears to be in a
separate reservoir.
 Also, one of the pressures from Well #1 is not

built-up.
Black oil material balance

Straight line analysis techniques(Havlena-

Odeh)
 Assumption
 Analysis techniques
 Common pitfalls
Now that we have discussed the fundamentals
of material balance, we will illustrate its
application in black oil reservoirs. In this
section we will discuss the straight-line
techniques for analyzing volumetric black oil
reservoirs. We will start by describing the
mathematical representation of the material
balance equation as a straight line and its
underlying assumptions, analysis techniques,
and common analysis pitfalls.
Basics assumption
 Volumetric reservoir model
closed system (no fluid influx across
boundary of reservoir )

Measured pressure represent average reservoir

pressure

Black oil fluid PVT relationship are accurate

 Reservoir models
Volumetric reservoir
 The three basic black oil reservoir models for
material balance analysis are:
 Volumetric Reservoir Model (closed tank

model): The reservoir is closed and no fluid

can move across reservoir boundaries.
 Aquifer Driven Reservoir

Aquifer Driven Reservoir Model: Reservoir is

connected to an adjacent aquifer.
Water flows from aquifer into reservoir to
partially offset withdrawals.
Compartmental Reservoir Model: Reservoir is connected to other
reservoirs. Flow to and from other reservoirs can occur.
Straight-line analysis techniques
 The material balance equation as a straight
line
 Introduced by Havlena and Odeh

 Typical straight line techniques:

MBE as a straight line
 The general form of the material balance equation
previously developed can be rewritten in the form
on this slide:
The physical representation of the terms
presented are:
- F = Total production and injection into
reservoir
-NEo = Expansion of oil and originally dissolved
gas
- NmEg = Expansion of original gas cap
- NEfw = Reduction in hydrocarbon pore volume
resulting from connate water expansion and pore
volume compression
- E total = Eo + mEg + Efw
 Recall from the previous slide:

 F = Total production and injection into reservoir

 NEo = Expansion of oil and originally dissolved gas
 NmEg = Expansion of original gas-cap
 NEfw = Reduction in hydrocarbon pore volume resulting from

connate water Expansion and pore volume compression

 We can also define an additional term, Etotal, which is the

total expansion of fluid plus the total reduction in
hydrocarbon pore volume.

Etotal = Eo+mEg+Efw
Typical straight-line techniques F/E
total cumulative oil production
 The material balance equation straight-line form
can be written
F = NEtotal;

 therefore, a plot of F/Etotal vs. cumulative oil

production should yield a horizontal straight line
representing the original oil in place. If the
general trend of the data is not horizontal
straight line, then either the incorrect reservoir
model has been chosen (water influx) or the fluid
PVT relationships are not correct.
This plot can be used to estimate original oil in place;
however, other straight-line techniques generally
provide better estimates of this parameter
(especially when there is a lot of scatter in the
data). The most useful applications of this plot are:

1) Ensuring the correct reservoir model and PVT

relationships are chosen and
2) Determining the general range of uncertainty in
estimates of OOIP when average reservoir pressure
data are limited.
Typical straight-line techniques
F vs. Vtotal
The most common method for estimating
original oil in place for volumetric black oil
reservoirs is to plot F vs. Etotal. From the
straight-line form of the material balance
equation,
F = NEtotal,

 we can see that a plot of F vs. Etotal should

yield a straight line with a y-intercept of zero
and a slope equal to the original oil in place.
Drive mecanisme identification
the first step is to assume that there is no water influx (i.e. the reservoir
is undergoing volumetric depletion). Then calculate the Initial Oil in
Place (N) at every pressure from the equation:
Typical straight-line techniques
F/Eo vs. Eg/Eo
When the reservoir fluid is saturated at initial
conditions, a significant initial gas cap can be
present.Unless the relative gascap size (m) is
known, the straight-line methods previously
discussed are not applicable.
We can rewrite the straight-line solution to the
material balance equation as:
This plot should result in a straight line with the y-
intercept equal to N and a slope equal to mN. Note that
we have left out the Efw term for simplicity; for reservoirs
with an initial gas cap, this term has negligible impact.

The plot shown above was generated with simulated

pressure data. Analyzing actual field data with this plot
can be difficul because it is very sensitive to small errors
in average reservoir pressure. Because of this, m should
be estimated from this plot only when geologic estimates
have a great deal of uncertainty or
are unavailable
 Common pitfalls
using only one ananlysis technique

 Fvs.E total-exemple reservoir

The straight-line plot of F vs. Etotal generally provides the best
estimate of original oil in place; however, it should not be used
exclusively.

The F vs. Etotal analysis shown above was generated assuming

no original gas-cap. Unless the other straight-line plots are
analyzed, it is likely that this incorrect reservoir description
would
not be noticed. For the case shown above, neglecting the initial
gas cap causes the analysis to overestimate OOIP by 35%.

The plots of OOIP vs. Cum Oil and F/Eo vs. Eg/Eo should always
be used to ensure that the correct reservoir model and fluid
description are used in the analysis.
Common pitfall
incorrect reservoir model
As we have just illustrated, all straight-line
techniques should be used. The plots above
show how the incorrect reservoir model is
easily identified by the character of the F/Etotal
vs. cumulative oi production graph.

The reservoir shown above is an aquifer driven

reservoir (we will Discuss how to analyze these
reservoirs later). Ifthe water influx
from the aquifer is ignored, significant errors will
result.
Common pitfall
best-fit lines used inappropriately
The most common cause of inaccurate reservoir
pressure estimates is insufficient shut-in time, which
results in underestimating average pressure. Unless
the erroneous pressure data are removed from the
analysis, best-fit lines will underestimate original oil
in place.

When analyzing F vs. Etotal plots, an analysis line will

sometimes rest on top of a large number of data. In
general, the remaining pressure estimates are not
built up, and this is the correct analysis. The plots
above illustrate this point.
Improper selection of wells
Before a material balance analysis is carried out, the
pressure data should be screened to ensure that
all wells appear to be producing from the same
reservoir (especially in geologically complex areas
or when data are obtained from public records).

If a well in a separate reservoir has been identified,

both the production and pressure data from that
well should be removed
from the analysis.
Physically impossible results
Cumulative production>original in-place
Negative saturation

Using material balance, it is possible to get a very

reasonable match of the pressure history with physically
impossible results.Generally, this can be avoided by
calculating the saturations of oil, gas, and water over
time using the results of your material balance analysis.

Not only does this practice help flag physically impossible

results, but it can be useful in reducing the nonunique
nature of some analyses (aquifer driven reservoirs).
Exercise 2
 It is planned to initiate a water injection in the
reservoir whose PVT propreties are defined.
The intention is to maintain pressure at the
level of 2,700 psia (Pb=3,330 psia )
If the current producing gas-oil ratio of the
field is 3,000 scf/STB

What will be the initial water injection are

required to produce 10,000 STB/d of oil?
Pressure Bo Rs Bg
psia rb/stb scf/stb rb/scf

4000 1.2417 510

3500 1.248 510
3330 1.2511 510 0.00087
3000 1.2222 450 0.00096
2700 1.2022 401 0.00107
2400 1.1822 352 0.00119
2100 1.1633 304 0.00137
1800 1.145 257 0.00161
1500 1.1287 214 0.00196
1200 1.1115 167 0.00249
900 1.094 122 0.00339
600 1.0763 78 0.00519
300 1.0583 35 0.01066
Exercise 3
Exercise 4
 The cumulative oil production ,Np,and
cumulative gas-oil ration ,Rp,as function of
the average reservoir pressure over the
first10 years of production for a gas cap
reservoir follow .

 Use the Havelina-odeh approach to solve the

first initial oil and gas (both free and solution)
in place
Pressure, psia Np, million STB Rp, scf/STB Bo, RB/STB Rs, scb/STB Bg, RB/scf
 3,300 0 0 1.2511 510 0.00087
 3,150 3.295 1050 1.2353 477 0.00092
 3,000 5.903 1060 1.2222 450 0.00096
 2,850 8.852 1160 1.2122 425 0.00101
 2,700 11.503 1235 1.2022 401 0.00107
 2,550 14.513 1265 1.1922 375 0.00113
 2,400 17.73 1300 1.1822 352 0.0012
Exercise 5

 Using the follwing data ,determine the

original oil in place by the Havlena-Odeh
method .Assume that there is no water influx
and no initial gas cap,the bubbel–pont
pressure is 1,800 psia
Pressure, psia Np, million STB Rp, sct/STB Bt, RB/STB Rs, scf/STB Bg, RB/scf
1,800 0 0 1.268 577 0.00097
1,482 2.223 634 1.335 491 0.00119
1,367 2.981 707 1.372 460 0.0013
1,053 5.787 1034 1.54 375 0.00175
Gas reservoir material balance

Straight line analysis techniques

 assumption
 Devlopement
 Analysis techniques
 Common Pitfalls
In this section of the course we will show how the
general form of the material balance equation can be
greatly simplified for gas reservoir material balance.
Using this simplified solution, we will develop and
discuss the assumptions associated with straight-line
analysis techniques.

After the theoretical foundation of gas reservoir

material balance has been laid down, we will discuss
how straight-line techniques can be applied to
perform a gas reservoir material balance study.
After completing this section of the course, you should be able to:

1) Understand the difference between dry gas and wet gas

reservoir models
2) Define effective compressibility and understand when this term
has a significant impact on gas material balance analysis
3) Understand the assumptions associated with each straight-line
analysis technique
4) Perform a gas reservoir material balance analysis
5) List the common pitfalls of gas reservoir material balance
analysis
Gas reservoir MBE

The change in reservoir pore volume =

The change in reservoir gas volume +the
change in reservoir water volume
Change in reservoir pore volume
Change in reservoir gas volume
Change in reservoir water volume
Gas reservoir MBE
 More common forms of the gas reservoir
material balance equation are:
In the top equation, we have simplified the reduction in hydrocarbon pore
volume by replacing

with an effective compressibility term, ce.

In the lower equation, we have set the effective compressibility

equal to zero. In medium-to-low pressure reservoirs, effective
compressibility is small compared to the compressibility of the
gas; therefore, this assumption is justified. In high pressure
reservoirs, gas compressibility is much smaller and the effective
compressibility term cannot be ignored. We will illustrate this later
when we work through our example problems
 Outline
This presentation is organized into the following sub-sections

 Objectives
 Derivation of P/Z Equation
 Example Plot
 Aquifer influx
 Abnormally pressured reservoir
 Remarks

Material Balance Analysis for Gas Reservoirs Oct. 20 - 28, 2013

Quick look at OGIP
137
 Objectives
Material Balance helps estimate gas volume in place/identify drive mechanism

  Objectives
◦ Estimate OGIP range
◦ Estimate gas recovery factor versus reservoir pressure
◦ Identify drive mechanism
 Methodology for analysis
◦ Plot versus cumulative gas produced (G p)
◦ If the plot gives a straight line, the reservoir is volumetric
drive
 Extrapolate the line to =0
 OGIP = Gp @ =0
 Find the ultimate gas production at (P/z)abandonment

◦ If the plot declines from straight line

 Aquifer Influx
 Abnormally pressured reservoir

Material Balance Analysis for Gas Reservoirs Oct. 20 - 28, 2013

Quick look at OGIP
138
 Derivation of P/Z Equation
P/Z equation is simply derived from a volumetric balance

  
For a normally pressurized gas reservoir, the
rock/water volume changes are negligible
◦ Change in Gas Volume =

Where:
◦ G: initial gas volume, at standard conditions,
◦ Gp: volume of gas produced, at standard conditions
◦ Bg: Gas formation volume factor =

Material Balance Analysis for Gas Reservoirs Oct. 20 - 28, 2013

Quick look at OGIP
139
 Derivation of P/Z Equation (continued)
Plotting P/z versus cumulative gas production gives an estimate for OGIP

  
Production is considered to be isothermal
 Substituting Bg in the material balance equation
gives

◦ Plot of versus for a volumetric gas reservoir results in a straight

line
 Slope =
 Y intercept=
 OGIP is estimated from X intercept ( = 0)
 P is the average reservoir pressure at any given
time
Material Balance Analysis for Gas Reservoirs Oct. 20 - 28, 2013
Quick look at OGIP
140
 Example Plot
Typical p/z plot for a volumetric reservoir

Material Balance Analysis for Gas Reservoirs Oct. 20 - 28, 2013

Quick look at OGIP
141
 Aquifer influx Effect
Water influx provide pressure support and avoid pressure decline

  In presence of water influx, an extra term is added:

Material Balance Analysis for Gas Reservoirs Oct. 20 - 28, 2013

Quick look at OGIP
142
The drive indices for a gas reservoir are defined as follows:

Gas drive index:

GE g
GDI 
G p Bg

Compressibility drive index:

GE cf
CDI 
G p Bg
Water drive index:

We Bw  W p Bw
WDI 
G p Bg
Common gas reservoir models

 Volumetric dry gas reservoir

 Volumetric wet gas reservoir
 Volumetric highly compressible wet gas reservoir
 Water influx gas reservoir

The treatment of water influx gas reservoirs is

similar to water influx oil reservoirs (will be
discussed at the end of this section).
Volumetric dry gas reservoir
The figure above illustrates the volumetric dry gas reservoir
model. This model assumes that the reservoir is filled with only
gas at all times. Only gas is produced from the reservoir and the
hydrocarbon pore volume remains unchanged as the reservoir
pressure depletes.

Because of its simplicity, the volumetric dry gas material balance

model is the most common gas reservoir material balance model.
From the equation above, it can be seen that plotting p/z vs.
cumulative gas production will result in a straight line with a
yintercept equal to (p/z)i and an x-intercept equal to the original
gas in-place. This plot is commonly referred to as a p/z vs. cum
plot.
 Assumption of volumetric dry gas reservoir
model

 Hydrocarbon pore volume does not change

 Only dry gas reservoir
 Only dry gas produced
 No water influx
Volumetric wet gas reservoir
The figure above illustrates the volumetric wet gas reservoir
model. This model assumes that the reservoir is filled with only
gas at all times; however, as gas is producedfrom the reservoir,
condensate drops out of the gas. To account for this liquid production,
the condensate volumes must be converted back into their original gas
volumes at reservoir conditions. Equivalent gas production is equal to the
volume of gas produced plus the equivalent gas volume of condensate
produced.

Since this is a volumetric model, the hydrocarbon pore volume remains

unchanged as the reservoir pressure depletes.

From the equation above, it can be seen that plotting p/z vs.
cumulative equivalent gas production will result in a straight line
with a y-intercept equal to (p/z)i and an x-intercept equal to the
original equivalent gas in place.
 Assumption of geopressured wet gas
reservoir model
Straight –line analysis techniques
This plot is analogous to the OOIP vs. cumulative
oil production plot we have previously worked
with. A plot of calculated original gas in
place vs. cumulative gas production should yield a
horizontal straight line representing the original
gas in place. If the general trend of the
data is not a horizontal straight line, then either
the incorrect reservoir model has been chosen or
the fluid PVT relationships are not correct.
This plot can be used to estimate original gas in place; however, other
straight-line techniques sometimes provide better estimates of this
parameter (especially when there is a lot of scatter in the data). The
most useful applications of this plot are:

1) Ensuring the correct reservoir model and PVT relationships are

chosen and
2) Determining the general range of uncertainty in estimates of OOIP
when average reservoir pressure data are limited.

In the plot above, OGIP was calculated at each pressure using the
three different reservoir models we have previously discussed. It is
clear that the geopressured model should be used for this reservoir
since the trends of the volumetric reservoir models are sloping
downward.
P/Z vs. cumulative gas production
The straight-line plot of p/z vs. cumulative gas production is the
simplest material balance approach for estimating original gas in
place. It can also be used to estimate recoverable gas in place if
the average reservoir pressure at abandonment can be estimated. The p/z vs.
cumulative gas production plot is based
on the gas material balance equation for volumetric dry gas
reservoirs:

Thus, a plot of p/z vs. cumulative gas production will result in a

straight line with a y-intercept equal to (p/z)i and an x-intercept
equal to the original gas in place.
P/Z cumulative equivalent gas
production
The straight-line plot of p/z vs. cumulative equivalent
gas production is very similar to the p/z vs.
cumulative gas production plot shown on the previous
slide. The only difference between the two approaches
is that this method uses an equivalent gas production
that accounts for both gas and condensate
production. Thus, a plot of p/z vs. cumulative
equivalent gas production will result in a straight line
with a y-intercept equal to (p/z)i and an xintercept
equal to the original equivalent gas in place.
P/Z(1-Ce∆p) vs.cumulative
equivalent gas production
Common pitfalls in gas reservoir
material balance

 Wrong reservoir model

 Best-fit lines used inappropriately
 Improper selection of wells
 Physically impossible results
In general, the pitfalls we have mentioned for black oil reservoirs also apply to
dry and wet gas reservoirs. These include:

1) Using the wrong reservoir model

2) Improper use of best-fit lines
3) Improper selection of wells, and
4) Obtaining physically impossible results

The methods for overcoming these problems are also the same.
1) Plot the pressure vs. time for each well in the analysis to identify
erroneous pressures and wells that may be in separate reservoirs.
2) Check the plot of OGIP vs. cumulative gas production to ensure
that the correct reservoir model is being used.
3) Make sure to use best-fit lines only when appropriate and
4) Check results to ensure they make sense with the available
reservoir description.
Aquifer driven reservoir
So far, we have assumed closed reservoir
systems and ignored the effects of water
influx. When a reservoir is connected to an
adjacent aquifer, withdrawals from the
reservoir will cause the reservoir pressure to
decline. This drop in pressure causes water
from the aquifer to flow into the reservoir.
This influx tends to maintain, either partially
or wholly, the reservoir pressure.
 Small aquifer reservoir model
 Limited aquifer reservoir model
 Infinite aquifer reservoir model
The three most common aquifer models used
to calculate water influx are the small aquifer
model, the limited aquifer model, and the
infinite aquifer model. The primary difference
between these models is the size of the
aquifer.
We will discuss the assumptions and
applicability of each model and show how to
predict water influx using each of these
methods.
Small aquifer model
Limited and infinite aquifer models
 Aquifer water can expand faster than it can
follow into the reservoir

 Solution to the diffusivity equation provide water

influx as a function of reservoir pressure and time

 Propreties of the aquifer are seldom know

 Provide nonunique estimate of original

hydrocarbons in place
When the aquifer is much larger than the reservoir, the aquifer
water can expand much faster than it can flow into the reservoir.
Water influx rates are governed by the diffusivity equation for the
reservoir/aquifer system. These equations are analogous to the
equations that describe flow from the reservoir into the wellbore.

When estimating water influx, aquifer properties such as

permeability, thickness, compressibility, and areal extent are
seldom known since wells are generally not drilled into the
aquifer. When these properties cannot be accurately estimated,
the volume of original hydrocarbons in place is difficult to estimate
uniquely. This is because a small reservoir with a lot of aquifer
pressure support will behave (from a pressure-depletion
standpoint) very similar to a large reservoir with a small amount of
aquifer support.
Limited and infinite aquifer solution
 Van Everdingen and Hurst method
 Carter and Tracy method
 Fetkovich method
As mentioned previously, to estimate the water influx rates as a
function of time, we must solve the diffusivity equation, which is
shown above in dimensionless form for radial aquifer systems.
The three most popular methods for estimating water influx are
the Van Everdingen and Hurst method, the Carter and Tracy
method, and the Fetkovich method. The difference among these
approaches lies in the assumptions used to solve the diffusivity
equation.

We will discuss the basic aquifer geometries and boundary

conditions, the assumptions associated with each solution
method, and the application of these methods to estimating
cumulative water influx as a function of time and reservoir
pressure.

Finally, we will show how to analyze aquifer driven reservoirs

using material balance.
Aquifer geometries
The Van Everdingen and Hurst and the Carter and
Tracy methods assume a radial aquifer/reservoir
model. The nomenclature associated with these
models are presented above.

re - outer radius of aquifer

ro - outer radius of reservoir

Sometimes, a wedge reservoir/aquifer system is

used, where q is the angle of the wedge as shown
in the figure above.
Outer Boundary Condition
Limited aquifer

 No flow (closed aquifer)

 Constant pressure (aquifer recharge at

outcrop) infinite aquifer

Dimensionless variables
We will present solutions to the diffusivity equation in terms of
three dimensionless variables:

td - dimensionless time
Wd - dimensionless cumulative water influx
rd - dimensionless aquifer radius

The equations above are in oilfield units (defined below)

k - aquifer permeability, md
t - time, days
ф - porosity, fraction
m - aquifer water viscosity, cp
ct - total aquifer compressibility (cf+cw), 1/psi
re - external radius of aquifer, ft
ro - external radius of reservoir, ft
∆p - pressure drop (pi-p), psia
We - cumulative water influx, bbl
Van Everdingen and Hurst
Limited aquifer solution
The graph presented above shows the Van Everdingen and
Hurst limited aquifer solution. It is a solution to the
diffusivity equation that assumes

1) a constant pressure inner boundary (reservoir/aquifer

interface)

2) a closed outer boundary (no flow across aquifer outer

boundary)

3) radial flow from aquifer to reservoir

4) limited aquifer
Application of superposition to
Van Everdingen and Hurst solution
Since the pressure in the reservoir is changing over time, we must use
superposition to calculate cumulative water influx with
the constant pressure inner boundary solution.
The figure above shows how we can discretize the variable pressure history into
a series of constant pressure steps, where:

∆Pj =(Pj-1 -Pj+1)/2

 Using this discretized pressure history, we
can apply the superposition theorem to
calculate *We* using the following equation
Carter and Tracy method

 Assumes constant rate during timestep of

constant pressure
 Approximates Van Everdingen and Hurst

solution
 Does not require superposition
The Carter and Tracy method is a good approximation to the
Van Everdingen and Hurst method. Rather than use a
constant pressure inner boundary condition for each
timestep, this
approach assumes a constant rate inner boundary condition for
each timestep. This assumption allows the calculation of
water influx without using superposition.
The incremental water influx during a timestep is given by the
equation:
 Where:

 Using these equations, we can calculate

cumulate water influx as:
Carter and Tracy method
Pd vs.Td
The chart above shows the relationship
between pd and td , which was obtained by
solving the diffusivity equation for a constant
rate inner boundary condition.
Carter and Tracy method
δPd/δTd vs.t
Fetkovich Method
The Fetkovich method is based on the
assumption of boundary dominated
flow in the aquifer. Under these conditions, the
solution to the diffusivity equation can be
placed in the following form:

Where:
And J is the aquifer productivity index. We will
present equations for calculating the aquifer
productivity index on the next page.
Notice that the equation above requires us to
estimate the aquifer pressure. We can
accomplish this by performing a material
balance calculation on the aquifer. The
equation for the aquifer material balance is:
Calculating aquifer productivity idex
The slide above shows equations for calculating the
value for productivity index for various aquifer
geometries in outer boundary conditions. The
pseudosteady-state outer boundary condition
represents an aquifer that is closed along its outer
boundary. The steady-state outer boundary condition
represents an aquifer that is being recharged at an
outer boundary by water flowing across the boundary
at constant pressure. The steadystate outer boundary
condition can be physically represented by
an aquifer that is being recharged at a surface outcrop.
Van Everdingen and Hurst aquifer model
Van Everdengin and Hurst presented solutions to the diffusivity
equation that are more rigorous than the other methods that we
have discussed. However, to solve the diffusivity equation, they
had to assume that the geometry of the reservoir aquifer system
was either radial, linear, or a wedge. Also, the solutions were not
presented in terms of real time but rather Laplace space. To
apply these solutions, the values for dimensionless, cumulative
water influx must be obtained from tables or obtained by
numerically inverting the Laplace transform. Furthermore, these
solutions require superposition to be correctly calculated. This is
a very time-consuming process.
Carter and Tracy aquifer models
To eliminate the need for superposition, Carter and Tracy
provided a close approximation to the rigorous Van Everdingin
and Hurst solution. This solution correctly handles the transition
from transient to pseudosteady-state flow, just as the Van
Everdingin and Hurst solution; however, solution does not require
the use of superposition. Similar to the Van Everdingin and Hurst,
Carter and Tracy had to assume that the aquifer was either radial,
linear, or wedge shape to solve the diffusivity equation. Also, the
solutions are presented in terms of Laplace space and must be
inverted back to real time using a numerical inversion technique.
Fetkovich aquifer models
The simplest aquifer solution, from a calculation
standpoint, is the Fetkovitch aquifer model. This
solution does not require superposition and
presents the final equations in terms of real
time. To accomplish this, Fetkovitch assumed that
the flow in the aquifer is dominated by boundary
effects; thus, transient flow isignored. If the
aquifer is very large compared to the reservoir,
using this model will result in significant errors.
Modifying material balance equation
for water in flux
 Black oil
 Wet gas :
Estimating initial hydrocarbons in
place aquifer driven reservoirs

 Estimate original oil in place

 Calculate water influx using the material

balance equation
 Match water influx with analytical model
 Include the model rate into material balance

analysis and observe pressure history match

 Repeat process until best fit of reservoir

pressure data is obtained

Calculating water influx from
material balance equation
Matching cumulative water influx
with analytical model
Matching pressure history with
analytical water influx rates
 Analytical method

(NP *Bo  Np *Bg *(RP Rs ) WP *Bw Wi Gi *Bg  N*(Bo Boi )
Pi P 
(N*Boi *(Cw *Sw Cf )/(1Sw))

Pi  P  f  p 0