PAPER 2000-29

Aquifer Influx Modelling for

Gas Reservoirs
H.K. Lies
HyPex Consulting Ltd.

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2000, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 4 – 8, 2000. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the technical
program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in
Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

application of the models can be extended to any gas

ABSTRACT
Aquifer water influx is an important mechanism which
effects the performance of natural gas reservoirs. The
influx of water has serious consequences in the estimation
of gas reserves through material balance and in the
prediction of future pressures. The effect of water influx
from either a finite or infinite aquifer always exists to
some extent, however these effects are not always
recognized.
Methods of modeling water influx include the Hurst
modified steady-state method, and various unsteady state
methods such as those of van Everdingen-Hurst, and
Carter-Tracy. More recently, the four methods introduced
by Leung for finite and infinite aquifers provide relatively
simple models to use with substantial improvements in
accuracy and efficiency over the previous methods.
Using the methods introduced by Leung, combined
with the volumetric's of the gas reservoir, aquifer
parameters such as size, total compressibility, influx
angle, permeability, porosity and thickness can be
determined. With adequate pressure data, the models
converge to a unique solution for all aquifer parameters.
The development of the aquifer influx models was the
result of the need to better understand the behavior of the
McMurray aquifer system in north east Alberta. The 7-5-
81-6W4M well is used as an example, though the
reservoir.
P/Z V. CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
PLOTS
The computation of the initial gas-in-place for
constant volume reservoir requires the following data:
• Initial reservoir pressure
• Cumulative gas volume
• Stabilized shut-in reservoir pressures
• Gas deviation factor
Although this method is currently used, it is not
applicable to water-drive gas reservoirs. With pressure
reduction, when water enters the space occupied by the
gas, the pressures are maintained in part depending on the
nature of the water drive.
AQUIFER SUPPORT
Pressure support occurs due to a variety of
mechanisms - including an infinite acting aquifer,
unsteady state finite aquifer, shale water influx, water
expansion and rock compressibility/compaction. Through
the analysis of DSTs, AOFs, Logs, pressure and
production data, the mechanism and future performance
of the aquifer can be forecast.
 P/Z plots of gas pools attached to a medium to slowly
responding aquifers usually follow the straight line of a
depletion drive reservoir and then gradually rise above it.
This is shown in Figure-1.
Extrapolation of the P/Z will overestimate the gas-in-
place. The gas wells water out as the true gas-in-place is
approached and while the reservoir pressure remains
relatively high (ie. 50% of original reservoir pressure).
The P/Z plot for gas pools influenced by strong
aquifers can initially follow a straight line and looks
similar to a depletion gas drive reservoir, as long as
constant gas production rates are maintained. The
extrapolation of the P/Z plot will severely overestimate
the gas-in-place in these cases. Again, these gas wells
water out as the true gas-in-place is approached and the
reservoir pressure as before remains relatively high (ie.
~75% of original reservoir pressure).
PERFORMANCE OF WELLS AFFECTED
BY AQUIFER
Gas production from wells that are experiencing water
influx will initially produce gas with no decline in the
case of strong aquifers, and moderate decline in the case
of medium and slow acting aquifers. In all cases
production declines rapidly when the water production
increases. A typical production profile is shown in Figure
2.
ALTERNATE INTERPRETATIONS
The apparent bending of the material balance plot may
be interpreted as gas migration from edge or tight areas of
the reservoir, or pressure support from an underlying
aquifer.
There are multiple unknowns in the material balance
equation, for water drive reservoirs, and calculations
generally involve several assumptions on the reservoir
description. Consequently, material balance predictions
are often unreliable when a detailed understanding of the
reservoir and supporting aquifer does not exist.
History of Water Influx Models
The first reference to water influx was by Schilthius
(1) in 1936. Influx is proportional to the difference in
pressure between the original formation pressure and the
reservoir pressure at a given time. In the author’s opinion,
this method should not be used as it is inaccurate.
Next, Hurst (2) in 1942, determined water influx
based on the solution of the diffusivity equation. The
mathematics offer a certain amount of latitude in fixing
the constants associated with water influx. However, what
was most critical in these analysis was the history of the
reservoir pressure as it varied with time.
Everdingen and Hurst (3) in 1949, improved and
simplified the solution of the diffusivity equation by the
use of a Laplace transformation. This still required the use
of a complicated superposition procedure.
In 1960, Carter and Tracy (7) introduced the
convolution integral to simplify the solution to water
influx to an explicit step-wise calculation.
Fetkovitch (12) 1971, introduced the Pseudo Steady-
State model for finite aquifers to explain the late-time
transient effects of water influx.
Leung (13) in 1986, introduced three different finite
and an infinite aquifer models for unsteady-state water-
influx calculations. They are relatively simple to use and
represent a substantial improvement in the accuracy and
efficiency over previous methods.
The four models introduced by Leung are
recommended. The reader is directed to the original
paper for the mathematical derivations and application
procedure. The discussion here will be limited to the
application of these models, and in particular, the infinite
acting aquifer model.
Essentially all aquifer influx models are a solution to
the diffusivity equation. The driving force for water
influx comes from the total compressibility of the rock
and water system combined. Theoretically, the model
does not account for recharge which would be expected in
a hydrogeological framework. It could be argued that an
infinite aquifer model does represent a recharge system.
The basic input parameters for an aquifer influx model
are pressure through time at the influx boundary,
permeability, thickness, total compressibility, and influx
angle (in the case of a radial system). The model predicts
the rate at which water will encroach as the pressure
transient propagates out into to the aquifer.
The pressure at boundary of the gas pool is calculated
by material balance.
Vp = Ve + We + BwWp
The volume of gas produced Vp equals the change in
volume of the initial gas Ve due to the pressure drop, plus
the volume of water influx We minus the volume of water
produced BwWp.
Production = Expansion + Water Influx - Water
Production
Combination of the water influx model with the
material balance equation, enables the gas pools pressure
to be predicted versus time and cumulative production.
Hard data inputs include:
Initial reservoir pressure Pi
Initial aquifer pressure Pi
Temperature T
Gas properties PVT
Gas zone thickness hg
 Gas zone porosity φg times the pool size had to be used (again beyond the valid
Water saturation Sw range) to approach a model match.
Gas zone permeability kg
Production history Gp
MODIFIED PSEUDO STEADY STATE
MODEL
Most of the above parameter can be determine with
reasonable certainty. Model match parameters are as Leung third model is the modified pseudo steady state
follows: (MPSS) model. The MPSS model similar to the TPSS
Gas drainage radius re model extends the range of validity to an aquifer radius of
50 times the gas pool radius.
Aquifer inner radius re
When applied to a selection of wells producing gas
Water viscosity µw from the McMurray, aquifer sizes much larger than 50
Total compressibility ct times the pool size had to be used (again beyond the valid
range) to approach a model match.
Aquifer thickness ha
In the case of all three of the finite aquifer models the
Aquifer porosity φa
high rate of water influx needed to match the pressure
Aquifer permeability ka history required aquifer sizes beyond the valid range of
Influx angle θa the model.
Aquifer radius / Gas pool radius R
The model match parameters are varied until a INFINITE AQUIFER MODEL
reasonable match is achieved with the observed pressure The infinite aquifer model is suggested as the model
data. At least three pressure points are needed to be able of choice for almost all situations, due to the fact that
to determine the aquifer parameters. It will be shown later water zones/aquifers are interconnected within a
that the infinite aquifer water influx model converges to a hydrogeological framework and rarely isolated even
unique solution for all of the match parameters. across aquitards.
The infinite aquifer model was applied to a selection
PSEUDO STEADY STATE MODEL of wells producing gas from the McMurray. The model
provided excellent matches in various single well cases
The pseudo steady state model (PSS) is the first model
primarily in the early years. The addition of gas
described by Leung. This is the easiest of the models to
production within the a given wells original drainage
apply and is valid for finite aquifers with a radius less
radius has a significant effect. In addition, the effect of
than 5 (R<5) times that of the gas pool.
increased regional gas withdrawal over time is observed
The PSS model was initially chosen for the as having an influence on the regional aquifer.
McMurray aquifer based on the evidence presented by the
gas producers at the public hearings, stating that the
water zones underlying the gas pools were limited water PRESSURE DATA
pods. The use of the aquifer influx model will assist in
The PSS model was applied to a sampling of wells determining the original gas in place. Unfortunately,
from various areas. In a great majority of cases, where without accurate pressure data, modeling will be of little
adequate pressure data was available, the aquifer radius assistance.
had to be set at over five times the gas pool radius to The AOF test, well logs and gas analysis are the
approach a model match, beyond the range of accuracy source of the hard input data in addition to the production
for the PSS model. Obviously, the McMurray aquifers are history. Accurate pressure data, in particular the initial
not small limited pods. pressure point, is critical in providing accuracy and
confidence in the final model match. Without pressure
TRANSIENT PSEUDO STEADY STATE data through time there is no way of being able to
understand or manage the reservoir, bad reservoir and
MODEL economic decisions follow. Without sufficient pressure
The transient (TPSS) model is the second model data showing a straight line on the P/Z versus cumulative
described by Leung. It accounts for early time effects that production plot it cannot be proven that water influx is
are neglected in the PSS model. It is more difficult to not occurring.
apply but is valid for finite aquifers with a radius up to 10 The initial testing of a gas well usually includes
times that of the gas pool. conducting an absolute open flow potential test. Ideally
When applied to a selection of wells producing gas the well is left shut-in after the initial completion and
from the McMurray, aquifer sizes much larger than 10 clean up flow period (one gas zone only) until the
wellhead pressure stabilizes. Once the wellhead pressure
has stabilized, a static gradient survey to base of the
perforations should be conducted. Immediately after the
initial static gradient is run, the flow and build up
recorders should be run and landed above the mid point of
perforation, but within 10 meters. The extended flow
period can be started immediately. Use as high initial rate
and reduce to a rate sufficient to lift any water. Flow for
12 hours and shut-in. Monitor pressure build up until
the wellhead pressure returns to within 99% of the
original pressure or stabilizes. Finally, retrieve the flow
and build up recorders and run a final static.
The above procedure will ensure that there is a 99.9%
probability of obtaining an accurate initial reservoir
pressure. Long extended gas flow times are not
recommended.
It is critical that static gradient survey report the
surface casing and tubing pressure using a clean and well
maintained dead weight gauge. The surface dead weight
gauge reading will assist in determining the accuracy of
the bottomhole recorders. In addition, the current
barometric pressure should be recorded if an accurate
conversion to the absolute pressure is to be made.
Bottomhole gauge are not as accurate as claimed.
Mechanical gauges in the field are outside of the claimed
accuracy more than fifty percent of the time. The same
hold true for electronic gauges. It is common practice to
used a different set of gauges for the initial static gradient,
flow and build up and the final static. Rarely, do these
recorders agree within the specified accuracy limits.
A well maintained dead weight gauge will accurately
measure the gauge pressure (kPag) to the resolution of
the weight set. The surface dead weight gauge reading
must be used to calibrate the recorders.
It is foolish the use the pressure reported in a absolute
open flow test or on a static gradient without ensuring the
recorders are calibrated to the dead weight gauge reading.
Accurate pressure data is important in being able to
predict aquifer performance.
ABSOLUTE PRESSURE CONVERSION
It is common industry practice to use varying
barometric pressure conversions ranging from 85 to
101.35 kPa to determine the absolute pressure. This
results in the introduction of unnecessary additional error
into the pressure measurements. In the case of high
pressures, this error will be relatively small. However at
lower pressures, this error can becomes significant.
The simplest method to minimize the error introduced
by the barometric conversion is to ensure that a
consistent value is used. It is recommended, however that
the conversion value always be the standard sea level
pressure of 101.325 kPaa.
The pressure at the land surface decreases with
increasing
elevation. At 1000 meters elevation the average
atmospheric pressure is 89.9 kPaa down from the average
sea level value of 101.3 kPaa (Source: International Civil
Aviation Organization). Surface gauge readings will
therefore increase by the pressure difference (11.4 kPa)
between the two elevations while measuring a constant
pressure source.
To adjust to the absolute pressure, the barometric
pressure, at the well head, at the time of the test must be
known. This can be estimated based on the surface
elevation, realizing that the normal atmospheric
variations of +/-2 kPa is occurring. With proper care,
pressures can be determine to an accuracy greater than
needed.
The Para Chard et at 100/07-05-081-06W4M well was
chosen as it provides an example of a well which has
experienced limited effects from gas production within
its drainage radius or from any apparent change in the
regional aquifer. The following are the hard input
parameters used for the 7-5 well:
Imperial Metric
Initial reservoir pressure 229.6 psia 1583 kPaa
Initial aquifer pressure 229.6 psia 1583 kPaa
Temperature 44.6 F 7.0 C
Gas deviation factor 0.966
Gas zone thickness 3.0m
Gas zone porosity 33%
Water saturation 20%
Gas permeability 1686md
The production history of the 7-5 well was obtained
from the public records and input into the model. Records
show that the 7-5 well went on production in April of
1989 at an average calendar rate of 1 Mmcf/d and
maintained this rate until early 1995 at which time the rate
dropped to approximately 400 mcf/d. This drop is
associated with an increase of water production from 10
Bbls/Mmcf to 60 Bbls/Mmcf. Water production continued
to increase and since 1997 has fluctuated between 100 to
300 Bbls/Mmcf (Figure 2). Also in 1999 the 7-5 well
appears to have water out while still at a relatively high
reservoir pressure.
Cumulative Production to Jan 1, 2000
Gas 2.893 Mmcf 81.9 E6M3
Water 91.7 Mstb 14.6 E3M3
Well logs from the 7-5 well indicate 9 meters of clean
sand , 3 are gas over 6 of water. Below the upper clean
sand section are two more water bearing sands separated
by shale before encountering a bitumen pay zone of 20
meters thickness (Figure 3).
FIELD EXAMPLE from a total of 146 wells producing from the McMurray
Formation in the Surmont area of north east Alberta. The
The author, has chosen an area of topical debate, shut-in request was to protect the bitumen resource
which is in the northeastern part of the Province of recoverable through the steam assist gravity drainage
Alberta. The example well is in the immediate vicinity (SAGD) process. The pressure depletion of the associated
of the Surmont oil sands lease. gas production is expected to reduce recovery, and in
some cases, result in the sterilization of the bitumen
INFINITE AQUIFER MODEL MATCH resource.
In a recent decision of the AEUB, it was concluded
The following pressures from the 7-5 well were used
that pressure support, due to water influx would be, in
as history match parameters.
general, weak and insignificant. As outlined, the author
Date Method psia kPaa believes that most of the wells in this area could be
interpreted as having water influx with significant
Mar-88 BU 229.6 1583
pressure support.
Feb-93 StGr 169.5 1169
The moderate water influx example shown in Figure 1
Jun-97 Dwg 146.8 610 represents the Chard 7-05-81-06W4M wells infinite
aquifer model match. Water influx rates are estimated to
The model match parameters (ie. re, µw, ct, ha, φa & be 7000-8000 BWPD (1100 - 1300 M3/D). Recognizing
θa) are varied until the best match to the observed the effect of water influx may alter the perception of the
pressures is achieved. With the use of the computer it is effect that gas production has on potential SAGD
easy to determine the match parameters which provided production.
the minimum deviation from the observed pressure data
(Figure 4). In addition, the solution is convergent to one
unique solution (Figure 5). The following match represent ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
a .8% total pressure deviation for the 7-5 well. Take the example of a gas property acquisition in
which a strong water influx is occurring. The material
Gas pool radius 5560 feet 1695 meters balance calculation and decline analysis would indicate
Water viscosity 1.00cp 1.00cp substantial remaining reserves. In the worst case the
Total compressibility 3.5E-06 v/v/psi financial loss could be 100% of the purchase price, if the
Aquifer thickness 20.54 feet 6.38 meters wells were to start watering out soon after the acquisition.
Aquifer porosity 20% 20% Without an accurate series of pressures over time it
Aquifer permeability 1650md 1650md can not be determined whether gas or water influx is
Aquifer influx angle 94.9° 94.9° occurring. Instead it is traditionally assumed that the gas
reservoir behaves volumetrically with no supporting
evidence. This highlights a common mistake, in material
The author has found through the use of the infinite balance analysis.
aquifer model that it has impressive accuracy, making it
an exceptional analysis tool to see far beyond the
wellbore. In the case of the 7-5 well the thickness of the CONCLUSIONS
aquifer is exactly as seen on the log. While the AOF test
1. The newer method of Leung provides superior
determined a gas permeability of 1686 md, compared to
accuracy in the water influx analysis described,
the models aquifer prediction of 1650 md. The influx
compared to older techniques.
angle requires a review of the geology to confirm. The
porosity represents the bulk porosity of the infinite aquifer 2. Volumetric behavior must be proven not assumed.
system which includes both reservoir and non reservoir Pressure history is critical in this regard.
rock. The total compressibility is completely reasonable 3. The material balance is commonly misused:
and is probably the best measure of that value. production performance must be consistent with the
Water influx is estimated to have reached a maximum material balance technique used.
of 8250 Bwpd (1300 M3/D) in 1994 before starting to 4. Pressure data must be carefully collected and screened
drop off. When the gas rate dropped to 400 mcf/d the gas in the case of low pressure reservoirs.
pool pressure stabilized at approximately 145 psia (1000
5. In the author’s opinion, existing analyses presented in
kPaa), the rate of water influx and gas voidage were in
the northeastern portion of Alberta may be in
balance.
considerable error, due to inadequate pressure data
collection, screening and interpretation.
RECENT AEUB DECISION 6. Since the price crash of 1985 the phrase “lean and
Effective May 1, 2000 the Alberta Energy Utilities mean” became popular. One of the implications of
Board requested the shut-in of associated gas production lean, was that reservoir pressures were no longer
 obtained regularly on producing properties. In 12 FETKOVICH, M.J.: “A Simplified Approach to
hindsight, this may prove to have been no saving at Water Influx Calculations-Finite Aquifer Systems,”
all. Jour. Pet. Tech. (July 1971) 814.
7. Correct interpretation of production performance and 13 LEUNG, W.F.: “A Fast Convolution Method for
material balance is important in property evaluation. Implementing Single-Porosity Finite/Infinite Aquifer
8. The use of the interpretation techniques outlined in Models for Water-Influx Calculations”, SPE Res.Eng.
this paper may substantially affect the ongoing dispute (September 1986) 490.
between operators of SAGD oil sand projects and 14 LEUNG, W.F.: “A New Pseudosteady-State Model
shallow gas projects. for Dual-Porosity/Dual-Permeability Aquifers and
Two Interconnected Single-Porosity Aquifers”, SPE
Res.Eng. (September 1986) 511.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
15 VOGT, J.P. and WANG, B.: “Accurate Formulas for
The author is grateful for the assistance from his Calculating the Water Influx Superposition Integral”,
daughter, April Lies and Mike Carlson of Applied SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, (October
Reservoir Engineering Ltd. in the preparation of this 1987) SPE 17066.
paper.
16 KLINS, M.A., BOUCHARD, A.J. and CABLE, C.L.:
“A Polynomial approach to the van Everdingen-Hurst
REFERENCES Dimensionless Variables for Water Encroachment”,
SPE Res.Eng. (February 1988) 320.
1 SCHITHUIS, R.J.: “Active Oil and Reservoir
Energy”, Trans., AIME (1936) 118, 37. 17 PETROLEUM SOCIETY MONOGRAPH NO 1.:
Determination of Oil and Gas Reserves, Petroleum
2 HURST, W.: “Water Influx into a Reservoir and its
Society of the CIM, Calgary Section (1994) 18,149.
Application to the Equation of Volumetric Balance”,
Trans., AIME (1943) 151, 57.
3 VAN EVERDINGEN, A.F. and HURST, W.: “The AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow H.K.Lies is the president of HyPex Consulting Ltd.
Problems in Reservoirs”, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, HyPex provides specialized consulting on the Geologic
305. Fluid System.
4 VAN EVERDINGEN, A.F., TIMMERMAN, E.H. The Geologic Fluid System is an integrated analysis of
and MCMAHON, J.J.: “Application of the Material Geology, Hydrogeology, Geochemistry and Reservoir
Balance Equation to a Partial Water-Drive Reservoir”, Engineering. He has over 25 years of varied petroleum
Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 51. industry experience which include positions in Special
5 HURST, W.: “The Simplification of the Material Projects, Evaluations, Banking , Operations, Reservoir
Balance Formulas by the Laplace Transformation”, Engineering and as president of a Petroleum
Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 292. Hydrogeological research and consulting company. Mr.
Lies hold a B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the
6 CRAFT, B.C. and HAWKINS, M.F.:Applied
University of Alberta (1976). He is a registered
Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Prentice-Hall,
professional engineer in Alberta and is a member of the
Englemood Cliffs, N.J. (1959
CSPG and the Petroleum Society of CIM.
7 CARTER, R.D. and TRACY, G.W.: “An Improved
Method for Calculating Water Influx”, Trans., AIME
(1960) 219, 415.
8 HAVENLA, D. and ODEH, A.S.: “The Material
Balance as an Equation of a Straight Line”, Jour. Pet.
Tech. (August 1963) 896.
9 HUBBARD, R.M. and ELENBAAS, J.R.:
“Determining Gas-Filled Pore Volume in a Water-
Drive Gas-Storage Reservoir”, Jour. Pet. Tech. (April
1964) 383
10 BRUNS, J.R., FETKOVICH, M.J. and MEITZEN,
V.C.: “The Effect of water on p/Z-Cumulative Gas
Production Curves”, Jour. Pet. Tech. (March 1965)
287.
11 AGARWAL, R.G., AL-HUSSAINY, R. and RAMEY,
JR.H.J.: “The Importance of Water Influx in Gas
Reservoirs”, Jour. Pet. Tech. (November 1965) 1336.