Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Experience with a number of material balance data sets from
the field and from simulation has revealed some procedures
that can be used to improve analysis of both oil and gas
reservoirs:
Failure to account for a weak water drive can result
in material balance errors that are not insignificant.
The assertion of previous authors that a weak water
drive exhibits a negative slope on the Cole Plot (gas)
and Campbell Plot (oil) has been confirmed. A weak
water drive is detected on these plots much more
unambiguously than on other common plots such as
the p z plot for gas.
A Modified version of the Cole Plot is proposed to
account for formation compressibility.
The reservoir drive indices are a useful tool for
determining the correctness of the material balance
solution because they must sum to 1.0. The drive
indices should never be normalized to sum to 1.0
because this obscures their usefulness and leads to a
false sense of security.
A modified version of the Roach Plot (for gas) is
proposed that improves interpretation in some water
drive situations.
Material balance has not been replaced by reservoir
simulation, rather it is complementary to simulation
and can provide valuable insights to reservoir
performance that cannot be obtained by simulation.
Introduction
Material balance is one of the fundamental tools of reservoir
engineering. Many authors have addressed the difficult
J. L. PLETCHER
Gas Reservoirs
Cole Plot. The Cole Plot7,9 is a useful tool for distinguishing
between water drive and depletion drive gas reservoirs. The
plot is derived from the general material balance equation for
gas reservoirs:
term is not zero and the points will plot above the depletion
driveline, usually with some type of slope. In other words, the
existence of a sloping line versus a horizontal line is a
valuable diagnostic tool for distinguishing between depletion
drive and water drive.
Cole and others have suggested that the sloping water
drive line can be extrapolated back to the Y-intercept to obtain
the OGIP. However, the slope is usually changing with each
plotted point, thus the correct slope for extrapolation is very
difficult to establish, so this method for estimating OGIP is not
recommended. This does not, however, detract from the plots
qualitative value in establishing that the reservoir is under
water drive as opposed to depletion drive.
Dake7 showed two types of sloping Cole Plots in his
Figure 6.6, a strong water drive curve and a moderate
water drive curve. The plots are depicted here in Fig. 1.
SPE 62882
OGIP
Strong
Water Drive
Moderate
Water Drive
Depletion Drive
Weak
Water Drive
Gp, MSCF
F = Gp Bg + Wp Bw , ...................................................(2)
Eg is cumulative gas expansion,
Eg = Bg Bgi , .............................................................(3)
and Efw is cumulative formation and water expansion:
E fw = Bgi
S wi cw + c f
1 S wi
( pi p ) ..................................(4)
=G +
We W p Bw
Bg Bgi
.......................................(5)
G p Bg
Bg Bgi
on the
G p Bg
amounts to the apparent OGIP that
Bg Bgi
SPE 62882
Et
from formation (and water) compressibility as well as gas
expansion. The Modified Cole Plot consists of plotting F on
Et
the Y-axis versus Gp on the X-axis. Vertically, the points will
lie closer to the true value of OGIP than the original plot.
In reservoirs where formation compressibility is a
significant contributor to reservoir energy, such as abnormally
pressured reservoirs, the original Cole Plot will exhibit a
negative slope even if no water drive is present. The Modified
version, however, will plot in a horizontal line, assuming the
correct value of cf is used in calculating the F term. Thus,
Et
constructing both the original and modified Cole Plots will
distinguish between those reservoirs that are subject to both a
weak aquifer and significant formation compressibility and
those reservoirs where formation compressibility is significant
but there is no aquifer attached: for the former, both plots will
have a negative slope, and for the latter the original Cole Plot
will have a negative slope while the Modified plot will be
horizontal. This assumes, of course, that formation
compressibility is known with certainty, which is often
problematical itself.
Actually, negative slopes in the original and Modified Cole
Plots can result from any unaccounted-for source of energy
that is decreasing with time relative to gas expansion. This
could include, for example, communication with other
depleting reservoirs.
Drive Indices. Drive indices have been defined for oil
reservoirs13 to indicate the relative magnitude of the various
energy forces contributing to the reservoir. Similarly, drive
indices can be defined for gas reservoirs as follows:
Gas drive index:
GDI =
GE g
G p Bg
CDI =
GE fw
G p Bg
J. L. PLETCHER
6000
After 2 yrs.
(Cum.=11%)
G=109 BCF
5000
After 5 yrs.
(Cum.=27%)
G=107 BCF
4000
After 10 yrs.
(Cum.=54%)
G=105 BCF
3000
2000
SPE 62882
120
Original
115
Modified
110
105
100
0
1000
20
40
60
80
Gp, BCF
Fig. 3--Cole Plot, original and modified, for 2-cell gas simulation.
20
40 60 80
Gp, BCF
100
SPE 62882
p p GB gi (S wi c w + c f )
F
=G+ i
+ (c w + c f )W
1 S wi
Eg
Eg
.........................................................................................(9)
F
p p
on the Y-axis versus i
on the X-axis
Eg
Eg
Plotting
Slope
W=
GB gi
(S wi c w + c f )
1 S wi
.......................(10)
cw + c f
where G and the slope are obtained from the least square fit
straight line.
Fig. 4 shows the Pot Aquifer Plot for the 2-cell gas
simulation example and values of OGIP obtained from
extrapolation of straight lines fitted to the data using the
method of least-squares, assuming the analyses had been
performed at various times throughout the reservoirs history.
Early-time points typically plot below the true straight line
that eventually develops. After 2 years of performance, the
true line would not yet be apparent and an analysis would
include points from years 1 and 2, giving a value for OGIP
about 4% too high. Analyses conducted after 5 and 10 years
would have excluded the year 1 data from the least square fit.
In all cases, the OGIP values are significantly improved over
those obtained from the p z plot.
After 2 yrs.
(Cum.=11%)
G=105 BCF
After 5 yrs.
(Cum.=27%)
G=102 BCF
After 10 yrs.
(Cum.=54%)
G=101 BCF
F/E g, MSCF
1.18E+08
1.12E+08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.06E+08
10
End of
Year
Y-int.=G
1.00E+08
0
4000
8000
12000
P/Eg, psi-MSCF/RB
16000
c f = Slope
1 S wi
S wi c w ................................... (11)
GB gi
J. L. PLETCHER
6000
Conventional
p/z, psia
5000
SPE 62882
GBgi
(1 S wi )
5,440,000 MSCF 0.5770 RB / MSCF
(1 .3)
= 4.484 MMRB
7,500,000
Original
7,000,000
6,500,000
6,000,000
5,500,000
5,000,000
Modified
Conventional
4000
Modified
Gp, MSCF
Modified
3000
2000
7,500,000
1000
7,000,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
Gp, MSCF
Fig. 5--p/z plot, Oklahoma Morrow gas reservoir.
The Cole and Modified Cole Plots are shown in Fig. 6 and
exhibit the characteristic negative slope of a weak water drive
system. Therefore, the Pot Aquifer Plot was used to determine
OGIP and aquifer size, Fig. 7. OGIP of 5.44 BCF results from
the extrapolation of the least square fit to the 3 data points (R2
= 0.934), thus the p z extrapolation gave a value nearly 11%
too high even after being modified for formation
compressibility.
The slope of the Pot Aquifer Plot, 58 RB/psi, was used to
calculate a value for cf using Eq. 11 of 12 10-6 psi-1, much
greater than the estimated value of 3 10-6 psi-1 and too high
for hard rock country. Therefore, the estimated cf = 3 10-6
F/Eg, MSCF
6,500,000
6,000,000
5,500,000
OGIP=5,440,000 MSCF
5,000,000
0
( p z )i ( p z ) 1
pi p
1 ( p z )i ( p z ) G p
G
pi p
S c + cf
W Wp Bw
wi w
+ e
( pi p )GBgi
1 S wi
....................(12)
( p z )i ( p z ) 1 ,
12,
( p z )i
on
pi p
( p z ) G p
pi p
the
Y-axis
versus
pi p
Conventional:
y = 1.042E-05x - 1.082E-04
0.00020
R2 = 9.997E-01
0.00016
Modified:
y = 9.853E-06x - 9.645E-05
R2 = 9.999E-01
0.00012
Conventional
Modified
0.00008
18
22
26
30
( p z )i ( p z ) 1
change and the plotted points will have a constant and correct
slope. The method is demonstrated using a simulation
example.
Simulation Model. The gas model described previously
was modified to give a much stronger aquifer. The water-filled
cell was removed, and aquifer strength was provided by
attaching a Fetkovich-type aquifer18 to the single cell gas
reservoir. Aquifer OWIP was 633 MMRB, or 10 times the
hydrocarbon pore volume. Aquifer P.I. was set to a high value,
485 RB/day/psi, and compressibility was set to 9 10-6 psi-1
(sum of cw and cf). The model was run for 10 years as before.
Simulation results and PVT data are given in Table 8, and the
conventional and modified Roach Plots are shown in Fig. 8.
Plotted points migrate upward and to the right with time.
[ (p/z)i/(p/z) - 1 ] / (pi-p), psi-1
SPE 62882
( p z )i ( p z ) G p +
pi p
W p Bw
Bgi
......(13)
S wi c w + c f
cw + c f W
+
.
GBgi
1 S wi
( p z )i ( p z ) G p +
The X-axis plotting term becomes
W p Bw
Bgi
pi p
and the Y-axis term is the same as before. All the terms in
brackets are now constant, thus the Y-intercept does not
J. L. PLETCHER
F = N p B t + B g R p R si
)]+ W p B w , .............(15)
Et is total expansion,
Et = Eo + mEg + Efw , ...............................................(16)
SPE 62882
Eo = Bt Bti , .............................................................. 17
Bti
B g B gi , ...............................................(18)
B gi
S wi cw + c f
1 S wi
Strong
Water Drive
F / Et , STB
Eg =
OOIP
Moderate
Water Drive
Depletion Drive
Weak
Water Drive
(pi p ) , ..........................(19)
and m is the ratio of initial gas cap volume to initial oil zone
volume, at reservoir conditions. Bt is total formation volume
factor:
Bt = Bo + Bg (Rsi Rs ) ...............................................(20)
F , RB
Fig. 9 --Campbell Plot curve shapes.
SPE 62882
60,000,000
F / Et, RBL
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
0
12,000,000
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
F, RBL
8,000,000
F, RB
210,000,000
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
Et, RB/STB
0.3
0.4
170,000,000
F / Eo , STB
4,000,000
130,000,000
90,000,000
50,000,000
10,000,000
0
Y-int.=
OOIP
20,000
40,000
60,000
p / Eo , psi-STB/RB
DDI =
NEo
Hydrocarbo n Voidage
SDI =
NmE g
Hydrocarbon Voidage
10
J. L. PLETCHER
WDI =
We W p B w
Hydrocarbon Voidage
N (1 + m )E fw
Hydrocarbon Voidage
SPE 62882
SPE 62882
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Subscripts
bp = bubble point
f = formation
fw = formation and water
g = gas
i = initial
o = oil
p = cumulative produced
s = solution
t = total
w = water
Acknowledgments
I thank Marathon Oil Company for permission to publish this
paper following my retirement, particularly Jim Gilman for his
special efforts. Teresa Schaller ran the oil simulation case
presented in the paper. Stuart Cox provided the Morrow Gas
data and consulted on the interpretation. Lois Fitzpatrick
provided valuable help with formatting this paper.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
11
12
J. L. PLETCHER
SPE 62882
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pressure,
psia
Factor,
z
Bg,
RB/MSCF
Bw,
RB/STB
6411
1.1192
0.6279
1.0452
5947
1.0890
0.6587
1.0467
5509
1.0618
0.6933
1.0480
5093
1.0374
0.7327
1.0493
4697
1.0156
0.7778
1.0506
4319
0.9966
0.8300
1.0517
3957
0.9801
0.8910
1.0529
3610
0.9663
0.9628
1.0540
3276
0.9551
1.0487
1.0551
9
10
2953
2638
0.9467
0.9409
1.1532
1.2829
1.0560
1.0571
p/z
Modified for cf
Modified
Cole Plot
% err.
% err.
% err.
11
109.0
8.2
<108.9
<8.0
105.3
4.5
27
54
107.3
104.8
6.5
4.0
<107.2
<104.4
<6.3
<3.6
101.6
101.0
0.8
Year
0.895
0.064
0.959
1.005
0.903
0.059
0.962
1.001
0.912
0.055
0.967
1.000
0.922
0.050
0.972
0.999
0.932
0.046
0.978
1.000
0.942
0.042
0.984
1.000
0.951
0.038
0.989
1.000
0.960
0.034
0.994
1.000
0.969
0.030
0.999
1.000
10
0.977
0.027
1.004
1.001
cf = 3 x 10 psi
-6
-1
cw = 3 x 10 psi
Sw = .3
-2
72
0.849
0.080
0.929
0.767
0.167 0.072
1.007
237
332
0.886
0.959
0.060
0.048
0.946
1.007
0.801
0.868
0.126 0.055
0.101 0.043
0.982
1.012
0.2
WDI
Pot Aquifer
Plot
Year
GDI
CDI
Total
GDI
0.916
0.066
0.982
0.868
0.073 0.062
1.003
Total
0.924
0.061
0.985
0.875
0.068 0.057
1.000
0.934
0.056
0.990
0.885
0.062 0.053
1.000
0.944
0.051
0.996
0.894
0.057 0.049
1.000
0.954
0.047
1.001
0.904
0.052 0.045
1.000
Yr.
Pres.,
psia
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6411
6130
5849
5565
5280
4992
4700
4403
4101
3787
3459
0
2,163
9,293
22,286
43,807
78,152
132,011
219,211
358,536
607,252
1,034,275
1.1192
1.1008
1.0828
1.0652
1.0482
1.0316
1.0158
1.0005
0.9865
0.9731
0.9610
0.6279
0.6459
0.6659
0.6885
0.7141
0.7434
0.7774
0.8174
0.8653
0.9243
0.9994
1.0452
1.0460
1.0470
1.0478
1.0488
1.0496
1.0505
1.0515
1.0524
1.0534
1.0544
SPE 62882
Days
0
305
700
1285
1465
2005
2365
2905
3235
3595
Pres.,
psia
2855
2779
2627
2457
2402
2223
2080
1833
1665
1460
Pres.,
psia
Bo ,
Rs ,
Bg ,
Bt ,
Bw ,
RB/STB MSCF/STB RB/MSCF RB/MSCF RB/STB
2855
2779
2627
2457
2402
2223
2080
1833
1665
1460
1.2665
1.2677
1.2681
1.2554
1.2512
1.2383
1.2278
1.2074
1.1949
1.1802
0.501
0.501
0.4973
0.4671
0.4574
0.4269
0.4024
0.3579
0.3277
0.2908
0.9201
0.9637
1.0502
1.0977
1.1146
1.2010
1.2825
1.4584
1.6112
1.8526
1.2665
1.2677
1.2720
1.2926
1.2998
1.3273
1.3543
1.4161
1.4741
1.5696
1.0222
1.0224
1.0228
1.0232
1.0233
1.0237
1.0240
1.0246
1.0250
1.0254
DDI
CDI
Total
DDI
WDI
CDI
Total
305
0.151
0.405
0.556
0.100
0.700
0.269
1.069
700
0.209
0.368
0.577
0.139
0.636
0.244
1.019
1285
0.454
0.293
0.747
0.301
0.506
0.194
1.001
1465
0.489
0.282
0.771
0.325
0.486
0.187
0.998
2005
0.582
0.256
0.838
0.386
0.442
0.170
0.998
2365
0.643
0.240
0.883
0.427
0.415
0.160
1.001
2905
0.739
0.214
0.953
0.491
0.369
0.142
1.002
3235
3595
0.806
0.892
0.196
0.174
1.001
1.065
0.535
0.592
0.336
0.290
0.130
0.115
1.001
0.998
13