SPE 56690

Analysis of Overpressured Reservoirs with A New Material Balance Method

S. W. Wang, SPE, V. M. Stevenson, SPE, C. U. Ohaeri, SPE, D. H. Wotring, SPE, Unocal

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999.
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
This work presents application of a new material balance
method to detect aquifer influence and calculate water influx
and original gas in place for four over-pressured reservoirs.
Calculation of water influx needs to satisfy a set of three
equations as opposed to the existing method of one equation
of unit slope. In each application, the presence of aquifer
influence was identified first, and then material balance was
used to determine original gas in place and water influx. The
overpressure effect was handled by integrating rock
compressibility
over
operating
reservoir
pressure.
Compositional effects were modeled with Rv (volatile oil/gas
ratio) by matching PVT data using Walsh-Towler algorithm or
an Equation-of-State. This new method is internally
consistent, which avoids potential pitfalls of existing methods.
Comparison with other methods in analyzing overpressure
reservoirs shows this new method is more robust and
comprehensive.
Introduction
One of the most difficult problems in material balance
calculation is to determine the original gas in place (OGIP)
and water influx for over-pressured, retrograde gas condensate
reservoirs with water influx effects. The technical difficulties
include (1) how to estimate an effective average rock or
formation compressibility, (2) how to incorporate
compositional effects and (3) how to detect and estimate water
influx effects for over-pressured reservoirs. The theory of a
generalized material balance method (1, 2, 3) has recently
been developed to incorporate all of these effects into a linear
equation.
This work applies the newly developed method to detect
aquifer influence and calculate water influx and original gas in

place of four over-pressured reservoirs. Calculation of water

influx needs to satisfy a set of three equations as opposed to
the existing method of one equation of unit slope.
In each application, the presence of aquifer influence was
identified first, and then material balance was used to
determine OGIP and water influx. The overpressure effect
was handled by integrating rock compressibility over
operating reservoir pressure or by using higher effective
average rock compressibility. Compositional effects were
modeled with Rv (volatile oil/gas ratio) by matching PVT data
using Walsh-Towler algorithm or an Equation-of-State.
The first reservoir is non-volumetric and produces rich gas
condensate. The initial gas in place was estimated with
variable rock compressibility, and late-time water influx. The
second reservoir is also non-volumetric, producing rich gas
condensate and the overpressure effect was modeled by a
method similar to the first example. This new method
predicted strong aquifer influence, which was confirmed later
by additional production data.
The third reservoir is tight and non-volumetric, producing
lean gas condensate from two wells. We estimated OGIP with
average effective rock compressibility and late-time water
influx. Detection of aquifer influence by this new method was
also supported by analysis of two pressure build-up tests for
one of the major producers.
The fourth reservoir is volumetric, producing lean gas
condensate. A P/Z vs. Gp plot shows a line with dual slopes.
The new method, after correcting the overpressure effect,
gives OGIP in excellent agreement with extrapolated P/Z plot
from the normal pressure gradient segment.
Comparison of this new method with other existing
methods is included in this work. It will become clear in later
sections that many of the existing methods can only handle
some but not all of the technical difficulties mentioned above.
Objectives
The objectives of this study are (1) to apply a newly developed
material balance method to determine the initial fluid in place
of over-pressured gas condensate reservoirs, (2) to present a
refined method to estimate water influx for over-pressured
reservoirs, and (3) to compare this new method with existing
methods in estimating effective rock compressibility for overpressured reservoirs.

[S-W Wang, V. M. Stevenson, C. U. Ohaeri, D. W. Wotring]

Formulation
The following equations summarize the newly developed
material balance method for normally and abnormallypressured gas condensate reservoirs. Detailed derivation of
these equations is given in reference (1, 2, 3) and definition of
each symbol is given in nomenclature.

F = NfoiEo + GfgiEg + We Wp

(1)

The plotting variables F, Eo, and Eg are expressed in

equations (2) through (6), which can be calculated from
production data, PVT data, and rock compressibility
experimenrt.

Bo (1 RvRps ) + ( Rps Rs ) Bg
F = Np

1 RvRs

(2)

Eo = Bo Boi[1 ]

(3)

Eg = Bg Bgi[1 ]

(4)

=
=

1 exp( CfdP)
Pi

1 Swc
SwcCw( Pi P)
1 Swc

(5)

(6)

. Notice that the initial gas in place of gas-condensate

reservoirs calculated by this method is the amount of free gas,
not wet gas originally in the reservoirs. The condensate
content in the initial reservoir fluid can be calculated by the
product of Gfgi*Rv or G*Rv.
Detection and Calculation of Water Influx
A refined method to estimate water influx can be derived by
rearranging equation (1) as follows:

F + Wp
Eo We
= Gfgi + Nfoi +
Eg
Eg Eg

(7)

If there is no free oil initially in the reservoir, then

equation (7) can be degenerated to equation (8).

F + Wp
We
=G+
Eg
Eg

(8)

The advantage of equation (8) is its sensitivity in detecting

presence of aquifer influence. In order to detect presence of
water influx, one can plot (F+Wp)/Eg vs. Eg by assuming We
=0. If there is no water influx, equation (8) will yield a

[SPE 56690]

horizontal line. Otherwise, it suggests presence of water

influx. This method can be used to diagnose presence of
aquifer influx at its early stage.
According to equation (8), a plot of (F+Wp)/Eg vs. We/Eg
will yield a straight line of unit slope and the intercept gives
the initial gas in place, G, if an appropriate aquifer model is
chosen to fit the production data. In tuning the aquifer model,
the calculated water influx, We, should satisfy two additional
equations to ensure a physically correct aquifer model as
follows:

F + Wp We 0

(9)

F + Wp We
=G
Eg

(10)

Since regression analysis is used to find a best fit of

equation (8), it often occurs that a straight line can be obtained
with a nonzero intercept G but with water influx We being
When this
greater than total fluid withdrawal, (F+Wp).
happens, equation (10) can not be satisfied because it gives
negative G. Equation (9) must be satisfied to ensure that
equation (10) will give the same initial gas in place as that
obtained by equation (8). Therefore, equations (8), (9), and
(10) should be satisfied simultaneously when tuning an aquifer
model in material balance calculation.
Comparison of this new method with Fetkovich and Reese
method (4) and Guehria method (5) is described in reference
(1). In this work, we focus our comparison with Ramagost
and Farshad method (6), and solution plot method.
Ramagost and Farshad Method
In 1981, Ramagost and Farshad (6) developed a calculation
procedure for analyzing the performance of over-pressured gas
reservoirs under pressure depletion. Their equation is given
below:

Pi PiGp
P CwSwc + Cf
1
(Pi P ) =

Z 1 Swc
Zi ZiG

(11)

The above material balance equation permits calculation of

G (OGIP) when Gp, Cf, Swc, and Z values are treated as input
variables. The plotting variable are X = Gp and Y = left hand
side of equation (11). G can be calculated from the slope of
the X-Y plot.
However, it is not easy to apply equation (11) to gas
reservoirs when compositional and water influx effects are
present. The modified version of Ramagost and Farshad
method (6) is the solution plot method.
Solution Plot Method
One major difficulty in studying over-pressured reservoirs is
to estimate effective rock compressibility. The generalized
material balance equation can be reformulated so that it can be

[SPE 56690]

[Analysis of Overpressured Reservoirs with A New Material Balance Method]

used to estimate effective rock compressibility independent of

estimating initial gas in place. This concept was first
recognized by Roach (7) and the utility of the concept was
expanded by Poston et al. (8) and Poston and Chen (9, 10).
Roachs concept is to formulate the generalized material
balance method so that the input variables are production,
pressure, and Z-factor and the outcome variables are initial gas
in place, rock compressibility, and water influx.
We can obtain Roachs formula by reformulating equation
(1) as follows: For gas reservoirs, Nfoi is zero and equation (1)
can be simplified to become equation (12).

F = GpBg = GEg + We Wp

(12)

The gas formation volume factor Bg can be expressed as

Bg =

TscZT
PscP

(13)

When Cf (P) in equation (5) is replaced by an average

value, Cf and use first order approximation of the
exponential function in equation (5), we
obtain equation (14).

Cf ( Pi P)
1 Swc

(14)

Combining equations (6), (12), (13), and (14), we have

equation (15).

PiZ 1 Gp PiZ 1 (We Wp )

PZi 1 P = G PZi P PGBgi Ce

(15)

where P = Pi P and Ce is defined as

Ce =

Cf + SwcCw
1 Swc

(16)

Equation (15) is the formula originally proposed by Roach

(7). We define two plotting variables X and Y as follows:

PiZ Gp
X =
PZi P

(17)

PiZ 1
Y =
1
PZi P

(18)

A plot of Y vs. X will give a straight line whose intercept

is Ce under pressure depletion production, i.e. We - Wp= 0.
Then
can be calculated from Ce via equation (16).
Cf

Applications
Example 1: Over-Pressured, Rich Gas Condensate
Reservoir
The reservoir temperature is 2290F and the initial pressure was
7,244 psia at depth of 10,400 ft, which gives a pressure
gradient of 0.697 psia/ft. The reservoir is a rich gas
condensate with an initial yield of 169 STB/MMSCF dry gas.
Pore volume compressibility and excess stress of core
samples were measured in laboratory. Table 1 shows the
measured excess stress, hydrostatic pore volume
compressibility,
calculated
uniaxial
pore
volume
compressibility, and their corresponding reservoir pressure.
The uniaxial pore volume compressibility (Cf) is modeled with
a third order polynomial of fluid pressure, shown in equation
(19). Equation (5) was used to integrate Cf from Pi to P in
order to correct pore volume reduction due to pressure decline
in production.
The hydrostatic pore volume compressibility is
approximately twice the uniaxial pore volume compressibility
for net overburden pressure from 1000 to 9000 psi. Initially
we thought the uniaxial pore volume compressibility was
more representative of rock compacting process. Due to
drastic pressure reduction observed since 1998, we increased
Cf by two folds, which is almost the same as hydrostatic pore
volume compressibility in final material balance calculation.

Cf = 6.0x1017 P3 9.0x1013 P2 + 4.0x109 P 2.0x106 (19)

PVT properties consist of measured CCE (constant
composition expansion), CVD (constant volume depletion)
and separator tests. Walsh-Towler algorithm (11) was used to
transform compositional effects into pseudo-black oil PVT
properties for material balance calculation.
The initial connate water saturation was estimated at 45%
and expansion of formation water (Cw = 3.0x10-6 1/psi) was
included in material balance calculation. Presence of water
influx can be detected by plotting (F+Wp)/Eg vs. Eg, which
gives a non-horizontal line as shown in figure 1. The waterinflux effect can also be inferred from the solution plot, figure
2. According to Poston and Berg (12), the early horizontal
part of figure 2 represents a transient period, the curve then
moves upward diagonally, representing a pressure-depletion
period, finally, the curve diverges rightward from the
diagonally upward trending line, representing water influx
effect
The inverse slope of the solution plot method gives the
initial gas in place. However, it does not give the same initial
gas in place as that obtained by this new method. The
difference may be caused by retrograde condensate behavior,
which can not be handled by the solution plot method.
A finite aquifer with RD=5 and Carter-Tracy method were
used to calculate water influx. Results of material balance
calculation and PVT properties are shown in table 2 and figure
3. Using production data from 1994 to March 1998, we
estimated IGIP to be 101.5 BSCF dry gas. However, pressure
surveys in 1998 suggested a smaller reservoir than we

[S-W Wang, V. M. Stevenson, C. U. Ohaeri, D. W. Wotring]

estimated earlier. The final estimated IGIP was reduced to 72

BSCF dry gas as seen from the last flattened section of figure
3. The estimated original condensate content is 12.2 MM
STB. This sudden reduction in estimated OGIP is probably
linked to formation failure since ductile failure was observed
at net overburden pressure of 7,000 psi (equivalent to fluid
pressure = 3,520 psi) in laboratory. In addition we also
observed significant increase in sand production since 1998.
In this example, we also examined the trend of P/Z plot,
shown in figure 4. In analyzing P/Z plot, cumulative wet gas
production is the sum of cumulative dry gas and equivalent
gas of retrograde condensate liquid and Z factor should be
two-phase Z factor since reservoir pressure has dropped below
dew point. Results of P/Z analysis is shown in table 3. The
P/Z plot shows a line of dual slopes. Using the last four data
points in table 3 or figure 4, we estimated IGIP to be 74.4
BSCF wet gas. The mole fraction of dry gas in the original
wet gas is 88.15%. Hence, P/Z plot predicts IGIP to be 65.6
BSCF dry gas.
Example 2: Over-Pressured, Rich Gas Condensate
Reservoir
The reservoir temperature is 2380F and the initial pressure was
8,973 psia at depth of 11,414 ft, which gives a pressure
gradient of 0.786 psia/ft. The reservoir is a rich gas
condensate with an initial yield of 169 STB/MMSCF dry gas.
In this example, CVD test was not measured. PengRobinson EOS (equation-of-state) was first used to match
CCE test, and then it was used to predict CVD test at
unmeasured pressures. Walsh-Towler algorithm (11) was
used to transform compositional effects (simulated CVD test)
into pseudo-black oil PVT properties for material balance
calculation.
Pore volume compressibility was not measured in
laboratory. Rock compressibility was modeled by the same
polynomial as that used in example 1. This assumption is
based on geological interpretation that this reservoir is
separated from the reservoir in example 1 by a fault.
Detection of aquifer influence can be seen from plot of
(F+Wp)/Eg vs. Eg, and plot of P/Z vs. Gp as shown in figures 5
and 6, respectively. Figure 5 shows an upward trending, nonhorizontal curve and P/Z plot shows a curve with multiple
segments of reduced slopes. Both plots suggest presence of
water influx. In this example, the solution plot shown in
figure 7 is not very informative because it is essentially a
horizontal line.
The initial connate water saturation was estimated at 45%
and expansion of formation water (Cw=3.0x10-6 1/psi) was
included in material balance calculation. Carter-Tracy method
and an aquifer of infinite strength were used to calculate water
influx. Results of material balance calculation and PVT
properties are shown in table 4 and figure 8. Figure 8 shows a
straight line with unit slope and an intercept, which gives the
initial gas in place to be 27 BSCF dry gas. The initial gas
condensate content is 4.6 MM STB. OGIP derived from
figure 8 is consistent with that from figure 9, a plot of (F+WpWe)/Eg vs. Eg.

[SPE 56690]

Example 3: Over-Pressured, Lean Gas Condensate

Reservoir
The reservoir temperature is 2800F and the initial pressure
was 11,384 psia at depth of 11,640 ft, which gives a pressure
gradient of 0.8346 psia/ft. The reservoir is a lean gas
condensate with an initial yield of 32 STB/MMSCF dry gas.
PVT properties consist of measured CCE, CVD and
separator tests. Walsh-Towler algorithm (11) was used to
transform compositional effects into pseudo-black oil PVT
properties for material balance calculation. Pore volume
compressibility was not measured in laboratory. A rock
compressibility, Cf = 3.7x10-6 1/psi, was used in material
balance calculation over the entire pressure range of interest.
The initial connate water saturation was estimated at 55%
and expansion of formation water (Cw = 3.5x10-6 1/psi ) was
included in material balance calculation. Presence of water
influx can be detected by plotting F/Eg vs. Eg and P/Z vs. Gp as
shown in figures 10 and 11, respectively. Figure 10 shows an
upward trending, non-horizontal curve, and figure 11, P/Z
plot, shows a curve with multiple inflection points, i.e. a curve
with gradually reduced slopes. Both figure 10 and figure 11
indicate presence of water influx effect. However, the
solution plot is not indicative for water influx because the Y
values are almost constant as shown in the last column of table
5. According to Poston and Chen (8, 9, 10) that the initial flat
region in solution plot could mean transient behavior or
possible influence of water influx. Carter-Tracy method and a
finite aquifer with RD = 5 were used to calculate water influx.
Detection of aquifer influence is also supported by results
of pressure build-up tests. Figure 12 is a buildup test
conducted on a major producing well in 1993 prior to putting
this well on production. Figure 13 is a buildup test conducted
on the same well in 1998. In figure 12 a radial flow period is
evident in the segment labeled AB. After this, a slight upward
trend can be seen on the pressure derivative. Because no
known geological feature could explain this pressure response,
we suspected this might be due the influence of an aquifer on
the gas reservoir pressure response. The estimated distance to
the water zone was 484 feet. The buildup response in figure
13 is very different from figure 12. It confirmed the presence
of an aquifer near the well. There is no distinguishable radial
flow period as the pressure buildup response is dominated first
by changing well bore storage and immediately after by the
water zone. Our best estimate of the distance to the water
zone at this time is less than 50 feet. Notice that figures 12
and 13 are placed after figure 20 at the end of this paper due to
their sizes.
Results of material balance calculation and PVT properties
are shown in table 5. Estimated IGIP can be derived from the
intercept of a best-fit straight line shown in figure 14.
Consistency check is shown in figure 15, which gives almost
identical result as that obtained from figure 14. The estimated
initial gas in place is 21.3 BSCF dry gas. The initial
retrograde gas condensate content is 0.68 MM STB.

[SPE 56690]

[Analysis of Overpressured Reservoirs with A New Material Balance Method]

Example 4: Over-Pressured, Lean Gas Condensate

Reservoir
The reservoir temperature is 2500F and the initial pressure
was 10,485 psia at depth of 14,000 ft, which gives a pressure
gradient of 0.749 psia/ft. The reservoir is a lean gas
condensate with an initial yield of 8.5 STB/MMSCF dry gas.
No PVT tests is available for the reservoir fluid. Gas
phase Z factor was calculated from gas analysis and
correlations. Liquid condensate has an estimated molecular
weight of 159.2 and a gravity of 44.1 API. Cumulative liquid
condensate production was converted into equivalent gas
production, shown in equivalent gas of table 6 and was
included in cumulative gas production (Gp) to obtain total
fluid withdrawal, (Ftotal = Gp + equivalent gas + Wp) in table 6.
Pore volume compressibility was not measured in
laboratory. Rock compressibility was modeled with high
average rock compressibility (Cf = 2.5x10-5 1/psi) over the
entire pressure range of interest. Rock compressibility was
estimated to be 1.5x10-5 1/psi from the solution plot, figure 16,
which shows only the last four data points.
The initial connate water saturation was estimated at 20%
and expansion of formation water (Cw = 2.85x 10-6 1/psi) was
included in material balance calculation.
Presence of water influx can be detected from figure 17, a
plot of (F+Wp)/Eg vs. Eg. It is believed that influence of water
influx is insignificant in this example since the data points in
figure 17 essentially form a horizontal line. The solution plot,
figure 18, also shows no water influx effect since the curve
does not develop clearly rightward divergence.
Results of material balance calculation and calculated
PVT properties are shown in table 6. The initial gas in place
was estimated to be 48.1 BSCF dry gas according to figure 19,
a plot of (F+Wp) vs. Eg. The initial gas condensate content is
0.41 MM STB. When we extrapolate the second segment of
the P/Z plot, figure 20, the intercept gives an initial gas in
place of 47 BSCF dry gas. The agreement between P/Z plot
and this new method is very good.
Conclusions
(1) This work presents an improved method to detect and
calculate water influx for over-pressured reservoirs,
retrograde gas condensate reservoirs in material
balance calculation.
(2) When tuning an aquifer model, equation (8), a plot of
(F+Wp)/Eg vs. We/Eg, yields a straight line of unit
slope and an intercept which gives G, original gas in
place.
Equations (9) and (10) then serve as
consistency check for the validity of G calculated
from equation (8). The aquifer model must satisfy
these three equations simultaneously.
(3) This new method is more robust and comprehensive
than other existing methods in analyzing water influx
and compositional effects.
(4) The effective rock compressibility can be determined
independently by equation (15), which also known as
solution plot method suggested by Roach (7) and

Poston et al (8, 9) with sufficient and well-behaved

pressure data.
(5) However, the solution plot method is not always
indicative and conclusive in calculating rock
compressibility and in detecting water influx effect for
following reasons: (a) it requires many good pressure
measurements which are often not available, (b) a
straight line can not be drawn definitely to determine
effect rock compressibility, (c) the method does not
include retrograde condensate effects, and (d) it is not
capable of predicting future water influx.
(6) If laboratory measured Cf is not available, we suggest
use Cf in the order of 10-5 1/psi for over-pressured
reservoirs in material balance calculation to avoid
overestimating OGIP. Our suggestion seems to be
consistent with the examples presented in this work
and those listed in reference (12).
Nomenclature
Bg = gas formation volume factor, RB/SCF
Bgi = Bg at initial reservoir pressure, RB/SCF
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
Boi = initial oil formation volume factor, B/STB
Cf = rock compressibility, 1/psi
Cw = water compressibility, 1/psi
CGP = cumulative gas production
COP = cumulative oil production
CWP = cumulative water production
Eg = net gas expansion, RB/SCF
Eo = net oil expansion, RB/STB
F = total hydrocarbon withdrawal, RB
G = original gas in place, SCF
Gfg = gas in free-gas phase, SCF
Gfo = gas in free-oil phase, SCF
Gp = produced wellhead gas, SCF
N = initial oil in place, STB
Np = cumulative produced oil, STB
Nfo = oil in free-oil phase, STB
Nfoi = initial oil in free-oil phase, STB
P = pressure, psia
PD = dimensionless pressure
Psc = Fluid pressure at standard condition, 14.7 psia
RD = ratio of radius of aquifer to radius of reservoir
Rp = cumulative produced wellhead gas-oil ratio,
SCF/STB
Rps = cumulative produced sales gas-oil ratio, SCF/STB
Rs = solution oil-gas ratio, SCF/STB
Rv = volatile oil-gas ratio, STB/SCF
Swc = connate water saturation
TD = dimensionless time
Tsc = temperature at standard condition, 0R
We = water influx, RB
Wp = water production, RB
Z = gas compressibility factor
Z2 = two-phase compressibility factor

[S-W Wang, V. M. Stevenson, C. U. Ohaeri, D. W. Wotring]

[SPE 56690]

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Unocal Corporation for permission to
publish this paper.
References:
1. Wang, S. W., A General Material Balance Method
for Normally and Abnormally Pressured Petroleum
Reservoirs, SPE48954, 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans, LA, 27-30 September
1998.
2. Walsh, M. P. Ansah, J., and Raghavan, R., The New,
Generalized Material Balance as An Equation of a
Straight Line: Part 1 Application to Undersaturated
Reservoirs, SPE27684, 1994 SPE Permian Basin Oil
and Gas Recovery Conference, 16-18 March 1994.
3. Walsh, M. P., Ansah, J., and Raghavan, R., The New,
Generalized Material Balance as An Equation of a
Straight Line: Part 2 Application to Saturated and
non-Volumetric Reservoirs, SPE 27728, 1994 SPE
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, 1618 March 1994.
4. Fetkovich, M. J., and Reese, D. E., Application of a
General Material Balance for High-Pressure Gas
Reservoirs, SPE-22921 presented at SPE 66th Annual
Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas, October 6-9,
1991.
5. Guehria, F. M., A New Approach to P/Z Analysis in
Abnormally Pressured Reservoirs, SPE 36703
presented in 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference
in Denver, Colorado, October 6-9, 1996.
6. Ramagost, B. P., and Farshad, F. F., P/Z Abnormally
Pressured Gas Reservoirs, SPE-10125, 1981 SPE
Fall Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, 5-7 October 1981.
7. Roach, R. H., Analyzing Geopressured Reservoirs
A Material balance Technique, SPE-9968, 1981
8. Poston, S. W., Chen, H. Y., and Akhtar, M. J.,
Differentiating Between Formation Compressibility
and Water Influx in Overpressured Reservoirs,
SPERE (August 1994), 183.
9. Poston, S. W., and Chen, H. Y., The Simultaneous
Determination of Formation Compressibility and Gasin-Place in Abnormally Pressured Reservoirs, SPE16227, 1987 SPE Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 8-10 March.
10. Poston, S. W., and Chen, H. Y., Case History studies:
Abnormal-Pressured Gas reservoirs, SPE-18857,
1989 SPE Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 13-14 March.
11. Walsh, M. P., and Towler, B. F., Method Computes
PVT Properties for Gas Condensate, Oil and Gas
Journal, July 31, 1995, pp. 83-86.
12. Poston, S. W., and Berg, R. R., Overpressured Gas
Reservoirs, Publisher: Society of Petroleum
engineers, 1997, Richardson, Texas, U.S.A.

Table 1: Rock Compressibility Measurement,

Example 1
(Reference depth at 10520.5 ft)
net stress

hydrostatic Cf

uniaxial Cf

fluid pressure

psi

1/psi

1/psi

psi

200

4.70E-05

2.68E-05

10,321

1,000

4.35E-06

2.48E-06

9,521

2,000

2.86E-06

1.51E-06

8,521

3,000

3.05E-06

1.74E-06

7,521

4,000

4.15E-06

2.37E-06

6,521

5,000

5.61E-06

3.20E-06

5,521

6,000

7.30E-06

4.16E-06

4,521

7,000

1.35E-04

7.68E-05

3,521

8,000

7.22E-05

4.14E-05

2,521

9,000

4.41E-05

2.51E-05

1,521

Table 3: Analysis of P/Z Plot, Example 1

Date

P/Z2

2-Jul-94

5700.6

cum dry
gas

cum oil

cum oil

cum wet
gas

BSCF

moles

bscf

bscf

0.00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.000

1-Mar-95

5682.7

0.00

1.52E+05

5.75E-02

0.058

28-Jun-95

5679.1

0.73

2.44E+05

9.26E-02

0.826

7-Dec-95

5660.9

1.15

3.78E+05

1.43E-01

1.294

3-Mar-96

5574.3

3.07

9.88E+05

3.74E-01

3.445

11-Jul-96

5471.5

5.96

1.89E+06

7.16E-01

6.676

18-Dec-96

5307.2

10.16

3.19E+06

1.21E+00

11.371

15-Aug-97

4888.2

19.82

5.77E+06

2.19E+00

22.006

18-Mar-98

4536.0

23.84

7.62E+06

2.89E+00

26.726

19-Jun-98

3908.2

28.09

8.31E+06

3.15E+00

31.238

30-Oct-98

2802.7

41.20

9.07E+06

3.44E+00

44.638

Table 2: PVT Properties and material Balance Calculation of Example 1

Date
2-Jul-94
1-Mar-95
28-Jun-95
7-Dec-95
3-Mar-96
11-Jul-96
18-Dec-96
15-Aug-97
18-Mar-98
19-Jun-98
30-Oct-98

cum oil
bbl
0
70,980
114,411
177,161
462,236
883,956
1,492,479
2,699,895
3,566,520
3,888,100
4,246,000

cum gas
MCF
0
378
733,246
1,150,426
3,070,937
5,959,786
10,162,021
19,819,945
23,838,000
28,090,000
41,200,000

cum water
bbl
0
352
537
713
2,017
4,690
10,295
92,847
279,326
284,267
327,294

P
psia
7229
7151
7135
7057
6702
6312
5750
4705
4077
3263
2227

Z2
1.2682
1.2584
1.2564
1.2467
1.2023
1.1536
1.0834
0.9625
0.8988
0.8349
0.7946

Rps
SCF/STB
0
6425
6409
6494
6644
6742
6809
7341
6684
7225
9703

Rs
scf/stb
5889
5889
5889
5889
5889
5889
5889
1999
1567
959
358

Rv
stb/mmscf
169.8
169.8
169.8
169.8
169.8
169.8
169.8
154.8
131.7
77.8
43.3

Bo
RB/STB

1.9880
1.8034
1.5327
1.3099

Btg
RB/MSCF
0.689580
0.692668
0.693283
0.696359
0.710367
0.725755
0.747918
0.801270
0.844678
0.987268
1.327838

Table 2: PVT Properties and material Balance Calculation of Example 1 (Continued)

Date
2-Jul-94
1-Mar-95
28-Jun-95
7-Dec-95
3-Mar-96
11-Jul-96
18-Dec-96
15-Aug-97
18-Mar-98
19-Jun-98
30-Oct-98

exp(-2Cf)

alpha

beta

Eg

(F+Wp)/Eg

We

We/Eg

(F+Wp-We)/Eg

rb
0
0
3,799
11,918
26,025
60,372
124,160
273,857
425,514
510,481
662,223

mmscf/psi

1/psi

0.0
0.000192
0.000230
0.000422
0.001294
0.002252
0.003631
0.006196
0.007737
0.009735
0.012278

B SCF
0.0
0.2
114.1
98.3
87.5
99.8
108.6
111.8
100.7
74.3
72.2

bscf

0.0
0.0007218
0.0008646
0.0015746
0.0047493
0.0082207
0.0134114
0.0242821
0.0316737
0.041855
0.0543366

RB/MSCF
0.000000
0.003718
0.004458
0.008156
0.024954
0.043397
0.070091
0.141086
0.205296
0.391509
0.791456

bscf

1.0
0.99960
0.99952
0.99913
0.99739
0.99548
0.99262
0.98664
0.98258
0.97698
0.97011

0.000
0.852
1.461
1.043
1.391
1.771
1.941
2.073
1.304
0.837

0.2
113.3
96.9
86.5
98.4
106.8
109.8
98.6
73.0
71.3

0.74
8.83
7.58
6.68
7.58
8.26
10.17
10.65
11.49
18.15

4.03
4.04
4.08
4.30
4.56
5.01
6.58
8.14
11.56
20.67

F+Wp
MM RB
0.000
0.001
0.509
0.802
2.184
4.330
7.611
15.768
20.673
29.095
57.122

Integ2(Cf)
0.0
-0.00040
-0.00048
-0.00087
-0.00262
-0.00453
-0.00740
-0.01345
-0.01757
-0.02329
-0.03034

[S-W Wang, V. M. Stevenson, C. U. Ohaeri, D. W. Wotring]

[SPE 56690]

Table 4: PVT and Material Balance Calculation of Example 2

Date
26-Feb-96
18-Jun-96
11-Oct-96
14-Jan-97
5-Feb-97
17-Jun-97
20-Jan-98
9-Feb-98

Time

days
0
113
228
323
345
477
694
714

psia
8973
8698
8421
8197
8148
7810
7728
7754

Z2

CGP

COP

CWP

Bg

Bg'

Eg

Integ(Cf)

Exp(-Cf)

Alpha

Beta

1.4628
1.4304
1.3979
1.3715
1.3658
1.3259
1.3162
1.3193

mm scf
0
412.7
1069.6
1602.7
1718
2561.1
3559.2
3636.4

stb
0
68999
176112
265133
284528
428708
593822
607157

stb
0
330
2556
5190
5778
14282
109147
122414

rb/mscf
0.5735
0.5762
0.584
0.5886
0.5897
0.5972
0.5992
0.5986

rb/mscf
0.6506
0.6537
0.6625
0.6677
0.6690
0.6775
0.6798
0.6791

rb/mmscf
0
2.7
10.5
15.1
16.2
23.7
25.7
25.1

0
0.00020089
0.00035555
0.00044729
0.00046406
0.00053072
0.00052153
0.00051371

1.00000
0.99980
0.99964
0.99955
0.99954
0.99947
0.99948
0.99949

0
0.000365
0.000646
0.000813
0.000844
0.000965
0.000948
0.000934

0
0.000676
0.001355
0.001906
0.002025
0.002855
0.003056
0.002992

(F+Wp-We)/Et

P/Z2

Table 4: PVT and Material Balance Calculation of Example 2 (Continued)

Et
Date
rb/mscf
26-Feb-96 0.0000
18-Jun-96 0.0037
11-Oct-96 0.0132
14-Jan-97 0.0189
5-Feb-97 0.0202
17-Jun-97 0.0294
20-Jan-98 0.0318
9-Feb-98 0.0310

F+Wp

(F+Wp)/Et

m rb
0
270
711
1075
1155
1749
2529
2592

mm SCF
72,208
53,822
56,900
57,058
59,562
79,614
83,530

tD
0.0000
1.2131
2.4477
3.4676
3.7038
5.1209
7.4506
7.6653

PD
0.0000
0.8774
1.1019
1.2237
1.2475
1.3681
1.5150
1.5264

dPD

We

We/Et

(F + Wp)/Et

b scf

bscf

0.2471
0.1388
0.1037
0.0981
0.0745
0.0540
0.0527

rb
0
119,882
327,637
548,892
602,462
1,019,128
1,652,650
1,708,808

32.0
24.8
29.0
29.8
34.7
52.0
55.1

72.2
53.8
56.9
57.1
59.6
79.6
83.5

0
40.2
29.0
27.9
27.3
24.9
27.6
28.5

6134.1
6080.5
6024.0
5976.3
5965.7
5890.3
5871.4
5877.4

mmscf/psi

1.0E5 1/psi

3.234
4.222
4.533
4.582
4.907
6.391
6.662

3.203
3.311
3.401
3.421
3.559
3.593
3.584

[SPE 56690]

[Analysis of Overpressured Reservoirs with A New Material Balance Method]

time
date
2-Sep-93
8-Dec-93
3-Aug-94
5-Aug-95
17-Jun-96
30-Jan-98

P
psia
11384
11165
9862
8487
8298
7938

1.48052
1.47855
1.37674
1.26429
1.26345
1.22631

Table 5: PVT and material Balance Calculation of Example 3

F=Gp*Bg+Wp
P/Z
Bg(dry)
Gp
Wp
alpha
rb/mscf
bscf
rb
mm rb
7689.2 0.49668
0
0
0.000
0.00000
7551.3 0.50575
0.264
543
0.134
0.00180
7163.3 0.53315
1.297
2,700
0.694
0.01251
6712.8 0.56892
3.361
7,541
1.920
0.02382
6567.7 0.58149
4.881
12,019
2.850
0.02537
6473.1 0.59000
6.919
20,973
4.103
0.02833

time

(F+Wp)/Et

Delta T

Table 5: PVT and material Balance Calculation of Example 3 (Continued)

(F+Wp-We)/Et
PD
dPD/dTD
We
We/Et
DeltaP
TD

date
2-Sep-93
8-Dec-93
3-Aug-94
5-Aug-95
17-Jun-96
30-Jan-98

bcf

days
0
97
335
702
1019
1611

12.9
15.1
21.3
27.4
35.8

psia
0
219
1522
2897
3086
3446

0.3312
1.1438
2.3970
3.4794
5.5007

0.20605
0.80975
1.08523
1.22432
1.42439

1.789917
0.348288
0.151156
0.112415
0.090625

mm rb
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.630
1.656

beta

Et
rb/mscf

0.00000
0.00094
0.00651
0.01239
0.01320
0.01474

0
0.010426
0.045912
0.090224
0.103969
0.114707

bscf

bscf

mmscf/psi

E-5, 1/psi

0.00
0.00
0.00
6.06
14.44

12.9
15.1
21.3
21.4
21.3

1.227
0.915
1.329
1.852
2.385

8.335
4.823
5.020
5.533
5.452

time

date
04-Dec-96
01-Jan-97
26-Sep-97
20-Feb-98
15-Jun-98
20-Jul-98
05-Sep-98

psia
10485
10256
9372
8893
8689
8000
7405

time
date
04-Dec-96
01-Jan-97
26-Sep-97
20-Feb-98
15-Jun-98
20-Jul-98
05-Sep-98

Table 6: PVT and Material balance Calculation of Example 4

Gas-Z
Bg
Gp(dry)
COP
CWP
CGP
1.418
1.401
1.335
1.300
1.285
1.235
1.192

rb/mscf
0.4839
0.4888
0.5097
0.5231
0.5292
0.5524
0.5760

b scf
0
0.43
3.72
5.84
6.79
9.73
11.25

m stb
0.00
3.36
31.93
50.06
58.72
82.32
94.83

m stb
0
0.35
2.72
4.68
5.49
8.44
11.609

mm rb
0.000
0.212
1.894
3.057
3.591
5.374
6.478

Table 6: PVT and Material balance Calculation of Example 4 (Continued)

equ gas
alpha
beta
Eg
Ftotal
Ftotal/Eg
P/Z
m rb
0.00
1.10
10.93
17.58
20.87
30.54
36.68

0.00000
0.00716
0.03478
0.04975
0.05613
0.07766
0.09625

rb/m scf
0
0.00842
0.04300
0.06378
0.07304
0.0017718
0.10691
0.0021960 0.13972

0.0000000
0.0001633
0.0007936
0.0011351
0.0012805

m rb
0
213.1
1907.3
3079.3
3617.0
5412.9
6526.1

b scf
25.3
44.4
48.3
49.5
50.6
46.7

7394.2
7320.5
7020.2
6840.8
6761.9
6477.7
6212.2

equ. Gas
m scf
0.0
2256.3
21441.7
33616.5
39431.8
55279.8
63681.9

Gp (wet)
bscf
0.00
0.44
3.74
5.88
6.82
9.78
11.31

Figure 4: P/Z Plot of Example 1

120

6000

110
100

5000
P/Z, psia

(F+Wp)/Eg, B SCF

Figure 1 :Plot of ( F+W p)/Eg vs. Eg,

Exam ple 1

90
80
70

4000
3000
2000

60

1000

50
40

0
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

10

90

20

80

15
10
5
0
15

20

(F+Wp)/Eg, BSCF

Y, 1.0E-5 1/psi

25

10

50

70
60
50
40
30
20
0.00

-10
-15

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Eg, RB/MSCF

X, MM SCF/psi

Figure 6: P/Z Plot, Example 2

Figure 3: (F+Wp-We)/Eg vs. Eg Plot, Example 1

130

6150

110

6100
P/Z, psia

(F+Wp-We)/E; BSCF

40

Figure 5: (F+Wp/Eg) vs. Eg Plot of Example 2

Figure 2: Solution Plot of Example 1

30

Gp (w et gas), BSCF

Eg, RB/MSCF

-5 0

20

90
70

6050
6000
5950
5900

50

5850

30
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Eg, RB/MSCF

0.8

1000

2000
Gp, MMSCF

3000

4000

F ig u re 1 0 : F /E v s . E P lo t, E x a m p le 3

40
35
30

(F+Wp)/E, BSCF

(PiZ/(ZiP)-1)/DP, 1.E-5 psi-1

Figure 7: Solution Plot of Example 2

3
1

25
20
15
10
5

-1 0

0
0

0 .0 5

-3

0 .1

0 .1 5

E , R B /M S C F

Gp(PiZ/ZiP)/DP, MMSCF/psi

Figure 11: P/Z vs. Gp Plot, Example 3

7800

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

7600
P/Z, psia

7400

y = 1.0055x + 27.307
R2 = 0.9877

7200
7000
6800
6600

10

20

30

40

50

60

6400
0.0

We/Et, mm SCF

4.0

6.0

8.0

Figure 14: (F+W p)/E vs W e/E Plot,

Example 3

Figure 9: (F-We+Wp)/Et vs. Et Plot,

Exam ple 2
40

35

30

25

50

y = 1.0035x + 21.299
2
R =1

40
30
20
10
0
0

20
0.000

2.0

Gp, BSCF

(F+Wp) /E, BSCF

(F+Wp)/Et, BSCF

Figure 8: (F+Wp)/Et vs. We/Et, Example 2

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Et, R B /M S C F

0.025

0.030

0.035

10

20

30

We/E, BSCF

40

50

[SPE 56690]

[Analysis of Overpressured Reservoirs with A New Material Balance Method]

Figure 18: Solution Plot of Example 4

Figure 15: Plot of (F+W p-W e)/Et vs. Et Plot,

Exam ple 3
(1/DP)[(P iZ)/(ZiP)-1], 1.0E5 1/psi

(F+Wp - We)/E, BSCF

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

0.05

0.1

13

0.15

Et, rb/mscf

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

(Gp/DP)(PiZ)/(ZiP), mmscf/psi

Figure 19: Plot of F vs. E Plot ,

Example 4

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0

y = 1.7612x - 1.9497
R2 = 0.6209

8000

F, m rb

(1/DP)[(PiZ/(ZiP)-1],
1.0E5 1/psi

Figure 16: Solution Plot of Example 4

y = 48136x
2
R = 0.995

6000
4000
2000
0
0

0.02 0.05 0.07

5
5

Figure 17: (F+W p)/Eg vs. Eg Plot (Ce

= 2.5E-5 1/psi), Example 4

Figure 20, P/Z Plot of Example 4

50

P/Z, psia

(F+Wp)/Eg, bscf

60
40
30
20
10
0
0.05

0.1

Eg, rb/mscf

0.12 0.15
5

Eg, rb/mscf

(Gp/DP)(PiZ)/(ZiP), mmscf/psi

0.1

0.15

7600
7400
7200
7000
6800
6600
6400
6200
6000
0

5
10
Gp, BSCF

15

14

[S-W Wang, V. M. Stevenson, C. H. Ohaeri, D. W. Wotring]

10

10

10

[SPE 56690]

F ig 1 2 , 1 9 9 3 B u ild u p T e s t

2
A

B
R a d ia l F lo w

1
10
-1
10

10

10

10

10

S h u t- in P s e u d o -T im e , D e lt a t, H o u r s

10

10

10

F ig 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 B u ild u p

1
1 0 -2
10

10

-1

10

10

10

10

S h u t- in P s e u d o -T im e , D e lt a t, H o u r s