Improved MaterialBalance Regression

Analysis for Waterdrive Oil and Gas

Reservoirs
S.R. Sills, SPE, Arco E&P Technology

Summary and the oil zone formation and water expansion term, Efwo , is de-
An improved material-balance formulation is presented for deter- fined as

mining original hydrocarbons-in-place (OHIP) in waterdrive oil
and gas reservoirs. The improved formulation reduces the number p i * pc f ) S wo c w
E fwo + B oi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
of unknowns in the regression analysis through the definition of a 1 * S wo
combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term (CARET). Field exam-
ples analyzed with the CARET formulation are presented illustrat- The free gas expansion term, Eg , in Eq. 1 is defined as
ing the nonunique nature of waterdrive material-balance solutions
for OHIP. A method is presented for reality checking the best-fit B gi S og E o
aquifer parameters obtained from the regression analysis. The E g + B g * B gi ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
1 * S wg * S ogB oi
CARET material-balance formulation is shown to provide several
advantages over existing regression analysis techniques. and the free gas zone formation and water expansion term, Efwg , is
defined as

Introduction
Material-balance analysis of waterdrive reservoir performance to p i * pc f ) S wg c w
E fwg + B gi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
determine OHIP requires a method for estimating water influx. If an 1 * S wg * S og
analytical aquifer model is used, the aquifer description must be
known or determined as part of the OHIP analysis. Havlena and Eqs. 1 through 6 represent the general form of the material-balance
Odeh,1,2 Tehrani,3 and others have proposed material regression equation for an oil or gas reservoir. In a waterdrive gas reservoir Eq.
analysis techniques for determining OHIP. These methods work 1 reduces to
well when applied to volumetric reservoirs; unfortunately, they are
often less effective in waterdrive reservoirs. This paper presents an F + GE g ) E fwg ) US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
improved regression analysis technique that works well in both vol-
umetric and waterdrive reservoirs. In volumetric reservoirs, it sim- Similarly, in a waterdrive oil reservoir, Eq. 1 becomes
plifies to the solution proposed by Tehrani. Field cases are presented F + NE og ) US , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
showing that regardless of the regression analysis technique used,
the potential for nonunique OHIP solutions must be addressed where Eog is a combined oil and free gas expansion term defined
whenever an aquifer is present. Finally, a method is presented for with the gas cap m ratio as
reality checking the analytical aquifer constant obtained from the
OHIP regression analysis to ensure that it corresponds to a reason- mB oiE g ) E fwg
able aquifer description. E og + ) E o ) E fwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
B gi

Theory and the gas cap m ratio is given by

The general material-balance equation and its specific forms for water-
drive oil and gas reservoirs are presented below. The waterdrive OHIP
regression analysis techniques proposed by Havlena and Odeh1,2 and
later modified by Tehrani3 are summarized. An improved solution
technique incorporating the CARET formulation is presented.
General Material-Balance Equation. The general form of the ma-
terial-balance equation with an analytical aquifer model used to esti-
mate water influx is given by
F + NE o ) E fwo ) GE g ) E fwg ) US. . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
The reservoir voidage term, F, in Eq. 1 is defined as
GB gi
m+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
NB oi
Eqs. 7 and 8 are the specific forms of the general material-balance
equation for a waterdrive gas reservoir and a waterdrive oil reser-
voir, respectively.
Havlena and Odeh1,2 Regression Analysis. Havlena and Odeh
proposed rearranging the general material-balance equation to ob-
tain simple straight-line relationships. Their formulation of the gen-
eral material-balance equation for a waterdrive oil reservoir is ob-
tained by rearranging Eq. 8 to obtain

F + N pB o * R s B g ) G p * G iB g ) W p * W iB w . E og E og

F + N ) U S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
The oil and solution gas expansion term, Eo , in Eq. 1 is defined as
E o + B o * B oi ) (R si * R s)B g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 10, 1994. Revised manuscript received
March 4, 1996. Paper peer approved March 5, 1996. Paper (SPE 28630) first presented at the
1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2528.
If the correct parameters are assumed for the aquifer model, a plot
of F/Eog vs. S/Eog should give a straight line with a slope equal to
the aquifer influx constant, U, and a y intercept equal to the original
oil in place (OOIP), N. A similar solution technique is proposed for
determining original gas in place (OGIP) in a waterdrive gas reser-
voir.
Tehrani3 Regression Analysis. Tehrani advocated applying re-
gression analysis directly to Eq. 7 or 8 to determine values for OHIP
and the water influx constant, U. His approach requires multiple,

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996 127

rather than simple, linear regression analysis and minimizes the re-
gression error in the reservoir voidage term, F. In an example pres-
ented in Tehranis paper, this voidage minimization approach re-
duced the standard deviation in the OOIP estimate by a factor of five
compared with the Havlena and Odeh formulation. Tehrani also
found that voidage minimization gave results nearly identical to
those obtained from a direct match of the calculated vs. observed
reservoir pressure histories.
Proposed CARET Analysis Method. The CARET methodology
introduced in this paper combines Tehranis voidage minimization
approach with the simple, intuitive straight-line plots proposed by
Havlena and Odeh. The CARET equations are developed for the
van Everdingen and Hurst4 (VEH) unsteady-state radial aquifer
The variable ECARET in Eq. 18 is the combined aquifer/reservoir ex-
pansion term for a waterdrive gas reservoir defined as
E CARET +
1 * S wg h R
2c e SB gi h A
) E g ) E fwg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
Methods for calculating values for the water influx function, S, as
a function of pressure and time are documented in Refs. 6 and 8. A
similar form of the material-balance equation may be obtained for
a waterdrive oil reservoir with a primary gas cap:
F + NE CARET , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
where ECARET is the combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term for
a waterdrive oil reservoir with a primary gas cap defined as

model, but may be easily extended to other analytical models. Rela-
tionships are also presented for sensitivity analyses of the aquifer
parameters obtained from the regression analysis. E CARET + 2c e S 1 ) m
1 * S wo 1 * S og * S wg
hh A
R
Aquifer Constant Relationship to OHIP. The VEH aquifer influx
constant, U, is a function of the aquifers effective compressibility,
inner radius, thickness, porosity, and angle-open-to-flow5,6:
)
mE g ) E fwg

B oi ) E o ) E fwo. . . . . . . . . . . (21)
U+ 1.1190c e r 2i h Af
q + 2c pr i h Af
360 e
2

5.615

q . . . . . (12)
360
B gi

Eqs. 18 and 20 are the equations of a simple straight line. If the correct
Eq. 12 may be modified to express the influx constant, U, in terms of values are assumed for the VEH4 water influx parameters a and rD , a
the reservoir pore volume and the aquifer/reservoir thickness ratio if plot of F vs. ECARET should give a straight line passing through the ori-
the reservoir is assumed to have the same geometry as the aquifer: gin with a slope equal to the OHIP as shown in Fig. 1. Simple linear
regression analysis can then be used to determine the best-fit values for
U + 2c eV pR hh .
A
R
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
OHIP with the voidage minimization technique proposed by Tehrani.3
Aquifer Property Relationships. Once best-fit values for OHIP
and the aquifer influx constant, U, have been determined, it is im-
In a gas reservoir, the reservoir pore volume is given by portant to confirm that the U value represents a realistic aquifer de-
GB gi scription. Each OHIP solution represents specific values for the
V pR + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14) VEH dimensionless time constant, a; the dimensionless aquifer ra-
1 * S wg
dius, rD ; and the VEH aquifer influx constant, U. The VEH aquifer
Eqs. 13 and 14 may be combined to relate the aquifer influx time constant, a, is defined in terms of aquifer properties as6

constant, U, to the OGIP, G:

a + 2.3092 k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
U + 2c e B gi h A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15) fmc e r 2i
G 1 * S wg h R
Using the definition of the aquifer constants U and a given by Eqs.
A similar method for expressing U in terms of G was first proposed 12 and 22, we can show that the brine mobility for the VEH un-
by McEwen7 as a way to reduce the number of unknowns in the wa- steady-state radial aquifer model is related to the aquifer thickness
terdrive OGIP regression analysis. This relationship may be ex- and angle open to flow by
tended to an oil reservoir with a primary gas cap by defining the res-
ervoir pore volume as the sum of the oil zone and gas cap pore k 139.32Ua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
volumes. With the gas cap m ratio, the total reservoir pore volume m+ qh A
may be represented by

V pR + NB oi 1 *1S wo
) m
1 * S og * S wg

. . . . . . . . . . . . (16)

Combining Eqs. 13 and 16 gives the relationship between N and U

in a waterdrive oil reservoir with a primary gas cap:

U + 2c B
N e oi
1 ) m
1 * S wo 1 * S og * S wg
hh .
A
R
. . . . . . . (17)

Eqs. 15 and 17 apply specifically to the VEH unsteady-state radial

aquifer model. Similar relationships may be derived for other aqui-
fer models by use of the appropriate form of Eq. 13.
Combined Aquifer/Reservoir Expansion Term. When McEwen7
presented the aquifer influx constant relationship to OOIP and
OGIP, Havlena and Odeh1 had not yet introduced their straight-line
material-balance regression analysis techniques. A previously over-
looked benefit of McEwens relationships becomes apparent if they
are used to define straight-line relationships of the type proposed by
Havlena and Odeh. The form of the material-balance equation for
a waterdrive gas reservoir was given previously by Eq. 7. If a VEH
unsteady-state radial aquifer model is assumed, Eq. 15 can be used
to eliminate U in Eq. 7 and obtain the following form of the material-
balance equation for a waterdrive gas reservoir:
Fig. 1Waterdrive gas reservoir CARET plot showing OGIP as
F + GE CARET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18) slope of best-fit line through the origin.

128 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

 TABLE 1FIELD EXAMPLE RESERVOIR
AND AQUIFER DATA
pi , psia 8,490
Ti , F 256
Swg 0.21
cf , psi*1 3.5x10*6
cw, psi*1 2.9x10*6
mw, cp 0.46
kA , md 22
ri , ft 3,300
fA 0.23
q, degrees 360
hA +hR , ft 100

TABLE 2WATERDRIVE GAS RESERVOIR PVT DATA

p Bg Bw
(psia) (RB/Mscf) (RB/STB)
8,490 0.5404 1.0518
8,330 0.5458 1.0520
8,323 0.5460 1.0520
8,166 0.5516 1.0522
8,100 0.5540 1.0522 Fig. 2Production rate history for waterdrive gas reservoir ex-
7,971 0.5588 1.0524 ample.
7,905 0.5614 1.0524
7,900 0.5616 1.0524
7,883 0.5622 1.0525 1. Calculate a value for the aquifer time constant, a, from aquifer
7,858 0.5632 1.0525 property estimates using Eq. 22.
7,854 0.5634 1.0525 2. Assume a value for the dimensionless aquifer radius ratio, rD ,
7,728 0.5684 1.0526 and calculate values for F and ECARET at each reservoir pressure in
7,675 0.5706 1.0527 the fields history from Eqs. 2 and Eq. 19 or 21.
7,623 0.5728 1.0527
7,615 0.5731 1.0527 3. Perform an origin-constrained simple linear regression analy-
7,600 0.5737 1.0528 sis to determine best-fit values for G or N in Eq. 18 or Eq. 20. Quanti-
7,550 0.5759 1.0528 fy the regression error of the fit with the coefficient of variation, V:

s
7,446 0.5804 1.0529
7,400 0.5825 1.0530 FE CARET
V+ 100, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
F
TABLE 3WATERDRIVE GAS RESERVOIR PRESSURE AND where the standard error of estimate of F from ECARET is

PRODUCTION HISTORY
2
F * F fit
t p Gp Np Wp
s FE + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
(years) (psia) (MMscf) (MSTB) (MSTB) CARET n*1
0.0 8,490 0 0 0 and F is the arithmetic average of the n values of F used in the regres-
0.5 8,330 1,758 2 0 sion analysis.9,10
1.0 8,323 5,852 3 1
4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for a range of rD values to determine the
1.5 8,166 10,410 66 3
2.0 8,100 14,828 98 4 rD value giving the minimum regression error, V, and the best-fit val-
2.5 7,905 21,097 138 7 ues for G or N. Use Eq. 15 or Eq. 17 to calculate the water influx
3.0 7,854 26,399 180 9 constant, U, from the best-fit G or N value.
3.5 7,858 30,042 215 10 5. Reality check the solution using Eq. 23 and the best-fit OHIP
4.0 7,900 32,766 237 11 and U values to calculate the required aquifer qhA value. If this cal-
4.5 7,971 34,548 257 11 culated product of the aquifer angle open to flow and thickness
5.0 7,883 37,590 282 12 matches the actual aquifer description, the OHIP solution is reason-
5.5 7,728 42,446 314 16
6.0 7,550 51,117 375 54 able. If it does not, re-evaluate the aquifer permeability and inner ra-
6.5 7,446 57,697 420 153 dius used to calculate the time constant or try another aquifer model.
7.0 7,400 63,678 465 433
7.5 7,600 65,432 475 715 Field Example
8.0 7,675 65,613 475 753
8.5 7,600 67,593 477 1,042 The field example considered here is a wet-gas waterdrive reservoir
9.0 7,600 70,688 484 1,237 with reservoir and aquifer data as summarized in Table 1. As shown
9.5 7,615 72,226 488 1,575 in Fig. 2, the fields production rate averaged 10 MMscf/D during the
10.0 7,623 72,943 489 2,383 first 6 months of production and reached a peak of 47 MMscf/D in
Year 6. The peak gas rate declined sharply after water breakthrough.
After 10 years on production, the reservoir pressure had declined to
Eq. 23 may be used with the best-fit estimates for U and a to calcu- 7,623 psia, a drop of less than 900 psia, while the produced water rate
late the corresponding value of the aquifer qhA product required by had climbed to over 4 MSTB/D. The reservoirs PVT data and pro-
the OHIP solution. duction and pressure histories are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3.
OHIP Solution Technique. The following CARET regression
analysis procedure is recommended for determining OHIP and the Constrained OHIP Solution. A CARET regression analysis for
aquifer influx constant in waterdrive reservoirs with radial geome- OGIP was performed with the VEH4 unsteady-state radial aquifer
tries. The procedure assumes the reservoirs production and pres- model and the calculation procedure outlined previously. To ac-
sure histories are known and calculates water influx volumes with count properly for condensate production in the material-balance
the VEH unsteady-state radial aquifer model. analysis, the produced condensate volumes were converted to a gas

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996 129

Fig. 3Waterdrive gas reservoir example CARET regression er-
ror and OGIP vs. assumed dimensionless aquifer radius.
equivalent and added to the produced gas volumes with a conver-
sion factor of 0.708 Mscf/STB.
Regression Analysis. Eq. 22 was used to calculate an aquifer time
constant of 6.893 years*1 from an aquifer permeability estimate of
22 md and an aquifer inner radius of 3,300 ft. CARET regression
analyses were run for 50 different values of the aquifer dimension-
less radius, rD , spaced logarithmically between 2 and 25. An infi-
nite-acting aquifer response was assumed for rD values greater than
25. The regression error and OGIP estimate for each assumed rD
value were plotted against the rD value as shown in Fig. 3. A best-fit
rD value of 7.7 was picked at the minimum regression error of 1.6%.
The CARET voidage vs. expansion plot for this best-fit rD value
shown in Fig. 1 yields an OGIP of 225 Bscf and an aquifer influx
constant, U, of 1,973 RB/psi.
Aquifer Constant Reality Check. To confirm the validity of the
OHIP solution, the best-fit aquifer constant value, U, was reality
checked with Eq. 23. Assuming an aquifer angle open to flow of
360, the required aquifer thickness was calculated to be 110 ft by
solving Eq. 23 for hA . This calculated thickness agrees reasonably
well with the map-based aquifer thickness estimate of 100 ft, con-
firming the validity of the OHIP estimate. Additional sensitivities to
the assumed aquifer permeability, inner radius, and thickness were in-
Fig. 5Actual vs. calculated waterdrive gas reservoir pressure
histories for OGIP+225 Bscf, a+6.893 years1, and rD +7.7.
130
Fig. 4Aquifer property reality check; aquifer permeability deter-
mines values required for the aquifer thickness and inner radius.
vestigated with Eqs. 23 and 22 by calculating and plotting the re-
quired aquifer thickness, hA , and inner radius, ri , as functions of the
assumed aquifer permeability, k. These results are shown graphically
in Fig. 4. Entering the plot with the estimated aquifer permeability of
22 md, the required aquifer inner radius and thickness are shown to
be 3,300 ft and 110 ft, respectively. This plot can be used to evaluate
uncertainty in the aquifer permeability estimate by entering the plot
at a different permeability value and reading off the aquifer thickness
and inner radius required by the OHIP solution.
Reservoir Pressure Solution. As an additional check on the va-
lidity of the OHIP regression analysis, the OGIP and aquifer param-
eters from the best-fit solution were used to backcalculate a materi-
al-balance reservoir pressure history from the reservoirs
production history. Fig. 5 shows the agreement obtained between
the calculated and observed reservoir pressure histories. The peri-
ods of increasing pressure correspond to the production rate de-
creases in Fig. 2. These reductions in the produced voidage rate al-
lowed the aquifer to repressurize the reservoir partially. Once the
produced voidage rate again exceeded the water influx rate, the res-
ervoir pressure history resumed its decline.
Unconstrained OHIP Solution. The previous OHIP regression
analysis was constrained by an aquifer time constant, a, calculated
from estimates of the aquifer permeability and inner radius. Nonlin-
ear material-balance regression analysis techniques available com-
Fig. 6CARET regression error vs. VEH4 aquifer time constant
and dimensionless radius for waterdrive gas reservoir example.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996
Fig. 7CARET OGIP solutions for various aquifer radius ratio
values. A constant aquifer compressibility of 6.4 x 106 psi1 was
honored for all cases.
mercially allow simultaneous determination of the overall best-fit
values for OHIP, the aquifer influx constant, U, the dimensionless
aquifer radius, rD , and the dimensionless time constant, a. The con-
sequences of attempting this kind of unconstrained regression anal-
ysis were investigated with the CARET method. Regression analy-
ses were done for rD values of 5, 7.7, 10, 25, and infinity for 50
aquifer time constant values spaced logarithmically between 0.01
and 10,000 years*1. The associated regression errors were plotted
vs. a and rD as shown in Fig. 6.
Nonunique OHIP Solutions. A closer inspection of Fig. 6 reveals
the nonunique nature of the unsteady-state radial aquifer OHIP solu-
tion. At least one OGIP solution (regression error minimum) may be
found for any assumed value of rD . The OGIP estimates correspond-
ing to each of these regression error minimums are plotted as the solid
curve in Fig. 7. Each point on the curve represents the best-fit OGIP
estimate and associated minimum regression error value for a given
rD value. Although the rD +7.7 solution clearly gives the overall
minimum regression error for this waterdrive gas reservoir, in reser-
voirs with lower hydrocarbon compressibilities the best OHIP solu-
tion may be more difficult to identify. Fig. 8 shows a CARET regres-
sion error plot for an undersaturated oil reservoir illustrating this
point. Each rD curve minimum represents a different potential OOIP
solution and aquifer description. The OOIP solutions range from un-
der 10 to over 30 MMSTB despite similar regression errors. OHIP
solutions with low aquifer time constants correspond to smaller, less
permeable aquifers and vice versa. Because both smaller and larger
aquifer descriptions must match the same pressure history, smaller
aquifer descriptions give larger OHIP estimates. This points out the
dangers of unconstrained regression analyses, because any of these
OHIP solutions might potentially be identified as the best-fit given the
range of uncertainty associated with the reservoir pressure history.
Fortunately, some of these solutions can be ruled out by inspection.
In both Figs. 6 and 8, the OHIP solutions corresponding to rD +25
give an OHIP estimate less than the cumulative production to date.
As might be expected, the aquifer time constants for these clearly un-
realistic OHIP solutions represent aquifer permeabilities hundreds or
thousands of times larger than the actual field value. These invalid
OHIP solutions are easily avoided by constraining the regression
analysis with an aquifer time constant value calculated from field data
with Eq. 22.
Aquifer Flow Regime. Multiple OHIP solutions also occur be-
cause the aquifer flow regime may be either finite or infinite acting.
In Fig. 8, each rD curve has two a values that minimize the regres-
sion error, one finite acting and the other infinite acting. This occurs
because even small aquifers can exhibit infinite-acting behavior
early in the fields life if the aquifer permeability is low. However,
if the reservoir has been on production for several years or the
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996
Fig. 8CARET regression error vs. VEH4 aquifer time constant
and dimensionless radius for undersaturated oil reservoir.
permeability is high, only finite-acting solutions may be found for
low rD values, as shown in Fig. 6 for rD values of 7.7 or less.
Comparison With Existing Solution Techniques. For comparison
purposes, the waterdrive gas reservoir example was also analyzed
with both the Havlena and Odeh1,2 and Tehrani3 solution techniques.
The CARET formulation was found to be considerably more tolerant
of error in the early-time pressure data than the Havlena and Odeh ap-
proach owing to the origin constraint required by the CARET
straight-line plot. No pressure data editing was required for the CAR-
ET analysis; however, the first two points in the pressure history had
to be omitted to obtain a successful Havlena and Odeh solution.
Constrained OGIP Estimates. When constrained with an aquifer
time constant of 6.893 years*1 calculated from aquifer properties,
the Tehrani method gave an OGIP estimate of 221 Bscf, very close
to the CARET estimate of 225 Bscf. Constraining the Havlena and
Odeh analysis in a similar manner resulted in an OGIP estimate of
177 Bscf, 25% lower than the CARET and Tehrani estimates.
Regression Error Plot Comparison. Next, unconstrained OGIP
regression analyses were made with the Havlena and Odeh and Teh-
rani methods. Fig. 9 shows the regression error plot obtained with
the Havlena and Odeh solution technique. A comparison of Figs. 6
and 9 shows that the regression minimums obtained with the CAR-
ET method are more pronounced and better defined than those ob-
tained from the Havlena and Odeh technique. Also, while the over-
all best-fit (minimum error) time constant obtained with the CARET
method agrees with the time constant calculated from rock proper-
ties, the same cannot be said for the Havlena and Odeh solution. The
Havlena and Odeh minimum error solution occurs on the infinite-
acting aquifer curve at a time constant corresponding to an aquifer
permeability 1,000 times lower than the field estimate. The regres-
sion error plot obtained with the Tehrani method was very similar
to Fig. 9, except the regression error in the Tehrani plot was reduced
by a factor of two to three and the OGIP estimates were higher.
OGIP Comparison. Fig. 10 plots the Havlena and Odeh regression
error minimums from Fig. 9 vs. the corresponding best-fit OGIP val-
ue they represent. Similar results obtained with the Tehrani method
are plotted in Fig. 11. These best-fit OGIP vs. minimum regression
error curve shapes are distinctly different from that obtained with the
CARET formulation shown in Fig. 7. The curve shapes differ because
the CARET formulation fixes the relationship between OGIP and the
aquifer constant, U, with Eq. 15. As a result, for all OGIP solutions,
the CARET formulation requires a constant U/G ratio determined by
the specified aquifer compressibility. In the Tehrani and Havlena and
Odeh methods, the relationship between U and G is not constrained
and the U/G ratio varies between solutions.
131
Fig. 9Havlena and Odeh1,2 regression error vs. VEH4 aquifer Fig. 10Havlena and Odeh1,2 OGIP solutions and effective aqui-
time constant and dimensionless radius for waterdrive gas res- fer compressibilities for various aquifer radius ratio values; ef-
ervoir example. fective aquifer compressibility varies between solutions.

Variable Aquifer Compressibility. If Eq. 15 is applied to the solu-

tions of Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani after the best-fit solutions
have been identified, it becomes apparent that these solution tech-
niques effectively adjust the aquifer compressibility during the re-
gression analysis to obtain the best fit. To show this, Eq. 15 was used
to backcalculate the effective aquifer compressibilities required by
the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani best-fit estimates of U and a for
each assumed rD value. The calculated effective aquifer compress-
ibilities are plotted in Figs. 10 and 11 vs. the best-fit OGIP estimate
to which they correspond. The equivalent Havlena and Odeh aquifer
ce values were found to vary over an unrealistically large range, from
0.59 10*6 to 4,000 10*6 psi*1. The Tehrani ce values varied
over a similar range. In comparison, the CARET results in Fig. 7 hon-
or the input ce value of 6.4 10*6 psi*1 for all OGIP solutions. Figs.
10 and 11 also show that the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani OGIP
solutions with the lowest regression errors correspond to the most un-
reasonable aquifer compressibilities. The equivalent ce value for the
overall best-fit Havlena and Odeh OHIP estimate is more than 600
times greater than the actual field estimate.
If the aquifer ce value is allowed to vary during the regression
analysis, the poorer fits associated with extreme values for the VEH
aquifer time constant, a, may be masked by unrealistic values for the Fig. 11Tehrani3 OGIP solutions and effective aquifer com-
aquifer compressibility. This explains in part why the CARET re- pressibilities for various aquifer radius ratio values; effective
aquifer compressibility varies between solutions.
gression error minimums are more pronounced than those obtained
with the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani regression analysis meth-
ods. Although allowing the aquifer ce value to vary during the re- with an aquifer time constant, a, calculated from aquifer properties,
gression analysis is a valid solution technique, it introduces a hidden then varying the rD value to obtain the minimum regression error.
variable and guarantees that the history-matched values obtained 3. Best-fit regression analysis values for the VEH water influx
for cw and cf in the aquifer will almost always differ from those as- constant, U, must be checked against the known range of aquifer
sumed for the reservoir. If ce sensitivities are desired, the effects are properties to ensure that a realistic aquifer constant has been obtained.
more easily seen by directly modifying the values assumed for cf Failure to perform this reality check can result in mathematically val-
and cw in a CARET analysis. id OHIP solutions corresponding to unrealistic aquifer descriptions.
4. The CARET solution technique is less sensitive to errors in ear-
Conclusions ly-time pressure data than the Havlena and Odeh method and pro-
duces more well-defined regression error minimums.
1. The CARET formulation of the material-balance equation al- 5. The Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani waterdrive material-balance
lows OHIP and the water influx constant, U, to be determined from regression analysis techniques effectively allow the aquifer com-
the slope of simple origin-constrained straight-line plot. The tech- pressibility, ce , to vary by several orders of magnitude during the re-
nique combines the benefits of Tehranis voidage minimization ap- gression analysis. This effect can give low regression errors for OHIP
proach with the simple straight-line plots proposed by Havlena and solutions corresponding to unrealistic aquifer descriptions.
Odeh and allows a single plotting technique to be applied to both
volumetric and waterdrive oil and gas reservoirs.
2. If the VEH aquifer time constant, a, and radius ratio, rD , are Nomenclature
treated as unknowns in an unconstrained material-balance regression a+ VEH aquifer time constant, 1/t, 1/years
analysis, the OHIP solution will be nonunique. At least one, and usu- Bg + gas formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/Mscf
ally two, OHIP solutions may be found for any assumed value of rD . Bgi + initial gas formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/Mscf
A unique OHIP solution may be found by constraining the analysis Bo + oil formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB

132 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

 Boi + initial oil formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB
Bw + water formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB
ce + effective aquifer compressibility, cf )cw, Lt2/m,
1/psi
cf + pore volume compressibility, Lt2/m, 1/psi
cw + brine compressibility, Lt2/m, 1/psi
Efwg + gas zone formation and water expansion term,
L3/L3, RB/Mscf
Efwo + oil zone formation and water expansion term, L3/L3,
RB/STB
Eg + free gas expansion term, L3/L3, RB/Mscf
Eo + oil and solution gas expansion term, L3/L3, RB/STB
Eog + combined oil and free gas expansion term, L3/L3,
RB/STB
F+ cumulative reservoir voidage, L3, res bbl
F+ arithmetic average of F, L3, res bbl
G+ original free gas in place, L3, Mscf
Gi + cumulative gas injection, L3, Mscf
Gp + cumulative gas production, L3, Mscf
hA + aquifer thickness, L, ft
hR + reservoir thickness, L, ft
k+ aquifer brine permeability, L2, md
m+ initial gas cap to oil zone volume ratio, L3/L3,
RB/RB
n+ number of pressure points in regression analysis
N+ OOIP, L3, STB
Np + cumulative oil production, L3, STB
p+ average reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia
pi + initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia
rD + ratio of outer to inner aquifer radius, ro /ri , L/L, ft/ft
ri + inner aquifer radius, L, ft
ro + outer aquifer radius, L, ft
Rs + solution-gas/oil ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB
Rsi + initial solution gas/oil ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB
S+ aquifer influx function, m/Lt2, psi
s FE + standard error of estimate of F from ECARET, L3,
CARET
res bbl
Sog + initial gas cap oil saturation, fraction
Swg + initial gas cap water saturation, fraction
Swo + initial oil zone water saturation, fraction
t+ time, t, years
U+ aquifer influx constant, L4t2/m, RB/psi
V+ coefficient of variation, L3/L3, percent
VpA + aquifer pore volume, L3, res bbl
VpR + reservoir pore volume, L3, res bbl
We + cumulative water influx, L3, RB
Wi + cumulative water injection, L3, STB
Wp + cumulative water production, L3, STB
m+ aquifer brine viscosity, m/Lt, cp
f+ aquifer porosity, fraction
q+ aquifer angle open to flow, degrees
Acknowledgments
The methodology presented in this paper was developed and tested
with the support and encouragement of several people within Arco.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996
I would like to thank Arco management for allowing me to publish
this paper. Also, special thanks are due to those who provided the
example data and helpful suggestions regarding the software devel-
oped for this analysis.
References
1. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an Equation of a
Straight Line, JPT (Aug. 1963) 896900.
2. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an Equation of a
Straight LinePart II, Field Cases, JPT (July 1964) 815822.
3. Tehrani, D.H.: An Analysis of a Volumetric Balance Equation for Cal-
culation of Oil in Place and Water Influx, JPT (Sept. 1985) 16641670.
4. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 305324.
5. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Science
Publishing, New York (1978) 305.
6. Wang, B. and Teasdale, T.S.: GASWAT-PC: A Microcomputer Program
for Gas Material Balance With Water Influx, paper SPE 16484 pres-
ented at the 1987 Petroleum Industry Applications of Microcomputers
Conference, Montgomery, TX, June 2326.
7. McEwen, C.R.: Material Balance Calculations with Water Influx in the
Presence of Uncertainty in Pressures, SPEJ (June 1962) 120128.
8. Klins, M.A., Bouchard, A.J., and Cable, C.L.: A Polynomial Approach
to the van Everdingen-Hurst Dimensionless Variables for Water En-
croachment, SPERE (Feb. 1988) 320326.
9. Wallis, W.A. and Roberts, H.V.: Statistics: A New Approach, The Free
Press, New York City (1962) 536537.
10. Beyer, W.H.: CRC Standard Mathematics Tables, 24th edition, CRC
Press, Cleveland, OH (1973) 474.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl 1.589 873 E*01 +m3
cp 1.0* E*03 +Pa@s
ft 3.048* E*01 +m
ft3 2.831 685 E*02 +m3
F (F*32)/1.8 +C
md 9.869 233 E*04 +mm2
psi 6.894 757 E)00 +kPa
psi*1 1.450 377 E*01 +kPa*1
*Conversion factor is exact. SPERE
Stephen R. Sills is a senior principal reservoir engineer at Arco's
E&P Technology Center in Plano, TX, where he provides reservoir
performance analysis consulting and technical training. He has
worked in reservoir and operations engineering with Arco for 18
years in various locations including the gulf coast, Permian Ba
sin, midcontinent region, and Alaska. Sills holds a BS degree in
mechanical engineering from Rice U.
133