SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 18764

A Mathematical Model of Edgewater and Bottomwater Drives for

Water Influx Calculations
by J.S. Olarewaju, Texas A&M U.
SPE Member

· Copyright 1989, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE California Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, April 5-7, 1989.

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 Petroleum 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.lllustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
:>f where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a new water influx model
that includes either edgewater drive, bottomwater
drive or a combination of both. The solutions are
presented graphically in form of dimensionless
groups which make the solutions applicable to a wide
range of systems. Using the classical superposition
technique, an example application of the water influx
solution to data from a waterdrive oil reservoir is
presented.
INTRODUCTION
Petroleum reservoir drive mechanisms are often
associated in some form or another with formation
waters. Reservoir drive mechanisms may be from the
expansion of connate water within the gas or oil
reservoir or from an external aquifer at the edge of the
reservoir, or from an underlying aquifer. High
permeability reservoirs are often in contact with an
aquifer that provides pressure support through water
influx. A drop in the reservoir pressure due to fluid
production causes the aquifer water to expand and
flow into the reservoir. Hence, the prediction of the
behavior of such reservoirs usually requires an
accurate model of the reservoir-aquifer system.
Reservoir-aquifer systems can be classified on the
basis of. flow geometry as either edgewater or
bottomwater drive. In edgewater drive, water moves
into the flanks of an oil reservoir as oil is produced.
Bottomwater drive occurs in reservoirs with large
areal extent and gentle dip where the oil-water-
contact completely underlies the oil reservoir. van
Everdingen and Hurst's solutionl, which is
References and illustrations at the end of the paper
essentially a solution to the unsteady-state diffusivity
equation, is only for edgewater drive and not valid for
bottomwater drive. Their model does not account for
water influx in the vertical direction from an
underlying aquifer. Coats2 presented a mathematical
model that takes into account the vertical flow effects
from bottomwater aquifers. He correctly noted that in
many cases reservoirs are situated on top of an
aquifer with a continuous horizontal interface
between the reservoir fluid and the aquifer water and
with a significant aquifer thickness. He stated that in
such situations significant bottomwater drive will
occur. Coat's model, however, is only applicable to
infinite aquifers and pressure rather than influx
solution was presented. Other popular methods used
for calculating water influx include the steady-state
method of Schilthus3 and the pseudosteady-state
model of Fetkovitch4 which are only applicable to a
limited range of flow conditions or reservoir-aquifer
geometries. An aquifer model that is valid for all flow
regimes and include the effect of radial edgewater and
vertical bottomwater drive in finite system is
necessary to produce an accurate match of production
history when using the material balance equation to
perform an aquifer fitting. A wrong estimate of
aquifer size would result if an inadequate model is
used.
The analytical model presented in this paper is a
solution of the unsteady-state diffusivity equations for
radial and vertical flow. The solution presented in this
paper is valid for either edgewater drive, bottomwater
drive or a combination of both. It is applicable to both
finite and infinite aquifers. The solution presented by.
van Everdingen and Hurst is a special case of the
analytical solution presented in this paper.

165
 A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF EDGEWATER AND BOTI'OMWATER DRIVES FOR
2 WATER INFLUX CALCULATIONS
Using this analytical model, dimensionless
water influx solution was generated and presented in
graphical form. The paper presents the effects of
varying the thickness of the underlying aquifer, and
the radius of the edgewater aquifer on the
dimensionless water influx solution. Using the
classical superposition technique, an example
application of the water influx solution and the
material balance equation to data from a waterdrive
reservoir from Nigeria is presented. A trial and error
procedure was used to perform an aquifer fit resulting
in estimates of aquifer size and original oil in place.
The paper presents possible error that would result if
an edgewater model is used to perform an aquifer fit
on a reservoir-aquifer system with both edgewater and
bottomwater drive.
DESCRIPTION OF FLOW EQUATIONS
Fig. 1 presents an idealized illustration of the
reservoir-aquifer system studied in this paper. The
reservoir is located on the top of an aquifer and is also
radially enclosed by an edgewater aquifer. The
reservoir layer is of thickness h 1 , permeability k 1 , and
porosity 1 ; contains a fluid of small and constant
<1>
compressibility ctl and viscosity Ill· Fluid flow in the
reservoir is considered to be radial, converging to the
wellbore which is located at the center. The
bottomwater aquifer is of thickness h 2 , permeability
k 2 , porosity q, 2 , contains water of compressibility ct 2
and viscosity J..L 2 . The edgewater aquifer is of radius re,
radially enclosing the reservoir which is of radius r 0 .
The edgewater volume occupying the region (r e -r 0 )
flows radially from the aquifer into the reservoir and
has identical properties with the bottomwater aquifer.
Two systems of partial differential equations are
used to model this problem. The first system governs
flow in the reservoir system. The second system
governs vertical water influx from the underlying
aquifer. The edgewater influx is accounted for by
using a constant pressure boundary at the reservoir-
aquifer interface.
The partial differential equations governing flow
in this system are derived in Appendix A. The
dimensionless partial differential equation governing
flow in the reservoir-aquifer system is given by
where
to 0.000263kh t
<I>J..Lch r~ .............. 2
166
SPE 18764
...............3
Initial Condition
pm(ro,O) = 0 ...............4
Inner Boundary Condition
At the reservoir boundary, a constant pressure
boundary is imposed to model pressure maintenance
due to water influx.
. pm(l,to) = 1 .............. 5
Outer Boundary oondition
A no-flow outer boundary condition is used at the
edg~water aquifer outer boundary to impose a finite
aquifer effect.
................ 6
The system of partial differential equ~tions,
initial and boundary conditions were solved us1n~ the
Laplace transformation technique a~d . mo~Ifi'::d
Bessel functions. The details of the denvabon ~s
presented in Appendix A. The resulting solut~on 1n
Laplace space is the dimensionless water Influx
which was numerically inverted using the Stehfe~t5
algorithm. This water influx solution is coupled w1~h
the oil material balance equation for reservoir
engineering calculations.
MATERIAL BALANCE EQUATION
In reservoirs producing by waterdrive
mechanism the material balance equation can be
derived by ~onsidering that the total fluid withdrawal
measured at reservoir conditions must equal the sum
of the expansion of oil and its dissolved gas, reduction
in hydrocarbon pore volume due to connate water
expansion and decrease in pore volume, and water
influx. ·
The material balance equation can be mathematically
expressed as
............... 7
where wt is the cumulative total fluid withdrawal at
reservoir condition Na is the total expansion of oil,
free gas, connate water and rock, and We is the
cumulative water influx.
SPE 18764 JOSEPHS. OLAREWAJU
The total underground withdrawal term can be
expressed as :
W = N fB + {Rp-Rsb)Bgl + W
t It t 5.615 J p .............. 8
.............. 9
The total expansion of oil, free gas, connate water
and rock is given by :
Na = NB)~-
L
1 + Cf+ SwcCwAp + rn(~- 1)~
1-Swc
Boi ~ Bgi .......... 10
where a is the expansion factor and N is the original
oil in place.
The total cumulative water influx is given by
n-1
We= UL ApjWeo(to-toj)
j=O ............. 11
............. 12
where U is the aquifer constant, WeD is the
dimensionless water influx . solution from the
analytical solution presented in this paper and Ap is
the pressure drop at oil-water-contact. Eq.10 above is
used to compute cumulative water influx
corresponding to a continuous pressure decline at the
reservoir aquifer boundary. The continuous pressure
decline is divided into a series of discrete pressure
steps. WeD is computed for each step using the
analytical solution, and the superposition of the series
of influxes with time yielding the cumulative water
influx. This variable pressure approach is necessary
in order to apply the solution in history matching of
observed field production.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Table 1 presents a comparison of the solution
generated from the analytical model presented in this
paper for a reservoir with edgewater drive with the
van Everdingen and Hurst's solution. The table shows
that the edgewater drive solution(z0 =0) is identical to
the van Everdingen and Hurst's solution.
Fig. 2 presents several dimensionless water
influx solution curves for edgewater aquifers with
differen1r values of re/r 0 . These solution curves are
exactly identical to the solutions originally presented
by van Everdingen and Hurst. The time at which
pseudosteady-state. water influx is reached increases
with increase in re/r 0 . Table 3 presents the
dimensionless water influx solution for a reservoir-
aquifer system with both bottomwater and edgewater
drive. This figure was generated using the analytical
model for four different values of z0 , which is a
measure of bottomwater thickness. The upper line
167
3
(z 0 =0) is equivalent to the van Everdingen and Hurst's
solution for edgewater system with no bottomwater
drive. Fig. 3 shows that for a fixed re'r0 , the time at
which pseudosteady-state is reached increases with
increase in the thickness of the underlying aquifer.
Fig. 3 demonstrates that the water influx behavior for
reservoir-aquifer systems with additional bottomwater
drive is quite different from those having only
edgewater aquifer. A relatively small aquifer system
compared to the reservoir size (re/r 0 =1.1) was
simulated in this figure and therefore system
pseudosteady-state is reached at a very early time
(t0 <0.01). Consequently the maximum water influx at
pseudosteady-state was a small value.
Fig. 4 presents the behavior of the water influx
solution for different thicknesses of the underlying
aquifer, and for edgewater aquifer size of re'r0 =2. The
dimensionless water influx solutions for all the cases
in the figure are in the infinite-acting flow regime
until approximately t 0 = 1. The difference between the
curves is due to additional influx from bottomwater
drive. The dimensionless water influx at
pseudosteady state is much higher than those
presented for re'r0 =1.1 on the previous figure because
the aquifer system is larger. Figs. 5 and 6 present the
dimensionless water influx for re'r 0 = 4,6,8 and 10.
Since the effects of the depth of bottomwater drive on
water influx ends before the beginning of
pseudosteady-state flow the early time solutions are
exactly identical. The solution for the different values
of z0 are infinite-acting until deviation is seen for
re'r0 =6.
These dimensionless water influx solutions can
be used for computing water influx in material
balance calculations.
MATERIAL BALANCE HISTORY MATCHING
History matching is a technique widely used
today in reservoir engineering studies. It is a process
of modifying the input data into a reservoir model
until a reasonable comparison is obtained between the
observed data and the simulated. This step is
necessary before any prediction of reservoir
performance can be made assuming same
mechanism which were operative in the history
period of the reservoir will still be operative in the
prediction period. The history matching process could
be performed by either a trial and error procedure or
could be automated by using a computer. Automatic
history matching techniques6 widely used in well
testing could be adapted to aquifer material balance
history matching as well. This paper applied the time
consuming trial and error procedure.
In aquifer fitting using the material balance
equation, the aim is to determine the aquifer
parameters and the orig!.nal oil in place that would
 A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF EDGEWATER AND BOITOMWATER DRIVES FOR
4 WATER INFLUX CALCUlATIONS
match the observed production history. Eq. 7 states
that the total fluid withdrawal is a function of oil in
place, expansion factor , and cumulative water influx.
........................ 13
These parameters can be varied either singly or
collectively to minimize the differences between the
observed data and those calculated from the analytical
model and the material balance equation. Only two of
these parameters are varied in the history matching
examples presented in this paper because of the
inefficiency of the trial and error process. The two
parameters varied are: refr 0 , ratio of aquifer radius
to reservoir radius and N, original oil in place. An
automatic history matching procedure will enable an
engineer to vary many more of the important
variables and perform a more efficient history
matching.
The material balance equation coupled with the
new analytical model can be used to predict oil
production from the reservoir-aquifer system if oil-in-
place, aquifer and PVT properties are known. The
analytical model is used to compute We' and a, the
expansion factor is calculated from the PVT
properties. Np can be calculated form the generalized
material balance equation given by
N rB {Rp-Rsb}Bg] W
It t + 5.615 + p = This example· was taken from an oil reservoir located
NBo{l!!._ _ 1 + Cf + SwcCw L\p + m(~
Boi 1-Swc Bgi
_1 ~~~ +
n-1
uL, ApjWeo(to-tDj}
j=Q ............. 14
In history matching, the calculated Np is compared
with the actual oil production data and if the error
vector is large, the input parameters are adjusted and
Np recalculated.
APPLICATION
In this section, example application of the water
influx model will be presented. The first example was
taken from Exercise 9.2 of the fundamentals of
reservoir engineering textbook by Dake 7 The purpose
of this example is to further validate the analytical
model and show that the model includes the van
Everdingen and Hurst's solution. Table 2 presents the
reservoir and PVT data. Using the trial and error
approach in varying re'ro, the production data was
matched. The final result indicates the best match is
obtained with re'r0 = 5. This agrees with the result in
Dake's textbook. Table 2 presents the intial match
with re'r0 =10. This match is unacceptable because the
error is as high as 30%. Table 3 presents the final
match and shows an excellent match with maximum
error of less than 2%. The calculated water influxes in
both Tables 2 and 3 agree with Dake's solution.
168
SPE 18764
Table 4 presents a simulated example of water
influx from a system with combined edgewater and
bottomwater drive. The reservoir, aquifer, and PVT
data are presented. This is an example of using the
model to forecast the production from a new water
drive reservoir when the reservoir-aquifer properties
are known. If the pressure at the oil-water-contact
and the PVT data can be predicted, the model
presented in this paper can be used to perform a
reservoir performance prediction.
The simulated data presented in Table 4 was
matched using an option of the model that only
considers edgewater influx. The result is presented in
Table 5. This example is equivalent to matching a data
set from a reservoir with combine edgewater and
bottomwater drives with a model that only considers
edgewater influx. The data was matched fairly well
with the edgewater model but the result obtained was
wrong. A value of 7.61 was obtained for re/r0 from the
match. This interprets to an aquifer radius of 69,920ft
or an aquifer covering 352,585 acres. The true input
data is re'r 0 =1.1 This implies that when a model that
considers edgewater drive only is used for matching
data from a reservoir with complete water drive, a
ridiculously large aquifer size will be obtained. This
might also affect the value of original oil in place or
other aquifer properties if they had been used in the
history matching process.
An actual field example is presented in Table 6.
in the south eastern part of Nigeria, West Africa. The
reservoir drive mechanism is mainly water drive.
Reservoir and fluid PVT data are available from some
representative wells draining this reservoir. Five
years of production data are also available. The first
objective of the study is to estimate the original oil in
place and aquifer size by history matching the
production history. The second objective is to use the
result of the history match to perform a five-year
production forecast.
After several guesses for re/r 0 and N, a final
acceptable match was obtained. Table 6 shows the
final result: N=4.4 x 107 and re/r 0 =10.914. The
maximum error between the calculated and the
observed is less than 0.5% which indicates an
excellent match.
The second step is to predict performance from
the reservoir assuming the water drive mechanism
will still be operative during the prediction period. To
start with, a forecast of the pressure at the oil water
contact, producing gas oil ratio, solution gas oil ratio,
oil and gas formation volume factor, and water
production should be made. These forecasts can be
made based on reservoir engineering experience,
knowledge of the reservoir drive mechanism,
reservoir fluid properties and phase behavior. Such a
PVT forecast is presented in Table 7. Using the
parameters obtained from history matching
(N=4.4x107,re'r0 =10.914) in the analytical model, a five
SPE 18764 JOSEPH S. OI.AREWAJU 5

year production forecast was made. The result is Cumulative gas oil ratio,scflstb
presented in Table 7. The forecast shows that Solution gas oil ratio,scflstb
13.57MMstb of oil which is 30.8% of original oil in
place would be recovered from the reservoir in ten Connate water saturation,fractions
years. Water influx, bbl
h 2/r0 ,dimensionless bottomwater thickness
CONCLUSIONS
Wen Dimensionless water influx
This paper presents a rigorous analytical model
of edgewater and bottomwater influx. Solutions are Wp Cumulative water production, bbl
presented in dimensionless form which can be used to U Water influx constant,bbl/psi
compute water influx in material balance
calculations. Greek Symbols
Yg Gas gravity
The van Everdingen and Hurst's solution is a
special case of the analytical model presented in this ll Viscosity, cp
paper. The new solution in this paper is identical to 11 Diffusivity
their solution when zn=O. This paper also shows that
the water influx behavior of reservoir-aquifer systems Subscripts and Superscripts
having additional bottomwater drive is different from
those having only edgewater aquifer. b Bubblepoint
D Dimensionless
o Oil
When a model that considers edgewater only, is i Initial
used to match production history data from a w Water
reservoir with both edgewater and bottomwate'r g Gas
drives, a ridiculously large aquifer size could result. 1 Reservoir
This might also affect the value of other aquifer 2 Bottomwater aquifer
properties and even original oil in place if estimated
during the match. REFERENCES
The analytical model and the material balance 1. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.:
equation can be used to match field data and "Application of Laplace Transformation to
determine oil in place and aquifer parameters. The Flow Problems In Reservoirs,"
history match results can be used to predict reservoir Trans.,AIME(1949) 186,305-24.
performance.
2. Coats, K. H.: "A Mathematical Model for
Water Movement About Bottom-Water-Drive
Reservoirs," SPEJ (March 1962) 44-52; Trans,
AIME,225.
NOMENCLATURE
3. Schilthius, R.J.:"Active Oil and Reservoir
Expansion factor Energy," Trans, AIME (1936) 118,37-52.
Drainage area, acres
Formation volume factor,rb/stb 4. Fetkovitch, M. J.:"A Simplified Approah to
Isothermal compressibility, /psi Water Influx Calculations. Finite Aquifer
Pore compressibility, /psi Systems," JPT (July 1971) 814-28
Total compressibility, /psi
5. Stehfest, H.: Numerical Inversion of Laplace
9/360,enchroachment angle ratio Transforms," Communications of the ACM
Net pay, ft (January 1970) 13, No. 1, 47-49.
Permeability ,md
Ratio of initial HCPV of gascap to that of oil 6. Olarewaju J. S.: "Analytical Modeling of
Stock tank oil initially in place, stb Composite and Layered Reservoir Systems,"
Cumulative oil production, bbl Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University,
Pressure, psi College Station, TX (Aug. 1988)
Dimensionless pressure
7. Dake, L. P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir
Initial reservoir pressure,psi Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Radial distance,ft Co., New York City (1978) 315-24
Aquifer external radius,ft
Dimensionless radius
reD Dimensionless external aquifer radius
r0 Reservoir external radius, ft

169
 A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF EDGEWATER AND BOTI'OMWATER DRIVES FOR
6 WATER INFLUX CALCUlATIONS SPE 18764

APPENDIX A Taking the inverse Laplace transformation of

the above solution and taking the derivative yields
The solution to the partial differential
equations describing flow in the reservoir/aquifer
system is presented in this section.
(A- 9)
The differential equation governing flow in
the reservoir and edgewater system is given by
Using the dimensionless variable definitions,
(J..L ¢ ct h)l apl
(A-1) 0.0002637 kh t
k h at (A-ll)
1 1 2
(J..L ¢ ct h) r
0
where q is the source term due to water influx from
the underlying aquifer. It is the volumetric rate
per unit volume of the aquifer. This source term k2 h2
a = (A-12)
is described by a convolution to account for
kh
unsteady-state vertical water influx. The source
term q can be expressed as
(¢ ct h \
w = (A-13)
t
J ~ (r) q (t - r) dr (A-2) ~h)
0
ar
Eq. (A- 9) becomes
where

k
2
A V·~pjz=h (A-14)
q " (V·~p)interface (A- 3) 2
~""2

where
q is the fluid transfer rate per unit pressure drop
and unit aqu.ifer ~ol~me (V·~p) i terfac is the
pressure grad~ent w~th~n the aqu~¥er eva1..uated at 2 2
e-(2n+l) n AD t /4
the reservoir/bottomwater aquifer interface and is F (AD' tD) = 2 AD ~
obtained from solving the vertical water influx n=O
differential equation. The reservoir flow equation
becomes Substituting for V'·~p in Eq. (A-4) and
transforming (A-4) into dimensionless form yields
(J..L ¢ ct h \ apl
k h at
1 1

V·~p (t - r) dr (A-4)
(A-15)
The bottomwater aquifer flow equation is given
where
by
__w_
2 (A-16)
a ~P2 (J..L ¢ ct h)2 a ~p2 x::l = 1 - a
(A-5)
az k
2
h
2
at
hD (1 - w)
x::2 (1 - a) (A-17)
This differential equation is solved for ~p, and
then differentiated to give V·~p which is combined
r
with equation (A-4). rD = r (A-18)
0
The boundary conditions for the bottomwater
aquifer equation are Inner Boundary Condition:
A~ the inner boundary it is assumed that
pressure is maintained by the edgewater influx;
hence,
(continuity of the reservoir/bottomwater boundary)
PDl (1, tD) = 1 (constant pressure boundary) (A-19)
a ~P2
~ (0, t) = 0 (A-7) Outer Boundary Condition:
A no-flow outer boundary condition is used to
(no-flow boundary at the bottom of aquifer) account for a finite edgewater aquifer system. The
boundary condition is given by
Applying Laplace transformation to Eqs. (A-5)
- A-7) and solving yields
(no-flow boundary) (A-20)

~p 1 cosh ~ z
(A- 8) Taking Laplace transformation of Eqs. (A-15),
s cosh )s/'1 h (A-19) and (A-20) yields
2 2

170
SPE 18764 JOSEPH S. OI.AREWAJU 7
2 -
2 d Pol d Pol
r --- + r
D d r D d r
- s e p01 = o (A-21)
where A and
(A-32).
B are defined by Eqs. (A-31) and
0 0
The dimensionless water influx solution in
p (1, s) = 1/s (A-22) Laplace space is given by
01

d Pol
weD -- qD/s (A-33)
d rD (rDe' s) = 0 (A- 23)
which is obtained from integrating the rate
solution in Laplace space from the relation
where
t

e= ~1 + ~2 F (AD' s) (A-24) WeD = f D qD dr (A-34)

0

The general solution to the differential

equation above in Laplace space is

d Pol
- - = A N I (N r ) - B
d r 1 0
N K
1
(N r )(A-26)
0
0

Hence,

(A-28)

Imposing the inner boundary condition,

p01 (1, s) = 1/s (A-29)

Substituting Eq. (A-25) yields

A I
0
Use) + B K
0
(jsO = 1.s (A-30)

Hence,

B= ----------~--~1~------------- (A-31)

(A-32)

The rate solution is given by

(A-33)

171
 Table 2: Dake Aquifer Fitting Example

Input Data
h1 = 100ft llw = 0.55 cp
h2 = Oft co = 1Q-5Jpsi
k1 = 200md Cw = 3x1o-6Jpsi
k2 = 200md Swc = 0.05
<h = 0.25 Boi = 1.404 rb/stb
TABLE !:COMPARISON OF SOLUTION WITH VAN <1>2 = 0.25 Bw = 1.0 rb/stb
EVERDINGEN AND HURST,S SOLUTION f = 140 Rsi = 650 scflstb
tD Analytical Everdingcn ro = 9200ft ~i = 650 scflstb
3.000000 3.197938 3.195000
3.500000 3.545786 3.542000 Cf = 4x 10-6 B·gi =
0.00093rb/stb
4.000000 3.878247 3.875000 Pi = 2740 psia 'Yg = 0.70
4.500000 4.196763 4.193000 N = 312x 106
5.000000 4.502332 4.499000
T = 1200F
5.500000 4.795701 4.792000
6.000000 5.077478 5.074000
t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs Bo Bg
6.500000 5.348166 5.345000 1.00 2500.0 2500.0 760.0 592.0 1.374000 .000980
7.000000 5.608262 5.605000 2.00 2290.0 2290.0 845.0 545.0 1.349000 .001070
.....
......, 7.500000 5.858237 5.854000 3.00 2109.0 2109.0 920.0 507.0 1.329000 .001170
N
8.000000 6.098432 6.094000 4.00 1949.0 1949.0 975.0 471.0 1.316000 .001280
8.500000 6.329247 6.325000 5.00 1818.0 1818.0 1025.0 442.0 1.303000 .001390
9.000000 6.551008 6.547000 6.00 1702.0 1702.0 1065.0 418.0 1.294000 .001500
9.500000 6.764151 6.760000
7.00 1608.0 1608.0 1095.0 398.0 1.287000 .001600
10.000000 6.969013 6.965000
11.000000 7.354983 7.350000
8.00 1535.0 1535.0 1120.0 383.0 1.280000 .001700
12.000000 7.711366 7.706000 9.00 1480.0 1480.0 1145.0 371.0 1.276000 .001760
13.000000 8.040444 8.035000 10.0 1440.0 1440.0 1160.0 364.0 1.273000 .001820
14.000000 8.344256 8.339000
15.000000 8.624705 8.620000 History Matching Results
16.000000 8.883561 8.879000
18.000000 9.342871 9.338000 relro = 10
20.000000 9.734569 9.731000
22.000000 10.069251 10.07000 Calculated Observed Calculated Dake
24.000000 10.353642 10.35000 Time Np Np Error We We
26.000000 10.594827 10.59000 (yr) (MMb) CMMb) (%) (MMb) (MMb)
28.000000 10.800583 10.80000 1.0 8.0628 7.8800 2.32 3.8296 3.829
30.000000
34.000000
38.000000
42.000000
10.977991
11.258133
11.460304
11.609570
10.98000
11.26000
11.46000
11.61000
2.0
3.0
4.0
18.994
30.641
43.930
18.420
29.150
40.690
3.11
5.12
7.96
13.455
26.447
41.938
13.460
26.462
. 41.935
I...
46.000000
50.000000
60.000000
70.000000
11.718297
11.798021
11.916228
11.970358
11.71000
11.79000
11.91000
11.96000
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
55.825
67.085
77.471
86.509
50.140
58.420
65.390
11.34
14.83
18.48
59.196
77.659
96.893
, 59.207
77.628
96.805
•"'
~
80.000000
90.000000
11.994600
12.004868
11.98000
11.99000
9.0 94.259
70.740
74.540
22.29
26.45
116.36
135.65
116.284
135.601 ....
10.0 101.29 77.430 30.82 154.46 154.401
 Table 4: Simulated Example With Edgewater and Bottomwater
Drive -,,.J.
Input Data ,:.,,
h1 = 20. ft llw = 1.0 cp .,.,...
ZD = 1.0 co = 1o-5fpsi
Cw = 3x1o-6fpsi
••
k1
k2
= 100md
= 100md
<1>1 = 0.10
Swc
Boi
= 0.05
= 1.404 rb/stb
.I
I r/
<1>2 = 0.10 Bw = 1.0 rb/stb K
f = 140 Rsi = 650 scf/stb
r 0 = 1000ft ~i = 650 scf/stb
Table 3: Final Match ofDake's Example Cf = 4x 10-6 B·
gt
= 0.00093rblstb
Final Estimates used in Match Pi = 2740 psia 'Yg = 0.70
rJr0 = 5.00 N = 311x106 T = 1200F
N = .3110E+09 Bo Bg
t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs
tD WeD We .50 2500.0 2500.0 760.0 592.0 1.374000 .000980
.567499E+O 1 .489545E+01 .378655E+07 1.00 2290.0 2290.0 845.0 545.0 1.349000 .001070
.113500E+02 .748187E+01 .128869E+08 1.50 2109.0 2109.0 920.0 507.0 1.329000 .001170
.170250E+02 .912582E+01 .240784E+08 2.00 1949.0 1949.0 975.0 471.0 1.316000 .001280
.227000E+02 .101706E+02 .359100E+08 2.50 1818.0 1818.0 1025.0 442.0 1.303000 .001390
......
......
C.:l .283750E+02 .108311E+02 .474414E+08 3.00 1702.0 1702.0 1065.0 418.0 1.294000 .001500
.340499E+02 .112558E+02 .581737E+08 3.50 1608.0 1608.0 1095.0 398.0 1.287000 .001600
.397249E+02 .115247E+02 .678920E+08 4.00 1535.0 1535.0 1120.0 383.0 1.280000 .001700
.453999E+02 .116975E+02 .763505E+08 4.50 1480.0 1480.0 1145.0 371.0 1.276000 .001760
.510749E+02 .118087E+02 .834680E+08 5.00 1440.0 1440.0 1160.0 364.0 1.273000 .001820
.567499E+02 .118802E+02 .892796E+08
Simulated Production and Water Influx
Calculated Observed Calculated Dake
Time Np Np Error We We Time Np We
(yr) (MMb) (MMb) (%) (MMb) (MMb) (yr) (MMb) (bbl)
1.0 8.0348 7.8800 1.96 3.37866 3.775 0.5 5.576 3914.9
2.0 18.654 18.420 1.27 12.887 12.848 1.0 10.944 11255.
3.0 29.334 29.150 .63 24.078 24.024 1.5 16.057 17634.
4.0 40.856 40.690 .41 . 35.910 35.775 2.0 22.557 23196.
5.0 50.263 50.140 .25 47.441 47.276 2.5 27.828 27943.
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
58.480
65.399
70.713
74.480
77.345
58.420
65.390
70.740
74.540
77.430
.10
.01
-.04
-.08
-.11
58.174
67.892
76.350
83.468
89.280
58.035
67.778
76.259
83.398
89.225
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
32.804
37.151
40.584
42.857
44.558
31972.
35398.
38122.
40210.
41759.
'."'.
"'0'...
 W.·"
-~~
Table 6: Aquifer fitting of An Oil ReseiVoir ,~.~

~
Input Data
,...,
h1 = 10. ft Jlw = .0.55 cp w
h2 = 30ft co = 1o-5fpsi ~e
k1 = 150md Cw = 6.5x1o-6fpsi
k2 = 150md Swc= 0.05
<h = 0.16 Boi = 1.41 rb/stb
<1>2 = 0.16 Bw = 1.0 rb/stb
f = 140 Rsi = 116 scf/stb
r 0 = 2900 ft ~i = 116 scf/stb
Cf = 3x 10-6 B·
gt
= 0.0052rb/stb
Pi = 2835 psia 'Yg = 0.75
N = ? T = 1200F
Table 5: History Match Result With An Incomplete Model
..... t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs Bo Bg Wp
......
.Do
1.0000 2586.0 2586.0 135.4 105.4 1.374000 .005500 0.0
History Match Result Actual Value 2.0000 2369.0 2369.0 150.5 97.1 1.349000 .006010 0.0
3.0000 2183.0 2183.0 163.9 90.3 1.329000 .006570 0.0
rJr0 7.614 1.1 4.0000 2016.0 2016.0 173.7 83.9 1.316000 .007190 0.0
zn N/A 1.0 5.0000 1881.0 1881.0 182.6 78.7 1.303000 .007800 0.0

Calculated Actual Calculated Actual Result of Aquifer History Match

Time Np Np Error We We
(yr) (Ml\1.b) (Ml\1.b) (%) (bbl) (bbl) rJr0 = 10.914
.0001 5.5740 5.5750 -.02 252.74 3914.9 N = 4.4 x 1o+7 stb
.0005 10.938 10.942 -.04 1060.4 11255.0·
.0010 16.049 16.059 -.06 2363.0 17634.0 Calculated Observed Calculated
.0050 22.548 22.573 -.11 5014.4 23196.0 Time Np Np Error We
.0100 27.819 27.867 -.17 9644.5 27943.0 (yr) (MMb) (MMb) (%) (bbl)
.0500 32.799 32.864 -.20 20391. 31972.0 1.0000 1.2571 1.2530 .33 .66255E+06
.1000 37.153 37.227 -.20 40748. 35398.0 2.0000 2.9352 2.9290 .21 .22733E+07 .It
r-c-·
'0~ Yt.--
1.0000 40.614 40.672 -.14 .11274E+06 38122.0 3.0000 4.6575 4.6350 .49 .42690E+07
2.5000 42.934 42.955 -.05 .24201E+06 40210.0 4.0000 6.4746 6.4700 .07 .63796E+07 ~
5.0000 44.680 44.663 .04 .37429E+06 41759.0 5.0000 7.9602 7.9720 -.15 .84332E+07 (I}
~
~.
~·
 ..,..
~)·
,._~<'\

.- .. ~l)tt
-~

i ~
~ ~.

Table 7: Reservoir Perlormance Prediction

t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs Bo Bg Wp hi {
6.0000 1771.0 1771.0 19i.o 71.0 1.292000 .008400 0.05
7.0000 1686.0 1686.0 202.0 64.0 1.282000 .009000 0.10
8.0000 1591.0 1591.0 211.0 57.0 1.273000 .009650 0.15
9.0000 1506.0 1506.0 220.0 50.0 1.264500 .001030 0.20
43.0 1.256500 .001100 0.25 h2 (
10.000 1446.0 1446.0 229.0
.....
...... Prediction Result
c.n

Time
(yr)
Np
(M:Mb)
We
(bbl)
1 1
6.0000 9.5818 .10308E+08
7.0000 10.774 .11948E+08
8.0000 11.859 .13412E+08
9.0000 12.788 .14770E+08
10.000 13.573 .15969E+08 Fig. I Schematic Diagram of Reservoir /Aquifer System

I
..•
.....
••
 60~--------~--------~--------~------~

40 -

0
(1)

3:

20r---------,_----~r---r--------~--~---
.....
~

10· 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 10·3 10· 2 10·1 10° 10 1 10 2
10° l0 1 10 2 10 3 10 4
to
to

Fig. 2 Dimensionless Water Influx Solution for Edgewater Drive Reservoirs Fig. 3 Water Influx Solution for Combined Botlomwa!er and Edgewater Drives
(r6 /r 0 = {.1)

I,..
•
....,
.
a-
 'f: ..
.~
,tl.. \
·e'l
~

I
10 1
10 1

10°
10°

0
Q.l 0
3: Q.l
3:

10-1 Zo
.....
10-1
......
......

I0-3 10-2 10-1 100 10 1 10 2 10-2 10-1 100 10 1 10 2

to
fo

Fig. 4 Water Influx Solution for Combined Bollomwaler and Edgewater Drives Fig. 5 Water Influx Solution for Combined Bottomwater and Edgewater Drives
(re/r 0 =2) (re/r 0 = 4)

I
...
•"
Ot
•
 I!& 18764

178