Journal of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering

ISSN: 2231-3818 (Online), ISSN: 2321-4236 (Print)

Volume 10, Issue 1
www.stmjournals.com

Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs

Primarily Under Aquifer Influx
Phoebe J O1, Alawode A2, Falode O A3,*
1
Student, Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
2
Lecturer, Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
3
Professor, Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

Abstract
Previous Capacitance – Resistance Models that have been developed to characterise black oil
reservoirs undergoing waterflooding do not apply to waterflooding of reservoirs primarily
under aquifer influxresulting in significant error. This paper has attempted to overcome this
limitation by presenting the aquifer influx as a pseudo injector whose injection rate is
represented by an existing aquifer model. The influencing parameters of the model have been
modified to include an aquifer influx factor. The equation was developed from the mass
balance equation into a partial differential equation which included the reservoir connectivity
parameters. The developed equation was solved based on assumption of linear variation in
injection rate and bottom hole pressure as a single producer, n+1 injectors’ reservoir system.
The Leung’s modified pseudo steady state aquifer model was incorporated as the aquifer
influx factor into the final equation. A stand-alone software was developed for the
computation and validation of the developed model. The model was validated by establishing
the interwell connectivity over part of the historical data and then using the fitted model to
predict the other part of the data. Comparison of this study to the existing models indicated
error margin decline towards the end of the production table where the aquifer influx rate is
much lower indicating the importance of the addition of the aquifer influx factor.This model is
accurate and proves to be a simple and useful tool in waterflood planning and monitoring and
general reservoir characterisation.

Key words: Capacitance-resistance, waterflooding, interwell connectivity, oil reservoirs.

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: falodelias@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION the reservoir’s energy drive using fluid such as

In the history of oil production, the primary
goal has been to optimise hydrocarbon
recovery from the subsurface. As hydrocarbon
is being produced, the natural energy drive
needed for production begins to diminish and
oil recovery is reduced, this presented a need
to assist and provide the reservoir with
additional energy to increase production rate
and thus, the hydrocarbon recovery. Recovery
modes in the petroleum industry are classified
into the primary, secondary and tertiary
recovery. Primary recovery is the production
of the reservoir’s content under natural energy
drive. Primary energy drive could be due to
water influx from underlying aquifer, solution
gas in oil expansion, gas cap overlying oil
expansion, effect of gravity segregation etc.
Secondary recovery involves the support of
water and gas. Thus, secondary recovery
involves the injection of water and/or gas into
the reservoir to maintain reservoir pressure
and to displace hydrocarbons towards the
producing well bore. Tertiary recovery also
known as Enhanced Recovery involves
making use of mechanical and chemical
techniques to further increase hydrocarbon
production from the reservoir even up to 75%
recovery.
The major secondary recovery techniques
include water injection and gas injection.
Water injection is done by injecting water into
the reservoir to support and encourage oil
production (water injection is not used in gas
reservoirs). Waterflooding supports and
increases reservoir pressure, moving

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 1
Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs
hydrocarbon fluids towards the producing well
also as shown in Figure 1. It could come in
before or after primary energy is depleted. The
injected water displaces oil from the pore
spaces and the efficiency of the displacement
is highly dependent on oil viscosity, rock
characteristics and injected water
characteristics. Water for waterflooding could
be sourced from nearby streams, rivers and
oceans or processed produced water which is a
major justification for the use of waterflooding
in this low oil price regime. In a deteriorating
oil economy, maximizing productivity to
produce just as much as is needed without
aiming for excess production (due to OPEC’s
production cut) is very important.
Waterflooding improves oil production from
an average of 30-35% oil recovery from
primary production while providing a means
for disposing of produced water in cases where
produced water is being re-injected and also
low incurred cost where there are no produced
water to use with respect to availability of
water.
Fig 1: Illustration of the waterflood recovery
optimization technique. (source: Halliburton
blog, 2015 [4])
Evaluation is done to be able to determine
what type of waterflooding method or pattern
to use and the viability of the process in the
reservoir. For a reservoir confirmed to be a
candidate for waterflooding, analysis and
evaluation has to be done from the
initialization of the injection to further
characterize the waterflood performance and
reservoir production performance. This gives
the Petroleum Engineer an insight to know
JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
J O et al.
how much to inject, where to inject
(waterflood pattern) and when to inject to be
able to optimize production at a particular
time. Analysis and evaluations aid in
development of prediction simulation models.
An adequate waterflood prediction model
would be able to effectively account for
injection and resulting production
characteristics and relations. Field predictions
must be able to adequately answer the
questions of how much oil will be recovered
by water flood, how much water will have to
be injected, how much water will be produced
and how oil recovery, water production and
water injection will be related to time (Smith
and Cobb, 1997) [8]. Different modelling
methods have been used in proposing
sufficient prediction models and each of the
methods have shown their own area of
specialty and disadvantages. Prediction
modelling methods could be in physical,
analogue, mathematical, numerical or
computer models.
Problem statement
Major determinants of a robust model would
be the consideration of heterogeneity of the
reservoir, injection and production rate,
waterflood patterns etc. The Capacitance
Resistance Model has been developed to
overcome the limitation surrounding the
accuracy of the heterogeneous reservoir
parameters used in a simulating model to
represent reservoir connectivity. It presents a
more robust model developed for the
prediction of waterflood performance without
dependency on the individual reservoir
parameters while still accounting for reservoir
heterogeneity making use of primarily
production and injection data (Yousef, 2005)
[9-10]. Capacitance Resistance Models have
simulations limitations attributed to the data
input and the model itself. One of the major
limitations include varying fluid
compressibility which restricts the reservoir
fluid to oil and water (Altaheini, 2015,
Altaheini and Al-Towijri, 2016) [1-2]. The
general CRM equation does not include the
presence of aquifer in its generality, thus
reducing the robustness and wide application
of the model to various reservoir scenarios.
This study seeks to overcome this limitation
Page 2
Journal of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2231-3818 (Online), ISSN: 2321-4236 (Print)
by presenting the aquifer influx as a pseudo
injector whose injection rate is represented by
an existing aquifer model. This study would
also develop a stand-alone model for the
computation and validation of the developed
model.
Aims and Objectives
The general aim of this study is to optimise
waterflood process as a means of improving
production rate and thus oil recovery from a
reservoir with aquifer by adequately predicting
a reservoir relationship between injection and
production and modelling this into a
production prediction simulation.
The specific objectives include:
1. To modify the influencing parameters of
the governing equation (i.e. the reservoir
and injection parameters) in order to
account for the existing limitation in the
reservoir representation to include an
aquifer influx factor.
2. To incorporate an existing aquifer model
(i.e. Leung’s aquifer model)into the
modified equation as the pseudo injector
rate
3. To solve the incorporated model using a
stand-alone computer software developed
using the Java programming language.
4. To validate the new model for different
reservoir scenarios (reservoir with no
primary aquifer undergoing waterflooding
and reservoir with primary aquifer
undergoing waterflooding) by comparing
against field data.
LITERATURE ON AQUIFER
INFLUX MODELS
In an attempt to develop a full reservoir
system model, the estimation of an aquifer
model is expedient for reservoirs flowing
under water drive mechanisms and the
difficulty of this has limited the general
application of aquifer in studies of oil
reservoirs. In the modelling of aquifers, the
limitation of insufficient knowledge on aquifer
properties is the most challenging because
aquifers are not drilled through to obtain
measurements and parameters, thus
assumptions from reservoir properties,
estimates and production data are combined in
JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
expressing the water drive on a field as a
function of reservoir pressure.
Hurst (1942) [5] presented a paper for the
calculation of the water influx rate on an oil
reservoir in which the history of the reservoir
pressure with time are the essential parameters
for the determination of the rate and
cumulative water encroachment into a field
while studying the diffusivity theory as a
governing equation for his model. He made his
application for radial flow case of water drive
since it has been proved accurate for general
engineering purposes. The boundary
conditions given were to the effect that the oil
field was in concentricity with the underlying
water formation. The aquifer was assumed to
be initially saturated with water at the same
pressure as the original reservoir pressure but
reduces with increasing pressure gradient
subject to the variation of field pressure and
time.
Van Everdingen and Hurst (1949) [11]
formulated a method for unsteady state fluid
flow using the Laplace transformation to solve
the diffusivity equation for the radial and
linear aquifer types. Two cases were
considered: the constant terminal pressure case
and the constant terminal rate case. The
constant terminal pressure case assumes that
the pressure at all points in the formation is
constant at time zero and immediately drops to
zero when the well or reservoir is opened and
remains that during the duration of production.
The constant terminal rate case assumes that
the pressure is constant in the formation at
time zero but fluid is produced from the
wellbore at a unit rate, thus cumulative
pressure drop is expressed in terms of the unit
pressure drop and the constant relating the
cumulative pressure drop with the pressure
change for a unit rate of production. These
fundamental relationships were then
interpreted for variable terminal cases using
the application of the superposition theorem
(Duhamel’s principle).
Carter and Tracy (1960) [12] worked on
improving the Hurst’s method by eliminating
superposition calculations and assuming
constant water influx rates. The resulting
Page 3
Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs
equation was presented as a function of
dimensionless time and gives an approximate
result as the Hurst equation with less vigorous
method of calculation. McEwen (1962) [13]
presented a method of estimating the amount
of hydrocarbon originally in place in a
reservoir by means of the material balance
theory. He inferred the behaviour of an
underlying aquifer providing support to the
reservoir and influencing the pressure-
production data in his method of calculation.
He incorporated the van Everdingen Hurst
representation of the aquifer and obtained the
water influx constant from the reservoir water
saturation, aquifer effective compressibility
data and the quantity of hydrocarbon in place.
Fetkovich (1971) [3] presented in his paper an
approximate approach to water influx
calculations that utilizes the stabilized or
pseudo-steady state aquifer productivity index
and an aquifer material balance to represent
the finite compressible system. His equation
assumes constant pressure at reservoir/aquifer
boundary but in reality, boundary pressure
changes as gas is produced from the reservoir.
Since this study does not account for saturated
reservoir producing gas, this assumption is
slated to be true and works for this study. His
method was using the PI-Aquifer Material-
Balance approach and he separated the water
influx problem into a rate equation and a
material balance equation using rate equations
defined by the Hurst simplified method.
Leung (1986) [6] developed a method for
modelling of water influx into a reservoir
using a fast convolution method (FCM) to
account for the superposition theory/method of
the VEH model. He developed four different
unsteady state single porosity aquifer models
which are the pseudo-steady state (PSS)
model, transient model and the infinite-acting
aquifer model, modifications to the pseudo-
steady state model birthed the Modified
Pseudo-steady State (MPSS) model and
numerical studies were able to show that the
FCM approach was 20% more accurate than
the widely used method for both finite and
infinite aquifer models. The FCM approach
used a more efficient computing scheme of the
Linear Interpolation of Boundary Pressure
JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
J O et al.
(LIBP) and the Step Interpolation of Boundary
Pressure (SIBP).
Marques et al. (2007) [7] did a comparison
study of the van Everdingen-Hurst model,
Fetkovich approximate model, Carter-Tracy
model and Leung model. This work studied
the basic theories of the models and their
equations for numerical programming and also
presented accuracy data for each model for
different aquifer cases. Marques was able to
show from the comparison that the Leung’s
Modified Pseudo-Steady State (MPSS) model
gives the closest solutions to the van
Everdingen-Hurst solutions and also showed
that the Leung model is a good choice for
numerical programming in flow simulators.
Having reviewed previous works done on
waterflooding performance predictions and
settling for a review of the Capacitance
Resistance modelling method, it was observed
that little effort has been put into the
Capacitance Resistance Modelling of a
reservoir primarily producing under aquifer
support and now undergoing waterflooding.
As a result, this studyfocused on the
development of the CRM equation to
introduce an aquifer influx factor to cater for
one of the shortcomings of the existing model.
Existing aquifer models have also been studied
and to ensure accuracy and computational
ease, the Leung’s aquifer model would be
simplified to an aquifer influx factor which
would thus be incorporated into the modified
CRM equation.
METHODOLOGY
The physical model
The model developed in this paper is described
with Figures 2 and 3.
Capacitance-resistance model
Simplifying assumptions
This model is developed for a system based on
the following assumptions:
(i) constant pore volume, small and constant
compressibility; neglected capillary
pressure effect
(ii) linear productivity index
(iii) water influx from the aquifer is
chemically stable with injected water
Page 4
Journal of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2231-3818 (Online), ISSN: 2321-4236 (Print)

(iv) The aquifer is represented by a pseudo- 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 − 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡
injector = 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
(v) Each drainage volume around a producer
well has a constant aquifer-reservoir 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 = 𝐼𝑓 = (𝑖𝑤 + 𝑖𝑎 )𝜌𝑓 ∆𝑡 (1)
boundary heterogeneity and the aquifer 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑄𝑓 = 𝑞𝜌𝑓 ∆𝑡 (2)
influx for the drainage volume is
constant. Mass balance equation thus interprets as
(𝑖𝑓 − 𝑞) = ∆𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠/𝜌𝑓 ∆𝑡 (3)
Model development
Considering the mass balance equation for an Substituting∆𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 𝑉𝑝 ∗ 𝑆𝑓 ∗ 𝜌𝑓 , equation 3
element of reservoir representation shown in
Figure 4: becomes,

Production from well(s), q

Injection from surface, i

Black Oil Reservoir

Injection from aquifer, ia

Aquifer

Fig 2: Physical model showing the input and output of fluid to the reservoir.

Injection weight from injector, i1

Injection weight from injector, i2

Injection weight from aquifer influx, ia

Total production from well drainage area

Black Oil Reservoir under aquifer support

Fig 3: Physical model representation of CRMP for a reservoir with aquifer support.

IF Qf

𝑉𝑝 , 𝑆𝑓 , 𝜌𝑓

Fig 4: Pictorial view of elemental representation.

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 5
Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs J O et al.

∆(𝑉𝑝 ∗𝑆𝑓 ∗𝜌𝑓 )

(𝑖𝑓 − 𝑞) = 𝜌𝑓 ∆𝑡
(4a)
𝑑(𝑉𝑝 ∗𝑆𝑓 ∗𝜌𝑓 )
In small increments; (𝑖𝑓 − 𝑞) = (4b)
𝜌𝑓 𝑑𝑡

Assume constant pore volume, 𝑉𝑝 for the drainage radius;

𝑉𝑝 𝑑(𝑆𝑓 ∗𝜌𝑓 ) 𝑑(𝑆𝑓 ) 𝑉𝑝 ∗𝑆𝑓 𝑑(𝜌𝑓 ) 𝑑𝑃
(𝑖𝑓 − 𝑞) = 𝜌𝑓 𝑑𝑡
= 𝑉𝑝 𝑑𝑡
+ 𝜌𝑓 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
(5)

Introducing constant compressibility

𝑑(𝑆𝑓 ) 𝑑𝑃
(𝑖𝑓 − 𝑞) = 𝑉𝑝 𝑑𝑡
+ 𝑉𝑝 ∗ 𝑆𝑓 ∗ 𝐶𝑓 𝑑𝑡 (6)

𝑑𝑆𝑜 𝑑𝑆𝑔 𝑑𝑆𝑤

For a total petroleum system,𝑆𝑜 + 𝑆𝑔 + 𝑆𝑤 = 1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑡
+ 𝑑𝑡
+ 𝑑𝑡
= 0, then equation (6)
simplifies to
𝑑𝑃
(𝑖𝑡 − 𝑞𝑡 ) = 𝑉𝑝 ∗ 𝐶𝑡 (7)
𝑑𝑡

A major assumption in this work is that the production from the reservoir follows constant
𝑞
productivity index; 𝐽 = , then
𝑃𝑟 −𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝑞
𝑃̅ = 𝐽 + 𝑃𝑤𝑓 (8)
𝑉𝑝 ∗𝐶𝑡 𝑑𝑞 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓
Thus, equation 7 becomes (𝑖𝑡 − 𝑞𝑡 ) = 𝐽 𝑑𝑡
+ 𝑉𝑝 ∗ 𝐶𝑡 𝑑𝑡
(9)
In the drainage area, the net rate of accumulation is expressed as a function of
(i) The production rate with time and a retention factor. This retention factor quantifies the degree of
𝑉 ∗𝐶
fluid storage around the drainage area and is referred to as the time constant (𝝉 = 𝑝𝐽 𝑡). The
time constant is not dependent on the injection rate at all, thus if 𝑖𝑡 = 0, corresponding equation
gives primary depletion without any assistance or improvements i.e. at the conditions of the
secondary recovery.
(ii) Change in producer well flowing pressure with time.

Thus, equation 9 is represented as

𝑑𝑞 𝑑𝑃
(𝑖𝑡 − 𝑞𝑡 ) = 𝜏 + 𝜏 ∗ 𝐽 𝑤𝑓 (10a)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑞 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝜏 𝑑𝑡 + 𝑞(𝑡) = 𝑖(𝑡) − 𝜏 ∗ 𝐽 𝑑𝑡
(10b)

The total production rate at a producer well is supported by more than one injector, thus Yousef
2005, [9-10] incorporated coefficients that shows that a producer shares one injector with other
producers thus the sum of weights emanating from each injector sums up to 1.

The coefficient,𝜆𝑖𝑗 , gives the weight of each injector contributing to a particular producer. Note that
the sum of weights from a certain injector towards different producers would add up to 1. For n-
injector, single producer system, equation (7) can be written as
𝑑𝑃̅
∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) − ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝑞𝑖𝑗 (𝑡) = ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝑉𝑝 ∗ 𝐶𝑡 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 (11)
𝑖𝑗 𝑑𝑡
̅
Where𝑉𝑝 𝑖𝑗 , 𝐶𝑡 𝑖𝑗 and 𝑃𝑖𝑗 describe the drainage volume of producer j due to injector i, 𝑞𝑖𝑗 is the
𝑞𝑖𝑗 (𝑡)
production rate at producer j due to injector i, 𝜆𝑖𝑗 = 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡)
and has positive values. Thus equation (10)
gives
𝑑𝑞𝑖𝑗 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑖𝑗
∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝜏𝑖𝑗 + ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝑞𝑖𝑗 (𝑡) = ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) − ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝜏𝑖𝑗 ∗ 𝐽𝑖𝑗 (12)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 6
Journal of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2231-3818 (Online), ISSN: 2321-4236 (Print)

𝑉𝑝 ∗𝐶𝑡 𝑖𝑗
𝑖𝑗
Where 𝜏𝑖𝑗 = 𝐽𝑖𝑗
𝑛 𝑑𝑞 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑖𝑗
∑𝑖=0 𝜏𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗
𝑑𝑡
+ ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝑞𝑖𝑗 (𝑡) = 𝜆𝑎𝑗 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡) + ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝑑𝑡
∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝜏𝑖𝑗 ∗ 𝐽𝑖𝑗 (13)
Where 𝜆𝑎𝑗 = 𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑖 = 0

For a control volume around a sample producer, equations 12 and 13 can further be expressed
following to give;
𝑑𝑞𝑗 1 1 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑗
𝑑𝑡
+ 𝜏 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) = 𝜏 ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝐽𝑗 ∗ 𝑑𝑡 (14)
𝑗 𝑗
𝑑𝑞𝑗 1 1 1 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑗
𝑑𝑡
+ 𝑞 (𝑡)
𝜏𝑗 𝑗
= 𝜆 𝑖 (𝑡) + 𝜏 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡)
𝜏𝑗 𝑎𝑗 𝑎
− 𝐽𝑗 ∗ 𝑑𝑡
(15)
𝑗

Relating to Nguyen (2010), the primary recovery model for a reservoir producing under the aquifer
influx can be derived and expressed as
𝑑𝑞 𝑑𝑃
𝜏𝑝 𝑑𝑡𝑗 + 𝑞(𝑡) = 𝜆𝑝 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡) − 𝑑𝑡𝑤𝑓 𝜏𝑝 ∗ 𝐽 (16)

Taking this as the case where i=0 and 𝜏𝑝 is the time constant for the primary production contribution
to the rate of producer j.

Solution of model equation

The governing differential equation for this capacitance model is given by equation 15 and this can be
𝑡 𝑑𝑡
∫𝑡 𝜏
solved using integrating factor 𝑒 0
𝑡 𝑡0 𝜀 𝜀 𝜀
𝜀=𝑡 1 𝜀=𝑡 1 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝜀=𝑡
𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) ∗ 𝑒 𝜏 = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 𝜏 + ∫𝜀=𝑡 𝑒 𝜏 ∗ 𝜆 𝑖 (𝜀) 𝑑𝜀 + ∫𝜀=𝑡 𝑒 𝜏 ∗ ∑ 𝜆 𝑖 (𝜀) 𝑑𝜀 − ∫𝜀=𝑡 𝑒 𝜏 ∗ 𝐽𝑗 ∗
0 𝜏𝑗 𝑎𝑗 𝑎 0 𝜏𝑗 𝑖=1 𝑖𝑗 𝑖 0
𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑗
𝑑𝜀 (17)
𝑑𝜀

Solving the integral part of equation (17) using the integration by part method:
−(𝑡−𝑡0 ) −(𝑡−𝑡0 ) 𝑁 −(𝑡−𝑡0 )
𝑖𝑛𝑗
𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 𝜏 + 𝜆𝑎𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑎 (𝑡) − 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 𝜏 ) + ∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 𝜏 )−
−𝑡 𝜀 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑗
𝜀=𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑎 (𝜀) 𝑑𝑖𝑖 (𝜀)
𝑒 𝜏 ∗ ∫𝜀=𝑡 𝑒 ∗ ( 𝜏 + ∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ + 𝐽𝑗 ∗ ) 𝑑𝜀 (18)
0 𝑑𝜀 𝑑𝜀 𝑑𝜀

By assuming a constant productivity index, linear variation in injection rate and in bottom hole
pressure data during time interval 𝑡0 to 𝑡, equation 18 can be integrated and written as
−(𝑡−𝑡0 ) −(𝑡−𝑡0 )
𝑁 −(𝑡−𝑡0 )
𝜏𝑗 𝜏𝑗 𝑖𝑛𝑗
𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 + 𝜆𝑎𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑎 (𝑡) − 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 ) + ∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 𝜏 )−
−(𝑡−𝑡0 )
𝜏𝑗 ∆𝑖𝑎 (𝑡) 𝑁 𝑖𝑛𝑗 ∆𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) ∆𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝜏𝑗 ∗ (1 − 𝑒 )∗( + ∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ + 𝐽∗ ) (19)
∆𝑡 ∆𝑡 ∆𝑡

Equation 19 works for one time interval step. To account for series of interval steps, equation 19 can
be estimated and then used as the initial value of production for use for the next time step. Therefore,
at the end of each time interval ∆𝑡𝑛 , equation 19 becomes
−(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡𝑛−1 ) −(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡𝑛−1 )
𝜏𝑗 𝜏𝑗 𝑁
𝑖𝑛𝑗
𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑛 ) = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑛−1 ) ∗ 𝑒 + 𝜆𝑎𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑎 (𝑡𝑛 ) − 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡𝑛−1 ) ∗ 𝑒 ) + ∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑛 ) −
−(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡𝑛−1 ) −(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡𝑛−1 )
𝜏𝑗 𝜏𝑗 ∆𝑖𝑎 (𝑡𝑘 ) 𝑁
𝑖𝑛𝑗 ∆𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑘 ) ∆𝑃𝑤𝑓,𝑗 (𝑡𝑘 )
𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑛−1 ) ∗ 𝑒 ) − 𝜏𝑗 ∗ (1 − 𝑒 )∗( ∆𝑡
+ ∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ ∆𝑡
+ 𝐽∗ ∆𝑡
) (20)

Repeating the calculation for each time interval from start to finish and assuming that the weight and
time constants are constant for all intervals, the general form of the expanded CRMP solution using
the LVIR-LVBHP is given as

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 7
Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs J O et al.

−(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡0 ) −(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡0 )

𝜏𝑗 𝜏𝑗 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗
𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑛 ) = [𝑞𝑗 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 ] + [𝜆𝑎𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑎 (𝑡𝑛 ) − 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡0 ) ∗ 𝑒 )] + [∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ (𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑛 ) − 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡0 ) ∗
−(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡0 ) −(𝑡𝑛 −𝑡𝑘 ) −(𝑡𝑘 −𝑡0 )
∆𝑖𝑎 (∆𝑡𝑘 ) 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗 ∆𝑖𝑖 (∆𝑡𝑘 )
𝑒 𝜏𝑗
)] − [∑𝑛𝑘=1 [𝜏𝑗 ∗ 𝑒 𝜏𝑗
∗ (1 − 𝑒 𝜏𝑗
)∗( + ∑𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝑗 ∗ +𝐽 ∗
∆𝑡𝑘 ∆𝑡𝑘

∆𝑃𝑤𝑓,𝑗 (∆𝑡𝑘 )
∆𝑡𝑘
)]] (21)

Aquifer model
Simplifying assumptions
Assumptions attached to the use of the aquifer model chosen in this project work includes:
1. Each well is attached to a different aquifer model
2. Finite aquifer under pseudo-steady state regime
3. The time scale at which Boundary Pressure changes is large compared with the response time of
aquifer

The Leung’s aquifer model

This study work chooses to make use of the Leung’s modified pseudo-steady state model as expressed
as
𝑖𝑎 = 𝐽𝑎 (𝑃̅𝑎,𝑚𝑝𝑠𝑠 (𝑡) − 𝑃(𝑡)) (22)
𝑘ℎ𝑓
𝐽𝑎 = 7.0811 ∗ 10−3 𝑑 (23)
𝜇𝑤 ( ∞⁄𝑟𝑟 )
𝑃̅𝑎,𝑚𝑝𝑠𝑠 (𝑡) = (1 − 𝛽)𝑃𝑆𝐼𝐵𝑃 (𝑡) + 𝛽𝑃̅𝑎,𝑃𝑆𝑆 (𝑡) (24)
𝑃 +𝑃
𝑃̅𝑎,𝑛+1,𝑃𝑆𝑆 = 𝑃̅𝑎,𝑛 𝑒 −𝛼∆𝑡 + ( 𝑛+1 𝑛 )(1 − 𝑒 −𝛼∆𝑡 ) (25)
2
𝑃 +𝑃
𝑃𝑆𝐼𝐵𝑃 (𝑡) = ( 𝑛+12 𝑛 ) , 𝑡𝑛 < 𝑡 ≤ 𝑡𝑛+1 (26)
2 𝑟𝑒2𝐷
𝛼= 𝑑 2 (27)
𝜓( ∞⁄𝑟𝑟 ) 𝑟𝑒𝐷 −1
2 2
1 ∅𝜇𝐶𝑡 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝐷
𝜓= (28)
2.31 𝑘

In the above series of equations,

𝑖𝑎 is the water influx rate into the reservoir from the aquifer, equation (22);
𝐶𝑡 = (𝐶𝑤 + 𝐶𝑓 ) is the total compressibility of the aquifer, comprising the water compressibility and
the formation compressibility
𝑃̅𝑎,𝑚𝑝𝑠𝑠 is the average aquifer pressure from the MPSS model calculated by equation (24)
𝑃̅𝑎,𝑃𝑆𝑆 (𝑡) is the average aquifer pressure from the PSS model gotten from equation (25);
𝑃𝑆𝐼𝐵𝑃 (𝑡) is the step interpolated boundary pressure, equation (26);
𝛽 is the weighing coefficient and is a function of dimensionless radius, it boosts the characteristic
response of the PSS aquifer model to early time changes that occur at reservoir/aquifer boundary and
is presented as a table from Leung’s work.
𝑟𝑟 =radius of the reservoir; ∅= porosity; K = permeability; h = height of aquifer; 𝜇𝑤 = viscosity of
𝑑
water; ∞⁄𝑟 = drainage radius
𝑟

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Literature data from a producing field in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria was ran against the
integrated model for fitting and prediction. The data contained production, injection, bottom hole
pressure history for a period of three years and aquifer influx parameters. The model procedure and
results are presented as follows.

The existing aquifer parameters for this application was inputted in order to calculate the pseudo-
injector aquifer influx rate as seen in Figure 5.

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 8
Journal of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2231-3818 (Online), ISSN: 2321-4236 (Print)

Fig 5: Field aquifer input interface.

INJECTION PROFILE
1400 45000

40000
1200
35000
AQUIFER INFLUX RATE (STB/D)

1000
30000

FLOW RATE (STB/D)

800 25000

600 20000

15000
400
10000
200
5000

0 0

Aquifer Influx Rate J_a (P ̅_(a,mpss) (t)-P(t))

TIME (YEARS)
Fig 6: Field historical data in consideration.

The respective injection to production rates for
the producer well 1 to be considered is as
shown in Figure 6. This data presents the
historical pattern for which the model solved
for the representative values of the reservoir
connectivity parameter which relates the
injector to the producer well 1 during the
model fitting procedure with the first half of
the production data.
The individual producer time constant and
each injector’s contribution to the production
from well 1 are iterated and estimated by the
model serves as the connectivity parameters

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 9
Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs J O et al.

around the producer well and are shown in weight on the well production. As the aquifer
Table 1. influx rate reduces and unable to bear the
weight of production, the injector rate is
Table 1: Connectivity parameters for well increased to supply more pressure
drainage area. maintenance to the reservoir from November
Producer well 1 time Injector weights 1998. The ratio of the aquifer influx rate to
constant Injector Aquifer pseudo the well injection rate compared to the
1 injector
13.65 0.78 0.22
production rate with time was plotted in
Figure 8 to show this trend.
The relativity of the developed model to the
historical data being used is shown in Figure Comparison of the existing model and this
7. The deviation observed towards the end of study was done to reflect the importance of the
inclusion of the aquifer model and to prove the
the production time can be translated to the
effect of lower aquifer injection rate observed extension of this model to wider range of
in Figure 6 which has a reduction effect on its reservoir scenarios. Figure 9 shows a
injection weight contributing to the comparison plot of the historical model,
production from well 1. Production rate existing model and results from using this
spiking from November 1998 which model. Variation degree from the literature
corresponds to increased injection rate period data was analysed for the existing model and
also reflects the impact of the high injector the error analysis is as shown in Table 2.

35000

30000

25000
Well Production (STB/D)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
27/09/1997 05/01/1998 15/04/1998 24/07/1998 01/11/1998 09/02/1999 20/05/1999 28/08/1999

FIELD DATA THIS STUDY

TIME

Fig 7: Production outline of historical data against model prediction.

Table 2. Error analysis of models from historical data

Actual rate This study Existing CRM AARE (This study) AARE 2 (Existing model) Error Margin
6500 6579.247526 5512.783606 1.22% 2.73% 16.41%
8300 8387.310097 7419.581387 1.05% 1.45% 11.66%
9500 9538.773601 8641.897459 0.41% 1.56% 9.44%
11000 11066.87482 10309.0948 0.61% 0.83% 6.89%
11450 11435.64222 10737.27041 0.13% 1.25% 6.10%
13200 13190.41549 12571.45189 0.07% 0.82% 4.69%
26000 25721.16571 25161.61032 1.07% 1.34% 2.15%
30500 30427.47777 30077.33058 0.24% 0.37% 1.15%
31500 31205.25059 30994.51161 0.94% 0.97% 0.67%
32000 31984.34626 31864.54352 0.05% 0.08% 0.37%

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 10
Journal of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2231-3818 (Online), ISSN: 2321-4236 (Print)

35000 0.16

30000 0.14
Well PRODUCTION (STB/D)

0.12
25000
0.1

INJECTION RATIO
20000
0.08
15000
0.06
10000
0.04
5000 0.02

0 0
27/09/1997 05/01/1998 15/04/1998 24/07/1998 01/11/1998 09/02/1999 20/05/1999 28/08/1999

WELL P1 PRODUCTION INJECTION RATIO

DATE
Fig 8: Plot showing trend of well production with changes in injection ratio.

35000
Well Production (STB/D)

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
27/09/1997 05/01/1998 15/04/1998 24/07/1998 01/11/1998 09/02/1999 20/05/1999 28/08/1999

FIELD DATA THIS STUDY

TIME
Fig 9: Comparison of all production data.

Further validation and results
Making use of another literature data from a
particular field undergoing waterflooding with
no primary aquifer influx, the model was used
to fit, validate and predict production
performance. The data contains production
history from an isolated well J, injection
history from two injector wells closest to the
producer well and producer well bottom hole
pressure data.
Fitting the given data into the model to derive
the quantification of the reservoir connectivity
that results or influences production from the
well. The connectivity parameters of this
model application as presented by the model is
shown in Table 3.
With the contribution effects of injector to
producer well quantified, the model then went
ahead to predict the production data for the rest
of the data given. Comparison of the data given
and the results calculated showed in Figure 10
iscexcellent representation of the reservoir
connectivity parameters which in turn gave
close comparison of the production rates.

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 11
Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs J O et al.

Table 3: Connectivity parameters for producer for future prediction given injection and well
well J and surrounding injector wells. bore pressure predictions or speculations.
Producer Well Time Injector Weights
Constant Injector well Injector well Table 4: Error analysis.
1 2 Actual rate This study AARE (This study)
16.37 0.472 0.528 2100.0 2042.116917 2.76%
2500.0 2435.236698 2.59%
2600.0 2592.836718 0.28%
Deviation of the predicted values from the 2500.0 2491.461067 0.34%
actual data is studied and an error margin of 2500.0 2511.100989 0.44%
less than 3% is observed in Table 4. 2600.0 2589.254539 0.41%
2500.0 2553.689215 2.15%
2800.0 2819.651027 0.70%
Further prediction is done in Figure 11 to 2800.0 2823.908755 0.85%
ascertain the potential of the model to be used 2850.0 2826.147226 0.84%

3000

2500
PRODUCTION RATE (STB/D)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
23/08/1996 01/12/1996 11/03/1997 19/06/1997 27/09/1997 05/01/1998 15/04/1998
producer well 1 model rate
TIME
Fig 10: Comparison of historical data and model results.

4000

3500

3000
PRODUCTION RATE (STB/D)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
15/05/199623/08/199601/12/199611/03/199719/06/199727/09/199705/01/199815/04/199824/07/199801/11/199809/02/1999

producer well 1 model rate

TIME

Fig 11: Model production prediction application for this example.

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 12
Journal of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2231-3818 (Online), ISSN: 2321-4236 (Print)
CONCLUSION
A model has been built to account for the
contribution of aquifer influx that was
neglected in the existing Capacitance-
Resistance model. A CRMP LVIR-LVBHP
was constructed with the inclusion of aquifer
influx as a pseudo-injector and the Leung’s
model representing a finite pseudo-steady state
aquifer was incorporated into it. This model
was built into a stand-alone software using the
JAVA programming language with friendly
graphical user interface to provide the user
with easier numerical simulator option. The
developed model was reduced to the existing
models and validated against field data, before
it was used on a relevant study to predict
future well/reservoir performance.
The built CRM was sampled on a black oil
reservoir with no aquifer influx with one
producer and 2 injectors and the result was
seen to produce acceptable match quality with
the actual field data used in the validation. The
model was also used on a black oil reservoir
with primary water drive mechanism currently
undergoing waterflooding. One producer well
was sampled with an injector well attached
using the CRMP LVIR model alongside the
pseudo injector representation of the aquifer
influx. The new model was able to realize and
estimate excessive error margin at first trial to
provide a better match quality for the
production up to date, thus presenting the user
with a prediction model with an ably
represented connectivity parameter. Finally,
the built CRM was used to provide future
performance predictions for the reservoir
scenario.
In conclusion, the introduction of the aquifer
influx representation into the CRM equation
helps to apply it to a wider range of reservoir
scenarios eliminating the handicap-ness of the
existing model in that order. Another
characteristic of this model is that it can be
applied to a reservoir undergoing primary
recovery via aquifer influx, a reservoir
undergoing waterflooding with no aquifer
influx and adequately to a reservoir primarily
under aquifer influx but now being water
flooded.
JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
REFERENCES
1. Altaheini, S., Al-Towijri, A., & Ertekin, T.
(2016). Introducing a new capacitance-
resistance model and solutions to current
modeling limitations. In Society of
Petroleum Engineers - SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
ATCE 2016 (Proceedings - SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition;
Vol. 2016-January). Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE).
2. Altaheini S. 2015. Addressing capacitance
resistance modelling limitation and
introducing a new practical formulation,
Master Thesis, Energy and Mineral
Engineering, Turgay Ertekin, Thesis
Advisor/Co-Advisor
3. Fetkovich M. J. 1971. A simplified
approach to water influx calculations –
Finite aquifer systems. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.2118/2603-PA.
4. https://halliburtonblog.com/considerations
-for-waterflooding-in-mature-fields-
reservoir-optimization/2015
5. Hurst W. 1942. Water influx into a
reservoir and its applications to the
equations of volumetric balance. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.2118/943057-G
6. Leung W. F. 1986. A fast convolution
method for implementing single porosity
finite/infinite aquifer models for water
influx calculations. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.2118/12276-PA
7. Marques J. B., Trevisan O. V. and Suslick
S. B. 2007. Classic models of calculation
of influx: A Comparative study.Doi:
https://doi.org/10.2118/107265-MS
8. Smith J. T. and Cobb W. M. 1997.
Waterflooding, William M. Cobb &
Associates, Inc. 12770 Coit Road, Suite
907 Dallas, TX 75251
9. A. A. Al-Yousef, “Investigating Statistical
Techniques To Infer Interwell
Connectivity From Production and
Injection Rate Fluctuations,” PhD Thesis,
The University of Texas, Austin, 2006.
10. Yousef A. A., Gentil P., Jensen J. L. and
Lake L. W. 2005. A capacitance model to
infer the interwell connectivity from
production and injection rate fluctuations.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/95322-PA
11. A.F. Van Everdingen, W. Hurst 1949. The
Application of the Laplace Transformation
Page 13
Capacitance – Resistance Model Application to Reservoirs J O et al.

to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Doi:

https://doi.org/10.2118/949305-G Cite this Article
12. Carter, R.D. and Tracy, G.W. 1960. An Phoebe J O, Alawode A, Falode O A.
Improved Method for Calculating Water Capacitance – Resistance Model
Influx. Trans., AIME 219: 415. Application to Reservoirs Primarily
13. C.R. Mcewen, 1962. Material Balance Under Aquifer Influx. Journal of
Calculations with Water Influx in the Materials & Metallurgical Engineering.
Presence of Uncertainty in Pressures, Doi: 2020; 10(1): 1–9p.
https://doi.org/10.2118/225-PA

JoMME (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 14