SPE-172434-MS

Probabilistic Material Balance: Application in Green Field Development

Planning
Hammed Shittu, Ejeru Kemelayefa, and Ejika Emeka, Chevron Nigeria limited

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 05 07 August 2014.
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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The authors have used this paper to demonstrate how material balance was applied in field development
planning for a green gas field. In this work, we have used one of the reservoirs as case study.
Deterministic tank model was initially built for the reservoir using MBAL. Petrophysical properties,
aquifer parameters and relative permeability data were all added into the model. Well flow models were
generated using PROSPER and then imported into MBAL. Facility constraints were imposed, and
deterministic prediction run was performed.
Key impacting parameters on the recovery factor were assessed, and corresponding ranges were
estimated for each. A probabilistic prediction workflow was developed and applied to the deterministic
model. This uses experimental design to generate multiple runs with the aid of OpenServer. Response/
proxy function for gas recovery was then generated and tested for consistency with observed data.
Multiple Monte Carlo runs were then done using Crystal ball, and the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles
were extracted. The corresponding parameters for these respective percentiles were then tested in
MBAL to check for reliability. Finally, all reservoirs were rolled-up using GAP, and the recovery
factors were checked for consistency with MBAL.
The recovery factors (P10, P50 and P90) from the probabilistic material balance work were then
compared with results from grid-based simulation work done on the reservoir. The figures were further
compared with estimates from local and global analogues, as well as analysis done by a third-party.
Results from the MBAL work compared reasonably with recovery factors from the other methods.
Probabilistic material balance approach helps to remove bias/anchoring while estimating a range of
outcomes for recovery factor. It also gives reasonable estimates, as demonstrated by the closeness of
results with other methods. However, it is not a replacement especially for the grid-based simulation, but
should rather be a complement.
The methodology has been successfully applied to other gas fields and reliable results were also
obtained. The work was equally adapted to more complex systems as multi-tank models.

Reservoir Overview
Roja is a virgin gas condensate reservoir located in a field offshore Niger Delta with about 90 ft water
depth.

SPE-172434-MS

Figure 1Probabilistic material balance workflow

Table 1Input Parameters for Deterministic MBAL model
Parameter
Values

SMwi

Rd

kaq

0.3

0.2

500

0.3

0.3

0.3

nq

nw

no

Rock Comp. (1/psi)

2.00E-06

Reservoir producibility was demonstrated by Drill Stem Tests (DST) obtained from 3 wells. The
reservoir is over-pressured, with pressure to datum ratio of 0.53 psi/ft. Liquid obtained during the DSTs
have 56API density and 75 STB/MMSCF condensate to gas yield ratio.
The workflow for the probabilistic material balance modeling done for Roja is shown in Fig. 1. The
theory and application of material balance, sub-surface forecasting and probabilistic/stochastic methods
have been discussed extensively in literature (Dake 1978, Ahmed 2005, Nwaokorie 2012, Vahedi 2005,
Diamond 2011, Galecio 2010 and Wolff 2010). The authors do not intend to discuss them in this work.

Deterministic MBAL Modeling and Uncertainty Assessment

Table 1 shows the input parameters used in building the deterministic material balance model. Compositonal PVT modeling was done, and some results are captured in Fig. 2. Coreys relative permeability was
used with hysteresis option. Rock compressibility (comp.) was obtained from local analogue correlation.
Inflow performace and vertical lift curves were generated in PROPSER model for the well and imported
into the MBAL file. Surface constraints were also imposed in MBAL to capture pressure drops through
the well head to delivery point.
Key impacting parameters on recovery identified were water and gas relative permeability end-points
( and respectively), trapped gas saturation (Sgr), aquifer size (outer/inner radius Rd) and aquifer
permeability (kaq). Table 2 enumerates the range of input values for these key parameters.
The range of relative permeability end-points for gas and water were obtained from core data. Residual
gas saturation low-mid-high values were also taken from SCAL analysis, and these lie within the range
of global analogue data after Hamon et al., 2001 (see Fig. 3). Range of input for aquifer size was estimated
from geology map on the low end, and the likely extent of aquifer beyond map data on the higher end.

SPE-172434-MS

Figure 2Some Results from Compositional PVT Matching for Roja Reservoir Fluid Sample
Table 2Input Parameters for Probabilistic MBAL
Variable
Low
Mid
High

0.50
0.33
0.11

0.15
0.30
0.49

Rd

kaq

Sgr

7.1
3.0
1.0

1620
815
168

0.43
0.28
0.17

* Low case was assigned highest aquifer size/permeability because of reduction in recovery for gas reservoir in strong aquifers; Rd represents the ratio of
times the reservoir
radius measured from centre of reservoir to edge of aquifer and assumes concentric reservoir and aquifer; aquifer size is equal to
size.

Aquifer permeability range was selected using petrophysical data from wells penetrating hydrocarbon and
aquifer.

SPE-172434-MS

Figure 3Literature data on maximum trapped gas saturation versus porosity (after Hamon et al., 2001) Circles with orange fill are data from Roja
reservoir and another sand in the same field.

Probabilistic Forecast: Experimental Design and Proxy Generation

Five-variable D-Optimal table was set-up for
Visual Basic codes used for this work are written below:

, and kaq as shown in Table 3. Sample

Where n is number of runs, k is row preceding the first row where actual data for low-mid-high values
are intended for population; m is the first column value for the first variable in the D-Optimal table; v is
the number of variables; R1:R2 are the cells where the actual low-mid-high values are intended for
population; L is a fixed value, equal to m1-2, where m1 is the lowest value of m; A, B, C are the rows
containing the actual low, mid, high values of the variables. (This step entails creating a table in Excel
that captures the actual low-mid-high values for the variables: in this work, they have been captured
between rows A, B, C and columns j-L and j-Lv-1.)
The OpenServer macro was generated using DoSet and DoGet commands in addition to some
Visual Basic commands. The authors have not published the codes used for this step. This is because we
are not aware of the policies of Petroleum Experts (PETEX) relating to this, even though we have
developed the codes entirely in-house.

SPE-172434-MS

Table 3Five-Variable D-Optimal Matrix.

Figure 4 Response surface versus MBAL prediction results

Figure 5Results from 100,000 Monte Carlo runs

SPE-172434-MS

Figure 6 Pareto chart showing relative impact of uncertainties

Table 4 Selected Output Parameters for Probabilistic MBAL
Variable
P10
P50
P90

0.50
0.35
0.11

0.28
0.30
0.49

Rd

kaq

Sgr

3.7
3.5
2.6

1000
600
168

0.38
0.31
0.18

Table 5Comparison of Recovery Factors (RF) with Other Methods

Percentile
P10
P50
P90

ED MBAL (%)

Simulation (%)

Local Analogue (%)

Third Party (%)

61
71
75

65
66
73

70

70

Note that values for local analogue and third party are based on deterministic evaluations

Once the D-Optimal-cum-MBAL macros were generated, we proceeded to perform the probabilistic
runs. Response equation that relates the recovery factor from the runs to the variables was then generated
using QuickProxy, a Chevron in-house tool.

Results
The response surface calculations versus respective outputs from the MBAL runs are shown in Fig. 4,
showing a good correlation. This gave us confidence to use the proxy, and so we proceeded to generate
100,000 Monte Carlo simulation runs. Below is the response surface equation from this exercise:
Recovery Factor

The 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles from the Monte Carlo runs are shown in Fig. 5, with values 61%,
71% and 75% respectively.

SPE-172434-MS

Figure 7Benchmarking of MBAL recovery factors against global condensate analogues

Fig. 6 is the Pareto chart, indicating that the aquifer size has the highest impact on the recovery factor.
The key parameter values that replicated the P10, P50 and P90 recovery factors were then selected. These
were in turn tested in MBAL (and ultimately in the GAP full-field roll-up) a step which is iterative
to ensure that the parameters indeed represent models that produce the recovery factors. Table 4 shows
values for the P10, P50 and P90 models selected.

Benchmarking
Recovery factor from this method was compared with numbers from other methods. Table 5 shows the
comparion of the probabilistic MBAL (ED MBAL) recovery factors with those from other methods.
The first benchmark was against recovery factors obtained from grid-based simulation done independently on the same reservoir.
Another of such is the benchmark against a local analogue gas condensate reservoir with similar age
and depositional environment. Roja reservoir compares favourably, having better properties relative to the
analogue. In addition, Roja is over-pressured at shallower depth, while the analogue is normally pressured.
The third benchmark was against an independent assessment done by a third party.
In addition to these, the results from this work were benchmarked against some global analogues (as
shown in Fig. 7), where the numbers lie within reasonable range of the data.

Conclusions
Probabilistic material balance, as shown in this work, is a reliable method for estimating a range recovery
factors, where there is need to build uncertainties into impating parameters. Adding a probabilistic step
to the use of material balance analysis eliminates bias and prevents anchoring. The results from the
method compare reasonably with other methods.
When applied, the results should be benchmarked against other data/methods to further build confidence in the reliability of the forecasts.

SPE-172434-MS

The method can have limitations in terms of application to highly heterogenous three-phase fluid
systems, although reasonable results have been obtained in some cases.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL) for the permission to publish the
information. We would also like to thank the management of CNLs JV E&AD and Gas Development
Asset Team for their encouragement towards this work.
Nomenclature
Comp.
Compressibility
ED
Experimental Design
GAP
General Allocation Package (a PETEX tool)
Aquifer permeability
kaq
Relative permeability to gas end-point
Relative permeability to water end-point
Relative permeability to oil end-point
MMSCF Million Standard Cubic Feet
Coreys exponent for gas
ng
Coreys exponent for water
nw
Coreys exponent for oil
no
PVT
Pressure Volume Temperature
Outer to Inner radius ratio
Rd
SCAL
Special Core Analysis
STB
Stock Tank Barrel
Water Saturation
Swi

Trademark sign
Subcripts
g, w, o
gas, water, oil
aq
aquifer
Greek

Porosity

References
1. Hamon, G., Suzanne, K., Billiote, J. and Trocme, V. 2001: Field-Wide Variations of Trapped
Gas Saturation in Heterogeneous Sandstone Reservoirs, Paper 71524 presented at 2001 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 Sep-3 Oct.
2. Vahedi, A., Gorjy, F., Scarr, K., Sawiris, R., Singh, U., Montgomery, P., Clinch, S. and Sawiak,
A. 2005: Generation of Probabilistic Reserves Distributions From Material Balance Models
Using an Experimental Design Methodology, IPTC Paper 11009 presented at the International
Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21-23 Nov.
3. Diamond, P. and Ovens, J. 2011: Practical Aspects of Gas Material Balance: Theory and
Application, Paper 142963 presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria 23-26 May.

SPE-172434-MS

4. Galecio, R. A. and Huerta, V. A. 2010: Traditional Material-Balance Analysis from a Stochastic

Point of View: Predicting Reservoir Performance, Paper 139357 presented at the SPE Latin
American & Carribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Lima, Peru, 1-3 Dec.
5. Nwaokorie, C. and Ukauku, I. 2012: Well Predictive Material Balance Evaluation: A Quick Tool
for Reservoir Performance Analysis, Paper 162988 presented at the 2012 SPE Nigerian Annual
International Conference and Exhibition held in Abuja, 6-8 Aug.
6. Wolff, M. 2010: Probabilistic Subsurface Forecasting, Paper 132957.
7. Dake, L. P. 1978: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Inc.
8. Ahmed, T and McKinney, P. 2005: Advanced Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Inc.
9. Petroleum Experts: Integrated Production Modelling User Manual