SPE 68666
Analysis of a Non-Volumetric Gas-Condensate Reservoir
L. Vega, Texas A&M University, M.A. Barrufet, Texas A&M University
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 April 2001.
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
Predicting water encroachment can be of critical importance in
describing and managing a hydrocarbon reservoir.
This study focuses on the use of the generalized material
balance equation (GMBE) proposed by Walsh, et al1,2 along
with the analytical solution to the diffusivity equation for a
constant inner boundary pressure as presented by van
Everdingen and Hurst to determine the size of a water-bearing
formation in contact with a gas-condensate reservoir.
When the hydrocarbon reservoir fluid is a gas-condensate,
it is essential to use the GMBE. Should the conventional
material balance equation (CMBE) be used in lieu of the
GMBE, considerable errors could be introduced as will be
shown.
The main goal of this paper is to illustrate the ability of the
GMBE to determine the size of an aquifer encroaching into a
gas-condensate reservoir. Once this size is obtained, it could
be used as an input parameter to a reservoir simulator to
forecast the future expansion of the aquifer as depletion
proceeds.
When the CMBE is used to describe black oil reservoirs,
certain simplifying assumptions are normally made. Those
include neglecting the effect of the compressibilities of the
connate water and the reservoir rock, in addition to the
volatilized liquid in the gas phase. The effect of these
assumptions in gas-condensate reservoirs will be examined.
Introduction
In 1994, Walsh, et al1, 2 presented the generalized form of
the material balance equation. This equation differs from
previous forms of the material balance equation in that it
includes a term that accounts for the amount of liquid that is
volatilized in the gas phase. These terms are practically zero
when the reservoir fluid is either a black oil or a dry gas.
However, as shown in the discussion below, ignoring this term
when the reservoir fluid is a gas-condensate can lead to
significant errors in the interpretation.
The principal motivation for this study is our current
interest in water coning in horizontal wells. In the 1970’s,
Morse, et al3 used numerical reservoir simulation to study the
behavior of vertical wells completed close to a
hydrocarbon/water contact. One method that Morse, et al3
proposed to prevent coning was the completion of the vertical
well both above and below the hydrocarbon/water contact, but
producing both streams through separate tubings. The purpose
of this would be to have an independent control on the
pressure drawdowns above and below the hydrocarbon/water
contact so that coning could be suppressed.
A viable way to apply the same idea to horizontal wells
would be the use of two multilaterals simultaneously
producing above and below the hydrocarbon/water contact.
However, to properly design and operate those wells, it would
be of paramount importance to know how fast the
hydrocarbon/water contact would rise as depletion advances.
The technique illustrated in this paper allows the
determination of the length, or the radius (depending on the
geometry) of the aquifer. Once this is known, it could be used
as an input parameter to a reservoir simulator to make
predictions of the expansion of the aquifer, and thus the rise of
the hydrocarbon/water contact.
Data
During the appraisal stage of a field, scarce information is
usually available to make it viable to use a reservoir simulator
to predict the rise of the hydrocarbon/water contact in a
water/drive hydrocarbon reservoir. This is because such a
prediction not only requires a fairly acceptable description of
the reservoir itself, but also of the encroaching aquifer.
Nonetheless, it is during the appraisal stage, and early
development of the filed, that valuable information can be
obtained about the sizes of both the reservoir and any
neighboring aquifer using material balance techniques. This
information can then be used as input to a reservoir simulator
to predict how fast the neighboring aquifer will encroach into
the reservoir.
In this project, a compositional numerical simulator was
used to generate synthetic data. This synthetic data was then
used as input to the material balance equation.
2 L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET SPE 68666

As illustrated in Fig. 1, a reservoir model with given depletion (CVD) experiments at 285ºF were available. The
dimensions, properties, fluid composition, and drive latter two were used to tune the EOS.
mechanism was assumed. Some of the output of the reservoir
simulator was in the form of cumulative production volumes
and average reservoir pressures.

Compare

OGIP,
OOIP, zi, Compositional Gp, Np, Wp,
Aquifer size, Reservoir pav
etc. Simulator

OGIP, Fig. 2 – Geometrical representation of reservoir

Zi, ,TR, Pi, Phase- OOIP,
separator
Bo, Bg, Rs, Rv MBE
behavior Aquifer size.
conditions
package Table 1 – Reservoir permeabilities, thickness, and depths of
each simulation layer.
Fig. 1 - Flow of information to analyze the effectiveness of Layer Kx=ky, md kz, md Thickness, ft Depth, ft
the GMBE to back calculate the input to the compositional 1 130 13 30 7,330
reservoir simulator. 2 40 4 30 7,360
3 20 2 50 7,400
4 150 15 50 7,450
On the other hand, the fluid compositions were converted
to PVT parameters using a phase behavior package for a given
The chromatographic analysis includes 36 components. Its
reservoir temperature, tuned EOS and separator conditions.
fingerprint, or plot of mole fraction versus molecular weight,
These PVT parameters were then used, along with the
is shown in Fig. 3.
output from the reservoir simulator, as input data to the
material balance equation. The results of the material balance
calculations were then compared to the input to the reservoir
simulator to evaluate the effectiveness of the material balance
equation to determine the sizes of the reservoir, and of the
adjoining aquifer.

Model
As depicted in Fig. 2, the reservoir was modeled using a block
with dimensions 2,639.7 ft by 2,639.7 ft by 120 ft in the
horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
The numerical grid had nine gridblocks in each horizontal
direction, and four in the vertical direction.
The porosity was assumed constant throughout the
reservoir with a value of 13%. The reservoir temperature was
set equal to 285ºF (The same as the one reported in the fluid
lab report described below).
Table 1 lists the values of permeability, thickness and
depth assigned to each of the four layers in the reservoir
model.
The initial reservoir pressure was 6,000 psia, and the
dewpoint pressure at 285ºF was 5,323.3 psia.
The values of relative permeabilities, capillary pressures,
etc., not shown in this paper, are the same as those in the Third
Comparative Solution Project4.
The reservoir fluid composition was that of the Cupiagua
Field, Colombia. A cromatographic report, along with a
constant composition expansion (CCE) and a constant volume
Fig. 3 - Fingerprint of the 36 component mixture
Using this 36-component mixture as input to the
compositional numerical simulator would have slowed it down
dramatically. Consequently, the mixture was lumped into
eight pseudo components as shown in Table 2.
Just like its 36-component counterpart, the 8-
pseudocomponent mixture was used along with the 3-
parameter Peng-Robinson equation of state (PR3 EOS). When
either was used to predict the liquid saturation of the CCE at
285ºF, neither could predict a dew-point fluid (gas-
condensate). Instead, a bubble-point fluid (volatile oil) was
predicted at this temperature. This conflicted with the lab
observations, as shown in Fig. 4.
SPE 68666 ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 3

Table 2 – Pseudo-components after the Cupiagua mixture Under both drive mechanisms, the reservoir was produced
was lumped. by first maintaining a plateau gas production rate of 6,200
Pseudo component Range Mscf/day. This constant gas production rate would be
GRP1 CO2 maintained for as long as the bottom hole pressure in the
GRP2 N2 and C1 producing well was above 500 psia, after which the gas
GRP3 C2 production rate would decline while maintaining the bottom
GRP4 C3-nC4 hole pressure constant at 500 psia.
For the case of the water-drive reservoir, the underlying
GRP5 iC5-Toluene
water-bearing formation was simulated assuming a numerical
GRP6 C7-C10
linear aquifer. Its dimensions and properties are listed in
GRP7 C11-C22 Table 3.
GRP8 C23-C30
Table 3 – Aquifer properties used in compositional
Liquid Saturation Before Regression (Peng-Robinson 3p)
reservoir simulator
1.0
Type of Aquifer Linear
0.9
k, md 20
φ, %
0.8
13
Liquid Saturation, fraction

0.7 Calculated

0.6 Observed A, ft3 200,000

0.5
L, ft 1,000
0.4

0.3 In designing the synthetic data set, two issues were taken
0.2 into consideration: (1) it is desirable to determine the size of
0.1 the encroaching aquifer early in the life of the reservoir, (2)
0.0 average reservoir pressure measurements are normally
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Pressure, psia available on a yearly basis, at best. Consequently, to make the
synthetic data set similar to what is normally available in the
Fig. 4 - – Untuned 3-parameter PR EOS predicts a liquid field, eight data points from the first 3 years of the life of the
instead of a gas. field were randomly selected from the output of the
Therefore, the PR EOS was tuned using the regression compositional numerical simulator. Figs. 6-9 illustrate the
techniques proposed by Whitson5. Fig. 5 compares the liquid behavior of the average reservoir pressure, cumulative oil
saturation as obtained from the CCE experiment with that produced, cumulative gas produced, and cumulative water
obtained using the tuned PR3 EOS. produced, all as a function of time, for the two assumed drive
mechanisms, and for those randomly selected times.
Cupiagua K5 sample Average Reservoir Pressure
Lumped into 8 pseudo-components
Liquid saturation after Tuning 6,000
1

0.9 Calculated 5,500

Observed
0.8 5,000
Liquid saturation, fraction

0.7
Pressure, psia

4,500
0.6
4,000
0.5

0.4 3,500

0.3 3,000

0.2
2,500 Water Drive
Volumetric
0.1
2,000
0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Time, days
Pressure, psia

Fig. 5 – Liquid saturation as obtained from the CCE Fig. 6 – Average reservoir pressure obtained from
experiment and as predicted from the tuned PR EOS. compositional numerical simulator under both assumed
drive-mechanisms
The reservoir was produced assuming two different drive Notice that, although the assumed aquifer is relatively
mechanisms, namely volumetric and water drive. small (Table 3), the average reservoir pressure tends to be
4 L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET SPE 68666

maintained considerably (1,500 psi difference at latest point) As illustrated in Fig. 7, the effect of the pressure
when an aquifer is present, as shown in Fig. 6. maintenance is to increase the amount of produced oil in the
1,400,000 case of the water-drive reservoir. The reason for this is that, at
higher pressures, the fluid will remain in the gaseous phase in
1,200,000
the reservoir, and will be easily produced. By the same token,
1,000,000 in the volumetric depletion case, some liquid dropout will
build up in the reservoir with very small or no mobility at all.
800,000
That is why pressure maintenance is so critical in those
Np, stb

600,000
reservoirs whose fluid experiences retrograde condensation.
W ater Drive Fig. 8 illustrates the effects of the expansion of the
Volum etric
400,000 underlying aquifer, and of water coning. Since the well is
completed only in the top three simulation layers, the
200,000
produced water volume is practically identical during the first
0 200 days in both the depletion and the water-drive cases.
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Tim e, days
After this time, water production increases substantially in the
water-drive case either because the hydrocarbon/water contact
Fig. 7 – Cumulative oil produced as obtained from has risen to the perforations, or because the gravitational
compositional numerical simulator under both assumed forces have succumbed to the sum of the capillary and viscous
drive-mechanisms forces.
Fig. 9 shows that the produced gas volume is larger in the
400,000
water-drive case. This is basically due to additional amount of
350,000 Water Drive
Volumetric
gas dissolved in the liquid that is left in the reservoir in the
300,000
volumetric case.
The next step is the determination of the PVT parameters
250,000
using the composition of the fluid and the reservoir
Wp, stb

200,000 temperature.
Fig. 10 shows schematically the algorithm used to
150,000
determine Bo, Bg, Rs, and Rv using the 8-pseudo-component
100,000 mixture, the PR3 EOS tuned to the CCE and CVD
50,000 experiments, and the same separator conditions used in the
compositional numerical simulator.
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Time, days
Composition, Reservoir Temperature,
Fig. 8 - Cumulative water produced as obtained from Separator Conditions, and Tuned EOS
compositional numerical simulator under both assumed
drive-mechanisms
8,000,000

7,000,000 Water Drive Phase Behavior Package

Volumetric

6,000,000

5,000,000
Gp, Mscf

4,000,000 Bo, Bg, Rs, Rv as a function of pressure

3,000,000

2,000,000
Fig. 10 - Procedure to calculate PVT parameters for
hydrocarbon mixture
1,000,000
Figs. 11-14 are a graphical representation of the PVT
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
parameters, Bo , B g , Rs and Rv , for the Cupiagua field fluid
Time, days obtained in this fashion.
In summary, the average reservoir pressure and cumulative
Fig. 9 - Cumulative gas produced as obtained from produced volume data provided in Figs. 6-9, along with the
compositional reservoir simulator under two assumed PVT data supplied in Figs. 11-14 represent the necessary input
drive-mechanisms to the GMBE as shown in the next section.
SPE 68666 ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 5

Oil FVF at 285ºF Volatilized Oil-Gas Ratio at 285ºF

Cupiagua Field Cupiagua Field

3.5 0.30

0.25
3.0

0.20

Rv, stb/Mscf
2.5
Bo, rb/stb

0.15

2.0 0.10

0.05
1.5

0.00
1.0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Pressure, psia
Pressure, psia
Fig. 14 – Volatilized oil-gas ratio of the Cupiagua field
Fig. 11 – Oil FVF for Cupiagua field fluid at 285ºF fluid at 285ºF
Gas FVF at 285ºF
Cupiagua Field
Generalized Material Balance Equation
45
In 1994, Walsh, et al1, 2 presented the generalized material
40 balance equation (GMBE). Its purpose was to account for the
35 fraction of the produced liquid that was in the gas phase at
reservoir conditions. Whereas this fraction is practically
30
negligible in the case of black oil and dry gas, ignoring it
Bg, rb/Mscf

25 when dealing with gas-condensates may lead to serious errors.

20 This fraction is expressed as Rv and has units of rb/Mscf.
15 The GMBE is identical in form to the CMBE, as expressed
10
by Eq. 1. The difference lies in the definition of its terms.

5
F = N foi E o + G fgi E g + We ............................(1)
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Pressure, psia Eq. 1 basically states that the underground withdrawal,
F , must be equal to the sum of total expansion of the
Fig. 12 – Gas FVF for Cupiagua field fluid at 285ºF hydrocarbon fluids plus the water influx. It assumes that the
Solution Gas-Oil Ratio at 285ºF
expansion of the rock, and that of the interstitial water are
Cupiagua Field negligible compared to that of the hydrocarbons.
3.5
The underground withdrawal, F , is defined by equation
3.0 2.

 Bo (1 − Rv R ps ) + B g (R ps − Rs )
2.5

F = Np  ....(2)
Rs, Mscf/stb

2.0

 (1 − R v R s ) 
1.5

1.0 Eq. 3 defines the unit expansion of the oil.

0.5
(Bo − Boi ) + Bg (Rsi − Rs ) + Rv (Boi Rs − Bo Rsi )
Eo =
0.0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 (1 − Rs Rv )
Pressure, psia
.....................................................................................(3)
Fig. 13 – Solution gas-oil ratio for Cupiagua field fluid at
285ºF The unit expansion of the gas is expressed by Eq. 4.
6 L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET SPE 68666

Eg =
(B g − Bgi )+ Bo (Rvi − Rv ) + Rs (Bgi Rv − Bg Rvi ) Since the reservoir is initially above the dew-point-
pressure, then there is initially no liquid. In equation form,
(1 − Rv Rs )
................................................................................(4) Diagnosing Drive Mechanism in Volumetric Reservoir

Notice that if the volatilized oil-gas ratio is neglected in 25,000,000

the three definitions above, then the definitions of

underground withdrawal, unit oil expansion, and unit gas 20,000,000

expansion would be modified as expressed by Eq. 5, Eq. 6,

and Eq. 7, respectively. 15,000,000

F/Eg, Mscf
[
F = N p Bo + (R ps − Rs )Bg ] ...................... (5) 10,000,000

E0 = B0 − Boi + Bg (Rsi − Rs )
5,000,000

..................... (6)
0
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000

E g = Bg − Bgi
Gp, Mscf

.................................................. (7) Fig. 15 – Plot used to diagnose the drive mechanism

These three definitions correspond to the ones commonly

employed for black oil systems. N foi = 0 ..............................................................(9)
In summary, when the definitions in Eq. 2, Eq. 3, and Eq.
4 are used, Eq. 1 will be referred to as the generalized material
Using Eq. 8 and Eq. 9 in Eq. 1, the following is obtained:
balance equation (GMBE). By the same token, when the
definitions in Eq. 5, Eq. 6, and Eq. 7 are utilized, Eq. 1 will be
referred to as the conventional material balance equation F = G fgi E g .........................................................(10)
(CMBE).
As initially proposed by Havlena and Odeh6, 7, it can be
Effects of Using the Wrong Form of the MBE concluded from Eq. 10 that a plot of F vs. E g should yield a
The first step in the analysis of the synthetic data obtained
from the numerical simulator will be to investigate how the straight line with zero intercept and slope G fgi .
answers obtained from MBE techniques are affected by the As illustrated in Fig. 16, the effect of using the CMBE
mistaken use of the CMBE rather than the GMBE. would be to bend the trend away from a straight line. Besides,
To simplify this illustration, the volumetric depletion data if a straight line were forced through the points, an intercept
will be used for this analysis. different from zero (1,877,188 rb) would result.
Conventionally, the procedure to check whether we are
dealing with a volumetric or a water-drive reservoir consists of
Plot of F versus E g using CMBE
making a diagnostic plot of F E g vs. G p . If a horizontal
12,000,000
trend is observed, it basically means that the hydrocarbon pore
volume remains constant throughout the depletion process— 10,000,000

no water influx. Fig. 15 displays such a plot obtained using

the output from the numerical simulator for the volumetric 8,000,000
F = 23,296,330 E g + 1,977,133
reservoir case.
F, rb

6,000,000
Notice that the trend is rather flat, but not quite. The
reason for this is that even though there is no water influx, 4,000,000
there are other factors that change the hydrocarbon pore
volume, such as the expansion of the rock and the interstitial 2,000,000

water.
Consequently, for this volumetric depletion case, it can be 0
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
stated that Eg, rb/Mscf

We = 0 .................................................................(8) Fig. 16 – Effect of using the CMBE

SPE 68666 ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 7

From geometric calculations using the numerical model, Drive-Mechanism Diagnosis in Water-Drive Condensate Reservoir

the initial volume of free gas at standard conditions, G fgi , 90,000,000

turned out to be equal to 19.1 MMscf. Nevertheless, from the 80,000,000

slope of the straight line in Fig. 16, G fgi was determined to be 70,000,000

equal to 23.3 MMscf. To put it another way, use of the 60,000,000

F/Eg, Mscf
CMBE has overestimated G fgi by 22%. 50,000,000

40,000,000

Plot of F versus Eg 30,000,000

20,000,000
12,000,000

10,000,000

10,000,000
0
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000
Gp, Mscf
8,000,000
F = 20,151,809 E g
F,
rb 6,000,000
Fig. 18 – Diagnostic plot of the synthetic data for the
water-drive case
4,000,000
Because of this, determination of the cumulative volume of
2,000,000
water influx, We , requires an independent mathematical
model. From the solution to the diffusivity equation for a
0 constant inner boundary pressure, the following general
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
expression is obtained
Eg, rb/Mscf

We = U∆pW D (t D ) .............................................(12)
Fig. 17 – Effect of using the GMBE

By contrast, when the GMBE is used, the
follows a linear trend, as shown in Fig. 17. As predicted by
Eq. 10, the intercept of such a straight line goes through the
origin. In this case, the slope is calculated to be equal to 20.15
MMscf. The slight overestimation (5%) is due to the fact that
the expansion of the rock and the interstitial water are being
neglected in the GMBE (Eq. 1).
Determining the Size of the Aquifer Using the GMBE
The output of the compositional numerical simulator for
the water-drive case was then used as input to the GMBE.
In a similar fashion, a plot of F E g vs. G p was used to
diagnose whether there was water influx or not, as shown in
Fig. 18. From this plot, the apparent non-horizontal trend
confirms the presence of water influx, as anticipated.
Since in this case We ≠ 0 (water influx) and
N foi = 0 (the reservoir is initially above the dew point), the
F vs. E g plot For a linear aquifer, like the one used to generate the
synthetic data, the dimensionless cumulative water influx,
WD (t D ) , reaches a maximum plateau value of unity when
t D = 3 2 . Before this dimensionless time, flow is fully
dominated by transient effects. Afterwards, it is called fully
boundary dominated period.
For linear flow, dimensionless time is defined as
(
t D = 0.00633kt φ µ c L2 ..............................(13))
Therefore, the minimum time at which the flow can be
considered as boundary dominated can be obtained by solving
for t from Eq. 13, making t D = 3 2 , and plugging in the
aquifer properties as follows:
t≥
(φ µ c L ) t 2

D
0.00633 k
GMBE, Eq. 1, becomes
F W
= G fgi + e ................................................(11) Since L = 1,000 ft was used to generate to synthetic
Eg Eg data,
(0.13)(1)(7 × 10 −6 )(1,000 )
2
Eq. 11 has two unknowns, namely G fgi and We . The
t≥ (1.5) ≥ 10.8 days
latter term depends on the size and properties of the aquifer, (0.00633)(20 )
the pressure drop at the original hydrocarbon-water contact.
To complicate matters even further, it also depends strongly
on time. Therefore, after 10.8 days, WD (t D ) is equal to unity.
8 L. VEGA AND M.A. BARRUFET SPE 68666

When the inner boundary pressure is not constant, the Conclusions

principle of superposition must be used to calculate the 1. The GMBE can effectively determine the size of a
cumulative water influx as neighboring water-bearing formation in a gas-condensate
reservoir.
We = ∑ U∆p jWD (t D − t D j ) ............................(14) 2. Use of the CMBE can seriously overestimate the G fgi in
j =1
a gas-condensate reservoir (22% in the example presented
here).
where U is a geometrical factor defined as 3. Neglecting the compressibilities of the rock and the water
in the GMBE has little effect in the determination of the
U = 0 .1781 AL φ c .............................................(15)
G fgi (5% in the illustration presented here).

Notice that both U and t D depend on a previous Nomenclature

knowledge of L . As a result, a trial-and-error procedure is
needed to solve for L from the material balance equation. A Aquifer cross-sectional area Ft2
From Eq. 11, it can be observed that a plot of F E g vs. Bg Gas FVF rb/Mscf

We E g will result in a straight line with intercept equal to Bo Oil FVF rb/stb
c Total aquifer compressibility psi-1
G fgi and unit slope.
cf Formation compressibility psi-1
The iterative procedure consists of assuming values of
L until a unit slope is obtained. cw Water compressibility psi-1

Determining The Length Of The Water-Bearing Part of the Reservoir

∆p pi − p at original GWC psi

Eg Gas expansion factor rb/Mscf

90,000,000
m=2.1 m=1.31 L=1,000ftft
m=1.01
Eo Oil expansion factor rb/stb
80,000,000

F Underground withdrawal rb
70,000,000
φ Porosity fraction
60,000,000
G fgi Total volume of fluid initially in the gas Mscf
F/E g , Mscf

50,000,000 L=1,000 ft phase

k permeability md
40,000,000 L=800 ft
L Linear aquifer length ft
30,000,000 L=500 ft µ Viscosity cp
20,000,000 N foi Total volume of fluid initially in the stb
liquid phase
10,000,000
Rs Solution gas-oil ratio Mscf/stb
0
0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 Rv Volatilized oil-gas ratio stb/Mscf
We/Eg, Mscf
tD Dimensionless time
Fig. 19 – Iterative procedure to determine length of linear
t Time days
aquifer
U Aquifer geometric factor bbl/psi
Fig. 19 illustrates the iterative procedure necessary to Dimensionless cumulative water influx
WD
determine the length of the linear aquifer used to generate the
synthetic data for the water-drive case. We Cumulative water influx rb
Notice that if a value of L that is smaller than the actual
one (1,000 ft) is assumed, the slope turns out to be larger than Greek
unity. When the actual length is used, a slope of 1.01 is ∆ Difference between two time steps
obtained. This result illustrates the effectiveness of the
material balance technique to determine the dimensions of the Subscripts
aquifer. j Pressure level
x, y , z Coordinate directions in permeability tensor
SPE 68666 ANALYSIS OF A NON-VOLUMETRIC GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 9

References
1. Walsh, M.P., Ansah, J., Raghavan, R.: The New,
Generalized Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight
Line: Part 1--Applications to Undersaturated, Volumetric
Reservoirs," paper SPE 27684, presented at the 1994 SPE
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Midland, TX.
2. Walsh, M.P., Ansah, J., Raghavan, R.: The New,
Generalized Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight
Line: Part 2--Applications to Saturated and Non-
Volumetric Reservoirs," paper SPE 27728, presented at
the 1994 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference, Midland, TX.
3. Morse, R.A., Byrne, W.B.: “The Effects of Various
Reservoir and Well Parameters on Water Coning
Performance,” paper SPE 4287.
4. Kenyon, D.E., Behie, G.A.: “Third SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate
Reservoirs,” Journal of Petroleum Technology (August
1987) 981-997.
5. Whitson, C.H., Fevang, O, Yang, T.: “Gas Condensate
PVT—What’s Really Important?” paper presented at the
1999 IBC Conference “Optimization of Gas Condensate
Fields,” London, Jan. 28-29.
6. Havlena,D., Odeh, A.S.: “The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line,” JPT (August 1963) 896-900.
7. Havlena,D., Odeh, A.S.: “The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line – Part II, Field Cases,” JPT
(July 1964) 815-822.