Day 4 Am - Gas Material Balance

GAS MATERIAL BALANCE &
PERFORMANCE
DAY 4 MORNING
Gas Material Balance & Performance 2
MATERIAL BALANCE / RESERVE EVALUATION
KEY ELEMENTS OF TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
Reservoir Tank
Hydrocarbon Column
Reservoir/Formation Properties
Fluid Properties (Hydrocarbons & Non-Hydrocarbons)
Effective Drainage Area
Economic Producibility
Recovery Factor
Wells, Facilities and Operation Conditions
MATERIAL BALANCE APPLICATIONS
Determine original oil and gas in place in reservoir (OOIP/OGIP)
Determine original water in place in the aquifer
Estimate expected oil/gas recoveries as a function of pressure
decline in a closed reservoir producing by depletion drive, or as
a function of water influx in a water-drive reservoir
Predict future behavior of a reservoir (production rates,
pressure declines, and water influx)
Verify volumetric estimates of original fluids in place
Detect which primary production drive mechanisms are
responsible for a reservoirs observed behavior, and quantify
the relative importance of each mechanism
Evaluate effectiveness of water drive, gas gap drive, tank leak
Study the interference of fields sharing a common aquifer
MATERIAL BALANCE CONDITIONS
Good average reservoir pressures
P
average
, P
BHP
Reservoir hydrocarbon fluids are in phase equilibrium at all
times, and equilibrium is achieved instantaneously after any
pressure changes
The reservoir can be represented by a single weighted pressure
average at any time
Attention: material balance easily fails in tight gas reservoirs
Fluid saturations are uniform throughout the reservoir at any
time
Conventional PVT relationships for normal gas applicable and
are sufficient to describe fluid phase behavior in the reservoir
WHAT MATERIAL BALANCE GIVES YOU
Understanding of the energy sources driving production
Acquaintance with the individual terms and their evolution in
time
Awareness of their relationship and how they add up (balance)
An internally consistent explanation of reservoir behavior
Because the terms have to add up (balance)
A consistency check on the underlying dataset (because a material
balance model has to match history at all points)
PVT model
Production history
Reservoir pressures
You will normally see the MB equation like this (borrowed from the Classical Reservoir Engineering
course handbook).......

It is instructive and reassuring to extract the terms in the flying-bricks plot and check that it all adds up
you will need to include the injection terms on the RHS
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )Bg Rs Rp Bo
N
Bw Wp We
P
Swc
Cf CwSwc
m
Bgi
Bg
m
Boi
Bg Rs Rsi Boi Bo
Boi
N
Np
+
+
(
A |
.
|
\
|
+
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
=
1
1 1
Oil
Free gas
Water
(Aquifer)
Water
Oil
Free
Gas
Oil shrinkage
due to gas
evolution
Expansion of rock
and connate water
Gas coming out
of solution
Water
PRODUCTION
Known values, transformed
using PVT model and average
reservoir pressure
INFLUX
Must be calculated from
some type of model
analytical or simulation
EXPANSION
Requires known STOIIP,
transformed using PVT and
pressure decline from initial
INJECTION
Known values, gas volumes
transformed using PVT model
and average pressures
Match line
Gas Cap Expansion
Gas
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
w e gi g oi g s si
wc
f wc w
oi oi o w p g s p p o p
B W B B mNB B R R N P
S
c S c
m NB B B N B W B R N G B N + + + A
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ + = + + 1 /
1
1
+ injection terms.
GENETRIC FORM OF MATERIAL BALANCE
Production = Expansion of initial fluids + Influx + Injection
All Measured at instantaneous reservoir conditions
Common Blunders
Don't stop at the bubble point
Expansion terms refer to initial in-place fluids, not remaining fluid
[Gas Cap Free Gas] = [Evolved Free Gas] [Produced Free Gas]
Gas caps can be diffuse
NEVER EVER fit high-order regression curves through known production
profiles
Pressure maybe OK if you are desperate?
Applies to the entire reservoir or any subset of the reservoir
Applies at any moment in time
Cumulatives, cumulative production between any two moments, or rates
APPLICATION OF MATERIAL BALANCE
Applies at any moment in time
Cumulatives, cumulative production between any two
moments, or rates
Some terms on flying-bricks plot may change sign in different
places or times
My influx = your efflux if you are on the other side of the line
Oil first expands, then starts to shrink as it goes below bubble
point
Some terms may be zero at all times
Some terms may switch on or off
Injection
Free gas terms are all zero unless/until pressure goes below
bubble point

APPLICATION OF MATERIAL BALANCE
GAS MATERIAL BALANCE (DEPLETION)
g gi
B CUM OGIP B OGIP = ) (
g
B
Under volumetric (pressure depletion condition)
gas expansion factor, scf/rcf
OGIP
CUM
Z
P
Z
P
Z
P
i
i
i
i
=
Key Performance Parameters
(Average) Reservoir Pressures
Cum Production
Gas Rate
Operational Conditions
Common Plots
Rate and WGR vs. Time
Rate and WGR vs. Cum
P/Z and WGR vs. Cum
G
G
Z
P
Z
P
Z
P
p
i
i
i
i
=
(1 )
1
gr
i wc i
p
G S
E
E S
G
E
G
G
o o
(
+
(

=
1 1
a
p gi gr a
i gi
i
P
G S S Z
P G S
Z
o

| |
|
( | |
\ .
=
| (
| |
\ .
|
\ .
| | 1 1
a
a
g
i
i
P
Z
RF D
P
Z
| |
|
\ .
=
| |
|
\ .
The Gas Material Balance (expressed at standard conditions):
Cumulative Gas Production = Gas Initially in Place Gas Remaining in Reservoir
Rearranging gives:
Gp = Cumulative Gas Production
G = Gas Initially in Place
Ei = Gas Expansion factor at initial conditions
E = Gas Expansion factor at abandonment conditions
Sgr = Trapped Gas Saturation
Swc = Connate water Saturation
o = Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
p = Reservoir Pressure
z = Gas deviation factor
Cumulative Gas Production = Gas Initially in Place Trapped residual Gas By-passed Gas
gi gr
g
gi
S S
D
S
o
| |
=
|
\ .
p G
RF
G
=
1 (1 )
1
p gr
i wc
G E S
G E S
o o
( | |
= +
| (
\ .
) (1 1
a
a
g g
i
i
P
Z
RF D D
P
Z
+
( | |
| (
\ .
( =
| |
(
|
(
\ .
VOLEMTRIC DEPLETION
OGIP
P
i
/Z
i
Cum Production
P/Z
P
ab
/Z
ab
P
cp
/Z
cp
abandonment pressure
Surface compressor
V
comp
V
ab
Recovery Factor = V
ab
/OGIP

Total Recovery Factor = V
comp
/OGIP

Compression Reserves = V
comp
- V
ab
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cum Production (bcf)
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
W
G
R

(
b
b
l /
m
m
c
f
)
ConocoPhillips C-97-J
y = -43.997x + 2650
R
2
= 0.9984
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
ConocoPhillips C-97-J
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
WGR
Gas Rate
Amoco Blackstone A-11
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
Trend Line
WGR
Amoco Blackstone A-11
GAS MATERIAL BALANCE & PERFORMANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
Talisman A-06-F
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Jan-1993 Oct-1995 Jul-1998 Apr-2001 Jan-2004 Oct-2006 Jul-2009
Date
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
Talisman A-06-F
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
Talisman A-06-F
Transitional zone water
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dec-1962 Jun-1968 Dec-1973 May-1979 Nov-1984 May-1990 Oct-1995 Apr-2001 Oct-2006
Date
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
W
G
R

(
b
b
l /
m
m
c
f
)
Amoco Pine Creek 7-13
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
W
G
R

(
b
b
l /
m
m
c
f
)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
Over-pressured depletion
VOLEMTRIC DEPLETION WATER ENCROACHMENT
OVER-PRESSURED TRANSITIONAL ZONE WATER
strong aquifer
weak aquifer
OGIP
OGIP
OGIP
OGIP
P/Z
P/Z
P/Z
P/Z
Cum Production Cum Production
Cum Production
Cum Production
Reservoir material balance is a process for integrating,
linearizing and matching production and pressure history on a
large scale
It is not a generator of performance predictions or production
profiles
MBAL in prediction mode is essentially a coarse-gridded
reservoir simulator
The best illustration of the approach is in Dake "Practice"
Chapter 3, which every reservoir engineer should read and
understand
WATER DRIVE MATERIAL BALANCE
A generic form of material balance:

Total Reservoir Water
Production = Expansion + Influx
F = N * Et + We

Cumulative Oil, Gas, Water Oil & Solution Gas Aquifer Influx
Injection Gas & Water Gas Cap
Leaks Connate Water
Reservoir Pore Volume
Oil The Campbell Plot Gas The Cole Plot
Plot of:
(Net Production Water influx) (F We ) / Et
/ Unit Expansion vs.
vs. F
Net Production

If single tank model matches data:
Points lie on a horizontal straight line
Intercept will be Oil or Gas initially in place
(= OIP/GIP)
OIP/GIP
MATERIAL BALANCE ENERGY PLOT
Cole Plot
Campbell Plot
Both Cole & Campbell plots are great
diagnostic tools to gauge how strong
water drive mechanism can be, and
what recovery factor can be reached
Oil (unnamed) Gas Havelena-Odeh Plot
Plot of:
Net Production / Unit Expansion F / Et
vs. vs.
Water influx / Unit Expansion We / Et

When matched:
Points lie on a straight line with gradient = 1
Intercept will be Oil or Gas initially in place
(= GIP/GIP)
OIP/GIP
MATERIAL BALANCE DATA REQUIREMENT
Fluid PVT Data
Production History
Rates, Cum Productions, GOR/CGR, Yields
WOR, WGR
Reservoir Pressure Histories
WHP, BHP, WHT
Useful to have:
Estimates of hydrocarbons in place
Likelihood of Gas Cap or Aquifer drive
Assumption of connectivity of tanks (leaks)
MATERIAL BALANCE PRESSURE SOURCES
Sources of Pressure/Fluid Samples Data Collections:
Wireline/LWD formation testers (MDT, RFT, TesTrak, RDT,
etc.)
Drill stem test (DST), barefoot/openhole, straddle
Well test flaring, surface separator
Static pressure gradient survey downhole recorder
Surface wellhead pressure conversion (Cullender-Smith
method)
Permanent downhole gauge
Production logging
Optical fiber distributed pressure/temperature
Acoustic measurement

DO I STILL NEED VIP OR ECLIPSE?
Material Balance will not
Deliver consistently accurate long term production
forecasts on
GOR, Watercut
Give a geometrical description of the reservoir
The location of unswept oil
Target locations for infill wells
GAS MATERIAL BALANCE FOR EOR SCHEME
Well Date Gas Cum, e6m3 P, kPa Z P/Z, kPa Cum Gas bcf P/Z psia
Well 1 Mar-78 0.0000 44,081.0 1.1250 39,183.7 0.0000 5683.1
Well 1 Jul-79 8.5440 44,480.0 1.1316 39,308.6 0.3032 5701.2
Well 1 Mar-80 15.8465 42,174.0 1.0936 38,563.7 0.5624 5593.2
Well 1 Apr-81 15.8465 42,886.0 1.1053 38,799.8 0.5624 5627.4
Well 1 Jun-81 16.2580 42,364.0 1.0967 38,627.3 0.5770 5602.4
Well 2 Jun-81 16.2580 43,221.0 1.1108 38,909.0 0.5770 5643.2
Well 1 Sep-84 32.0716 40,462.0 1.0656 37,971.8 1.1382 5507.3
Well 2 Sep-84 32.0716 40,589.0 1.0677 38,016.9 1.1382 5513.9
Well 2 May-85 64.2082 36,080.0 0.9947 36,273.8 2.2787 5261.0
Well 3 Jul-85 72.5886 35,182.0 0.9803 35,887.5 2.5762 5205.0
Well 1 Dec-85 113.7201 33,446.0 0.9530 35,096.9 4.0359 5090.3
Well 3 Jan-86 121.3633 33,290.0 0.9505 35,022.8 4.3072 5079.6
Well 3 Sep-86 188.0431 34,139.0 0.9638 35,419.8 6.6736 5137.2
Well 3 Sep-87 287.3437 35,592.0 0.9869 36,065.7 10.1978 5230.9
Well 3 May-88 356.3874 35,338.0 0.9828 35,955.7 12.6482 5214.9
Well 3 Sep-89 439.8983 34,703.0 0.9727 35,675.4 15.6120 5174.2
Well 3 Oct-90 487.6594 35,615.0 0.9872 36,075.6 17.3070 5232.3
Well 3 May-91 514.5407 36,428.0 1.0002 36,419.6 18.2610 5282.2
Well 3 Jun-92 563.4208 34,863.0 0.9753 35,746.7 19.9958 5184.6
Well 3 May-93 607.7122 35,203.0 0.9807 35,896.7 21.5677 5206.3
Well 3 May-94 660.1113 34,400.0 0.9680 35,538.8 23.4274 5154.4
Well 1 Dec-95 751.5943 33,933.0 0.9606 35,324.8 26.6741 5123.4
Well 1 May-97 843.2356 28,223.0 0.8742 32,282.5 29.9264 4682.2
Well 3 Jul-01 1,326.1929 9,246.1 0.8068 11,460.2 47.0666 1662.2
Well 1 Sep-02 1,412.6300 6,567.0 0.8536 7,693.5 50.1342 1115.8
Condensate pool with high permeability

Severe pressure depletion causes condensate
banking in the reservoir. Dry gas recycling EOR
scheme was initiated & operated for almost 10
years to maximize the condy/NGL recovery
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09
date
d
a
t
u
m

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i a
)
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
GAS MATERIAL BALANCE FOR EOR SCHEME
y = -176.38x + 9961.1
R
2
= 1
y = -201.01x + 5729
R
2
= 0.98
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Early Depletion
IGIP = 22.8232 bcf
5-8 IGIP = 32.420 bcf
Final Depletion
Pseudo IGIP =
56.1051 bcf
Injected Gas =
24.605 bcf
IGIP = 31.5001 bcf
DRY GAS RE-
INJECTED TO CYCLE
THROUGH THE POOL
What Material Balance Gives You
Understanding of the energy sources driving production
Acquaintance with the individual terms and their evolution in
time
Awareness of their relationship and how they add up (balance)
An internally consistent explanation of reservoir behavior
Because the terms have to add up (balance)
A consistency check on the underlying dataset (because a material
balance model has to match history at all points)
PVT model
Production history
Reservoir pressures
MULTIPLE WELL GAS MATERIAL BALANCE
IGIP=
308 bcf
Recoverable=
250 bcf
Acres = 7500
Net Volume= 260,000
acres.ft
Phi =18% Sw = 25%
Depth = 8650 ft
Perm = 8.5 ~ 50.7 md
Abandonment = 750 psi
South Texas
Condensate
Depletion Drive
Evaluation of individual gas well reserves, Petroleum Engineer, May 1966
Pine Creek Wabamun Gas
Material Balance
PC WABAMUN GAS MATERIAL BALANCE
C Pool
A+B
Devonian aged
hydrothermal dolomitized
carbonate rocks with tight
matrix porosity but
abundant burrowed pores
and occasional vugs which
may form high porosity
depositional zones
Pine Creek 10-10-57-19W5 Wabamun Porosity Distribution
Cum Production = 140 bcf; PHI*H = 2.754 m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
Porosity
F
r e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C
u
m
u
l a
t i v
e
P
r o
b
a
b
i l i t y
Frequency
Cumulative %
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
Porosity
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C
u
m
u
l a
t i v
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i l i t y
Frequency
Cumulative %
Pine Creek 11-26-57-19W5 Wabumen Porosity Distribution
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
Porosity
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C
u
m
u
l a
t i v
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i l i t y
Frequency
Cumulative %
Pine Creek 6-35-57-19W5 Top Wabamun Porosity Distribution
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
Porosity
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C
u
m
u
l a
t i v
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i l i t y
Frequency
Cumulative %
Pine Creek 10-4-57-19W5 Wabamun Porosity Dsitribution
Cumulative Production = 23 bcf; PHI*H = 0.948 m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
Porosity
F
r e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C
u
m
u
l a
t i v
e
P
r o
b
a
b
i l i t y
Frequency
Cumulative %
Cum Production = 85.3 bcf; PHI*H = 2.071 m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
Porosity
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C
u
m
u
l a
t i v
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i l i t y
Frequency
Cumulative %
Porosity distributions from individual wells reveal intercepted reservoir quality
Pine Creek Wabamun "C" Pool
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
9/15/65 3/8/71 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09
Date
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
W
G
R

(
b
b
l /
m
m
c
f
)
Rate
WGR
Pine Creek Wabamun "C" Pool
0.1
1
10
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
W
G
R

(
b
b
l /
m
m
c
f
)
Rate
WGR
Pine Creek Wabamun "C" Pool Production History
Date
Cum
Gas
Daily
Gas Rate
Water/Gas
Ratio Cum Gas Gas Rate
MMSCF mscf/d Bbl/MMSCF BCF mmscf/d
Jan-1965 0 --- --- 0 ---
Feb-1965 0 --- --- 0 ---
Mar-1965 233.27 7524.84 1.45 0.23327 7.52484
Apr-1965 233.27 --- --- 0.23327 ---
May-1965 233.27 --- --- 0.23327 ---
Jun-1965 233.27 --- --- 0.23327 ---
Jul-1965 233.27 --- --- 0.23327 ---
Aug-1965 233.27 --- --- 0.23327 ---
Sep-1965 233.27 --- --- 0.23327 ---
Oct-1965 233.27 --- --- 0.23327 ---
Nov-1965 296.79 2117.33 1.28 0.29679 2.11733
Dec-1965 515.94 7069.35 1.11 0.51594 7.06935
Jan-1966 729.59 6891.94 0.93 0.72959 6.89194
Feb-1966 902.35 6170 0.58 0.90235 6.17
Mar-1966 1071.42 5453.87 0.57 1.07142 5.45387
Apr-1966 1249.74 5944 0.58 1.24974 5.944
May-1966 1426.5 5701.94 0.5 1.4265 5.70194
Jun-1966 1657.98 7716 0.71 1.65798 7.716
Jul-1966 1889.72 7475.48 0.61 1.88972 7.47548
Aug-1966 2096.83 6680.97 0.6 2.09683 6.68097
Sep-1966 2154.8 1932.17 0.65 2.1548 1.93217
Oct-1966 2308.84 4969.03 0.52 2.30884 4.96903
Nov-1966 2493.14 6143.33 0.54 2.49314 6.14333
Dec-1966 2691.73 6406.13 0.58 2.69173 6.40613
Jan-1967 2889.52 6380.32 0.58 2.88952 6.38032
Feb-1967 3072.19 6523.93 0.56 3.07219 6.52393
Mar-1967 3250.88 5764.19 0.54 3.25088 5.76419
Apr-1967 3441.92 6368 0.64 3.44192 6.368
May-1967 3640.05 6391.29 0.58 3.64005 6.39129
Jun-1967 3847.58 6917.67 0.67 3.84758 6.91767
Jul-1967 3931.61 2710.81 0.64 3.93161 2.71081
Aug-1967 4083.78 4908.71 0.62 4.08378 4.90871
Sep-1967 4289.39 6853.67 0.59 4.28939 6.85367
Oct-1967 4486.05 6343.87 0.61 4.48605 6.34387
Nov-1967 4670.8 6158.33 0.57 4.6708 6.15833
Gas Analysis
Gas Composition %
C1 63.41
C2 1.785
C3 0.275
C4I 0.11
C4N 0.14
C5I 0.05
C5N 0.045
C6 0
C7+ 0
H 0
HE 0.065
CO2 4.385
N2 0.905
H2S 28.63
Total 99.8
Pressure History
Well
Name
Pool
Datum P
psi
Cum Gas
bcf
Z
Test Type
Shut-in
hours
WHP
psi
Temp
F
Run Depth
P
psi
Run Depth
ft KB
Gradient
psi/ft
7-13 4432.1 0.00 0.8919 N/A 0 0 32 4428 11383 0.11
9-11 3528.0 24.27 0.8585 N/A 164 0 32 3528 11225 0
9-11 3462.1 27.18 0.8570 N/A 0 0 32 3462.1 11293 0
9-11 3263.6 33.70 0.8534 N/A 96 0 32 3267 11293 0.08
9-11 3263.9 33.70 0.8534 StGrad 0 2255.3 240.8 3267.3 11293 0.08
9-11 3272.3 33.70 0.8536 Bldup 88.2 0 240.8 3272.2 11247 0.08
7-13 3340.1 35.45 0.8547 N/A 0 0 32 3340.1 11076 0
7-13 2774.7 48.96 0.8510 StGrad 0 1903.8 231.8 2759.8 11205 0.07
7-13 2757.0 48.96 0.8511 Bldup 70.8 0 231.8 2757 11086 0
9-11 2629.7 56.16 0.8521 StGrad 0 0 242.6 2632.1 11287 0.07
9-11 2629.0 56.16 0.8521 Bldup 165 0 242.6 2625 11190 0.07
9-11 2580.5 58.04 0.8527 StGrad 0 1764.5 240.8 2583.7 11280 0.1
7-13 2570.4 58.04 0.8528 StGrad 0 1778.7 233.6 2544.7 11094 0.08
9-11 2429.1 64.33 0.8551 StGrad 225.5 1684.6 239 2431.3 11280 0.07
7-13 2300.7 64.33 0.8579 StGrad 414 1559 237.2 2284.1 11194 0.07
9-13 2295.4 69.61 0.8580 StGrad 411 1580.2 240.8 2297.8 11293 0.06
7-13 2430.3 69.61 0.8551 StGrad 240 1559 235.4 2403.1 11089 0.08
9-11 2104.8 76.94 0.8635 StGrad 0 1466 262.4 2106.2 11276 0.05
9-11 2097.1 76.94 0.8637 Bldup 836.7 1466.8 242.6 2093.5 11181 0.05
7-13 2099.7 76.94 0.8636 StGrad 797 1435.7 226.4 2087.5 11188 0.05
7-13 2099.4 76.94 0.8636 Bldup 701 1445 235.4 2081 11070 0.05
7-13 1628.8 95.07 0.8832 StGrad 78 1152 237.2 1627.6 11388 0.04
7-13 1621.7 95.07 0.8836 Bldup 75.7 0 233.6 1621.7 11201 0
9-11 1634.4 95.07 0.8830 StGrad 93.3 1179.6 242.6 1636.3 11293 0.04
9-11 1642.8 95.07 0.8825 Bldup 91.9 0 242.6 1645.3 11306 0.04
9-11 1262.8 110.61 0.9038 StGrad 0 913.59 242.6 1261 11201 0.04
7-13 0.0 1 StGrad 216 0 32 1002.1 11388 0.34
Pine Creek Wabamun "C" Pool Cum vs P/Z Plot
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
3/25/60 9/15/65 3/8/71 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
7-13 onstream
9-11 online
Pine Creek Wabamun "C" Pool Cum vs P/Z Plot
(Using 9-11 Pressure gives OGIP = 152 bcf; Cum today 139 bcf)
y = -31.85x + 4890.1
R
2
= 0.9998
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
7-13
9-11
Linear
(9-11)
The estimated BHP pressure of 9-11
as of Feb 2008 is 435 psi.
The remaining recoverable gas would
be around 6.5 bcf for two wells.
Assume the abandonment reservoir
pressure to be 250 psi.
Pine Creek Wabamun "C" Pool P/z vs. Cum Plot
y = -32.004x + 4897.2
R
2
= 0.9999
estimated OGIP = 153 bcf
at 95% [152, 154 bcf]
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
7-13
9-11
Linear (9-11)
Pine Creek Wabamun Production (A+B Pool, 8 wells)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
J
a
n
-
6
4
J
a
n
-
6
6
J
a
n
-
6
8
J
a
n
-
7
0
J
a
n
-
7
2
J
a
n
-
7
4
J
a
n
-
7
6
J
a
n
-
7
8
J
a
n
-
8
0
J
a
n
-
8
2
J
a
n
-
8
4
J
a
n
-
8
6
J
a
n
-
8
8
J
a
n
-
9
0
J
a
n
-
9
2
J
a
n
-
9
4
J
a
n
-
9
6
J
a
n
-
9
8
J
a
n
-
0
0
J
a
n
-
0
2
J
a
n
-
0
4
J
a
n
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
8
Date
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
Pine Creek Wabamun "A+B" Pool Cum Rate Plot
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
W
G
R

(
b
b
l /
m
m
c
f
)
Pine Creek Wabamun Pressure Depletion "A+B"
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
25-Mar-
1960
15-Sep-
1965
8-Mar-1971 28-Aug-
1976
18-Feb-
1982
11-Aug-
1987
31-Jan-1993 24-Jul-1998 14-Jan-2004 6-Jul-2009
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i a
)
10-10
11-26
4-26
6-35
10-4
11-34
Pine Creek Wabamun "A+B" Pool P/Z Plot
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i a
)
10-10
11-26
4-26
6-35
10-4
11-34
Pine Creek "A+B" Pool P/Z vs Cum Production Plot
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
)
10-10
10-4
11-26
4-26
6-35
11-34
6-35
11-26
10-4
10-10
11-34
4-26
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i
a
)
11-26
4-26
6-35
11-34
y = -14.412x + 5251.3
Estimated OGIP = 365 bcf
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i a
)
6-35
11-34
Two Points
Linear
Regression
10-10 Linear Regression
y = -13.551x + 5066.9
R
2
= 0.997
Estimated OGIP = 374 bcf)
10-4 Liner Regression
y = -13.874x + 5141.8
R
2
= 0.9998
Estimated OGIP = 371 bcf)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i a
)
10-10
10-4
Linear (10-10)
Linear (10-4)
Pine Creek Wabamun "A+B" Pool Pressure Depletion ( 6-35 well)
y = -13.511x + 5018.6
R
2
= 0.9942
Estimated OGIP = 371.5 bcf
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i a
)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i a
)
10-10
11-26
4-26
6-35
Investigating the contribution of low phi-H areas to total volume
Minimum Volume [Bcf] Volume Contribution
phi-H cdba_dev ccse_dev Average Difference [%] Interval [%]
0 433 355 394 18
0.5 420 341 380.5 19 3
1 374 295 334.5 21 12
1.5 300 231 265.5 23 18
2 214 163 188.5 24 20
2.5 138 103 120.5 25 17
3 84 60 72 29 12
3.5 49 29 39 41 8
4 26 12 19 54 5
4.5 13 5 9 62 3
Total 98
*cdba and ccse are 3D surveys that cover the anomaly. The volumetrics were run for each survey.
*volume contribution is calculated for the interval between phi-H cutoffs
ie: 0 to 0.5 phi-H contributes 3% of total volume
If halo area is also included
OGIP = V(pay) * 35.3 (cf/m3) * Bg * (1-Sw)
Bg Sw
251 0.15
Investigating the contribution of different anomalies to total volume
cdba_dev ccse_dev
V(pay) OGIP V(pay) OGIP Average OGIP Difference
Anomaly [MMcf] [Bcf] [MMcf] [Bcf] [Bcf] %
1 7.0 53 6.5 49 51 7 11-34; 6-35 89
2 11.6 87 11.3 85 86 3 4-26; 11-26 98
3 7.0 53 7.6 57 55 -9
4 6.3 47 5.0 38 43 21 10-10; 13-11 143
5 6.2 47 5.5 41 44 11
6 5.1 38 3.2 24 31 37 10-4 23
7 3.6 27 2.6 20 23 28 1-32 4
Total 352 314 333 357
*cdba and ccse are 3D surveys that cover the anomaly. The volumetrics were run for each survey.
If we can break down individual well control
Marlboro Leduc Pool Pressure Depletion History
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
15-Sep-1965 8-Mar-1971 28-Aug-
1976
18-Feb-1982 11-Aug-
1987
31-Jan-1993 24-Jul-1998 14-Jan-2004
Date
D
a
t
u
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i a
)
Marlboro Leduc Pool P/Z vs. Cum Production Plot
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Gp, CumProduction (bcf )
P
/
Z

(
p
s
i a
)
Marlboro Leduc Pool Cole Plot
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Gp, CumProduction (bcf )
G
p
*
B
g
/
(
B
g
-
B
g
i )
,

b
c
f
Weak or no serious water drive
in early production, but the late
time transition zone water
creeps in
Marlboro Leduc Pool Gas Rate vs Time History
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Aug-1976 Feb-1982 Aug-1987 Jan-1993 Jul-1998 Jan-2004 Jul-2009
Date
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
m
c
f
/
d
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
W
G
R

(
b
b
l /
m
m
c
f
)
Gas Rate
WGR
Blackstone Swanhills Pool P/Z Plot
y = -5.4705x + 6010.2
R
2
= 0.9984
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Cum Gas (bcf)
P
/
Z

(
D
a
t
u
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
a
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
W
G
R

(
b
b
l
/
m
m
c
f
)
As of June 2008, the total
cum gas volume is 755
bcf. The estimated pool
pressure is 1315 psia, or
9 MPa
Pink Line: Early Pressures
Azure Line: Later Pressures
Cyan Line: Two Pressures with the
Longest Shut-In Time
SPE 134383
y = 0.5039x + 868747
R
2
= 0.7461
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000 600,000
We/Eg
F
/
E
g
y = -0.2797x + 1E+06
R
2
= 0.9115
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000
Gp (mmcf )
F
/
E
g
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 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Days
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
Measured Pressure
Aquifer Pressure
Reservoir Pressure
Class Exercises

Day 4 Am - Gas Material Balance

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Day 4 Am - Gas Material Balance

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

GAS MATERIAL BALANCE &

Anda mungkin juga menyukai