The Flowing Gas

Material Balance
L. Mattar, R. McNeil
Fekete Associates Inc.

Abstract
The traditional material balance (p/z) plot for gas pools
requires fully built-up reservoir pressures, obtained by shuttingin the wells. The procedure described in this presentation does
not require shut-in of wells. Instead, it utilizes information normally obtained but not usually used by reservoir engineers to
quantify the original gas-in-placethe daily gas production
rates and flowing pressures.
The classical pseudo-steady state analysis and its shortcomings are discussed. In addition, a new procedure called the
flowing material balance is introduced. This procedure consists of a p/z plot of the flowing pressure (as opposed to the
average shut-in reservoir pressure) versus cumulative production. A straight line drawn through the flowing pressure data and
then, a parallel line, drawn through the initial reservoir pressure
will give the original gas-in-place. A variation of this method,
using wellhead pressures (tubing and casing) is discussed and a
field example is included. The method is a very practical and
powerful tool for the early quantification of reserves.

Introduction
The determination of gas reserves is a fundamental calculation
in reservoir engineering. This information is crucial for the development of a production strategy, design of facilities, contracts and
valuation of the reserves. Classically, reserves are estimated in
three ways: volumetric, material balance and production decline.
The volumetric and material balance methods estimate original
gas-in-place whereas production decline yields an estimate of
recoverable gas.
Volumetrically determined reserves can be very imprecise,
because the method depends upon detailed knowledge of many
reservoir characteristics that are often unknown such as the areal
extent of the pool. The material balance method uses actual reservoir performance data and therefore is generally accepted as the
most accurate procedure for estimating original gas-in-place.
Once determined, the original gas-in-place can be used to reliably
forecast the recoverable raw gas reserves under various operating
scenarios. The production decline method also uses reservoir performance data but the result is an estimate of recoverable raw gas
reserves under the existing operating conditions. A change in
these operations, for example a lowering of the compressor suction pressure, can change the deliverability and the recoverable
raw gas reserves. The original gas-in-place is therefore difficult to
ascertain from production decline.
It has been understood for many years that estimates of original
gas-in-place are theoretically possible using measured gas volumes and flowing pressures. The goal of this paper is to take the
flowing material balance from a theoretical possibility to a practical reality.
52

Classical Material Balance

The classical material balance expresses a relationship between
the average pressure in the reservoir and the amount of gas produced. When there has been no production, the pressure equals the
initial reservoir pressure; when all the gas has been produced, the
pressure in the reservoir is zero. In the case where the reservoir
acts like a tank and there is no external pressure maintenance, the
relationship between pressure and cumulative production is
approximately linear. If the compressibility factor, z, is taken into
account, then the material balance plot (p/z versus cumulative production, Q) is a straight line going from the initial pressure, pi/z,
to the original gas-in-place, OGIP. Deviations from this straight
line can be caused by external recharge or offset drainage. For the
purposes of this presentation, we are only considering reservoirs
which have straight line material balance plot of p/z versus Q. The
more comprehensive material balance procedures for complex
reservoirs have been treated extensively by Havlena and Odeh(1).
In order to generate a traditional p/z plot, the well is shut-in at
several points along its producing life and the average reservoir
pressure is obtained for each point from a properly conducted
buildup test and interpretation. The duration of the shut-in is often
not long enough to directly measure current average reservoir
pressure. Consequently, extrapolation of the build-up data and
correction of the extrapolated pressure to obtain the average reservoir pressure are required. As a result, problems with testing and
interpretation comprise some of the key causes of erratic pressure
data often observed in material balance plots.

Flowing Data
The flow of gases through porous media can be divided into
two major categoriestransient and stabilized. Transient flow
behaviour is dominated by reservoir characteristics such as permeability, skin, degree of heterogeneity, location of boundaries, etc.,
and a complex function of time (log time). Stabilized flow, on the
other hand, is dominated by reserves and a simple time function
(t).
High and medium permeability reservoirs reach stabilized flow
relatively quicklywithin a few weeksbut low permeability
reservoirs can take a year or more to stabilize. When a well is in
stabilized flow, its behaviour is represented by the pseudo-steady
state equations found in the well testing literature(2). At the heart
of all these equations lies the material balance equation, in one
form or another. The following discussion will describe several
procedures for determining the original gas-in-place. All these
methods are variations of the material balance equation, with different assumptions and approximations.
Because stabilized flow is dominated by reserves, it should be
possible to estimate the reserves in a pool, if gas rate, pressure and
time data are available during the period of stabilized flow. Thus
for medium and high permeability reservoirs, we have the potential to calculate the reserves from flowing pressure data without
having to shut-in the well and lose valuable production.
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 1: Pseudo-steady state analysis.

Practical ApplicationAlternative
Methods
The data set used in this paper was taken from a producing well
for which accurate wellhead pressure and gas volumes were
recorded for over five months. During the first two months of this
test the well flowed at a fairly constant gas rate of approximately
250 103m3/d. Tubing and casing pressures were measured daily
and the casing pressures were converted to sand-face pressures
using a multi-step Cullender and Smith(3) calculation.
A review of the well test data and the core analysis indicates
that this formation possesses a good permeability to gas (50 mD).
The time to stabilization (assuming a one section spacing unit) is
approximately two weeks indicating that the bulk of the production data represents stabilized (pseudo-steady state) flow.
The remainder of this paper makes use of the established performance based methods to estimate the original gas-in-place and
then presents several variations of the flowing material balance
procedure as practical alternatives.

Method 1: Classical Pseudo-Steady State

Analysis(PSS)
This is the standard method of pseudo-steady analysis
described in the well testing literature(2,4). A plot is made of pressure squared (or pseudo pressure) versus time on cartesian coordinates. A straight line is drawn through the appropriate portion of
the data (pseudo-steady state) corresponding to a constant production rate. The slope of this straight line is used to calculate the
gas-filled pore volume, and hence, the original gas-in-place
(OGIP) (ERCB Guide G-3, variation of Equation 4-29 in SI
units)(4).
OGIP =

2.929 10 2 q 10 3 p i 288
c s l o p e / 2 101.325
4

2 10 3 q p i 6 3
10 m
cslope
.....................................................................(1)

Figure 1 shows a plot of pressure squared (casing pressure converted to sandface) versus time in days. The slope of this line during the pseudo-steady state period is 780,000 kPa2/day.
Values for the gas rate, q, (250 103m3/d) and initial reservoir
pressure, p i, (12,900 kPa) are easily obtainable. However, a value
for the gas compressibility, c, is more problematic. In a gas reservoir, c varies as 1/p, but the pseudo-steady state analysis procedure
traditionally assumes the gas compressibility is constant at initial
conditions. This assumption is good for an undersaturated liquid
53

FIGURE 2: Illustration of pseudo-steady state.

but not so good in gas since it can introduce a significant degree

of error in cases where depletion (declining reservoir pressure) is
occurring.
In an effort to account for the change in the gas compressibility
as depletion progresses, c was calculated at an average flowing
sand-face pressure of 8,500 kPa (average sand-face flowing pressure during pseudo-steady state portion of the flow period).
Substituting these values in the above equation gives:

OGIP =

2 10 3 250 12, 900 6 3

10 m = 64 10 6 m3
1.3 10 4 780, 000
........(2)

If the gas compressibility had been calculated at the initial pressure of 12,900 kPa, the OGIP would have been 94 106m3.
As indicated above, the classical pseudo-steady state analysis
has an inherent weakness with respect to the value of gas compressibility employed. This analysis procedure will estimate original gas-in-place optimistically unless a satisfactory method for
incorporating the impact of depletion on gas compressibility can
be developed.

Method 2: Flowing Material Balance

(FMB)
A clear understanding of what pseudo-steady state is can provide a new insight into calculating reserves by a procedure similar
to the traditional material balance. The difference is that this
method uses the flowing pressure rather than the shut-in pressure.
When a reservoir is in pseudo-steady state flow, the pressure at all
locations in the reservoir declines at the same rate. This is illustrated in Figure 2, which depicts pressures in the reservoir at all
locations (the wellbore on the left, and the exterior boundary of
the reservoir on the right). Each of the lines one, two and three
represents the pseudo-steady state pressure in the reservoir when
the well is flowing at a constant rate. The sketch illustrates that
the pressure decline from time one to time two, is the same
throughout the reservoir (the curves are parallel). The same is
true between curves two and three.
The traditional material balance procedure would be to shut-in
the well at time one, and let the pressure in the reservoir stabilize.
This would give an average reservoir pressure pR1. Similarly, the
pressure profile in the reservoir, at times two and three would
result in shut-in average reservoir pressures of pR2 and pR3. It is
evident that the drop in pressure from pR1 to pR2 to p R3 is the same
as the drop in pressure at any selected point along the curves one,
two and three (the curves are parallel). A convenient point for
pressure analysis is the pressure at the wellbore. Remembering
that curves one, two and three represent a flowing well, it
becomes evident that a plot of the flowing wellbore pressure (pwf1,
pwf2, pwf3) should be parallel to a plot of the average reservoir
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 3: Flowing material balance.

pressure (pR1, pR2, pR3).

The above discussion illustrates that a material balance plot
using the flowing wellbore pressures (pwf), should be parallel to
the material balance plot using the average static reservoir pressure (pR). This procedure, referred to as the flowing material
balance, consists of a plot of pwf/z, where pwf is the flowing
sand-face pressure at the wellbore (or for that matter it could be
any location in the reservoir) versus cumulative production. A
straight line drawn through the flowing sandface pressure data and
then extrapolated parallel from the initial reservoir pressure gives
the original gas-in-place, OGIP. The flowing material balance
performed on this example (Figure 3) using flowing sandface
pressures calculated from casing pressure measurements results in
an OGIP = 71 106m3. Since the well was flowing through tubing
the calculation from surface casing pressure to sandface pressure
could be done using a static column of gas.
It is evident from Figures 1 and 3 that a plot for casing wellhead pressures has a similar trend to the sand-face pressures.
Thus, a flowing material balance plot can also be constructed
using the casing pressures (instead of sand-face pressures) yielding, in this case, an OGIP of 72 106m3 as shown in Figure 4.
When using casing pressure data to estimate OGIP, the line drawn
parallel to the data must pass through the initial wellhead pressure not the initial reservoir pressure.

Method 3: Tank Model

In gas deliverability forecasting, a tank reservoir model
incorporating the material balance equation and deliverability

FIGURE 5: Simulated flowing pressure decline using tank model.

February 1998, Volume 37, No. 2

FIGURE 4: Flowing material balance (casing pressures).

potential of the well or wells is used most commonly. It allows

forecasting of the gas deliverability at any given flowing pressure,
or conversely, the flowing pressure at a given gas rate. Such a program was used to model the flowing wellhead pressure for various
magnitudes of gas-in-place. The flow rate was set to a constant
250 10 3m3/d and the decline in wellhead flowing pressure plotted
for various original gas-in-place estimates. The results are summarized in Figure 5 with the best match to the measured data
found to occur using an original gas-in-place of 76 106m3. The
range of trial OGIP estimates used to generate the match was from
70 106m3 to 90 106m3.

Method 4: Approximate Wellhead Material

Balance(AWMB)
It is not always recognized that the change in the compressibility factor, z, in material balance calculations is often small (it can
be of the same order of magnitude as the errors in the data!). If z
is ignored, a material balance calculation (plot of flowing sandface pressure, pwf, versus cumulative gas production, Q) can give
a very reasonable approximation of the OGIP. The initial point p
= p i and end point p = 0 are correct, but theoretically, since z is
ignored, the line joining them is not necessarily straight. If it is
further recognized that wellhead pressure measurements are representative of bottomhole conditions (no fluid influx into the wellbore), a procedure similar to Method 2, but ignoring z, can be
used to generate a reasonable wellhead material balance calculation. A line drawn through the data and then a line parallel
through the initial static wellhead pressure will give an estimate of

FIGURE 6: Approximate wellhead Flowing material balance.

54

Conclusion
The original gas-in-place determined from the flowing data
(pressure and production) is approximately 71 106m3. This is significantly different from the volumetric original gas-in-place calculation of 500 106m3 assuming a one section spacing and indicates the pool has a much smaller areal extent than one section.
The procedure presented in this paper provides a very practical
tool for estimating gas-in-place using data generally available in
normal production operations. In addition, production losses can
be minimized by not having to shut-in wells.
It is possible to determine original gas-in-place with reasonable
certainty when shut-in pressures are not available.

NOMENCLATURE

FIGURE 7: Gas rate decline.

the original gas-in-place. For the data used in this example, the
approximate wellhead material balance plot is shown on Figure 6
and gives an OGIP = 71 106m3.
This is a simplified material balance plot based on wellhead
pressures (rather than reservoir pressures) and it ignores z factor.
Our experience with this type of analysis indicates that it is a very
practical and acceptable procedure.

Method 5: Production Decline

A traditional production decline plot is shown in Figure 7 for
the example case. For the first two months, the rate was restricted
at approximately 250 103m3/d after which production from the
well began to decline. This decline can be used to extrapolate to
raw recoverable reserves not OGIP. The raw recoverable reserves
estimated for this case are 37 106m3 which is consistent with the
estimated OGIP reflecting a recovery factor of approximately
50% under present operating conditions.

Practical Observations
The practical application of this procedure requires that certain
conditions be met. First, flowing pressures in the reservoir must
have reached pseudo-steady state. Second, the well must be
choked such that production is independent of line pressure and it
must be flowing at relatively constant gas rates. Although pseudosteady state theory requires a constant gas rate, practice has shown
it does not necessarily have to be enforced when flowing pressure
is plotted versus cumulative production. Third, once the well
begins to track gathering system line pressures, it begins its terminal gas rate decline and the procedure is no longer valid.
Application of this procedure seems to work best for good permeability gas reservoirs not affected by external drive sources.

c
OGIP
pi
pwf
Q
q
slope
T
z

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

gas compressibility, 1/kPa

Original Gas-In-Place, 106m3
initial reservoir pressure, kPa
sandface flowing pressure, kPa
cumulative production, 106m3
gas rate, 103m3/d
kPa2/day
temperature, K
compressibility factor

REFERENCES
1. H A V L E N A , D. and O D E H, A.S., The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
August 1963.
2. EARLOUGHER, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis; Monograph
Vol. 5, SPE AIME, 1977.
3. CULLENDER, M.H. and R.V. SMITH, Practical Solution of Gas
Flow Equations for Well and Pipelines with Large Temperature
Gradients; Trans. AIME, Vol. 207, p. 281.
4. E.R.C.B, Gas Well TestingTheory and Practice; Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Alberta, Canada, 1979, Fourth Edition.

P r o v e n a n c e Original Petroleum Society manuscript, T h e

Flowing Gas Material Balance, (95-77), first presented at the
46th Annual Technical Meeting, May 14-17, 1995, in Banff,
Alberta. Abstract submitted for review January 17, 1995; editorial
comments sent to the author(s) May 2, 1997; revised manuscript
received June 23, 1997; paper approved for pre-press June 24,
1997; final approval September 4, 1997.

Authors Biographies
Louis Mattar is president of Fekete
Associates Inc. He has co-authored 28 publications including the ERCB guide G-3
(Gas Well TestingTheory and Practice).
He is a member of APEGGA, SPE and The
Petroleum Society. He graduated from the
University of Calgary with a M.Sc. degree
in 1973.

Summary
Several methods are presented for estimating the original gasin-place without shutting in a well. The calculated values for this
particular case are summarized below:

Method 1
Method 2
Method 3
Method 4
Average

55

OGIP
(106m3)
(PSS)
64
(FMB) Reservoir 71
(FMB) Wellhead 72
(Tank)
76
(AWMB)
71
71

Ralph McNeil is senior engineer with

Fekete Associates Inc. specializing gas
gathering system modelling and reservoir
engineering. He graduated from the
Technical University of Nova Scotia in
1980 with a bachelor of engineering in
chemical engineering.

The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology