4 - Spe-198714-Ms

SPE-198714-MS
Prediction of Oil Reservoir Performance And Original-Oil-in-Place Applying

Schilthuis And Hurst-Van Everdingen Modified Water Influx Models
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Amarachi Uche Onuka, University of Salford; Franklin Okoro, Cleanscript Group
Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 5–7 August 2019.
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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
This paper predicts the future performance of an oil reservoir with no initial gas cap, being produced by a
strong underlying aquifer using the Schilthuis steady state and Hurst-Van Everdingen modified water influx
models. The aim of this analysis is to highlight the discrepancies in the capabilities of the Schilthuis steady
state water influx model and the Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model to effectively give the reservoir
engineer a thorough understanding of the effects of aquifer influx into a reservoir on the cumulative oil
production and estimation of oil-in-place. This was achieved by carrying out a simulation analysis using
the Schilthius steady state and the Hurst-Van Everdingen unsteady state models in the MBAL package to
predict changes in the following reservoir parameters for a 20-year period. For the production period being
analysed, the oil recovery factor was given as 26.76%. The difference in recoverable reserves estimated
using the Schilthuis steady state and Hurst-Van Everdingen modified water influx models was 0.406738
MMSTB. This implies that in the year 2020, using the Schilthuis steady state model to estimate the water
influx into the reservoir, would not be able to account for 0.406738 million stock tank barrels of oil that had
been recovered from the reservoir. This is attributed to the unrealistic assumptions of the Schilthuis steady
state model that the pressure of the aquifer is constant as the dynamic nature of the reservoir-aquifer system
will suggest a change in pressure with time as production of oil continues in an oil reservoir. Therefore, the
Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model has been proven to be a more effective tool for the reservoir engineer
because it takes into consideration the dependence of pressure changes in a reservoir-aquifer system with
time.
Keywords: Schilthuis model, Steady State Model, Unsteady State Model, Hurst-Van Everdingen, Aquifer
Influx, recovery factor, original-oil-in-place
Introduction
The main aim of any oil and gas industry is to make profit. From the development of a field to its ultimate
abandonment, the essential tasks lie in the estimation of the volume of oil and gas reserves. Reservoir
estimation and prediction involves the quantitative evaluation of economically recoverable hydrocarbon in
any given field. The uncertainties associated with reservoir volume estimation and the prediction of future
2 SPE-198714-MS
performance of oil and gas reservoirs is of a great significance to the reservoir engineer. Hence, the reservoir
engineer must be cautious when carrying out analysis of future reservoir performance.
Tarek (2006) stated that the Schilthuis water influx model was proposed for an aquifer under the steady
state flow and the rate of aquifer influx is determined through the Darcy’s equation:
(1.1)

(1.2)
where ρw = water influx rate, bbl/day
k = aquifer permeability, md
h = aquifer thickness, ft
ra = aquifer radius, ft
re = reservoir radius
t = time, days
C = water influx constant, bbl/day/psi
Tarek (2006) pointed out that one of the problems associated with the Schilthuis steady state water
influx model is that as the water encroaches into the reservoir from the aquifer, the aquifer drainage radius
increases with time. The apparent increase with time in the aquifer radius is expressed using the Hurst’s
modified steady-state model by replacing the aquifer dimensionless radius ra/re with a function "at" that is
time dependent.
(1.3)
Equation 1.1 becomes:
(1.4)
Omeke et.al (2011) noted that to model the transient flow behavior in reservoirs or aquifers, the
dimensionless form of the diffusivity equation is used.
(1.5)
Omeke et al. (2011) pointed out that Van Everdingen and Hurst solved the diffusivity equation of the
aquifer-reservoir system using a constant pressure as boundary condition.
(1.6)
Where f=θ2π , π in radian, a factor representing the radial sector

Equation 1.6 can be written as
(1.7)
The accumulated water influx can be given as:
(1.8)
Where qD(tD) represents the dimensionless flow from aquifer at aquifer-reservoir boundary rD = 1.
SPE-198714-MS 3
Marques et al. (2007) noted that amongst the classic analytical aquifer models which includes Van
Everdingen and Hurst, Fetkovich approximate, Carter and Tracy and Hurst modified models, the Van
Everdingen and Hurst model demands more computer power. Marques et.al. (2007) pointed out calculations
of previous steps in the Van Everdingen and Hurst model are redone at each time-step added to the behavior,
which increases the computation time and effort.
On the basis of flow regime, the Schilthuis steady state model and the Hurst-Van Everdingen unsteady
state model have been chosen for this study, because hydrocarbon reservoir-aquifer systems are most likely

to operate in steady or unsteady flow regimes at one point or the other. However, not so many publications
have highlighted the extent of error that can be incurred in a simulation analysis using the Schilthuis steady
state model.
The steady and unsteady state aquifer influx models operate on the basis assumptions that may not be
actual characteristics of the reservoir-aquifer system. This paper establishes the capacity of these water
influx models to accurately estimate the original oil in place and predict the future performance of an oil
reservoir with no initial gas cap. For a water drive reservoir, since the reservoir performance is influenced
by the aquifer influx, it is therefore very important to estimate the aquifer influx effectively. Several
aquifer influx models have been established. Therefore, this paper will establish the possible reasons for
uncertainties encountered in the prediction of future performance of oil reservoir performance using the
Schilthuis steady state and Hurst-Van Everdingen modified aquifer influx models.
This paper aims to: calculate the oil recovery factor of an existing oil reservoir with no initial gas cap,
estimate the pressure decline rate of an oil reservoir produced by an underlying aquifer, calculate the water
influx of an oil reservoir using the Schilthuis steady state and Hurst-Van Everdingen modified aquifer
influx models, calculate the oil and water saturations for an oil reservoir for a twenty year period, estimate
the Original Oil In Place (OOIP) using the Havlena-Odeh plot in the Petroleum Experts MBAL package,
estimate the difference in recoverable reserves estimated using the Schilthuis steady state and Hurst-Van
Everdingen modified aquifer influx models, analyse and predict the future performance of an oil reservoir
using reservoir Petroleum experts MBAL package, analyse the validity of assumptions incorporated in the
Schilthuis steady state aquifer influx model using the Hurst-Van Everdingen unsteady model as a reference
point, identify the effect of the flow geometry (linear, radial and bottom water drive) of a reservoir-aquifer
system on the future performance of an oil reservoir produced by a strong water drive mechanism, identify
reasons for uncertainties in the estimation of hydrocarbon reserves, highlight the downsides of the Petroleum
experts MBAL package as an efficient tool in the prediction of future performance of hydrocarbon bearing
reservoirs to the reservoir engineer.
Methodology
This study covers the estimation of the OOIP and prediction of future reservoir performance using the
Petroleum Experts MBAL package. MBAL can estimate the aquifer influx effectively and predict the
future performances given that the original oil in place is known. For this work, a water drive oil reservoir
with no gas cap will be analysed. The OOIP from volumetric analysis is given as 622.043 MMSTB. The
approach employed in the simulation analysis was to choose the Schilthuis steady state aquifer influx
model and the Hurst-Van Everdingen modified models in the MBAL package. These two models will be
used to estimate the OOIP and predict the future performance of a particular oil reservoir. An analysis of
different flow geometries like radial flow, linear and bottom-edge drives on future performance will be
carried out using the Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model. The effect of aquifer encroachment angle
increment on the future performance will be determined by varying the encroachment angle for a radial
aquifer. The Petroleum experts MBAL (2013) software was used to predict the performance of the reservoir
by evaluating the following reservoir production parameters; Aquifer influx, Original oil in place, Oil
recovery factor, Downhole pore volume, Cumulative oil production, Cumulative water production, Pressure
4 SPE-198714-MS
decline. Prediction of the performance of an oil reservoir was carried out for a 20 year arbitrary period,
from 01/01/2000 to 01/2020. The following water influx models were used to define the characteristics of
the reservoir for this period of time: Schilthuis (1936) steady-state model. Hurst-Van Everdingen (1949)
modified water influx model.
This different water influx models were chosen for this study because they effectively describe the
reservoir flow conditions under steady state and unsteady state conditions. Using the Hurst-Van Everdingen
(1949) modified water influx model, the following scenarios where analysed by varying some of the

reservoir parameters and aquifer parameters, thereby evaluating the effects this will have on the reservoir
production over this 20 year period. Reservoir flow geometry parameters considered; Radial aquifer with
an encroachment angle of 60°, Radial aquifer with an encroachment angle of 120°, Radial aquifer with
an encroachment angle of 180°, infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer, infinite acting linear aquifer with a
reservoir width of 10 feet, infinite acting linear aquifer with a reservoir width of 50 feet.
A brief recap of the material balance equation will be given to fully understand the methodology that is
behind the results to the discussed. The material balance equation is based on the principle of conservation
of mass. For a hydrocarbon bearing reservoir, this can be summarised with the equation below:
Mass of fluids originally in place in the reservoir = Fluids + Remaining fluids in place
(2.1)
Where; F = production or underground-withdrawal N = Initial oil in place, Et = Expansion term depending
on PVT parameter, We = water influx.
According to Petroleum experts (2013), the material balance program employs an assumed conceptual
model of the reservoir to predict and evaluate the reservoir behaviour based on the effects of reservoir fluids
production and gas to water injection. It is important to highlight the fact that the material balance equation
is zero-dimensional, which implies that it is based on a tank model and does not take into account the
geometry of the reservoir, the drainage areas, the position and orientation of the wells. The material balance
approach is very useful in: quantifying various parameters of a reservoir such as hydrocarbon in place, gas
cap size, determining the presence, type and size of an aquifer, encroachment angle, evaluating the depth
of the gas/oil, gas/water contacts, predicting the pressure of the reservoir for a given production and/or
injection schedule, predict the performance and well production for a given manifold pressure schedule.
FLUID PVT MODELING

MBAL makes it possible to model any type of reservoir fluid e.g. dry and wet gas, retrograde condensate. A
‘General’ type of fluid allows the user to define independent PVT models for oil and the gas in equilibrium
(Petroleum Experts, 2013). Three methods are used to model the hydrocarbon fluid behaviour when the
material balance equation is in use and they are highlighted in Table 2.1 below:
SPE-198714-MS 5
Table 2.1—Methods used in modelling fluid behaviour in MBAL

DEFINING THE PVT DATA
In order to predict both pressure and saturation changes throughout the reservoir accurately, it is imperative
to precisely describe the properties of the reservoir fluid. Ideally, it would be more effective to obtain data
from laboratory studies carried out on reservoir fluid samples. Table 2.2 below highlights the available
options in MBAL for calculating the required fluid properties.
Table 2.2—Methods of calculating reservoir fluid properties using MBAL

6 SPE-198714-MS
A summary of the steps to take based on the amount of PVT information available to the user as shown
in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3—Steps in describing PVT fluid properties using MBAL
Petroleum experts (2013) listed the equations used in the MBAL program and a summary of relevant
equations used are expressed in the next section.
(2.2)
The Schilthuis steady state model according to Petroleum experts (2013) assumes that the flow is a
steady state process but is dependent on time. The Schilthuis steady state water influx function is given by:
(2.3)
Where Ac is the aquifer productivity constant.
SPE-198714-MS 7
Assuming Ac is constant with time and integrating we will have:
(2.4)
(2.5)

The Hurst-Van Everdingen-Dake suggests that the rate of aquifer influx depends on the pressure
diffusivity of the system (Petroleum experts, 2013).
For a radial system, the diffusivity equation that governs the behavior of the system can be expressed as:
(2.6)
Where
(2.7)
(2.8)
(2.9)
RD is the reservoir/aquifer outer radius
(2.10)
(2.11)
Using superposition principle, Hurst-Van Everdingen and Dake solved the problem arising because of
the terminal pressure at the aquifer-reservoir boundary changing with time.
(2.12)
ΔPj = (Pj−1 − Pj+1)/2 For j=0, then Pi is the initial pressure of the reservoir.
Petroleum experts (2013) pointed out that for linear aquifers, the pressure diffusivity equation can also
be set up for linear aquifers and this can lead to finding a constant terminal pressure solution.
(2.13)
(2.14)
(2.15)
(2.16)
For bottom drive aquifers models, the model is the same as the linear models except the surface through
which the encroachment is taking place. Petroleum experts (2013) stated that the surface available from
influx for bottom drive aquifers is given byrw2.
8 SPE-198714-MS
(2.17)
Where
(2.18)
The Hurst-Van Everdingen Modified is similar to the Hurst-Van Everdingen Dake Model except that the

pressure decline is expressed differently.
(2.19)
Expressing Equation (3.8) in time domain gives:
(2.20)
Given that pressure declines linearly with time, dp/dtD is constant and represents the gradient of the linear
pressure decline given as:
(2.21)
For a linear decline therefore;
(2.22)
Superpositioning Equation 2.22 yields:
(2.23)
The form of WD, U AND tD depends on the model being linear, radial or bottom drive and are same as
the ones given by the Hurst-Van Everdingen model.
It is important to state that the MBAL package works only from ‘Left’ to ‘Right’ down the menu bar .i.e.
‘FILE’ to ‘Production prediction’.
Figure 2.1 above, is a flow chart that highlights every step of the simulation process that yields the results
of predicted reservoir performance.
SPE-198714-MS 9
Figure 2.1—Flowchart of simulation process used to obtain result
NOTE
➢ Most of reservoir data used in this simulation analysis are highly classified and as such the reservoir
has been termed ‘TANK 1’ for confidentiality purposes.
10 SPE-198714-MS
Results and Discussions

Oil production commenced on 01/01/2000. The simulation was carried out to predict the performance of
the reservoir up till 01/01/2020. The Original oil in place for ‘Tank 1’ is given as 622.043 MMSTB. For
each water influx model used, it would be observed that the estimated oil in place for these models varied
slightly from the OOIP. These differences from the OOIP will be discussed in detail in this section.
Table 3.1—Available raw field data for ‘Tank 1’

SPE-198714-MS 11
SIMULATION RESULTS USING SCHILTHUIS STEADY STATE WATER INFLUX
Table 3.2—Results obtained using Schilthuis steady state water model

The original oil in place from the Havlena-odeh plot shown in Figure 3.1 is 622.043 MMSTB which is
the same as the Original oil in place given for ‘Tank 1’. This is likely due to the fact that the Schilthuis
steady state model assumes that the pressure exerted on the aquifer is maintained at the initial value P, and
that the flow of water from the aquifer into the reservoir is directly proportional to the pressure differential
assuming the aquifer geometry is constant.
12 SPE-198714-MS

Figure 3.1—Havlena-Odeh Plot for Schilthuis steady state water influx model
Figure 3.1 is the Havlena-Odeh plot for a Schilthuis steady state model (F/Eo versus dP/Eo)
where:
F = underground withdrawal (expansion of the system + cum. Aquifer influx)
dP = pressure differential
Eo = expansion of oil.
It can be seen that the underground withdrawal is directly proportional to the rate of change of pressure
which implies that for this water drive aquifer, as the pressure of the reservoir declines, water from
the underlying aquifer flows in the reservoir pore spaces to provide the additional pressure needed for
production.
From figure 3.2, it can be established that the cumulative aquifer influx into the reservoir ‘Tank 1’ at
01/01/2020 is 0.6092157 MMSTB. Given that the water influx constant from Figure 3.1 is 40.063 RB/day/
psi, the trend of the aquifer influx plot over the twenty-year period suggests that water from the aquifer
flows into the reservoir at a rate of 40.063 Rb/day/psi from the year 2003-2020.
SPE-198714-MS 13

Figure 3.2—Aquifer influx for Schilthuis steady state water influx model
A critical observation of Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 shows that between 2000 and 2003 there was a sudden
reduction in oil saturation and a corresponding slight increase in the water saturation. This is because since
it was assumed that the reservoir has no gas cap, the sum of the saturation of reservoir fluids present in the
reservoir must be equal to 1. Hence, a sudden change in the saturation of one fluid will affect the saturation
of the other fluid. From 2004 to 2020 it can be seen that the water saturation increases whereas the oil
saturation drops due to the aquifer influx into the reservoir to provide the energy needed for continuous
production from the reservoir.
Figure 3.3—Water saturation for Schilthuis steady state water influx model
14 SPE-198714-MS

Figure 3.4—Oil saturation for Schilthuis steady state water influx
From Figure 3.4, it can be observed that the highest oil saturation using this model was in the Year 2004
before it gradually drops, suggesting that at this point the effect of the aquifer influx is being felt across the
inner and outer boundaries of the oil reservoir.
The oil recovery factor for ‘Tank 1’ from figure 3.5 is 0.26767885 which is equivalent to 26.767885
% of original oil in place. This implies that on 01/01/2020 that 26.767885 % of the original oil in place
would have been produced. This is a relatively small proportion and suggests that at a later point in the
producing life of the reservoir below the bubble point which is given as 2748.9 psig, the expansion of the
solution gas dissolved will be needed in conjunction to the aquifer influx to enhance the recovery of oil
from this reservoir. This low recovery is because the reservoir in question is a volumetric reservoir
with no gas cap.
Figure 3.5—General Oil recovery factor for ‘Tank’ 1

SPE-198714-MS 15
Figure 3.6 shows the pressure decline profile for ‘Tank 1’. The slow pressure decline from 6500 psig
to 6394.3228 psia for a period of twenty-years, suggests that the reservoir is being produced by a strong
water drive.

Figure 3.6—Pressure decline using Schithuis steady state model
From the compressibility formula, the Compressibility coefficient ‘C’ is represented as follows, C=
−1Vdvdp
This may be written as ΔV = VC ΔP
This simply implies that the rate of change of the downhole pore volume is directly proportional to the
pressure drop in the reservoir and this is depicted in the similarities of the decline curves in figure 3.6
and figure 3.7. It can be seen that for the twenty year period of the simulation analysis, there was only a
slight decline in the downhole pore volume from 945.6045 MMSTB to 945.22831 MMSTB because of the
underlying strong aquifer.
Figure 3.7—Downhole pore volume for Schilthuis steady state model

16 SPE-198714-MS
SIMULATION RESULTS FOR HURST-VAN EVERDINGEN-MODIFIED MODEL FOR A

RADIAL AQUIFER
(a) AN ENCROACHMENT ANGLE OF 60°. Reservoir thickness = 10 Feet
Reservoir radius = 2000 Feet
Outer/inner ratio = 4
Aquifer permeability = 50 md

Table 3.3—Results obtained using Hurst-Van Everdingen modified water
influx model for a radical aquifer with an encroachment angle of 60°
The Havlena-odeh (1964) plot above shows that F/Eo versus dP/Eo does not produce a straight line as
expected because the Hurst-Van Everdingen water influx model suggests that the water encroachment into a
reservoir is time dependent and the Havlena-Odeh plot may not be the best tool to analyse the rate of change
of the aquifer influx, change in oil expansion and pressure change in the reservoir-aquifer system. It can be
seen in Figure 3.8, however, that the original oil in place for this scenario is 623.25 MMSTB while the water
influx constant is 13304 RB/psi. This suggests that the water drive is from a strong underlying aquifer.
17
Figure 3.8—Havlena-odeh (1964) plot for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified

water influx model for a radical aquifer with encroachment angle of 60°
SPE-198714-MS
18 SPE-198714-MS

Figure 3.9—Aquifer influx for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified water
influx model for a radical aquifer with encroachment angle of 60°
It can be seen that the aquifer influx increased continuously until 2008, then it becomes constant. This
sudden uniformity in the aquifer influx from 2008 till the year 2020, suggests that since the reservoir pressure
is declining with time, from 2008 the aquifer influx reaches its maximum influx rate and will maintain this
rate till the reservoir pressure drops below its bubble point pressure.
(b) AN ENCROACHMENT ANGLE OF 180°.
SPE-198714-MS 19
Table 3.4—Results obtained using Hurst-Van Everdingen for a radial aquifer with an encroachment angle of 1800

The original oil in place estimated from the Havlena-odeh plot (623.25 MMSTB) does not change as the
aquifer encroachment angle increases. However, it can be observed (figure 3.10) that the points on the
Havlena-odeh plot are scattered. This may be because Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model does not
effectively model an aquifer with water encroaching in a radial form.
20 SPE-198714-MS

Figure 3.10—Havlena-odeh plot for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified
water influx model for a radical aquifer with encroachment angle of 180°
It can be observed from Figure 3.11 that from 2008, the gradually increment in the aquifer influx comes to
a halt and remains constant. The aquifer influx will decrease only if the reservoir pressure reaches its bubble-
point pressure i.e. the solution gas evolves out of the oil and supplements the energy provided by the aquifer
to continue production. The aquifer influx for an encroachment angle of 60° on 01/01/2020 is 0.006810625
while aquifer influx on 01/01/2020 for an encroachment angle of 180° is 0.020434191 MMSTB.
SPE-198714-MS 21

Figure 3.11—Aquifer influx for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified water
influx model for a radical aquifer with encroachment angle of 180°
NOTE: For this particular case study, the production constraints specified in the methodology,
predicted that the cumulative oil production on 01/01/2020 to be 1.6650775 MMSTB. Hence, this value
remains unchanged throughout the whole simulation process. Therefore, the effect of the changes in the
encroachment angle on the cumulative oil production expected for an oil reservoir might not be effectively
analysed. However, it has been shown that an increase in encroachment angle led to an increase in aquifer
influx into the reservoir, hence for a water drive oil reservoir with no initial gas cap, it is likely that an
increase in encroachment angle will lead to a corresponding increase in cumulative oil production expected
at any given time since production its solely dependent initially on the aquifer influx. The downhole pore
volume of the reservoir for an encroachment angle of 180° on 01/01/2020 reduces to 945.22834 MMRB.
For an encroachment angle of 60° on 01/01/2020 this was predicted to be 945.831 MMRB. This difference
in downhole pore volume is negligible because the reservoir rock compaction is constant.
SIMULATION RESULTS FOR HURST-VAN EVERDINGEN MODIFIED MODEL FOR AN

INFINITE-ACTING BOTTOM-DRIVE AQUIFER
Note: Reservoir radius = 2,000 feet.
Vertical permeability = 50md
SPE-198714-MS
Table 3.5—Results obtained using Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for an infinite-acting bottom drive aquifer
22
SPE-198714-MS 23

Figure 3.12—Havlena-Odeh plot for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for an infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer.
The estimated original oil in place for this model is 623.875 MMSTB. The water influx constant is 25156
RB/psi. The water influx constant estimated for this model is significantly higher than that estimated for a
radial aquifer. This is because for a bottom-drive aquifer there is significant flow in the vertical direction,
hence leading to a higher water influx rate.
Unlike the Havlena-Odeh plot for a radial aquifer which resulted in the scattering of the points on the
plot, the Havlena-Odeh plot for an infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer gives results in a fairly straight line
as expected. This suggests that the Hurst-van Everdingen modified water influx model can be used to model
bottom-drive reservoirs effectively because ideally most oil reservoirs do not have a circular geometry as
suggested by the radial flow model.
Figure 3.13 above clearly shows that for an infinite acting bottom-drive water reservoir the aquifer influx
will increase as oil production continues. The aquifer influx on 01/01/2020 was estimated to be 2.3855945
24 SPE-198714-MS
MMSTB. This is higher than the aquifer influx predicted for a radial aquifer hence it is likely that a bottom-
drive mechanism will lead to a higher economic recovery.

Figure 3.13—Aquifer influx for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for an infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer
Figure 3.14—Water saturation for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for an infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer
SPE-198714-MS 25

Figure 3.15—Oil saturation for for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for an infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer
A critical analysis of Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.17 below shows the relationship between water saturation
and oil saturation for an infinite-acting bottom-drive aquifer. It can be observed that water saturation
increased gradually and continuously while the oil saturation declined up to 0.89782184 on 01/01/2020.
This gradual straight line increase in the water saturation suggests the presence of an infinite acting bottom
drive aquifer.
Figure 3.16—Tank pressure for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for an infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer
26 SPE-198714-MS

Figure 3.17—Downhole pore volume for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for an infinite acting bottom-drive aquifer
It has been shown that the downhole pore volume change is directly proportional to the pressure decline
an oil reservoir, hence the similarities in trends between Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.17.
SIMULATION RESULTS FOR HURST-VAN EVERDINGEN MODIFIED MODEL FOR A

LINEAR AQUIFER
(a) Reservoir width = 10 Ft..
27
Table 3.6—Results obtained using Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for a linear aquifer with reservoir width of 10 feet.
SPE-198714-MS
28 SPE-198714-MS

Figure 3.18—Havlena-odeh plot for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for a linear aquifer with reservoir width of 10 feet
The plot shown above for a linear aquifer forms a fairly straight line as expected. This suggests that the
Hurst-Van Everdingen plot can be used effectively to analyse a linear aquifer. The original oil in place
estimated is 623.875 MMSTB whereas the water influx constant (c) is 25156 RB/psi. At the end of the
twenty year period, the aquifer influx into the reservoir was estimated to be 0.00059864691 MMSTB.
SPE-198714-MS 29

Figure 3.19—Aquifer influx for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model for a linear aquifer with reservoir width of 10 feet
The aquifer influx versus time plot above, shows that the aquifer influx into the reservoir pore spaces
will gradually increase over time for a strong water drive linear aquifer.
30 SPE-198714-MS
Table 3.7—Summary of results used for sensitivity analysis.

The infinite acting Bottom drive aquifer provides the greatest pressure (6483.836 Psig) on 01/01/2020
and will thereby lead to the highest economic oil recovery from the reservoir. The oil saturation for the
infinite acting aquifer model as at 01/01/2020 is the lowest, which suggests that the effect of the aquifer
influx into the pore spaces of the reservoir is being felt across the reservoir.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Original oil in place is given as 622.043 MMSTB. Original oil in place estimated using Schilthuis model
= 622.043 MMSTB.
Original oil in place estimated using Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model = average of the four case
studies analysed (623.25+623.25+623.875+623.8754=623.5625 MMSTB)
Given that Recoverable reserves = Original oil in place * oil recovery factor
The recoverable factor for ‘Tank 1’ is given as 26.767885 %
Recovery reserves predicted using Schilthuis Model = 26.767885% * 622.043 MMSTB = 166.5077549
MMSTB
SPE-198714-MS 31
Recovery reserves predicted using Hurst-Van Everdingen modified model: = 26.767885% * 623.5625
MMSTB = 166.9144929 MMSTB
Difference in Recovery factor using both models = 166.9144929 MMSTB – 166.5077549 MMSTB =
0.406738 MMSTB.
This implies that as at 01/01/2020, at least 0.406738 million stock tank barrels of oil had been recovered
which the Schilthius (1936) steady state water influx model does not account for because it assumes that
the pressure of the aquifer does not change. However in reality, any change in the reservoir pressure during

production should have a corresponding change in the pressure of the underlying aquifer. Hence, the
Schilthuis (1936) model does not incorporate the dynamic nature of a producing reservoir and will
not give the reservoir engineer, the clear understanding needed to make certain economic decisions
regarding reservoir optimization, enhanced oil recovery and pressure maintenance.
Conclusions
This study performed a comparative analysis of the application of Schilthuis and Hurst-Van Everdingen
modified water influx model to predict the oil reservoir performance and estimate the OOIP. Indubitably,
Schilthuis water influx model do not consider the dependence of pressure decline in an underlying aquifer
with time. It assumes that the rate of pressure decrease in an aquifer is directly proportional to the rate of
water influx, which is totally unrealistic because the withdrawal of hydrocarbon results in a transient flow
condition between the reservoir and the underlying aquifer. However the Hurst-Van Everdingen modified
water influx takes into account the transient nature of underlying aquifers in oil reservoirs. It was established
that for the oil reservoir being analysed, about 0.406738 MMSTB of recovered oil was unaccounted for
by the Schilthuis steady state model for a 20-years study period. On the other hand, it was observed that
the modified Hurst-Van Everdingen model does not accurately model the effects of a radial aquifer. This
is shown in the scattered points on the Havlena-Odeh plot for a radial aquifer. The Hurst-Van Everdingen
modified model has been proven to effectively model the effects of both a linear aquifer and a bottom-drive
aquifer. It was observed that in all the scenarios investigated, the bottom-drive mechanism provided the
reservoir with the highest pressure because the vertical influx of water from the aquifer into the reservoir
is significant enough to continuously provide the energy needed to produce oil from the reservoir. The rate
of change of the downhole pore volume is directly proportional to the rate of pressure decline as depicted
in the similarities between the decline trends for downhole pore volume and the pressure of the reservoir.
For a water-drive oil reservoir with no gas cap, it has been established that water influx from an aquifer will
increase the oil recovery efficiency which implies that for a radial aquifer an increase in the encroachment
angle which lead to a corresponding increase in the oil recovery efficiency over time.
REFERENCES
Havlena. D and Odeh. A. S. (1964). "The Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight Line, Part II—Field Cases," JPT,
July 1964, pp. 815–822
Marques, J.B., SPE, Petrobras S.A., AND TREVISAN, O.V., SPE, and Suslick S.B., SPE, Unicamp. Classic models of
Calculation of Influx. A comparative study. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 107265
Omeke James E; SPE. Nwachukwu A.; SPE. Awo R.O; SPE. Boniface Obah; SPE. Uche. I.N; SPE. (Shell Chair, Federal
University of Technology Owerri). A New Approach to Aquifer Influx Calculation for Finite Aquifer System. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 150733
Petroleum Experts MBAL (2013) version 11.1 manual.
Schilthuis, R., (1936). "Active Oil and Reservoir Energy," Trans. AIME, 1936, pp. 37, 118.
Tarek, A. (2006). Reservoir Engineering Handbook, third edition. Oxford, UK: Gulf professional publishing ISBN 13:
978-0-7506-7972-5
Van Everdingen, A., and Hurst, W., (1949). "The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in
Reservoirs," Trans. AIME, 1949, pp. 186, 305.
SPE-198714-MS
RESULTS, INPUT DATA AND PLOTS USED IN SIMULATION ANALYSIS
Energy plot for Schilthuis steady state model

APPENDIX
32
SPE-198714-MS 33

Analytical plot for Schilthuis steady state aquifer
Tank input data using Hurst-Van Everdingen model for a radial aquifer with an encroachment angle of 180°
SPE-198714-MS
Q (tD) versus tD plot for a radial aquifer with an encroachment angle of 60°
34
35
Q(tD) versus tD plot for a radial aquifer with an encroachment angle of 180°
SPE-198714-MS

4 - Spe-198714-Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 - Spe-198714-Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-198714-MS

Prediction of Oil Reservoir Performance And Original-Oil-in-Place Applying

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Where f=θ2π , π in radian, a factor representing the radial sector

The accumulated water influx can be given as:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

FLUID PVT MODELING

Table 2.1—Methods used in modelling fluid behaviour in MBAL

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Table 2.2—Methods of calculating reservoir fluid properties using MBAL

Table 2.3—Steps in describing PVT fluid properties using MBAL

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Assuming Ac is constant with time and integrating we will have:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Expressing Equation (3.8) in time domain gives:

For a linear decline therefore;

Superpositioning Equation 2.22 yields:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Figure 2.1—Flowchart of simulation process used to obtain result

Results and Discussions

Table 3.1—Available raw field data for ‘Tank 1’

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

SIMULATION RESULTS USING SCHILTHUIS STEADY STATE WATER INFLUX

Table 3.2—Results obtained using Schilthuis steady state water model

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Figure 3.5—General Oil recovery factor for ‘Tank’ 1

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Figure 3.7—Downhole pore volume for Schilthuis steady state model

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR HURST-VAN EVERDINGEN-MODIFIED MODEL FOR A

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Figure 3.8—Havlena-odeh (1964) plot for Hurst-Van Everdingen modified

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR HURST-VAN EVERDINGEN MODIFIED MODEL FOR AN

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR HURST-VAN EVERDINGEN MODIFIED MODEL FOR A

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Table 3.7—Summary of results used for sensitivity analysis.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

RESULTS, INPUT DATA AND PLOTS USED IN SIMULATION ANALYSIS

Energy plot for Schilthuis steady state model

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/19NAIC/2-19NAIC/D023S026R003/1182531/spe-198714-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

You might also like