SPE

-of~ EIWhFWSOfAIME
SPE 12044
A Reservoir Engineering Study of an Over-Pressured,
Partial Water-Drive Gas Field in Southern Louisiana
by G.F. Sharpe* and C.W. Van Kirk, Colorado School of Mi nes
Members SPE-AIME
GNow with Chevron USA Inc.
Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AlME
This paper was presented al the 581h Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA, October 5.8,1983, The materi al i saubj ecl
tocorrection by the suthor. Permission to copy is restricted 10 an abalract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway,
Drawer S4706, Oallae, Texss 75206 USA, Telex 730969 SPEDAL.
AB8TMm
Figure 2 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the
reaarvoir.
The purpose of this paper is not just to
present a case history, but also to provide guide-
The approach to the study was first to
lines for performing a reservoir study, and in
analyze the avaiiable open-hole logs to obtain
particular, a material balance analysis. The
average reservoir properties and to estimate
study involved manipulating a complex material
volumetrically the original gas-in-place. The
balance equation into forms which isolated certain
initial OGIP astimete was low, just slightly above
input parameters. The forms ware usad graphically
the cumulative production through August 31, 1981$
not only to estimate tha OGIP, but also to verify
the effective study date. Average reservoir prop-
thoee parameters used in the analysis. Production
erties were adjusted within the range of
decline curves were used in conjunction with the
reasonable uncertainty eo that this estimate would
material balance equation to predict future reser-
agree with matarial balanca results.
voir performance. Theoretical recovery calcula-
tions justified the future predictions.
Using production data to estimate the move-
ment and location of the gasfwatar contact and tha
I~ODUCfIOU
adjusted reservoir properties from the log analy-
sis, water influx was estimated volumetrically at
This report summarizes a reservoir study per-
three different times in tha past. Several Hurst-
formsd cm an ovar-pressured, retrograde condensate
Van Everdingen water influx mcdels were compared
gas field with partial water-drive.
Tha purpose
with volumetric influx estimates, and the model
of this etudy was to estimate the original gas-in-
which comparad the best was used to model water
place and to determine the remaining reserves,
influx for material balance calculationeo
firat, with the present producing wells,
and
second, with additional production from a poseible
Two other material balance input parameters,
recompletion.
gas leakage and formation compressibility, were
also difficult to estimata and required juatifica-
The gaa field ie located on-shore in
t ion. The reservoir pressurz history indicated
Louisiana. Ei=i,teen wells penetrated the forma-
that gas leakage from the reservoir had occurred
tion of intereat, twelve wara completed in this
during the first several yeara of production.
reservoir ae producing wells, and six are
Early gas production values required adjustment to
currently producing. Complying with the desiras
account for the volume of gae which le6ked off.
of the operating company, well names were changed
and the name and exact field location have been
Analyses of over-pressured reservoir tend to
withheld.
be complicated by larga formation compressibility
(Cf) terms, so a Cf value f or this resarvoir was
The raservoir consists of two main sands, the
needed for an accurate material balance
A and B atringers, at m average depth of 14,300
analyaia.1J2~3 Corralationrs for formation com-
feet and an initial pressure elightly greater than
preasibility, howavar, are approximetiona at best)
11,800 peia (0.82 psi/ft), As is common in
The value used, therefore, required some rigorous
Louisiana, a salt dome deformed tha sand beds into
justification.
a highly faulted anticline. Table 1 awmnarizes
reservoir rock and fluid properties.
Figure 1 is
Onca the input parameters were acquired, a
a structure map of the top of the B sand, and
material balance model was developad to estimate
tha original gas-in-placa.
Although thie model
accounted for reservoir retrograde condentsation~
References and illustration at end of paper.
it should be noted that the reservoir condensate
volume was a relatively insignificant term in the
2 A RESERVOIRENGINEERINGSTUDYOF AN OVER
analy8i8. Resulte from material balance calcula-
tion also verified the water influx modnl~ the
volume of gae leakage, and the formation com-
pressibility term used.
Compared with the analyeie of the pest?
future prediction were not eo complex.
Gas pro-
duction wae projected from production decline
curves. The water influx model that wae justified
in the paat analyeia was used to estimate when the
water contact would reach producing wells and to
predict when fault blocks would water out. The
resulting production and water influx estimates
were input into the meterial balance equation to
predict future reservoir preaeure. Using the
abandonment pressure estimated from the material
balance calculationss the predicted final %ae
recovery factor was justified with theoretical
calculations,
AIIIUYSIS OF PAST PESFORXAI$CE
Field History
The first well drilled in the field appar-
ently blew-out. Absolutely no information is
available about this well! including the date
drilled or ite location.
A second well, the 2-A, was drilled and com-
pleted in the B stringer in July 1953, It pro-
duced 3.0 billion standard cubic feet (BSCF) of
gas from August 1953 to June 19543 whan it was
shut-in to install high pressure down-hole aquip-
ment. During that time period the reservoir
pressure dropped from 11$800 psia to 11~450 psia.
For the next two and one half yeara there was
no production from the field until the 2-A was
brought back on line in January 1957. Howevar,
when the pressure was measured in 1957 it had
?eclined to 10S480 psia. Gas les~ing from the
reservoir through either wall 2-A r the first
well (the blow-out) had apparently reduced the
pressure 970 psia during the shut-in period.
Further analysis indicated that the leakage
continued another year and a half after 1957.
Because of the gas lost during the blowout
and the unknown volume of gas leakage during the
ehut-in period, January 1, 1957, wae used as the
effective starting dete and 10!480 psia as the
initial reservoir pressure for the study, The
1957 starting date was important also because well
11-A, which wae drilled in late 1957P was the
first well whose logs showed the gas-water con-
tact. Based m the data available for this study,
it was impossible to estimate the gae-water con-
tact location in 1953. Therefore, consistent
results were obtained by using the 11-A contac:
location for volumetric calculations and an
initial time of January 1, 1957$ for the material
balance analysis.
The field production history from January 1,
1957, through August 31, 1981 (the date fror! which
prediction etarted), can be seen in Figures 3 and
lRESSURED, PARTIAL WATER-DRIVEGAS FIELD SPE 12044
4. A total of 11 walls produced 597.1 BSCF of gae
during that time period. Fi ve of those wells were
still producing in September 1981$ and a sixth
well has been completad since then. Of the aix
shut-in wells, one was apparently abandoned
because of low gas production rates and the ether
five becauee of high water production rateet
The field preseure history was obtained from
fairly frequent ehut-in bottom-hole pressure
testsO Reservoir pressure is plotted versus time
in Figure 5 and versus cumulative gas production
(Gp) in Figure 6. Figure 6 also illustrates not
only the PIZ vereua Gp plot, but also the P/Z plot
which accounts for rock and water expansion.
Pressure data from wells in different fault blocks
and from wells completed in different zones
indicated that s1l fault blocks were in pressure
communication, as were the A and the B sands.
Material balanc~ calculations? therefore were
performed on the reservoir as a single container.
Volumetric
Open-hole wireline logs from 17 wells drilled
in the field were analyzed to determine average
reservoir properties and to estimate the original
gas-in-place. The analyais was complicated by the
fact that only old electric logs were available on
the first five wells drilled. Also, a few of the
other wells had incomplete log suites, where
either resiativity or porosity logs wera not
available.
Whenever poesible, conventional methods ware
used to calculate wavar saturation. Using a 60%
water saturation cut-off, the net oil thicknese
(So*@*h) for each well was calculated and plotted
on an ieovol maP (no porosity cut off was used
becausa log values were never balow 15%). Thie
was done separately for each sand stringer. The
isovol maps gave an OGIP estimate of 604.5 BSCF as
of January 1, 1957. Since almost 600 BSCF of gaa
had already been produced in late 1981, this OGIP
eetimate was considered to be low. Becauae
increasing the reservoir size could not be jus-
tified, calculation were made to detarmine how
much the average porosity and water saturation
would have to change to get an OGIP of 670 BSCF$
the value obtained from material balance calcula-
tions.
Sevsral iterations were required t o make the
neceaaary porosity and saturation adjustments.
The average porosity value was increased slightly
and the Humble and Archie equations were used to
calculate the resulting change in average water
aaturationg The new values were then used to
calculate the OOIP. This process continued until
the volumetric agreed with the material balanca
calculation. Adjusting the average poroeity from
21% to 23% changed the estimated average water
saturation from 23% to 20% and the estimated OOIP
to 670 BSCF. An average porosity of 23% is
reasonable and well within the range of values
interpreted
from wireline logs. The adjusted
porosity and maturation vslues, therefore, were
considered to be correct and were reueed in all
water influx and material balance calculation.
enm t .-in).). em @i s*- . . l Pl P w V...II.I A.
Drcl A*V-V . A. Uca. p=,. , ,=,&&\&#&
3
Water Influx the last two pressure points implies thet water
influx was act!ally beginning to keep up with the
From the ?roduction and preaeure histories, lower res ervoi r withdrawal rata. Further justi-
it was apparent that water influx was providing fication came from actual material balance cal-
energy support to the field.
Moat wells in the culatiomsg To produce con8i8tent original gaa-in-
field produced relatively water free for signifi- place estimates from incremental analyses between
cant portions of their hiatoriee. At various the last thrae prea8ure points required the uae of
points in time, howaver, the water-gaa ratios water influx valuee larger than the original
(WGR) in certain wells began to increase steadily,
Hurst-Van Everdingen eetimetes.
indicating an encroaching aquifer, The concave
domward shape of the P/Z versus Gp plot (Figure From known geologic conditions about the
6) alao seemed to be ~he product of a partial re8ervoir, it is likely that the aquifer is
waier-drive reeervoir. A8 the figure divided into several fault blocks and extends
illustrates, accounting for rock and water expan- beyond a radius ratio of 1.6. A faulted aquifer
sion etaightened the plot slightly, but it is model explaina the apparent later increase in
still concave downwarda. The reason the plots aquifer 8upport, Although the aquifer extension
bend downward8 ie because early in the field life contributed pres8ure support from the beginning$
the gaa compressibility i8 small (due to the high becauae of the restricted permeability acroaa
pressure) and the aquifer expanaion contribute fault8, the dimen8ionle8s time and the related
proportionally more pressure support than later in
dimen8ionle8a water influx (8ee Hurst Van-
the field life.4 Extrapolation of the earlY Everdingen method5) increased at a very slow rate.
portion of the P/Z plot, therefore would have However, by 1977 the dimensionless water influx
indicated a very large OGIP value.
had become large enough, the cumulative preaaure
drop had become large enough, and the water influx
Modeling water influx was difficult with no
rate from the Hur8t-Van Everdingen modeled aquifer
knowledge of the aquifer 8ize. The approach used had become small enough that the aquifer beyond
waa to estimate water influx volumetrically and the radius ratio of 1.6 began to contribute a
compare these calculation with Hurst-Van significant portion of the total water influx,
Everdingen models which u8ed different aquifer-to-
gas radiua ratioa. Once the aquifer size was The original Hurst-Van Everdingen water
determined, that Hurst-Van Everdingen model wa8 influx model did a good job accounting for water
u8ed to estimate water influx fOr material balance influx through 1977, and after that point it pre-
calculation. dieted influx rate8 le8s than what were needed.
Therefore, it waa assumed that the water influx
The time at which the &as-ater contact rate 8tayed constant at the 1977 rate of 4.61 MM
reached certain wells waa estimated from produc- Bbllyr. A8 Figure 7 illustrates, this model waa
tion data. The initial gaa-water contact loca- used to estimate water influx from 1977 to 1981
tion, water 8aturation, and porosity were obtained and &180 for future prediction bayond 1981.
from the log analyses. The logs from two wells
drilled later in the field life into invaded It 8hould be noted that neither the original
portions of the reservoir were used to estimate Hurst-Van Everdingen model nor the aquifer exten-
the residual gas saturation. Having obtained .sion model are necessarily corrsct. The actual
these values, the area invaded into any certain geometry, continuity, and physical propertie8 of
fault block waa mea8ured and the cumulative water the aquifer are unknown. The models are merely
influx into that block waa calculated. Cum&lative mathematical emulations which reasonably account
water influx values were summed for the total for the water influx that haa entered the re8er-
field at three different points in time; mid-1906, vcir in the past. Although these models obviously
Kid-1977, and mid-1981. are not perfect, water influx valuea obtained from
them were used t o get reasonable and consistent
Results from a Hurst-Van Everdingen model material balance results, aa will be discussed
with an aquifer to gas radius ratio of 1.6 com- later.
pared most favorably with the volumetric
estimatea. Water influx predicted from this model Material Balance Analysis
i8 plotted versus time in Figure 7.
Iiiis material balance equation u8ed in the
The two influx analyses compared fairly well analysis appears in Appendix A. It is a fairly
through 1977, differing by less than 6%. From complex expansion-equals-voidage equation which~
1977 through 1981, however, the Hurst-Van among other things, accounts for rock and water
Everdingen model estimated significantly less expansion, reservoir retrograde condensation, and
water influx than did the volumetric model. Since water influx. The equation ia broken down into
the volumetric numbers are probably closer to its major component8 in the appendix.
being correct, it was apparent that the aquifer
being modeled by the Huret-Van Everdingen method Most of the input parameters were known from
was beginning to see additional outside support. the production and pre8sure hietories and from an
Thie theory is supported by the PIZ versus Gp plot analysis of a reeervoir fluid sample taken early
(Figure 6). Until the lact few pressure points, in the fields life. The water influx model has
the P)Z curve is concave downward, indicating that already been discu8sed. The most significant.
throughout that time period the water influx rate unknown parameter was the formation compress-
was insufficient to replenish voidage and maintain ibility. Newmans correlations were used to
reservoir pressure. However, the leveling off of
estimate that value,6 If the formation were con-
4 A RESERVOIRENGINEERING STlll)Y (M AN (WI?R-PR17S!WRET. UARTTAT. UATPR-I)RTVU I!AC ?rrmrn
SPE 12044 -- --------- . --------------- ----- -. .. . . . . .. . ----------
. . .....-.. ..-....* ..4 m .-*-M
-
solidated, the estimated compressibility would be
2.4 x 10-6 vol/vol/p8i.
place, but they aleo verified some of the critical
If the formstion were parameters used in the analyeiae Three cases are
unconeolidated~ a value of 14. x IO-6 vol/vol/pei plotted in Figure 8; the firet was the base cane,
would be eetimated from the correlations. The the eecond used the lower formation com~ree8-
latter value was used because Gulf Coast sande ibility term, and the third neglected water
tend to be unconsolidated, especially when over-
preeeured.1$2~3
influx. The consistent baee case OGIP values lend
Since the formation compreee-
ibility turned out to be a significant driving
credence to both the water influx model and forma-
tion compressibility term.
energy ~ that value was juetified later in the
material balance analysia.
Two cases are plotted in Figure 9; the first
The first step in the analysia was to manip- wae the baee case and the second waa where leakage
ulate the material balance equation into the form was neglected. The plot indicates that leakage
of a etraight line (Y = mx + b) where the slope waa indeed occurring and also that it was reaaon-
was equal to the OGIP and the intercept was equal ably accounted for, In addition, the intercept of
to zero. This manipulation appeare in Part 1 of the plot wae used to calculate a formation com-
Appendix B. Values for X and y were cal- preseibility of 14.5 X 1o-6 psi-l, which justified
culated at each of 21 known pressure points. An the term obtained from Newmans
OGIP value,,~~s eetimated at each point by dividing
correlations.
This calculation is performed in Part S of Appen-
Xt into Y . Eatimeted OGIP values are plotted dix C.
ara:le preaaure in Figure 8. Parte 3, 4, and 5 of
Append:.x C chow a sample calculation ueing this The original gaa-in-place was calculated from
analyeieo the slope of Figure 9 to be 673 BSC)?. This com-
Low OGIP estimatee f or the first few points
pared very well with the value of 669 BSCF cal-
culated from the incremental material balance
implied that not enough gae production was being analyses. Because of the large number of OGIP
accounted for from early reservoir preaaur? drope.
valuee calculated from the incremental analyses~
These low estimatee indicated that gas was still the result from that method wae weighted more than
leaking from the resarvoir. Since leakage had the Figure 9 result, and 670 BSCFwae used as the
occurred during the ehut-in period, and it was not
best eetimate for the original gas-in-place on
going to stop juet because production began againj January 1, 1957.
this result was expected,
Leakage was accounted
for by calculating how much production would have FUTUREPRBDICTIOIW
to be increased at the early preeeure points to
produce reasonable OOIP estimetee. F:om these Future reservoir performance waa predicted
calculations it was estimated that 4.4 BSCF of using produ,,tion decline curves in conjunction
gaa leaked from the reservoir during the first with the water influx end Katerial balance models.
year and one half of production after 1957. At The water influx model waa used to estimate when
that time$ the pressure at the leakage point the water contact would reach the wells and to
became low enough that gas flow from the reservoir predict when fault blocke would water out. With
ceased. the OGIP estimate, the material balance model used
the estimated water influx in addition to pro-
After accounting for leakage~ 210 more data jetted production
pointe were generated by doing an incremental
to back calculate the future
reservoir preseure.
material balance analysie between each of the 21
preseure points. Part 2 of Appendix B illustrates In almost all casee, the gae production
this analysis technique. Each incremental analy- decline rate for each well could be approximated
sia wae used to estimate an OGIF value, The closely by an exponential equation. When water
average of all these values, 669 BSCF, was used as broke through in various wells, production could
an initial beet estimate of the original gas-in- still be modeled with an exponential equation but
place. A sample calculation for thie analysis at a steeper decline rate. The decline ratas in
appears in Part 6 of Appendix C. the field increased an average of 68% after water
breakthrough. Future gaa production was predicted
Manipulation of the Katerial balance equation for each producing well, therefore, using its
into another straight line form waa used not only actual decline rate and asauming that that rate
to support the OGIP estimate, but aleo to justify would increaae 6S% after water breakthrough.
the formation compressibility term used.
This
manipulation is illustrated in part 3 of Appendix Water production was predicted after break-
B. As can be seen, the slope of the line ie still through from plots of log of water gas ratio (WGR)
the OGIP, but now the rock and water compress- vereue Gp. WGRvaluee in wells which were not yet
ibility terms have been isolated in the intercept.
Valuea of X and
producing much water were aeeumed to increase at
NyU were calculated at each
the field average rate after breakthrough,
preeaure point and a least squares analysis was
used t o find the slope and intercept of a best fit The latest condensate-gae ratio for each well
1ine. The resulte are plotted in Figure 9. A waa held constant and used to predict future con-
sample calculation of
11x and yll values iS il~u8-
densate production. At the time predictions
trated in Part 7 of Appendix C. began, the average condensate-gae ratio was
approximately 5 STB/MMSCF. Since the reservoir
The material balance analysis results not pressure was approaching the point where the
only were used to estimate the original gas-in- retrograde condensate was beginning to rcvaporize$

@nm 1 Qf i ). A mm C!k --- tfl ,., w.-. -,. .

Urlz akv-v v. c , 0t8a LP=I b, W. VallR&EK
>
thie resulted in coacervative eetimetee of con- ieone not only verified the predictions made, but
deneate production. they aleo lent credence to the estimated OGIP Gnd
the parameter ueed in the Gnalyaea.
Production wae predicted separately for each
well and wae mmmad to get the total field produc- It ehould be noted that thare are two raaeona
tion valuee Gt the end of each year, Wells were for the high recovery factoro. The firet io the
shut-in when gas rates fell below 33C MCF/f~ay~
fact that Gn w$er-preeeured gae reaarvoir etoree a
when WGRS exceeded 100 Bbl/MMSCF, or when the
lot more initial gas in the same volume an a
wells fault block completely watered out. With normal preaaured reeervoir. If abandonment con-
no available economic data? the economic limit ditiona are eimilar, the over-pressured reservoir
production levels were set based on the history of
will have a much higher recovery factor. The
presently shut-in welle.
second reason ie that trapped gas in a partial
water-drive reservoir will contiuue to expand ae
Predictions were made with the present, pro- preeaure drope in the invaded zone. As thie gas
ducing wells and aleo with the addition of a poe- expunds, some of it will continue to percolate
eible recompletion. Well 6-B, the highest well on through to producing welle until all production ia
the structure, had produced only in a lower ehut-in and the reservoir preaeure ceaaea to
horizon to date and wae considered a likely can- decline.7
didate to recomplete in the reservoir of interest.
The peeudo eteady-etate flow equation wae used to CONCLUSIONS
predict a rate of 4.7 kDMCF/dayasauming the well
wae completed in both the A and B eands in Januery 10 A material balance analyaie can be ueed
1983. The rats wae assumed to decline exponen- not only to estimate the original gaa-in-place,
tially from that point on at the field average
but also to verify critical parameter used in tha
decline rate of 26Zlyear,
analyeie.
Field wide predicted gae production ie 2s Very high recovery factore are poe-
plotted in Figure8 3 and 4, and the future raaer-
eible in over-preeeured gas reaervoire bacauee of
voir preesure ie projected in Figure 5, both with tha relatively large amount of original gae-in-
and without well 6-B. he Figura 3 illustrates? place stored per acre-ft of bulk volume.
the gae rate increased in 1982 because the oper-
atore recompleted a well in late 1981 in the
3, Gas in the invaded portion of a partial
formation of intereet. Bacauee of the higher water-drive reservoir will continue to expand and
voidage rate, the reeervoir preeeure wae predicted
percolate through to producing welle as the pres-
to decline more rapidly with time (ace Figure 5).
cure dropa in the reservoir.
Without well 6-B, the remaining reserves 4s Recovery can be increased at final blow-
after September 1, 1981, were estimated to be 44.1 down of a partial water-drive reeervoir by
BSCF,reeulting in a cumulative recovery of 96% of increasing field withdrawal rates, thue lowering
ttie original San-in-place. Recovering thoee
the abandonment pressure and allowing previously
reeervee would d.:aw the reservoir preaeure down to
trapped gae to expand further and percolate
an eetimated 1005 psia at abandonment in 1992.
through.
Completing well 6-B provided an incremental
reeerve increaee of 8.1 BSCF, resulting in a 98% RBPRRBtWIBs
ultimate recovery factor and lowering the abandon-
ment preaeure to 690 peia. Increaeee in racovery 1* Chierici, G. L., Ciucci, G. M., Sclocchi, G.,
due to increaaee in field production rates at and Terzi, L.:
!!Water Drive from Interbedded
final blowdown of partial water drive reaervoire Shale Compaction in Superpreeeured Gae Reeer-
have been previously documented.7 voirs -A Model Study, JPT, June 1978, V.
3C, pp 937-946
RECOVERYFACTCRJUSTIFICATICM
2. Baas, D. M.: Analysis of Abncmmally Pree-
The phenomenal ultimate recovery factors that cured Gas Reservoirs with Partial Water
were predicted for the field were justified with Influx, SPE #3850 pree.ented at 1972 Abnormal
theoretical calculation. The original gae-in- Subaurface Praeeure Sympoeium, Baton Rouget
place per cubic footof bulk volume was calculated LA, May 15-16, 1972
uOing the average initial porosity and water
saturation valuee and the gae formation-volume 39 Hammerlindl, D. J.:
llpredictin~ Gae Reserves
factor at 10,480 paia. The volume r~daining in in Abnormally Preaaured Reeervoire} preprint
the reeervoir at abandotuoent was calculated ueing #3479 presented at SPE/AME 46th Ann. Fall
the residual gae saturation, the porosity Technical Conf., New Orleana, LA, Oct. 3-6}
remaining after compaction, and the gue formation- 1971
volume factor at the abandonment preaeure.
4. Brune, J. R., Fetkovich, M. J.t and Meitzen$
Theoretical and predicted recovery valuea v, c,: The Effect of Water Influh on P/Z -
agreed very well. Without well 6-B the theoret- Cumulative Gaa Production Curvee, JPT, March
ical recovery wae calculated to be 95%, compared 1965, pp. 287-291
to the predicted value of 96%. With well 6-B the
calculated theoretical recovery of 97% also agreed
well with the 98% predicted value. Theee compar-
6 A RESERVOIR ENGINEERING STUDY OF AN OVER-PRESSURSD. PARTIA1, WATER-DRIVE GAS FIELD !sDli! 19(ML ..-. -.---- .. -----...- . . _--_ ,--- -.--- -------- ---- .- ---- ----- .- .--7T
5s Van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst W.:
!t~e
3. Equation of straight line where the slope equals
Application of the Laplace Transformation to
the OGIP and the intercept equals the rock and
Flow Problems in Reservoira~ Trans. AIME water compressibility term,
(194), PP. 186)305
Y =~Gp + 5.615*Cp*Boe*rac!MWsc)*Bg
6. Newman? Gt H.:
+ 5.615wp*Bw - 5.615Wi~/(Pi - P) !Ipore yolume compzeeaibility
of Consolidated, Friable, and Unconsolidated
Res ft3/psi
Reservoir Rocke Under Hydrostatic Loading)
JPT, Feb. 1973, V. 25, pp. 129-134,
X = ~Bg - Bgi) + 5.615*VC*(1 -
Bg*380@rc/~rr)/(pi - p)
7* Brinkman, F. D.:
Res ft3/SCF-pei
~l~ncreased Gas RecoverY
from a Moderate Water Drive Reservoir?
preprint #9437 presented at SPE/AIME 55th
mGSCF
Ann. Fall Technical Conf.~ Dallas) TX! Sept.
b = (Wgi/1-t3Wi)*(cW*9W + cf)
21-24, 1980
Ree ft3/psi
APPENDIXCs Sample Material Balance Calculation
APPERDSXA: Material Balance Equation
Calculation done at preeaure point 5, March 1960
Expanaion E Voidage
1. Constant input data:
G*[( Bg
- Bgi) + 5.615*VC*(1 - Bg*380*(%c/MWrc)
Pi = 10,480 psia
+(Bgi/1-Swi)*(~*~ + Cf)*(Pi-P)]+ 5.615*We
Bgi = 0.002746 RCF/SCF
=(Gp+5.615*Cp*Bos*380*(%c/~sc)*Bg+5.615*Wp*Bw BOS = 1.0807 Bbl/STB
Swi = 20.5%
where:
Cw = 3.45 X 10-6 vol/vol/psi
= 14 X 10-6 vol/vol/psi
G*(Bg-
Bgi) UIgas expansion
gc
= 49.5 #lft3
G * 5.615 * Vc = reeervoir volume Of
retrograde condensate
~sc = 157$7 #/#-mole
@C = 48,3 #;ft3
G*5,615*vc*Bg*380@rc/~rc = equivalent gas
volume of retrograde condensate
MWrc = 178,3 #/#-mole
G * (Bgi/1-Swi) * (OW* Sw + Cf) * (Pi - P) = 2. Input data at pressure point:
rock and water expansion
5.615 * We = water influx
P = 9804 psia
Gp * Bg = gae production
Bg = 0,002821 RCF/SCF
(50615*Cp*B08*380*&C/MW8C)*Bg = equivalent
Vc = 0.37 Bbl/MMscf
gas volume of produced condenadte
Gp u 3S004 + 4.4 = 42.44 BSCF
5.615 *Wp * Bw =water production
Cp = 696.98 MSTB
Wp = 94.65 MBbl
with all volumes in reservoir cubic feet,
Bw = 1.036 Bbl/Bbl
We = 8,3 MMsbl
APPIWDIXB: Munipulationa of the HE Equation
3. Ctilculate expansion factor, Xj:
Gas = 0.002821 -
1. Equation of straight liue where slope equals
0.002746 = 75.0*10-6
Condensate
OGIP and intercept equals zero:
= 5.615*0.37*10-6*(l-
0.002821*380*48.3/178.3) = 1.47*10-6
Y = (GP + 5.615*Cp*Bos*380*f?sc/MWsc)*B
Rock and Water =(0.002746/l-O.205)*(3.45*0. 205
+ 5.615*Wp*Bw - 5.615*We Res ft
5
+ 14)*(10480-9804)*10-6 = 34.3*1o-6
Total = 11o.77*1o-6 Res ft3/SCF
X=(Bg- Bgi) + 5.615*VC*(1- Bg*380@rc/MWrc)
4
+ (Bgi l-Swi)*(Cw*Sw + Cf)*(Pi - P)
4. Calculate total voidage? Yj:
Ree ft /SCF
Yj K (42.44*109 + 5.615*696.98*103*I .O8O7*38O
*4g,5/157,7)*0,00282~+50615*94.65*103*1,036
m.G SCF
-
5.615*8.3*106 = 0.075095 MMMRes ft3
b-o 5. Estimate OGIP at pressure point:
2, Ucina lIXU and IIyll values from part l) do incr@-
OGIP = 0.075095/110.77*10-6 = 678 BSCF
mental analysis between each pressure poiut!
6. Estimate OGIP from incremental analysis between
y=mX+b=G*X+O
preseure points 4 and 5S
Y3=G*X3
X4 - 88t9~~10-6 Rea ft3/SCF
y5mG*X5 Y4 - 0.059775 MHMRes ft3
(Y5 -Y3) =G* (X5 -X3] (X5-X4) = 110(77-88,91
G = (Y5 - Y3) / (x5 -x3) = 21.86*10-6 Rea ft3/SCF
(Y5 -Y4) = 0.075095-0,059775
Where X5 and X3 and Y5 bnd Y3 are X and Y - 0,015320 MM Res ft3
values calculated at pressure points 5 and 3.
OGIP = 0.015320/21.86*10-6 = 701 BSCF
GIru AGWVT W, A, GJ119h~S/U, W, 1a11hAL6
!
7. Calculate X and Y values for straight line
TABLE I
equation where the elope equais the OGIP and the
intercept contains the rock and water compresei-
SESERVOIR ~ ~ PLUIDPROPERTIES
bility term,
x = ~0.002821-O.002746) - 5.615*0.37*10-6
*(1 -
0.002821*38?*48.3/178.3fl /(10,480-
Average Depth 14,300 feet subsurface
9804) = 1.131*10-i Res ft3/SCF-psi
Productive Area:
Y = ~42.44*109 +5,615*696.98*103*1,0807
*49,5/157,7)*t),00282] + s.61s*94.65*103 A zone 1,700 acres
*1.036 - 5,615*8.3*10~/(1048G - 9804)
= 109.0*103 Res ft3/pei
B zone 3,850 acres
8. Calculate formation compressibility from Average Grooe Thickness:
intercept of Figure 9,
A zone 22 feet
m = 6?3 BSCF
b = 35.39*103 Res ft3/psi
B zone 62 feet
Cf = 35.39*103/(673*109*0.002746/l-O.205) -
3,45*1O
-6*0,205 = 14.52*10-~ vol/vol/psi
Average Net Pay:
NOHENCIATURS
A zone 20 feet
Bg = gas formation-volume factor, FVF, at pressure
B zone 52 feet
P, Rea cu ft/SCF
Bgi = gas FVF ac initial reservoir pressure?
Porosity 23X
Res cu ft/SCF
Boa = stock tank to separator oil-volume factor,
Initial Water Saturation 20%
bbl/STB
Bw = water FVF at pressure P, Bbl/Bbl Residual Gas Saturation 32%
Cf = formation compressibility, vol/vol/pai
Cp = cumulative condensate production~ STB Initial Pressure (1952) 11,800 paia
Cw = water compressibility, vollvol(pai
G = original gae-in..place, SCF
Initial Study Preeeure (1957) 10,480 psia
Gp = cumulative gae production, SCF
MWrc = reservoir condensate molecular weight, Reservoir Temperature 2500F
lbs/lb-rnole
MWSC= separator condensate molecular weight,
Permeability 100 md
lbs/lb-mole
P = reservoir preetiure at any time! psia Formation Compressibility 14 x 1o-6 vol/vol/Psi
Pi = initial reservoir pressures psia
Swi = initial water saturation fraction
Gas Gravity (air = 1.0) 0.675
Vc = ratio of reservoir condensate volume to
OGIP, bbl/SCF Condensate Gravity
480 ApI
We = cumulative water influx, bbl
Wp = cumulative water production bbl Water Salinity 130,000 ppm
~rc = reservoir condensate density, lba/cu ft
~ec = separator condensate density, Ibslcu ft Water Compreeeibility 3,45 x 10-6 vol/vol/p8i
5.615= CU ft/bbl
380 = SCF/lb-mole
w
1
1 1 I 1
SCALE
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 100 FT.
DEPTH IN FEET BELOW SURFACE
FIGURE 1: TOP OF B SAND STRUCTURE MAP
FAULT B FAULT C FAULT D FAULT E
14,000 I
I
14, 100
LLl
g
& 14)200
5
g
~ 14,300
m
1-
W
w
~ 14,400
z
F
~ 14,500
Q
14,600
i4, 700
x
r
G/W 14~5?7
, .
T
GIW 14,577
0 2000 4000
7
~
I I
J
I I
I
1
SCALE
F I GURE 2: CROSS SECTION X-X
PRCDI0710NS
-
, **
,., s.
.
G. ,,
G.* .,
%* 1,
l\
ITHOUT O. D~\
,,
t,
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 !0
00 es 70 76 *O a6 90
Yo8r
Flg,9 - Qaa Produotlon Rate vs Time
PREDIOTIONO
.4
Yoa
FI0,4 - Cumulatlvo Qaa Produotlon w Time
I
aooo
I
0! 1 I I 1 1 1 1 (
90 0s 70 80 86 so
Yuar
Flg.6 - Reoorvolr Pressure v. Time
10QOO
aooo
6000
4000
2000
0
\
PREOWIRE
\
PIZSOON8TAN
(). ~REeSIJRE
:: ;j: ql-((ow sw+cf)/( 1-swl))*(Pl-P)
1 1 I I 1 ! I
100 aoo 000 400 600 000 700
Clp (Bf3CF)
FIQ,6 - P/Z v. Gumulatlve Qaa Produotlon
1s0
,.
,.
G
Pn6DloTloN8
/
Hurst-Van Everdlngen Model
----- Model used efter 1077
0!
/
1 1 1
00
1 1
cm 70
1
76 10
Year
Flg,7 - Cumuletlve Water Influx ve Tlmo
...-
#l
x
o. ~~$E CASE
x = BASE CASE WITH l.E~KAQE NEQLECTED
K = CASE 11:Cf - 2,4xIO-
A = CA$E Ill: w. m o
400+ I
Koo
1%
10000
Proowo (P81A)
Flg,6 - Oaloulatod OQIP vs Proawa
()= BASE CASE
~ = CASE [[: LEAKAQE NEQLECTED
CD
0, 0
10,0
X (I?ESFTg ;:CF-PSI X 107)
Flg,8 - Stral ht Line Plot where the Slope= OQIP
\ and t e Interoept equals the Compreaalblllty Term