SPE 77489

Determination of OHIP and Aquifer Constant Without Prior

Knowledge of Aquifer Models
Mofazzal H. Bhuiyan, SPE, Alexander Chamorro, SPE, and Rajesh Sachdeva, SPE, IHS Energy Group

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper outlines a new technique to determine original
hydrocarbon in place (OHIP) and aquifer influx constant from
production and pressure history. The Hsieh et al 1.method was
modified and extended in many significant respects. With the
new technique, calculations can be done using either the
conventional (CMBE) or general material balance equation
(GMBE). The proposed method thus applies to any fluid type
(gas, oil, gas condensate, volatile oil etc.). This method does
not require any pre-selection of aquifer models, and it can still
calculate aquifer constant, water influx quantities and OHIP
values. A computer algorithm was developed to take the
“subjectivity” out of the Hsieh et. al. method. The new
technique was successfully verified using numerous real-life
examples that involved different reservoir types. The method
was incorporated and tested using the commercially available
1 Based on this, they developed a new technique that did not
material balance program2 (OilWatTM / GasWatTM) #.
Introduction
Interpretation of a reservoir’s pressure and production history
to determine OHIP by rearranging the material balance
equation (MBE) has been a popular technique for decades.
The MBE can handle reservoirs that may or may not have
water influx. When an aquifer is present, selection of a
representative aquifer model is necessary to determine water
influx. The calculated water influx is then used in MBE for
OHIP determination. Alternatively, if the aquifer properties,
1# OilWat and GasWat are trademarks of IHS Energy Group.
OHIP and a future production schedule are known, pressure
predictions can be made using the MBE. In many companies,
the MBE methods are utilized prior to running more detailed
reservoir simulation studies. MBE is also used when enough
detailed data is not available for a reservoir simulation study.
The MBE is a key tool for any asset evaluation study.
Although aquifer modeling is a very important component of
the MBE approach, it involves many limitations. Since
engineers usually do not drill in the aquifer region to collect
data, aquifer models involve high degree of uncertainty due to
unknown factors such as formation properties, aquifer
geometry, continuity and drive mechanisms (edge or bottom
water drive), etc. Aquifer models used with MBE are usually a
highly idealized mathematical representation of the real
conditions. Improper selection of a particular aquifer model
and the underlying data limitations can lead to an erroneous
calculation of OHIP using MBE.
Fetkovich3 treated the aquifer just like a reservoir by
introducing the concept of “aquifer productivity” (J).
However, the method still bears the traits of aquifer models
because one needs to know the reservoir to aquifer radius ratio
and the aquifer rock properties to calculate J.
Recently, Hsieh et. al. introduced a powerful technique to
estimate OHIP using the CMBE. They argued that the aquifer
properties were already reflected in the production history.
need an a priori knowledge of aquifer properties or aquifer
type. Hsieh et. al. rearranged the conventional material
balance equation such that OHIP, reservoir pressure,
cumulative production, time, etc. would enable calculation of
an aquifer constant (C) that is unique to a reservoir-aquifer
system. They showed that the correct OHIP would be the one
that consistently yielded the same C for a given period of time.
The Hsieh et. al. direct approach is limited to CMBE. It is also
subject to visual interpretation, since there are several nearly
horizontal lines that may be misinterpreted as the correct one.
This is true especially when the assumed OHIP is close to the
real solution. Adding to the subjectivity, choice of factors such
as the initial OHIP, the increment criteria, and the number of
2 M. BHUIYAN, A. CHAMORRO AND R. SACHDEVA
iterations, entirely depend on the individual. Our approach
brings objectivity to the Hsieh et. al. method by using a
mathematical algorithm to accurately select the best possible
aquifer constant and the range of OHIP to perform iterations.
The new method also extends the Hsieh et. al. approach to
cover the whole spectrum of reservoir fluids (from black oil to
dry gas) by using the General Material Balance Equation4. The
GMBE is especially useful for volatile oil and gas condensate
reservoirs, since it takes into account the amount of liquid
contained in the gas phase (Rv).
In the first step, the best values of aquifer influx constant for
each production time interval and corresponding water influx
(We) are calculated. This is done by changing the OHIP
values in the MBE. In the second step, the correlation
coefficient (r) for each assumed OHIP for each hydrocarbon
production time and the corresponding calculated aquifer
influx constant values are calculated. Data filtering is done to
identify the stable data points in reservoir aquifer system. In
the final step, the highest absolute value of r that corresponds
to a particular N or G value is identified as the likely OHIP
value for that reservoir.
The results were verified against numerous widely used OHIP
calculation methods included in the commercially available
program2. Results obtained by this method were also tested
against cases where the reservoir – aquifer geometries were
known a priori. A total of over 40 examples were used in
verification of the proposed technique.
Methodology
Frank S. Hsieh et. al. rearranged the conventional material
balance equation (CMBE) in such a way that aquifer influx
constant C is a function of OHIP, pressure difference, time
increment and other PVT properties of the reservoir fluids.
The final form of the equations for their direct approach is:
Gas Reservoirs:
We = (Bgi – Bg) G + (GpBg +Wp) ---------------------(1)
C = We / (∆P) (∆t) = We / (Pi-Pn)* (tn –ti) ------------(2)
Oil Reservoir:
We = NBoi-(N-Np)Bo-[(Gc-Gpc)Bgc-GcBgci]-[NRsi-(N-
Np)Rs-Gps]Bgs
-{(Cf+CwSwi)[NBoi/(1-Swi)](Pi-P)}+(Wp-Wi) Bw ---(3)
C=We/(Pi-Pn)*(tn-ti) -----------------------------------(4)
We reorganized the general material balance equation in a
similar fashion to cover the whole spectrum of reservoir
fluids. The assumptions and requirements described in the
Hsieh et. al. paper are valid in this case also. The resulting
equations are:
SPE 77489
F =Nfoi * (Eo+mEg+Efw) + We ----------------------(5)
where,
F = [Np (Bo (1-Rv*Rps)+(Rps-Rs)*Bg)+(Wp-Wi) Bw-
Gfgi*Bg] / (1-Rv*Rs) ---- ------------------------------(6)
Bto = [Bo (1-Rv*Rsi)+(Rsi-Rs)*Bg / (1-Rv*Rs)----(7)
Eo = (Bto-Boi) -------------------------------------------(8)
Btg = [Bg (1-Rvi*Rs)+(Rvi-Rv)*Bo / (1-Rv*Rs) ---(9)
Eg = Btg-Bgi = Boi [Btg/Bgi – 1.0] ------- -----------(10)
Efw = (1.0+m)* Boi (Cw Swi + Cf / (1-Swi))*(Pi-P)---(11)
Etot = Eo+mEg+Efw ------------------------------------(12)
After simplification, we get:
We = F-N*Etot --------------------------------------------(13)
[N = Nfoi, We= C. S (p, t) = C∑∆P.Q (∆td)]
C = We / (∆P) (∆t) = We /((Pi-Pn)*(t n –ti)) --------------(14)
Calculation Steps.
The steps involved in evaluation of our method require
computational power and are summarized below:
1. Assume OHIP: from the production data, use the
final cumulative value of produced hydrocarbon
(oil/gas) to be the first guess to start the iteration, i.e.,
Nmin = Np (final)
2. Calculate the cumulative water influx (We) using
Eq. 13
3. Calculate a series of C values applying the We value
to each time step
4. Tune the data based on C values: Filter data points by
using ‘Delta C’ (∆C = (C n-1 – Cn)/C n-1) criteria. This
is needed because a perfect C- T plot will be a near
horizontal line where the ‘C’ values don’t vary
significantly. Only the selected data points will be
used for a linear least square fit
5. Use a least square fit to the calculated C values and
the corresponding time data to find a correlation
coefficient (r)
6. Repeat steps 1 to 4 for the next OHIP value. In the
algorithm, the new value is incremented till the point
the pre-specified maximum OHIP is reached. The
criteria set for new OHIP and Maximum OHIP are:
Nnew = N n-1 +0.1* Nmin
Nmax = Np (final) / t (final) * Time span
The material balance program used to develop this method
internally selects Nmax based on the production data and time
span. Nmax is used only as stopping criteria for the
iterative procedure.
SPE 77489 DETERMINATION OF OHIP AND AQUIFER CONSTANT WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF AQUIFER MODELS 3

We found that when the correct OHIP is reached, the
corresponding correlation coefficient (r) values approached
unity. During calculations, initially the value of r gradually
increases. Later, r either decreases or remains constant at a
lower value till the end of iterations. In all cases, the correct
estimate of OHIP always corresponds to the highest value of r
that is close to unity.
calculated by the present approach compare very favorably
with those obtained from other methods. In all cases
(excepting for the current approach), an a priori knowledge of
both aquifer properties and aquifer drive type is required. The
negative C value calculated by the new approach is also
consistent with that calculated by other methods since it also
signifies the absence of any aquifer.

The method also requires some judgment in terms of choosing Conclusion

the right data. Major objectives of this data tuning step include
The proposed generalized direct method has many advantages:
(a) removing the irregularities due to error in early data points
and (b) using only those aquifer influx values that result in an
almost horizontal straight line (C vs. time). This step prevents
the linear least square fit calculation routine from identifying
an incorrect near-horizontal line as a solution. The calculated
value of C can be either positive or negative. It was also
observed that small absolute values of C indicate negligible
water influx.
For any fluid type -- especially for gas condensate and volatile
oil reservoirs -- we strongly recommend using the new
approach with the GMBE since this will yield more accurate
answers. As expected, if Rv=0, the GMBE and CMBE will
give the same results; this is usually the case for blackoil and
dry gas reservoirs.
The flowchart shown in Figure 1 summarizes the procedure.
• As was the case in the Hsieh et. al.“direct approach”,
the proposed approach has the advantage of not
requiring prior knowledge of aquifer properties
and dimensions.
• The new approach extends the Hsieh et. al. method to
cover both the conventional and generalized material
balance equations.
• The cumulative water influx values can also be
calculated if there is an aquifer associated with
the reservoir.
• The new algorithm has taken away the subjectivity of
the Hsieh et. al. method and outlines an objective,
mathematical approach that is much less prone to
human error and multiple results.
• The algorithm developed was successfully verified
using over 40 different reservoir examples including
those found in references 7-10.

Nomenclature
Example
To illustrate the method, a typical gas condensate reservoir Bo: Oil Formation Volume Factor (FVF), res. Bbl/STB
was selected. There was no prior presumption made as to the Boi: Initial Oil FVF, res. Bbl/STB
presence of an aquifer associated with the reservoir. Because a Bg: Gas FVF, res. Bbl/scf
gas condensate reservoir was involved, the GMBE was used. Bgi: Initial Gas FVF, res. Bbl/scf
The reservoir temperature was 215 0 F without any initial gas Btg: Two - Phase Gas FVF, res. Bbl/scf
cap. The connate water saturation, formation and water Bto: Two - Phase Oil FVF, res. Bbl/STB
compressibilities are 25%, 0.25E-06 /psi and 0.30E-06 /psi, Bt: Two - Phase FVF, res. Bbl/STB
respectively. The historical pressure-production and PVT data C: Aquifer Constant, Rb/d/psi
are summarized in Table 1. The data included a history of Cf: Rock (formation) Compressibility, Pore Volume
2,372 days. Table 2 shows the final aquifer influx constant (PV) change / unit PV / psi
values after the tuning of C-T data. The resulting plot is shown Ct: Total Compressibility, psi-1
in Figure 2, which is the best possible near horizontal line that Cw: Water Compressibility, psi-1
was been picked by the algorithm. Table 3 indicates important Eg: Net Gas Expansion, res. Bbl/scf
calculated segments of assumed OOIP and the corresponding Eo: Net Oil Expansion, res. Bbl/STB
calculated correlation coefficient, r. The most likely OOIP is F: Total Hydrocarbon Fluid Withdrawal, res. Bbl
109.02 MMSTB and the OGIP is 658.70 BCF. These values G: Original Gas-in-Place, scf
correspond to r =0.905. Gp: Produced Wellhead Gas, scf
Gps: Produced Sales Gas, scf
Figure 3 represents the r-N plots for all the assumed N values. Gfgi: Gas in initial free-gas phase, scf
Notice that the incremental steps for OHIP should be small so Gfoi: Gas in initial free-oil Phase, scf
that the “solution” r is not missed. m: Initial Gascap fraction
N: Original Oil-in-Place, STB
Table 4 compares the calculated OOIP, OGIP and aquifer Np: Produced Oil, STB
constant values. The other methods used here have been Nfgi: Oil in initial free-gas phase, STB
summarized elsewhere in SPE literature5, 6. The OHIP values Nfoi: Oil in initial free-oil phase, STB
4 M. BHUIYAN, A. CHAMORRO AND R. SACHDEVA SPE 77489

P: Pressure, psia 4. Walsh P. Mark: “New, Improved Equation Solves for

Pi: Initial Pressure, psia Volatile oil, Condensate Reserves” Oil &Gas Journal,
∆P: Pi - P, psia
August 22, 1994, pp72-76.
r: Correlation Coefficient
rg: Fraction of Produced Gas reinjected 5. Wang, B., and Teasdale T.S.: “GASWAT: A
Rs: Solution Gas/Oil Ratio, scf/ STB Microcomputer Program For Gas Material Balance With
Rsi: Initial Solution Gas/Oil Ratio, scf/ STB
Water Influx”, SPE 16484, presented at the Petroleum
Rv: Volatile Oil/Gas Ratio, STB /scf
Rvi: Initial Volatile Oil/Gas Ratio, STB /scf Industry Applications for Microcomputers Conference,
Rp: Cumulative Produced Wellhead Gas/Oil Ratio, Montgomery, Texas, June 23-26,1987.
scf/ STB
Rps: Cumulative Produced sales Gas/Oil Ratio, scf/ 6. Wang, B., and Litvak, B.L. and Bowman, G. W.:
STB “OILWAT: Microcomputer Program For Oil Material
Swi: Initial Water Saturation, fraction Balance With Gas Cap And Water Influx”, SPE 24437,
t: Time, Days
Time Span: Extrapolated Time, Days presented at the seventh SPE petroleum Computer
We: Water Encroachment, res. Bbl Conference, Huston, Texas, July 19-22,1992.
Wi: Water Injection, res. Bbl 7. Craft B.C., Hawkins M.F.: “Applied Petroleum Reservoir
Wp: Produced Water, STB
Engineering” second edition, Prentice Hall PTR, NJ
General Definitions. 07632,1991, pp 64-66.
8. Dake L.P.: “The Practice of Resrevoir Engineering”
Rps = Gps/Np
Gps = Gp (1-rg) revised edition, Elsevier Science Publishers, 2001, pp 112-
Ct = (Swi*Cw + Cf)/(1- Swi) 122.
9. Wang, S.W., Stevenson, V. M. and Ohaeri, C. U.:
Auxiliary Relations.
“Analysis of Overpressured Reservoirs with A New
N = Nfoi + Nfgi Material Balance Method”, SPE 56690, presented at the
G = Gfoi + Gfgi
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
Gfoi = Nfoi * Rsi
held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
10. Wang, S.W.: “A General Linear Material Balance Method
Acknowledgement
for normally and Abnormally pressured Petroleum

We wish to thank IHS Energy Group, for permission to Reservoirs”, SPE 48954, presented at the 1998 SPE Annual
publish this paper. The help of Mr. Frank S. Hsieh of Sproule Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Associates Limited during the development process, is Louisiana, 27-30 September 1998.
gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Hsieh, F.S., Kandel, P.S. and Vega, C.: “ Material Balance

Method for Production Rejuvenation With Horizontal
Wells”, SPE 65484, presented at the 2000 SPE/Petroleum
Society of CIM International Conference on Horizontal
Well Technology held in Calgary, Alberta, November 6-9.
2. OilWatTM/GasWatTM: PC-based commercial computer
programs from IHS Energy Group.
3. Fetkovich, M.J.:” A Simplified Approach to water Influx
Calculations-Finite aquifer Systems” JPT (July 1971)
814-28.
SPE 77489 DETERMINATION OF OHIP AND AQUIFER CONSTANT WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF AQUIFER MODELS 5

START

INPUTS: N p, B o, R v, R s, Rps, B g, W p, B w, G i, m, C w, Sw, P AND t (TIME)

ASSUME: N (FINAL Np, FROM PRODUCTION DATA)

CALCULATE: We (EQUATION 1 TO 9)

CALCULATE: ∆Pn = Pi –Pn, n –TIME STEP

Pn = (P n-1 + Pn) /2 OR Pn AT TIME tn

CALCULATE: AQUIFER CONSTANT FOR EACH TIME

C n =W e/((Pi –Pn)* (tn -ti)), n – TIME STEP (EQ. 10)

DATA TUNING: DISCARD IRREGULAR DATA POINTS BASED

ON ‘Delta C’ where ∆C = ((C n-1 – C n)/C n-1)

CALCULATE: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT, ‘r' FROM THE

SMOOTHED DATA USING LINEAR LEAST SQUARE FIT

ASSUME NEW N:
N n = N n-1 +0.1* N min
N min = N p (FINAL)

CONTINUE: UNTIL Nmax IS REACHED

N max = N p (final) / t (final) * TIME SPAN

OUTPUTS: HIGHEST ‘ r ‘ VALUE WITH THE

CORRESPONDING OHIP (‘N’ OR ‘G’), FINAL AQUIFER
CONSTANT, ‘C’ AND WATER INFLUX, ‘We’ FOR EACH
TIME STEP

Figure-1: Flowchart to demonstrate the new algorithm.

6 M. BHUIYAN, A. CHAMORRO AND R. SACHDEVA SPE 77489

PVT Data Production History

Pressure Bo Rs Bg Rv, Time Np Rp

Psia RB/STB SCF/STB RB/MSCF STB/SCF Days MMBBL SCF/STB
5800 4.382 6042 0.73 165.50 0 0.0 0
5550 4.441 6042 0.74 165.50 182.5 1.3 6040
5450 4.468 6042 0.74 165.50 365 1.9 6040
5420 2.378 2795 0.74 164.20 547.5 2.1 6040
5300 2.366 2750 0.74 156.60 730 2.6 6120
4800 2.032 2128 0.76 114.00 912.5 7.0 7000
4300 1.828 1730 0.79 89.00 1095 10.1 7900
3800 1.674 1422 0.85 65.20 1277.5 13.3 9180
3300 1.554 1177 0.95 48.30 1460 16.2 10730
2800 1.448 960 1.09 35.00 1642.5 18.4 12390
2300 1.360 776 1.31 25.00 1825 20.2 14300
1800 1.279 607 1.68 19.00 2007.5 21.6 16400
1300 1.200 443 2.32 15.00 2190 22.8 18500
800 1.131 293 3.69 13.50 2372.5 23.7 20530

Table 1: PVT, Production history data for the example

Figure 2 : Aquife r Influx Constant vs. Time

Time Aq. Constant
0
Days C, Rb/d/Psi
365 -5.2 -2

547.5 -2.91 -4
912.5 -1.73
C, rb/psi/d

-6
1095 -3.58
-8
1277.5 -3.45
1460 -2.72 -10

1642.5 -3.51 -12

1825 -4.16
-14
2007.5 -5.03
-16
2190 -6.34
365 547.5 912.5 1095 1277.5 1460 1642.5 1825
Time , Days

Table 2: Final aquifer constant

values after tuning
SPE 77489 DETERMINATION OF OHIP AND AQUIFER CONSTANT WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF AQUIFER MODELS 7

N Correlation
Figure 3: Correlation Coefficient,r vs.Assumed N
MMSTB Coefficient, r 1
82.95 0.751899 OOIP = 109.02 , OGIP=658.70 bcf
0.9
85.32 0.746477
87.69 0.737067 0.8
90.06 0.395698
0.7
92.43 0.427995 Correlation coefficient
94.8 0.466108 0.6
97.17 0.736701
0.5
99.54 0.252566
101.91 0.711537 0.4
104.28 0.865602 0.3
106.65 0.897214
109.02 0.905151 0.2
111.39 0.68658 0.1
113.76 0.69399
116.13 0.698857 0
23.7 35.6 47.4 59.3 71.1 83 94.8 107 119 130 142 154 166 178 190 201
118.5 0.702272
N, mmstb
120.87 0.704787
123.24 0.667966

Table 3: Segment of assumed

OOIP and corresponding ‘r’

METHOD OOIP OGIP AQ. CONSTANT UNITS

MMSTB BCF C C
F/E PLOT 100.034 604.40 0.00
CAMPBELL 98.117 592.82 0.00
SMALL AQ 100.774 608.88 -972.02 rb/psi
SCHILTHIS SS 102.704 620.54 -1816.80 rb/psi-yr
HURST SS 101.924 615.82 -4250.20 rb/psi
INF LINEAR 101.796 615.05 -1660.60 rb/psi/sqrt(yr)
PRESENT APPROACH 109.02 658.70 -10.11 rb/psi/d

Table 4: Comparison of the OHIP with other methods