and the pressure is less than approximately 1,500 psia.

These phenomena cannot b

e neglected while the reservoir is undersaturated because their combined effects
are not negligible compared to oil expansion. For instance, the relative expans
ion of oil, rock, and water in an undersaturated west Texas black-oil reservoir
was 72, 25, and 3%, respectively. This example also demonstrates that the connat
e-water expansion is normally insignificant and can be ignored. Not until the pr
essure falls below the bubblepoint and approximately 1,500 psia will the rock ex
pansion be negligible compared to the net hydrocarbon expansion. If doubt persis
ts as to whether it is safe to ignore rock and connate-water expansion, the safe
st approach is to include them. To include these phenomena, the rock and connate
-water expansivities, Ef and Ew, must be calculated. Compaction drive reservoirs
discusses experimental and empirical methods to estimate Ef. The connate-water
expansivity is calculated from Eq. 4. This equation ignores dissolved hydrocarbo
n gases in the water. To include dissolved gases, the water expansivity is calcu
lated from
RTENOTITLE....................(4)
RTENOTITLE....................(5)
where Btw is the two-phase water FVF and is given by
RTENOTITLE....................(6)
where Rsw is the dissolved gas/water ratio. [8]
Two common errors occur when applying a material-balance analysis to volatile-oi
l reservoirs.
?First, an incorrect set of PVT parameters is used. This occurs if the volatile
oil is subjected to a conventional DV test instead of a CVD or a specialized DV
experiment that measures volatilized oil. The resulting set of PVT parameters wi
ll not reflect the true phase behavior. If this mistake occurs, the volatilized
oil/gas ratio, Rv, will be omitted altogether and the resulting values of Bo and
Rs will be erroneous and overestimated. Significant errors in these fluid prope
rties will occur if appreciable volatilized oil exists. For example, the volatil
e oil in Table 4 yielded an erroneous initial oil FVF of 3.379 RB/STB and a diss
olved GOR of 3,636 scf/STB (errors of approximately 25%) when it was subjected t
o a standard DV instead of a CVD.
?The second error commonly occurs if the conventional or black-oil material-bala
nce equation[10][11] is applied instead of the generalized equation in Eq. 7. Th
e conventional material balance inherently ignores Rv. Both of these errors will
cause the OOIP to be underestimated, which can be quite serious if the volatili
zed-oil content is appreciable.
RTENOTITLE....................(7)
Example: Volatile oil reservoir
Perform a material-balance analysis on the Louisiana volatile oil reservoir in t
he field example. Use the production data in Table 5 and the PVT data in Table 4
as necessary. Estimate the OOIP (million STB) and confirm the suspected solutio
n gas drive producing mechanism if possible. Compare your OOIP estimate to the