SPE 62882
Improvements to Reservoir Material Balance Methods
J. L. Pletcher, SPE, Marathon Oil Company (Retired)
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
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
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• Material balance has not been replaced by reservoir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
problem of solving the material balance in the presence of a
water drive (references 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 are just a few of the
more significant ones). The emphasis has been on strong and
moderate water drives. In this paper, examples of weak water
drives are shown in which the effects on the material balance
are not insignificant. All aquifers studied here are of the so-
called Pot Aquifer type, which is time-independent.
In gas reservoirs, the plot of p z versus cumulative gas
production, Gp, is a widely accepted method for solving the
gas material balance1 under depletion-drive conditions.
Extrapolation of the plot to atmospheric pressure provides a
reliable estimate of Original Gas in Place (OGIP). If a water
drive is present, the plot often appears to be linear but the
extrapolation will give an erroneously high value for OGIP.
Many authors have addressed this problem (references 2, 6, 7,
& 8 to name but a few), especially in cases of strong or
moderate water drives. The p z plot is actually more
ambiguous in weak water drives than strong or moderate ones.
The Cole Plot7,9 has proven to be a valuable diagnostic tool
for distinguishing between depletion-drive gas reservoirs and
those that are producing under a water drive. The analogous
plot for oil reservoirs is the Campbell Plot10. The literature
emphasizes strong and moderate water drives, whose
signatures are a positive slope and a hump-shaped curve,
respectively. Though previous authors have recognized that
weak water drives can produce negative slopes on these plots,
this author is not aware of examples in the literature. This
paper shows examples using simulation and actual field data
wherein the negative slope clearly reveals a weak water drive.
These plots are much more diagnostic than, say, the p z plot
for gas. Once the weak water drives have been diagnosed, the
appropriate steps can be taken in the material balance
equations to yield more accurate results.
The Cole Plot assumes that formation compressibility can
be neglected, which is frequently the case with gas. However,
in those reservoirs where formation compressibility is not
insignificant, a modification to the Cole Plot is presented
which incorporates the cf term and gives more accurate results.
The reservoir drive indices have been used to quantify the
relative magnitude of the various energy sources active in a
reservoir. It is shown here that the drive indices are also a
useful diagnostic tool for determining the correctness of a
material balance solution because they must sum to 1.0. If
they do not sum to 1.0, a correct solution has not been
2 J. L. PLETCHER
obtained. In some commercial material balance programs, the
drive indices are automatically normalized to sum to 1.0
which not only obscures their usefulness but also leads to the
false impression of having achieved a correct solution.
The Roach Plot has been presented11 as a tool for solving
the gas material balance in the presence of water drive. This
paper shows that for water drives that fit the Pot Aquifer
model, interpretation can be improved by including water
production in the X-axis plotting term. This improves the
linearity of the plot and gives more accurate values for OGIP.
Finally, it is argued that even in those reservoirs for which
a simulation study is performed, material balance should be
performed on a stand-alone basis. Simulation should not be
viewed as a replacement to material balance because the latter
can yield valuable insights that can be obscured during
simulation. Performing a separate material balance study will
usually improve overall reservoir understanding and enhance
any subsequent simulation study. Material balance should be
viewed as a complement to simulation, not as a competing
approach.
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:
F = G (Eg + Efw) + We................................................(1)
where F is cumulative reservoir voidage,
F = Gp Bg + Wp Bw , ...................................................(2)
Eg is cumulative gas expansion,
Eg = Bg – Bgi , .............................................................(3)
and Efw is cumulative formation and water expansion:
S wi cw + c f
E fw = Bgi ( pi − p ) ..................................(4)
1 − S wi
Very often in gas reservoirs, Efw is negligible compared to Eg
and it can be ignored. Then by substitution and rearranging,
Eq. 1 can be expressed as:
G p Bg We − W p Bw
=G + .......................................(5)
Bg − Bgi Bg − Bgi
G p Bg
Cole proposed plotting the left-hand term on the
Bg − Bgi
Y-axis versus cumulative gas production on the X-axis. If the
reservoir is depletion drive, i.e. no water influx, the far right-
hand term in Eq. 5 goes to zero and the points plot in a
horizontal line with the Y-intercept equal to G, the original gas
in place (OGIP). If a water drive is present, the far right-hand
SPE 62882
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 plot’s
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.
GpBg / (Bg -Bgi) ,
Strong
Water Drive
MSCF
Moderate
Water Drive
Weak
Water Drive
OGIP
Depletion Drive
Gp, MSCF
Fig. 1 -- Cole Plot curve shapes as a function of aquifer strength.
Wang and Teasdale12 stated that in the presence of a weak
W − W p Bw
water drive, the far right-hand term in Eq. 5, e ,
Bg − Bgi
would decrease with time because the denominator would
increase faster than the numerator. Therefore, the plotted
points will exhibit a negative slope as shown in Fig. 1, and
indeed this has been observed in practice as will be shown
later in this paper. as reservoir depletion progresses, the points
migrate vertically down and to the right toward the true OGIP;
the smaller the aquifer, the closer the plot will approach the
true OGIP.
Note that the negative slope of the weak water drive curve
represents a somewhat unexpected anomaly. The Y-axis
G p Bg
plotting term amounts to the apparent OGIP that
Bg − Bgi
would be calculated assuming no water drive were present.
Therefore, under a weak water drive the apparent OGIP
decreases with time, contrary to that for a strong or moderate
water drive.
The weak water drive curve actually begins with a positive
slope in the very early stages of reservoir depletion as shown
SPE 62882 IMPROVEMENTS TO RESERVOIR MATERIAL BALANCE METHODS
in Fig. 1, prior to developing the signature negative slope. The
very early points are difficult to use for determining OGIP,
however, because they frequently exhibit a great deal of
scatter that is introduced by even small errors in pressure
measurements early in the reservoir life. So technically the
curve is hump-shaped like Dake’s “moderate water drive”
curve in Fig. 1, except that the positive-slope portion of the
hump is over with very early and in practice will not show up
at all if frequent and accurate early-time data is not obtained.
Modified Cole Plot. In some gas reservoirs, formation
compressibility is not negligible, in which case Efw should not
be ignored and Eq. 5 should be written:
F W
= G + e ...............................................................(6)
Et Et
where Et is total reservoir expansion,
Et = Eg + Efw ..............................................................(7)
The left-hand term F now incorporates energy contribution
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:
3
GE g
GDI =
G p Bg
Formation and connate water compressibility drive index:
GE fw
CDI =
G p Bg
Water drive index:
W − W p Bw
WDI = e
G p Bg
The numerators of these three fractions represent the
expansion of the gas, the expansion of the rock and water, and
the net water influx, respectively (in cumulative reservoir
volumes). The common denominator is the cumulative
hydrocarbon voidage. If the material balance is solved
correctly, the sum of these three dimensionless fractions
equals unity, i.e.,
GDI + CDI + WDI = 1
If the drive indices do not sum to 1.0, a correct material
balance solution has not been obtained.
In practice, drive indices calculated from actual field data
rarely sum exactly to 1.0 because the data is not perfect. The
summed drive indices typically vary between values
somewhat larger than 1.0 and somewhat smaller, with the
degree of deviation from 1.0 a function of data quality.
However, if the summed drive indices are consistently greater
than or less than 1.0, or show a consistent increasing or
decreasing trend, this is an indication that a correct solution to
the material balance has not been obtained.
Gas Simulation Model. A simple two-cell gas model was
constructed using the Eclipse14 reservoir simulator to study the
effects of weak water influx on gas reservoir material balance.
One cell contained gas at irreducible water saturation, i.e. a
“tank” model ideally suited to material balance analysis, and
the other cell contained an equal pore volume with 100%
water saturation. OGIP was about 101 BCF. A single well was
produced at a rate of 15 MMSCFPD for 10 years, recovering a
little over one-half (54.3%) of the OGIP. Other properties of
the model are :
Node size = 640 acres
Node thickness = net pay thickness = 200 ft.
Porosity = 15%
Gas reservoir pore volume = 74.5 × 106 RB
Sw = 15%
OGIP = 100.8 BCF
Permeability = 100 md.
cf = 6 × 10-6 psi-1
cw = 3 × 10-6 psi-1
Reservoir temperature = 239º F.
4 J. L. PLETCHER
The simulator output at one-year intervals was used to
perform a material balance evaluation of the reservoir.
Production and pressure results of the simulation are given in
Table 1, and PVT properties are given in Table 2. The p z
plot is shown in Fig. 2, where each point represents conditions
at year-end for years 1 through 10. Since rock compressibility
in this case is not insignificant, the p z plotting term was
modified to account for the extra energy contribution using a
method equivalent to that of Ramagost and Farshad15.
6000 After 2 yrs.
(Cum.=11%)
p/z (modified) , psia
G=109 BCF
5000
After 5 yrs.
(Cum.=27%)
4000 G=107 BCF
After 10 yrs.
3000 (Cum.=54%)
G=105 BCF
2000
1000
0 Fig. 3--Cole Plot, original and modified, for 2-cell gas simulation.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Gp, BCF
Fig. 2 -- Modified p/z plot from output of 2-cell gas simulation.
Actual OGIP=101 BCF.
The plotted p z points in Fig. 2 appear to lie on an
almost perfect straight line (R2=0.9998 after 10 years), giving
the impression that an extrapolation could be made with
confidence. However, an extrapolation of the points made
after 2 years, when 11% of the true OGIP had been produced,
would yield a value of 109 BCF for OGIP, or 8.2% too high.
After 5 years, the error would be +6.5%. Even after 10 years
and recovery of 54% of the OGIP, the error would still be
+4.0%. Errors of this magnitude are not insignificant for this
very small aquifer.
Existence of a water drive would be practically impossible
to detect from well performance because even after 10 years
the well made only 1.5 STB/MMSCF of water. The simulation
well produced water only because the water influx is dispersed
throughout the single cell as a uniform increase in water
saturation of about 4%. In an actual reservoir, the well would
likely produce even less water because the water influx would
be distributed as a higher water saturation near the original
gas-water contact (GWC) grading to a water saturation only
slightly above irreducible in the vicinity of the well,
depending of course on the proximity of the well with regards
to the original GWC.
Cole and Modified Cole Plots. The Cole Plot, Fig. 3, for
this weak aquifer data set exhibits a negative slope. The plot
corroborates Wang and Teasdale’s contention that the Cole
SPE 62882
Plot clearly indicates the presence of even a weak water drive,
whereas the p z plot is completely ambiguous. The negative
slope distinguishes the weak water drive system from the
strong water drive (positive slope), moderate water drive
(hump-shaped), and depletion drive (horizontal line), Fig. 1.
120
GpBg/(Bg-Bgi) or F/Et, BCF
Original
115
Modified
110
105
100
0 20 40 60 80
Gp, BCF
Note that the ordinate values plotted in Fig. 3 appear to be
migrating toward the true OGIP value, 101 BCF, as reservoir
depletion takes place. Thus, the most recent plotted point on
the Cole Plot could be taken as the maximum possible value of
OGIP, about 107 BCF after 10 years (Gp = 54% of OGIP).
Since formation compressibility is not insignificant in this
example, the Modified Cole Plot should be used. As expected,
the points lie closer to the true value of OGIP than the original
Cole Plot, Fig. 3.
Values at 1-month intervals during the first year of
production are included in Fig. 3 as continuous lines without
symbols. The early time points exhibit a steep positive slope.
The negative slope develops after about 10 months when 4.5%
of the true OGIP has been produced. As pointed out
previously, extrapolation of these early points back to Gp = 0
to obtain OGIP is possible in theory, but in practice is not
recommended because (1) it is necessary to obtain pressures
with a very high degree of accuracy and (2) the points do not
form a line of constant slope.
Pot Aquifer Plot. If the aquifer is relatively small, is in
good communication with the hydrocarbon reservoir, and
permeabilities are sufficiently high, the aquifer can be
described using the so-called Pot Aquifer model and OHIP can
be obtained from the Pot Aquifer Plot1,16, or alternatively
using Tehrani’s method4. In the Pot Aquifer model, any drop
in reservoir pressure is instantaneously transmitted throughout
the entire aquifer. Mathematically:
We = (cw + c f )W ( pi − p ) ........................................... (8)
SPE 62882 IMPROVEMENTS TO RESERVOIR MATERIAL BALANCE METHODS 5

where W = aquifer original water in place (OWIP), RB. In Fig. 4, points are plotted at 1-month intervals during the
first year using the smaller symbols. These points have a
By substituting Eq. 8 for We in Eq. 1, expanding, and negative slope, and do not start “turning over” toward the
rearranging: correct positive-slope trend until about ¾ of the way through
the year. This is typical of the Pot Aquifer Plot, thus the plot
p − p  GB gi (S wi c w + c f )  may not be usable very early in the life of the reservoir.
+ (c w + c f )W 
F
=G+ i  Table 3 summarizes the OGIP values obtained using the
Eg Eg  1 − S wi  various methods and the percent errors. Even the modified
.........................................................................................(9) Cole Plot solution is closer to the true OGIP than the p z
F p −p plot. The reason the Modified Cole Plot is so near the true
Plotting on the Y-axis versus i on the X-axis OGIP is because the aquifer is so small for this data. For
Eg Eg larger aquifers, neither the original nor the modified Cole
yields a straight line with the Y-intercept equal to G. The Plots will give a value so close to the true OGIP as in this
slope is given by the term in brackets and is a function of rock example.
and water compressibility as well as aquifer size, W. Note that The slope of the solution line in Fig. 4 after 10 years is
this plot permits determination of OGIP without any 1103 RB/psi, giving a calculated W of 69.1 MMRB, some 7%
knowledge of aquifer size or compressibility. low compared to the true value of 74.5 MMRB. Cumulative
The slope term in Eq. 9 permits solving for the water in water influx can be calculated from Eq. 8 as 2,346,000 RB
place in the aquifer, W (assuming that cf is known). after 10 years, about 6% less than the 2,494,000 RB from the
Rearranging: simulation. Accuracy of the calculated W and We would be
improved by excluding additional early years from the least
GB gi
Slope − (S wi c w + c f ) squares fit, as these earlier points deviate slightly from the
1 − S wi straight line.
W= .......................(10) Note that if in fact there is no aquifer, the Pot Aquifer Plot
cw + c f
still applies. In this case, W drops out of the slope term which
where G and the slope are obtained from the least square fit can then be rearranged to solve for formation compressibility:
straight line. 1 − S wi
Fig. 4 shows the Pot Aquifer Plot for the 2-cell gas c f = Slope − S wi c w ................................... (11)
simulation example and values of OGIP obtained from GB gi
extrapolation of straight lines fitted to the data using the
For this data set, a cf of 14.3×10-6 psi-1 is calculated,
method of least-squares, assuming the analyses had been
performed at various times throughout the reservoir’s history. significantly larger than the “known” value of 6×10-6 psi-1. In
Early-time points typically plot below the true straight line a real-world setting, this would be another indication that an
that eventually develops. After 2 years of performance, the additional energy source needs to be accounted for.
true line would not yet be apparent and an analysis would Drive Indices. Drive indices were calculated for the 2-cell
include points from years 1 and 2, giving a value for OGIP simulation model assuming that the p z solution was correct
about 4% too high. Analyses conducted after 5 and 10 years and compared with drive indices calculated using the more
would have excluded the year 1 data from the least square fit. accurate solution obtained from the Pot Aquifer Plot. Table 4
In all cases, the OGIP values are significantly improved over compares the two calculations after 5 years of performance
those obtained from the p z plot. and Table 5 compares the two after 10 years of performance.
Drive indices for the Pot Aquifer solution add up to 1.0 as
After 2 yrs. expected, except for year 1 which was excluded from the least
1.18E+08 (Cum.=11%)
G=105 BCF square solution fit.
After 5 yrs.
(Cum.=27%) 2
1 For the incorrect p z solution, which does not account
G=102 BCF
1.12E+08 After 10 yrs.
3 for the aquifer, drive indices do not add up to 1.0 until later in
4
F/E g, MSCF

(Cum.=54%) 5 the respective time periods. This would be an indication to the

G=101 BCF 6
7
engineer making the analysis that his solution is incorrect.
9
8 Therefore, the criterion of whether or not the drive indices add
1.06E+08
10 to 1.0 is an indicator of the correctness of the material balance
End of solution. This point is made because some commercial
Y-int.=G Year
material balance programs normalize the drive indices so that
1.00E+08
they always add up to 1.0. This practice is counterproductive
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
∆ P/Eg, psi-MSCF/RB because it deprives the engineer of a tool for evaluating the
correctness of his solution and gives the false impression that
Fig. 4--Pot Aquifer Plot for 2-cell gas simulation.
a valid solution has been obtained. This applies regardless of
the aquifer model being fitted to the reservoir. Only the raw
6 J. L. PLETCHER SPE 62882

calculated drive indices should be reported and summed, they
should never be normalized.
To summarize, evaluation of this reservoir taking the
common approach of considering only the p z method
(modified to include cf effects) would, on the surface, give
every indication that a correct material balance solution had
been obtained for depletion drive. Yet OGIP would be
erroneously high, with the error ranging from about 4 to 8%
depending on the stage of reservoir depletion considered.
Constructing the Modified Cole Plot or calculating drive
indices would signal that the solution was not in fact correct,
with the former indicating that a weak water drive was in fact
present.
Oklahoma Morrow Gas Reservoir. Production history and
other data for an Oklahoma Morrow sand gas reservoir are
given in Table 6. Because of the decline in pressure and lack
of water production, no aquifer support was suspected. The
p z plot, Fig. 5, gives no hint of aquifer support. The
psi-1 was used in Eq. 10 to calculate W of 6.74 MMRB.
Aquifer size can be compared with reservoir size by first
calculating original reservoir pore volume from:
GBgi
PV =
(1 − S wi )
5,440,000 MSCF × 0.5770 RB / MSCF
=
(1 − .3)
= 4.484 MMRB
Then the aquifer is 6.74 MMRB / 4.48 MMRB = 1.5 times as
large as the gas reservoir. Cumulative water influx of 99,800
RB after 332 days is calculated using Eq. 8. This equates to
only 3% of the original hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) of
about 3,139,000 RB, yet it represents about 10% of the
cumulative hydrocarbon voidage (Gp × Bg = !,350,000 MSCF
× 0.73526 RB/MSCF = 992,600 RB).
7,500,000

GpBg/(Bg-Bgi) or F/E t,
Original
modified p z extrapolation gives G = 6.02 BCF (note that 7,000,000 Modified
even though cf is only 3 × 10-6 psi-1, extrapolation of the

MSCF
6,500,000
conventional p z which ignores cf gives G = 6.32 BCF, some
5% in error). 6,000,000

6000 5,500,000

Conventional 5,000,000
5000
Modified 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000
Conventional
4000 Gp, MSCF
Modified
p/z, psia

3000 Fig. 6--Original and Modified Cole Plots, Oklahoma Morrow gas
reservoir.

2000
7,500,000
1000

0 7,000,000

0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000

F/Eg, MSCF

6,500,000
Gp, MSCF

Fig. 5--p/z plot, Oklahoma Morrow gas reservoir. 6,000,000

The Cole and Modified Cole Plots are shown in Fig. 6 and 5,500,000 OGIP=5,440,000 MSCF
exhibit the characteristic negative slope of a weak water drive
system. Therefore, the Pot Aquifer Plot was used to determine
5,000,000
OGIP and aquifer size, Fig. 7. OGIP of 5.44 BCF results from
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
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% ∆ P/Eg, psi-MSCF/RB

too high even after being modified for formation

Fig. 7--Pot Aquifer Plot, Oklahoma Morrow gas reservoir.
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 Drive indices are shown in Table 7 for the modified p z
greater than the estimated value of 3 × 10-6 psi-1 and too high solution and the Pot Aquifer solution. Drive index totals based
for “hard rock country.” Therefore, the estimated cf = 3 × 10-6
SPE 62882 IMPROVEMENTS TO RESERVOIR MATERIAL BALANCE METHODS 7

on the OGIP obtained from p z show a trend from too low
to near unity as reservoir depletion progresses. Normalizing
the values to sum to 1.0 would have disguised that a problem
existed with the p z solution. Drive indices based on OGIP
obtained from the Pot Aquifer solution show normal
fluctuation around 1.0 typical of field data.
Roach Plot. Roach17 rearranged the p z relationship to solve
for the correct OGIP when formation compressibility is
significant but of unknown magnitude. Poston and coworkers
(reference 11) expanded Roach’s relationship to incorporate
water influx. Equation 6.10 from reference 11 can be
expressed in modified form as
( p z )i ( p z ) − 1 1 ( p z )i ( p z )⋅ G p
= ⋅
pi − p pi − p
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.
Conventional:

[ (p/z)i/(p/z) - 1 ] / (pi-p), psi-1

G y = 1.042E-05x - 1.082E-04
....................(12) 0.00020
R2 = 9.997E-01
S c + cf W − Wp Bw 
−  wi w + e
 1 − S wi ( pi − p )GBgi  0.00016 Modified:
y = 9.853E-06x - 9.645E-05
R2 = 9.999E-01
The Roach Plot consists of plotting the left-hand side of Eq.
0.00012
12,
( p z )i ( p z ) − 1 , on the Y-axis versus
Conventional

pi − p Modified

( p z )i ( p z )⋅ G p on the X-axis. The slope of the plot is 1 G ,

0.00008
18 22 26 30
pi − p X plotting term, MMSCF/psi
so G is equal to the reciprocal of the slope. The Y-intercept is Fig. 8--Conventional and modified Roach Plots, 1-cell simulation.
the term in brackets on the right-hand side of Eq. 12 and
incorporates formation and water compressibility, as well as Although the conventional plot in Fig. 8 appears to be
water influx and water production with the modifications in linear to the eye, in reality the points are deviating slightly to
reference 11. the left with increasing time because water production causes
The difficulty with interpreting the plot in the presence of the Y-intercept term (in brackets in Eq. 12) to decrease with
a water drive is that the Y-intercept is not constant because the time. The “slope” of the conventional plot is 1.042 × 10-5
water influx and water production term in brackets does not MMSCF-1 giving G = 1/(1.042 × 10-5) = 96.0 BCF, almost 5%
remain constant. Thus the correct slope is difficult to ascertain, low to the true OGIP=100.8 BCF. The modified version
and significant errors in OGIP can easily result. straightens out the later time points and gives G =1/(0.9853 ×
Modified Roach Plot. The problem can be solved provided 10-5) = 101.5 BCF, less than 1% high to the true value.
the aquifer is of the Pot Aquifer type. Eq. 8 is substituted for Aquifer OWIP calculated from the Y-intercept is 674 MMRB
We in Eq. 12 which is then rearranged to move the water from the conventional plot, about 6% too high, and 629
production term into the X-axis plotting term, resulting in: MMRB from the modified plot, only 0.7% too low.
W p Bw The modified Roach Plot has been tested for varying
( p z )i ( p z )⋅ G p + Fetkovich aquifer volumes with this model, using W’s larger
( p z )i ( p z ) − 1 1 Bgi and smaller than the 10×HCPV used in the example. The
= ⋅
pi − p G pi − p ......(13) deviation of the late-time points on the conventional plot
 S wi c w + c f (
cw + c f W  ) becomes more visible to the eye as W increases; for W of 1
Billion RB it is clearly noticeable and the late-time points
− + .
 1 − S wi GBgi  must be excluded from the least-square fit. For W = 5×HCPV
the conventional plot gives essentially the correct G because
W p Bw water production is not too great. In application, both the
( p z )i ( p z )⋅ G p + conventional and modified plots could be constructed and
Bgi
The X-axis plotting term becomes compared for the amount of deviation as in Fig. 8. If only one
pi − p plot is to be constructed, it should be the modified plot to be
and the Y-axis term is the same as before. All the terms in safe.
brackets are now constant, thus the Y-intercept does not
8 J. L. PLETCHER SPE 62882

The modified Roach Plot has not been tested on actual
field data. Two questions come to mind when considering
field cases: first, whether an actual aquifer could be as large as
that used in the simulations and still perform like a Pot
aquifer, and second, whether water volumes sufficiently large
to cause the curve to deviate can realistically be produced
before the wells load up. The method could at least find
application, say, in enhanced recovery projects where gas
reservoirs are aggressively de-watered.
Oil Reservoirs
Campbell Plot. For oil reservoirs, the Campbell Plot10 is the
counterpart to the Modified Cole Plot for gas. It is based on an
equation analogous to Eq. 5 for gas:
F W
= N + e .............................................................(14)
Et Et
where N is original oil in place (OOIP) in STB, and F is
cumulative reservoir voidage,
[
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)
Eo is cumulative oil expansion,
for distinguishing between depletion drive reservoirs and
strong, moderate, and weak water drives. If the reservoir is
depletion drive, the plot can be used quantitatively since the
Y-value of the plotted points equals the OOIP. But if a water
drive exists, the slope of the plot is changing continuously, so
extrapolation back to the OOIP is hazardous and is not
recommended.
As with the Cole Plot for gas, the weak aquifer curve again
exhibits a negative slope following a brief early period of
steep positive slope. Thus, the “apparent OOIP” calculated
assuming no water drive, i.e. N = F / Et , exhibits the counter-
intuitive trait of decreasing with time. This was recognized at
least as early as 196316. The negative slope has been observed
on field data and in simulation data sets.
Oil Simulation Model. A multi-cell simulation model of an
undersaturated oil reservoir with an attached Pot Aquifer was
constructed using the Eclipse14 reservoir simulator. The model
used PVT and other properties similar to those encountered in
U.S. Gulf Coast sandstones: high permeability, porosity, and
formation compressibility. Reservoir properties are as follows:
Sw = 20.8%
φ = 28%
cf = 26 × 10-6 psi-1
cw = 2.28 × 10-6 psi-1
Reservoir temperature = 158º F.
Bubble point = 2648 psia
Bobp = 1.2697 RB/STB
OOIP ≈ 20 MMSTB
Aquifer OWIP ≈ 80 MMSTB

Eo = Bt – Bti , .............................................................. 17

Strong
Eg is cumulative gas expansion,
F / Et , STB

Water Drive

( )
Bti Moderate
Eg = B g − B gi , ...............................................(18) Water Drive
B gi
Weak
Water Drive
OOIP

Depletion Drive
Efw is cumulative formation and water expansion,
S wi cw + c f
E fw = Bti (1 + m ) (pi − p ) , ..........................(19)
1 − S wi

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)
Plotting F on the Y-axis versus F on the X-axis will yield
Et
a plot having one of the characteristic curve shapes shown in
Fig. 9, which is similar to Fig. 1 for gas. In other words, like
the Cole Plot, the Campbell Plot is useful in a qualitative sense
F , RB
Fig. 9 --Campbell Plot curve shapes.
Pressures and produced volumes from the simulator output
were used to perform a material balance evaluation of the
reservoir. Performance data is given in Table 9 and PVT data
is given in Table 10.
The decline in reservoir pressure and lack of significant
water production for 8 years could lead to the interpretation
SPE 62882 IMPROVEMENTS TO RESERVOIR MATERIAL BALANCE METHODS 9

that no aquifer is present. The recommended method16,19 for

solving the material balance for an undersaturated oil reservoir
without water influx is the plot of F vs. Et, which should be a 60,000,000
straight line with OOIP equal to the slope. Fig. 10 shows the
plot for this data. It is obvious for this perfect data set that the
points do not lay in a straight line, but for real field data the 50,000,000
curvature could easily be obscured within normal data scatter,

F / Et, RBL
leading to the false conclusion that no aquifer was present.
Least square straight lines were fit to the data assuming that 40,000,000
evaluations were performed at various stages in the life of the
reservoir, after 3%, 7%, and 20% of the true OOIP had been
produced. Errors in the value of N (shown in the legend of 30,000,000
Fig. 10) of +160%, +90%, and +50%, respectively, are
obtained.
20,000,000
0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000
12,000,000
F, RBL

Fig. 11--Campbell Plot for oil simulation case.

8,000,000
After 700 days
F, RB

(Cum.=3%) N=52
MMSTB 210,000,000

After 1285 days

4,000,000 (Cum.=7%) N=38 170,000,000
MMSTB
F / Eo , STB

After 3595 days 130,000,000 After 700 days

(Cum.=20%) N=30 (Cum.=3%) N=39
MMSTB MMSTB
0 90,000,000 After 1285 days
(Cum.=7%) N=21.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
MMSTB
Et, RB/STB 50,000,000
After 3595 days
Y-int.= (Cum.=20%)
Fig. 10--Solution plot for oil simulation case assuming no water OOIP N=20.3 MMSTB
drive. 10,000,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000

The Campbell Plot, Fig. 11, clearly shows the signature
negative slope of a weak water drive. As with the modified
Cole Plot, the points migrate toward the true OOIP with time.
The negative sloping Campbell Plot has also been observed on
actual reservoirs.
The material balance solution for this case is obtained from
the Pot Aquifer plot which has been derived for oil16, similar
to that for gas. Since the oil is undersaturated, F is plotted
Eo
on the Y-axis versus ∆p on the X-axis (see reference 16 for
Eo
derivation). As with gas, the Y-intercept gives the OOIP. The
plot for this case is shown in Fig. 12. Sequence of plotted
points is from right to left.
Again, several solutions were obtained from the Pot
Aquifer plot at various stages over the life of the reservoir.
The first data point at 305 days lies below the correct straight
line trend that has become apparent after 1285 days and so is
excluded from that least square fit. By 3595 days, it is
apparent that the second data point at 700 days is off trend as
well, so it is excluded from that fit. By 1285 days, a value of N
is obtained that is within <10% of the true value.
∆ p / Eo , psi-STB/RB
Fig. 12--Pot Aquifer Plot for oil simulation case.
Aquifer OWIP is calculated from the slope of the Pot
Aquifer plot using the oil version of Eq. 10, i.e. N replaces G
and Bti replaces Bgi (and formation compressibility is of course
known in this simulation example). Slope after 3595 days is
3090 RB/psi from which W of about 79 MMRB is calculated.
Hydrocarbon reservoir PV is about 35.7 MMRB, so the
aquifer is about 2.2 times as large as the reservoir.
Drive Indices. Drive indices for oil reservoirs as defined in
reference 13 are presented here in modified form:
Depletion drive index:
NEo
DDI =
Hydrocarbo n Voidage
Segregation (gas cap) drive index:
NmE g
SDI =
Hydrocarbon Voidage
Water drive index:
10 J. L. PLETCHER
We − W p B w
WDI =
Hydrocarbon Voidage
In addition, when cf is significant as it is in this example,
formation and connate water compressibility drive index is
defined as follows:
N (1 + m )E fw
CDI =
Hydrocarbon Voidage
where Hydrocarbon Voidage = Np [ Bt + Bg(Rp – Rsi) ]. If the
material balance is solved correctly, the sum of the four
fractions equals unity, i.e.,
DDI + SDI + CDI + WDI = 1
Drive indices were calculated for the oil simulation case
for the depletion drive solution and the Pot Aquifer solution
after 3595 days, Table 12. Drive indices for the depletion
drive solution do not add to 1.0. Had the values been
normalized to add to 1.0 as in some commercial programs, the
fact that the solution was incorrect would have been obscured.
Indices for the water drive solution add to 1.0 as expected,
considering that the first two points at 305 days and 700 days
were not used in the least square solution fit, thus their indices
should not be expected to add to 1.0.
In conclusion, as with the gas reservoir cases discussed
previously, presence of the weak water drive acting on this oil
reservoir would not be obvious without examining the
Campbell Plot and drive indices (raw, not normalized). An
erroneous depletion drive solution would have been obtained
to the material balance.
Material Balance and Reservoir Simulation
The perception exists among some that classical material
balance methods have been rendered unnecessary by reservoir
simulation. Since simulation incorporates material balance on
a cell-by-cell basis, it may be argued that stand-alone material
balance is superfluous and therefore serves no utility on those
reservoirs that are subject to a simulation study.
In response, it is argued that material balance and
simulation are complementary rather than competing tools.
Material balance can provide valuable insights into reservoir
mechanisms and processes that may be obscured by the
multitude of parameters that go into simulation.
Consider the examples shown in this paper, for example,
where weak water drives are not apparent from performance
data. simulations performed on such reservoirs without benefit
of a prior material balance study might well have resulted in
rock and fluid parameters being adjusted in order to achieve
matches on the wrong values of OHIP. If the water drive is of
the Pot Aquifer type as in this paper, OHIP and aquifer size
are solved for simultaneously and unambiguously using
material balance, without trial and error. Even in cases where
the solution is more ambiguous, material balance often yields
qualitative results that are as valuable as quantitative results20.
SPE 62882
Material balance should be performed prior to a simulation
study in order to help narrow the range of the many
parameters that can be adjusted during simulation as well as
the magnitude of adjustments that are considered reasonable.
And of course it is impractical to perform a simulation study
on every reservoir.
Dake provided an especially cogent discussion of this issue
in reference 7, pages 73, 82, 97, & 133. He summarized the
situation appropriately: “ . . . numerical simulation and
material balance must not be regarded as competitive
techniques: we have too few tools in reservoir engineering to
discard any of them.”
Conclusions
1. The Cole Plot (gas) and Campbell Plot (oil) diagnose the
presence of a weak water drive from a Pot Aquifer much more
clearly than other plots such as the p/z. Depletion drive plots
such as the p/z are ambiguous in the presence of a weak water
drive and can give OHIP values that are erroneously high by a
not insignificant amount. As suggested by previous authors,
the weak water drive signature on the Cole and Campbell
Plots is a negative slope.
2. The modified version of the Cole Plot should be used in
abnormally pressured reservoirs and other cases where
formation compressibility is not negligible compared to gas
compressibility.
3. If a correct solution to the material balance has been
obtained, the drive indices will sum to 1.0 (allowing for
normal scatter). If the drive indices do not sum to 1.0, a
correct solution has not been obtained. The drive indices
should never be normalized to sum to 1.0 because this
obscures their usefulness as a criterion for determining the
validity of the solution and gives a false sense of security.
Only the raw calculated values should be reported.
4. The Roach plot can be modified to improve gas
reservoir interpretation in the presence of a Pot Aquifer by
incorporating cumulative water production in the X-axis
plotting term. This procedure has not been tested on field data,
however.
5. Reservoir simulation does not eliminate the need for
classical material balance analysis. Material balance can
reveal insights into reservoir performance that cannot be
obtained from simulation, for example the presence of a weak
aquifer that is not otherwise obvious as in examples presented
in this paper. material balance is complementary to, not
competitive with, reservoir simulation.
Nomenclature
Bg = gas formation volume factor, RB/MSCF
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
Bt = total or two-phase oil formation volume factor (Eq.
20), RB/STB
Bw = water formation volume factor, RB/STB
cf = formation compressibility, vol/vol/psi
cw = water compressibility, vol/vol/psi
Eg = gas expansion, RB/STB in oil reservoirs,
RB/MSCF in gas reservoirs
SPE 62882 IMPROVEMENTS TO RESERVOIR MATERIAL BALANCE METHODS
Efw = formation and water expansion, RB/STB in oil
reservoirs, RB/MSCF in gas reservoirs
Eo = oil expansion, including original complement of
solution gas, RB/STB
Et = total expansion, RB/STB in oil reservoirs,
RB/MSCF in gas reservoirs
G = original gas in place (OGIP), MSCF
Gp = cumulative gas production, MSCF
m = ratio of gas cap OGIP to oil zone OOIP at reservoir
conditions, dimensionless
N = original oil in place (OOIP), STB
Np = cumulative oil production, STB
p = pressure, psia
Rp = cumulative produced gas/oil ratio, SCF/STB
Rs = solution gas/oil ratio, SCF/STB
Swi = initial water saturation, fraction
W = aquifer original water in place, RB
We = cumulative water influx, RB
Wp = cumulative water production, STB
z = gas deviation factor, or compressibility factor,
dimensionless
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. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1978) 303.
2. Bruns, J. R., et al.: “The Effect of Water Influx on p/z-
Cumulative Gas Production Curves,” JPT (March 1965) 287.
3. Chierici, G.L., et al.: “Water Drive Gas Reservoirs:
Uncertainty in Reserves From Past History,” JPT (Feb. 1967)
237; Trans., AIME, 240.
4. Tehrani, D.H.: “An Analysis of a Volumetric Balance
Equation for Calculation of Oil in Place and Water Influx,”
JPT (Sept. 1985) 1664.
5. Vega, L., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “New Approach for
Simultaneous Determination of the OGIP and Aquifer
Performance with No Prior Knowledge of Aquifer Properties
and Geometry,” paper SPE 59781 presented at the 2000
SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, April 3-5.
11
6. Agarwal, R. G., et al.: “The Importance of Water Influx in Gas
Reservoirs,” JPT (Nov. 1965) 1336.
7. Dake, L.P.: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier,
Amsterdam (1994) 473.
8. Lee, J., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir Engineering,
SPE, Richardson, TX (1996) 236.
9. Cole, F.W.: Reservoir Engineering Manual, Gulf Publishing
Co., Houston (1969) 285.
10. Campbell, R.A., and Campbell, J.M., Sr.: Mineral Property
Economics, Vol. 3: Petroleum Property Evaluation, Campbell
Petroleum Series, Norman, OK (1978) 26.
11. Poston, S.W., and Berg, R.R.: Overpressured Gas Reservoirs,
SPE, Richardson, TX (1997) 105.
12. Wang, B., and Teasdale, T.S.: “GASWAT-PC: A
Microcomputer Program for Gas Material Balance With Water
Influx,” paper SPE 16484 presented at the Petroleum Industry
Applications of Microcomputers, Del Lago on Lake Conroe,
Montgomery, TX, June 23-26, 1987.
13. Craft, B.C., and Hawkins, M.F., revised by Terry, R.E.:
Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, second edition,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1991) 63.
14. Eclipse 100 Reference Manual, ©1982-1999, Schlumberger.
15. Ramagost, B.P., and Farshad, F.F.: “P/z Abnormally Pressured
Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE 10125 presented at the 1981 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
TX, October 5-7.
16. Havlena, D., and Odeh, A.S.: “The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line,” JPT (August 1963) 896.
17. Roach, R.H.: “Analyzing Geopressured Reservoirs• A
Material-Balance Technique,” paper SPE 9968 available at
SPE, Richardson, TX (1981).
18. Fetkovich, M.J.: “A Simplified Approach to Water Influx
Calculations • Finite Aquifer Systems,” JPT (July 1971) 814.
19. Wang, B., et al.: “OILWAT: Microcomputer Program for Oil
Material Balance With Gas Cap and Water Influx,” paper SPE
24437 presented at the Petroleum Computer Conference,
Houston, July 19-22, 1992.
20. Carlson, M.R.: “Tips, Tricks, and Traps for Oil Material
Balance Calculations,” paper 95-07 presented at the 46th
Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM,
Banff, Alberta, May 14-17, 1995.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
acre × 4.046 873 E – 01 = ha
bbl × 1.589 873 E – 01 = m3
ft × 3.048* E – 01 = m
ft3 × 2.831 685 E – 02 = m3
ºF (ºF – 32)/1.8 = ºC
md × 9.869 233 E – 04 = • m2
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
psi-1 × 1.450 377 E – 01 = kPa-1
scf/bbl × 1.801 175 E – 01 = m3/m3 (st)
*
Conversion factor is exact.
12 J. L. PLETCHER SPE 62882

TABLE 1 -- Performance history of 2-cell gas simulation model TABLE 5--Drive indices after 10 years, 2-cell simulation model
Cum. Gas Cum. Water Cum. Water Modified p/z Solution Pot Aquifer Solution
Pressure, Produced, Produced, Influx,
Year GDI CDI Total GDI WDI CDI Total
Year psia BCF STB STB
0 6411 0.000 0 0 1 0.895 0.064 0.959 0.863 0.080 0.062 1.005
1 5947 5.475 378 273,294 2 0.903 0.059 0.962 0.870 0.074 0.057 1.001
2 5509 10.950 1,434 552,946 3 0.912 0.055 0.967 0.880 0.068 0.053 1.000
3 5093 16.425 3,056 817,481 4 0.922 0.050 0.972 0.889 0.062 0.048 0.999
4 4697 21.900 5,284 1,068,632 5 0.932 0.046 0.978 0.898 0.057 0.044 1.000
5 4319 27.375 8,183 1,307,702
6 0.942 0.042 0.984 0.908 0.052 0.040 1.000
6 3957 32.850 11,864 1,535,212
7 3610 38.325 16,425 1,752,942 7 0.951 0.038 0.989 0.917 0.047 0.037 1.000
8 3276 43.800 22,019 1,962,268 8 0.960 0.034 0.994 0.925 0.042 0.033 1.000
9 2953 49.275 28,860 2,163,712 9 0.969 0.030 0.999 0.934 0.037 0.029 1.000
10 2638 54.750 37,256 2,359,460 10 0.977 0.027 1.004 0.942 0.033 0.026 1.001

TABLE 2--PVT data for 2-cell gas simulation model TABLE 6--Oklahoma Morrow reservoir performance
Gas Time, Pressure, Bg , Gp ,
Deviation Days psia z RB/MSCF MSCF p/z
Pressure, Factor, Bg, Bw, 0 5482 1.0471 0.5770 0 5235.4
Year psia z RB/MSCF RB/STB 72 5099 0.9960 0.5901 157000 5119.5
0 6411 1.1192 0.6279 1.0452 237 3818 0.8286 0.6556 814000 4607.8
1 5947 1.0890 0.6587 1.0467 332 3016 0.7341 0.7353 1350000 4108.4
2 5509 1.0618 0.6933 1.0480 Other data: Tres = 140 Deg. F.
3 5093 1.0374 0.7327 1.0493 -6 -1
cf = 3 x 10 psi
4 4697 1.0156 0.7778 1.0506 -6 -2
5 4319 0.9966 0.8300 1.0517
cw = 3 x 10 psi
6 3957 0.9801 0.8910 1.0529
Sw = .3
7 3610 0.9663 0.9628 1.0540
TABLE 7--Drive indices, Oklahoma Morrow gas reservoir
8 3276 0.9551 1.0487 1.0551
9 2953 0.9467 1.1532 1.0560 Modified p/z Solution Pot Aquifer Solution
10 2638 0.9409 1.2829 1.0571 Days GDI CDI Total GDI WDI CDI Total
72 0.849 0.080 0.929 0.767 0.167 0.072 1.007
TABLE 3–Material balance results on 2-cell simulation 237 0.886 0.060 0.946 0.801 0.126 0.055 0.982
model 332 0.959 0.048 1.007 0.868 0.101 0.043 1.012
% of p/z Modified Pot Aquifer
OGIP Modified for cf Cole Plot Plot
Prod. G % err. G % err. G % err. TABLE 8 -- Performance history and PVT data for 1-cell gas
11 109.0 8.2 <108.9 <8.0 105.3 4.5 simulation model with Fetkovich aquifer
27 107.3 6.5 <107.2 <6.3 101.6 0.8 Cum. Gas Cum. Wat. Gas Dev.
54 104.8 4.0 <104.4 <3.6 101.0 0.2
Pres., Prod., Produced, Factor, Bg , Bw ,
Yr. psia BCF STB Z RB/MSCF RB/STB
TABLE 4--Drive indices after 5 years, 2-cell simulation model
0 6411 0.000 0 1.1192 0.6279 1.0452
Modified p/z Solution Pot Aquifer Solution 1 6130 5.475 2,163 1.1008 0.6459 1.0460
Year GDI CDI Total GDI WDI CDI Total 2 5849 10.950 9,293 1.0828 0.6659 1.0470
1 0.916 0.066 0.982 0.868 0.073 0.062 1.003 3 5565 16.425 22,286 1.0652 0.6885 1.0478
2 0.924 0.061 0.985 0.875 0.068 0.057 1.000 4 5280 21.900 43,807 1.0482 0.7141 1.0488
3 0.934 0.056 0.990 0.885 0.062 0.053 1.000 5 4992 27.375 78,152 1.0316 0.7434 1.0496
4 0.944 0.051 0.996 0.894 0.057 0.049 1.000 6 4700 32.850 132,011 1.0158 0.7774 1.0505
5 0.954 0.047 1.001 0.904 0.052 0.045 1.000 7 4403 38.325 219,211 1.0005 0.8174 1.0515
8 4101 43.800 358,536 0.9865 0.8653 1.0524
9 3787 49.275 607,252 0.9731 0.9243 1.0534
10 3459 54.750 1,034,275 0.9610 0.9994 1.0544
SPE 62882 IMPROVEMENTS TO RESERVOIR MATERIAL BALANCE METHODS 13

TABLE 9 -- Performance history of oil simulation

model with Pot aquifer
Cum. Oil Cum. Wat. Cum. Gas
Pres., Prod., Produced, Prod.,
Days psia STB STB MSCF
0 2855 0 0 0
305 2779 192,821 0 94,513
700 2627 633,942 0 312,064
1285 2457 1,314,880 4 710,670
1465 2402 1,524,400 7 850,934
2005 2223 2,152,960 26 1,355,720
2365 2080 2,572,000 60 1,823,250
2905 1833 3,200,560 822 2,732,860
3235 1665 3,584,680 11,135 3,397,740
3595 1460 4,003,720 97,443 4,216,120

TABLE 10 -- PVT properties of oil simulation model with Pot

aquifer
Pres., Bo , Rs , Bg , Bt , Bw ,
Days psia RB/STB MSCF/STB RB/MSCF RB/MSCF RB/STB
0 2855 1.2665 0.501 0.9201 1.2665 1.0222
305 2779 1.2677 0.501 0.9637 1.2677 1.0224
700 2627 1.2681 0.4973 1.0502 1.2720 1.0228
1285 2457 1.2554 0.4671 1.0977 1.2926 1.0232
1465 2402 1.2512 0.4574 1.1146 1.2998 1.0233
2005 2223 1.2383 0.4269 1.2010 1.3273 1.0237
2365 2080 1.2278 0.4024 1.2825 1.3543 1.0240
2905 1833 1.2074 0.3579 1.4584 1.4161 1.0246
3235 1665 1.1949 0.3277 1.6112 1.4741 1.0250
3595 1460 1.1802 0.2908 1.8526 1.5696 1.0254

TABLE 11--Drive indices after 3595 days, oil simulation model

Depletion Drive Solution Pot Aquifer Solution
Days 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 0.806 0.196 1.001 0.535 0.336 0.130 1.001
3595 0.892 0.174 1.065 0.592 0.290 0.115 0.998