(1.4.

585)
Blowout Impact Assessment and Reservoir Management of a
Partial Water Drive Gas Reservoir
Chaitanya Behera, *V.K. Gupta, **M. Sreekanth, *A.M. Krishna
ONGC, IRS, Ahmedabad, India, cbehera@hotmail.com; *ONGC, Rajahmundry Asset, India, **MIT,
Pune

Abstract
Pasarlapudi field, one of the biggest onshore gas fields in Krishna-Godavari Basin, Eastern India is
bestowed with multiple pays of Eocene age. PS3 is the largest amongst them which was affected by a
major blow out in 1995. It continued with burning of gas @ 12.75 MMm3/d for about 65 days. The
blow out caused a huge drop in reservoir pressure by 765 psi, significant decline in flowing well head
pressures of all the six producers and loss of about 14% of Initial In Place Gas. The major impact on
the reservoir was in the form of change in the pressure scenario, formation of pressure sink around
the blow out well, encroachment of water from connected aquifer and subsequently ceasure of wells
in north-eastern part of the reservoir. As water from the connected aquifer encroaches into the
reservoir because of pressure sink, the water bypasses and entrap a portion of the gas that is left as
residual saturation. The study shows that the residual gas saturation can be as high as 30 - 40% of
pore volume in case of water drive gas reservoir. The premature ceasure of wells, high abandonment
pressure, high residual gas saturation and poor volumetric displacement efficiency are the main
factors resulting in poor recovery efficiency. The volumetric displacement efficiency is affected by the
rate of exploitation and placement of wells.
Change in pressure regime in addition to drop in reservoir pressure is marked as effect of blowout on
PS3 reservoir. The shifting of low pressure zone from western to the eastern part of the reservoir is
observed from the isobar map of the reservoir pressure data recorded in both before and after the
blow out. The solution plot, a modern analytical method of material balance study for estimating Initial
Inplace Gas, volume of water influx and time of aquifer activity reveals both Type-2a and Type-3
pattern of curves. The Type-2a pattern at initial stage indicates increasing apparent compressibility
because of interaction between the formation, water and gas compressibility at the early stage of
production while the Type-3 pattern indicates water encroachment at later stage. A new method for
determining ultimate reserve from the end point of pressure at variable volumetric displacement
efficiency has been used.
Co-production of both gas and water and production of water at higher rate through ceased wells are
desired to save other wells to cease, remobilization of the trapped gas and ultimately to increase the
recovery.

Key words: Residual gas saturation, partial water drive reservoir, solution plot, apparent
compressibility, blow out, volumetric displacement efficiency, recovery efficiency, isobar map

Introduction
It has long been recognized that exploiting gas at faster rate is an effective way of maximizing
recovery from the water drive gas reservoir as the mobility of gas is about 100 times greater than the
mobility of water. It helps to evacuate the gas before the less mobile water can catch up and trap
significant quantities of gas behind the advancing flood front. On contrary uneven withdrawal with
poor volumetric displacement efficiency and ceasure of wells due to high water production may lead
to entrapment of gas as residual gas saturation at higher reservoir pressure which ultimately results in
poor recovery. As water from the connected aquifer encroaches into the gas reservoir caused by
pressure drop from producing portion, the water bypasses a portion of gas that is left as residual gas
saturation. Geffen et al1&2 in 1952 predicted it could be as high as 35% of total pore volume. Naar and
Henderson3 confirmed that the residual non wetting phase saturation under imbibition should be about

one half of the initial non-wetting saturation. Blowout happens to be one of the main factors for
uneven exploitation that lead to poor volumetric displacement efficiency because of premature
ceasure of wells because of pressure sink as observed in PS3 of Pasarlapudi field. Qualitative and
quantitative estimate of impact of blowout on the reservoir and advance classical method of material
balance analysis is the main focus of discussion in this paper. The popular P/Z material balance
method of reserve estimation results in over estimation of GIIP because of aquifer support. In the
following section effect of blowout on pressure regimes, P/Z method, Havlena and Odeh interpretation
technique and solution plot method of material balance study have been discussed.

Geological Settings
Pasarlapudi field is one of the biggest onland gas filed in Krishna-Godavari basin. The field is
bestowed with multiple pay sands of Eocene age. Reservoirs are mainly stratigraphic traps deposited
in deltaic environment. PS3 sand is an elongated body trending NE and SW direction bounded by
faults in north and lateral facies change in south and eastern side. The sand is having two structural
culminations one in eastern part around the Well -20 and another in western part around the Well-17
(Figure-1).

Figure-1: Structure contour map on top of PS3 (- 2509m at Well-1)

The sand is lying at depth of -2509m and having Gas Water Contact (GWC) at 2528m. It has the
gross pay more than 100m and net pay of more than 50m at the crestal part. The sands are clean
especially in northern and western part and gradually becoming silty in south-eastern part. The sand
has excellent petrophysical properties with average porosity about 25% and water saturation 45%.

Blow Out
The PS3 reservoir was affected by a major blow out on 8th January, 1995 while retrieving the stuck up
string at depth 2777m in Well - 19 . It was directional well drilled to achieve the target sand PS2,
which is lying about 172m below the PS3 at a differential pressure of 0.22 EMW. It was one of the
worst blowouts that continued for 65 days with burning of gas @ 12.75 MMm3/d. It had the flame
height of 300 ft. The well was capped on 14th March, 1995 by the help of experts from M/s IWC,
Hoston. Continuous bottom hole pressure recording was done in the nearby Well 8 which revealed
a pressure drop of 765 psi. The drilling activities was further resumed from 17th July, 1995 and well
was completed in PS3 as target depth to reach PS2 could not be achieved due to frequent stuck up
and operational constraints.

Production Performance Commercial gas production started since January, 1991 from PS3
reservoir with drilling of Well-4, though the field was discovered in 1987. Initial reservoir pressure
recorded at datum was 4526 psig. It was major producing sand contributing about 30% of the total
gas production of the Krishna-Godavari project. The production from 10 wells peaked in 1st half of
1999 and continued till 2003. The plateau rate was achieved with 40 MMscf/d gas and negligible rate
of water production. Currently the sand is producing @24 MMscf/d with increasing water production
even after adding two producers after zone transfer. Original gas-inplace in the reservoir is estimated
at 327 BCF by volumetric calculations. It has produced about 57.5% of original gas inplace as on 1st
April, 2006. The pressure and production data plot is shown in Figure-2.
5000

Blow out in W ell -19

50.0

4000

40.0
3000
30.0
2000
20.0
1000

10.0

Qw, bwpd/ Pr, psia

Gas production, MMscf/D

60.0

0.0

Aug/05

Aug/04

Aug/03

Aug/02

Aug/01

Aug/00

Aug/99

Aug/98

water prod bbl/d

Aug/97

Aug/96

Aug/95

Aug/94

Aug/93

Aug/92

Aug/91

Aug/90

Gas, MMscf/d

Reservoir Pressure, psia

FTHP, psig

Figure-2: Reservoir pressure, FTHP and production data plot of PS3 reservoir
The average FTHP of the flowing wells and average reservoir pressure corrected to the datum plot
has been constructed which shows plunging of FTHP and reservoir pressure as an impact of blow out
in Well-19. The blowout had resulted drop in reservoir pressure by 765 psi and FTHP by about 500
psi globally. The water production started with production of brine @100 bbl/d in May97 which
gradually increased and peaked at 1550 bbl/d in Feb05. The water production was dropped due to
either closing/ceasure of high water producing wells due to high back pressure and water loading. The
gas production has almost become half due to drop in reservoir pressure, ceasure of four wells (8, 12,
15 &19) and dropping of gas production almost to 1/4th in Well-4, the high producing well due to water
loading. The location of non-flowing wells due to water loading is shown in Figure-4. All non-flowing
wells are located in the northern fring of eastern culmination lying along the same high permeability
track. Well-8 was ceased in Feb99, Well-12, 15 and 19 were ceased to flow in Feb01, Jun04 and
Jan05 respectively due to water loading. The gas production in Well-4 also dropped to 4.5 MMscf/d
in May02 almost to half in two months due rise in water production.
The ceasure of wells as shown in Figure-4 and rise in water production in well-4 are evident as
flooding by aquifer in entire northern fringe of the eastern culmination. When water from a connected
aquifer encroaches into the reservoir caused by the pressure drop from producing a portion of the
reservoir, the water bypasses a portion of gas that is left behind as gas-water as residual saturation.
The areal spread of water encroached zone indicates a significant amount of gas trapped in northeastern part of the reservoir.

Pressure Regimes
The impact on reservoir pressure and Flowing Well Head Pressure (FTHP) due to the blowout is
shown in Figure -1. To know the effect on the pressure regimes of the reservoir, isobar maps have
been constructed using the SBHP corrected to datum recorded both prior to the blow out (Nov94) and
after blow out (Mar00). The plots are shown in Figure-3 and 4 respectively.

The isobar map of the pressure data of Nov94, before blow out shows a low pressure area around
Well -11 and 17, located in the western part of the reservoir. This is because 2/3rd of the total
production was produced from Well no- 4, 11 and 15 located in the western side. The isobar map of
the pressure data recorded in Mar95, i.e. after blow out indicates reversal of pressure regime and
formation of pressure sink around Well 19, 12 and 8 even though the rate of withdrawal was
remained same. This was the major impact which ultimately resulted in start of water production in
well -8 and subsequently in 12, 15 and 19 and finally ceasure of all wells producing from the
northeastern part of the reservoir.

Figure -3: Isobar map of data corrected to datum, Nov95 (Before Blowout)

Figure -4: Isobar map of data corrected to datum, March 00(After Blowout)

Material Balance Studies

P/Z interpretation technique is the most common and popular method for estimation of Gas Initial
Inplace (GIIP). The material balance equation in standard condition can be written as
/Zi
(1Gp/G)
P/Z
=
Pi
.Eq-1
Where, P is the average reservoir pressure in psia, Pi is the initial average reservoir pressure,
Z is the dimensionless Z factor of gas, Zi is the initial Z factor, Gp is the gas production in Bcf and G is
the GIIP in Bcf.

It is a simple relationship between P/Z and the fractional gas recovery. If the reservoir is of volumetric
depletion type, then plot must necessarily be linear and its extrapolation to the abscissa (P/Z = 0)
enables the effective GIIP to be determined as Gp = G. The P/Z plot has been constructed for PS3
reservoir considering the volume of gas flared during blowout and is shown in Figure-5. The plot
shows that the initial few points fall in straight line while at the later part points are deviating from the
line that evident as partial aquifer support. Assuming depletion drive during the initial stage of
exploitation, a line has been drawn along these points that indicate a GIIP of 340 Bcf (9.63 BCM). It is
higher than the volumetric estimation of Initial-Inplace Gas by 13 BCF.

150

4000

Reservoir voidage,
Mrbbl/d

Pressure/Z, psia

5000

100

3000

Gas production,
reservoir Mbbl/d

2000

50

P = 1000 psia

1000
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0
400

Cumulative Gas production,BCF

Figure-5: Gp versus Pressure/Z and production rate of gas in reservoir volume, Mbbl/d
Diagnostic material balance plot has also been constructed following Havelena Odeh interpretation
method. This is one of the advance analytical ways of drive analysis of gas reservoirs and estimation
of GIIP. Material balance in simplest way can be expressed in terms of reservoir volume of
production, expansion and influx as
Production (rcf) = Gas expansion (rcf)+ Water expansion/ Pore compaction (rcf) + Water influx (rcf)
In mathematical terms it can be expressed as
F = GEg + GEfw + WeBw ..Eq-2
Where, F = GpBg + WpBw = the total reservoir volume of gas and water production (rcf).
G = GIIP in scf, Wp = water production in bbl, Bw = water formation volume factor, Gp = cumulative gas
production in scf, We = volume of encroaching water in stb.
Eg = (Bg Bi) = Underground gas expansion (rcf/scf)
Efw = Bgi (CwSwc + Cf)P/(1 Swc) = expansion of the connate water and reduction of pore spaces
(rcf/scf).
Inmost practical cases Efw << Eg, hence disregarding Efw term, the equation reduces to
F/Eg = G + WeBw/Eg Eq-3
If the reservoir is of volumetric depletion type, We = 0, and Gp verses F/Eg are plotted in X and Y axes,
the curve remain parallel to abscissa and the Y intercept value is the GIIP. Alternatively if the reservoir
is affected by natural water influx then the plot of F/Eg will usually produce a concave downward
shaped arc whose exact shape is dependent upon the aquifer size, shape and gas production rate.
The main advantages in the F/Eg versus Gp plot however, is that it is much more sensitive than other
methods in establishing whether the reservoir is being influenced by natural water influx or not. The
same plot has been made and is shown in Fig -6 and 7. The curve shows that initial few points are

lying in a straight line after June95 and is forming an upward curve. It indicates, initially the reservoir
was under volumetric depletion till the aquifer become active and subsequently it was affected by
moderate aquifer support as evident from low slope of the curve. The GIIP estimated from the initial
portion of curve lying parallel to abscissa is 320 Bcf (9.06 BCM). It is clear from the plot that aquifer
became active possible due to formation of pressure sink in the eastern part of the reservoir because
of blowout in Well-19 in Jan95.It was evident from the start of water production in Well-8 near the
Well-19 even though, it was at structurally better position than Well-12 and 15. Solution plot is another
way of classical interpretation method from which the volume of water encroachment with time can be
calculated.

F/Eg (BCF)

800
600
400
G = IG IP = 3 2 0 B C F

200
0
0

50

100
G p (B C F )

150

200

F/Eg (BCF)

Figure-6:Gp versus F/Eg (BCF) of PS3 reservoir after Havlena- Odeh interpretation method

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

S t a r t o f w a te r i n f l u x

May-05

Jan-04

Sep- 02

Apr-01

De c-9 9

Jul-98

Mar-97

Oc t-95

Jun-94

Jan-9 3

Sep- 91

Figure-7: Month versus F/Eg (BCF) plot (Havlena- Odeh Interpretation method)

Solution Plot
This is one the advance and latest method of material balance technique recognized by Roach,
Poston, and Hardikar6. Poston and Chen8 described how the shape of the data plot can be utilized to
know the presence or absence of water influx. The interpretive method also helps to estimate the GIIP
and the time frame over which each drive mechanism influences reservoir performance. The GIIP,
effective formation compressibility and volume and time of water influx are the outcome variables
while production, pressure and Z factor terms are the input variables.
S.W Poston & R.R. Berg9 presented the generalized material balance equation as follows.
1/(Pi P) [(PiZ/PZi) 1] =
[198.4 (We Wp)BwPi / ((Pi P)GZiT) +(SwiCw + Cf)/(1 - Swi)]+ Gp/(G(Pi P) )(PiZ / ZiP) .. .Eq4

Applying the equation of straight line to the above equation, the X and Y variables will be as follows.
X variable = Gp/(Pi P)(PiZ/ZiP) in scf/psia
Y variable = 1/(Pi P) [(PiZ/PZi) 1] in psia-1
Y intercept = [198.4 (We Wp)BwPi / ((Pi P)GZiT) +(SwiCw + Cf)/(1 - Swi )] in psia-1
.Eq-5
Y intercept can be expressed in material balance terms in a shortened form as sum of the net water
influx and effective formation compressibility as follows.
Yintercept = - (Ce + Wen) in psi-1..Eq-

m = 1/G in scf-1 , m is the slope of the straight line plot reflects the GIIP of the reservoir.
Simplifying the Eq.5 for two different times at t3 and t4, the water encroachment can be expressed as
=
(Pi

P)GZiT
Wen
.Eq-7

[-(Yintercept,

-Y

t4

intercept,

t3)]/198.4BwPi

Following the above method solution plot has been constructed and shown in Figure-8. The water
encroachment with time is estimated using the Eq -7. The reservoir data and calculated parameters
for construction of solution plot are given in Table-1.

-P))*((PiZ/P*Zi)-1) 10^--5 psi

50

30

10

-10

t2

t0 (Nov'92)

t1

50

t1

t3

t4

t5

100

TaFigure-8:
ble-1: Reservoir
data
results
of calculation
of solution
Solution
plotand
of PS3
reservoir
of Pasarlapudi
field.plot

Pressure
(psia)
4541
4455
4376
4274
4241
3478
3299
3082
3016
2897
2751
2585
2444
2234

Gp
(Bscf)
0.00
4.38
7.66
15.05
18.80
62.40
79.94
95.21
104.26
116.96
132.2737
142.8976
159.3833
175.8309

Wp
(MMBW)
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.034
0.112
0.165
0.234
0.325
0.356
0.522
0.796

Z
factor
0.986
0.981
0.976
0.970
0.969
0.931
0.924
0.917
0.915
0.912
0.908
0.905
0.904
0.903

X
(psia)

Y
10e-5Bscf/psia

Intercept
10e-5 psia e-1

51.60
47.71
58.95
66.00
72.41
83.07
89.43
95.54
103.13
112.40
117.88
129.48
141.89

16.42
16.76
17.22
17.66
21.97
23.40
25.39
26.06
27.35
29.11
31.37
33.56
37.36

2.50
3.50
4.60
5.70
5.00
6.50
6.50

-6

= 0.25, Sw = 0.45, Tr = 250 F, Bw = 1.053 RB/STB and Cw = 3.34x 10 psia

We
(MMBW)

3.765
4.503
4.974

7.949

-1

Wp/We MMBW

8 .0
W p, M M B W

6 .0

W e, M M B

4 .0
2 .0
Figure-9: Plot of water influx and water production with time

0 .0

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

The constructed solution plot shown in figure-8 is having concave downward shape at early portion
which is evident of Type-2a pattern as described by Poston and Chen8. From time t0 to time t1 an
increase of apparent compressibility of the reservoir is indicated. This may be caused by the
interaction between formation, water, and gas compressibility values during transition from very high
to moderate pressure condition or by inelastic compression of the formation as the pore pressure is
reduced by production of reservoir fluid. Shale water influx could effect on same manner also.
Generally in case of pressure depleting overpressure gas reservoirs, it exhibit Type-1 pattern and all
the points remain in a straight line indicating constant compressibility and the inverse of slope gives
the value of GIIP. From time t1 to t2 the points are more less falling in a straight line and after which
the data points are deviating downward indicating Type-3 pattern of the curve. Any rightward deviation
from the straight line is an indication of the effect of water encroachment.

The time of deviation indicates the time of water encroachment. The calculated water encroachment
and water production plot with time is constructed and is shown in Figure -9. It is evident from the plot
is that, the time of water encroachment and water production are more or less synchronous and
volume of water production is proportional to the volume of encroachment. When reservoir is
assumed to be pressure depleting, Wen = 0, the equation-5 will be reduced to
Yintercept = - (SwCw + Cf)/1 Swi

or Cf= - Yintercept(1-Swi) - (SwiCw) Eq-8

From Yintercept of the straight line, apparent formation compressibility calculated using the Eq-8 is 13.75
x 10-6 psi-1. It is higher than the value 3.5 x10-6 psi-1calculated from Halls sandstone corelation. This
confirms the type-2a pattern of the solution plot curve indicating marginal influx of water or shale
water influx.
Original Gas Inplace calculated from the slope of the straight line is 320 BCF which is same as
estimated from the Havlen Odeh interpretation plot method and is very close to 327 BCF estimated
by volumetric method.

Recovery
The GIIP estimated from volumetric method, P/Z method, Havlena-Odeh method and finally from
solution plot method is ranging from 320 to 340 BCF. The GIIP calculated from P/Z method is 340
BCF which is at higher side possible due to partial aquifer support. Ultimate reserves calculated from
the P/Z plot shown in Figure-5 at the abandonment pressure of 1000 psi is 255 BCF which is about
75% of GIIP. But the rate of reservoir volume of gas production which is plotted with the P/Z diagram
as shown in figure-5 indicates faster decline of gas production due to water loading and subsequently
ceasure of wells. It seams that the ultimate reserve as estimated considering 1000 abandonment
reservoir pressure cant be achieved.
Agarwal et al2 developed one additional material balance equation for water drive reservoir which
states that the gas recovery at any pressure is equal to the GIIP, less gas trapped as residual gas in
the water swept region, less gas in regions not swept by water breakthrough but unavailable to
production because of water breakthrough at existing producing wells. The equation is written as
follows.
Gp = G [1-Vd (Sgr/Sg + (1-Vd)/Vd)PnZi / PiZn].Eq-9
Where, Vd is the volumetric sweep efficiency, Sgr is the residual gas saturation, Pn is abandonment
pressure in psia and Zn is the Z factor at pressure Pn. Ultimate reserves calculated at abandonment
pressure of 1000 psia and 1500 psia and Sgr of 30% and 35% have been calculated and given in
Table-2. Gp also been calculated with Vd of 80%, Sgr of 50% and pressure of 2234 psia to compare
with the actual production. Gp calculated from the Agarwal equation is 172 BCF as against actual
value of 175.8 BCF. It indicates either Vd will be very less or Sgr will be very high indicating the
ultimate recovery will be less.
Table-2: Ultimate reserves calculated at different abandonment pressure and Sgr
GIIP (G), BCF
Volumetric Sweep
Efficiency (Vd)
Residual gas
saturation (Sgr)
Initial gas saturation
(Sg)
Abandonment
pressure (Pn), psia
Gp(Ultimate reserves),
BCF
Recovery %

320
0.8

320
0.8

320
0.8

320
0.8

320
0.8

0.50

0.35

0.35

0.30

0.30

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

2234

1000

1500

1500

1000

172 (*175.8)

267

247

254

276

53.7
83
77
79
* Actual production at Pressure of 2234 psia

86

The volumetric displacement efficiency is mainly affected by the rate of gas production and placement
of producing wells. Moreover, the recovery efficiency from gas reservoir depends upon the interplay
between the volumetric sweep, residual gas saturation, aquifer size and the practical level of
abandonment pressure. Entrapment of gas because of flooding water is possible the main reason for
poor recovery. It is true that the quantity of trapped gas is directly proportional to the entrapped

pressure and residual gas saturation (Sgr). The residual gas saturation is usually high, typically
having value of 30 40% of PV in case of water drive reservoir. However, it can be determined by
water-gas imbibitions flooding experiments. The amount of trapped gas can be calculated from the
area of encroached water from the simple equation of EOS as follows.
P x (Pore volume flooded)Sgr = ZnRT .. Eq-10.
Very large area in the north-eastern part of the reservoir is flooded with water as evident from ceasure
of Well-8, 12, 15 and 19. Therefore, a significant amount of gas could be trapped in gas-water which
will be unavailable for production if these well are not put on production.
Production of high volume of brine is required to be produced in order to remobilize the gas trapped
by water, as the pressure must be lowered to below the trapping pressure so that the saturation can
expand above residual saturation and gas flow can occur7 & 10. The laboratory studies on relative
permeability by Fishlock and Fircozabadi4&5 shows that at least saturation for remobilization should be
1/3rd higher than the residual gas saturation.

Conclusions

The blowout in Well-19 in PS3 reservoir of Pasarlapudi field has resulted in change of
pressure regimes and creation of pressure sink around the well.
The pressure sink created has caused flooding of water in the north-eastern part of the
reservoir and subsequently ceasure of wells.
The material balance data plots especially solution plot and Havlena-Odeh method reveal
aquifer became active at later part of the exploitation, after the blowout.
Common method of GIIP estimation by P/Z method could not be used as it gives higher
value.
The ultimate reserve estimation by P/Z method and following Agarwal et al method indicates
very poor volumetric displacement efficiency and/or high residual gas saturation.
Co-production of both gas and water and production of water at higher rate through ceased
wells are desired to save other wells to cease, remobilization of the trapped gas and
ultimately to increase the recovery.

Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Dr R.V. Marathe, GM Head IRS and Shri M.M. Dwivedi, DGM (Res)
Head Monitoring Offshore, IRS, Ahemedabad for giving permission to publish this paper. The authors
are also grateful to Sri Kalyan K. Roy, CM(R), Dr Puspa Sharma, Manager (R), Shri K.N. Jha,
Manager (R) and Sri Anupam Saxena, Manager (R) for their encouragement and inspiration to write
this paper.

References:
1. Ancell, K.L., Fairchild, D. and Trousil, P.M.: Remobilization of Natural Gas Trapped by
Encroaching Water , SPE 20753, (1990)
2. Agarwal, R.G., et al : The importance of water influx in gas reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, November, (1965), P.1336
3. Boyd, W.E. et al: Secondary gas recovery from a watered-out reservoirs, Society of Pet. Engg.
Paper 11158. Annual Meeting, Sept. 16-29, (1982)
4. Fishlock, T.P., Smith, R.A et al: Experimental studies on the water flood residual gas saturation
and its production by blow down, SPE -15455, (1986).
5. Firoozabadi, A., Olsen, G., and Van Golf-Racht, T.: Residual gas saturation in water drive gas
reservoirs SPE 16355, (1987).
6. Hardikar, S.S.: Solution Plot Technique Analysis of water Influx in Gas Reservoir using
simulation Studies, MS Thesis, Texas A&AM U, (December-1992)
7. Hulme, J.R. et al: Optimizing recovery from a strong water drive West Texas gas reservoir
through integrated reservoir simulation studies, SPE- 30716 (1995).

10

8. Poston, S.W. and Chen, H.Y.: The Simultaneous Determination of Formation compressibility and
Gas Inplace in Abnormally Pressures Reservoirs, SPE 16227, (1987)
9. Poston, Steven W. and Beg, Robert R. :Overpressured Gas Reservoirs, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Inc., Richardson, Texas, USA, (1997)
10. Randolph, C.G. et al: Maximizing gas recovery from strong water drive reservoirs, SPE - 21486
(1991).

11