Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 26244
Improved Matl9rial Balance Calculations by Coupling With a
Statistics-BasE~d History-Matching Program
R.R. Hwan, Texaco Inc.
SPE Member
Copyright 1993, Society of Petmieum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for pmsentation at the SPE Petroleum Computer Conference held In New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., 11-14 July 1993.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Pellroleum Engineers, Its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT
This paper describe~1 a new material balance calculation
by coupling a statistilcs based history matching program
with a material bal~ll1ce program. The procedure is to
match the historical reservoir pressure data with the
calculated pressures obtained from the material balance
program -- the so-caUed pressure match method -- with
the help of the history matching program.
The combination of the history matching and material
balance programs proves to be a very simple and
powerful tool for material balance calculations. A user
who does not know cillferent material balance methods
under various reservoir conditions is able to calculate
the material balanc:e with great accuracy. This is
because the new procedure is based on the pressure
match method which is known to be applicable to all
types of reservoirs, Le., oil or gas reservoir with or
without gascap and/or aquifer, with accurate results.
In this paper, the calculation of pressure in the
material balance mlathod is briefly reviewed and the
mechanism of pressure history match is cursorily
discussed.
Three case studies, comprising an
abnormally pressul'1ed gas reservoir, a gascap drive
reservoir and an aG[Uifer water drive reservoir, are
presented to illustrate the use of the new method. The
References and illustrations at end of paper.
179

calculation results of these cases are comparable to or

better than those of using the material balance
program alone. Moreover, the matches were obtained
in only a few number of runs.
INTRODUCTION
Among all the material balance methods, such as,
Schilthuis' method!, Havlenaand Odeh's method2, etc.,
that have been publicized, the most robust and
accurate method is the pressure match method. The
method is to match the observed reservoir pressures
with the calculated pressures. However, the pressure
match normally requires a substantial computational
time and effort. This paper describes a new procedure
that will overeome this shortcoming and provide fast
and accurate results for the material balance
calculation.
With the new procedure, an engineer need not know
various methods, such as Ramagost and Farshad3,
Havlena and Odeh2, Cole4, or Campbell5 -- just to
name a few -- for the material balance calculation. The
current procedure can be applied to all the oil
reservoirs as well as the gas reservoirs. It is not
necessary to distinguish an abnormally pressured gas
reservoir from a regular gas reservoir. There is no
need to fit the data with a straight line, most
conspicuous in the Havlena and Odeh method.
Therefore, the current procedure tends to preserve the
resolving power of the original material balance

IMPROVED MATERIAL BALANCE CALCULATIONS WITH A IDSTORY MATCHING PROGRAM

equation as discussed by Tehrani6

SPE 26244

reservoir pressures are to be compared with the

observed pressures.

In addition, the current method does not require

engineers to choose data points for calculation like the
material balance programs do. All the valid pressure
data points can be used in the new procedure instead
of only certain data being chosen to fit in a straight line
as in most other methods. These features make the
current method a more foolproof procedure for the
numerous reserve estimates required in financial
planning work.
The current procedure involves using a history
matching program which is commercially available to
match the observed reservoir pressures. The history
matching program used in this study is called
"Adaptive History Matching (AHM) System" which was
developed by Scientific-Software Intercomp (SSI) with
the participation of Texaco and several other major oil
companies.
ARM was developed to help the engineer to deal with
the problems of history matching reservoir
performance data with a reservoir simulation model.
One of the major uncertainties in the history match is
to decide what property values to adjust in order to
achieve a satisfactory match. And, the number of
possible reservoir and fluid parameters that need to be
modified for the production history match may go up
to a dozen or more. Fortunately, the material balance
equation only contains a few variables; the property
values that need to be adjusted are limited to a very
few. This makes the pressure history match in a
material balance calculation much more manageable.
The material balance programs, OILWAT7 and
GASWAT8, used for this study were developed by
Texaco and are also commercially available. In all the
cases tested, including gas reservoirs and oil reservoirs
with and without gas cap and/or aquifer, the
calculation results of the new material balance method
are comparable to or better than those of using the
material balance programs alone. In this paper, the
mechanics ofapplying the new method and several case
studies will be presented following a brief discussion of
the pressure calculation in OILWAT/GASWAT and the
history match mechanism of ARM.
PREDICTION OF RESERVOIR PRESSURE
The current pressure match method requires a generic
model which can predict the reservoir pressures based
on the PVT and production data. The predicted

The material balance programs used in this study,

OILWAT/GASWAT, predict the reservoir pressures
based on the general material balance equation as
described below.
For an oil reservoir,
F

NEt + W.,

lIE

(1)

where F is the underground withdrawal, N is the

original oil in place (OOIP), Et is the overall expansion
of oil, gas, water and formation, and W. is cumulative
water influx from the aquifer into the reservoir. F,Et
and W. are further defined as:

Et

= Eo

+ mE, + Efw

(3)

where

E, = B. (BIB" -1)

(5)

and

w.

= U S(P,t)

(7)

where U is an aquifer constant and S(P,t) is an aquifer

function. Various aquifers, such as the small pot,
infinite linear, finite and infinite radial aquifers, have
di:tTerent aquifer functions 8.
The material balance equation for a gas reservoir can
be written as:

180

R.. RANDY HWAN

SPE 26244

pressure data is regarded as the correct set.

(8)

Eqs. (1) and (9) are used to calculate the reservoir

pressure for the pressure match method. Because the
PVT properties of the reservoir fluids are functions of
pressure, given the values of N (or G), III, and/orU
one can calculate the first reservoir pressure P(1) at
the first production data point
[Np(I), Gp(l), Wp(l), W,(l). G,(I), etc.] by trial and
error. In other words, one can choose a pressure value
so that the left-hand side of Eq. (1) or (9) will be equal
to its right-hand side. Once the first point of reservoir
pressure is determined, the second pressure value can
be obtained from the first pressure value, P(l), and the
second production increment using the same
procedure. The procedure is repeated until all the
reservoir pressures are calculated.

where G is the original gas in place (OGIP). Eq. (8)

can be expressed in terms of P/Z as:
Pi

-(1 - - p)

Zi
G
-PZ .. ---=----. Y

(9)

[1 - ell (Pi - P)]- G

where

If there is no water influx in the above calculation, the

calculated pressure will not depend on the past history
of reservoir performance or on the path it has followed
in reaching a given state. It depends only on the
immediate conditions, however reached.

and
Y .. (WII

Wp B,,)/Bgi

(11)

For a natural depletion gas reservoir, the expansion of

the connate water and reduction in the pore volume is
negligible as compared to the gas expansion and there
is no water aquifer, and Eq. (9) reduces to the popular
form
Pi ( 1 - G
_P .. _
-p)

Zi

(12)

Most material balance methods calculate N (or G), III,

and/or U from historical pressure and production data
by interpreting the material balance equations (1) and
(9) as linear functions. For instance, Eq. (12) indicates
that there is a linear relationship between P/Z and the
fractional recovery GJG, or the cumulative production
Gp Extrapolating the line of P/Z versus Gp to the
abscissa gives the value of OGIP, G.

mSTORY MATCH OF RESERVOIR PRESSURE

The history match of the reservoir pressure is
conducted with the history matching program, AHM.
The reservoir pressures calculated from the previous
section are compared with the historical pressure data
in AHM. Based on the differences between the
calculated and historical pressure data, AHM will
suggest a set of new values of N (or G), III, and/or U.
These new values are used to repeat the calculation of
the reservoir pressure as described above. The newly
calculated reservoir pressures are then compared with
the historical pressure data in AHM. And, the process
is continued until the reservoir pressures calculated
from a certain set of N (or G), III, and/or U match the
historical pressure data satisfactorily. The value of N
(or G) thus obtained is the OOIP (or OGIP) of the
reservoir.
The key to the above process is the capability of the
history matching program, AHM, to suggest a certain
set of N (or G), III, and/or U that provides a
satisfactory history match of reservoir pressures. The
methodology of AHM was discussed by Watkins et al. 9
and Parish et al. IO The underpinning of AHM is a
statistical analysis method known as Bayesian
The Bayes' theorem provides, in a
inference.
fundamental way, a process of learning from

The pressure match method is to assume values for N

(or G), III, and/or U of a particular aquifer model,
S(P,t), and then calculate the reservoir pressure as a
function of cumulative production or time. The set of
values of N (or G), III, and/or U which minimizes the
difference between the calculated and the observed
181

IMPROVED MATERIAL BALANCE CALCULATIONS WITH A IUSTORY MATCHING PROGRAM

experience, and shows how knowledge about the state

of nature can be continually modified as new data
becomes available.
To history match the reservoir pressures, the user has
to decide which properties, such as N (or G), m,
and/or U, to vary, to provide initial estimates of these
properties and to place each estimate in an interval.
The interval defines a sub-space of the property space
that the correct values of these properties will be
found.
The following operations are performed by AHM and
are described here in case the reader is interested. It
is not necessary for the user to understand how AHM
converges in order to make the material balance
calculation, but a brief description follows which
assumes the reader is trained in statistics and Bayesian
theory.

P(property valueslcalculated pressures) is now a

replacement to Eq. (13) and specifies the (relative)
likelihood of any feasible vector of property values
being the solution vector.
P(property valueslcalculated pressures) is the posterior
distribution after the first round of pressure
calculation.

The next step is to calculate the reservoir pressures as

discussed previously using the revised estimates of
property values. In this case, the posterior of the first
pressure calculation becomes the prior of the second
pressure calculation. Again, it is assumed that the
calculated pressures do not sufficiently match the
observed data and further revision is required. The
posterior distribution of the second round of pressure
calculation which describes various feasible values of
the vector of property value can be written as
P(property values list calculated pressures, 2nd calc,,-

The information of the initial estimates and intervals

defines the first two moments of a distribution, mean
and variance. These estimates reflect the prior ideas of
the engineer on possible values for these properties.
With the distributional assumptions, it can be
expressed

lated pressures)

DC

P(2nd calculated pressures\propeTtJ

values)P(property valuesllst calculated pressures}

(16)

(13)

P(property values)

The property values of the initial estimates are used to

calculate the reservoir pressures as described earlier.
It is assumed that the calculated pressures do not
sufficiently match the observed data. The information
generated from this calculation is then used to revise
the estimates of property values. The results of the
calculation are expressed as
p(calculated pressures\property values)

(14)

With proper constraints, Eqs. (13) and (14) can be

combined, via Bayes' theorem, to give
P(property valueslcalculated pressures)

SPE 26244

DC

P(

calculated pressure \property values)P(property values}

(15)

The path to an iterative scheme is now established.

The revised estimates of the property values from the
second pressure calculation are used in the third round
of the pressure calculation. The calculated pressures
are used to update the previous property values. This
process will continue till a set of property values which
generates a corresponding set of calculated pressures
that satisfactorily match the observed data are
obtained.
PROCEDURE OF PRESSURE MATCH
The material balance and history match programs may
reside on different computer systems. This may be a
common occurrence since various computer systems
coexist in the work place nowadays. In our case, AHM
is installed on the mM RS/6000 workstation. A user
can access AHM from his PC through the network
with Microsoft's Windows and Visionware's Xvision
software loaded on the PC. On the other hand, the
material balance program, OILWAT/GASWAT, is
installed on the PC or available on the mainframe
computer.
182

R. RANDY HWAN

SPE 26244

With user's manuals of AHM l l and OILWAT/

GASWAT 12 available for reference, the procedure of
applying AHM in material balance calculations is
summarized below:
1. Specify initial estimates of pressure-match
properties, e.g., OOIP or OGIP, gascap and/or aquifer
sizes, etc. in AHM.

2. Run OILWAT or GASWAT with the current

estimates of property values and generate the
corresponding pressure results.
3. Compare the calculated pressures with the observed
data in AHM.
4. Obtain updated AHM estimates of the property
values.
5. Repeat Steps 2, 3, and 4 until the calculated
pressures satisfactorily match the observed data. Then,
the set of the property values in Step 4 that provides
the best pressure match are the result of the material
balance calculation. This may comprise OOIP or OGIP,
gascap and/or aquifer size, aquifer constant, etc.
In AHM, the user can examine the match after every
iteration (and modify AHM's selections if desired), or
he can tum AHM loose at anytime to run on
"automatic pilot" if the material balance program is
linked with AHM by an interface program.
CASE STUDIES
These cases include (1) an abnormally pressured
(pressure gradient greater than 0.5 psi/ft) gas reservoir
with no influx, (2) a gascap drive reservoir, and (3) a
water drive reservoir without gascap.
Case 1:

shows that the initial estimate of OGIP is 70 BCF.

The lower and upper limits ofthe OGIP are also shown
in the table. The OGIP value and its limits are input
to AHM. The starting OGIP which is considered as
the most likely (expected) value is used in GASWAT to
calculate the reservoir pressures.
The calculated pressures (Run 1 in Fig. 1) are imported
into AHM to compare with the observed pressure data
which were entered in AHM beforehand. All the valid
data points of the observed pressure are included; and,
the data were not pre-selected for the pressure
comparison. After comparing the calculated pressures
with the observed pressures, AHM yields a value of
match quality, .2193, based on the sum of squares for
error, as shown in Table 3. A lower quality value
means a better pressure match in AHM.
Besides providing the match quality, AHM is able to
suggest a value of OGIP for the next run. The value
for Run 2 is 70.391 BCF (Table 3). This value is then
used in GASWAT to calculate the reservoir pressures
for Run 2. The calculated pressures are imported and
compared with the observed data in AHM. The value
of pressure match quality, .1917, of Run 2 and the
revised value of OGIP for Run 3, 71.679 BCF, are also
shown in Table 3. The suggested property value in
AHM is based on the results of all the previous runs.
The above procedure is repeated for Run 4. The values
of the OGIP and pressure match quality of the run are
73.437 BCF and 0.1017, respectively (Table 3). This
result from the current procedure is slightly better
than that from GASWAT alone (Ramagost and
Farsluld's method). Fig. 1 shows the pressure matches
of Runs 1, 4 and GASWAT alone versus the observed
data. The pressure difference between the calculated
values of these runs and the observed data are shown
in Fig. 2.
The procedure can be summarized in a flow chart as
illustrated in Fig. 3. When the process finishes, the
revised property values giving the satisfactory pressure
match are the result of the material balance
calculation.

Calculate OGIP for An Abnormally

Pressured Reservoir With No Influx

The material balance calculation for the Anderson "L"

gas reservoir as reported by Ramagost and Farshad3 is
conducted with the current procedure. The initial
pressure gradient of the reservoir was 0.843 psi/ft.
The volumetric estimate of OGIP was 69 BCF. The
reservoir and production data are listed in Table 1.

Case 2:

Since the property value to be determined is the OGIP

Calculate OOIP and Gascav Size for a

Gascap Drive Reservoir

This example of an oil reservoir with a gascap is

presented in Reference 13. The historical data includes
cumulative oil production as a function of the average

(G), an engineer has to estimate the most likely value

of the OGIP and its upper and lower limits. Table 2

183

IMPROVED MATERIAL BALANCE CALCULATIONS WITH A HISTORY MATCHING PROGRAM

radial aquifer shown in Reference 13. The reservoir,

PVT and production data are presented in Table 7.
There is no initial gascap and the DOIP, 312 MMstb,
is determined from the volumetric calculation.

reservoir pressure, over the first few years of

production. The production data and the relevant PVT
data are shown in Table 4.
The property values to be determined in this case are
OOIP (N) and gascap size (",). The most likely values
of these properties and the upper and lower limits of
the values are estimated and shown in Table 5. The
initial estimates of DOIP and the volume ratio of
gascap to reservoir are 70 MMstb and 0.47,
respectively.

The aquifer size was the only aquifer property

determined in the reference. With the current
procedure, both the aquifer size and aquifer constant
could be determined at the same time. The initial
estimated values with the limits of these aquifer
properties are shown in Table 8. The estimates of
aquifer size are based on the seismic and geological
evidence.

Comparison of the calculated pressures of Run 1 with

the observed pressures in AHM yields a value of match
quality, 6.88, as shown in Table 6. AHM then suggests
the values of DOIP and gascap size ("'),90.76 MMstb
and 0.452 (Table 6), respectively, for the next run.
These values are used in OILWAT to calculate the
reservoir pressures for Run 2 and the calculated
pressures are imported and compared with the
observed data in AHM. The value of pressure match
quality, 1.70, of Run 2 and the revised values of OOIP
and ", for Run 3, 100.61 MMstb and 0.454, are also
shown in Table 6.

The results of the AHM/OILWAT calculation are

shown in Table 9 with the procedure illustrated in the
previous cases. Because OILWAT only calculates the
water influx at selected values of ratios of aquifer and
reservoir radii, r Jr,., such as 4, 4.5, 5,6, etc., the value
of pressure match quality could not be reduced below
certain limits. The aquifer size in terms of rJr,., and
aquifer constant of Run 6 are 5.173 and 6152.3 rb/psi,
respectively.
To further improve the pressure match, the value of
rJr,. is set to be 5 and the aquifer constant starts from
6152.3 rb/psi for the next series of AHM/OILWAT
runs. The results of the these runs (Table 9) show
that the aquifer constant of the best run <Run 10) is
6296.9 rb/psi, which is close to the theoretical value of
6446 rb/psi and agrees very well with the result of
OILWAT, 6296 rb/psi.

The process continues till Run 6 of which the OOIP

and mare 116.19 MMstb and 0.469, respectively. The
value of pressure match quality is 0.00144 (Table 6).
Both results of the current procedure and OILWAT
alone (FE method7) are better than that calculated bl
Havlena and Odeh's method in Dake's example1 .
This is because the water and formation expansions are
neglected in Dake's example. Fig. 4 shows the
pressure matches of all the runs versus the observed
data. The pressure difference between the observed
data and calculated values of Run 6 and the OILWAT
enmples are shown in Fig. 5.
Note that the value of OOIP in the final pressure
match, Run 6, is quite different from that of the initial
estimate but it is still within its limits (see Table 5). In
other cases, when better results are concentrating near
the boundaries or within a narrow range of the
interval, the interval of the property value may be
widened or narrowed, accordingly. Nevertheless, the
results of the existing runs are still valid in guiding the
subsequent runs with the AHM algorithm.
Case 3:

Calculate Aquifer Properties for a Water

Drive Reservoir with Known OOIP

SPE 26244

The results of pressure matches and pressure

difference between the calculated and the observed
pressures of this case are shown in Figs. 6 and 7,
respectively. As one expects, the pressure increases at
the end of the production history when the aquifer is
too large.
The results of this case study also indicate that with a
faster and more accurate procedure like the current
method, the water influx calculation for the radial
aquifer in the material balance program needs to
improve from the discrete point results -- influx values
only available at rJr,. equal to discrete values, such as
4, 4.5, 5, and 6, etc. -- to a water influx function with
a continuous rJr,. 14. Currently, the new procedure is
limited to the rJr,. ratios available in the material
balance program for the influx calculation for a radial
aquifer.

This is an example of a water drive reservoir with a

184

R. RANDY HWAN

SPE 26244

DISCUSSION
This material balance calculation uses the history
matching capability of the AHM program. However,
the best source of information for history matching still
resides in the professionals who are responsible for the
reservoir. AHM was designed to provide a system to
integrate this knowledge into the match process. The
professional input to the history match process
becomes more critical when more matching parameters
are involved. For example, an oil reservoir with both
gascap and aquifer present. Good initial estimates of
the property values will go a long way in pinpointing
the sizes of reservoir fluids in place.
Initial estimates of the hydrocarbon in place are
normally available through the volumetric calculation
of the reservoir. In general, this would provide good.
initial estimates for pressure match in AHM.
However, the aquifer in most cases is ill-defined. The
values of aquifer properties may be derived from the
theoretical calculation or from initial runs of the
material balance program alone.
The current method simplifies the procedure of
material balance calculation. An engineer need not
know different material balance techniques in order to
make material balance calculations. With the current
procedure, he can by-pass the intermediate steps, such
as drawing straight lines through data sets, and
directly focus on the pressure match to obtain a good
material balance calculation.
Tehrani6 realized that the material balance calculation
with pressure match is the most accurate method,
especially for oil reservoir with water intlux. He
showed that rearranging the material balance equation
from the original form (the combined equation of Eqs.
(1) and (7

= NEt

+ U S(P,t)

(17)

as reported by Havlena and Odeh2 will reduce the

resolving power. Thus, he argued that Eq. (18) is not
suitable for calculation of OOIP and aquifer constant.
Unlike the classical material balance calculations and
by OILWAT and GASWAT alone, generally there is no
need to exclude any pressure data points for the
pressure match by AHM. This is because most
OILWAT/GASWAT solutions are determined through
the plots of straight lines while the pressure match is
based on the original material balance equation.
Without the uncertainty in deciding which data points
to use, the material balance calculation using AHM
could be an efficient method for the numerous reserve
estimates required by annual reserve updates.
Since an engineer does not need to choose the data
points for the material balance calculation, the current
procedure could provide more consistent results among
different engineers. Freedom from data point selection
would not only save the engineers' time and effort in
material balance calculations but also provide an
opportunity to automate the computation process with
minimum engineer intervention.
It is not necessary to have both material balance and
history matching programs coexist in the same
platform. With the network :tile transfer programs, the
result :tiles of the material balance calculation can be
transferred between different computers, e. g., PC's
and workstations.
However, linking these two
programs with an interface program would enhance
efficiency and usability.
CONCLUSIONS
A new procedure of material balance calculation by
coupling a material balance program with a statistics
based history matching program is presented. The
procedure is based on the pressure match method.
The new method is able to overcome the timeconsuming trial-and-error process of the pressure
match method by using the history matching program
while retaining the robustness and accuracy of the
pressure match method,

to the conventional form

F
Et

=N

+ U S(P,I)

Et

The results of the case studies demonstrate that the

new procedure is a fast and accurate material balance
method. The calculation results of the new procedure
are comparable to or better than those of using the
material balance program alone. Moreover, these
results are obtained in just a few runs.

(18)

185

IMPROVED MATERIAL BALANCE CALCULATIONS WITH A HISTORY MATCHING PROGRAM

The results of the case study involving water influx

from a radial aquifer indicate that the water influx
calculation in the material balance program needs to
improve from the discrete point results to a continuous
water influx function. The current method demands
high accuracy of the water influx calculation.

Swl ==
S(P,t) ..

The material balance calculation with the current

procedure can be conducted with the material balance
and history matching programs loaded in different
computer systems. The result files of the calculation
can be transferred through the network file transfer
programs. However, for numerous reserve estimates
it would be advisable to develop an interface program
between the material balance and history matching
programs.

WI'

Jv,

NOMENCLATURE

B, ==
B. =
Bw =
C.

C,

==

Cw

Efw ==
E,

E.

E,

G.

==

==

-..

N,
P
ro

r.

R,
R

==
==
==

..

Gas formation volume factor, rb/MCF

Oil formation volume factor, rb/stb
Water formation volume factor, rb/stb
Effective compressibility, l/psi, defined in
Eq. (10)
Formation compressibility, l/psi
Water compressibility, l/psi
Expansion of water and reduction in pore
volume, rb/stb in Eq. (3); rb/MCF in Eq. (8)
Expansion of gas, rb/stb in Eq. (3); rb/MCF
in Eq. (8)
Expansion of oil and solution gas, rb/stb,
defined in Eq. (4)
Overall expansion of oil, gas, water and
formation, rb/stb, defined in Eq. (3)
Underground withdrawal, rb
Original Gas In Place, BCF
Cumulative gas injection, BCF
Cumulative gas production, BCF
Initial gascap size, volume ratio of gascap
and oil reservoir
Original Oil In Place, MMstb
Cumulative oil production, MMstb
Average reservoir pressure, psia
Aquifer radius, ft
Radius of oil reservoir at original oil water
contact, ft
Cumulative gas-oil ratio, scf/stb
Solution gas-oil ratio, scf/stb

==

=
w. =

Y
Z

=
=
=

SPE 26244

Initial water saturation, fraction

Aquifer function, see Ref. 3
Time, years
Aquifer constant, see Ref. 3
Cumulative water influx, MMrb
Cumulative water injection, MMstb
Cumulative water production, MMstb
Water influx function defined in Eq. (11)
Gas deviation factor

Subscripts

Initial condition

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Texaco Inc. for permission
to prepare and publish this paper. The author is also
grateful to Dr. Ben Wang for his assistance in using
OILWAT/GASWAT programs.
REFERENCES
1. Schilthuis, R J.: "Active Oil and Reservoir Energy,"
Trans., AIME, 118:33-52.
2. Havlena, D. and Odeh, AS.: "The Material Balance
as an Equation of a Straight Line," J. Pet. Tech.
(Aug. 1963) 896-900.
3. Ramagost, B. P. and Farshad, F. F.: "P/Z
Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoirs," paper SPE
10125 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
Oct. 1981.
4. Cole, F. W.:Reservoir Engineering Manual, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston (1969).
5. Campbell, R A and Campbell, J. M., Sr.:Mineral
Property Economic8, Vol. 3: Petroleum Property
Evaluation, Campbell Petroleum Series (1978).
6. Tehrani, D.H.: "An Analysis of Volumetric Balance
Equation for Calculation of Oil in Place and Water
Int1ux," J. Pet. Tech. (Sep. 1985) 1664-1670.
7. Wang, B., Litvak, B. L. and Bowman, G. W., n:
"OILWAT: Microcomputer Program for Oil
Material Balance With Gascap and Water Influx,"
paper SPE 24437 presented at the 7th SPE
Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston, Texas,
186

SPE 26244

R. RANDY HWAN

July 19-22, 1992.

TABLE 1

8. Wang, B. and Teasdale, T. S.:"GASWAT-PC: A

Microcomputer Program. for Gas Material Balance
With Water Influx," paper 14684 presented at the
PetroleumIndustIyApplications ofMicrocomputers
held in Del Lago on Lake Conroe, Montgomery,
Texas, June 23-26, 1987.
9. Watkins, A. J., Parish, R. G. and Modine, A. D.:"A
Stochastic Role for Engineering Input to Reservoir
History Matching," paper SPE 23738 presented at
the 1992 Latin American Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, March 8-11.
10. Parish, R. G., Calderbank, V. J., Watkins, A. J.,
Muggeridge, A. H., Goode, A. T. and Robinson, P.
R.:"Effective History Matching: The Application of
Advanced Software Techniques to the HistoryMatching Process," paper SPE 25250 presented at
the 12th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 28-March 3,
1993.

PRODUCTION AND PVT DATA OF CASE 1

Calculate OGIP for an
Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoir

Time
@wl
0
69
182
280
340
372
455
507

11. Adaptive History Matching (ARM Version 1.1)

User's Guide: Release Date: June 1992, Scientific
Software-Intercomp, Inc.
12. OILWAT/GASWAT <Version 4) User's Manual by
Ben Wang, Texaco Inc., E&P Technology, published
by Boffin Inc., 1990.

583

13. Dake,

L.P.:

Fundamentals

of Reservoir

Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,

New York City (1978) 90, 317.
14. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.:"Application
of the Laplace Transform to Flow Problems in
Reservoirs," Trans., AIME, 186 (1949) 305-324.

267 <T
9507 psia
11167 ft
20%
35%
0.554 rbjMCF
3x10-6jpsi
15x10 /psi
69BCF

Reservoir temperature
Initial pressure
Depth
Porosity
Initial water saturation
Initial gas formation factor
Water compressibility
Formation compressibility
Original Gas In Place
(by volumetrics)

628
663
804
987
1183
1373
1556

Press.
(psia)
9507
9292
8970
8595
8332
8009
7603
7406
7002
6721
6535
5764
4766
4295
3750
3247

1.440
1.418
1.387
1.344
1.316
1.282
1.239
1.218
1.176
1.147
1.127
1.048
.977
.928
.891
.854

G
(BCF)
0.0
0.393
1.642
3.226
4.260
5.504
7.538
8.749
10.509
11.758
12.789
17.262
22.890
28.144
32.567
36.820

G Ip
(Mstb)
0.0
29.9
122.9
240.9
317.1
406.9
561.2
650.8
776.7
846.3
939.5
1255.3
1615.8
1913.4
2136.0
2307.8

Liquid condensate production.

TABLE 2
LIMITS AND INITIAL ESTIMATE OF OGIP

Lower Limit Expected

OGIP(BCF)

187

60

70

Upper Limit
80

10

IMPROVED MATERIAL BALANCE CALCULATIONS WITH A InsTORY MATCHING PROGRAM

SPE 26244

TABLE 3

TABLE 5

VALUES OF OGIP CHOSEN BY AHM &

USED IN GASWAT AND MATCH QUALITY

LIMITS AND INITIAL ESTIMATES OF

OOIP AND GASCAP SIZE

Run No.
1

2
3
4
GASWAT
Alone

OGIP<BCF)
70
70.391
71.679
73.437
74.040

Lower Limit Expected

Quality

.2193
.1917
.1294
.1017
.1065

Upper Limit

OOIP(MMstb)

60

70

130

Gascap size
(V01. Ratio of
Gascap and Oil
Reservoir)

.45

.47

.60

TABLE 4

TABLE 6

PRODUCTION AND PVT DATA OF CASE 2

PROPERTY VALUES CHOSEN BY AHM &

USED IN OILWAT AND MATCH QUALITY

Calculate N and m for a Gascap Drive Reservoir

Reservoir temperature
Formation compressibility
Water compressibility
Initial gascap volume fraction

Pressure
N
MMstb
psia
3300(Pi=PJ)
3150
3.295
3000
5.903
2850
8.852
2700
11.503
2550
14.513
2400
17.730

Ru

~
1050
1060
1160
1235
1265
1300

Bo
rb/stb
1.2511
1.2353
1.2222
1.2122
1.2022
1.1922
1.1822

200 T
3x10-6/p si
3x10-6/psi
0.5 (Approximated)

Rs

~
510
477
450
425
401
375
352

B
rbfscf
.00087
.00092
.00096
.00101
.00107
.00113
.00120

188

Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
OILWAT
Alone
Dake's
Example

OOIP(MMstb)
70
90.76
100.61
108.81
114.14
116.19
111.63
108.71

Gascap Size
0.47
0.452
0.454
0.456
0.462
0.469
0.50

Quality
6.8847
1.7<m8
0.59280
0.14594
0.01815
0.00144
0.00100

0.54

0.01341

SPE 26244

11

R. RANDY HWAN

TABLE 7

TABLE 8

PRODUCTION AND PVT DATA OF CASE 3

LIMITS AND INITIAL ESTIMATES

AQUIFER SIZE AND AQUIFER CONSTANT

Calculate Aquifer Size and Aquifer Constant

for a Reservoir with Known OOIP
Lower Limit Expected
Reservoir temperature
Original Oil In Place
Initial gascap volume fraction
Connate water saturation
Aquifer porosity
Aquifer permeability
Aquifer thickness
Water viscosity
Water compressibility
Formation compressibility
Oil reservoir radius
For radial aquifer:
Encroachment angle
Dimensionless time coefficient
Theoretical aquifer constant, U

Time
years
0
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Press.
psia
2740
2500
2109
1949
1818
1720
1608
1535
1480
1440

~stb ~
scf stb
0.0
7.88
29.15
40.69
50.14
58.42
65.39
70.74
74.54
77.43

0
760
920.5
975.1
1025
1065
1095
1120
1145
1160

200~

Aquifer size

312 MMstb

(r..

5%
25%

Aquifer constant

10

15

6000

6500

7000

r.)

(u)

200md
100 ft
0.55 Cj
4x10 /psi
3x10-6/psi
9200 ft

TABLE 9

140 degree
5.67/yr
6446 rb/psi

PROPERTY VALUES CHOSEN BY AHM &

USED IN OILWAT AND MATCH QUALITY

~
B
rb/stb
scf/stb rb cf
1.404 650
0.930
1.374 592
0.980
1.329 507
1.170
1.316 471
1.280
1.390
1.303 442
1.294 418
1.500
1.287 398
1.600
1.280 383
1.700
1.276 371
1.760
1.273 364
1.820
o

Upper Limit

Rs

Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OILWAT
Alone

Aquifer Size
10
11.395 (12*)
8.251 (9*)
8.630 (9*)
6.621 (7*)
5.173 (6*)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

Aquifer Const.
6500
6355.0
6693.3
6359.4
6228.5
6152.3
6152.3
6146.5
6189.5
6296.9
6296

Quality
4.591
4.675
4.577
3.636
1.553
0.452
0.00065
0.0106
0.00700
OJX1275
0.00275

* The actual values of aquifer size used in the

OILWAT calculation.

189

Compile and review reservoir fluid. PVT.

pressure and production data

10 I

Select property values. such as OOIP. OGIP,

gascap size. etc., to be determined

----Runl
9

-Run4
OASWAT IlIone

'i

So

Ob&P

Estimate the most likely values and limits of

property values

J1

Calculate reservoir pressures with

the most likely or revised property
values using OILWAT/GASWAT

3
2 I

I
10

20

30

40

50

Enter the most likely values and

limits of properties and import the
observed data into AHM

Cum. Gaa Producllon (BCF)

to

Import the values of the calculated

pressure into AHM to compare with
the observed data

Figure 1. Pressure matches for an abnormally pressured gas reservoir.

300 ,

AHM generates the value of pressure match

quality and revises the property values

200

100

is

No

Is the
value of pressure match
quality satisfactory?

D.

~I

GASWATeIone

ro

20

30

40

Cum. Gas Production (BCF)

Figure 2. Pressure ditTerence between the calculated and observed data of an

abnormally pressured gas reservoir.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the material balance calculation by coupling

OILWAT/GASWAT with ARM.

3500 I

3000

r ,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

:::-

3000

2500

l!

I
1

2000

d!

2000

...-Obo,P

-+- Run 1

-f:r- Run 2

~Run3

-+-Run4

-*- RunS

---Run
1&00 I

8.

OlLWAT oIono

1800

Run 10.

.. -Dake'. ExM1ple

10

18

20

CO

~ OlLWAT.1one

-*- Run 5

-II- Obe. P

1000 '

Cum. 011 ProduclJon (MMstb)

-a.

-+- Run 4

10

20

30

Cum.

Figure 4. Pressure matches of a gascap drive reservoir.

40

50

60

70

so

90

on Production (MMBtb)

Figure 6. Pressure matches of an aquifer drive reservoir.

-a.
150i
30 I

____

Run 8

-+- Run 10.nd OILWAT _

20

i.!!.

"i

10

1
lL

100

o ~ - -.. -----:r----.---~

-10

..........-- . - . -.... ~----- . --..........~

i,g,
~u

50

lL

r l- - - - - - - -

-+-llelol.Ex.......
20 I

-6- OlLWAT_

____
-30

Run 8

'

10

18

20

Cum, 011 ProducUon (MMstb)

Figure 15. Pressure difference between the calculated and observed data of a gascap
drive reservoir.

-so

10

20

30

40

50

50

70

80

90

Cum. 01 Production (MMstb)

Figure 7. Pressure difference between the calculated and observed data of an aquifer
drive reservoir.