SPE 68666

Analysis of a Non-Volumetric Gas-Condensate Reservoir

L. Vega, Texas A&M University, M.A. Barrufet, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 1719 April 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Predicting water encroachment can be of critical importance in
describing and managing a hydrocarbon reservoir.
This study focuses on the use of the generalized material
balance equation (GMBE) proposed by Walsh, et al1,2 along
with the analytical solution to the diffusivity equation for a
constant inner boundary pressure as presented by van
Everdingen and Hurst to determine the size of a water-bearing
formation in contact with a gas-condensate reservoir.
When the hydrocarbon reservoir fluid is a gas-condensate,
it is essential to use the GMBE. Should the conventional
material balance equation (CMBE) be used in lieu of the
GMBE, considerable errors could be introduced as will be
shown.
The main goal of this paper is to illustrate the ability of the
GMBE to determine the size of an aquifer encroaching into a
gas-condensate reservoir. Once this size is obtained, it could
be used as an input parameter to a reservoir simulator to
forecast the future expansion of the aquifer as depletion
proceeds.
When the CMBE is used to describe black oil reservoirs,
certain simplifying assumptions are normally made. Those
include neglecting the effect of the compressibilities of the
connate water and the reservoir rock, in addition to the
volatilized liquid in the gas phase. The effect of these
assumptions in gas-condensate reservoirs will be examined.
Introduction
In 1994, Walsh, et al1, 2 presented the generalized form of
the material balance equation. This equation differs from
previous forms of the material balance equation in that it
includes a term that accounts for the amount of liquid that is
volatilized in the gas phase. These terms are practically zero

when the reservoir fluid is either a black oil or a dry gas.

However, as shown in the discussion below, ignoring this term
when the reservoir fluid is a gas-condensate can lead to
significant errors in the interpretation.
The principal motivation for this study is our current
interest in water coning in horizontal wells. In the 1970s,
Morse, et al3 used numerical reservoir simulation to study the
behavior of vertical wells completed close to a
hydrocarbon/water contact. One method that Morse, et al3
proposed to prevent coning was the completion of the vertical
well both above and below the hydrocarbon/water contact, but
producing both streams through separate tubings. The purpose
of this would be to have an independent control on the
pressure drawdowns above and below the hydrocarbon/water
contact so that coning could be suppressed.
A viable way to apply the same idea to horizontal wells
would be the use of two multilaterals simultaneously
producing above and below the hydrocarbon/water contact.
However, to properly design and operate those wells, it would
be of paramount importance to know how fast the
hydrocarbon/water contact would rise as depletion advances.
The technique illustrated in this paper allows the
determination of the length, or the radius (depending on the
geometry) of the aquifer. Once this is known, it could be used
as an input parameter to a reservoir simulator to make
predictions of the expansion of the aquifer, and thus the rise of
the hydrocarbon/water contact.
Data
During the appraisal stage of a field, scarce information is
usually available to make it viable to use a reservoir simulator
to predict the rise of the hydrocarbon/water contact in a
water/drive hydrocarbon reservoir. This is because such a
prediction not only requires a fairly acceptable description of
the reservoir itself, but also of the encroaching aquifer.
Nonetheless, it is during the appraisal stage, and early
development of the filed, that valuable information can be
obtained about the sizes of both the reservoir and any
neighboring aquifer using material balance techniques. This
information can then be used as input to a reservoir simulator
to predict how fast the neighboring aquifer will encroach into
the reservoir.
In this project, a compositional numerical simulator was
used to generate synthetic data. This synthetic data was then
used as input to the material balance equation.

L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET

As illustrated in Fig. 1, a reservoir model with given

dimensions, properties, fluid composition, and drive
mechanism was assumed. Some of the output of the reservoir
simulator was in the form of cumulative production volumes
and average reservoir pressures.

SPE 68666

depletion (CVD) experiments at 285F were available. The

latter two were used to tune the EOS.

Compare

OGIP,
OOIP, zi,
Aquifer size,
etc.

Zi, ,TR, Pi,

separator
conditions

Compositional
Reservoir
Simulator

Phasebehavior
package

Bo, Bg, Rs, Rv

Gp, Np, Wp,

pav

MBE

OGIP,
OOIP,
Aquifer size.

Fig. 1 - Flow of information to analyze the effectiveness of

the GMBE to back calculate the input to the compositional
reservoir simulator.
On the other hand, the fluid compositions were converted
to PVT parameters using a phase behavior package for a given
reservoir temperature, tuned EOS and separator conditions.
These PVT parameters were then used, along with the
output from the reservoir simulator, as input data to the
material balance equation. The results of the material balance
calculations were then compared to the input to the reservoir
simulator to evaluate the effectiveness of the material balance
equation to determine the sizes of the reservoir, and of the
adjoining aquifer.
Model
As depicted in Fig. 2, the reservoir was modeled using a block
with dimensions 2,639.7 ft by 2,639.7 ft by 120 ft in the
horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
The numerical grid had nine gridblocks in each horizontal
direction, and four in the vertical direction.
The porosity was assumed constant throughout the
reservoir with a value of 13%. The reservoir temperature was
set equal to 285F (The same as the one reported in the fluid
lab report described below).
Table 1 lists the values of permeability, thickness and
depth assigned to each of the four layers in the reservoir
model.
The initial reservoir pressure was 6,000 psia, and the
dewpoint pressure at 285F was 5,323.3 psia.
The values of relative permeabilities, capillary pressures,
etc., not shown in this paper, are the same as those in the Third
Comparative Solution Project4.
The reservoir fluid composition was that of the Cupiagua
Field, Colombia. A cromatographic report, along with a
constant composition expansion (CCE) and a constant volume

Fig. 2 Geometrical representation of reservoir

Table 1 Reservoir permeabilities, thickness, and depths of
each simulation layer.
Layer
Kx=ky, md
kz, md
Thickness, ft
Depth, ft
1
130
13
30
7,330
2
40
4
30
7,360
3
20
2
50
7,400
4
150
15
50
7,450
The chromatographic analysis includes 36 components. Its
fingerprint, or plot of mole fraction versus molecular weight,
is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 - Fingerprint of the 36 component mixture

Using this 36-component mixture as input to the
compositional numerical simulator would have slowed it down
dramatically. Consequently, the mixture was lumped into
eight pseudo components as shown in Table 2.
Just like its 36-component counterpart, the 8pseudocomponent mixture was used along with the 3parameter Peng-Robinson equation of state (PR3 EOS). When
either was used to predict the liquid saturation of the CCE at
285F, neither could predict a dew-point fluid (gascondensate). Instead, a bubble-point fluid (volatile oil) was
predicted at this temperature. This conflicted with the lab
observations, as shown in Fig. 4.

SPE 68666

ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR

Table 2 Pseudo-components after the Cupiagua mixture

was lumped.
Pseudo component
Range
GRP1
CO2
GRP2
N2 and C1
GRP3
C2
GRP4
C3-nC4
GRP5
iC5-Toluene
GRP6
C7-C10
GRP7
C11-C22
GRP8
C23-C30

1.0
0.9

Liquid Saturation, fraction

0.8
Calculated

0.6

Observed

Under both drive mechanisms, the reservoir was produced

by first maintaining a plateau gas production rate of 6,200
Mscf/day. This constant gas production rate would be
maintained for as long as the bottom hole pressure in the
producing well was above 500 psia, after which the gas
production rate would decline while maintaining the bottom
hole pressure constant at 500 psia.
For the case of the water-drive reservoir, the underlying
water-bearing formation was simulated assuming a numerical
linear aquifer. Its dimensions and properties are listed in
Table 3.
Table 3 Aquifer properties used in compositional
reservoir simulator
Type of Aquifer
Linear
k, md
20
13
, %
A, ft3
200,000
L, ft
1,000

Liquid Saturation Before Regression (Peng-Robinson 3p)

0.7

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Pressure, psia

Fig. 4 - Untuned 3-parameter PR EOS predicts a liquid

instead of a gas.
Therefore, the PR EOS was tuned using the regression
techniques proposed by Whitson5. Fig. 5 compares the liquid
saturation as obtained from the CCE experiment with that
obtained using the tuned PR3 EOS.

In designing the synthetic data set, two issues were taken

into consideration: (1) it is desirable to determine the size of
the encroaching aquifer early in the life of the reservoir, (2)
average reservoir pressure measurements are normally
available on a yearly basis, at best. Consequently, to make the
synthetic data set similar to what is normally available in the
field, eight data points from the first 3 years of the life of the
field were randomly selected from the output of the
compositional numerical simulator. Figs. 6-9 illustrate the
behavior of the average reservoir pressure, cumulative oil
produced, cumulative gas produced, and cumulative water
produced, all as a function of time, for the two assumed drive
mechanisms, and for those randomly selected times.
Average Reservoir Pressure

Cupiagua K5 sample
Lumped into 8 pseudo-components
Liquid saturation after Tuning

6,000

1
0.9
0.8

5,000

0.7

Pressure, psia

Liquid saturation, fraction

5,500

Calculated
Observed

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000

0.2

2,500

Water Drive
Volumetric

0.1
2,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Time, days

Pressure, psia

Fig. 5 Liquid saturation as obtained from the CCE

experiment and as predicted from the tuned PR EOS.

Fig. 6 Average reservoir pressure obtained from

compositional numerical simulator under both assumed
drive-mechanisms

The reservoir was produced assuming two different drive

mechanisms, namely volumetric and water drive.

Notice that, although the assumed aquifer is relatively

small (Table 3), the average reservoir pressure tends to be

L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET

maintained considerably (1,500 psi difference at latest point)

when an aquifer is present, as shown in Fig. 6.
1,400,000

1,200,000

Np, stb

1,000,000

800,000

600,000
W ater Drive
Volum etric

400,000

200,000

0
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Tim e, days

Fig. 7 Cumulative oil produced as obtained from

compositional numerical simulator under both assumed
drive-mechanisms
400,000
Water Drive
Volumetric

350,000
300,000

Wp, stb

250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000

SPE 68666

As illustrated in Fig. 7, the effect of the pressure

maintenance is to increase the amount of produced oil in the
case of the water-drive reservoir. The reason for this is that, at
higher pressures, the fluid will remain in the gaseous phase in
the reservoir, and will be easily produced. By the same token,
in the volumetric depletion case, some liquid dropout will
build up in the reservoir with very small or no mobility at all.
That is why pressure maintenance is so critical in those
reservoirs whose fluid experiences retrograde condensation.
Fig. 8 illustrates the effects of the expansion of the
underlying aquifer, and of water coning. Since the well is
completed only in the top three simulation layers, the
produced water volume is practically identical during the first
200 days in both the depletion and the water-drive cases.
After this time, water production increases substantially in the
water-drive case either because the hydrocarbon/water contact
has risen to the perforations, or because the gravitational
forces have succumbed to the sum of the capillary and viscous
forces.
Fig. 9 shows that the produced gas volume is larger in the
water-drive case. This is basically due to additional amount of
gas dissolved in the liquid that is left in the reservoir in the
volumetric case.
The next step is the determination of the PVT parameters
using the composition of the fluid and the reservoir
temperature.
Fig. 10 shows schematically the algorithm used to
determine Bo, Bg, Rs, and Rv using the 8-pseudo-component
mixture, the PR3 EOS tuned to the CCE and CVD
experiments, and the same separator conditions used in the
compositional numerical simulator.

0
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Time, days

Fig. 8 - Cumulative water produced as obtained from

compositional numerical simulator under both assumed
drive-mechanisms

Composition, Reservoir Temperature,

Separator Conditions, and Tuned EOS

8,000,000

Phase Behavior Package

Water Drive
Volumetric

7,000,000
6,000,000

Gp, Mscf

5,000,000

Bo, Bg, Rs, Rv as a function of pressure

4,000,000
3,000,000

Fig. 10 - Procedure to calculate PVT parameters for

hydrocarbon mixture

2,000,000
1,000,000
0
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Time, days

Fig. 9 - Cumulative gas produced as obtained from

compositional reservoir simulator under two assumed
drive-mechanisms

Figs. 11-14 are a graphical representation of the PVT

parameters, Bo , B g , Rs and Rv , for the Cupiagua field fluid
obtained in this fashion.
In summary, the average reservoir pressure and cumulative
produced volume data provided in Figs. 6-9, along with the
PVT data supplied in Figs. 11-14 represent the necessary input
to the GMBE as shown in the next section.

SPE 68666

ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR

Volatilized Oil-Gas Ratio at 285F

Cupiagua Field

Oil FVF at 285F

Cupiagua Field

0.30

3.5

0.25

3.0

Rv, stb/Mscf

Bo, rb/stb

0.20

2.5

2.0

0.15

0.10

0.05

1.5

0.00
0

1.0
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Pressure, psia

6,000

Pressure, psia

Fig. 14 Volatilized oil-gas ratio of the Cupiagua field

fluid at 285F

Fig. 11 Oil FVF for Cupiagua field fluid at 285F

Gas FVF at 285F
Cupiagua Field

Generalized Material Balance Equation

In 1994, Walsh, et al1, 2 presented the generalized material
balance equation (GMBE). Its purpose was to account for the
fraction of the produced liquid that was in the gas phase at
reservoir conditions. Whereas this fraction is practically
negligible in the case of black oil and dry gas, ignoring it
when dealing with gas-condensates may lead to serious errors.
This fraction is expressed as Rv and has units of rb/Mscf.

45
40
35

Bg, rb/Mscf

30
25
20

The GMBE is identical in form to the CMBE, as expressed

by Eq. 1. The difference lies in the definition of its terms.

15
10

F = N foi E o + G fgi E g + We ............................(1)

5
0
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Pressure, psia

Fig. 12 Gas FVF for Cupiagua field fluid at 285F

Solution Gas-Oil Ratio at 285F
Cupiagua Field

3.5

3.0

Bo (1 Rv R ps ) + B g (R ps Rs )
F = Np
....(2)
(
)
1

R
R
v
s

2.5
Rs, Mscf/stb

Eq. 1 basically states that the underground withdrawal,

F , must be equal to the sum of total expansion of the
hydrocarbon fluids plus the water influx. It assumes that the
expansion of the rock, and that of the interstitial water are
negligible compared to that of the hydrocarbons.
The underground withdrawal, F , is defined by equation
2.

2.0

1.5

Eq. 3 defines the unit expansion of the oil.

1.0

0.5

Eo =

0.0
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Pressure, psia

Fig. 13 Solution gas-oil ratio for Cupiagua field fluid at

285F

(Bo Boi ) + Bg (Rsi Rs ) + Rv (Boi Rs Bo Rsi )

(1 Rs Rv )

.....................................................................................(3)
The unit expansion of the gas is expressed by Eq. 4.

L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET

Eg =

(B

Bgi )+ Bo (Rvi Rv ) + Rs (Bgi Rv Bg Rvi )

(1 Rv Rs )

Since the reservoir is initially above the dew-pointpressure, then there is initially no liquid. In equation form,

................................................................................(4)
Notice that if the volatilized oil-gas ratio is neglected in
the three definitions above, then the definitions of
underground withdrawal, unit oil expansion, and unit gas
expansion would be modified as expressed by Eq. 5, Eq. 6,
and Eq. 7, respectively.

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

E0 = B0 Boi + Bg (Rsi Rs )

Diagnosing Drive Mechanism in Volumetric Reservoir

25,000,000

20,000,000

F/Eg, Mscf

F = N p Bo + (R ps Rs )Bg

SPE 68666

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

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

0
0

E g = Bg Bgi

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Gp, Mscf

.................................................. (7)

Fig. 15 Plot used to diagnose the drive mechanism

These three definitions correspond to the ones commonly

employed for black oil systems.
In summary, when the definitions in Eq. 2, Eq. 3, and Eq.
4 are used, Eq. 1 will be referred to as the generalized material
balance equation (GMBE). By the same token, when the
definitions in Eq. 5, Eq. 6, and Eq. 7 are utilized, Eq. 1 will be
referred to as the conventional material balance equation
(CMBE).

trend is observed, it basically means that the hydrocarbon pore

volume remains constant throughout the depletion process
no water influx. Fig. 15 displays such a plot obtained using
the output from the numerical simulator for the volumetric
reservoir case.
Notice that the trend is rather flat, but not quite. The
reason for this is that even though there is no water influx,
there are other factors that change the hydrocarbon pore
volume, such as the expansion of the rock and the interstitial
water.
Consequently, for this volumetric depletion case, it can be
stated that

We = 0 .................................................................(8)

Using Eq. 8 and Eq. 9 in Eq. 1, the following is obtained:

F = G fgi E g .........................................................(10)
As initially proposed by Havlena and Odeh6, 7, it can be
concluded from Eq. 10 that a plot of F vs. E g should yield a
straight line with zero intercept and slope

G fgi .

As illustrated in Fig. 16, the effect of using the CMBE

would be to bend the trend away from a straight line. Besides,
if a straight line were forced through the points, an intercept
different from zero (1,877,188 rb) would result.
Plot of F versus E g using CMBE
12,000,000

10,000,000

8,000,000
F = 23,296,330 E g + 1,977,133
F, rb

Effects of Using the Wrong Form of the MBE

The first step in the analysis of the synthetic data obtained
from the numerical simulator will be to investigate how the
answers obtained from MBE techniques are affected by the
mistaken use of the CMBE rather than the GMBE.
To simplify this illustration, the volumetric depletion data
will be used for this analysis.
Conventionally, the procedure to check whether we are
dealing with a volumetric or a water-drive reservoir consists of
making a diagnostic plot of F E g vs. G p . If a horizontal

N foi = 0 ..............................................................(9)

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0
0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2
Eg, rb/Mscf

Fig. 16 Effect of using the CMBE

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

SPE 68666

ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR

From geometric calculations using the numerical model,

the initial volume of free gas at standard conditions, G fgi ,

Drive-Mechanism Diagnosis in Water-Drive Condensate Reservoir

90,000,000

turned out to be equal to 19.1 MMscf. Nevertheless, from the

slope of the straight line in Fig. 16, G fgi was determined to be

Plot of F versus Eg

80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000

F/Eg, Mscf

equal to 23.3 MMscf. To put it another way, use of the

CMBE has overestimated G fgi by 22%.

50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000

12,000,000

10,000,000

10,000,000

0
0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

8,000,000
F,
rb

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Gp, Mscf

F = 20,151,809 E g

Fig. 18 Diagnostic plot of the synthetic data for the

water-drive case

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Because of this, determination of the cumulative volume of

water influx, We , requires an independent mathematical
model. From the solution to the diffusivity equation for a
constant inner boundary pressure, the following general
expression is obtained

Eg, rb/Mscf

We = UpW D (t D ) .............................................(12)

Fig. 17 Effect of using the GMBE

By contrast, when the GMBE is used, the

F vs. E g plot

follows a linear trend, as shown in Fig. 17. As predicted by

Eq. 10, the intercept of such a straight line goes through the
origin. In this case, the slope is calculated to be equal to 20.15
MMscf. The slight overestimation (5%) is due to the fact that
the expansion of the rock and the interstitial water are being
neglected in the GMBE (Eq. 1).
Determining the Size of the Aquifer Using the GMBE
The output of the compositional numerical simulator for
the water-drive case was then used as input to the GMBE.
In a similar fashion, a plot of F E g vs. G p was used to
diagnose whether there was water influx or not, as shown in
Fig. 18. From this plot, the apparent non-horizontal trend
confirms the presence of water influx, as anticipated.
Since in this case We 0 (water influx) and

N foi = 0 (the reservoir is initially above the dew point), the

GMBE, Eq. 1, becomes

W
F
= G fgi + e ................................................(11)
Eg
Eg
Eq. 11 has two unknowns, namely

G fgi and We . The

latter term depends on the size and properties of the aquifer,

the pressure drop at the original hydrocarbon-water contact.
To complicate matters even further, it also depends strongly
on time.

For a linear aquifer, like the one used to generate the

synthetic data, the dimensionless cumulative water influx,
WD (t D ) , reaches a maximum plateau value of unity when

t D = 3 2 . Before this dimensionless time, flow is fully

dominated by transient effects. Afterwards, it is called fully
boundary dominated period.
For linear flow, dimensionless time is defined as

t D = 0.00633kt c L2 ..............................(13)
Therefore, the minimum time at which the flow can be
considered as boundary dominated can be obtained by solving
for t from Eq. 13, making t D = 3 2 , and plugging in the
aquifer properties as follows:

( c L ) t
t
2

0.00633 k

Since
data,

L = 1,000 ft was used to generate to synthetic

2
(
0.13)(1)(7 10 6 )(1,000 )
t
(1.5) 10.8 days
(0.00633)(20 )

Therefore, after 10.8 days,

WD (t D ) is equal to unity.

L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET

When the inner boundary pressure is not constant, the

principle of superposition must be used to calculate the
cumulative water influx as

We = Up jWD (t D t D j ) ............................(14)
j =1

where U is a geometrical factor defined as

Conclusions
1. The GMBE can effectively determine the size of a
neighboring water-bearing formation in a gas-condensate
reservoir.
2. Use of the CMBE can seriously overestimate the G fgi in

3.

U = 0 .1781 AL c .............................................(15)
Notice that both U and

t D depend on a previous

knowledge of L . As a result, a trial-and-error procedure is

needed to solve for L from the material balance equation.
From Eq. 11, it can be observed that a plot of F E g vs.

We E g will result in a straight line with intercept equal to

G fgi and unit slope.
The iterative procedure consists of assuming values of

L until a unit slope is obtained.

Determining The Length Of The Water-Bearing Part of the Reservoir
90,000,000

m=2.1

m=1.31

L=1,000ftft
m=1.01

80,000,000
70,000,000

F/E g , Mscf

60,000,000
50,000,000

L=1,000 ft

40,000,000

L=800 ft

30,000,000

L=500 ft

20,000,000
10,000,000
0
0

10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000

We/Eg, Mscf

Fig. 19 Iterative procedure to determine length of linear

aquifer
Fig. 19 illustrates the iterative procedure necessary to
determine the length of the linear aquifer used to generate the
synthetic data for the water-drive case.
Notice that if a value of L that is smaller than the actual
one (1,000 ft) is assumed, the slope turns out to be larger than
unity. When the actual length is used, a slope of 1.01 is
obtained. This result illustrates the effectiveness of the
material balance technique to determine the dimensions of the
aquifer.

SPE 68666

a gas-condensate reservoir (22% in the example presented

here).
Neglecting the compressibilities of the rock and the water
in the GMBE has little effect in the determination of the
G fgi (5% in the illustration presented here).

Nomenclature

A
Bg

Aquifer cross-sectional area

Gas FVF

Ft2
rb/Mscf

Bo
c
cf

Oil FVF

rb/stb

Total aquifer compressibility

Formation compressibility

psi-1
psi-1

cw
p

Water compressibility

psi-1

Eg

Gas expansion factor

rb/Mscf

Eo
F

G fgi

Oil expansion factor

rb/stb

Underground withdrawal
Porosity

rb
fraction

Total volume of fluid initially in the gas

phase
permeability
Linear aquifer length
Viscosity
Total volume of fluid initially in the
liquid phase
Solution gas-oil ratio

Mscf
md
ft
cp
stb

Volatilized oil-gas ratio

stb/Mscf

k
L

N foi

Rs
Rv
tD
t
U
WD
We

pi p at original GWC

psi

Mscf/stb

Dimensionless time
Time
Aquifer geometric factor
Dimensionless cumulative water influx

days
bbl/psi

Cumulative water influx

rb

Greek
Difference between two time steps

Subscripts
Pressure level
j

x, y , z

Coordinate directions in permeability tensor

SPE 68666

ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR

References
1. Walsh, M.P., Ansah, J., Raghavan, R.: The New,
Generalized Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight
Line: Part 1--Applications to Undersaturated, Volumetric
Reservoirs," paper SPE 27684, presented at the 1994 SPE
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Midland, TX.
2. Walsh, M.P., Ansah, J., Raghavan, R.: The New,
Generalized Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight
Line: Part 2--Applications to Saturated and NonVolumetric Reservoirs," paper SPE 27728, presented at
the 1994 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference, Midland, TX.
3. Morse, R.A., Byrne, W.B.: The Effects of Various
Reservoir and Well Parameters on Water Coning
Performance, paper SPE 4287.
4. Kenyon, D.E., Behie, G.A.: Third SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate
Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology (August
1987) 981-997.
5. Whitson, C.H., Fevang, O, Yang, T.: Gas Condensate
PVTWhats Really Important? paper presented at the
1999 IBC Conference Optimization of Gas Condensate
Fields, London, Jan. 28-29.
6. Havlena,D., Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line, JPT (August 1963) 896-900.
7. Havlena,D., Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line Part II, Field Cases, JPT
(July 1964) 815-822.