Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12



Sodety of Petrdem Engineers

SPE 35589 MB Solution for High Pressure Gas Reservoirs

by Adel M. Elsharkawy, Petroleum Engineering Department- Kuwait University
SPE Member COPwubI 19%. SOCICIY of PeIIoleum
lhia paper wCanada, IiIM papa contmcd revwwed mattid 28 April to I May .t99b was selected for wtabon h an &.tract w presttksi subimtted by the SOCKIY of Pekokum by m SPE PM@III by tbe auOIcH(s) Engmem Commmee follomng rewew of in fornuhon have been lhe os by the moJIor(s) En@mcm Etwucm. Inc. Conference held m CalSWY,

prepared for presentation at Oie SPE Gas Technolqy


of the paper. IM prcsenterl

and we subject to correction

does ml nc.=smry of petroleum may

re!kct any p.omti Engtwen Pemusswtt

of the Sccwty of PIXIVkUm

officers, or member! Cotnmuttms more than 300 words acknowledgment


papers Wesentcd at SPE mccdngs arc subject to pubbcaiion IUW@akm.s not be COPA IA. paper u pr-ted The Ibsbscf

review by Editond cc+IspictIoiM SPE, P O

of the Soaety

10 copy M restricted to m abstract of nol should contwt MaI!sser Write Libranm

of where and by whcin TX 750S3-3836.



U S A , Ftx 01-2 i 4952-9435

ABSTRACT Accurate estimation of the initial gas in-place for high-pressuregas reservoirs is quite oflen diflicult because of the effect of formation compressibility and the uncertain presence of water influx from small, associated aquifer or adjacent shales. This paper presents a material balance solution for estimating the initial gas in-place and predicting the prevailing production mechanism for high-pressure gas reservoirs. The material balance solution incorporates water influx from aquifer, water intlux from shale, formation expansion, connate water expansion, and formation of condensate. Application of the proposed solution to four case histories of high-pressure gas reservoirs shows that this solution would successfirllyestimate the IGIP after production of 15/0 of the initial gas in-place and predict the prevailing reservoir production mechanism. In comparison with the available methods, the proposed solution requires no prior assumptions abut the formation compressibility, aquifer size, or volume of adjacent shales. INTRODUCTION Accurate estimation of the initial gas in-place (IGIP) plays an essential role in the evaluation. analysis, prediction of tirture performance, and making economic decision regarding development of gas reservoirs. Estimation of lGIP is also needed for planning long term gas contracts and commitments to supply gas to users.

The principle methods for predicting lGIP are the volumetric method and the material balance method. The volumetric method is based on geological data to define the reservoir areal extent and also on core and log data to define the reservoir rock properties and distribution of fluids inside the reservoir. The volumetric method provides a sketchy estimate for the IGIP, specially in the early history of the reservoir, and provides neither prediction of the future production as a function of the reservoir pressure nor interpretation of the resewoir producing mechanism. However, the material balance method is based on pressure-production data for estimating the initial gas in-place. The simplest method is to plot P/Z Vs Gp and extrapolate to zero-pressure. The method is derived from the material balance equation with the assumption that gas expansion is the sole driving mechanism responsible for gas production from gas reservoir. This assumption is valid for low pressure, completely sealed off Volumetric gas reservoirs. However, if the gas reservoir is in contact with an aquifer or a massive amount of uncompacted shale, the pressure drop in the gas reservoir, may cause water influx because of gas production, As a result of this pressure support from water influx, the extrapolation of the P/Z Vs Gp of the early data to zero pressure is not a valid means to estimate the IGIP. Further, if the reservoir initially has abnormally high formation compressibility, as observed in some high pressure gas reservoirs, the rate of pressure drop may increase with gas production. This is due to the fact that the compaction of the reservoir rock will provide pressure support at the high pressure level. Some of these abnormal pressure gas reservoirs contain retrograde gases. If the reservoir pressure drops below the dew-point pressure, retrograde condensation occurs. Because the liquid condensate has lower compressibility than the gas, the rate of pressure decline would accelerate. Atso, the formation of condensate inside the reservoir rock might reduce the gas permeability resulting in less gas production and hence an accelerated pressure drop in a units gas production. Several material balance methods have been proposed to estimate the initial gas in-place for abnormally high pressure gas reservoirs1-7. These methods can be divided into three



SPE 36689

groups. The first group comprises the methods described by Hammerlindl 1, Ramagost and Farshad3, and Begland and Whitehead4. These methods use knowledge of formation compressibility to estimate the initial gas in-place. The second group uses graphical or least square solution to simultaneously determine the IGIP and the overall formation compressibility. These methods, however, do not quanti~ the prevailing production mechanism. This grou comprises the material balance solutions described by Roach5 for the former and Bernard5for the latter. The third group uses type curve matching or matching overall reservoir compressibility calculated from the material balance equation to that calculated based on rock and water compressibilities and volume of non-pay sand or aquifer, This group comprises the solution described by Ambatha6 for the former solution and Fetkovitch et al. 7 for the latter solution. The type curve matching solution provides a range for possible answers for the IGIP and the total reservoir compressibility. The compressibility matching solution, however, provides IGIP and aquifer or non-pay sand to reservoir size. This solution is sometimes d~fllcult and time consuming because of the nonunique matching and the sensitivity of the pressure data, the assumed IGIP, the formation compressibility and the aquifer size8. The objective of present study is to develop an easy material balance solution that incorporates all possible sources of expansion in a high-pressure gas reservoir. This solution can be used to estimate the IGIP, predict the production mechanism and calculate the volume of the aquifer or nonpay sands associated with the gas resewoir.


CaVa (pi -P)


Where Ca is the effective compressibility of the aquifer, Ca = ~ + Cf, Va is the aquifer pore volume, and (Pl -P) is the cumulative pressure drop. 2) Shale Water Influx Water influx from shale into the gas reservoir (caused by shale compaction adjacent to the gas reserwoir) can be modeled as barrier type11 as, Ws = Csvs ( Ps - P) (3)

In such case the amount of water irdlux from shale (Ws), is proportional to the difference between shale pressure (p~) which is assumed to be equal to the initial reservoir pressure (pi) and the current reservoir pressure(p). The constant, CsVs, is a fimction of the pore volume and compressibility of the shale.

3) Formation Ex~ansion The formation expansion can be treated as a linear function of pressure. However, some authors 1~3*12 interpreted the downward curvature in the P/Z Vs Gp plot as caused by compaction of the formation resulting m changing rock compressibility as a t%nction of pressure. 0thers5,7 interpreted the curvature as characteristics of the high-pressure gas reservoirs not necessarily resulting from changing rock compressibility or rock collapse. The theo~ of changing rock compressibility as a fimction of pressure has little suppon. Jogi et al, 13 and Sinha et al, 14 measured rock compressibility for samples taken from abnormally high pressure resemoirs. They reported rock compressibility at high pressure in the order of 2 to 5X104 psi-l. If the rock has been compacted or average effective rock compressibility is assumed, the expansion in reservoir pore volume can be described as.

THE MATERIAL BALANCE SOLUTIONS In order to develop a general material balance solution, all sources of expansion such as water influx from aquifer, shale water influx, formation expansion, connate water expansion and the formation of condensate must be considered. 1) Water Influx from Associated Aauifer Water influx from the aquifer into the reservoir can be generally expressed as;

GB. Alp=( --&-)[c~~


- z)]


we = a q(p,t)


4) Connate water ExDansion The change in the volume of conmte water within the gas reservoir because of the pressure drop can be described as a fhnction of the volume of the connate water, the water compressibility, and the pressure drop in the reservoir as,

Where a is an aquifer constant and P is aquifer function. However, if the aquifer associated with the abnormal pressure gas reservoir is small, then it can be modeled as a tank9~10, otherwise as an unsteady state involving pressure gradient. Irr this tank model, water influx from the associated aquifer to the reservoir can be described by;

AVW=( --&xswcw(~

- P)]



SPE 35688


The water pressure is assumed to be the same as the reservoir pressure because of the equilibrium condition and neglecting the capillary pressure effect. 5) Expansion of Condensate Theexpansion of the condensate can be incorporated in the gas expansion by using the two phase gas deviation factor in place of the gas compressibility factor below the dew-point pressure. The Material Balance Eauation The material balance equation which accounts for all sources of expansion which are previously discussed, can be expressed as,
G(Bg-Bgl)+We+W~ +AVW+ AVP =


B, - B,,


+ GuKc)Bg

+ WPBW (9)

where o = {( H)

Ce+ Ca a + Cs Vs}

The above equation can be solved graphically or using least square. However, initial scatter in the pressure-production data might tiect the answer from least square. Equation (9), shows that the solution plot as;


(Gp + G.p)Bg+ PBW B, - B,,


the y-axis versus X=

(Gp + %JWg

BgWp Bw


(~ -P) Bg - Bg,

on the x-axis result in straight line with intercept

Substituting equations (1) through (4) in equation (6) result in:

G B,,
G(Bg - Bgl) + Ca Va ( PI -p) + Cs Vs (p] -p)+ (~)

at the y-axis equal the initial gas in place and a slope equal the constant CT Thus the initial gas in-place can be estimated from the intercept, without prior assumptions about value of the aquifer size, shale volume, or formation compressibility, In addition, the slope can be used as an indication of the reservoir driving mechanism,




Cf(Pi- P) (7)


of the General Material Balance Eauation

= (Gp + ~L Kc) Bg +


Equation (7) is a material balance for high-pressure gas resewoirs that incorporates shale water influx, connate water and formation expansion. These terms are significant for high-pressure gas reservoirs. Usually, they are neglected from the material balance equation for normal pressure gas reservoirs. Collecting the pressure drop terms together and defining Sw Cw + Cf = Ce in equation (7) result in ;

The Solution plot of equation (9) results in simultaneous estimation of the IGIP and prediction of the production mechanism. This would be illustrated by application of the before-mentioned solution technique to some well-known, high pressure gas reservoirs. Pressure production data for these reservoirs are given in tables(1) through (4).


G (Bgl -Bg)+{(


Ce + Ca a+

Cs Vs}(Pi -P)= (8)

(Gp + GPL c) Bg Wp

Arrangement of the material balance equation as a straight line had been made long agol 5-17 but it was not until Havlena and CMeh18 presented their work that the method became fully exploited 9. Dividing both sides of equation (8) by (Bg - Bgi) results in,

The north Ossum field, NS2B reservoir is located in Lafayette, Parish, Louisiana, The reservoir was discovered in 1959, It has an initial pressure of 8921 psi at 12,500 feet. The reservoir history was originally reported by Harville & Hawkins12 and analyzed by Ramagost & Farshad3. Connate and average porosity as water saturation was reported as The resewoir permeability is 200 md, Initial gas inplace was calculated from good volumetric data, based on core and well logs, as 114 BSCF. Harville and Hawkins proposed that during early life, pressure was partially sustained by high rock compressibility resulting from rock failure. After the production of 20 BSCF, rock failure was
3Lt0/0 2Lt~0.




SPE 36689

essentially completed to normal rock compressibility of 6 x However, Burgoyne et al.20 proposed water 10-6 psi-l. intlux from shale as a possible explanation of such pressure support, P/Z Vs Gp plot for this reservoir, Figure (l), exhibits downward curvature indicating some pressure support as the reservoir is depleted. Extrapolation of the early data for this reservoir yield apparent gas in-place of about 220 BSCF which is nearly twice the volumetric estimate of the IGIP. After production of 20 BSCF (17 % of the IGIP) at 6500 psi pressure drop), the second slope of P/Z Vs Gp plot (27 started. Extrapolation of the production data from 20 to 40 BSCF yields gas in-place of 118 BSCF which is in good agreement with the volumetric estimate. Thus, the true gas in of the place could not be estimated from P/Z plot until IGIP was produced.
V. ss~.

complete pressure-production data was presented by Ramagost & Farshad3. Volumetric estimate of IGIP is 470 BSCF based on core and log data, Many authors3~22 have studied the pressure-production history of the field. They estimated an IGIP of 470 BSCF assuming abnormal formation compressibility of 20 x 104psi-1. Ambatha6, however, calculated IGIP between 410-760 BSCF but did not explain the reservoir producing mechanism. The average porosity for this reservoir is not reported and Fetkovitch e~ af, 7 used formation compressibility of 4 (104) Psi-1 to estimated IGIP of 650 BSCF and an associated water volume ratio of 0,2 using the pressure data above 6850 psi. These estimates could have been different if the reservoir pressure data down to 4170 psi, (Gp = 52% of IGIP), had been used. P/Z Vs Gp plot of Cajun reservoir, Figure (3), shows downward curvature, The curvature started at 5827 psi after the production of 182 BSCF which represents 39% of the initial gas in-place. Estimation of IGIP based on early data yield lGIP of 680 BSCF, which is 140?4. the volumetric estimate. Extrapolation of the pressure production data, 148-246 BSCF, yield an IGIP of 480 BSCF. Thus, the P/Z plot can not be used to estimate the true initial gas in place until 504 of the initial gas in place is produced. Application of the material balance solution for this reservoir, Figure (4), yields an estimate of IGIP of 462 BSCF and slope of 5184 bbl/psi, (correlation coet%cient, R=O.911 4). This estimate of IGIP from material balance agrees with the volumetric estimate, Analysis of the slope, assuming the reservoir is volumetric, indicated that the reservoir has total effective compressibility, 18.37 (10-6) Psi-l, indicating support from water influx. If the reservoir porosity is =3.5 X 10-6 psi-l), a water volume assumed to be of 561 MM bbl is calculated from the slope. This water volume is equivalent to water to reservoir volume ratio of 2.0.
24/0 ( Cf

Application of the material balance solution discussed in this paper, Figure (2), yields an IGIP of 121 BSCF and slope of 1983 bbl/psi. If the reservoir is assumed to be depletion drive, an effective compressibility in the order of 18.36 (lOA) psi-l is calculated from the slope. This high compressibility is an indication of pressure support from water infiux. Based on rock compressibility measurements reported by Jogi et al. 13 and Sinha et al, 14, a formation compressibility of 3.5 (10+) psi-l from Halls2correlation is used to calculate the volume of the water body responsible for that pressure support. An aquifer pore volume of 188 MM bbls is calculated that is equivalent to an aquifer to reservoir ratio of 1.74. It is important to note that the reservoir has GWC, at 12,580 ft. which was not considered by other authors3~12~20 in their analyses. Our material balance analysis indicates that the major production mechanism is water influx, from aquifer to reservoir volume ratio of 1.74, is supported by the presence of GWC at 12,580 ft. The material balance solution discussed in this paper could estimate the IGIP after 13%gas production compared to 35!40 gas production from the P/Z plot. A sample calculation of the aquifer to reservoir volume ratio is given in the appendix. Comparison of the results from this study and pervious studies for this reservoir is presented in table (5). It is clear that the proposed material balance solution is able to estimate the initial gas in-place and predict the prevailing driving mechanism.

The downward cuwature in this reservoir of the P/Z Vs Gp plot, Figure (3), was caused by water influx as indicated from analysis of the slope of Figure (3). The material balance solution presented in this paper could estimate the IGIP after 16% gas production of the initial in-place compared to 50% gas production from the P/Z Vs Gp plot, Comparison of the results from the present study as well as the others, table (6), indicate the advantage of the proposed solution to the prior solutions.

Caiun Field

Anderson L Reservoir

This is a Louisiana offshore gas reservoir discovered in 1966. The reservoir has initial pressure of 11,450 psi at 13,300 feet. The pressure-production history of the field from Jan. 66 to Sept. 73 was introduced by Stelly & Farshad22. The

The Anderson L reservoir is an abnormally high pressure discovered in 1965, with initial pressure of 9507 psi at 11,100 ft. The reservoir data and history were presented by Duggan23, It was assumed that the resewoir was depletion


SPE 36689


drive because the reservoir is separated from other blocks by faults and analysis of the fluids from surrounding blocks showed different fluids. The reservoir has 1000 feet or more of uncompacted shales. It contains retrograde gas that has a dew point pressure of 6700 psi. Some wells were produced with as much as 50 percent draw down. All wells produced with more than 25 percent draw down are off production. The reservoir was completely abandoned after production of 55 BSCF because of excessive water production. The he analyz* Thee=woir~kn Production mechanism of Begland and Whitehead4 this reservoir is ve~ controversial. matched the production history using IGIP of 70 BSCF and assuming changing formation compressibility. Poston and Chen24, Rarnagost and Farshad3, and Ambatha25 estimated the IGIP in the range of 65 to 75 BSCF and reservoir compressibility of 14 (104) Psi-1, but they give no explanation for the high compressibility. On the other hand, Fetkovitch et al. 7 calculated an IGIP of 76 BSCF and an associated water volume of 2.25 the reservoir volume assuming formation compressibility of 3.2 (104) psi-1 by using a total compressibility match procedure. The pressure-production history of the reservoir, Figure (5), shows downward curvature. The curvature started at 5764 psi after production of 257. of the IGIP. Extrapolation of pressure-production data from P/Z plot below 4766 psi (Gp = 23 to 38.6 BSCF) project an lGIP of 75 BSCF. Thus, the P/Z plot could not estimate the true IGIP until 40-50% of the initial gas in place was produced. Our material balance solution, Figure (6), shows an intercept of 77 BSCF and slope of 878 bbl/psi, (correlation coefficient, R= O .8276). This estimate of IGIP agrees with those repted by previous authors3~4~7125.If the reservoir is assumed to be depletion drive, a total effective compressibility of 13.4 (104) Psi-l is calculated from the slope indicating support from shale-water influx. A formation compressibility estimated from Halls correlation 1 of 3.25 (104) Psi-1 is used to calculate the volume of the water body from the slope. Water volume of 60.52 MM bbls is calculated. This volume is equivalent to a non-pay sand to reservoir ratio of 0.92.
The estimated IGIP and the non pay sand to resetvoir ratio from the current materia[ balance analysis agree with those However, the estimated by Fetkovitch et cd,, table (7). current material balance method is simpler and require no assumption for the IGIP or the size ratio to find a match. The material balance solution discussed in this pa~r could estimate the IGIP after 150/ of the initial gas in place is production from the produced as compared to the P/Z Vs Gp plot. Water influx from non pay sand (Shale) in addition to the formation of condensate below dew point
40-50%. gas

have reduced the gas permeability and caused the downward curvature of the P/Z Vs Gp.
Miocene Reservoir


Miocene reservoir is abnormally high pressure with an initiat pressure of 10,984 psi. The reservoir is located in South Louisiana. Pressure-production data for this reservoir is reported by Burgoyne et al. 20 and Hubble26. The reservoir has a dew point pressure of 7000 psi. Porosity and water saturation are not reported but assumed to be 24XO and 34/0 respectively, as a typical of values for Gulf Coast Reservoirs. IGIP from volumetric data is estimated to be 16 BSCF. P/Z Vs Gp plot for this resewoir, Figure (7), shows downward curvature. Extrapolation of pressure production data above 8789 psi projects IGIP of 47 BSCF which is overestimated by a factor of 3, Extrapolation of the late production data (7064 -2723 psi) yield IGIP of 16.2 BSCF. Thus, the correct IGIP could not be estimated from the pressure versus production plot until 40!7. of the IGIP was produced. The result obtained using the material balance solution presented in this paper, Figure (8), shows an intercept of 11.75 (IGIP) and a slope of 564 bbl/psi. However the plot shows a lot of scatter (coefficient of correlation, R=O.8512). A total effective compressibility of 59.09 ( IOA) psi-l was calculated from the slope indicating high pressure support from water influx. A formation compressibility of 3.5 (106)psl-1 from Hall correlation 1 was used to catculate the volume of the water body. A pore volume of 77.59 MM bbls of aquifer or non pay sands was calculated. This water volume is equivalent to aquifer to reservoir volume ratio of 8.13. This volume of none-pay sand (shale) is slightly greater than the size assumed for the proposed solution in equation (3). Probably, this is the reason for the scatter and lack of fitness in figure (8). The curvature of the P/Z plot for this resemoir was caused by intrusion of water influx and formation of condensate inside the reservoir. The materiaJ balance solution presented in this study could estimate the IGIP after 22?4.gas production compared to the P/z plot which could not estimate the IGIP until 40% of the IGIP was produced. Comparison of the results from this study and others are presented in table (8).

CONCLUSIONS Initial gas in-place for abnormally high-pressured gas reservoirs can not be estimated, from the P/Z Vs Gp plot until as much as 40 to 507. of the IGIP is produced. The material



SPE 3ss89

balance solution plot presented in this paper requires neither prior assumptions (formation compressibility, or aquifer size) nor matching procedure. However, it can be used to simultaneously estimate the IGIP and a constant (slope) that can be used to calculate the aquifer size or non-pay sand, and predict the reservoir prevailing production mechanism. The case histories discussed in this paper showed downward cuwature of the P/Z Vs Gp plot. These curvatures are caused by water influx from aquifer, water irdlux from shales, and the formation of condensate below dew-point which reduced the gas permeability.


Hasmnerlindl, D. J.: Predicting Gas Reserves in Abnonrmlly Pressured Reservoirs, SPE Paper 3479 Presented at the 1971 SPE Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1971.

2- Roach, R. H.: Analyzing Geopressured Reservoirs A Material Balance Technique, Unsolicited paper SPE,8868, 1981, 3- Raraagost, B. P., and Farshad, F. F. : P/Z Abnormally
Pressured Gas Reservoirs, SPE 10125, Presented at the 50th Annual Meeting, Ssta Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-7, 1981.

4- Begland, T. F., and Whitehead W, R., :Depletion Performance ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to thank Kuwait University for the financial support for this study, research grant No. EPO06.
of Volumetric High Pressure Gas Reservoirs, SPERE, August 1989.279-282

5- Bernard, W. J.: Reserve Estimation and Performance Prediction

for Geopressured Gas Reservoirs, Journal of Pet. Science& Eng, 1(1987) 15-21.

6- Ambatha, K. A. :A Type-Curve Matching Procedure for NOMENCLATURE

Material Balance Analysis of Production Data from Geopressured Gas Reservoirs, JCPT, Vol. 30, No. 5, Sept,Get. t991,61-63.

B c P G + %p Kc M P R s a v We Ws

. . . . = . . . . . . . . . . .

Aquifer constant Formation volume factor Compressibility Aquifer fimction Initial gas in-place Cumulative produced gas Cumulative produced condensate Conversion factor Aquifer to reservoir size Reservoir pressure Coefficient of Correlation Saturation Slope of MB solution Pore volume Water intlux from aquifer Water inilux from shale

7- Fetkovitch, M, J., Reese, D. E., aad Whitson, C, H.:

Application of a General Material Balance for High Pressure Gas Reservoir, Paper SPE 22921, Presented at the 66th ,%mual Tecluical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas TX, Oct, 6-9, 1991.

8- Elsharkawy, A. M. Analytical and Numerical Solutions for

Estimating the Gas Ia-Place for Abnormal Pressure Reservoirs, SPE paper No. 29934, 1995.

9- Rossen, R. H. : A Regression Approach to Estimate Gas lnplace for Gas field, JPT, Oct., 1975, 1283-1289,

lo- Wang, B. and Teasadle, T. S. : GASWAT-PC: A

Microcomputer Program for Gas Material Balance with water Intlux, SPE 16484, Presented at the Petroleum Industsy Application in del Lage On Lake Conroe, Montgomery.

SUBSCRIPTS a e f g i P s w = = = = = = = = aquifer effective formation gas initial pore shale water

11- Wallace, W. E.: Water production from Abnormally Pressured

gas Reservoirs in South Louisiana, JPT, August 1969,969983.

12- Harville, D. W., and Hawkins, M. F.: Rock Compressibility

and Failure as Reservoirs Mechanisms in Geopressured Gas Reservoirs, JPT, Dee., 1969, 1528-1550.

13- Jogi, P. N., Gray, K. E. , and Ashman, T. R.: Compaction

Measurements on Cores from the Pleasant Bayou Wells, Proc. of the 5th Conference of Geopressured-Geothermal Energy, Oct. 13-15, 1981, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

14- Sinha, K. P. , Holland, M. T., Borschel, T, F. and Schatz, J. P.:

Mechanical and Geological Characteristics of Rocks Samples


SPE 35689


from Sweezy No, I Well at Parcperdue Geopressured Geothermal Sit. US Department of Energy, 1981.

15- Brown-Scomb, E. R., Collins, F. :Estimation of Reserve and

Water Drive from Pressure and Production Historyn, Trans. AIME ( 1949), Vol. 186,92-94.

7Z Bgi= 5.04 ~
gi = 0589 bbw

5.04 (240 + 460) 1,473 8921


16- Van Everdirgen, A, F., Timmerman, E. H., and Mc Mahen, J. J,

Application of Material Balance Equation to Partial Water, b(1953) Vol. 198, 51.


= ( ,_~)ce+cava+csv5

17- Mc Ewerr, C. R. :Material Balance Calculations with Water

Jnflux in the Presence in Uncertainty in Pressures, Sot. Pet. Eng. J. , June 1962, 120-128.


Assuming no water influx from shale or aquifer

1tl- Havlena, D., and Odeh, A. S. :The Material Balance Equation

as an Equation of Straight Line, JPT (August 1963), 896-900. 19- Wall, C. G., and Craven-Walker, A. :Material Balance Analysis of Partial Water Drive Reservoirs, Journal of the Institute of Petroleum, Vol. 53, No (528) December 1967,408412.


G Bg,



121(109) 0.589(10-3) (1 - 0.34)

c e

Ehrrgoyne, A. I., Hawkins, M. F., Lavaquail, F. P., and Wickenhauser, T. L. :Shale Water as a Pressure Support Mechanism in Super Pressure Reservoirs, SPE 3851,1972. Hall, H. N. :Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks, Trans., AJME(1953), 198, 309-311. Stelly, O. V., and Farshad, F. F. :Predicting Gas In-Place in Abnormal Reservoirs, Pet. Eng. M., June 1981, 104-110


18.36 (10-6)

is high indicating support

The effective compressibility from aquifer,


II. Assuming water influx from aquifer (GWC at 12,580 ft).


23- Duggan, J. O.: The Anderson L - An Abnormally Pressured

Gas Reservoir in South Texas, JPT, Feb. 1972, P 132-138

Ce =
Ca =

l-SW =




= 6.S78 (10-6 )Psi - 1

Poston S. W., and Chen, H. Y.: The Simultaneous Determination of Formation Compressibility and Gas Irr-Place in Abnormal Pressure Reservoir, SPE 16227, 1987.

Cw + Cf =3.05 +3.58

25- Ambatha, A. K.: Evaluation of Material Balmce Analysis for

Volumetric Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoir, JCPT, Vol. 32, No. 8, 1993, 19-2

slope =


) Ce + Cava

26- Hubble. O. A. :in Situ Calculation of Average Effective Shale

Compressibility, MS thesis, IJniversity of H;uston, 1971.


121(10 )0.589( 10-3)

6.578(104) Va

6.916 (10+) +


Intercept (IGIP) Slope
= 121 BSCF


188 MM bbls

= 1983 bbl/psi Initial pressure = 8921 psi Temperature = 240 Deg. F Gas Dev. Fat., Z = 1.473

pore Volume = (G Bgi/l-Sw) = 121.589/(1 - .34) = 108 MM bbls Aquifer to reservoir vohrme ratio,


= ~=1.74 ,08



SPE 36689

Table 1- Pressure-production

History for NS2B Reservoir

Pressure Psia

8921 1.473 8845 1.465 8322 1.400 7417 1,288 6838 1.219* 6064 1.130* 5490 1.075* 478 I 0.967 0.887 4104 * two phase Z factor ** include condensate

Cumulative Gas Production ** BSCF 0.00 0.66 3.33 10.40 15.59 23.97 27.85 33.7 40<1

Table 2- Pressure-production

History for Cajun Field

Pressure Psi 11444 10674 10131 9253 8574 7906 7380 6847 6388 5827 5409 5000 4500 4170

z 1.496 1.438 .397 .330 .280 .230 .192 .154 1.122 1.084 1.057 1.033 1.005 0,988

Cumulative Gas Production BSCF 0 10 29 56 78 101 120 145 161 182 198 216 236 246


SPE 36689


Table 3- Pressure-production

History for Anderson L Reservoir

BHP (Psia)

z Factor

Cumulative Gas production m cm

Condensate (M bbls)

9507 9292 8970 8595 8332 8009 7603 7406 7002 6721 5535 5764 4766 4295 3750 3247

1.440 1.418 1.387 1.344 1.316 1.282 1.239 1.218 1.176 1.147 1.127 1.048 0.977 0.928 0.891 0.854

392.5 1642.2 3225.8 4260.3 5503.5 7538.1 8749.2 10509.3 11758.9 12789.2 17262.5 22890.8 28144.6 32566.7 36819.9

29.9 122,9 240,9 317,1 406.9 561.2 650,8 776,7 864,3 939.5 1255.3 1615.8 1913.4 2136.0 2307.8

Table 4- Pressure-production

history for Miocene Reservoir

Pressure Psi 10984 10156 9924 9703 8936 9222 8789 8313 7064 6250 4928 2723

z i .650 1,580 1.560 1.540 1.490 1.460 1.440 1,390 1.250 1,150 0.960 0.880

Total Gas Production BSCF 0.000 0,482 0.648 0.850 2.505 2.634 3.366 3.957 5,251 6,086 7,608 10.589




SPE 355B9

Table 5- Material Balance Results for NS2B Reserwoir (Volumetric estimate = 114 BSCF)



Cf-= 28xIO+ Vsh Psi-l
Csh, Ksh,


Production Mechanism


Shale prOpWtleS, Ramagost & Farshad (1981) Present study 114 121

rock collapse Shale water influx

Cf =25 x 10-6 Psil ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ..

Assume reek collapse Water to reservoir volume= 1.74

Table 6- Material Balance

Results for Cajun Field ( Volumetric estimate = 470 BSCF) IGLP,


BSCF 470 470 650 410-650 462


Production Mechanism

Stelly & Farshad (1981) Ramagost&Farshad(1981) Fetkovitch et al, (1991) Ambatha ( 199l) Present study

Cf = 26x104 Psi-l Cf= 19x10% Psi-l Water to reservoir volume= 0.2

Volumetric reservoir

Assume rock collapse Assume rock collapse Water influx

---------------------------Water to reservoir volume= 2.0

.. .. ..... .. ..... ...... .. .. ..- ----

Table 7- Materiat Balance Results for Anderson L Reservoir ( Volumetric estimate= IGIP, BSCF

70 BSCF)



Production Mechanism

Ramagost&Farshad(1981 ) Begtand & Whitehead (1989) Fetkovitch et al. (J991 ) Ambatha (1993) Present study


76 57-103 77

Cf = 15x10-6 Psi-l Variable rock and water compressibilities Water to reservoir volume= 2.25 Volumetric reservoir
-------------------------- -------

Assume rock collapse Assume rock collapse Water influx . .... .. .. .----------------Water to reservoir volume= 1.92

Table 8- Material Balance

Results for Miocene Reservoir (Volumetric estimate= IGIP, BSCF

16 BSCF)



Production Mechanism

Burgoyne et al (1972) Present study

16 11.75

Shale properties, Csh, Ksh, Vsh . ..... .. ..... ...... .... .. ... .. ...

Shale water influx Water to reservoir volume= 8.13


SPE 3S589



6000 200 7. ~ 15(J
m >

5000 ~ 4000 $3000 2000



Y =1983x+121 R2 = 0.8276

0 0
50 150 100 Gp, BSCF 200 250

O* 0.00

0.04 0.02 X, PS1/BBUBSCF 0.06

Fig. l-P/Z Vs Gp for NS2B reservoir, Ossun field

Fig. 2- Material Balance Solution plot for NS2B Resetvoir



500 ; :. 400

- 4000 & L 2000

y = 5184.3x+ 462.04 R2 = 0.9114

300 I 200 I



100 200 300 400 500 600 700


100 { o ------ --+---~ 0.00 0.02


0.04 X, PS1/bbl/Bscf
Cajun Reservoir

Fig. 3-P/Z VS Gp for Cajun reservoir


4- Material Balance Solution Plot for



120 100- ~80~6040y = 878.34X+ 77.282

R= 0.9324

5000 z n 4000 N Q 3000 2000

0 0

20 t i 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05





100 120 140


GP, BSCF Fig5-P/Z VSGPfor Anderson L Reservoir

X, PWBBUBSCF Fig. 6-Material Balance Solution plot for Anderson L reservoir



g 400(3 g 3000

45 40 ~
~ >-

@ e y = 563.94x+

35 30

R2 = 0.8512

20 1/


05101520253035404550 GP, BSCF

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 X, PSHBBUBSCF
Fig. 8- Material Balance Soltuion Plot for

Fig. 7-P/Z Vs Gp for Miocene Reservoir

Miocene Reservoir