Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Material Balance
L. Mattar, R. McNeil
Fekete Associates Inc.
Practical ApplicationAlternative but not so good in gas since it can introduce a significant degree
of error in cases where depletion (declining reservoir pressure) is
Methods occurring.
The data set used in this paper was taken from a producing well In an effort to account for the change in the gas compressibility
for which accurate wellhead pressure and gas volumes were as depletion progresses, c was calculated at an average flowing
recorded for over five months. During the first two months of this sand-face pressure of 8,500 kPa (average sand-face flowing pres-
test the well flowed at a fairly constant gas rate of approximately sure during pseudo-steady state portion of the flow period).
250 103m3/d. Tubing and casing pressures were measured daily Substituting these values in the above equation gives:
and the casing pressures were converted to sand-face pressures
using a multi-step Cullender and Smith(3) calculation. 2 10 3 250 12, 900 6 3
OGIP = 10 m = 64 10 6 m3
A review of the well test data and the core analysis indicates 1.3 10 4 780, 000 ........(2)
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 produc- If the gas compressibility had been calculated at the initial pres-
tion data represents stabilized (pseudo-steady state) flow. sure of 12,900 kPa, the OGIP would have been 94 106m3.
The remainder of this paper makes use of the established per- As indicated above, the classical pseudo-steady state analysis
formance based methods to estimate the original gas-in-place and has an inherent weakness with respect to the value of gas com-
then presents several variations of the flowing material balance pressibility employed. This analysis procedure will estimate origi-
procedure as practical alternatives. nal gas-in-place optimistically unless a satisfactory method for
incorporating the impact of depletion on gas compressibility can
be developed.
Method 1: Classical Pseudo-Steady State
Analysis(PSS) Method 2: Flowing Material Balance
This is the standard method of pseudo-steady analysis (FMB)
described in the well testing literature(2,4). A plot is made of pres-
sure squared (or pseudo pressure) versus time on cartesian coordi- A clear understanding of what pseudo-steady state is can pro-
nates. A straight line is drawn through the appropriate portion of vide a new insight into calculating reserves by a procedure similar
the data (pseudo-steady state) corresponding to a constant produc- to the traditional material balance. The difference is that this
tion rate. The slope of this straight line is used to calculate the method uses the flowing pressure rather than the shut-in pressure.
gas-filled pore volume, and hence, the original gas-in-place When a reservoir is in pseudo-steady state flow, the pressure at all
(OGIP) (ERCB Guide G-3, variation of Equation 4-29 in SI locations in the reservoir declines at the same rate. This is illus-
units)(4). trated 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
2.929 10 2 q 10 3 p i 288
OGIP = represents the pseudo-steady state pressure in the reservoir when
c s l o p e / 2 101.325
4 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.
2 10 3 q p i 6 3
= 10 m The traditional material balance procedure would be to shut-in
cslope .....................................................................(1) the well at time one, and let the pressure in the reservoir stabilize.
This would give an average reservoir pressure pR1. Similarly, the
Figure 1 shows a plot of pressure squared (casing pressure con- pressure profile in the reservoir, at times two and three would
verted to sandface) versus time in days. The slope of this line dur- result in shut-in average reservoir pressures of pR2 and pR3. It is
ing the pseudo-steady state period is 780,000 kPa2/day. evident that the drop in pressure from pR1 to pR2 to p R3 is the same
Values for the gas rate, q, (250 103m3/d) and initial reservoir as the drop in pressure at any selected point along the curves one,
pressure, p i, (12,900 kPa) are easily obtainable. However, a value two and three (the curves are parallel). A convenient point for
for the gas compressibility, c, is more problematic. In a gas reser- pressure analysis is the pressure at the wellbore. Remembering
voir, c varies as 1/p, but the pseudo-steady state analysis procedure that curves one, two and three represent a flowing well, it
traditionally assumes the gas compressibility is constant at initial becomes evident that a plot of the flowing wellbore pressure (pwf1,
conditions. This assumption is good for an undersaturated liquid pwf2, pwf3) should be parallel to a plot of the average reservoir
pressure (pR1, pR2, pR3). potential of the well or wells is used most commonly. It allows
The above discussion illustrates that a material balance plot forecasting of the gas deliverability at any given flowing pressure,
using the flowing wellbore pressures (pwf), should be parallel to or conversely, the flowing pressure at a given gas rate. Such a pro-
the material balance plot using the average static reservoir pres- gram was used to model the flowing wellhead pressure for various
sure (pR). This procedure, referred to as the flowing material magnitudes of gas-in-place. The flow rate was set to a constant
balance, consists of a plot of pwf/z, where pwf is the flowing 250 10 3m3/d and the decline in wellhead flowing pressure plotted
sand-face pressure at the wellbore (or for that matter it could be for various original gas-in-place estimates. The results are sum-
any location in the reservoir) versus cumulative production. A marized in Figure 5 with the best match to the measured data
straight line drawn through the flowing sandface pressure data and found to occur using an original gas-in-place of 76 106m3. The
then extrapolated parallel from the initial reservoir pressure gives range of trial OGIP estimates used to generate the match was from
the original gas-in-place, OGIP. The flowing material balance 70 106m3 to 90 106m3.
performed on this example (Figure 3) using flowing sandface
pressures calculated from casing pressure measurements results in Method 4: Approximate Wellhead Material
an OGIP = 71 106m3. Since the well was flowing through tubing Balance(AWMB)
the calculation from surface casing pressure to sandface pressure
could be done using a static column of gas. It is not always recognized that the change in the compressibili-
It is evident from Figures 1 and 3 that a plot for casing well- ty factor, z, in material balance calculations is often small (it can
head pressures has a similar trend to the sand-face pressures. be of the same order of magnitude as the errors in the data!). If z
Thus, a flowing material balance plot can also be constructed is ignored, a material balance calculation (plot of flowing sand-
using the casing pressures (instead of sand-face pressures) yield- face pressure, pwf, versus cumulative gas production, Q) can give
ing, in this case, an OGIP of 72 106m3 as shown in Figure 4. a very reasonable approximation of the OGIP. The initial point p
When using casing pressure data to estimate OGIP, the line drawn = p i and end point p = 0 are correct, but theoretically, since z is
parallel to the data must pass through the initial wellhead pres- ignored, the line joining them is not necessarily straight. If it is
sure not the initial reservoir pressure. further recognized that wellhead pressure measurements are repre-
sentative of bottomhole conditions (no fluid influx into the well-
Method 3: Tank Model bore), a procedure similar to Method 2, but ignoring z, can be
used to generate a reasonable wellhead material balance calcula-
In gas deliverability forecasting, a tank reservoir model tion. A line drawn through the data and then a line parallel
incorporating the material balance equation and deliverability through the initial static wellhead pressure will give an estimate of
FIGURE 5: Simulated flowing pressure decline using tank model. FIGURE 6: Approximate wellhead Flowing material balance.
NOMENCLATURE
c = gas compressibility, 1/kPa
OGIP = Original Gas-In-Place, 106m3
pi = initial reservoir pressure, kPa
pwf = sandface flowing pressure, kPa
FIGURE 7: Gas rate decline. Q = cumulative production, 106m3
q = gas rate, 103m3/d
the original gas-in-place. For the data used in this example, the slope = kPa2/day
approximate wellhead material balance plot is shown on Figure 6 T = temperature, K
and gives an OGIP = 71 106m3. z = compressibility factor
This is a simplified material balance plot based on wellhead
pressures (rather than reservoir pressures) and it ignores z factor. REFERENCES
Our experience with this type of analysis indicates that it is a very 1. H A V L E N A , D. and O D E H, A.S., The Material Balance as an
practical and acceptable procedure. Equation of a Straight Line; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
August 1963.
Method 5: Production Decline 2. EARLOUGHER, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis; Monograph
Vol. 5, SPE AIME, 1977.
A traditional production decline plot is shown in Figure 7 for 3. CULLENDER, M.H. and R.V. SMITH, Practical Solution of Gas
the example case. For the first two months, the rate was restricted Flow Equations for Well and Pipelines with Large Temperature
at approximately 250 103m3/d after which production from the Gradients; Trans. AIME, Vol. 207, p. 281.
well began to decline. This decline can be used to extrapolate to 4. E.R.C.B, Gas Well TestingTheory and Practice; Energy Resources
raw recoverable reserves not OGIP. The raw recoverable reserves Conservation Board, Alberta, Canada, 1979, Fourth Edition.
estimated for this case are 37 106m3 which is consistent with the
P r o v e n a n c e Original Petroleum Society manuscript, T h e
estimated OGIP reflecting a recovery factor of approximately
Flowing Gas Material Balance, (95-77), first presented at the
50% under present operating conditions.
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
Practical Observations received June 23, 1997; paper approved for pre-press June 24,
The practical application of this procedure requires that certain 1997; final approval September 4, 1997.
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 Authors Biographies
must be flowing at relatively constant gas rates. Although pseudo-
steady state theory requires a constant gas rate, practice has shown Louis Mattar is president of Fekete
it does not necessarily have to be enforced when flowing pressure Associates Inc. He has co-authored 28 pub-
is plotted versus cumulative production. Third, once the well lications including the ERCB guide G-3
begins to track gathering system line pressures, it begins its termi- (Gas Well TestingTheory and Practice).
nal gas rate decline and the procedure is no longer valid. He is a member of APEGGA, SPE and The
Application of this procedure seems to work best for good per- Petroleum Society. He graduated from the
meability gas reservoirs not affected by external drive sources. University of Calgary with a M.Sc. degree
in 1973.
Summary
Several methods are presented for estimating the original gas- Ralph McNeil is senior engineer with
in-place without shutting in a well. The calculated values for this Fekete Associates Inc. specializing gas
particular case are summarized below: gathering system modelling and reservoir
OGIP engineering. He graduated from the
(106m3) Technical University of Nova Scotia in
1980 with a bachelor of engineering in
Method 1 (PSS) 64
chemical engineering.
Method 2 (FMB) Reservoir 71
(FMB) Wellhead 72
Method 3 (Tank) 76
Method 4 (AWMB) 71
Average 71