.

Material Balance Calculations with Water Influx in the

Presence of Uncertainty in Pressures
C. 1?. McEWEN
JUNIOR MEMBER ALME

ABSTRACT
This paper presents
a technique for calculating
the original amount of hydrocarbon in place in a
petroleum
reservoir,
and for determining
the constants cba7acterizing
tbeaquifer performance, based
on pressure-production
data. A metbod for doing this
based on a least. squares fine-fitting computation was
proposed by vanEverdingen, Zimmerman and McMabon
irr 1953. We found that their method would not work
when there is error in tbe reservoir pressure data
even moderate ewor. The technique presented bere
appears to give reasonable answers when pressure
data are uncertain to the degree expected in reser.
voir pressure determinations.
Tbe major change introduced in the present analysis is to limit tbe least-squares
line-/itting
to yield
only one conslant tbe amount of hydrocarbon in
place, The water-inl[ux
constant is then taken as
proportional
CO the oil (or gas) in place. The constant 01 proportionality
can be computed Irora estimates
01 ellective
compressibility
and reservoir
water saturation.
it is also pointed out that the commonly used
least-squares
analysis
assumes all 91 the uncer.
tainty to be in tbe dependent variable. The material
balance should be arranged so that this condition
is @lliUed incorrect inferences are to be made lrom
statistical
calculations.
Examples aresbown oltbeapplication
olthe new
technique to gas reservoirsbotb
hypothetical
and
realan d to tbe oil-reservoir
example 01 van Everdingen, Timmennan and McMahon.
INTRODUCTION
The amount of hydrocarbon originalIy in place in
a petroleum reservoir can be estimated by means of
the material-balance
calctdation.
Simultaneous
observations
of pressure
and amounts of produced
fluids
are required,
together
with the PVT data
applicable
to the reservoir fluids.
ment is occurring, it is desirable

[f water erlrxoat%to try to infer the

Original manuscriptreceived in Society of PetroleumEngineers

office Sept. 11, 1961.Revised manuscriptreceived March 1, 1962.
Paper presented at 32nd Annual California Regional Meeting of
SPE, Nov. 2.3, 1961, in Bakersfield, CalIf.

120

UNION OIL CO. OF CAL/FORNIA

BREA, CALIF.

behavior
of the aquifer,
as well as the original
hydrocarbon
in place, from the pressure-production
data. This imposes additional demands on the method
of calculation,
and uncertainty
in the data can
result in large uncertainty
in the answ~r. In addition,
the
if the size of a gas cap is to be established,
whole problem becomes indeterminate,
as pointed
out by Woods and Muskat.l
Brownscombe
and ColIinsz simulated a gas reservoir and its aquifer on a
reservoir
analyzer
and derived quantitative
information on the effect of uncertainty
in pressure
and
aquifer permeability
on computed gas in place.
Among the various techniques
of estimating
the
performance
of an aquifer, the method of van Everdingen
and liurst~
based on compressible
flow
theory, seems to have been the most generally successful (see Ref. 4, for example). In this paper we
shall confine oumelves
to their representation
of
the aquifer. In 1953, van Everdingen,
Timmerman
and McMahon5 introduced
a statistical
technique
for deriving the amount of oil originally
in place
and the parameters
which describe the aquifer, (We
shall refer to this technique
as the VTM method,
as suggested by Mueller.6 ) Their example reservoir
had nc gas cap,
It has been our experience
that the VTM method
gives a reasonable
answer when the data are very
accurate,
but that inaccuracy
(particularly
in pressure) can cause the method to break down. The
effect was first observed in gas reservoirs,
but has
since been seen in oil reservoirs
also. In this paper
we present
another statistical
method which has
been auccessful
in achieving
a reasonable
answer
where the VTM method has failed. In the new method,
one leas parameter is derived from material-balance
computations,
It is assumed that values can be
established
for effect;ve
compressibility
in the
aquifer and reservoir water saturation independently
of the material - balance
calculation.
The waterinflux con stant can then be obtained
from these
data and the quantity of hydrocarbon in place.

lReferencea given at end of Paper.

SOCIETY

OF PET ROLE[l M FISGINEERS

Jo IIRNAL

,.

REVIEW
MATERIAL-BALANCE

OF
COMPUTATIONS

Materiai-balance
computation,
whether. onoiI or
gas reservoirs,
all contain three basic terms(1)
expansion, (2) withdrawals and (3) inf Iux. A materialbalance
equation is a Iinearrelacion
among these
variables.
For a gas reservoir
a possible
form for
the material balance would be
G (Bg - B&i) + We

=Gp

(Expansion)

= (Withdrawals).

+ (Influx)

Bg+WP

. ..(U

G = original gas inplace,

Mscf,
Gp = gas produced, Mscf,
B ~ = gas formation volume factor, reservoir
bbl/Mscf,
~gl . = gas formation volume factor at original
pressure,
We = water influx, reservoir bbl, and
Wp = water produced;
reservoir bbl.
for a saturated
oil reservoir
with rro
Similarly,
initial gas cap we would have

where

N(Bt _ Bti) + We = No [Bt + (Rp - R~f) Bgl + Wp

,.,
where

. . . . . . ...0.

AI = original oil in place, STB,

N = oil produced, STB,
~ = toraJ&wo~~t::;~
$:i~
B/i
R@
R ~i

The van
this means
we

where

O...

..

(3)

1962

OF VARIABLES

In choosing a statistical
technique
for this probIem, we can consider that we have three variables
which are linearly related; i.e.,
y=aO+a1x1+a2

x2,...

. . ...(4)

volume

the water-influx
constant,
bbl/psi,
dimensionless
water influx,
reservoir
pressure,
an increment of the drawdown, the latter being the difference between original and cuxrent reservoir pressure,
and the summation sign signifies the application
of
the superposition
principIe.
This is the summation
of a number of different,
constant drawdown solutions to the compressible-flow
equation in order to
permit a soIution for the variable drawdown history
of the reservoir
under study. Besides
B, a second
parameter is required for the computation of influx
the dimensionless
time step AtD, corresponding
to
the
real time period
b)ettieen
observations
of
pressure - production
data. The theoretical
conversion from real to dimensionless
time requires values
for aquifer permeability
and porosity and reservoir
radius, together with water viscosity
and compressibility.
Reliable
values,
particularly
of permeaJUNE,

=
=
=
=

. . . ..

ASSIGNMENT

In a gas-reservoir
problem, for example, we might
make the following assi~nment
of variables:

= total for;ation
volume factor & original
pressure,
= cumulative
(produced)
gas- oiI ratio,
Mscf/STB,
and
= the solution gas-oil ratio at the original pressure.
Everdingen
and Hurst theory provides
of computing influx.

==BZQDAp,
B
QD
p
Ap

(2)

. . ...?

bility, are difficult to get. Therefore,

we resort to
obtaining the proper conversion by trial and error.
In the VTM method, a set of material-balance
computations
was carried out for a fixed value of
AtD, Then AtD was changed and another set made,
etc. Each sqt of calculations
produced values for
N and B. The preferred set was the one which produced a minimum standard deviation in N. In effect,
this amounts to trying different water-influx
hi stories until one is found which, combined with expansion and withdrawals,
givea the best approximation to the chosen form of the material - balance
equation.
In the present work the idea of trying the material
balance
for different
values of AtD is retained.
Two changes are introduced,
however: (1) the terms
of the material-balance
equation are rearranged;
and
(2) only the value for N (or G) is obtained by statistical
analysis.

xl

= G@Bg + WP (Withdrawals)

and
X2

=ZQDAp

The coefficients
ao=o
al

(Influx)

would then be

= l/G

and
a2 =-B/G.
The so-called
normal equations
are used for
obtaining values for the coefficients
ao, a 1 and a2
from a number of observations
of the variables.
The
normal equations depend on the form of Eq. 4. There
will be one normal equation for each coefficient
to
be determined.
The crirerion most commonly used
in deriving the normal equations is that the coefficients be the onea which produce a minimum in the
sum of the squares of the differences
(SSD) between
observed y-valuea and those calculated
from Eq. 4.
h other words, the coefficients
so calculated
will
be the ones giving a best fit in the least-squares
sense over the range of the variable
The normal equations for our example turn out to
be the foHowing.

?.

and
a1Zx1x2+a2Z

x22

=Xx2y.

, . . . . (6)

Here, the summation sign implies

the observed values of the quantities,

observations
the me:)suJ,-.

where there are

variable xl. Also,
is

71

SSD = 2 (y - {!1xl

Xyz

Cjf

summation
as

OF the value of
(:loseness
of fit

- az XJ

a11:c1x2 -a21.Y2y,

of

. , . (7)

Table
1 shows several
v ays :0[ assig~.it]g the
variables
in this problem, our example being !~ietkd
L We have experimented
with all of these methods.
In Methods I, II and 111 (VTM method), where two
coefficients
ale to be determined,
SSD may not go
through a minimum as :kD is varied. Generally,
the value for G (or N) is nor sensitive
to the value
assumed
for t\tD. As .?WD is increased,
a lower
value for B results
which appears to give roughly
the same infiux history, with no objective
criterion
av.~iiable to help cho~se the most likely combirrati~n cf 5 and AtD.
!deth~,cf IV, rhe merhod used in the rest of the
p:iper, give~ a sharp minimum in SSD, even in the
presen,.-c c.! :If;certril,]:s in pre~sure.
Only one coet{icient
is CO he determined
from the pressurepruductimr
tiata. (The determination
of B through
,Mt.thr)Ll IV requires some additicmal ciata on reservoir } r.,:~c ries. ) Furthermore,
the assignment
of
in i[ethm; l\ irp~ears t. st from the standvarixl,ics
used in setting
poim of ~,ll;t{li]g to :hc assumptions
up the lcas~-squa.es
technique,
as will be explained
in the fo]lowing section.

material balance, because it contains the difference

of two quantities
of about the same size. Even
though reservoir
pressure
may be known to within
I per cent or less, the relative
error in the expanaion term can be very high. This leverage diminishes,
of course, as the reservoir pressure declines,
We assume for each set of material balances
that
AtD is known. (It is also impIicit, of course, that
the aquifer can be well represented
by the corn.
pressible
flow theory.)
Uncertainty
in the influx
is then due only to uncertainty
in pressure.
Here
again we take differences
in pressure
for the super-
position
calculations,
so that the uncertainty
in
the quantity ~ QD Ap is greater than that in the
PI cssl]re
data alone. However,
the fact that the
inf[ux term is a summation permits errors in A/r to
compc [ware each other to a considerable
extent,
_ihat is, if a pressure
is too high, the .!p above it
will be too low, but the Ap below it will be too
high by the same amount, The net resuIt is a Iower
order of uncertainty
in the influx term than in the
expansion
term, but a higher order than in the presure,
Firudly, the withdrawals
term wilI be known with
the lease uncertainty
at least insofar as the effect
of pressure
error is concerned,
The relrttive uncertainty
would be about the same as the relative
pressure
error,. which often can be reduced to [ess
than 1 per cent,
Mosr of the uncertainty
is isolated
in the y variable if it is made the sum of the expansion
and
influx terms. Written in this way, Eqs. 1 and 2 with
Eq. 3 substituted
are as folIows.
Gas reservoir:
(Bg - B~i)+~2QD

.Jp =~(GPBg+

Ivp) . (8)

Oil reservoir:
(Bt --Bli)

+ ~ XQDAP=

iVP[Bt +
{

It is imporran: CO note that an assumption

in
deri<ing r.hc !!t,:c,:i! equations
is trrat xl and X2
values ,cre k:wwn prec! scly rhat all of the uncerof this conditainty is coor.Liw,{ in y, Rt i.o;,rj{{~~n
tion should gttide us in our assignment
of variables
as indepent!cnt
:.1, X2) or dependent (y).
In generai.
the variable
containing
the greatest
uncertainty
Nuuld be the expansion
term in rhe
TABLE

IPOSSIBLE

ASSIGNMENTS
EQuAT ION 4

Dependent
Variable
Y
Method I
Method X
Method JII
(VTM Method)
Method IV

12Z

Expansion
Withdrawals
Withdrawals +
Expansion
Expyxsion +

Far oil reservoir

OF VAPIABLES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.
These

equations

y=rrx,

xl

X2

Withdrawals
Expansion
Influx +
Expansion
Withdrawals

Influx
Influx
-

co

al

- l/G
G
G
B
-

l/G

(9)

. . . . ..m.

.m

, , (10)

.,.

i.e., a straight line with zero intercept,

and a sIope
whose reciprocal
is the amount of hydrocarbon
in
place.
The normal equation for this case has the solution

()

. .(11)

2X2

GN
Coefficients

are of the form

~=~or~=~

Independent
Variables

substitute N for G,

IN

(Rp - ~,i) ~gl + ~p

Also,

~
- B/G
B
.-

SSD=~(y

- ax)2

DETERMINATION
To

calculate
srrc IaTv

= Xy2

aXxy

. , ,(12)

OF THE B/G (OR B/N)

y-values

in these

OF PtiTROLEI:M

RATIO

equations,

EscIxrr~ns

B/G

joua~.~l<

(or B/N) must be assigned a value. In

we will show that this ratio may be
some degree of certainty,
even though
the quantity being trested as unknown in

this section
known with
G (or N) is
the problem.

RADIAL FLOW
The van Everdingen
and Hurst theory
flow assumes
a cylindrical
reservoir
at
of a cylindrical
aquifer. For this ideal
the factor converting dimensionless
influx
is

for radial
the center
geometry,
to volume

2nr~hq5c

bbI/psi,
. . . . . . . (13)
5.61
reservoir radius, ft,
reservoir
thickness,
ft,
reservoir
porosity,
fraction,
and
effect~le
aquifer fluid compressibility,
atm .
The reservoir pore volume is
B=

14,7
where rw =
h =
@ =
c =

fore, as the actual aquifer geometry departs from

the theoretical
model, more and more uncertain y
creeps into our B/G apd B/N ratios. The method
loses ita usefulness,
then, as our ability to specify
these quantities
diminishes,
and we eventually
find
ourselves
in the same status as we were with the
methods discussed
previously unable to choose
the best among a number of combinations
of B and
&.
LINEAR
FLOW
In the case where the petroleum reservoir is contained in one end of a linear aquifer, the relation
between
B and G (or IV) is identical
except for a
factor of 2.0.

C Bgj

B
.
G

G=

V(l-Sw)

rrr~b

B gi
where
before
B
.
G

5.61 Bgi

2 c Bg~

. (15)

. .(16)

14.7(1-SW)

A similar relation
voir; i.e. ,

+(l-SW)

Sw is the water saturation

of the reservoir
water influx. Thus, we have

B
.

holds

for a cylindrical

Boi

14.7( 1-

Swj

1962

. ,(19)
SU,)

HYPOTHETICAL

GAS RESERVOIR

To study the effect of pressure

error on the proposed method, we set up a reservoir-aquifer
system
on paper. The following values were chosen: G =
200 x 106 Mscf, c = 6 x 10-5 atm-l, Sw = .25, AtD
to six months real time), res= 10 (corresponding
ervoir temperature
T = 229 F, gas compressibility
factor z = 1.0 (at aH pressures)
and water production Wp =0 (at all pressures).
Gas formation volume
factors were calculated
by*

. . .(17)

oil reser-

reservoir bbl .
Mscf

where Boi is the oil formation volume factor at rhe

original pressure,
reservoir bbl/STB.
Normally,
good Bgi (or Boi ) values can be established,
Some uncertainty
is associated
with the
compressibility,
however. In the van Everdingen and
Hurst paper, the compressibility
is taken as the
compressibility
of water alone. It is probable, however, that rock compressibility
plays a part in the
ability of most aquifers to deliver water, so that
the value chosen for c ought to be the sum of the
water and pore-volume compressibilities,
The data
of van der Knaap7 are helpful in setting a value on
c.
size
The relationship
between
B and reservoir
(Eqs. 16 and 17) is also valid for radial flow in a
section of a cylinderi.
e., where aquifer and reservoir are shaped like a piece of pie and have a
common center.
If water enters the reservoi~ over only a fraction
of its periphery,
then this fraction should properly
be a factor in Eqs, 16 and 17. Generally,
when this
factor is needed it can only be guessed
at. ThereJUNE.

14.7( 1THE

is

c Boi

B
.

N
Gas in place

. 0(18)

14.7(1-SW)

A completely
atbitrmy
10-year pressure
decline
was chosen by drawing a slightly irregular line on
a plot of pressure vs time, starting with 5,000 psia
at time zero. This pressure
history was now taken
pressure
hiator~
The
to be the exact or true
true influx term X QD Ap was computed from it at
the end of each six-month period for a radial infinite
by
aquifer with AtD = 10, using values presented
Chatas.8
All other quantities
having been specified,
it
was now possible
to solve the material- balance
equation for gaa produced.

P =

J
1

G(Bg - Bgi +

14.%3W)
.J-.
Bg

, . . ..0

~QDAp) . . . . ..

(20)

*The nume-ic presswe factor 14,7 is used for convoreion of

VOIUIZM
to standsxdvolumes, i,e., a %tanderd atmosphere.
Convention on the value of this factor VWie= *Om Piece tOPlece$

gae

123

The resulting
listed in Table

pressure
2.

and production

history

is

INTRODUCTION
OF CONTROLLED
PRESSURE
ERRORS
Errors in the reservoir pressure
data were simulated by picking numbers from a table of random
normal deviates. g Such a table is constructed
so
that the values. have a Gaussian
frequency distribution with ameanof
zero anda standard deviation
of 1.0, Thus each number, multiplied
by a constant
representing
the standard deviation
of the set of
pressure
data being represented,
can be added
algebraically
to the {true pressure
values to propressure
values.
Any set of
duce the incorrect
21 random deviates which had a sttmdard deviation
less than 0.9 or greater than 1.1 was rejected
as
being too atypical. Three aetsof pressure histories
TABLE 2HISTORY

PRODUCTION
ANDTRUE
PRESSURE
OF HYPOTHETICAL
GAS RESERVOIR

Elapsed Time
(years)
o
0.s
100
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3,5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.s
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8,0
8,5
9.0
9.5
10,0

Pressure
(psia)

Gas Produced
(Mscf)

5000
4950
4880
4820
4775
4738
4710
4675
463S
4s00
4540
4507
4486
4480
4479
4460
4420
4360
4313
429S
4285

0
2,399,286.5
6,399,067.2
10,640,296.0
14,647,741,0
18,553,487.0
22,24S,909.0
26,361,478.0
30,911,166.0
36,35 S,249,0
41,543,449.0
46,602,04S.0
51,287,154,0
55,387,806.0
59,188,801.0
63,566,740.0
68,830,219.0
75,086,014.0
81,283,200.0
86,698,117.0
91,783,370,0

TABLE
Elapsed
Time
( years)

MANUFACTURED

PRESSURE

STUDY

True

10*

4996.83
4953.09
4874.73
4810,44
4758,4B
4755.18
4720.83
4677. 3S
4618.98
4585.78
4548.49
4495.97
4490.66
4486,00
4473.43
4465.12
4425.59
4372,81
4315.21
4295.14
4284.83

OF LINE-FITTING

TECHNIQUE

The least-squares
anslysis
of reservoir behavior
could now be carried out, as outlined in Eqs. 8, 10,
11 and 12, The SSD as computed from Eq, 12 was
divided by the square of the maximum value of y
for that particular
trial. The reason for this was to
overcome the effect on SSD of the change in magof
nitude of y as, AtD is changed.
For pwposes
line-fitting,
then, all y values are normalized
to
the range O to 1.0. This normalized SSD is referred
to as SSDn. As before, the values of QD were obtained
from the tables of Chatas 8 for an infinite
radial aquifer, using quadratic
interpolation
when
interpolation
was required.
A calculation
was made with the exact pressure
history and all other parameters
the same as in the
hypothetical
reservoir
(TabIe 4) in order to show
that the SSDn becomes
essentially
zero when all
quantities
are exact. (The SSDn did not turn out to
be exactly zero because
of round-off error in the
HISTORIES

History A

o
5000.00
0.5
4950.00
1.0
4880.00
1,5
4820.00
2.0
4775.00
2.5
4738.00
3.0
4710.00
3*5
4675,00
460
4635.00
4,5
4580,00
5.0
4540.00
5*5
4507.00
600
4486,00
6.5
4480.00
4479.00
7.0
7.5
4460.00
8.0
4420,00
8,5
4360,00
9.0
4313.00
9,5
4295.00
10.0
4285.00
Standard deviation
values.
124

3 -

were synthesized
in this way. Each pressure history
waa assigned two standard deviations
in pressure
10 and 20 psi. We consider these very modest errors
for typical pressure - bomb data at 5,000 psi. The
resulting
six sets of pressure data are shown, along
with the true pressures,
in Table 3.
The greatest
pressure
error generated
by this
process among the six sets of data was -58 psi (Year
7, History B). It is conceivable
that a pressure
this
far off would be detected
and possibly thrown out.
We did not do this, nor did we study the effect of
so doing on the answer. In general, we feel that in
the real situation being simulated here there would
be no justifiable
basis for rejecting any of the pressure data produced. That is, without the benefit of
knowing the true pressure
values, one would have
to regard any of the observed pressures
as being
jusr as valid as any others.

(ALL

PRESSURES

IN PSIA)

History B

History C

20

10*

20*

4956.18
4869.46
4800J)8
4741.96
4772.36
4731.66
4679.70
4602.96
4591,56
4556.98
4484.94
4495.32
4492,00
4467.86
4470.24
4431.10
4385.62
4317.42
4295.28
428S.34

4990.69
4954.25
4882.58
4833.13
4770,2S
4742.44
4702.98
4665.19
4631.35
4579,81
4546.31
4496.80
4470.47
4476,54
4449,81
4461.3B
4426,79
4356,92
4302,01
4307.11
4299.29

4981,38
4958,50
4885.16
4846.26
476S.50
4746.88
4695.96
4655,38
4627.70
4578.82
45S2.62
4486.60
4454.94
4473,08
4420.62
4462.76
4433.58
4353.84
4291.02
4319.22
4313.58

sOCIETY

]0

5005,26
4971,92
4884.97
4815.68
4888.71
4742,69
4725,58
4671.27
4648.37
4563.62
4543.40
4499.79
4497.06
4494.90
4475.42
4465.99
4421.54
4349.93
4310.89
4301 o 1
4277.72

.20 *
5010,52
4993.84
4889.94
4811,36
4802.42
4747.38
4741,16
4667,54
4661.74
4547.24
4S46,80
4492,58
4508.12
4509.80
4471.B4
4471,98
4423,08
4339.86
4308.78
4307.02
4270.44

OF PI+Tll OI. EI IM EXti IX EERS JO II RNAI.

TABLE 4TEST
Dimensionless
Ti~,~
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
:
10

OF METHOD

FOR EXACTPRESSURE

Original Gas
in Place
G (Mscf)
428.7x
370.4
330,0
299,4
274,0
254.9
238.0
223,6
211.0
200,0

10-e

DATA

,069862
,038270
,020217
.012744
.007191
,003827
,001824
,000694
.000152
.000001

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

190.2
181.5
173,6
166,5
160,0
154.0

.000118
,000422
,000855
.001378
,001963
.002588

148,5
143.5
138.S
134+4

.003239
.0s?3909
,004580
.005263
.011539

30

103.1

50

71.8

.020413

100

42.2

.031477

eight-digit
mantissa
of the floating-decimal
arithmetic scheme used. )
Fig, 1 is a plot of SSDa vs assumed AtD for the
computed
using pressure
hypothetical
reservoir,
History A and all other parameters
correct. Irr the
case where the standard deviation
in pressure
is
only 10 psi, a sharp minimum in SSDn occurs for
AtD = 10, the co:rect value. Computed value for G
in this case was 201.76 x 106 Mscf, or about 1 per
cenc above the true value of 200.00 x 10 6, For a
standard deviation of 20 psi, .minimum SSDn occurs
between dtD = 10 and .&D = 11, or for values of G
between
203,58 x 106 and 193.64 x 106. Fig. 2
shows both SSDn and G vs AtD in the neighborhood
of the minimum. The graphicaI
interpolation
illustrated in this figure shows that G at minimum SSDZ
would be 197 x 106 Mscf, or about lx per cent below
the true value.
It might be thought that a rough approximation
to
the line-fitting
could be obtained
graphically.
In
Fig. 3 we show normalized y-values, y/ymax, plotted
against x for three rather widely spaced values of
AtD, pressure History A, standard deviation 20 psi.
Clearly,
the necessity
to discern
straightness
by
eye would make the choice of AtD much less precise
than when we use the statistical
computation,
In Table 5 we show the results of applying the
line - fitting
method to the hypothetical
reservoir
using the correct value of f3/G for the three different pressure histories,
each at standard deviations
of 10 and 20 psi. Jn every case SSDn goes through
a readily discernible
minimum, though not always
at the correct value of AtD. The greatest
error in
the computed value for G is 12% per cent (pressure
History
C, standard
deviation
10 psi). Average
deviation
of G from the correct value for the six
JIJNE, 1962

,.-1

Normalized Sum of
Squerefi of
Deviations
Sstl...

Id*-

:1
c?
:

IO-3-

STD, DEV. IN PRESSURE:

UPPER CURVE
LOWER CURVE

I&

20 PSI
10 PSI

DIMENSIONLESS
I 1 f
r
I

TIME STEP, htD ~

1 1 1 I
1
1
10

L
I(

FIG. l ~(GOODNESS OF FIT ~VS S12E OF DIMENSICJN-.

LESS TIME STEP. HYPOTHETICAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE. HISTORY A.

230 zlo~
;
In
z

220 -

%
a
2

210

0
o

190 -

I 80

- 20 x IO-3

S.!V2

~ 200
m
u
Q

bE
zs

2.5

llvPOTHETICaLRESERVOIR
PRESSUREHISTORYA
sTD DEv. z 20 PSI

0
170

I
10

1(

12

z
i

VALUE OF DIMENSIONLESS TIME STEP ASSUMEDAt.

FIG. 2VARIATION OF SSDn AND COMPUTED GAS

PLACE

WITH SIZE

OF DIMENSIONLESS

TIME

IN
STEP.

x
WITHDRAWALS
FIG. 3
PRESSURE

TERM, %

z- y PLOT,
HYPOTHETICAL
RESERVOIR
HISTORY
A (STANDARD
DEVIATION
= 20
PSI)!
125

GAS.IN. PLACE AND LINE. FIiTiNG PARAMETER vs AIDFOR THREE PRESSURE HISTORIES;
HYPOTHETICAL RESERVOIR WITH B/G KNOWN EXACTLY

TABLE 5--

Prossuro History A

Olm*nslOnl**s
Tlma Stop

!0 psif

A~

G (Mscf)

1
2
3
4
s
6

Sson

:
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
19
20

432,61x10.070729
373*73
,039068
332.96
.022717
302.04
.0133s0
277.42
.007716
257.17
.0042R0
240.14
.002212
225.55
.001031
212.89
.000438
201.76
.000245
191.91
.000327
183,09
.000599
175.15
,001003
\67.95
.001501
161.28
.002061
155,39
,002668
149.85
.003299
144.76
.003953
140,02
.004605
13S.63
.005275

30

104.05

50
100

G (Mscf)

Sson

.011485

73.06
,020131
42.94.100,031039

SSDn

COMPUTING

WITH THE WRONG VALUE

434.30 xlOe
375,38
334.55
303.58
278.90
2S8.59
241.51
226.87
214,16
202.99
193,09
184.24
176.27
169.03
162.43
156.41
1S0.85
14S.72
140.96
136.55

439,96x10@
.038040 380.47
,021233 339,22
.011883 207,90
.006463 282,94
,003323 262,40
.001582 245.10
.000729 230,28
.000462 217,41
.000580 206,09
.000955 196,06
.001s03 187,10
,002168 179,01
,002913 171,67
.003706 164,98
,004526 158,88
.005362 153.24
.006207 148,04
,007042 143.21
.007884 138.74

104.79

.015374

72.96
.025620
42.90x 105.038119

o C. ~ n10-5 (CORREtTVALUEI
4 C.4XI0-5
o C=8XI0-6

,U

d,
.0 -

,9,fl
,

1(7 :

G (Mtcf)

m psi

G (Mscf)

ss~

,078444
.041s83
,023361
,013406
,007764
.004599
.002942
,002230
.002135
.002442
.003009
.003750
.004606
,005536
,006508
.007498
.008500
,009501
.010488
,011473

428. S0,106 ,061096

371.01
,032837
331.01
.01871S
300,62
,010989
276.26
,006636
256.39
,004239
239,S6
,003039
22s, 13
.002696
212.60
.002645
201.57
.003015
191.80
,003590
183,05
.004303
175.17
.005109
168,01
.005972
161.48
.006867
155,52
.007776
150.02
,008691
144,94
,009601
140,23
,010497
135.86
,011392

423.67.106.067374
366.4)
,037069
.021.540
326.69
296.53
.012664
.007429
272.49
252.70
:%%
236.0S
221.78
.001547
209.38
,001149
.001131
198.48
.001364
18E.82
180.18
.001774
.002307
172.40
,00292
165.33
,003589
158.89
,004296
153.00
.005022
147.57
142,57
,005761
137.92
.006498
133.61
,007245

106,51

,020118

104.36

,019213

102,57

74.19
43,64

,031729

72.73

,029726
42,81 x 10s ,042441

71,44
42.02

.045697

.014009
.023462
.035167

exact
6.

value

was used,

as

APPLICATION
AN EXISTING

OF METHOD TO
GAS RESERVOIR

A Gulf Coast gns reservoir

has the pressureproduction
history gi+en in Table 7. In addition,
the following values were used: reservoir
temperature = 2290 F, interstitial
water saturation
= 27.8
per cent, compressibility
(aquifer) = 6 x 10-5 atm 1,
and a standard atmosphere
contains
15.025 psi.
Application
of the line-fitting
method (Fig. 5)
produced a value for gas in place of 180 x 106 Mscf.
A volumetric
estimate
of gas in place was of the
order of 200 x 106 Mscfi
APPLICATION

TO AN OIL RESERVOIR

The material balance on the example oil reservoir used in the VTM paper 4 was computed using
the line-fitting
method of this paper. In Eq. 10 the
variables
are defined as follows: x = Withdrawals
term (Table 2, Part 1, Col. XIV of Ref. 4), and y =
Expansion
+ Influx (Expansion
term is Col. IV of
same table and Influx = B/N ~ QD Ap).
A value for B/N of 1.478 x 10-5 was computed
from Eq. 17, using the following data: c = 6 x 10-5
atm, B~i = 1.5385 reservoir bbl/bbl and Sw = 0.15.
Fig. 6 shows the plot of SSDti vs AtD for this

I,
+

l~l~~,~Jo

K-~;;:&~
13tDj

FIG. 4LINEFITTHSG
AT THREE DIFFERENT VALUES FOR COMPRESSIBILITY, PRESSURE HISTORY A
(STANDARD DEVIATION .20 PSI).
126

-SSDn

OF B/G

The effect of using an incorrect

value for B/G
was studied by inserting values for compressibility
different from the correct value for the hypothetical
reservoir.
Fig. 4 illustrates
the result. A value for
c which is below the correct value gives a minimum
SSDn at a AtD above the correct value, and a value
of c above the correct one gives a AtD beloj c:?
correct
one. These errors are compensating
great degree insofar as the amount of water ini,.. :
is concerned.
In other words, the line-fitting
technique gives the best approx mwion to the true waterinflux schedule,
within the confines of the parameters available.
The values for gas in place chosen by the Iinefitting
method were not noticeably
less accurate
when there was a 30 per cent error in the compres-

G(Mscf)

10 psi*

sibility
than when the
can be seen from Table

is 5?4 per centl

Prcssuro Histery C

20 psi*

valuom

computations

-0

10 pni*

G (Md)

436,57.10.074783
377.13
.042092
335.98
.025098
304.78
.01s28s
279.93
.009324
259.50
.005636
242.31
.003371
227.59
.002028
214.81
.001307
203,S8
.001002
193,64
.000993
184,74
.001186
176,73
.001522
169.46
.Q01959
162,83
.002469
56,78
,003029
151.20
.003620
146.06
.004236
141.28
.004858
126,85
.005497

.01 14S0 104,98

.020238
72.42
42.56x 10.031233

Shmdard doviatim

p,os$ufe Hi StOry

2opsl*

TABLE 6EFFECT OF VALUE ASSUMEO FOR COMPRESSIBILITY ON

COMPUTED RESULTS (STANOARO DEVIATIOh IN PRESSURE = 26 PSI)
P,,SSW. NIS?W C
P,es,we Hlcwy E
P,.,,.,. Hl,tw A

ti Min.
{0?
Cempr?sdblllty
SS9
4. 16+ mm-l
b . 10-S*
z

8 10+
COlr.ci

17
11

*5:>
(Msc9) ~

266. ss x lo~
193.44 II 106
189.S2 x 108

14

v
6

G (Mcef)
.
224.11. 10*
217.41 x 100
222,09 x 10

at Min.

r.son G(M,d)
15
10
7

208.46. W
198,481 106
19s,12 x 10s

Valw.

SO CIEr

OS

PET

SSOLEIIM

EN GIXEEESS

JOtl S4N,\L

.,.

HISTORY
7 _ PRESSURE-PRODUCTION
A GULF COAST GAS RESERVOIR

TABLE

E~,fa~d
M*
o
0,5
1*O
1,5
2.0
2,5
3.0
3,5
4)0
4.5
5.0
5*5
6.0
6.5

Reservoir
Pressure

Gas
Produced
(M%f)

5392
5368
5292
524S
5182
5147
5110
5066
5006
4994
4997
4990
4985
5002

Water
Prop

Assumed Value
far B/t4

(b&)

0
0,677746x
2,952420
5,199568
7,132759
9.196910
11.171529
12.999530
74,769528
16.316950
17.867981
19,416030
21,524783
22,070290

10e

0
3
762
2,054
3,300
4,644
5,945
7,148
8,23S
9,289
10,356
11,424
12,911
13,677

TABLE

AtD at

Min.

3*OX 10-5

Gas
Compresslbillty
Factor
z
1,0530
t,0S16
1,0470
1.0442
1,0404
1.0383
1.0360
1.0328
1.0285
1.0276
1.0278
1.0273
1.0270
1.0280

I
\
\
\
\

-t

10-

a=
.07
w

- aW
1W
-.5

a
g

,.-2

.~
z
G
_lE
I
-w
2
z

,o-kn_L._._J
IINMENSIONLESS

IV at Min.
SSDn

SSDn

1.OX 10-S
1.5X 10-6

OF

10.0

25,6x

10s bbl

6,6
3.3

24.2x

106

21.5x

108

TIME STEP, AtD-

246s10

FIG. SAPPLICATION OF ME.THOD TO AN ACTUAL

RESERVO1l?.
lo-~

reservoir
when the value assumed for B/N was L 5
x 10-5.
In the computation three values of B/iV were used,
as shown with the results
in Table 8. The authors
(VTM) computed a value of N = 25.6 x 106 bbl at a
AtD of 14 as being most probable.
The B/N ratio
turned out to be 0.76 x 10-S, according
to their
computation.

sso~
,.-2

108
\\
t
I

N2

a=

CONCLUSIONS
In many cases a sufficiently
accurate
value for
from :esthe ratio B/G or B/N can be established
ervoir data, as shown in Eqs. 16 through 19. This
allows the writing of the material-balance
equation
(Eqs. 8 and 9) so that it has the following properties.
L It is a straight line through the origin.
2. Its slope is l/G (or I/N).
3. The uncertainty
is isolated
in the dependent
(y) variable,
Least-squares
line-fitting
can then be applied so
as to infer these quantities
from observations
of
pressure
and production
data: (1) G (or N), Eq. 11;
and (2) &D at minimum SSD, Eq. 12.
NOMENCLATURE
B = water

influx

Bg = gas formation
Mscf

constant;

bbl/psi

volume factor,

reservoir

bbl/

B gz. ~ gas formation volume factor,

Mscf at original pressure
B. = oil formation volume factor,
STB

reservoir
~

bbl/

Its3

,.7

:,,,>

{;

10-

~
10

100

A to-

OF METHOD TO OIL RESERVOIR (VTM EXAMPLE).

FIG, 6 APPLICATION

reservoir
Bti

bbl/STB

we-phase)
formation volume factor,
reservoir bbl/STB at original pressure
c = effective aquifer fluid compressibility,
atm-l
G = original gas in place, Mscf
s

total

(t

Gp = gas produced,
b = reservoir
P= reservoir

Mscf

thickness,
pressure,

QD = dimensionless
P

B Oi = oil formation volume factor, reservoir bbl/

STB at original pressure
formation volume factor,
Bt = total (two-phase)

R si

1962

m
z-

bbl/

JUXE,

reservoir

J
m

rw

ft
psia

water

curm.dative (produced)
=
STB
gas-oil ratio
= solution
=

reservoir

radius,

SSD = sum of squares

influx
gas-oiI

ratio,

at original

Mscf/

pressure.

ft
of differences

(between

ob127

served
ble)

and calculated

values

of a varia-

SSDn = normalized

Sw =

value of SSD, obtained by dividing the SSD of a set of observations

by
the maximum value from the set
water saturation of the reservoir before water influx, fraction
reservoir pore volume, bbl

Vp =
we = water influx, reservoir bbl
Wp . water produced, reservoir bbl
y.

independent
variable
dependent variable

z=

gas deviation

x=

MD

= dimensionless

porosity,

factor
time step

fraction
REFERENCES

1. Woods, R. W. and Muskat, M.: An Analysis of Material Balance Calculations ~, Tnzrrs., AIME (1945) Vol.
160, 124.

of
F.: Estimation
2. Brownscornbe, E. R, and Collins,
Reserves and Water Drive from Pressure spd Production History,
Trans,, AIME (1949) Vol. 186, 92.

3, van Everdtngen, A, F, and Hurst, W,: [The Application

of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in
Reservoirs,
~@?/S.,
AIME ( 1949) vol.
186, 305.
4. Stewart, 1?. M., Callaway, F, H, and Glad felter, R. E,:
{ (comparison
of Methods for Analyzing a Water Drive
Field,

Torchlight

Trans., AIME (1954)

5. van Everdingen,

Ten sleep Reaervofr,

Vol. 201, 197.

A. F., Timmerman, E. H, and McMahon,

J. J!: f%plicatiou

of the

to a Partial Water - Drive

( 1953) vol.
198, 51.
6. Mueller,
neous
33.

T.

Wyoming} J,

D.:

Aquifere,

Material Balance Equation

Reservoir,
Trarrs., AIME

Transient
Response of NonhomogeSot. Pet, Etrg, Jour. (March, 1962)

Behavior of ~krStk2
7. van der Knaap, W,: ~,No~inear
Porous Media, Trans., AIME (1959) Vol. 216, 179.
A, T,: lA Practical Treatment of Nonsteady 8. Cktas,
State Flow Problems in Reservoir Systams, Pet. Eng.
Part 1 (May, 1953) B-42; Part 2 (June, 1953) B-3S;
Part 3 (Aug., 1953) B-44,
9. The Rand Corp.:
Normal Derdufes,

Million Random Digits with 100,000

Illinois Free Press (1955).
***