SPE 26647 Application of Variable Formation Compressibility for Improved Reservoir Analysis

f3.P. Yale, G.W. Nabor,* and J.A. Russell, Mobil R&D Corp., and H.D. Pham q and Mohamed Yousef,~ Mobil E&P US. inc.
SPE Members q Now retired qq NowwithAbu Dhabl Natl. Oil Co. tNow with SaudiAramco
Copy@ht 1S53, SocMy of Petroleum Engineer% inc.

Sooktv of

Petroleum ErIQWrs !

This paper wee prepared for praeematlon at the SSlh Annual Tecfmlcal Conference and Exhibllion of the SocIeIy of Pelrofeum Engineers held Irr Houatom Texas, 3-6 October 1993. This paper wee eelectmf for presenla!ion by an SPE Program Committee followlng review of information contained In an abetract aubmltfed by the author(s). Contents 01the paper, ae presented, have not been reviewed by the Soclaly ot Petroleum Englneare end are aubjecf to correction by the author(e). The material, ae presented, does not necessarily retlwt any poaltlon of the SocIefy of Petroleum Engineers, Ite officers, or mambera. Pa?era presented al SPE meetings are subject to publication ravlew by Edltorlal Commitleea of the Society of Petroleum Englneeta. Permleelorrto COPY la reefrlafed !0 en abatracf of not more than 300 words. Illuatratlone may not be copied. Tha abatract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where am by whom ma paper fe preeerded. Write Ubrarlan, SPE, P.O. Box S32438, Richardson, TX 76083-3S3S, U.S.A. Telex, 16324S SPEUT.

ABSTRACT Formationcompressibility has long been recognized as an important factor influencing production behavior from overpressuredoil and gas reservoirs. However, forrmtfon compressibii~ data are not routineiy collected and the us~ of formation compressibilityin reservoir analysis and simulation is often oversimp!ifjed. This paper discusses more accurate methods to determine fomation compressibility and introduces a new method for anafyzing overpressured oii and gas reservoirswttkh utilizes the variability of formation compressibilitywith declining resefvoir pressure. The newiy deveioped method departs from earlier proposed methods in the use of _ rather than &@ fomtation compresslbiiii by empfoying a pore volume formation voiume factorn,13f, that property integrates pore voiume compressibilityeffects over the fuli pressure range of investigation. Using the new concept of Elf,the materiai balance equation (MBE) can be modified to inciude the effects of pressure dependent formation compressibiiiiy. We find that the formation compressibilityin highiy overpressured unconsolidated reservoirs can be the same order of magnitude as gas compressibilityand significantly higher than oil compressibility. in some types of reswvoirs, an order of magnitude change in formation compressibility can occur during drawdown. We show that in many ove~ressured andlor unconsolidated reservoirs, proper integration of accurate formation compressibilities is importantfor resetve estimates, determination of drive energies, and overall reservoirdevelopment plans. For exampie, we find that the use of compressibilityvaiues in the MBE which are significantly fewer than those which exist in the reservoir couid suggest a strong waterdrive where one does not exist. Referencesand illustrationsat end of paper. 435

1. lNTRODUCTION it is recognizedthat a decrease in pore voiume accompanies a decilne in reservoir pressure. The relative change in pore volume per unit of pressure change, i.e., the formation compressibility,depends on the rock type, its degree of competence, and the tectonic setting. Laboratory measurementsshow a wide range of compressibilityievels over the spectrum of rocks from competent carbonates to unconsolidated sands, Compressibilitydeclines, sometimes drastically, as laboratory stress is increased to correspond to reservoir pressure changes from discovery to abandonment. Formationcompressibilityis a source of drive energy in addition to that provkfed by expansion of fiuids. its effect, and also that of water, are often ignored in anaiyzing reservoir performance since the contribution is minor compared with that of gas or oii plus soiutlon gas. The effects are usuaily considered, however, when undersaturated oii resewoir performance is analyzed and the contributions of rock and water expansion can easily exceed 10 percent of the totai. The conditions found in abnormally pressured reservoirs aiso lead to greater significance of formation compressibilityas a source of expaneion energy, particularly if the formation is pooriy consolidated. Abnormai pressure at discovery means a lower effective resewoir stress condition, and a higher formation compressibility. Since pressure ievei is often high, gas compressibility[ ( l@)- ( IL?) [ dtidp )] is relatively low, and formation compressibilitymay in fact be of the same order of magnitude; it wlli often exceed oii compressibiiiiy. Formation compressibilitycontributions may be further magnified if an aquifer--evena smali one-is present since aii of the water-bearing rock present wiii provide fomnationcompressibilitydrive,energy.

APPLICATION OF VAFtll$LE FORMATION COMpRESSl131Llw

SPF 266~

Where resemolr conditions are such that compressibility is expected to be relatively high, and variable with stress level, taboratoly measurementsare definitely indicated. Use of the data In reservoir analysis is not routine, and approximationsare often used. in this paper, we address both the laboratory measurementsand also a method for accurately incorporatingthat data in resetvoir performanceanafysis. The resuft is one which is quite general and whkh can be incorporated in existing materiai balance or resewoir simulation formulations with only minor modifications. Futier, methods previously proposed by otiter investigatorsprove in fact to be special cases of the generai approach developed here. 2. FOtlMATiON COMPRESSIBILITY Pore compressibility is a laboratory measured rock property whkh is defined as the relative change in pore volume cda rock sample divided by the change in laboratory stress whkh caused the change in pore voiume:
cp=

stress conditions. Equation 3 is sometimes referred to as the effective stress equation. Tabie 1 gives KI, IQ, KS for various rock types. KI and K,, relate how the three confining stresses in the reservoir and the reservoir pressure interact. KI can be defined as KI=(CrX+ ay+IYZ) /(3 CYZ). . . . . . . . . . 3a

oz can be estimated using an overburden gradient of 1 psi per foot of depth or from integrating a density log. K2 is equivalent to the Biot alpha parameter and is defined by Geertsma (1957) and Nur and Byertee (1971) as: K2 = (f
cb/cg~), . . . . . . . . . . . .

3b

& relates how the drawdown of the reservoir pressure increasesthe stress on the formation. it can be defined as: K3 = K2[(l+v)/(3 - TV)] . . . . . . . . 3C

A ~pl

Vp

AIM)

Formationcompressibility,however, is defined in most reservoir engineering handbooks as the relative change in pore volume divided by the change in reservoir pressure that caused the change in pore voiume:

Equation3Cis identical to the uniaxial correctionfactor deriied by Teeuw (1971) with the exception that he assumes K2to be unity. From Equation3, we can see that hydrostaticpore compressibilitytests, therefore, can be correctedto fomation compressibility through the foilowing equation: cf=&cp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 1 s 4

C,=4.!!M?
A/)

r
I

W.AIl& I Os oR v TH

The difference between pore compressibilityand formation compressibifiiytherefore is reiated to the difference between reservoir pressure and laboratory stress. There are four main stresseswhich act on any volume of reservoir rock. The overburden stress, az, the horizontriistresses, ax, Cp and the pore pressure or reservoir pressure, p, wtuch presses out against the overburden and horizontal resemoir stresses. [n the laboratory, however, most overburden tests are run using a hydrostatk confining pressure and ambient pore pressure. The reservoirstress state and changes in that stress state must be convertedto effectiie hydrostatk laboratorystress to understandthe laboratorydata. The foilowing equation has been proposed and derived by many (Geertsma, 195Z Jaeger and Cook, 1976; Teeuw, 1971; Nur and Byeriee, 1971):

IConsolidated Sandstones*
Bock WIQ

&

0.85 0.90 0.95 0.85

0.80 0.90 0.95 0.85

0.45 0.60 0.75 0.55

Friabie Sandstones IUnconsolidated Sands I ICarbonates

*These K2 constants for are vaiid for many consolidated sandstones and carbonates. For weii cemented fomations with porosities iower than 15%, the Kz factor can be between 0.4 and 0.8 due to the formations low buik compressibility (see Equation 3b). 2.1 Uniaxial Compaction As fluids are withdrawnfrom the reservoir, it is assumed to compact only in the verticai direction (uniaxiai compaction)because the verticai extent of the reservoiris so smali compared to its iateral exient (Cieertsma,1957; Teeuw, 1971; de Waal, 198$). This leads to a decrease in the horizontal stresses and therefore to a decrease in the average confining stress. This has the effect of 436

where KI, K2, and K are constants dependent on rock type and pi and p are the reservoirpressure at d=overy and at the present time respective~. ~eb is the hydrostatic confining pressure appiied to the core sample (minus any pore pressure)to simulate the in-situ

ABOR.RUSS~. fessenfngthe increase in effective stress as the fluid pressure in the resetvoir is decreased. The fi constant in equation 4 accounts for the changes in horizontal stresses (see Equatfon 3c). The variation in Poissons ratio, v, between consolidated and unconsolidated clastic wdments leads to a variation In Kj of 0.45 for consolidated sandstones to 0.75 for completely unconsolidated sediments. Therefore, for a consolidated sand, a drawdown of 2000 psi Is simulated in the laboratory by an increase in effective stress of only $00 psi. This lmlaxfal compaction of the reservoir during drawdown has led some to suggest that the compressibility shoukf be measured unkodaliy, mimkking the no fateral deformation bounda~ condition and allowing the sample to deform only in the vertkal direction &achance and Andersen, 1987; Andersen, 1985 de Waal, 1986). Theoretkaliy, however, (G$ertarna,1957 Jaeger and Cook, 1976) the volumetric change in pore volume Is due only to the change In the JWQ5WQ volumetrk stresses on the sample,therefore property corrected hydrostatic tests should be equivalent to uniaxial tests. We argue that the diffkutties in maintainingthe no fateral deformation boundary condfiion along the entire length of a sample durfng a trkudaitest as well as the cost and diffkufty of the tests make uniaxial tests unfavorable. Published data on unkaxialcompaction (Lachance and Andersen, 198* Andersen, 1985) show data whkh are both signifkantly 1sssand signfficantfymore than as predicted by theoretically corrected hydrostatic cornpressibiiff tests. We suggest, therefore, that formation cornjmssibility be calculated by performing hydrostatic pore compressibilii tests and correctingto formation compressibility using Equation 4. 2.2
Laboratory Methods for Pcw Compremdbility

PHAM.ANDYOUSAF

sample in weak sediments. ASshown in Figure 1, fujl diameter samples from the same unconsolidated formation as a set of plug samples have significantly lower compressibilities. We suggest that core damage during plugging and cleaning disturbed the samples enough to csuse this difference. The authors have found that ambient pressure porosities of the plug samples were 2 to 8 porosity units higher than the full diameter core samples, To maintain sample integrii to insure valid pore compressibilitymeasurements,the authors recommend that unconsolidated core samples be frozen on well site to prevent sample disturbance and desiccation during shipping; that fulj diameter samples be used to prevent disturbance from plugging and to maximize accuracy and that the frozen samples be placed in the pressure vessel before cleaning and allowed to thaw under some minimumstress (100 to 300 psi, generally). Brfne squeeze-out pore volume testing can be done before any cleaning provided care b taken to fully liquid saturate the sample and that ambient pore volume is measured after the test is complete. We have also found that the creep associated with the deformation of unconsolidated rocks can cause compressibilitytests run at high rates of pressure increaseto be invalid. One of the authors and others (de Waal, 1985) have observed creep in unconsolidated core samplesto be logarithmicwith time. The magnitudeof the creep being the most signffkant in poorly sorted, clay rich unconsolidatedcore samples. It is unfeasibleto run tests at reservoirdrawdown rates of 100 psi per month but standard laboratory rates of 1000 to 2000 psi per hour do not allow the creep to occur, We suggest that compressibilitytests on core samples run at rates between 50 and 5 psi per hour for unconsolidated samples and 500 to 50 psi per hour for weakly consolidated formations allow a significant portion of fhe creep to occur thus improvingthe accuracy of the compressibilitydata. 2.3 Variability of Formation Compressibility One of the reasons why formation compressibilityhas been left out or underestimatedin reservoir analysis is that it has been assumedthat pore compressibilityk fairly constant with stress and of the same order of magnitudeas the compressibilityof water. Even Hammerlindl(1972) who recognized the importance of compressibilityin resetvolr analysis, used a constant high formation compressibility value. Figures 3 through 5 show the varjabitity of pore compressibilitywith pressure and rock type. The figures represent compilationsof data for consolidated, friable, and unconsolidated ciastic sediments. Definftkmsof the degree of consolidation are vague. For the pwpose of our compilations the following general guidelines apply. Consolidated sandstones have undergone sigrdfkant diagenesis and have thek grains well cemented and dropping a core sample on the floor does not cause ft to disintegrate. In the consolidated

Laboratory pore compressibility measurementsare done by determining the pore volume of a core sample as a functbn of effective laboratorystress. The pore volume is usualfy determined efther by measuringthe total fluid squeezed out of a Ifqdd saturated sample and subtracting it from the pore volume at ambient condfiions or by measuring the pore volume directly of a dried sample at each pressure level using the Soyles faw gas expansion technfque. Since pore compressibNtyis related to the derivative of the pore volume versus stress curve, the accuracy of compressfbijitydata is dependent on the ability of the apparatus to measure very small changes in pore volume. For thfs reason, Ikjukf squeeze out on samples with more than 10CC pm volume gfves better compressibility results than Boyles faw measurementsor tests on small samples.
We have found that on samples from friable or

unconsolidatedformations, sampte integtity as well as sample volume is a concern. Pore compressibilityis very sensftiveto the degree of damage or disturbance of the 437

4 sandstonestested, porosity ranged from less than 1Ye to 25% with a mean porosity of 15%. We define friable samples as having Iit!le or no cement between the grains but holding together evsn after cleaning and drying. Friable cores, howe~er, will generally break or disintegrate if dropped onto the floor. Porosityof the samples tested ranged between 20% and 33Y0,with the mean porosityfor our data set at 23.1?4. We have found that the compressibilityof very clean, well sorted unconsolidated sands generally fall into this friablencategory even if they have no cement. We define unconsolidated samples as those which fall apart completely after drying ancVorcleaning with porositles between 27% and 40Y0. They generally have no cement between tho grains and are poorly sorted an~or have large clay iractbns. Our data set of unconsolidated samples was populated primarily with turbidite-type Gulf Coast sands with a mean porosityof 32.5?40.

FORMATION COMPRESSIBILITY

SPI? P664~

These three figures show the importanceof including variable fonmationcompressibility in reservoir analysis. Gas compressibilityat 8000 to 15000 PSIcan be in the range of 200 to 20 microsips. In overpressured reservoirs,where the effective stress (see Equation3) can be 3000 to 1000 PSI,formation compressibilitycan be 1 to 50 mlcrosips. We find that it is the change in gas and formation compressibilitywith pressure which causes the familiar change in slope of the p/z versus cumulative production plots in overpressured reservoirs. As reservoirpressure decreases, gas compressibility increases and formation compressibilitydecreases. The change in slope of plz versus production plots for overpressured reservoirscan be due to a change from a formation compressibility influenced srdem to a gas compressibility dominated system, 2.4 Type Curves for Formation Compressibility Pore compressibilitymeasurements are not performed routinetyfor all reservoirs and data are especiallysparse for those formations where it is most important(i.e. friable and unconsolidatedformations). Figure 6 and Table 2 give Type Curves which can be used to estimate formation compressibilityin clastic formations if cwe data are not available. The three type curves (and the equations given in Table 2) are least square fits through the data compiled in Figures 3,4, and 5.

Figure 2a and 2b show the differences in grain size distributions between a clean, well sorted sand (whose compressibilityfalls into our friible category) and a clay rich, poorly sorted sand (whichfalls into our unconsolidatedcategory). Both sands are unconsolidatedfrom the point of view of having no cement between their grains, but they have widely dflerent formation compressibilities. We have found this strong correlation between degree of sorting and compressibility in a number of unconsolidatedformations. Figure 3 shows formation compressibility versus pressure on a toglog plot for a collection of 121 consolidated sandstones from over 45 formations from around the workf reported in the published literature (Chieriii et. al. 1967, Dobrynin 1963, Fatt 1958a, 19513b, Wyble 1958, Yale 1984) and measured by the authors. Note the general downward trend versus pressure with an order of magnitude change in compressibilityover the pressure range. Note the order of magnitude variation of compressibility within rocks which are all conskfered consolidated sandstones. Figures4 and 5 show the formation compressibilityof friable to unconsolidated rocks which make up a surprislngtylarge number of resemoirs. These ranges of formation compressibilitiesare large enough to figure prominently into the total compressibilityequation for both oil and gas reservoirs, especiallythose which are overpressured. The data in Figure 4 are from 140 core samples from 7 reservoirsin the North Sea, Afriia, and the U.S. Gulf Coast which we consider %iable. The data in Figure 5 are from 14 full diameter core samples from 4 reservoirsin the CM of Mexko and Afrka which are unconsolidatedand poorly sorted. Note from Figures4 and 5 that neady all the samples have compressibilities greaterthan that of water at stresses up to 10000 psi. Comparingall three figures, we see over 2 orders of magnitude variation in compressibilii at any given pressuredepending on rock type. Also note that the slopes of the three data sets are dflerent. 438

W=

COwFtE~ CURVES FWMAIW CL~STIC RESERVOIRS Cf = A(cr-B)~+D

he type curvesin Figure6 are definedby the above quationwhenx r = KI* (overburdenstress) - K2 q ~ + /(3 q (pi -p) (psi) md II, B, C, D are constants depending on rock type as Iescribed below. Unconsol ate~ (poorly s;~ed) A E c D -2.805 X 10s 300 0.1395 1.183X 104 (&well sorted unconsol.) 1.054 X 10~ 500 -0.2250 -2,399X 105 300 0.06230 4.308 X 105

Fri$bk

-1.1(X4X lo~

We caution against the use of type curves unless core data is not available. Many times in unconsolidatedor friable reservoirs,very little if any core is available so that estimatesfrom type curves are necessary. We remind

YALE.NABOR.RUSSELI PHAM.ANDYCXJSAF the reader that the unconsolidatedand friable data sets do not cover a wide variety of reswvoirs and there will be formatkms which can be considered unconsolidated or friable which have compressibilities signifkantly different from those presented in the type curves. We do belleve, however,that the quality of the data In the formations tested is very good due to the measurement procedures followed.
3. THE PORE VOLUME FVF - A NEW CONCEPT In order to easily incorporate variable formation compressibility into reservoir analysis we define a pore volume FVF (formationvolume factor) as: ~,sv/v ., OO. O., . . . .. O.. O 5

wherej refersto gas, oil, or water. With this definition, we have the advantage of simultaneously considering the changes, with pressure, of both fluid and the pore space associated with that fluid. in material balance work, use of these factors allows us to center attention on fluid volume changes, knowing that pore space changes are being carried along automatkalty, The resuft, as we shall see, is a compact form of equation which accurately considers all facets of the formation and fluid expansion processes white retaining an appearance similar to that with which reservoir engineers have long been familiar.
4. MATERIAL BALANCE EQUATION

It is convenient, though not strictly necessary,to choose one atmosphere and reservoir temperature as the standard or reference condition, where Br= 1.0. The pore volume FVF is easify related to formation compressibilii. In differential form the formation compressibilityequation (Equation 2) can be written as Cfdp=dVp/Vp= d~lnVP~ . . . . . . . 6

We will derive the materfal balance equation (MBE) for a black oil system, using the modified formation volume factors just introduced. The system may be comprisedof three zones gas cap, oii zone, and pot aquifer. Phases present consist of hydrocarbon vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, and brine which are more commonly called free gas, oil, and water. Gas is also looked upon as a component, and may be present either in free form or dissoived in oii and water. Oil and water are not soluble in gas or in each other. A common (average)pressure characterizes ail zones and phases. Since the contribution of water-saturatedformation to drive energy may be considerable, the distribution of water in the system is of Importance. First, average connate water saturation may be different in the gas cap and oii zone. Second, we allow for the presence of a pot or steady state aquifer which is in immediate pressure communicationwith the hydrocarbon zones. This could be underlying water or simply a small aquifer. In the usual analysis, the energy contribution from a small aquifer might be neglected, but the possibility of high and variable formation compressibility enhances the importanceof such a contribution, especially in overpressuredsystems. Fina!ly,we will allow for watar and gas influx from a transient aquifar. Precise treatment of such influx requires separate analysis which is beyond the scope of this paper, but the overall effects are easily included in the general formulation. The analysis begins by relating the pore volumes of the oil, water, and free gas phases to the total pore volume of the system. Nt30/+ WBW~+GF/Bgj= VPSCB/j. . . . . . . from which
VP3C=N&j+ W~Wi+@j&i

which can be integrated between limits psc and p to give h (b/ VPSC)= or equivalently 8f=el@~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8

I
I

J
Psc

cfop=/(P)

. . . . . .

The laboratorytest from which CPis determined does, in fact, give a nearly direct determinationof Bt. The ratio of sample pore volume at any stress level to pore volume at a stress tevel correspondingto that reached in the resewolr when pressure declines to standard pressure gives the pore volume formation volume factoq the data needed are an inftfal pore volume and fluid volume expelled as a function of stress applied to the sample and, of course, a refation such as Equation 3 which ties reservoirpressure to laboratory stress. The laboratory measurementdoes not even have to be carried to the standard condtiion stress level; it need onfy cover a stress range which encompassesthe expected range of reservoirpressure. This amounts to defining a reference conditfon tied to the hjghest stress level reached (i.e., reservoir pressure below the lowest expected operational pressure). 3.1 Modified Fluid Formation Volume Factors Based on the above formulations we defi a modified gae/oil/waterFVF as
l&fj/& . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 9

10

. . . . . . . .

11

After some depletion, influx of water and gas, and shrinkage of pore volume, the followingwill apply: (N- Np)13. +(w-wp+w..)B. +(GFI+G~I-G~-GP )13a= VXcBj . . 12

439

APPI l~F

VARlw

FORh&TiONCOMEJ3EWlRlL11Y N

SP-

The term (GsI- G9) represents the difference in solution gas content between initkd and current conditions and can be written after combining like terms tw (3s/- (3,= N(F/s/-Rs)+Np F?s. . . . . . s 13

N=

P*

(g.- I@g) +(W +

)

We)& + G#g

Br/ f-l ((

We now go through the algebraic steps of solving Equation 12 for VP8C, equating the result to Equation 11, and then gathering all terms dealing with production or influx on the right hand side of the equation while all others are gathered on the left we get: (A/ {[ E.+(/?#?.)Bg] -E.,}) + W {~W-~Wl} + GFI@a-~~l) = Np(Bo-Ffs E#) + (WP-We)EW+Gp E9 ... .. 14

Swi+ FgcSwg\+ FW aY_l I-swi [ 1( [%$Q$J][*-l))

+ )

20

While the preceding equation is a very general form, it does require a calculation of Weby other means, In addition, using the produced _ ratio: Rp = Gp/Np, .. .. . . .. . .. . . 21

we can rearrangeterms to yield:

we can define a modified two-phase formation volume factor by dividing the standard two phase factor by Bfi Bt=@(R#?s)Eg Notethat ~ti = ~01 A final step to reach the form desired requires relating W and GFito N. We define two quantities
Fe & =

. . . . . , , . . ,

15

pore volume ratio, gas cap/oil zone pore volume ratio, pot aquifer/oil zone

The numerator is sometimes referred to as the expanded net=production-plus-excess-gas formulation. For gas reservoirswith associated aquifers, the same approach may be used to derive the analog of Eq. 20:

Then B~iVP% = *[ I+ FW+F] h{ . .0 16

and the pore volume of water can be found by multiplying each of the terms within brackets by the appropriate water saturation for each zone:
Elwjw =

:zi!i%23
The terms appearing In the denominator of the Equations 20,22, and 23 are worthy of examination. Each of the terms[( ~1 E1ji) - 1] representsthe expansion of a untt volume of initial fluid, including its dissotved gas, and the contractionof its associated pore space. The factors which multiply [(@ Ej] -1] are volume ratios at initial conditionsfor (water/oil), (free gas/oil) or (watdfree gas); the multiplierfor the first term is unity of course since the amatysis is based on a unit of either oil or of free gas. The water term is often neglected in material balance formulations,but It shoukt not be. In the general form shown here, its significance becomes more obvious, especially in overpressured reservoirs where formation and gas or oil compressibilitiescan be comparable in magnitude. The water term may in fact be dominantfor quite modest values of Fp This can be demonstratedby noting that In EW = lnBw-ln~

~_

[ SWI+ FgcSwgi+ FXJ ..17

After dwision by f3~j, substitutions and rearrangement: w= For free gas,

@ @, = Bgi [

I@
Ewj

Swi+

FcSvgi+F/)ii 1-

. . . .

18

sw~

Fw(l-swi

l_sw,~)
1

19

When the appropriate substitutions are made in Equation 14, the final result is:

Y~R.

RWWHUkiAM.

ANDYOUSAF

and taking the derivative and rearranging: (%/BW,) = @(Pi-p)

!50%of the energy associated with gas-bearing reservoks. Formationcompressibilityeffects should be included, and water-bearing rock shouid not be ignored, even though its total voiume may appear to be quite modest. These facts have long been recognized in anaiyzing performanceof overpressured gas reservoirs (Hammeriindi,1971; Bass, 1972). However,these and other investigators (Ramagostand Farshad, 1981; Bernard, 1987) have suggested onty approximationsfor deaiing with the problem. The fownulationproposed here explicitly includes the effects of ali contributing fiulds and their assodated pore space, and has the added attraction of allowing variable compressibilities to be included with relative ease.
5.

The exponent is srnaii, since compressibilitiesare typically 106 in order of magnitude while pressure changes are 10+3in magnitude, so: Bw/E#l+ or *-1 ()B~j & m (Pi-P) . . . . . 24 m (lx-p)

Similar expressions may be developed for oii and its dissotved gas, and also for free gas, and the pore space associated with each. Some order~f-magnitude cakulations can now be made. if we choose a system at 10,000 psi and 225F as typical ef an overpressured resetvoir setting with a weakly consolidated or unconsolidated formation, we can estimate: Cw s Cg = C?(frbl) Cf (Uc) it foitowsthat 3(10+) pShl 37(10~ pshl =10(10~) ps~l =35(10~ pstil
(Ostf, 1984) (Bradley, 1987) (friable sand) (unconsolidated sand)

MBE ANALYSIS The MBE presented in Equations 20 and 23 Is more comprehensivethan those usuaiiy presented, but it has the same format except for the use of the modified formation voiurne factors ~O,W,u in place of the BO,W,g, The modified fiuid formation volume factors can be cafcuiated independently as a pre-analysis step, and used in place of the usual fiuid volume factors in MBEs in current use. it is readityapparent this MBE formulation wiii reduce to conventional presentations of the MBE (see, for example, Dake, 1978; Bradiey, 1987) if appropriate simplifying assumptions are made. As an example, consider the gas materiai baiance Equation 23. if we divide both numerator and denominator on the right hand side by Eg,solve the resuftingexpression for ( 1/ ~g ) and then substitute Bt(p/z) = (constant)s( 1/ ~g), we obtain, after some algebra:

c~+Cf(lJc)
compared to Cu+ Cj(frbi) Ce+ Cf(UC)
Tim,

CW+ C~(frbi) = 13(10~ pskl = 38(10*) psi-l

= 47(104) psi-l = 72(10+) pSt

the unit expansibilityof water and its pore space is nearty 30 percent of that of gas and its pore space for a weakiy consolidated sand and over 50% for an unconsolidatedsand. if SWI= 0.2, the water term appearing in the denominator of Equation 23, for gas resewoirs, wiil dominate if FW >2.7 for a weak sand and for FW >1.3 for an unconsolidated sand. For oil reswvoirs, an estimate of two-phase compressibilitywiil be system-spectfb, but we can reasonablyargue that it wiii be less than gas compressibility. The water term wiii then exceed the oii term at even lower values of Fpa. While the preceding development aimed to illustrate the need to account for water-bearingformation in material balance anatysis,the key issue is actuaily the high formation cornpressibiiity. in the example, formation compressibiiii contributes over 20 percent of the expansion energy associated with gas-bearing rock, and over 75 patent of the energy associated with waterbearing rock for weak fofrnations. For unconsolidated formatbn, fonmationcompressibifii contributes nearly
441

if we assume Wtt= O,then GF1= G. We also introduce the approximations:

Bf = M 1 -cf(PFP)l

BW =

8~J 1 + Cw(p-p)]

where C~and Cware taken to be smail and constant, The equation which ultimately resuits b:

()[ z
p

, _

Gv(~pt?+ %) + cd~w+ 1) (p;_p) = 1- s~j 1 (9,-(*)(9J%+ %%) 26

lLllY The preceding equatfon is that developed by f3ass (1972). If, F-= O and #Yp=O,then:

SPF 26647

(g)[1 -(Q+

cwav/)(p/-p~
,_&

]=(9,-(?)/(%) 27

(1972). The Anderson L is an wer-pressured gas resewoir having an InftlaipressutQof 9507 psia at 11,167 feet subsea depth, or a gratiient of 0.843 psilft, Tabie 3 provides other pertinent data on this reservoir. equal in this case, ft Is assumedthat FW, WO, Geand RSW zero, and the L sand is weakly consolidated. The pore vo!ume formation voiume factors (B~ are calculated from Cf vaiues by using Equations7 and 8. Figure 7 shows a graphkai presentation of the rock compressibilityas a function of reservoirpressure. We can use the 13fconcept to correct the p/z versus production piot to account for formation and water compressibility. As shown In the braced term on the Iefi side of Equation 25, we can use a factor C: C = (Bf/Bf~(Fpa
+ 1) - (Bw/BW~*(Fpa + Swfl
(1-

which was proposed by Ramagost and Farshad (1981). Any one of the Equations 25 through 27 can be plotted as corrected ( ph ) versus corrected t3Pand the line extrapolatedto an intercept to estimate @J or (3, provkfedof course that FWcan be estimatedwith sufficient accuracy to allow an accurate correction to be calculated. Equation 25 has an advantaga for cases where Influx can reasonably be taken as zero, and the overpressuredgas resewoir may well fit this case. Since all variable effects are properly allowed for, F maybe determined by trial and error as the value wh1% h leads to the best straight-line fit of the pressure and production data. Equations 26 and 27 are not really suitable since cf will in fact change rather rapidfy as ( pi - p ) increases.
& SIMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

28

sw/j

Variable compressibility Is easlfy handled at the partial differential equation level by substituting OSC Ef~ for porosity wherever ff appears in the equations. Manipulation of@ as a pressuredependent variable should be straightforward. it maybe preferableto reformulatethe equations In terms of the modified fluid volume factors B, since these variables can be developed outsfde the context of the simufatlonequations, thereby reducing the numerkal cafculatlon required. Since Eltis a continuous, stowty changing function of resewoir pressure,there is no reason to anticipate that the ~ functions will be any more diffkuft to handle numerically than the B] functlcmsthemselves. CASE HISTORIES 7. Twenty over-pressured gas reservoirs were selected and analyzed with a computer program developed by using the new method and the rock compressibilitycorrelations discussed above. Followingare two of the case histories studied. One factor needed in the anafysis is a determinationof rock type so the propers or P relationshipcan be used. If core data are not avalfable,type curves for formation compressibiiifycan be used although it is aiways preferable to use fabomiory compressibilitydata from the formatfcnof interest. If type curve compressibilityis used yet the degree of consoildatton is not certain or avaiiable, one shoufd conduct sensitivity studies for ail appropriate rock types to determine the best sultabie solution. For these case histories, formation compressibilityis taken from the type cuwes presented earlier. 7.1 Caso 1 The first selected case histoty was the Anderson L reservoirfrom the Mobii-Davkffieid presented by Duggan

as a muftip!lerfor p/z. Figure 8 shows the actuai and the corrected @zdata plotted against the cumulative wet gas production. The eariy extrapolation of the actuai p/z curve Indkates an apparent gas-inepiaceof 112 Scf, whkh Is about 61 percent higher than the estimated voiumetrk gas-in-placeof 69,6 Bcf. However,the extrapolation of the corrected p/z curve using iinear regression on ail data points yields a correeted gasinplace of 83,6 Bcf. The gas-in-piaceof 83.6 Bcf was then input into Equation 25 and the estimated gas production at each time step was calculated and plotted in Figure 8. As shown in Figure 8, the calculated gas production shows an exceiient match to the actual data. To determine the degree of confkfence in predkting the originai gas-in-piace early in the productive iife of the reservoirwhen a few data points are availabie, a sensitivity study was conducted where oniy the first six data points were considered In the evaluation. in this case, the origlnai gas-in-piace determined by iinear regressionon the first six corrected p/z data points is estimated at 76,0 Bcf. Tabie 4 shows the regression anaiysis results for the six and the ail=data-pointcases. Aithough the six-data-point case shows a higher standard deviation, both cases give an exceiient best fit to the straight iine, This seemsto imply that the gas-inpiace tends to be under-estimatedwhen considering only etwiydata points. To verffy this point, we performed additional evacuationsbased on data groups from a minimumof three to a maximumof sixteen data points. The results from these evaluations and our experience with other case histories indicated that gas=in-piace estimatestend to increase when more data points are inciuded and become stabie as reservoir pressure drops to about 70 percent of the originai resewoir pressure. Currentiy, we are evacuatingthe possibie causes of these empirical resuftso 7.2 Case 2 The North Ossun NS2tYreservoir (1-iarviiie and HawkIns, 1969) k an over-pressured gas reservoir having an initlai pressure of 8921 psi at 12,500 feet subsea depth, or a gradient of 0.725 psMt. Tabie 5

442

provides other pertinent data on this reservoir. Furthermore, gaod geologic data and considerable complex fmdffng in the area suggest a closed reservoir with a limited water aquifer. in this case, we also assume that W* Gormd l?W equai zero. As in Case 1, Bf is calculated from c~ via Equations 7 and 8 for consolidated and unconsolidated sandstones. Figure9 shows ct as a function of pressure. (p/2)C is calculatedfor the two selected cases (a) unconsolidated sandstone with no associated water aquifer (Fm = 0), and (b) consolidated sandstone with a water aquifer equai five times the pore votume of the gas reservoir (F@ = 5). Figure 10 shows the actual and the modified g%!z data for Case (a) plotted against the cumulative gas production. The early extrapolation of the actuai p/z curve indicates an apparent gas-fn-pfaceof 210 Bcf. However, the extrapolationof the modified p/z curve @/z)C yieids a corrected gas-in-place of 105 Bcf whkh is close to the voiumetdc estimate of 114 Bcf. Aiso, as shown on Figure 10, the cakuiated p/z curve, based on the gas-inpiace of 105 Bcf, matches vety weii with the actuai data. To study the contribution of formation compaction and water expansion from a smaii aquifer to the drive energy, a sensitivity study of this resewoir was conducted using different aquifer sizes (F and rock compressibilities. For each combination of rock type and aqutier size (Fw), the @/zjC data was cakufated and from whkh a corrected gas-in-place can be determined. Table 6 summarizesthe results obtained from twelve different cases analyzed. Comparing the first unconsolidated case (Fpa = O) and the iast wnsoii~ted case (~PtJ= 5)1 if is seen that both cases give the iowest standard deviations whkh indicate the correct gas=in-piaceis within the range of 104 to 108 Bcf. i30thcases provide similar cafcuiation results of @/2)C. 7.3
Drhm Energy Partitioning and Reserve Estimation The results from this sensitivity study indicatethat a

This is especiaifytrue since many if not most of these types of reservoirsare iocated offshore. Accurate formation compressibilitydata and appikation of that data in MBE anaiysis and reservoir simuiatkmcan significantly improve reservoir development in these types of fieids.
8.
q

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporationof variable formation compressibility into reservoir performance anatysis is important for overpressured and/or weakly to unconsolidated reservoirs. Accurate laboratory measurementsof pore compressibilityare important and standard methods for measurementof pore compressibilityon friable to unconsolidatedcores are often inadequate. Tests on fuii diameter, fresh core samples from unconsolidated formations are preferable to plug samples and slow rate tests are necessary to account for the aneiastic nature of these formations.
q

. Use of the modified FormationVoiume Factor as defined in this pape; ailows variable formation compressibilityto be incorporated into the MBE and other reservoir performance analyses easily and effectively. g Use of variable formation compressibility in materiai baiance analysis for initiai reserves leads to more accurate estimatesof resetves. Use of accurate laboratory pore compressibilitydata can aiiow accurate reserve estimatesfrom earfy time data in overpressured systems. . incorporationof accurate formation compressibility measurements in reservoir performance anaiysis can aiiow for the correct partitioning of drive energies and estimates of remaining reserves which can aid in the most efficient development of the resewoir. $. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wouid like to thank the managementsof Mobii Research and Development Corporation and Mobii Explorationand Producing, U.S. inc. for permissionto pubiish this paper. We would a!so like to thank Marty Cohen, Ron Moore, J. Michael Rodriguez,and all the others who helped on this project.
10.

varying combination of rock compaction and water expansion from a small water aquifer couid provide the same perfownanceeffects to the reservoirsystem as iorig as the total energy contribution from these two factors is the same. This observation is consistent with the speculation raised in the MBE Analysis section of this paper. Therefore, it is important to utilize knowiedge of the geofogkai setting as weii as knowledge of reservoir rock properties to evaluate and confickmtiypredict gas-in= piace from pressure performance of over-pressuredgas reservoirs. Correct partitioning of drive energies, therefore, is dependent in many cases on accurate measurementsor estimates of formation compressibility. Underestimationof formation compressibilitymay suggest a waterdrive where one does not exist and vice versa. Profitable development of overpressured ancUor unconsolidated resewolrs is dependent on an accurate understandingof drive mechanismsand totai reserves.

A B e & !$! f% &

NOMENCLATURE = constantinTable2 = constantin Table2 = porevolumeformation voiurnefactor(FVF),RWSTB = iniiiaiporevolumeFVF,FiB/STS = gas FVF,RWSTB = iniiiaigas FVF,RWSTB = oii FVF,FiWSTB = initiaioii FVF,REVSTB = two-phaseFVF,RB/STB

10 =

APPLICATION OF V~

FORMATQNCOMPRESSWIW
11. REFERENCES Anrhreen, M. A; PredictingReaeivolrConditionPore-Volume

irtttiai two-phase FVF,RB/STB = water FVF,RB/STB = hitiaf waterFVF,RB/STB

= ~/& = &/& =@/@ = &/* = &/@ = &/@ = &l@ : t%:gt

~ ?dle *

= constanth Equation28 and Figures8 and 10 = iltlk Comprwhiiityof the fofrrtation, Vowovpsi =formatbn Cornprssstiliii,VoiNOvpsi = gasV-MIM*VWM = fyairl~e66ibiiity Oftiw fofmation, Vowovpsi = w --wt vo~o~m = totatwatercornpmssibitity, votvo~psi =conskmt = porevalue ratb, gascap/oilzone = porevalueratio,pot aquif~oflzone =Mafhitiaigasklp klce,scf = inftialfmefjas in place,ecf =totat gasprodhced,Scf =Soiutbngashpiace, scf
=Mtiatsotutiongash pface,scf cornpressblihy = htegratedfotrnatiort

= oonstmt h Equath 3 = constantin Equation3 =constrmtfn Equatbn3 = oii in place,STB = N/@ = Poissons ratio = total oil produced, STB = porosity at standard condfiions, fraction = reservoirpressue, psi = initial resewoir pressure, psi = gas in soluftion in oil, scf/RB f?~ = ~itia! gas in solution in oil, scf/Rf3 Swgi = initiai water saturation, gas cap, fraction s~i = initiai water saturation, oii zone, fraction @ = initai effective Iaboratofy stress, psi au = effective laboratorystress, psi UJr,y = horizontal stresses, psi a= overburden stress, psi v = pore volume at resetvoir conddion, RB 1?Sc = pore voiume at standard condition, STB d = water in place, STB we = cumulative water infiux, STB Wp = cumulative water produced, STi3 = gas deviation factor z

SF% 14213 presentedat the 1985 SPE 60th AnnualMeeting, Sept. 22-26. La6 Vega% ~as, t), M.: AnSiyd6ofAbilOmld!y Pme8ured Gas Raserwrh With PartialWater Influxt paperSPE S650presentedat the 1972 3rd Symposium on AbnormatSubsuflacePore Pressure,Louiaiane State University, Mayl&16. Bernard,W. J.: ResenresEstimation and Pedormanca Pmdi@n for Geopreawed Gas ReeervoiratJ. Pet. Sci. Errg. (Aug.19S7) 1, 15-21. f3radley, H.B.(Editor-fn-Ohlafi Petmbum E~ineerirrg Hmrdbook, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1987). Chlerioi, G.L., Ciuod,G.M., Eva, F., and Long,Gt. (1967) Effect of overburden preaswuon aornafmtmphy8kelparemeteraof reservoirrocks,Proo. 7#r Worfd P6froteum Congress, z 309. Dake,L. P.: Func&nental# of Reservoir Ehgineedng, Eleevter Scientific Pubtishlng Co., Amsterdam(1978). de Waal, J. A,: Or Rate Tjpe Compaction Behatior of Sandstone Reservoir Rock, Ph.D. thesis,Teohnlache Hogeachoot 12alft, (19s6). Dobrynln, V.M. (1663) q Effectof ovetirden pressureon some propertlea of sandstones, SPfZ/, 2,360, Dug9an,J. 0.: The Andereon L* -An Abrronnally PmssuradGas Reswvoirin SouthTexas, JPT(Februery1%2) 132-1SS. Fam 1.(195S8)Carrpmseltillty of armdstones at lowto rncderate pressures,EMi. AAPG, 42,1924. FattjL (1958b) Porevotumecompressibilities of sandstone reservoir reeks, Trans.,AIME, 213,362. Gewtame, J,: TheEffeotof FluidPmaure Declineon Volunwtrio Chenge8of PorousRooks, Trans., AlME (1957) 210,331-340. Harrnarlind, D. J.: I%adioting Gaa Reservesin Abnrmnatly Pnssaurad Reaervdrss paper SPE 3479 preeentedat the 1971 SPE of AIME 46thAnnualMeeting,New Orleans,Oct.3-S. M. F; RockCompreseMity andFallum Harville, D. W.,andkiawkirra, as ReservdrMeohsniarns inGeopressured Gas Ra.servoire; JPT (December, 1969) 1528-1530. Jaeger,J. C., and Cook,N. G. W.: Fundamentalsof Rock Meohanks, Chapman and Hall, London (1976). Kaelan,D. K. (19S5) Automated we measurement 6ystemfor conditions, paperSPE enharwcf ooredataatoverburden 15165. to Koger,K. M., SaomJ. D., and Mogenstem, N. t%: Te8tiW Determinethe Geoteohnioel Properties of Oil Sends,paper PBiCIM 87-38.59 preisentad at tha 1987 PetroleumSodetyof CIM 36thAnnualMeeting,Calgary. Lschwwe,D. P., and Andarsen, M. A: Cemparfaon of UnlaxlalStrain and Hydrestaticr StressPore-Volume (krnpressibility inthe NuggetSandstone,paper SPE 11971 presentedat the 1$SS SPE 5SthAnnualMeeting,San Fmndsoo,Oct. 5-S. Nur,A. and Byerfee, J.D. (1971) An exactefteotive stresslawfor elatitiedeformation of rookwithflulds,Jour. Geophys. . . i?es.,76, 6414-6419. Osif,T. L.: TheEffectsof SaIt Gas, Te$nperatum, and Pressure on the Comrxessibllitv of Water. rmeerSPE 13174 rxeeentedat the 19~ &PE 59th A&uel Technics](%nferenceand Exhibition, Houston,Texas, Sept. 16-19. Ramsgost, B. P., andFarehed,F. F; PiZ Abnormally Pressured Gas ReservoiretpaperSPE 10125 presentedat the 1981 SPE of AIME 66th AnnualTeohnioal Conference,San Antonio,Ootober 5.7. Teeuw,D.: Prediction of ReservdrCompaction fromLakwatory \ Cornpressibllity Data, SPEJ, (September,1971) 263-271. Teeuw,D.: Laboratory Measurements of (%oningen Reswvdr Rock, Trans.,RoyalDutchSo& of (iieologiats and MiningEng. (1973) 28, 19-32s Wytie, D.-O. (1958) Effeotof appliedpressureon the conductivity, porosity, and permeability of sandstones,Trans. AiME, 213, 430. Yale, D.P. (1964) NelworkModeilingof Flow, Storage,end Deformationin Porou$ Rooks, Ph,D, theds, StanfordUnlverdty.

Compressibility fromHydrostatio4Xmse Laboratory Datt% paper

Y&E. NAKM+RMSELL pHAM.ANDy~ u $A~ TABLE 3 u n RESFRVOIR DATA 11167 feet Depth 9507 psia Initial BHP 0,843 psi/foOt Pressure Gradient 266 F Bottom-hole Temperature 75 ft Net Gas Pay Thickness 24 ~0 Porosity 35 % Water Saturation 69.6 Bof Volumetric Gas In Place ANDER s ON
TABLE 4

11

EstimatedOGIP (Bcf) Correlation Coefficient Standard Deviation (Yo)

83,6 0.9982 0,91

TABLE 6

76 0.9922 6,85

JJ~~T~

OS~UN

M S2B w

IERVQIR DATA 12500 8921 0.725 248 100 24 34 114 feet psla psVfoot F ft
~0

Depth Initial BHP Pressure Gradient Bottom-hole Temperature Net Gas Pay Thickness Porosity Water Saturation Volumelrlc Gas in Place

% Bcf

TABLE 6

NORTH O!5SUN *NS2B

.-

RESERVOIR ANAL YSIS RESULTS

[O(3IP @cf) / correlation eoeff./ std.dev.(%)]

Fpa = 0 Consolidated Weakly Consol. Unconsolidated 158 10.986J 1.4 149 I 0.990/ 1.4 10510.99611.1

Epa = 1 143 I 0.991 I 1.4 12910.994 / 1.2 7410.99212.3

Fpa = ~ 120 I 0.995 I 1.2 10210.99611.1 4610,982113.

Fpa =5 104/0 .997/1.1 8410.99411.7 3210.975133.

445

APPLICATIC)N 0FVAt31W

FORMATION COMP~m

sP-

FULL DIAMETER VERSUS PLUG SAMPLECCIMPFIESSZBILITY 120

A A

UNCONSOLIDATED FORMATIONS
A A CLEANED PLUF&l INDUSTRY STANDARD AA A A A A A

80

40

Pti-uL-
~&
~~

A 6000 9000

o
0

3000 PRESSURE

(PSI) 1

FIGURE

Comparison ofcompmsibility from cleaned plugs versus fresh, fulldiameter cores showing effectofplug damage on pore compressifdlitiy
.
10, 9

vchm9 *

3
a 1
0 0.2 0.4 1. oa4@loao ?artlelo 100 200
DisMt.r turn)

400

100

FIGURE

2A

Grain size distribution for clean. we!lsorted unconsolkfated sand

2.4,
a.a a.o
1.0 v 1.6 ; 1.4 : l.2q

vOllJa* *

1
0.2 0.4

P
il

0.8

FIGURE

26

Grain size distribution for c!ay rich, mdy sorted UtICOtN301h%kt0Cf sand

0.6 0.4 o.a o

1.@a4610a040 ?utielo 100 aoo Di40ct.r Iumi 400 1000

446

~~R

Rl=~NDyOusAF
WELL CONSOLIDATED .-~ SANDSTONES

13

i-

-1

3
IL

J.__---. .!500 2000

5000

: 2;00

EFFECTZVELAS STRESS(P5$1
FIGURE 3

Log-1ogplot of Formation Compressibilityversus Effective Laboratory Stress (121 weli consoikfated sandstone samples)
4

2.E-4

FRIA9LE ~

SANDS a WELL SORTED UNCONSQLIDATM 1 ~

2. E-5

A A 1 bA 4 AA

2. E-6

i?.E-7~

#
2000 EFFECTIVE 5000 LAB STRESS(fJsi) 20000

500

FIGURE

Log-fog piot of FormationCompressibilityvarsus Effective Laboratory Stress (140 friable sandstone and weil sorted unconsoikfated sand sampies) 447

APPI ICATK)N OF VAFi,@

F FORMATiON C~lRILITY

SPF a

UNCONSOLIDATED 2. E-4t z w ~ .
~ 2.

SANDS

(POORLY SORTED) I

4 &

E-5

; 4 ~ A A a

d g ~ f

o 0
z g b i! 9 k

2. E-6

2. E-7 !500

2000 EFFECTIVE

i 5000 LAB STRESS (PS5)

20000

FIGURE

Log40g plot of Formation Compressibilityversus Effective Laboratory Stress (14 unconsolidated sand samples)

TYPE 50, } . . .
. . .

CLfFiVES FWt I

CLASTIC #

RESERV(IIRS 1

40 -

. . .. . .. ..O -..,

30 ....... 20 -

......

.........

..........

E fii 0
IL

10 -\ \\ -c_OTx&T~t 2500 EFFECTIVE ______ 1 5000 . --T10000

0 o

7500

LAB STRESS(P5$)

FIGURE

Typecwvesbased on non4inearregression ofdatain Figures3, 4,and5 448

NAE30R. 13LlSSW I PHAM.AN~ fOUSAF

15

ANDERSON L 14 , I 1 1

RESERVOIR 1 1

~~ 3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Booo

9000

10000

RESERVOIRPRESSURE[PSII
FIGURE 7

Formation compressibil~ as a function of reservoir pressure for Anderson L

ANDERSON L 7000 ~~

HESERVOXR e

6000 z : 9 * Q Q 4000

----

5000

ACTUAL P/z*c cALGULATEO P/z*c 6 tJoints

P/z*c all P/z

--

points

3000

~\\

100C
\ c
20 -.

\ \ 80 (Ecf)
1

\ 100 120

40 CUMULATIVE

60 PRODUCTION

FIGURE $ P/Zasafunctionof cumulative gaspmduction (standard and variable compressibill~ analysis)

449
I

~6

APPJJQYllON

OF1/AW

FORM~ON

COMPRl=SSIBILllY

SPF 26647

Nf3F+THOSSUN NS2B

RESERVOIR

UNCONSOLIDATED

CONSOLIDATE

:000

5000 RESERVOIR

7000 PRESSURE (Psia)

9000

FIGURE
Formation compressibility as afunctlon

9
pressureforNorth

ofrese~oir

Ossun

(from Type Cutves)

NORTH OEWJN NS2B 7000 I 1 1 I 1 I I

RESERVOIR I I e A 1
ACTUAL

i I
J -

6000 %j
&

P/z*c
CALCULATED

5000 40(3(J \

P/z?ic ?/2

-1
i

:
~

J A

n L Q 3000 $ 2000

d \ \ \ \ \ \ t 120 I 140 1 160 \ \ \ \ \ I 180 \ , \,, 200 220 , -, 240 i 4 i

1000 -

0 L o

20

40

60

$0

100

CUMULATWE

PIWJOUCTION(BCf)

FIGURE 10 P/Zasafunctionof cumulativegasproduction (standard and variable compressibilityanalysis)

450