Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By J.S. Olarewaju, Texas A&M U.: SPE Member
By J.S. Olarewaju, Texas A&M U.: SPE Member
SPE 18764
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE California Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, April 5-7, 1989.
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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.lllustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
:>f where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a new water influx model essentially a solution to the unsteady-state diffusivity
that includes either edgewater drive, bottomwater equation, is only for edgewater drive and not valid for
drive or a combination of both. The solutions are bottomwater drive. Their model does not account for
presented graphically in form of dimensionless water influx in the vertical direction from an
groups which make the solutions applicable to a wide underlying aquifer. Coats2 presented a mathematical
range of systems. Using the classical superposition model that takes into account the vertical flow effects
technique, an example application of the water influx from bottomwater aquifers. He correctly noted that in
solution to data from a waterdrive oil reservoir is many cases reservoirs are situated on top of an
presented. aquifer with a continuous horizontal interface
between the reservoir fluid and the aquifer water and
INTRODUCTION with a significant aquifer thickness. He stated that in
such situations significant bottomwater drive will
Petroleum reservoir drive mechanisms are often occur. Coat's model, however, is only applicable to
associated in some form or another with formation infinite aquifers and pressure rather than influx
waters. Reservoir drive mechanisms may be from the solution was presented. Other popular methods used
expansion of connate water within the gas or oil for calculating water influx include the steady-state
reservoir or from an external aquifer at the edge of the method of Schilthus3 and the pseudosteady-state
reservoir, or from an underlying aquifer. High model of Fetkovitch4 which are only applicable to a
permeability reservoirs are often in contact with an limited range of flow conditions or reservoir-aquifer
aquifer that provides pressure support through water
geometries. An aquifer model that is valid for all flow
influx. A drop in the reservoir pressure due to fluid
regimes and include the effect of radial edgewater and
production causes the aquifer water to expand and vertical bottomwater drive in finite system is
flow into the reservoir. Hence, the prediction of the necessary to produce an accurate match of production
behavior of such reservoirs usually requires an history when using the material balance equation to
accurate model of the reservoir-aquifer system.
perform an aquifer fitting. A wrong estimate of
aquifer size would result if an inadequate model is
Reservoir-aquifer systems can be classified on the
basis of. flow geometry as either edgewater or used.
bottomwater drive. In edgewater drive, water moves The analytical model presented in this paper is a
into the flanks of an oil reservoir as oil is produced. solution of the unsteady-state diffusivity equations for
Bottomwater drive occurs in reservoirs with large radial and vertical flow. The solution presented in this
areal extent and gentle dip where the oil-water- paper is valid for either edgewater drive, bottomwater
contact completely underlies the oil reservoir. van drive or a combination of both. It is applicable to both
Everdingen and Hurst's solutionl, which is finite and infinite aquifers. The solution presented by.
van Everdingen and Hurst is a special case of the
References and illustrations at the end of the paper analytical solution presented in this paper.
165
A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF EDGEWATER AND BOTI'OMWATER DRIVES FOR
2 WATER INFLUX CALCULATIONS SPE 18764
............... 7
166
SPE 18764 JOSEPHS. OLAREWAJU 3
The total underground withdrawal term can be (z 0 =0) is equivalent to the van Everdingen and Hurst's
expressed as : solution for edgewater system with no bottomwater
drive. Fig. 3 shows that for a fixed re'r0 , the time at
W = N fB + {Rp-Rsb)Bgl + W which pseudosteady-state is reached increases with
t It t 5.615 J p .............. 8
increase in the thickness of the underlying aquifer.
Fig. 3 demonstrates that the water influx behavior for
.............. 9 reservoir-aquifer systems with additional bottomwater
drive is quite different from those having only
The total expansion of oil, free gas, connate water edgewater aquifer. A relatively small aquifer system
and rock is given by : compared to the reservoir size (re/r 0 =1.1) was
simulated in this figure and therefore system
Na = NB)~-
L
1 + Cf+ SwcCwAp + rn(~- 1)~
1-Swc
Boi ~ Bgi .......... 10
pseudosteady-state is reached at a very early time
(t0 <0.01). Consequently the maximum water influx at
pseudosteady-state was a small value.
where a is the expansion factor and N is the original
oil in place. Fig. 4 presents the behavior of the water influx
solution for different thicknesses of the underlying
The total cumulative water influx is given by aquifer, and for edgewater aquifer size of re'r0 =2. The
n-1
We= UL ApjWeo(to-toj) dimensionless water influx solutions for all the cases
j=O ............. 11 in the figure are in the infinite-acting flow regime
until approximately t 0 = 1. The difference between the
............. 12 curves is due to additional influx from bottomwater
drive. The dimensionless water influx at
where U is the aquifer constant, WeD is the pseudosteady state is much higher than those
dimensionless water influx . solution from the presented for re'r0 =1.1 on the previous figure because
the aquifer system is larger. Figs. 5 and 6 present the
analytical solution presented in this paper and Ap is dimensionless water influx for re'r 0 = 4,6,8 and 10.
the pressure drop at oil-water-contact. Eq.10 above is
used to compute cumulative water influx Since the effects of the depth of bottomwater drive on
corresponding to a continuous pressure decline at the water influx ends before the beginning of
reservoir aquifer boundary. The continuous pressure pseudosteady-state flow the early time solutions are
decline is divided into a series of discrete pressure exactly identical. The solution for the different values
steps. WeD is computed for each step using the of z0 are infinite-acting until deviation is seen for
analytical solution, and the superposition of the series re'r0 =6.
of influxes with time yielding the cumulative water
influx. This variable pressure approach is necessary These dimensionless water influx solutions can
in order to apply the solution in history matching of be used for computing water influx in material
observed field production. balance calculations.
167
A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF EDGEWATER AND BOITOMWATER DRIVES FOR
4 WATER INFLUX CALCUlATIONS SPE 18764
match the observed production history. Eq. 7 states Table 4 presents a simulated example of water
that the total fluid withdrawal is a function of oil in influx from a system with combined edgewater and
place, expansion factor , and cumulative water influx. bottomwater drive. The reservoir, aquifer, and PVT
data are presented. This is an example of using the
........................ 13 model to forecast the production from a new water
drive reservoir when the reservoir-aquifer properties
These parameters can be varied either singly or are known. If the pressure at the oil-water-contact
collectively to minimize the differences between the and the PVT data can be predicted, the model
presented in this paper can be used to perform a
observed data and those calculated from the analytical reservoir performance prediction.
model and the material balance equation. Only two of
these parameters are varied in the history matching
examples presented in this paper because of the The simulated data presented in Table 4 was
inefficiency of the trial and error process. The two matched using an option of the model that only
parameters varied are: refr 0 , ratio of aquifer radius considers edgewater influx. The result is presented in
Table 5. This example is equivalent to matching a data
to reservoir radius and N, original oil in place. An set from a reservoir with combine edgewater and
automatic history matching procedure will enable an bottomwater drives with a model that only considers
engineer to vary many more of the important edgewater influx. The data was matched fairly well
variables and perform a more efficient history with the edgewater model but the result obtained was
matching. wrong. A value of 7.61 was obtained for re/r0 from the
The material balance equation coupled with the match. This interprets to an aquifer radius of 69,920ft
new analytical model can be used to predict oil or an aquifer covering 352,585 acres. The true input
production from the reservoir-aquifer system if oil-in- data is re'r 0 =1.1 This implies that when a model that
place, aquifer and PVT properties are known. The considers edgewater drive only is used for matching
analytical model is used to compute We' and a, the data from a reservoir with complete water drive, a
expansion factor is calculated from the PVT ridiculously large aquifer size will be obtained. This
properties. Np can be calculated form the generalized might also affect the value of original oil in place or
other aquifer properties if they had been used in the
material balance equation given by history matching process.
N rB {Rp-Rsb}Bg] W An actual field example is presented in Table 6.
It t + 5.615 + p = This example· was taken from an oil reservoir located
NBo{l!!._ _ 1 + Cf + SwcCw L\p + m(~
Boi 1-Swc Bgi
_1 ~~~ + in the south eastern part of Nigeria, West Africa. The
reservoir drive mechanism is mainly water drive.
n-1 Reservoir and fluid PVT data are available from some
uL, ApjWeo(to-tDj} representative wells draining this reservoir. Five
j=Q ............. 14 years of production data are also available. The first
objective of the study is to estimate the original oil in
In history matching, the calculated Np is compared place and aquifer size by history matching the
with the actual oil production data and if the error production history. The second objective is to use the
vector is large, the input parameters are adjusted and result of the history match to perform a five-year
Np recalculated. production forecast.
168
SPE 18764 JOSEPH S. OI.AREWAJU 5
year production forecast was made. The result is Cumulative gas oil ratio,scflstb
presented in Table 7. The forecast shows that Solution gas oil ratio,scflstb
13.57MMstb of oil which is 30.8% of original oil in
place would be recovered from the reservoir in ten Connate water saturation,fractions
years. Water influx, bbl
h 2/r0 ,dimensionless bottomwater thickness
CONCLUSIONS
Wen Dimensionless water influx
This paper presents a rigorous analytical model
of edgewater and bottomwater influx. Solutions are Wp Cumulative water production, bbl
presented in dimensionless form which can be used to U Water influx constant,bbl/psi
compute water influx in material balance
calculations. Greek Symbols
Yg Gas gravity
The van Everdingen and Hurst's solution is a
special case of the analytical model presented in this ll Viscosity, cp
paper. The new solution in this paper is identical to 11 Diffusivity
their solution when zn=O. This paper also shows that
the water influx behavior of reservoir-aquifer systems Subscripts and Superscripts
having additional bottomwater drive is different from
those having only edgewater aquifer. b Bubblepoint
D Dimensionless
o Oil
When a model that considers edgewater only, is i Initial
used to match production history data from a w Water
reservoir with both edgewater and bottomwate'r g Gas
drives, a ridiculously large aquifer size could result. 1 Reservoir
This might also affect the value of other aquifer 2 Bottomwater aquifer
properties and even original oil in place if estimated
during the match. REFERENCES
The analytical model and the material balance 1. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.:
equation can be used to match field data and "Application of Laplace Transformation to
determine oil in place and aquifer parameters. The Flow Problems In Reservoirs,"
history match results can be used to predict reservoir Trans.,AIME(1949) 186,305-24.
performance.
2. Coats, K. H.: "A Mathematical Model for
Water Movement About Bottom-Water-Drive
Reservoirs," SPEJ (March 1962) 44-52; Trans,
AIME,225.
NOMENCLATURE
3. Schilthius, R.J.:"Active Oil and Reservoir
Expansion factor Energy," Trans, AIME (1936) 118,37-52.
Drainage area, acres
Formation volume factor,rb/stb 4. Fetkovitch, M. J.:"A Simplified Approah to
Isothermal compressibility, /psi Water Influx Calculations. Finite Aquifer
Pore compressibility, /psi Systems," JPT (July 1971) 814-28
Total compressibility, /psi
5. Stehfest, H.: Numerical Inversion of Laplace
9/360,enchroachment angle ratio Transforms," Communications of the ACM
Net pay, ft (January 1970) 13, No. 1, 47-49.
Permeability ,md
Ratio of initial HCPV of gascap to that of oil 6. Olarewaju J. S.: "Analytical Modeling of
Stock tank oil initially in place, stb Composite and Layered Reservoir Systems,"
Cumulative oil production, bbl Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University,
Pressure, psi College Station, TX (Aug. 1988)
Dimensionless pressure
7. Dake, L. P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir
Initial reservoir pressure,psi Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Radial distance,ft Co., New York City (1978) 315-24
Aquifer external radius,ft
Dimensionless radius
reD Dimensionless external aquifer radius
r0 Reservoir external radius, ft
169
A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF EDGEWATER AND BOTI'OMWATER DRIVES FOR
6 WATER INFLUX CALCUlATIONS SPE 18764
k
2
A V·~pjz=h (A-14)
q " (V·~p)interface (A- 3) 2
~""2
where
q is the fluid transfer rate per unit pressure drop
and unit aqu.ifer ~ol~me (V·~p) i terfac is the
pressure grad~ent w~th~n the aqu~¥er eva1..uated at 2 2
e-(2n+l) n AD t /4
the reservoir/bottomwater aquifer interface and is F (AD' tD) = 2 AD ~
obtained from solving the vertical water influx n=O
differential equation. The reservoir flow equation
becomes Substituting for V'·~p in Eq. (A-4) and
transforming (A-4) into dimensionless form yields
(J..L ¢ ct h \ apl
k h at
1 1
V·~p (t - r) dr (A-4)
(A-15)
The bottomwater aquifer flow equation is given
where
by
__w_
2 (A-16)
a ~P2 (J..L ¢ ct h)2 a ~p2 x::l = 1 - a
(A-5)
az k
2
h
2
at
hD (1 - w)
x::2 (1 - a) (A-17)
This differential equation is solved for ~p, and
then differentiated to give V·~p which is combined
r
with equation (A-4). rD = r (A-18)
0
The boundary conditions for the bottomwater
aquifer equation are Inner Boundary Condition:
A~ the inner boundary it is assumed that
pressure is maintained by the edgewater influx;
hence,
(continuity of the reservoir/bottomwater boundary)
PDl (1, tD) = 1 (constant pressure boundary) (A-19)
a ~P2
~ (0, t) = 0 (A-7) Outer Boundary Condition:
A no-flow outer boundary condition is used to
(no-flow boundary at the bottom of aquifer) account for a finite edgewater aquifer system. The
boundary condition is given by
Applying Laplace transformation to Eqs. (A-5)
- A-7) and solving yields
(no-flow boundary) (A-20)
~p 1 cosh ~ z
(A- 8) Taking Laplace transformation of Eqs. (A-15),
s cosh )s/'1 h (A-19) and (A-20) yields
2 2
170
SPE 18764 JOSEPH S. OI.AREWAJU 7
2 -
2 d Pol d Pol
r --- + r
D d r D d r
- s e p01 = o (A-21)
where A and
(A-32).
B are defined by Eqs. (A-31) and
0 0
The dimensionless water influx solution in
p (1, s) = 1/s (A-22) Laplace space is given by
01
d Pol
weD -- qD/s (A-33)
d rD (rDe' s) = 0 (A- 23)
which is obtained from integrating the rate
solution in Laplace space from the relation
where
t
d Pol
- - = A N I (N r ) - B
d r 1 0
N K
1
(N r )(A-26)
0
0
Hence,
(A-28)
A I
0
Use) + B K
0
(jsO = 1.s (A-30)
Hence,
B= ----------~--~1~------------- (A-31)
(A-32)
(A-33)
171
Table 2: Dake Aquifer Fitting Example
Input Data
h1 = 100ft llw = 0.55 cp
h2 = Oft co = 1Q-5Jpsi
k1 = 200md Cw = 3x1o-6Jpsi
k2 = 200md Swc = 0.05
<h = 0.25 Boi = 1.404 rb/stb
TABLE !:COMPARISON OF SOLUTION WITH VAN <1>2 = 0.25 Bw = 1.0 rb/stb
EVERDINGEN AND HURST,S SOLUTION f = 140 Rsi = 650 scflstb
tD Analytical Everdingcn ro = 9200ft ~i = 650 scflstb
3.000000 3.197938 3.195000
3.500000 3.545786 3.542000 Cf = 4x 10-6 B·gi =
0.00093rb/stb
4.000000 3.878247 3.875000 Pi = 2740 psia 'Yg = 0.70
4.500000 4.196763 4.193000 N = 312x 106
5.000000 4.502332 4.499000
T = 1200F
5.500000 4.795701 4.792000
6.000000 5.077478 5.074000
t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs Bo Bg
6.500000 5.348166 5.345000 1.00 2500.0 2500.0 760.0 592.0 1.374000 .000980
7.000000 5.608262 5.605000 2.00 2290.0 2290.0 845.0 545.0 1.349000 .001070
.....
......, 7.500000 5.858237 5.854000 3.00 2109.0 2109.0 920.0 507.0 1.329000 .001170
N
8.000000 6.098432 6.094000 4.00 1949.0 1949.0 975.0 471.0 1.316000 .001280
8.500000 6.329247 6.325000 5.00 1818.0 1818.0 1025.0 442.0 1.303000 .001390
9.000000 6.551008 6.547000 6.00 1702.0 1702.0 1065.0 418.0 1.294000 .001500
9.500000 6.764151 6.760000
7.00 1608.0 1608.0 1095.0 398.0 1.287000 .001600
10.000000 6.969013 6.965000
11.000000 7.354983 7.350000
8.00 1535.0 1535.0 1120.0 383.0 1.280000 .001700
12.000000 7.711366 7.706000 9.00 1480.0 1480.0 1145.0 371.0 1.276000 .001760
13.000000 8.040444 8.035000 10.0 1440.0 1440.0 1160.0 364.0 1.273000 .001820
14.000000 8.344256 8.339000
15.000000 8.624705 8.620000 History Matching Results
16.000000 8.883561 8.879000
18.000000 9.342871 9.338000 relro = 10
20.000000 9.734569 9.731000
22.000000 10.069251 10.07000 Calculated Observed Calculated Dake
24.000000 10.353642 10.35000 Time Np Np Error We We
26.000000 10.594827 10.59000 (yr) (MMb) CMMb) (%) (MMb) (MMb)
28.000000 10.800583 10.80000 1.0 8.0628 7.8800 2.32 3.8296 3.829
30.000000
34.000000
38.000000
42.000000
10.977991
11.258133
11.460304
11.609570
10.98000
11.26000
11.46000
11.61000
2.0
3.0
4.0
18.994
30.641
43.930
18.420
29.150
40.690
3.11
5.12
7.96
13.455
26.447
41.938
13.460
26.462
. 41.935
I...
46.000000
50.000000
60.000000
70.000000
11.718297
11.798021
11.916228
11.970358
11.71000
11.79000
11.91000
11.96000
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
55.825
67.085
77.471
86.509
50.140
58.420
65.390
11.34
14.83
18.48
59.196
77.659
96.893
, 59.207
77.628
96.805
•"'
~
80.000000
90.000000
11.994600
12.004868
11.98000
11.99000
9.0 94.259
70.740
74.540
22.29
26.45
116.36
135.65
116.284
135.601 ....
10.0 101.29 77.430 30.82 154.46 154.401
Table 4: Simulated Example With Edgewater and Bottomwater
Drive -,,.J.
Input Data ,:.,,
h1 = 20. ft llw = 1.0 cp .,.,...
ZD = 1.0 co = 1o-5fpsi
Cw = 3x1o-6fpsi
••
k1
k2
= 100md
= 100md
<1>1 = 0.10
Swc
Boi
= 0.05
= 1.404 rb/stb
.I
I r/
<1>2 = 0.10 Bw = 1.0 rb/stb K
f = 140 Rsi = 650 scf/stb
r 0 = 1000ft ~i = 650 scf/stb
Table 3: Final Match ofDake's Example Cf = 4x 10-6 B·
gt
= 0.00093rblstb
Final Estimates used in Match Pi = 2740 psia 'Yg = 0.70
rJr0 = 5.00 N = 311x106 T = 1200F
N = .3110E+09 Bo Bg
t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs
tD WeD We .50 2500.0 2500.0 760.0 592.0 1.374000 .000980
.567499E+O 1 .489545E+01 .378655E+07 1.00 2290.0 2290.0 845.0 545.0 1.349000 .001070
.113500E+02 .748187E+01 .128869E+08 1.50 2109.0 2109.0 920.0 507.0 1.329000 .001170
.170250E+02 .912582E+01 .240784E+08 2.00 1949.0 1949.0 975.0 471.0 1.316000 .001280
.227000E+02 .101706E+02 .359100E+08 2.50 1818.0 1818.0 1025.0 442.0 1.303000 .001390
......
......
C.:l .283750E+02 .108311E+02 .474414E+08 3.00 1702.0 1702.0 1065.0 418.0 1.294000 .001500
.340499E+02 .112558E+02 .581737E+08 3.50 1608.0 1608.0 1095.0 398.0 1.287000 .001600
.397249E+02 .115247E+02 .678920E+08 4.00 1535.0 1535.0 1120.0 383.0 1.280000 .001700
.453999E+02 .116975E+02 .763505E+08 4.50 1480.0 1480.0 1145.0 371.0 1.276000 .001760
.510749E+02 .118087E+02 .834680E+08 5.00 1440.0 1440.0 1160.0 364.0 1.273000 .001820
.567499E+02 .118802E+02 .892796E+08
Simulated Production and Water Influx
Calculated Observed Calculated Dake
Time Np Np Error We We Time Np We
(yr) (MMb) (MMb) (%) (MMb) (MMb) (yr) (MMb) (bbl)
1.0 8.0348 7.8800 1.96 3.37866 3.775 0.5 5.576 3914.9
2.0 18.654 18.420 1.27 12.887 12.848 1.0 10.944 11255.
3.0 29.334 29.150 .63 24.078 24.024 1.5 16.057 17634.
4.0 40.856 40.690 .41 . 35.910 35.775 2.0 22.557 23196.
5.0 50.263 50.140 .25 47.441 47.276 2.5 27.828 27943.
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
58.480
65.399
70.713
74.480
77.345
58.420
65.390
70.740
74.540
77.430
.10
.01
-.04
-.08
-.11
58.174
67.892
76.350
83.468
89.280
58.035
67.778
76.259
83.398
89.225
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
32.804
37.151
40.584
42.857
44.558
31972.
35398.
38122.
40210.
41759.
'."'.
"'0'...
W.·"
-~~
Table 6: Aquifer fitting of An Oil ReseiVoir ,~.~
~
Input Data
,...,
h1 = 10. ft Jlw = .0.55 cp w
h2 = 30ft co = 1o-5fpsi ~e
k1 = 150md Cw = 6.5x1o-6fpsi
k2 = 150md Swc= 0.05
<h = 0.16 Boi = 1.41 rb/stb
<1>2 = 0.16 Bw = 1.0 rb/stb
f = 140 Rsi = 116 scf/stb
r 0 = 2900 ft ~i = 116 scf/stb
Cf = 3x 10-6 B·
gt
= 0.0052rb/stb
Pi = 2835 psia 'Yg = 0.75
N = ? T = 1200F
Table 5: History Match Result With An Incomplete Model
..... t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs Bo Bg Wp
......
.Do
1.0000 2586.0 2586.0 135.4 105.4 1.374000 .005500 0.0
History Match Result Actual Value 2.0000 2369.0 2369.0 150.5 97.1 1.349000 .006010 0.0
3.0000 2183.0 2183.0 163.9 90.3 1.329000 .006570 0.0
rJr0 7.614 1.1 4.0000 2016.0 2016.0 173.7 83.9 1.316000 .007190 0.0
zn N/A 1.0 5.0000 1881.0 1881.0 182.6 78.7 1.303000 .007800 0.0
.- .. ~l)tt
-~
i ~
~ ~.
t(yr) p Powc Rp Rs Bo Bg Wp hi {
6.0000 1771.0 1771.0 19i.o 71.0 1.292000 .008400 0.05
7.0000 1686.0 1686.0 202.0 64.0 1.282000 .009000 0.10
8.0000 1591.0 1591.0 211.0 57.0 1.273000 .009650 0.15
9.0000 1506.0 1506.0 220.0 50.0 1.264500 .001030 0.20
43.0 1.256500 .001100 0.25 h2 (
10.000 1446.0 1446.0 229.0
.....
...... Prediction Result
c.n
Time
(yr)
Np
(M:Mb)
We
(bbl)
1 1
6.0000 9.5818 .10308E+08
7.0000 10.774 .11948E+08
8.0000 11.859 .13412E+08
9.0000 12.788 .14770E+08
10.000 13.573 .15969E+08 Fig. I Schematic Diagram of Reservoir /Aquifer System
I
..•
.....
••
60~--------~--------~--------~------~
40 -
0
(1)
3:
20r---------,_----~r---r--------~--~---
.....
~
10· 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 10·3 10· 2 10·1 10° 10 1 10 2
10° l0 1 10 2 10 3 10 4
to
to
Fig. 2 Dimensionless Water Influx Solution for Edgewater Drive Reservoirs Fig. 3 Water Influx Solution for Combined Botlomwa!er and Edgewater Drives
(r6 /r 0 = {.1)
I,..
•
....,
.
a-
'f: ..
.~
,tl.. \
·e'l
~
I
10 1
10 1
10°
10°
0
Q.l 0
3: Q.l
3:
10-1 Zo
.....
10-1
......
......
Fig. 4 Water Influx Solution for Combined Bollomwaler and Edgewater Drives Fig. 5 Water Influx Solution for Combined Bottomwater and Edgewater Drives
(re/r 0 =2) (re/r 0 = 4)
I
...
•"
Ot
•
I!& 18764
178