Shahamat 2017

REE185052 DOI: 10.
2118/185052-PA Date: 21-September-17 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 17
Multiwell, Multiphase Flowing

Material Balance
M. S. Shahamat1 and C. R. Clarkson, University of Calgary
Summary
Flowing-material-balance (FMB) analysis is a practical method for determining original hydrocarbon volumes in place. It is attractive
because it enables performing material-balance calculations without shutting in wells to obtain estimates of reservoir pressure. How-
ever, with some exceptions, its application is limited to single-phase oil and/or gas reservoirs over limited pressure ranges during deple-
tion. In unconventional reservoirs, reservoir and/or production complexities may further restrict FMB use. Among these complexities
are significant production/injection of water, production resulting in higher gas/oil ratios (GORs) and pressure drawdowns, geomechani-
cal effects, and multiwell-production effects. As a result, application of the conventional FMB to unconventional reservoirs may lead to
significant errors in hydrocarbons-in-place estimation.
This paper first discusses the application of conventional FMB to the analysis of single-phase or multiphase flow in single or multi-
well scenarios, and then provides a new, comprehensive version of the FMB to address the previously mentioned complications. For
the new FMB, pseudopressure is used to account for two-phase oil/gas flow. In addition, by use of a general material-balance equation,
water production/injection and multiwell effects are included in the analysis. The new FMB-analysis approach is validated by compar-
ing results with numerical simulation of multifractured horizontal wells (MFHWs). These comparisons demonstrate that, not only gas
production, but also water production/injection can have a significant effect on the calculated original-in-place hydrocarbon volumes.
The new FMB-analysis approach provided herein successfully accounts for all flowing phases in the reservoir, and is demonstrated to
be applicable for multiwell scenarios.
The methodology presented in this paper maintains the simplicity of FMB, yet accounts for multiphase flow and multiwell complica-
tions. The developed FMB and the presented approach can be used by reservoir engineers to reasonably determine the original volumes
of hydrocarbons in place in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs.
Introduction
Material-balance analysis is a fundamental technique for estimating fluids in place. It can be performed by use of either static (shut-in)
reservoir pressures or by use of flowing pressures and production rates. The latter approach is commonly referred to as FMB analysis,
and is especially appealing because it provides a useful and practical tool for reservoir engineers to perform material-balance calcula-
tions without the need to shut in the wells.
FMB was first developed by Mattar and McNeil (1998) for a dry-gas well producing at constant production rate. Those authors dem-
onstrated that average reservoir pressure can be extracted from flowing pressures provided that the boundary-dominated-flow (BDF) re-
gime has been reached and that both production rates and flowing pressures are measured. Following Mattar and McNeil (1998) and
Agarwal et al. (1999), a number of other researchers attempted to extend the application of the FMB to other production scenarios and/
or other reservoirs with further complexities. Mattar and Anderson (2005) extended this method to variable gas-production rates.
Clarkson et al. (2007) and Gerami et al. (2007) and Morad and Clarkson (2008) extended the rate-cumulative production-decline
type curves of Agarwal et al. (1999) to obtain a p/Z* implementation of the FMB concept for dry-coalbed-methane (CBM) reservoirs.
Clarkson et al. (2007) and Morad and Clarkson (2008) demonstrated that, for a single-phase (gas) CBM reservoir during BDF, the FMB
equation may be written according to Eq. 1:

qg ppi ppavg
¼m G þ b: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
ppi ppwf ppi ppwf

qg ppi ppavg
Those authors noted that a plot of vs. the normalized cumulative gas production G should give a straight line,
ppi ppwf ppi ppwf
the x-intercept of which yields original gas in place. The proposed procedure involves iteration and CBM material-balance calculations.
Later, Clarkson et al. (2008) applied the FMB to the analysis of two-phase (gas/water) CBM wells. Among the main difficulties in
applying FMB analysis in such systems are the substantial changes in gas relative permeability because of decreasing water saturation
during the dewatering phase, loss of absolute permeability because of changes in effective stress during depletion, and gain of absolute
permeability because of gas-desorption effects. To address these complications, Clarkson et al. (2008) used the producing-gas/water ratio
to calculate the relative permeability ratio (gas/water) and therefore establish a relationship between relative permeability and pressure:

krg qg Bg lg
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
krw qw Bw lw
Those authors then used the adjusted pseudopressure definitions [according to the work of Raghavan (1976) for solution-gas reser-
voirs] to extend FMB analysis to two-phase CBM wells.
ðp
pkrg ðpÞdp
pp ¼ 2 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
pbase lg Z
1
Currently with Birchcliff Energy Limited
Copyright V
C 2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 185052) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 15–16 February 2017, and revised for publication. Original manuscript
received for review 17 September 2016. Revised manuscript received for review 19 February 2017. Paper peer approved 2 May 2017.
2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 1
ID: jaganm Time: 19:02 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

REE185052 DOI: 10.2118/185052-PA Date: 21-September-17 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 17
Further details and application of the method for analyzing single- and two-phase CBM reservoirs are provided in Clarkson et al.
(2008), Clarkson (2009), and Clarkson et al. (2012).
Sureshjani et al. (2013) defined total normalized pseudopressure and total material-balance pseudotime to perform multiwell-
production-data analysis (and field FMB). In that work, it was demonstrated that a plot of total normalized pseudopressure vs. real time
forms a straight line with the slope equal to the reciprocal of total gas in place multiplied by initial gas compressibility. Further, it was
illustrated that a plot of single-well normalized pseudopressure vs. total-material-balance pseudotime would result in a straight line
with the same slope. Those authors noted that although calculation of the total-material-balance pseudotime is simpler than the total
pseudopressure, the former cannot be applied continuously over the entire field production. As a result, the total-pseudopressure
approach was favored over the total-material-balance-pseudotime approach.
Recently, Stalgorova and Mattar (2016) performed a study to show that analyzingpvolatile ffiffiffi oil-production data with traditional
straight-line (including FMB) and analytical approaches results in significant errors in xf k and original oil in place (OOIP). Synthetic
data sets (oil rates and flowing pressures) were generated by use of a numerical multifracture model, and pseudoparameters (two-phase
pseudopressure and pseudotime) were applied to correct for two-phase flow. The FMB formulation used in that work was similar to that
of gas (Eq. 1); further, the oil-pseudopressure modification developed in that work was similar to that suggested by Raghavan (1976)
(Eq. 3) to account for relative permeability. Stalgorova and Mattar mentioned that for the cases where pressure remained higher than
bubblepoint (single-phase oil), these modifications resulted in significant improvement in OOIP determination. For the cases where the
pressure dropped lower than the bubblepoint (two-phase oil/gas), inaccuracies in analysis results (although some improvements were
made over the traditional approach) were observed. As a result, it was concluded that, in straight-line-analysis techniques (including
FMB), use of the two-phase corrections makes the two-phase portion of the data approach the correct straight line.
The previously discussed studies, and most of the others in the literature, assume single-well scenarios and consider only single
phase or two phases (oil/gas or gas/water); water production/injection and effects of nearby wells were typically ignored. Multiphase
(oil/gas/water)-flow and multiwell-production considerations become especially important for analysis of unconventional tight and
shale reservoirs, because multiple wells are required and massive amounts of water are typically injected to stimulate the reservoir to
allow significant drainage. The intent of this paper, therefore, is to address these issues and to present a comprehensive version of the
FMB that includes the effects of water production/injection along with oil and gas production, and is applicable for single-well- and/or
multiwell-production cases. The structure of this work is as follows. First, the comprehensive multiphase FMB is introduced and a gen-
eral material-balance equation is presented to include the effects of production of three phases (oil/gas/water) in average pressure calcu-
lations. Then, the calculation procedure is outlined to systematically perform multiphase FMB analysis. Next, a number of numerical-
simulation examples are used to demonstrate the effect of a second phase on the analysis, where the second phase for an oil reservoir
can be either gas or water. Moreover, a simulation case is presented to show the usefulness of the approach for FMB analysis of multi-
ple wells. The general FMB method provided in this work can be used to perform multiwell, multiphase FMB analysis of pad wells in
unconventional reservoirs.
Conventional FMB
Conventional FMB for an oil reservoir assumes constant oil properties and can be easily obtained by combining the oil depletion (i.e.,
the single-phase oil compressibility) equation and the deliverability (or Darcy) equation. Eq. 4 shows the conventional FMB equation
for an oil reservoir:

qo 1 1 Np
¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
ðpi pwf Þ b bN co ðpi pwf Þ
where qo and Np are oil rate and cumulative production, respectively; N is the OOIP; pi and pwf are the initial and flowing pressures,
respectively; co is the oil compressibility; and b is a factor that combines some other reservoir properties (see Appendix A for details).
Eq. 4 can be slightly modified to partially account for water and formation compressibility and also for changes in oil formation volume
factor (FVF). This can be accomplished by use of total compressibility in place of oil compressibility in Eq. 4, and multiplying the
Bo
parameters inside parenthesis by . For gas reservoirs, gas-depletion (p/Z material balance) equation and gas-deliverability equation
Boi
(in terms of gas pseudopressure) are used to obtain the gas FMB equation (not shown here forbrevity).
qo Np
Eq. 4 indicates that a plot vs. normalized cumulative production is a straight line during BDF. The inter-
ðpi pwf Þ co ðpi pwf Þ
qo
cept of this straight line at ¼ 0 gives the initial oil in place (N). A similar simple graphical procedure can also be obtained
ðpi pwf Þ
for gas reservoirs.
The conventional oil and also conventional gas FMB analyses are attractive because of their simplicity. However, they may have
limited application because the depletion components embedded in their formulation are dependent on single-phase (oil/gas) compressi-
bility equations. As a result, oil-FMB analysis is a sole function of oil production; gas- and water-production effects are not included in
the formulation. As mentioned previously, these can considerably affect the FMB-analysis results, especially in unconventional reser-
voirs, where significant gas and water is produced and/or injected.
General FMB
Withdrawal and/or injection of any reservoir fluid (oil/gas/water) causes a change in average reservoir pressure. Average pressure, and
its changes with production (time), play a critical role in determining the rock and fluid characteristics, and therefore reservoir-perform-
ance forecasting, economic evaluation, and management (Shahamat et al. 2015). To make direct use of average pressure in the calcula-
tion of original fluid volumes in place, the general FMB is written according to Eq. 5:

q 1 1 ðppi ppavg Þ OFIP
¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
ðppi ppwf Þ b b OFIP ðppi ppwf Þ
where OFIP is the original fluid in place and can indicate oil, gas, or water depending on the phases used for pseudopressure (pp) and
production rate (q). The terms ppi, ppavg, and pwf are the initial, average, and flowing pseudopressures (pseudopressure calculation is ela-
borated in the next subsection). This format of the FMB can be derived for single-phase oil and single-phase gas reservoirs (see
2 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Appendices A and B). It is also similar to Eq. 1, used by Clarkson et al. (2007) and later used by Stalgorova and Mattar (2016). Eq. 5 is
a useful presentation of the FMB because it enables calculation of not only single-phase but also multiphase flow, provided that appro-
priate multiphase pseudopressures are used in the analysis. In the next subsections, calculations of the average pressure and pseudopres-
sures used for multiphase FMB analysis are detailed.
Calculation of Average Pressure. The most critical element of the general FMB is calculation of the average pressure. To account for
the effect of oil/gas/water production and water injection in average pressure calculations, conservation of mass is written and simpli-
fied to derive the general material-balance formulation. The general material balance, the derivation of which is provided in Appendix
D, can be written according to Eq. 6:
Np Gp Wps
Uo þ Ug þ Uw ¼ 1; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
N G W
where Uo , Ug , and Uw are the oil-, gas-, and water-coefficient terms, which are functions of the fluid and rock properties (therefore func-
tions of average pressure), and are given in Appendix D. As a result, a minimization routine (for example, gradient descent) can be used
to obtain the average pressures corresponding to each production time. In Eq. 6, N, G, and W are the initial oil, gas, and water volumes
in place. In addition, Np and Gp are the cumulative produced oil and gas, respectively, and Wps is the net cumulative water production
(i.e., production minus injection).
Calculation of Pseudopressures. To account for changes in reservoir-rock/fluid properties, pseudopressure is defined by use of the
FVF and relative permeability parameters, according to Eq. 7:
ðp
kr dp
pp ¼ li Bi ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
pbase lB
where li and Bi are the initial viscosity and initial FVF for either oil or gas, depending on the phase for which the pseudopressure is cal-
culated. For single-phase flow, relative permeability is equal to unity and therefore calculation of pseudopressure is simple and can be
performed rigorously (see Appendices A and B). For two- or three-phase-flow conditions, however, this calculation is dependent on the
application of the so-called “reservoir integral function,” introduced by Jones and Raghavan (1988) and Boe et al. (1989). Under the mul-
tiphase conditions, because relative permeability (kr ) is a function of saturation, a relationship between saturation and pressure (or pro-
duction) is required to enable calculation of multiphase pseudopressure. Jones and Raghavan (1988) and Jones et al. (1989) showed that
the reservoir integral solution can be approximated with a steady-state flow assumption to analyze drawdown and buildup responses in
gas/condensate reservoirs. In addition, Fevang and Whitson (1996) proposed defining different pressure intervals for calculating the inte-
gral used in the pseudopressure formulation for the modeling of gas/condensate reservoirs. Later, Sureshjani et al. (2014) applied a simi-
lar approach for calculation of pseudopressure and performing FMB for gas/condensate reservoirs. Recently, Behmanesh (2016) used an
analogous approach to calculate two-phase pseudopressure, and also two-phase pseudotime, for production-data analysis of volatile oil
and gas/condensate reservoirs. He discussed the methods that can be used to approximate the saturation-pressure path in the reservoir.
This paper uses the two main methods for approximating the saturation-pressure relationships and therefore calculating the reservoir
integral. The first method is dependent on the steady-state flow of fluids to the wellbore and is commonly called the “steady-state”
method. For the cases where both oil and gas flow in the reservoir, over the range of wellbore pressure to average pressure, this simple
calculation method provides reasonable results for predicting the saturation-pressure relationship. This method demonstrates that, by
use of the gas and oil production and properties, one can directly obtain the gas/oil relative permeability ratio according to Eq. 8:

krg GOR Rs lg Bg
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
kro 1 Rv GOR lo Bo
The viscosity and FVF terms, in addition to the Rv and Rs terms used in Eq. 8, are calculated at the average reservoir pressure. The
gas/oil relative permeability ratio is then used along with the gas and oil relative permeability correlations in a table-lookup procedure
to reasonably determine the relative permeabilities for each phase (gas and oil). Eq. 8 is for steady-state flow of gas and oil phases. One
can easily combine this equation with the one considering flow of water and oil (similar to Eq. 2) to obtain the steady-state flow equa-
tion applicable for flow of three phases (oil, gas, and water). Therefore, under such conditions, the three-phase relative permeability cor-
relations (e.g., Stone I) may be used in the table-lookup procedure.
The second method used in this paper for approximating the saturation-pressure path is commonly referred to as the “tank model,”
where the general material-balance equation is used to obtain the average oil/gas saturations as a function of production/injection at the
wellbore (Walsh and Lake 2003). Extending the method to enable calculation of average oil, gas, and water saturations, the following
equations are obtained (see Appendix E for detailed derivation):

Np Gp G
Bo 1 1 Rv
N G N
So ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
Wps W Gp G Np
1 Bw 1 RsRv þ 1 Bg RvBo þ 1 Bo RsBg
W N G N N

Gp G Np
Bg 1 1 Rs
G N N
Sg ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
Wps W Gp G Np
W N G N N

Wps W
1 Bw 1 RsRv
W N
Sw ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ
Wps W Gp G Np
W N G N N

In Eqs. 9 through 11, B o , B g , and B w are oil, gas, and water FVFs, and R s and R v are the solution GOR (gas content of the oil) and
solution oil/gas ratio (oil content of the gas), respectively. It is noted that all these parameters are calculated at the average pressure
obtained by use of Eq. 6.
Table 1 summarizes the parameters required and methods used for calculation of multiphase pseudopressures. In Table 1, li and Bi
are the initial viscosity and initial FVF for either oil or gas, depending on the phase for which the pseudopressure is calculated.
Table 1—Summary of the parameters and recommended methods used for calculation of oil and gas
pseudopressures in the multiphase FMB.
Pseudopressure can also be constructed for the water phase to account for the changes in its properties during production. Although
these changes are generally negligible, the water-phase pseudopressures can be easily constructed in a straightforward manner and simi-
lar to single-phase gas pseudopressure. In this paper, pseudopressures are calculated and used for analysis of water phase.
Recommended Calculation Procedure

For performing multiphase FMB to estimate in-place volumes, the following systematic procedure is recommended:
1. Perform quality control of the production data (flowing oil, gas, and water rates, and cumulative productions and flowing pres-
sure) to be used for analysis.
2. Collect the pressure/volume/temperature data and relative permeability information that best describe the fluid and rock proper-
ties of the reservoir under study. If such data are not available, use the appropriate correlations that best describe pressure/
volume/temperature and relative permeabilities.
3. Assume a value for OOIP, original gas in place (OGIP), and original water in place (OWIP).
4. Use Eq. 6, along with the cumulative productions and in-place volumes, and a minimization routine to calculate the average res-
ervoir pressures. In addition, use Eqs. 9 through 11 to calculate average oil, gas, and water saturations at each production time.
5. Depending on the value of average pressure at each timestep, and by use of Table 1, calculate the pseudopressure differences
ðppi ppwf Þ and ðppi ppavg Þ for both oil and gas phases. For the water phase, calculate ðpi pwf Þ and ðpi pavg Þ; pseudopres-
sure for water may not be necessary, and hence pressures are used.
6. Construct a plot of normalized rate vs. normalized cumulative production. Normalized rate for the oil, gas, and water phases are
qo qg qw
, , and , respectively. Normalized cumulative production for the oil, gas, and water phases are
ðppi ppwf Þ ðppi ppwf Þ ðpi pwf Þ
ðppi ppavg ÞN ðppi ppavg ÞG ðpi pavg ÞW
, , and , respectively.
ðppi ppwf Þ ðppi ppwf Þ ðpi pwf Þ
7. Pass a straight line through the late portion of the oil, gas, and water plots and extrapolate the line to zero y-intercept. This proce-
dure calculates initial in-place volume for oil, gas, and water (N, G, and W).
8. Compare the calculated in-place volumes in Step 7 with those used in Steps 4 through 6. If they do not compare within an accept-
able tolerance, use the calculated volumes in Step 7 as the in-place volumes and iterate Steps 4 through 8 until reasonable conver-
gences in the calculated oil, gas, and water in-place volumes are reached.
The analysis procedure described here has application to both single-well and multiwell scenarios. In the latter cases, however, the
corresponding cumulative productions of different wells have to be added and used in Steps 4 through 8 (instead of use of cumulative
production of individual wells) to enable calculation of the field average pressures.
Validation
To illustrate the application of the approach presented in this paper, a numerical simulator was used to generate several single-phase
and multiphase simulations of MFHWs, with/without water production/injection. The simulated data for each case were then analyzed
by use of the conventional FMB approach and the multiphase FMB approach described previously. The results serve as validation of
the proposed methodology to calculate the volume of original fluids in place.

Case 1: Single-Phase Oil Reservoir, No Water Production. In Case 1, a single-phase oil well is simulated, which produces only oil
during its entire production life. Initial reservoir pressure is 5,000 psia, and flowing wellbore pressure is held constant and slightly
greater than the bubblepoint ( pb ¼ 200 psia) to ensure single-phase oil flow throughout the production history. Table 2 gives details
regarding the numerical setup of this case. In Table 2, Le is the horizontal-well lateral length, h is the net-pay thickness, Xf is the fracture
half-length, Xe is the size of the reservoir in the x-direction, Soi is the initial oil saturation, and co is the oil API value. The simulated
OOIP for this case is 4,050 MSTB (thousand standard barrels). Fig. 1 provides a comparison between the conventional single-phase
FMB (dependent on constant oil compressibility, Eq. 4) with the multiphase FMB approach presented in this paper (dependent on pseu-
dopressure and generalized material-balance equation).
Reservoir and Fluid Properties

pi = 5,000 psia φ = 8%
Le = 5,025 ft Soi = 100%
h = 150 ft pb = 200 psia
Xe = 400 ft γo = 30 °API
Xf = 200 ft No. fractures = 15
Table 2—Details of the numerical model for Case 1.
Normalized Rate (STB/D/psia)

Normalized Rate (STB/D/psia)
Conventional FMB, OOIP = 5,925 MSTB Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 4,170 MSTB
0.2 0.1
0.08
0.15
0.06
0.1
0.04
0.05
0.02
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Normalized Cumulative (STB) ×106 Normalized Cumulative (STB) ×106
(a) (b)
Fig. 1—Analysis of production data for Case 1 (volumetric OOIP used for constructing the model 5 4,050 MSTB) by use of (a) con-
ventional single-phase FMB and (b) multiphase FMB.
The conventional FMB gives 5,925 MSTB, greater than the simulated in-place volume by a factor of 1.5. The reason for such an
overestimation is the changes in oil compressibility and viscosity with depletion, not accounted for in the conventional FMB approach.
The average pressure for this case dropped to approximately 900 psia, resulting in considerable increase in oil compressibility and
decrease in oil viscosity (Fig. 2). The multiphase FMB, however, can reasonably capture the changes in the oil compressibility and vis-
cosity with depletion through the use of pseudopressure terms. It estimates the OOIP to equal 4,170 MSTB, much closer to the simu-
lated in-place volume.
1×10–2 9
Oil Compressibility (1/psia)
8.37
8
Oil Viscosity (cp)
1×10–3 7
6
5
1×10–4
4
1.95 × 10–5
3 2.53
1×10–5 2
3.49 × 10–6
1
1×10–6 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Pressure (psia) Pressure (psia)
(a) (b)
Fig. 2—Changes in properties of single-phase oils with depletion, Case 1: (a) compressibility; (b) viscosity.
Case 2: Oil Reservoir With Significant Water Production. This case corresponds to a simulated oil well that exhibits significant
water production. Here, the reservoir and fluid properties are the same as those used in Case 1, except that Swi is set to 40%, the Corey
exponent for water is equal to 2, and krw;ro ¼ 1 to enable higher water rates during oil production. In this case, the simulated original-
in-place volumes for oil and water are 2,430 and 1,683 MSTB, respectively. Figs. 3a and 3b show the results of applying the multi-
phase FMB approach for analysis of both oil and water phases. The calculated OOIP and OWIP volumes are 2,487 and 1,713 MSTB,
respectively, which are very close to the actual in-place volumes used for construction of the simulation model. In contrast, the conven-
tional FMB yields 1,051 MSTB, which is less than one-half of the actual OOIP.

Oil Normalized Rate (STB/D/psia)

0.04
Water Normalized Rate (Mscf/psia)

Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 2,487 MSTB 0.6 Multiphase FMB, OWIP = 1,713 MSTB
0.035
0.03 0.5
0.025 0.4
0.02
0.3
0.015
0.2
0.01
0.1
0.005
0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Oil Normalized Cumulative (STB) ×106 Water Normalized Cumulative (Mscf) ×106
(a) (b)
Fig. 3—Analysis of (a) oil and (b) water phases for Case 2 by use of multiphase FMB approach (volumetric OOIP and OWIP used for
constructing the model are 2,430 MSTB and 1,683 MSTB, respectively).
To demonstrate the effect of water production on the analysis, the oil production for this case was analyzed by use of the multiphase
FMB approach presented in this paper, with and without accounting for the water production. A comparison of the oil and water rates
for this case is shown in Fig. 4a. As mentioned previously, the reservoir parameters for this case are set so that there is significant water
production; therefore, the results of this case can be used to illustrate the importance of water production on the FMB analysis. A com-
parison of the resulting multiphase FMB analysis with/without water-production consideration is given in Fig. 4b. By use of multiphase
FMB, OOIP is calculated to be 918 MSTB if water production is ignored in the analysis. Accounting for water production in the multi-
phase FMB, however, leads to significantly better estimation of the OOIP (2,487 MSTB), which is very close to the actual simulated
value for this case (2,430 MSTB).
2,000
Oil and Water Rates (STB/D)
Oil rate (STB/D) Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 2,487 MSTB

1,750
Water rate (STB/D) 0.04
1,500 Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 918 MSTB
1,250 0.03
Ignoring water production
1,000
0.02
750 Considering water production
500
0.01
250
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (days) Oil Normalized Cumulative (STB) ×106
(a) (b)
Fig. 4—Comparison of (a) water- and oil-production rates for Case 2; (b) multiphase FMB results with/without water-production
consideration.
Case 3: Oil Reservoir With Significant Water and Gas Production. Table 3 provides the pertinent information used as input for the
simulation model for this case. Initially, the reservoir is undersaturated, and with production its pressure drops lower than bubblepoint,
resulting in an increase in GOR. The average pressure at the end of production for this case was equal to 1,073 psia, ensuring that reser-
voir pressure is well lower than bubblepoint pressure. As a result, its production exhibits considerable water, oil, and gas production, as
Fig. 5a demonstrates. The exact volumetric calculation of the original-in-place fluids for this simulation case gives OOIP ¼ 2,058
MSTB, OGIP ¼ 2,261 MMcf, and OWIP ¼ 1,047 MSTB.
Reservoir and Fluid Properties Relative Permeability Parameters

pi = 6,000 psia Swc = 5%
pwf = 500 psia Sgc = 5%
Le = 5,025 ft krwgc, krgcw, krocw, krwro = 1
h = 150 ft Sorg = 20%
φ = 8% Sorw = 10%
Swi = 25% krgro = 0.7
pb = 4,000 psia nw, now = 2
γo = 40 °API ng = 1.5
γg = 0.8 nog = 2.5
Table 3—Details of the numerical model for Case 3.

10,000 10,000

0.2

Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 2,130 MSTB
0.15
GOR (Scf/STB)
1,000
0.1
100
qo 0.05
qw
Average pressure
GOR
near Pb!
10 1,000 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Oil Normalized Cumulative (STB) ×106
Time (days)
(a) (b)
Fig. 5—(a) Semilog plot of production data from the three-phase numerical model in Case 3; (b) use of the multiphase FMB for anal-
ysis of the oil phase.
By use of the recommended procedure described previously, the multiphase FMB analysis for the oil phase leads to an OOIP esti-
mate of 2,130 MSTB, whereas the conventional FMB gives 3,201 MSTB. Again, this example case demonstrates the ability of the pro-
posed approach to reasonably estimate oil-in-place volume (within acceptable engineering error). As can be observed from the FMB
signature in Fig. 5b, a portion of the data falls below the correct FMB straight line but reverts back later during production, leading to
reasonable estimation of OOIP. Examination of the application of the multiphase FMB approach for several other numerical-simulation
cases reveals that such a (dip-down or sometimes fluctuating) signature in the FMB plot is a function of the rate/pressure-decline behav-
ior of the well. Further, it appears to correspond to the period during which average pressure crosses the bubblepoint pressure. The mul-
tiphase corrections adapted in this paper cannot adequately capture the substantial properties changes during this period, and therefore
such a deviation from the correct straight line may be observed. In spite of this dip-down signature, the two-phase pseudopressure rea-
sonably corrects the later two-phase (oil and gas) production and leads to an acceptable estimation of OOIP.
In addition to the oil phase, the multiphase FMB can be used for analysis of gas and water phases. Figs. 6a and 6b show the result-
ing FMB plots for gas and water, respectively, demonstrating again that the approach can be used to obtain satisfactory results for the
in-place volumes (OGIP ¼ 2,378 MMcf and OWIP ¼ 1,087 MSTB). These values are in close agreement with the in-place volumes
used for construction of the numerical-simulation model (calculation errors for OOIP, OGIP, and OWIP are 4, 5, and 4%, respectively).
Again, the FMB for the gas phase shows a dip-down signature and, as mentioned previously, this may correspond to the production pe-
riod during which the average pressure crosses the bubblepoint pressure. Similar to the oil FMB, the later production trend reverts back
to the correct straight line on the FMB, giving reasonable estimates for the gas in-place volume. By use of oil, gas, and water in-place
volumes, along with the value for the solution GOR used for construction of the numerical model, one can back calculate the oil, gas,
and water saturations (74, 1, and 25%, respectively). These values are in close agreement with the initial saturation values used for con-
struction of this simulation example. Calculation of the initial saturations from the multiphase FMB approach can be useful in estimat-
ing/validating the initial saturations.
2.5 3
Water Normalized Rate (Mscf/psia)
Gas Normalized Rate (Mscf/psia)
Multiphase FMB, OGIP = 2,378 MMscf Multiphase FMB, OWIP = 1,087 MSTB
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0 0
2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
Gas Normalized Cumulative (Mscf) ×106 Water Normalized Cumulative (Mscf) ×105
(a) (b)
Fig. 6—Analysis of (a) produced-gas and (b) produced-water phases for Case 3, by use of multiphase FMB approach.
Case 4: Multiwell Oil Reservoir With Injection. This case simulates a reservoir with two horizontal wells (Wells A and B) with dif-
ferent well lengths (4,500 and 5,000 ft), number of fractures (18 and 40), and fracture half-lengths (280 and 200 ft). Bubblepoint pres-
sure for this case is set equal to initial reservoir pressure, 5,000 psia. Initial oil and water saturations are 76% and 24%, respectively.
Other input parameters used for this simulation case are the same as those used in Case 3. To reasonably simulate a typical fracturing
operation, before production, 75,000 STB of water was injected into each of these wells (Wells A and B), followed by a soaking period
of 10 days. Production from Wells A and B start at the same time, with Well A producing at constant pressure of 1,000 psia and Well B
initially producing at constant oil rate of 300 STB/D for approximately 6 months and then changing wellbore constraint to a constant
pressure of 500 psia. Fig. 7 shows schematic of the reservoir and wells, and also the pressure profile after 9 years of production.

5,000 psia
3,400 psia Well B

Well A
700 psia
Fig. 7—Pressure distribution of the two-well simulation case at the end (i.e., after 9 years) of production.
Production behavior of these wells is shown in Figs. 8a and 8b. Fig. 8a shows the oil and water rates and GOR behavior over time
for Wells A and B. Fig. 8b compares the cumulative production of the different phases for these wells. Both wells experience consider-
able water production especially early in their lives. This is because of the prior injection of a substantial amount of water for the
hydraulic-fracture treatment. Moreover, gas production increases when average pressure within the investigated region drops below the
bubblepoint pressure. Cumulative oil, gas, and water production from Well A after 6 years of production is more than 133 MSTB,
1,200 MMcf, and 139 MSTB, respectively. For Well B, cumulative oil, gas, and water production at the end of production is more than
159 MSTB, 2,031 MMcf, and 182 MSTB, respectively. These values are comparable with actual production reported from major
unconventional plays (Kondash and Vengosh 2015). The average reservoir pressure at the end of production for this case was equal to
2,126 psia, ensuring that reservoir pressure is well less than the bubblepoint pressure. The original oil, gas, and water in-place volumes
calculated by the numerical simulator are 4,945 MSTB, 7,935 MMcf, and 2,970 MSTB, respectively.
Oil and Water Cumulative Production (STB)
Gas Cumulative Production (Mscf)

1,000 100,000 2.0×105 2.4×106
qo-Well A qw-Well A GOR-Well A

qo-Well B qw-Well B GOR-Well B
1.5×105 1.8×106
GOR (Scf/STB)
100 10,000 1.0×105 1.2×106
5.0×104 6.0×105
Np-Well A Wp-Well A Gp-Well A
Np-Well B Wp-Well B Gp-Well B
10 1,000 0.0×100 0.0×10
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Time (days) Time, Days
(a) (b)
Fig. 8—Comparison of simulated production data for Wells A and B in Case 4: (a) oil and water rates and GORs; (b) cumulative pro-
duction of oil, gas, and water phases.
Production data from these wells were analyzed by use of the conventional FMB and multiphase FMB. Table 4 compares the analy-
sis results of both FMB methods. The conventional FMB is not capable of reasonably calculating the volume of OOIP because it
assumes constant oil compressibility and also ignores gas production and water production/injection. Use of the flowing pressure values
from Well A and the added cumulative oil production of both wells in conventional FMB leads to an in-place volume that is still very
different from the actual OOIP used for building the simulation case. The multiphase FMB, however, results in better estimations of
original-in-place volumes compared with the conventional approach. In spite of the better results by use of multiphase FMB for each
well, addition of their OOIP is still different from the true total OOIP used initially in their simulation. This is because when several
wells are producing, the established drainage volume for each well changes with production changes in any of the wells (Sureshjani
et al. 2013). As a result, the single-well, multiphase FMB analysis may give misleading results, even though better results are obtained
compared with the conventional FMB. The multiwell, multiphase FMB, however, uses the cumulative production of all phases from all
wells to calculate the field average pressure. This gives a much-better indication of the total in-place volumes. By use of the multiwell
version of the multiphase FMB, the following results for the total in-place volumes are obtained: OOIP ¼ 4,811 MSTB, OGIP ¼ 8,187
MMcf, and OWIP ¼ 2,515 MSTB. These values closely compare with the initial in-place volumes used for this simulation example.
Figs. 9a and 9b show the multiwell, multiphase FMB analysis for oil and gas phases, respectively.
OOIP (MSTB) OGIP (MMscf) OWIP (MSTB)

Conventional FMB, Well A 1,171 – –
Conventional FMB, Well B 856 – –
Conventional FMB, added production 2,443 – –
Multiphase FMB, Well A 1,996 3,304 1,022
Multiphase FMB, Well B 1,629 2,792 937
Multiwell, multiphase FMB 4,811 8,187 2,515
Table 4—Comparison of analysis results for Case 4, by use of conventional FMB and multiwell,
multiphase FMB.

0.1 3

Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 4,811 MSTB Multiphase FMB, OGIP = 8,187 MMscf
2.5
0.08
2
0.06
1.5
0.04
1
0.02
0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Oil Normalized Cumulative (STB) ×106 Gas Normalized Cumulative (Mscf) ×106
(a) (b)
Fig. 9—Analysis of total produced (a) oil and (b) gas phases for Case 4, by use of multiwell, multiphase FMB approach.
Similar to the previous case, the earlier portion of the FMB plot in Figs. 9a and 9b exhibits a deviation from the correct FMB straight
line. This is mainly because of the combined effect of transient flow and the phase/properties changes near the bubblepoint pressure. As
mentioned previously, the pseudopressure terms used in this paper may not comprehensively capture the effect of changing fluid prop-
erties when the average pressure is near the bubblepoint pressure; this may result in some fluctuation/deviation from the correct FMB
straight line. Such a fluctuation is a function of the values of reservoir permeability and bubblepoint pressure. In spite of the earlier fluc-
tuation/deviation, the two-phase pseudopressure reasonably corrects the later two-phase (oil and gas) production, enabling reasonable
calculation of the OOIP, OGIP, and OWIP volumes, consistent with the numerical simulation.
Ignoring the water production and injection in the multiphase FMB analysis for this case leads to significant errors in the original-in-
place volumes. Fig. 10 shows the results of applying the multiwell, multiphase FMB for the same production data set, but ignoring
water production and injection in the analysis. The resulting in-place volumes are OOIP ¼ 4,422 MSTB and OGIP ¼ 5,115 MMcf. In
this case, the effect of water production/injection is more pronounced for the gas-phase analysis than for the oil-phase analysis. For the
oil-phase analysis, the water-production/injection effect is dependent on its production/injection volume, compared with that of oil.
This means that the higher the water/oil ratios, the stronger is the effect of water on the oil-phase FMB analysis.
0.1 3
Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 4,422 MSTB Multiphase FMB, OGIP = 5,115 MMscf
2.5
0.08
2
0.06
1.5
0.04
1
0.02
0.5
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Oil Normalized Cumulative (STB) ×106 Gas Normalized Cumulative (Mscf) ×106
(a) (b)
Fig. 10—Effect of ignoring water production/injection on multiwell, multiphase FMB analysis results for Case 4.
Discussion
Significant changes in drilling and completion technology over the past few years sparked a boom in tight- and shale-reservoir develop-
ment. These reservoirs exhibit ultralow permeabilities, and therefore require massive hydraulic-fracturing treatments to create high-
permeability pathways for fluid flow to enable economic production. One important consideration for the analysis of these reservoirs is
the large volumes of water required to execute hydraulic-fracturing treatments. Kondash and Vengosh (2015) compiled data on the vol-
umes of water used for hydraulic fracturing, as well as water volumes produced during flowback and later production for different shale
oil and gas plays in the US. Averaging the water volumes by the number of wells reported in that study for the Eagle Ford, for example,
indicates that more than 86 MSTB of water has been used for hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas wells and more than 162 MSTB of water
has been produced during flowback and online production. For shale-oil wells in the Eagle Ford, the average total water use and total water
produced during flowback and production is more than 94 MSTB and 143 MSTB, respectively. Kondash and Vengosh (2015) further
noted that, depending on the unconventional play under consideration, the volumes of flowback and produced water during the first 2
years may exceed the volumes of water injected for hydraulic fracturing. Nonetheless, these numbers (along with those for other plays)
indicate that huge water volumes are injected and later produced, which may substantially affect production-data-analysis results.
Multiwell analysis is another important consideration for unconventional reservoirs. Efficiently draining ultralow-permeability reser-
voirs within reasonable time frames often require drilling numerous horizontal laterals at a fine spacing. Often, multiple wells from a
single pad are planned to minimize the total surface disturbance of a development. As a result, surface facilities and pipelines are con-
centrated within the pad footprint, which generally means production measurements of multiple wells on a daily basis. It is common for
operators to use common bulk separators sized to handle production from multiple wells, with a parallel single-well test separator to

provide allocation and individual well-production monitoring. Regardless of the production-allocation method, production measure-
ments are often made on a pad (multiple wells) basis rather than on individual-well basis. Therefore, multiwell-analysis methods may
be necessary for analyzing reservoir performance and estimating the original-fluid-in-place volumes in tight and shale reservoirs.
Among the most attractive methods for estimating original fluids in place is the FMB method. FMB analysis is useful and practical
because, as the name implies, it can be performed while the well is flowing and therefore does not require shutting the wells in for deter-
mining average reservoir pressure and reservoir size. Ideally, it is suited for analysis of BDF periods to estimate the total reservoir size.
In tight and shale reservoirs, however, where the permeabilities are extremely low and reaching BDF periods may take very long, it can
be used to estimate the contacted in-place volumes. Although the BDF condition is a concern for FMB analysis in all low-permeability
reservoirs, the current industry development trend of more fracturing stages per well, and increased use of pad-drilling techniques with
tighter well spacing (discussed previously), means that this condition is becoming more prevalent with finer fracture/well spacing. As a
result, the multiwell, multiphase version of the FMB analysis presented in this paper will be useful for analysis of not only multiphase
tight and shale individual wells, but also the pad wells where total production from all wells is commonly measured/reported.
The analysis approach in this paper is dependent on the use of pseudopressure to account for the effects of changes in fluid properties
during depletion. For single-phase flow, the pseudopressure rigorously corrects the production data, leading to solid analysis results. In
cases of two-phase flow, and to account for the effects of both oil and gas production, two-phase pseudopressure is used. As discussed
previously, the pseudopressure formulation used in this paper may not be able to correctly capture the significant property changes near
the bubblepoint pressure. However, during two-phase flow, it is reasonably effective in correcting the data. Moreover, use of pseudo-
pressure enables incorporation of the geomechanical effects (i.e., significant changes in permeability, porosity, and rock compressibility
with depletion) in the analysis. This can be done, for instance, by manipulating Eq. 7 to include the absolute permeability (in addition
to the relative permeability) as a function of pressure. As a result, use of pseudopressure is recommended for FMB analysis. In addition,
water-production/injection effects are included in the FMB analysis through the generalized material-balance equation. As shown in the
simulation cases, water production/injection can have a significant effect on the OOIP and OGIP, and therefore its effects should be
included in the FMB analysis.
The general FMB analysis presented in this paper is performed on all flowing phases (oil, gas, and water), unlike the conventional
approaches where the FMB calculations are performed only for the main flowing phase. This is useful because it allows for calculation
of original-in-place volumes of each phase. The calculated in-place volumes for each phase can then be used to back calculate the initial
saturations corresponding to the production data. This can be especially useful to validate/cross check the initial saturations used ini-
tially in FMB calculations.
Last, as mentioned briefly previously, water production/injection and oil and gas flow can have differing effects on the FMB analysis
of each phase. Depending on the reservoir type (dry gas, gas/condensate, oil, or volatile oil), ignoring water production/injection can
lead to overestimation or underestimation of the in-place volumes by different amounts. It is, therefore, important to investigate the
water-production/injection effects on the FMB analysis of different reservoirs. In addition, this paper did not include any field example
to demonstrate the application of the proposed approach for FMB analysis of field data sets. Separate studies are under way to demon-
strate field application of the approach presented in this paper, and also to address the water-production/injection effects on the FMB
analysis of different reservoirs.
Conclusions
This paper presents a general form of the FMB for determining OOIP, OGIP, and OWIP volumes. The new FMB method uses rigorous
pseudopressure (modified to account for multiphase flow) and general material-balance equations, and has application for both conven-
tional and unconventional oil and gas reservoirs. Key conclusions from this work are as follows:
1. The production/reservoir complexities commonly observed in unconventional reservoirs, such as significant water production/injec-
tion, high GOR, and substantial pressure drawdowns, geomechanical effects, and multiwell-production effects, can be included in
the FMB analysis.
2. In general, pseudopressure implementation for two-phase gas/oil flow reasonably corrects the production data, enabling calculation
of appropriate in-place volumes for oil (OOIP) and gas (OGIP). During the production period over which the average pressure
crosses the bubblepoint pressure, however, pseudopressure may not be as effective in correcting the production data.
3. Water production/injection can have significant influence on the FMB-analysis results. As a result, its effects should be included in
FMB analysis.
4. The general FMB analysis presented in this paper is performed on all flowing phases (oil, gas, and water), enabling calculation of
original-in-place volumes of each phase. These volumes can then be used to back calculate the initial saturations corresponding to
the production data. This can be especially useful to validate/cross check the initial saturations used initially in FMB calculations.
Nomenclature
Bg ¼ gas FVF, bbl/Mscf
Bo ¼ oil FVF, bbl/STB
Btg ¼ total gas FVF, bbl/Mscf
Bto ¼ total oil FVF, bbl/STB
Bw ¼ water FVF, bbl/STB
cf ¼ formation compressibility, 1/psia
cg ¼ gas compressibility, 1/psia
co ¼ oil compressibility, 1/psia
CA ¼ Dietz shape factor
G¼ OGIP, Mscf
Gfgi ¼ free gas in place, Mscf
Gp ¼ cumulative gas produced, Mscf
h¼ reservoir thickness, ft
krg ¼ gas relative permeability
krgcw ¼ gas relative permeability at connate-water saturation
krgro ¼ gas relative permeability at residual oil saturation (ROS)
kro ¼ oil relative permeability

krocw ¼ oil relative permeability at connate-water saturation

krw ¼ water relative permeability
krwgc ¼ water relative permeability at critical gas saturation
krwro ¼ water relative permeability at ROS
Le ¼ horizontal-well length, ft
ng, nog, now, nw ¼ exponents in modified Brooks-Corey relative permeability functions
N ¼ OOIP, STB
Nfoi ¼ free OIP, STB
Np ¼ cumulative oil produced, STB
pavg ¼ average pressure, psia
pb ¼ bubblepoint pressure, psia
pbase ¼ base pressure for calculating pseudopressure, psia
pi ¼ initial pressure, psia
ppavg ¼ average pseudopressure, psia
ppi ¼ initial pseudopressure, psia
ppwf ¼ flowing pseudopressure, psia
pwf ¼ flowing pressure, psia
qg ¼ gas-production rate, Mscf/D
qo ¼ oil-production rate, STB/D
qw ¼ water-production rate, STB/D
rwa ¼ effective wellbore length, ft
Rs ¼ solution GOR, Mscf/STB
Rv ¼ solution oil/gas ratio, STB/Mscf
Sgc ¼ critical gas saturation, %
Sgi ¼ initial gas saturation, %
Soi ¼ initial oil saturation, %
Sorg ¼ ROS in gas/oil system, %
Sorw ¼ ROS in water/oil system, %
Swc ¼ connate-water saturation, %
Swi ¼ initial water saturation, %
W ¼ OWIP, STB
We ¼ water influx, bbl
Wfi ¼ free water in place, STB
WI ¼ cumulative water injected, STB
Wp ¼ cumulative water produced, STB
Wps ¼ net cumulative water produced, STB
Xe ¼ reservoir size in x-direction, ft
Xf ¼ fracture half-length, ft
Z ¼ compressibility factor
/ ¼ porosity, %
lg ¼ gas viscosity, cp
lo ¼ oil viscosity, cp
lw ¼ water viscosity, cp
cg ¼ gas gravity
co ¼ oil API value
overhead bar sign ¼ average
References
Agarwal, R. G., Gardner, D. C., Kleinsteiber, S. W., et al. 1999. Analyzing Well Production Data Using Combined Type-Curve and Decline-Curve Anal-
ysis Concepts. SPE Res Eval & Eng 2 (05): 478–486. SPE-57916-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/57916-PA.
Behmanesh, H. 2016. Rate-Transient Analysis of Tight Gas Condensate and Black Oil Wells Exhibiting Two-Phase Flow. PhD dissertation, University of
Calgary, Calgary (January 2016).
Boe, A., Skjaeveland, S. M., and Whitson, C. H. 1989. Two-Phase Pressure Test Analysis. SPE Form Eval 4 (4): 604–610. SPE-10224-PA. https://
doi.org/10.2118/10224-PA.
Clarkson, C. R. 2009. Case Study: Production Data and Pressure Transient Analysis of Horseshoe Canyon CBM Wells. J Can Pet Technol 48 (10):
27–38. SPE-114485-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/114485-PA.
Clarkson, C. R., Bustin, R. M., and Seidle, J. P. 2007. Production-Data Analysis of Single-Phase (Gas) Coalbed-Methane Wells. SPE Res Eval & Eng 10
(3): 312–331. SPE-100313-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/100313-PA.
Clarkson, C. R., Jordan, C. L., Gierhart, R. R. et al. 2008. Production Data Analysis of Coalbed-Methane Wells. SPE Res Eval & Eng 11 (2): 311–325.
SPE-107705-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/107705-PA.
Clarkson, C. R., Jordan, C. L., Ilk, D. et al. 2012. Rate-Transient Analysis of Two-Phase (Gas þ Water) CBM Wells. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 8 (September):
106–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2012.01.006.
Fevang, O. and Whitson, C. H. 1996. Modeling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability. SPE Res Eng 11 (4): 221–230. SPE-30714-PA. https://doi.org/
10.2118/30714-PA.
Gerami, S., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Mattar, L. 2007. Decline Curve Analysis for Naturally Fractured Gas Reservoirs: A Study on the Applicability of
“Pseudo-time” and “Material Balance Pseudo-time.” Presented at International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, U.A.E., December 4–6.
IPTC-11278-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-11278-MS.
Jones, J. R. and Raghavan, R. 1988. Interpretation of Flowing Well Response in Gas-Condensate Wells. SPE Form Eval 3 (3): 578–594. SPE-30714-PA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/14204-PA.
Jones, J. R., Vo, D. T., and Raghavan, R. 1989. Interpretation of Pressure-Buildup Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells. SPE Form Eval 4 (1): 93–104.
SPE-15535-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/15535-PA.

Kondash, A. and Vengosh, A. 2015. Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2 (10): 276–280. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.estlett.5b00211.
Mattar, L. and McNeil, R. 1998. The “Flowing” Gas Material Balance. J Can Pet Technol 37 (2): 52–55. PETSOC-98-02-06. https://doi.org/10.2118/98-
02-06.
Mattar, L. and Anderson, D. 2005. Dynamic Material Balance (Oil or Gas-in-Place Without Shut-Ins). Presented at Canadian International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 7–9. PETSOC-2005-113. https://doi.org/10.2118/2005-113.
Morad, K. and Clarkson, C. R. 2008. Application of Flowing p/Z* Material Balance for Dry Coalbed-Methane Reservoirs. Presented at the CIPC/SPE
Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference, Calgary, 16–19 June. SPE-114995-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/114995-MS.
Raghavan, R. 1976. Well-Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive. SPE J. 16 (4): 196–208. SPE-5588-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/5588-
PA.
Shahamat, M. S., Mattar, L., and Aguilera, R. 2015. A Physics-Based Method To Forecast Production From Tight and Shale Petroleum Reservoirs by
Use of Succession of Pseudosteady States. SPE Res Eval & Eng 18 (4): 508–522. SPE-167686-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/167686-PA.
Stalgorova, E. and Mattar, L. 2016. Analytical Methods for Single-Phase Oil Flow: Accounting for Changing Liquid and Rock Properties. Presented at
SPE Europec featured at 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 30 May–2 June. SPE-180139-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/180139-
MS.
Sureshjani, M. H., Behmanesh, H., and Clarkson, C. R. 2013. Multi-Well Gas Reservoirs Production Data Analysis. Presented at the SPE Unconven-
tional Resources Conference Canada, Calgary, 5–7 November. SPE-167159-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167159-MS.
Sureshjani, M. H., Gerami, S., and Emadi, M. A. 2014. A Simple Approach to Dynamic Material Balance in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. J. Oil Gas. Sci.
Technol. 69 (2): 307–317. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2012022.
Walsh, M. P. and Lake, L. W. 2003. A Generalized Approach to Primary Hydrocarbon Recovery. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Appendix A—Single-Phase Oil FMB

To derive the oil-FMB equation in terms of pseudopressure of single-phase oil, we first write the oil-compressibility equation according
to Eq. A-1:
1 dV 1 qo Bo dt
co ¼ ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-1Þ
V dp NBoi dp
Conventionally, the oil compressibility and FVFs are assumed constant. Such an assumption aids in the integration of Eq. A-1 and
therefore obtaining the oil-depletion equation. To account for variations in oil compressibility and FVFs during production, however,
one can define the normalized pseudopressure terms as below:
ðp
dp
pp ¼ loi Boi : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-2Þ
l
pbase o Bo
Taking the derivative of this relation with respect to pressure gives
dpp loi Boi

¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-3Þ
dp lo Bo
Substituting Eq. A-3 in Eq. A-1 gives
1 loi qo dt
co ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-4Þ
N lo dpp
Rearranging this equation and then integrating Eq. A-4 gives

ðt
1 loi
ðppi ppavg Þ ¼ qo dt: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-5Þ
N co lo
0
Eq. A-5 is the depletion equation of a single-phase-oil reservoir in terms of pseudopressure. In addition to Eq. A-5, the oil-inflow
relation can be expressed in terms of pseudopressure, as shown in Eq. A-6:

141:2qo Boi loi 1 4A
ppavg ppwf ¼ ln 2
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-6Þ
kh 2 cCA rwa
ðt
141:2Boi loi 1 4A loi
Assuming b ¼ ln 2
, N pn ¼ qo dt, and Dpp ¼ ðppi ppwfÞ, and then combining the oil-inflow and
kh 2 cCA rwa 0 co l o
-depletion equations gives

Dpp 1 Npn
¼bþ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-7Þ
qo N qo

Dpp Npn
Eq. A-7 suggests that a plot of vs. material balance time i:e:; during BDF leads to a straight line, the slope of which
provides OOIP (slope ¼ 1/N). q o qo
Eq. A-7 can be manipulated to obtain a more useful form for the oil FMB:
qo 1 Npn 1
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-8Þ
Dpp b bN Dpp

Use of Npn ¼ ðppi ppavgÞN (Eq. A-5) leads to the following relation for FMB:

qo 1 1 ðppi ppavg ÞN
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-9Þ
Dpp b bN ðppi ppwf Þ

qo ðppi ppavg ÞN
Eq. A-9 indicates that a plot vs. normalized cumulative production will be a straight line during BDF. The
Dpp ðppi ppwf Þ
qo
intercept of this straight line at ¼ 0 gives the initial oil in place (N). This format of FMB expressed in Eq. A-9 is useful because it
Dpp
only requires pseudopressure calculations (initial, average, and flowing pseudopressures) for determining the size of the reservoir. This
format is especially useful in multiphase-flow conditions, as shown in Appendix C. It is noted that substitution of pseudopressure terms
in Eq. A-9 by pressure terms will lead to a format of the FMB equation that has been in use for oil reservoirs with constant
fluid properties.
Appendix B—Single-Phase Gas FMB

Similar to the case of single-phase oil, the depletion equation for a single-phase gas can be written by use of the compressibility equa-
tion [Shahamat et al. (2015) showed that the equation for gas material balance (p/Z) can be derived from the gas-compressibility
equation]:
1 dV 1 qg Bg dt
cg ¼ ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-1Þ
V dp GBgi dp
Because gas properties change with time (i.e., with reservoir depletion), pseudopressure is required to account for the changes in the
formulation. Pseudopressure of single-phase gas can be defined as
ðp
dp
pp ¼ lgi Bgi : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-2Þ
l
pbase g Bg
Eq. B-2 is similar to the oil pseudopressure (Eq. A-2), except that gas-viscosity and gas-FVF terms are used in place of those for oil.
Taking the derivative of this relation with respect to pressure gives
dpp lgi Bgi

¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-3Þ
dp lg B g
Substituting Eq. B-3 into Eq. B-1 gives
1 lgi qg dt
cg ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-4Þ
G lg dpp
which upon integration leads to

ð
1 t lgi
ðppi ppavg Þ ¼ qg dt: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-5Þ
G 0 cg l g
In addition, the gas-inflow relation is expressed in terms of pseudopressure:

141:2qg Bgi lgi 1 4A
ppavg ppwf ¼ ln 2
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-6Þ
kh 2 cCA rwa
ðt
141:2Bgi lgi 1 4A lgi
Assuming b ¼ ln 2
, G pn ¼ qg dt, and Dpp ¼ ðppi ppwfÞ, and then combining the inflow and deple-
tion equations, gives kh 2 cC r
A wa 0 g lg
c

Dpp 1 Gpn
¼bþ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-7Þ
qg G qg

Dpp Gpn
Eq. B-7 suggests that plotting vs. material-balance pseudotime during BDF gives a straight line, the slope of which
qg qg
indicates OGIP. Eq. B-7 can be manipulated to obtain a more useful form for the gas FMB:
qg 1 Gpn 1
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-8Þ
Dpp b bG Dpp
Use of Gpn ¼ ðppi ppavg ÞG (Eq. B-5) leads to the following relation for FMB:

qg 1 1 ðppi ppavg ÞG
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðB-9Þ
Dpp b bG ðppi ppwf Þ

qg Gpn ðppi ppavg ÞG
Eq. B-9 indicates that a plot vs. normalized cumulative production ¼ during BDF will be a straight line.
Dpp Dpp ðppi ppwf Þ
qg
The intercept of this straight line at ¼ 0 gives the initial gas in place (G).
Dpp

Appendix C—Two-Phase Oil FMB

Two-phase oil/gas flow can be accounted for in the FMB calculations by considering the two-phase pseudopressure. For this purpose,
and analogous to Appendices A and B, pseudopressure can be defined in terms of FVF. In addition, relative permeabilities must be
included in the pseudopressure formulation to account for two-phase oil/gas-flow complexities. Relative permeability is a function of
saturation; therefore, one needs to specify a saturation-pressure path to enable calculation of relative permeabilities with production.
There are four general saturation-pressure paths, each approximating the actual sequence of saturation changes with production:
unsteady-state path, steady-state path, tank-model path, and constant-composition-expansion path. Behmanesh (2016) discusses the
methods commonly used to approximate the saturation-pressure path in the reservoir for volatile oil and gas/condensate reservoirs. The
two methods that are useful for FMB calculations are described here.
Steady-State Path. This path is derived from the assumption that a fluid of fixed composition is continuously entering and leaving a
control volume. This method is attractive because of its computational simplicity, and is especially useful in FMB calculations for pres-
sure ranges from pwf to pb where both oil and gas flow and the flowing composition can be assumed constant. Its saturation-pressure
path can be easily derived through the GOR relationship, and expressed by use of

krg GOR Rs lg Bg
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðC-1Þ
kro 1 Rv GOR lo Bo
Tank-Model Path. This path is useful for describing a control volume subject to only a continuously changing fluid leaving the vol-
ume (Walsh and Lake 2003). It calculates the average oil and gas (and water) saturations as a result of three-phase production/injection.
By use of the general material-balance equation, one can derive the relationship between average saturation and production (pressure).
For the oil phase, the average oil saturation is obtained according to Eq. C-2 (see Appendix E for detailed derivation of average oil, gas,
and water saturations):

Np Gp G
Bo 1 1 Rv
N G N
S o ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðC-2Þ
Wps W Gp G Np
1 Bw 1 RvRs þ 1 Bg RvBo þ 1 Bo RsBg
W N G N N
After calculating the average saturation by use of Eq. C-2, the oil and gas relative permeabilities are obtained through a table lookup
in the relative permeability data.
Average saturation (obtained through Eq. C-2) along with average pressure (general equations derived in Appendix D) are the main
building blocks for the calculations of two-phase pseudopressure. Depending on the value of calculated average pressure, we have up to
three terms for obtaining the two-phase pseudopressure. Table 1 gives a summary of the terms required and the recommended methods
(steady state or tank model) for calculation of two-phase pseudopressure.
After obtaining the two main differences of two-phase pseudopressure [i.e., ðppi ppwf Þ and ðppi ppavg Þ], the same formats of the
oil and gas FMB equations in terms of pseudopressure (derived in Appendices A and B) are used for calculating the in-place-oil and in-
place-gas volumes. The difference, however, is that instead of single-phase pseudopressures, the two-phase oil/gas pseudopressures
qo ðppi ppavg ÞN
described in Table 1 are used. As a result, a plot of vs. normalized oil cumulative production is constructed. The
Dpp ðppi ppwf Þ
qo
intercept at ¼ 0 of the straight line passing through the data in this plot during the BDF should give the initial oil in place (N).
Dpp
qg ðppi ppavg ÞG
Similarly, a plot of vs. normalized gas cumulative production is constructed and the intercept of the straight line
Dpp ðppi ppwf Þ
passing through the data during the BDF should give the initial-gas-in-place volume (G).
Appendix D—General Material-Balance Equation

Generalizing the FMB calculations requires consideration of gas, oil, and water production/injection. Adapted from Walsh and Lake
(2003), a generalized material-balance equation can be written by simply writing the conservation-of-mass equation, and through defini-
tion of different expansion terms. In unconventional tight and shale reservoirs, gas injection and water influx may be ignored, but water
production and injection (as well as rock expansion) need to be considered.
The macroscopic mass balances for stock-tank oil, surface gas, and stock-tank water are according to Eqs. D-1 through D-3:
!
So SgRv
Vb / þ ¼ N Np ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-1Þ
Bo Bg
!
SoRs Sg
Vb / þ ¼ G Gp ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-2Þ
Bo Bg

Sw
Vb / ¼ W Wps : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-3Þ
Bw
In addition to Eqs. D-1 through D-3, we have the saturation-consistency equation, which states that the sum of oil, gas, and water
saturation is equal to unity. Combining that with Eq. D-3 gives
ðW Wps ÞB w
Sg ¼ 1 So : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-4Þ
Vb /

Substituting Eq. D-4 into Eq. D-2 and rearranging to express the oil saturation gives
ðG Gp ÞB g B o þ ðW Wps ÞB w B o Vb /B o
So ¼ : ................................................ ðD-5Þ
Vb /½R s B g B o
Substituting Eq. D-5 into Eq. D-4 and then Eq. D-1 gives the general material-balance equation absent of saturations:
ðG Gp ÞðB g B o R v Þ þ ðN Np ÞðB o R s B g Þ þ ðW Wps ÞB w ð1 R s R v Þ ¼ Vb /ð1 R s R v Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-6Þ
To make Eq. D-6 more usable, the initial and current pore volumes are used. In Eq. D-6, it is noted that Wps ¼ Wp WI , and the ini-
tial PV can be expressed as ðVb /Þi ¼ Vpi ¼ Wfi Bwi þ Gfgi Bgi þ Nfoi Boi (Vpi is in bbl). Moreover, the total initial in-place gas and oil are
related to the free volumes according to Eqs. D-7 and D-8:
G ¼ Gfgi þ Nfoi Rsi ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-7Þ
N ¼ Gfgi Rvi þ Nfoi : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-8Þ

Vpi Vp Vp
Substituting Eq. D-8 into Eq. D-6, by use of the formation-expansivity term, Ef ¼ ¼ cf Dp which gives ¼ ð1 Ef Þ ,
Vpi Vpi
and after some mathematical manipulation, the general material-balance equation results, according to Eq. D-9:
ðB o R s B g Þ ðB g B o R v Þ
Np þ Gp þ Wps B w ¼ Gfgi ðBtg Bgi Þ þ Nfoi ðBto Boi Þ þ Wfi ðB w Bwi Þð1 R s R v Þ þ Vpi Ef ; . . . . ðD-9Þ
ð1 R s R v Þ ð1 R s R v Þ
where the total oil and gas FVFs (Bto and Btg ) are defined according to Eqs. D-10 and D-11:
B g ðRsi R s Þ þ B o ð1 R v Rsi Þ
Bto ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-10Þ
ð1 R s R v Þ
B g ð1 R s Rvi Þ þ B o ðRvi R v Þ
Btg ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-11Þ
ð1 R s R v Þ
The terms on the left-hand side of Eq. D-9 represent the gas, oil, and water withdrawal, respectively. The terms on the right-hand
side of Eq. D-9 represent free-gas expansion, free-oil expansion, free-water expansion, and rock expansion, respectively. It is noted that
Wfi Bwi Nfoi Boi Gfgi Bgi Gfgi Bgi Sgi
the initial saturations can be calculated Swi ¼ , Soi ¼ , and Sgi ¼ . Therefore, defining m ¼ ¼ and n ¼
Vpi Vpi Vpi Nfoi Boi Soi
Wfi Bwi Swi
¼ and normalizing Eq. D-9 by Nfoi result in
Nfoi Boi Soi

Np ðB o R s B g Þ Gp mBoi ðB g B o R v Þ Wps ðnBoi Þ
þ þ Bw
Nfoi ð1 R s R v Þ Gfgi Bgi ð1 R s R v Þ Wfi Bwi

mBoi nBoi Vpi
¼ ðBtg Bgi Þ þ ðBto Boi Þ þ ðB w Bwi Þð1 R s R v Þ þ Ef : ðD-12Þ
Bgi Bwi Nfoi
Nfoi , Gfgi , and Wfi are related to N, G, and W, respectively, according Eqs. D-13 through D-15:
N
Nfoi ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-13Þ
mBoi Rvi
1þ
Bgi
GmBoi
Gfgi ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-14Þ
mBoi þ Bgi Rsi
Wfi ¼ W: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-15Þ
Substituting Eqs. D-13 and D-14 into Eq. D-12 gives

Np mBoi Rvi ðB o R s B g Þ Gp mBoi ðB g R o B v Þ Wps nBoi
1þ þ þ Rsi þ Bw
N Bgi ð1 R s R v Þ G Bgi ð1 R s R v Þ W Bwi

mBoi nBoi Vpi mBoi Rvi
¼ ðBtg Bgi Þ þ ðBto Boi Þ þ ðB w Bwi Þð1 R s R v Þ þ 1þ Ef : ðD-16Þ
Bgi Bwi N Bgi
The general material-balance equation (Eq. D-16) can be expressed in a more compact form according to Eq. D-17:
Np Gp Wps
Uo þ Ug þ Uw ¼ 1; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-17Þ
N G W
where the coefficients Uo , Ug , and Uw are defined according to Eqs. D-18 through D-20:


mBoi Rvi B o B g R s
1þ
Bgi 1 RsRv
Uo ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-18Þ
Btg Bgi þ ðBto Boi Þ þ B w Bwi 1 R s R v þ 1þ Ef
Bgi Bwi N Bgi

mBoi Bg BoRv
þ Rsi
Bgi 1 RsRv
Uo ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-19Þ
Bgi Bwi N Bgi
nBoi
Bw
Bwi
Uo ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-20Þ
Bgi Bwi N Bgi
Appendix E—Saturation Equations

For generalizing the FMB calculations to account for oil, gas, and water production/injection, general saturation equations are required
to be used in the calculations of the pseudopressure terms. To obtain the general saturation equations, first the material balances for oil,
gas, and water phases are written separately, according to Eqs. D-1 through D-3. Rearranging Eq. D-3 gives

W Wps
Vb / ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ðE-1Þ
Sw
Bw
Substituting Eq. E-1 into Eqs. D-1 and D-2 gives

!
W Wps So SgRv
þ ¼ N Np ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-2Þ
Sw Bo Bg
Bw
!
W Wps S o R s S g
þ ¼ G Gp : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-3Þ
Sw Bo Bg
Bw
Use of S w ¼ 1 S o S g in Eqs. E-2 and E-3 lead to
ðW Wps ÞB w ðS o B g þ S g R v B o Þ ¼ ðN Np ÞB g B o ð1 S o S g Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-4Þ
ðW Wps ÞB w ðS o R s B g þ S g B o Þ ¼ ðG Gp ÞB g B o ð1 S o S g Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-5Þ
These are two equations and two unknowns (S o and S g ). By use of Eq. E-5, we express S g in terms of S o :
ðG Gp ÞB g B o ð1 S o Þ ðW Wps ÞB w S o R s B g
Sg ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-6Þ
½ð1 Sgc ÞB o ðW Wps ÞB w þ ðG Gp ÞB g B o
Substituting Eq. E-6 back into Eq. E-4 and performing some mathematical manipulation give the oil-saturation equation in the fol-
lowing simple form:
B o ½ðN Np Þ ðG Gp ÞR v
So ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-7Þ
ðW Wps ÞB w ð1 R s R v Þ þ ðG Gp ÞðB g R v B o Þ þ ðN Np ÞðB o R s B g Þ
Reinserting Eq. E-7 back into Eq. E-6 and then Eq. E-3 and upon simplification, the gas and water saturations are obtained according
to Eqs. E-8 and E-9, respectively:
B g ½ðG Gp Þ ðN Np ÞR s
Sg ¼ ; ........................... ðE-8Þ
ðW Wps Þ B w ð1 R s R v Þ
Sw ¼ : ........................... ðE-9Þ
To express the saturation equations consistent with the compact form of the generalized material-balance equation (Eq. D-17), the
numerator and denominator of Eqs. E-7 through E-9 are divided by N to yield the following saturation equations:

Np Gp G
Bo 1 1 Rv
N G N
So ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-10Þ
Wps W Gp G Np
W N G N N


Gp G Np
1
Bo 1 Rs
G N N
Sg ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-11Þ
Wps W Gp G Np
W N G N N

Wps W
1 Bw 1 RsRv
W N
Sw ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðE-12Þ
Wps W Gp G Np
W N G N N
Mohammad Sadeq Shahamat is a reservoir analytics engineer with Birchcliff Energy Limited. Within Birchcliff, he is primarily
involved in conducting simulation and rate/pressure-transient analysis, in addition to using machine-learning algorithms to iden-
tify key factors affecting production of multifracture horizontal wells in the Montney Formation, Canada. Previously, Shahamat
served as a principal analyst/researcher at IHS Global Canada Limited for analysis and interpretation of unconventional wells
spanning major shale plays in Canada and the US. His primary areas of interest include mathematical modeling, production
forecasting, reserves estimation, and well-spacing/completions optimization of conventional and unconventional oil and gas
reservoirs. Shahamat has authored several technical papers in various journals and conferences. He holds a bachelor’s degree
in petroleum engineering from the Petroleum University of Technology (PUT), Iran; dual master’s degrees in reservoir engineering
from the University of Calgary/PUT; and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Calgary.
Christopher R. Clarkson is a professor and holder of the AITF Shell/Encana Chair in Unconventional Gas and Light Oil research in
the Department of Geoscience and is an adjunct professor with the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the
University of Calgary. His work focus in industry was on exploration for and development of unconventional gas (UG) and light-oil
(ULO) reservoirs. Clarkson’s research focus since coming to the University of Calgary in 2009 has been on advanced reservoir-
characterization methods for UG-ULO, such as rate- and pressure-transient analysis, flowback analysis, and core analysis. He is
also interested in simulation of enhanced-recovery processes in UG-ULO, and how these processes can be used to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions. Clarkson leads an industry-sponsored consortium called the Tight Oil Consortium, focused on these
research topics for ULO reservoirs in western Canada. He is the author of numerous articles in peer-reviewed scientific and engi-
neering journals. Clarkson holds a PhD degree in geological engineering from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He was
an SPE Distinguished Lecturer for the 2009–2010 lecture season, and is the recipient of the 2016 SPE Reservoir Description and
Dynamics Award (Canadian Region).

Shahamat 2017

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Shahamat 2017

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

REE185052 DOI: 10.

2118/185052-PA Date: 21-September-17 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 17

Multiwell, Multiphase Flowing

2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 1

ID: jaganm Time: 19:02 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

2 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 19:02 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 3

ID: jaganm Time: 19:02 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Recommended Calculation Procedure

4 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Reservoir and Fluid Properties

Table 2—Details of the numerical model for Case 1.

Normalized Rate (STB/D/psia)

2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 5

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Oil Normalized Rate (STB/D/psia)

Water Normalized Rate (Mscf/psia)

Oil rate (STB/D) Multiphase FMB, OOIP = 2,487 MSTB

Reservoir and Fluid Properties Relative Permeability Parameters

Table 3—Details of the numerical model for Case 3.

6 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Oil Normalized Rate (STB/D/psia)

Oil and Water Rates (STB/D)

2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 7

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

3,400 psia Well B

Oil and Water Cumulative Production (STB)

Gas Cumulative Production (Mscf)

qo-Well A qw-Well A GOR-Well A

100 10,000 1.0×105 1.2×106

OOIP (MSTB) OGIP (MMscf) OWIP (MSTB)

8 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Oil Normalized Rate (STB/D/psia)

Gas Normalized Rate (Mscf/psia)

Gas Normalized Rate (Mscf/psia)

2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 9

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

10 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

krocw ¼ oil relative permeability at connate-water saturation

2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Appendix A—Single-Phase Oil FMB

Taking the derivative of this relation with respect to pressure gives

dpp loi Boi

Substituting Eq. A-3 in Eq. A-1 gives

Rearranging this equation and then integrating Eq. A-4 gives

12 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Appendix B—Single-Phase Gas FMB

dpp lgi Bgi

Substituting Eq. B-3 into Eq. B-1 gives

which upon integration leads to

In addition, the gas-inflow relation is expressed in terms of pseudopressure:

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

Appendix C—Two-Phase Oil FMB

Appendix D—General Material-Balance Equation

14 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 19:03 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/170026/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#170026

ðG Gp ÞðB g B o R v Þ þ ðN Np ÞðB o R s B g Þ þ ðW Wps ÞB w ð1 R s R v Þ ¼ Vb /ð1 R s R v Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðD-6Þ