Improved MaterialBalance Regression

Analysis for Waterdrive Oil and Gas

Reservoirs
S.R. Sills, SPE, Arco E&P Technology

Summary
An improved material-balance formulation is presented for determining original hydrocarbons-in-place (OHIP) in waterdrive oil
and gas reservoirs. The improved formulation reduces the number
of unknowns in the regression analysis through the definition of a
combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term (CARET). Field examples analyzed with the CARET formulation are presented illustrating the nonunique nature of waterdrive material-balance solutions
for OHIP. A method is presented for reality checking the best-fit
aquifer parameters obtained from the regression analysis. The
CARET material-balance formulation is shown to provide several
advantages over existing regression analysis techniques.
Introduction
Material-balance analysis of waterdrive reservoir performance to
determine OHIP requires a method for estimating water influx. If an
analytical aquifer model is used, the aquifer description must be
known or determined as part of the OHIP analysis. Havlena and
Odeh,1,2 Tehrani,3 and others have proposed material regression
analysis techniques for determining OHIP. These methods work
well when applied to volumetric reservoirs; unfortunately, they are
often less effective in waterdrive reservoirs. This paper presents an
improved regression analysis technique that works well in both volumetric and waterdrive reservoirs. In volumetric reservoirs, it simplifies to the solution proposed by Tehrani. Field cases are presented
showing that regardless of the regression analysis technique used,
the potential for nonunique OHIP solutions must be addressed
whenever an aquifer is present. Finally, a method is presented for
reality checking the analytical aquifer constant obtained from the
OHIP regression analysis to ensure that it corresponds to a reasonable aquifer description.

and the oil zone formation and water expansion term, Efwo , is defined as

E fwo + B oi

p i * pc f ) S wo c w
1 * S wo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

The free gas expansion term, Eg , in Eq. 1 is defined as

E g + B g * B gi )

B gi S og E o

1 * S wg * S ogB oi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

and the free gas zone formation and water expansion term, Efwg , is
defined as

E fwg + B gi

p i * pc f ) S wg c w
1 * S wg * S og

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

Eqs. 1 through 6 represent the general form of the material-balance

equation for an oil or gas reservoir. In a waterdrive gas reservoir Eq.
1 reduces to
F + GE g ) E fwg ) US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
Similarly, in a waterdrive oil reservoir, Eq. 1 becomes
F + NE og ) US , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
where Eog is a combined oil and free gas expansion term defined
with the gas cap m ratio as
E og +

mB oiE g ) E fwg
) E o ) E fwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
B gi

Theory
The general material-balance equation and its specific forms for waterdrive oil and gas reservoirs are presented below. The waterdrive OHIP
regression analysis techniques proposed by Havlena and Odeh1,2 and
later modified by Tehrani3 are summarized. An improved solution
technique incorporating the CARET formulation is presented.

and the gas cap m ratio is given by

General Material-Balance Equation. The general form of the material-balance equation with an analytical aquifer model used to estimate water influx is given by

Havlena and Odeh1,2 Regression Analysis. Havlena and Odeh

proposed rearranging the general material-balance equation to obtain simple straight-line relationships. Their formulation of the general material-balance equation for a waterdrive oil reservoir is obtained by rearranging Eq. 8 to obtain

F + NE o ) E fwo ) GE g ) E fwg ) US.

. . . . . . . . . . . (1)

The reservoir voidage term, F, in Eq. 1 is defined as

F + N pB o * R s B g ) G p * G iB g ) W p * W iB w .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
The oil and solution gas expansion term, Eo , in Eq. 1 is defined as
E o + B o * B oi ) (R si * R s)B g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 10, 1994. Revised manuscript received
March 4, 1996. Paper peer approved March 5, 1996. Paper (SPE 28630) first presented at the
1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2528.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

m+

GB gi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
NB oi

Eqs. 7 and 8 are the specific forms of the general material-balance

equation for a waterdrive gas reservoir and a waterdrive oil reservoir, respectively.

F + N ) U S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
E og
E og
If the correct parameters are assumed for the aquifer model, a plot
of F/Eog vs. S/Eog should give a straight line with a slope equal to
the aquifer influx constant, U, and a y intercept equal to the original
oil in place (OOIP), N. A similar solution technique is proposed for
determining original gas in place (OGIP) in a waterdrive gas reservoir.
Tehrani3 Regression Analysis. Tehrani advocated applying regression analysis directly to Eq. 7 or 8 to determine values for OHIP
and the water influx constant, U. His approach requires multiple,
127

rather than simple, linear regression analysis and minimizes the regression error in the reservoir voidage term, F. In an example presented in Tehranis paper, this voidage minimization approach reduced the standard deviation in the OOIP estimate by a factor of five
compared with the Havlena and Odeh formulation. Tehrani also
found that voidage minimization gave results nearly identical to
those obtained from a direct match of the calculated vs. observed
reservoir pressure histories.
Proposed CARET Analysis Method. The CARET methodology
introduced in this paper combines Tehranis voidage minimization
approach with the simple, intuitive straight-line plots proposed by
Havlena and Odeh. The CARET equations are developed for the
van Everdingen and Hurst4 (VEH) unsteady-state radial aquifer
model, but may be easily extended to other analytical models. Relationships are also presented for sensitivity analyses of the aquifer
parameters obtained from the regression analysis.
Aquifer Constant Relationship to OHIP. The VEH aquifer influx
constant, U, is a function of the aquifers effective compressibility,
inner radius, thickness, porosity, and angle-open-to-flow5,6:
U+

1.1190c e r 2i h Af

2
q + 2c pr i h Af
e
5.615
360

q . . . . . (12)
360

Eq. 12 may be modified to express the influx constant, U, in terms of

the reservoir pore volume and the aquifer/reservoir thickness ratio if
the reservoir is assumed to have the same geometry as the aquifer:
U + 2c eV pR

hh .
A

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

In a gas reservoir, the reservoir pore volume is given by

V pR +

GB gi
.
1 * S wg

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)

Eqs. 13 and 14 may be combined to relate the aquifer influx

constant, U, to the OGIP, G:

U + 2c e B gi h A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
G
1 * S wg h R
A similar method for expressing U in terms of G was first proposed
by McEwen7 as a way to reduce the number of unknowns in the waterdrive OGIP regression analysis. This relationship may be extended to an oil reservoir with a primary gas cap by defining the reservoir pore volume as the sum of the oil zone and gas cap pore
volumes. With the gas cap m ratio, the total reservoir pore volume
may be represented by
V pR + NB oi

1 *1S

wo

The variable ECARET in Eq. 18 is the combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term for a waterdrive gas reservoir defined as
E CARET +

2c e SB gi h A
) E g ) E fwg .
1 * S wg h R

. . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)

Methods for calculating values for the water influx function, S, as

a function of pressure and time are documented in Refs. 6 and 8. A
similar form of the material-balance equation may be obtained for
a waterdrive oil reservoir with a primary gas cap:
F + NE CARET , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
where ECARET is the combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term for
a waterdrive oil reservoir with a primary gas cap defined as

E CARET + 2c e S

m
1
)
1 * S wo 1 * S og * S wg

hh
A
R

mE g ) E fwg
B oi ) E o ) E fwo. . . . . . . . . . . (21)
B gi

Eqs. 18 and 20 are the equations of a simple straight line. If the correct
values are assumed for the VEH4 water influx parameters a and rD , a
plot of F vs. ECARET should give a straight line passing through the origin with a slope equal to the OHIP as shown in Fig. 1. Simple linear
regression analysis can then be used to determine the best-fit values for
OHIP with the voidage minimization technique proposed by Tehrani.3
Aquifer Property Relationships. Once best-fit values for OHIP
and the aquifer influx constant, U, have been determined, it is important to confirm that the U value represents a realistic aquifer description. Each OHIP solution represents specific values for the
VEH dimensionless time constant, a; the dimensionless aquifer radius, rD ; and the VEH aquifer influx constant, U. The VEH aquifer
time constant, a, is defined in terms of aquifer properties as6
a + 2.3092

k
.
fmc e r 2i

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)

Using the definition of the aquifer constants U and a given by Eqs.

12 and 22, we can show that the brine mobility for the VEH unsteady-state radial aquifer model is related to the aquifer thickness
and angle open to flow by
139.32Ua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
k
m+
qh
A

m
. . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
1 * S og * S wg

Combining Eqs. 13 and 16 gives the relationship between N and U

in a waterdrive oil reservoir with a primary gas cap:

U + 2c B
m
1
)
e oi
N
1 * S wo 1 * S og * S wg

hh .
A

. . . . . . . (17)

Eqs. 15 and 17 apply specifically to the VEH unsteady-state radial

aquifer model. Similar relationships may be derived for other aquifer models by use of the appropriate form of Eq. 13.
Combined Aquifer/Reservoir Expansion Term. When McEwen7
presented the aquifer influx constant relationship to OOIP and
OGIP, Havlena and Odeh1 had not yet introduced their straight-line
material-balance regression analysis techniques. A previously overlooked benefit of McEwens relationships becomes apparent if they
are used to define straight-line relationships of the type proposed by
Havlena and Odeh. The form of the material-balance equation for
a waterdrive gas reservoir was given previously by Eq. 7. If a VEH
unsteady-state radial aquifer model is assumed, Eq. 15 can be used
to eliminate U in Eq. 7 and obtain the following form of the materialbalance equation for a waterdrive gas reservoir:
F + GE CARET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
128

Fig. 1Waterdrive gas reservoir CARET plot showing OGIP as

slope of best-fit line through the origin.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

TABLE 1FIELD EXAMPLE RESERVOIR

AND AQUIFER DATA
pi , psia
Ti , F
Swg
cf , psi*1
cw, psi*1
mw, cp
kA , md
ri , ft
fA
q, degrees
hA +hR , ft

8,490
256
0.21
3.5x10*6
2.9x10*6
0.46
22
3,300
0.23
360
100

TABLE 2WATERDRIVE GAS RESERVOIR PVT DATA

p
(psia)

Bg
(RB/Mscf)

Bw
(RB/STB)

8,490
8,330
8,323
8,166
8,100
7,971
7,905
7,900
7,883
7,858
7,854
7,728
7,675
7,623
7,615
7,600
7,550
7,446
7,400

0.5404
0.5458
0.5460
0.5516
0.5540
0.5588
0.5614
0.5616
0.5622
0.5632
0.5634
0.5684
0.5706
0.5728
0.5731
0.5737
0.5759
0.5804
0.5825

1.0518
1.0520
1.0520
1.0522
1.0522
1.0524
1.0524
1.0524
1.0525
1.0525
1.0525
1.0526
1.0527
1.0527
1.0527
1.0528
1.0528
1.0529
1.0530

TABLE 3WATERDRIVE GAS RESERVOIR PRESSURE AND

PRODUCTION HISTORY
t
(years)

p
(psia)

Gp
(MMscf)

Np
(MSTB)

Wp
(MSTB)

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0

8,490
8,330
8,323
8,166
8,100
7,905
7,854
7,858
7,900
7,971
7,883
7,728
7,550
7,446
7,400
7,600
7,675
7,600
7,600
7,615
7,623

0
1,758
5,852
10,410
14,828
21,097
26,399
30,042
32,766
34,548
37,590
42,446
51,117
57,697
63,678
65,432
65,613
67,593
70,688
72,226
72,943

0
2
3
66
98
138
180
215
237
257
282
314
375
420
465
475
475
477
484
488
489

0
0
1
3
4
7
9
10
11
11
12
16
54
153
433
715
753
1,042
1,237
1,575
2,383

Eq. 23 may be used with the best-fit estimates for U and a to calculate the corresponding value of the aquifer qhA product required by
the OHIP solution.
OHIP Solution Technique. The following CARET regression
analysis procedure is recommended for determining OHIP and the
aquifer influx constant in waterdrive reservoirs with radial geometries. The procedure assumes the reservoirs production and pressure histories are known and calculates water influx volumes with
the VEH unsteady-state radial aquifer model.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

Fig. 2Production rate history for waterdrive gas reservoir example.

1. Calculate a value for the aquifer time constant, a, from aquifer

property estimates using Eq. 22.
2. Assume a value for the dimensionless aquifer radius ratio, rD ,
and calculate values for F and ECARET at each reservoir pressure in
the fields history from Eqs. 2 and Eq. 19 or 21.
3. Perform an origin-constrained simple linear regression analysis to determine best-fit values for G or N in Eq. 18 or Eq. 20. Quantify the regression error of the fit with the coefficient of variation, V:
V+

FE CARET

100,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)

where the standard error of estimate of F from ECARET is

s FE

CARET

F * F fit
n*1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)

and F is the arithmetic average of the n values of F used in the regression analysis.9,10
4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for a range of rD values to determine the
rD value giving the minimum regression error, V, and the best-fit values for G or N. Use Eq. 15 or Eq. 17 to calculate the water influx
constant, U, from the best-fit G or N value.
5. Reality check the solution using Eq. 23 and the best-fit OHIP
and U values to calculate the required aquifer qhA value. If this calculated product of the aquifer angle open to flow and thickness
matches the actual aquifer description, the OHIP solution is reasonable. If it does not, re-evaluate the aquifer permeability and inner radius used to calculate the time constant or try another aquifer model.
Field Example
The field example considered here is a wet-gas waterdrive reservoir
with reservoir and aquifer data as summarized in Table 1. As shown
in Fig. 2, the fields production rate averaged 10 MMscf/D during the
first 6 months of production and reached a peak of 47 MMscf/D in
Year 6. The peak gas rate declined sharply after water breakthrough.
After 10 years on production, the reservoir pressure had declined to
7,623 psia, a drop of less than 900 psia, while the produced water rate
had climbed to over 4 MSTB/D. The reservoirs PVT data and production and pressure histories are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3.
Constrained OHIP Solution. A CARET regression analysis for
OGIP was performed with the VEH4 unsteady-state radial aquifer
model and the calculation procedure outlined previously. To account properly for condensate production in the material-balance
analysis, the produced condensate volumes were converted to a gas
129

Fig. 3Waterdrive gas reservoir example CARET regression error and OGIP vs. assumed dimensionless aquifer radius.

Fig. 4Aquifer property reality check; aquifer permeability determines values required for the aquifer thickness and inner radius.

equivalent and added to the produced gas volumes with a conversion factor of 0.708 Mscf/STB.
Regression Analysis. Eq. 22 was used to calculate an aquifer time
constant of 6.893 years*1 from an aquifer permeability estimate of
22 md and an aquifer inner radius of 3,300 ft. CARET regression
analyses were run for 50 different values of the aquifer dimensionless radius, rD , spaced logarithmically between 2 and 25. An infinite-acting aquifer response was assumed for rD values greater than
25. The regression error and OGIP estimate for each assumed rD
value were plotted against the rD value as shown in Fig. 3. A best-fit
rD value of 7.7 was picked at the minimum regression error of 1.6%.
The CARET voidage vs. expansion plot for this best-fit rD value
shown in Fig. 1 yields an OGIP of 225 Bscf and an aquifer influx
constant, U, of 1,973 RB/psi.
Aquifer Constant Reality Check. To confirm the validity of the
OHIP solution, the best-fit aquifer constant value, U, was reality
checked with Eq. 23. Assuming an aquifer angle open to flow of
360, the required aquifer thickness was calculated to be 110 ft by
solving Eq. 23 for hA . This calculated thickness agrees reasonably
well with the map-based aquifer thickness estimate of 100 ft, confirming the validity of the OHIP estimate. Additional sensitivities to
the assumed aquifer permeability, inner radius, and thickness were in-

vestigated with Eqs. 23 and 22 by calculating and plotting the required aquifer thickness, hA , and inner radius, ri , as functions of the
assumed aquifer permeability, k. These results are shown graphically
in Fig. 4. Entering the plot with the estimated aquifer permeability of
22 md, the required aquifer inner radius and thickness are shown to
be 3,300 ft and 110 ft, respectively. This plot can be used to evaluate
uncertainty in the aquifer permeability estimate by entering the plot
at a different permeability value and reading off the aquifer thickness
and inner radius required by the OHIP solution.
Reservoir Pressure Solution. As an additional check on the validity of the OHIP regression analysis, the OGIP and aquifer parameters from the best-fit solution were used to backcalculate a material-balance reservoir pressure history from the reservoirs
production history. Fig. 5 shows the agreement obtained between
the calculated and observed reservoir pressure histories. The periods of increasing pressure correspond to the production rate decreases in Fig. 2. These reductions in the produced voidage rate allowed the aquifer to repressurize the reservoir partially. Once the
produced voidage rate again exceeded the water influx rate, the reservoir pressure history resumed its decline.

Fig. 5Actual vs. calculated waterdrive gas reservoir pressure

histories for OGIP+225 Bscf, a+6.893 years1, and rD +7.7.

Fig. 6CARET regression error vs. VEH4 aquifer time constant

and dimensionless radius for waterdrive gas reservoir example.

130

Unconstrained OHIP Solution. The previous OHIP regression

analysis was constrained by an aquifer time constant, a, calculated
from estimates of the aquifer permeability and inner radius. Nonlinear material-balance regression analysis techniques available com-

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

Fig. 7CARET OGIP solutions for various aquifer radius ratio

values. A constant aquifer compressibility of 6.4 x 106 psi1 was
honored for all cases.

Fig. 8CARET regression error vs. VEH4 aquifer time constant

and dimensionless radius for undersaturated oil reservoir.

mercially allow simultaneous determination of the overall best-fit

values for OHIP, the aquifer influx constant, U, the dimensionless
aquifer radius, rD , and the dimensionless time constant, a. The consequences of attempting this kind of unconstrained regression analysis were investigated with the CARET method. Regression analyses were done for rD values of 5, 7.7, 10, 25, and infinity for 50
aquifer time constant values spaced logarithmically between 0.01
and 10,000 years*1. The associated regression errors were plotted
vs. a and rD as shown in Fig. 6.
Nonunique OHIP Solutions. A closer inspection of Fig. 6 reveals
the nonunique nature of the unsteady-state radial aquifer OHIP solution. At least one OGIP solution (regression error minimum) may be
found for any assumed value of rD . The OGIP estimates corresponding to each of these regression error minimums are plotted as the solid
curve in Fig. 7. Each point on the curve represents the best-fit OGIP
estimate and associated minimum regression error value for a given
rD value. Although the rD +7.7 solution clearly gives the overall
minimum regression error for this waterdrive gas reservoir, in reservoirs with lower hydrocarbon compressibilities the best OHIP solution may be more difficult to identify. Fig. 8 shows a CARET regression error plot for an undersaturated oil reservoir illustrating this
point. Each rD curve minimum represents a different potential OOIP
solution and aquifer description. The OOIP solutions range from under 10 to over 30 MMSTB despite similar regression errors. OHIP
solutions with low aquifer time constants correspond to smaller, less
permeable aquifers and vice versa. Because both smaller and larger
aquifer descriptions must match the same pressure history, smaller
aquifer descriptions give larger OHIP estimates. This points out the
dangers of unconstrained regression analyses, because any of these
OHIP solutions might potentially be identified as the best-fit given the
range of uncertainty associated with the reservoir pressure history.
Fortunately, some of these solutions can be ruled out by inspection.
In both Figs. 6 and 8, the OHIP solutions corresponding to rD +25
give an OHIP estimate less than the cumulative production to date.
As might be expected, the aquifer time constants for these clearly unrealistic OHIP solutions represent aquifer permeabilities hundreds or
thousands of times larger than the actual field value. These invalid
OHIP solutions are easily avoided by constraining the regression
analysis with an aquifer time constant value calculated from field data
with Eq. 22.
Aquifer Flow Regime. Multiple OHIP solutions also occur because the aquifer flow regime may be either finite or infinite acting.
In Fig. 8, each rD curve has two a values that minimize the regression error, one finite acting and the other infinite acting. This occurs
because even small aquifers can exhibit infinite-acting behavior
early in the fields life if the aquifer permeability is low. However,
if the reservoir has been on production for several years or the

permeability is high, only finite-acting solutions may be found for

low rD values, as shown in Fig. 6 for rD values of 7.7 or less.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

Comparison With Existing Solution Techniques. For comparison

purposes, the waterdrive gas reservoir example was also analyzed
with both the Havlena and Odeh1,2 and Tehrani3 solution techniques.
The CARET formulation was found to be considerably more tolerant
of error in the early-time pressure data than the Havlena and Odeh approach owing to the origin constraint required by the CARET
straight-line plot. No pressure data editing was required for the CARET analysis; however, the first two points in the pressure history had
to be omitted to obtain a successful Havlena and Odeh solution.
Constrained OGIP Estimates. When constrained with an aquifer
time constant of 6.893 years*1 calculated from aquifer properties,
the Tehrani method gave an OGIP estimate of 221 Bscf, very close
to the CARET estimate of 225 Bscf. Constraining the Havlena and
Odeh analysis in a similar manner resulted in an OGIP estimate of
177 Bscf, 25% lower than the CARET and Tehrani estimates.
Regression Error Plot Comparison. Next, unconstrained OGIP
regression analyses were made with the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani methods. Fig. 9 shows the regression error plot obtained with
the Havlena and Odeh solution technique. A comparison of Figs. 6
and 9 shows that the regression minimums obtained with the CARET method are more pronounced and better defined than those obtained from the Havlena and Odeh technique. Also, while the overall best-fit (minimum error) time constant obtained with the CARET
method agrees with the time constant calculated from rock properties, the same cannot be said for the Havlena and Odeh solution. The
Havlena and Odeh minimum error solution occurs on the infiniteacting aquifer curve at a time constant corresponding to an aquifer
permeability 1,000 times lower than the field estimate. The regression error plot obtained with the Tehrani method was very similar
to Fig. 9, except the regression error in the Tehrani plot was reduced
by a factor of two to three and the OGIP estimates were higher.
OGIP Comparison. Fig. 10 plots the Havlena and Odeh regression
error minimums from Fig. 9 vs. the corresponding best-fit OGIP value they represent. Similar results obtained with the Tehrani method
are plotted in Fig. 11. These best-fit OGIP vs. minimum regression
error curve shapes are distinctly different from that obtained with the
CARET formulation shown in Fig. 7. The curve shapes differ because
the CARET formulation fixes the relationship between OGIP and the
aquifer constant, U, with Eq. 15. As a result, for all OGIP solutions,
the CARET formulation requires a constant U/G ratio determined by
the specified aquifer compressibility. In the Tehrani and Havlena and
Odeh methods, the relationship between U and G is not constrained
and the U/G ratio varies between solutions.
131

Fig. 9Havlena and Odeh1,2 regression error vs. VEH4 aquifer

time constant and dimensionless radius for waterdrive gas reservoir example.

Variable Aquifer Compressibility. If Eq. 15 is applied to the solutions of Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani after the best-fit solutions
have been identified, it becomes apparent that these solution techniques effectively adjust the aquifer compressibility during the regression analysis to obtain the best fit. To show this, Eq. 15 was used
to backcalculate the effective aquifer compressibilities required by
the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani best-fit estimates of U and a for
each assumed rD value. The calculated effective aquifer compressibilities are plotted in Figs. 10 and 11 vs. the best-fit OGIP estimate
to which they correspond. The equivalent Havlena and Odeh aquifer
ce values were found to vary over an unrealistically large range, from
0.59 10*6 to 4,000 10*6 psi*1. The Tehrani ce values varied
over a similar range. In comparison, the CARET results in Fig. 7 honor the input ce value of 6.4 10*6 psi*1 for all OGIP solutions. Figs.
10 and 11 also show that the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani OGIP
solutions with the lowest regression errors correspond to the most unreasonable aquifer compressibilities. The equivalent ce value for the
overall best-fit Havlena and Odeh OHIP estimate is more than 600
times greater than the actual field estimate.
If the aquifer ce value is allowed to vary during the regression
analysis, the poorer fits associated with extreme values for the VEH
aquifer time constant, a, may be masked by unrealistic values for the
aquifer compressibility. This explains in part why the CARET regression error minimums are more pronounced than those obtained
with the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani regression analysis methods. Although allowing the aquifer ce value to vary during the regression analysis is a valid solution technique, it introduces a hidden
variable and guarantees that the history-matched values obtained
for cw and cf in the aquifer will almost always differ from those assumed for the reservoir. If ce sensitivities are desired, the effects are
more easily seen by directly modifying the values assumed for cf
and cw in a CARET analysis.
Conclusions
1. The CARET formulation of the material-balance equation allows OHIP and the water influx constant, U, to be determined from
the slope of simple origin-constrained straight-line plot. The technique combines the benefits of Tehranis voidage minimization approach with the simple straight-line plots proposed by Havlena and
Odeh and allows a single plotting technique to be applied to both
volumetric and waterdrive oil and gas reservoirs.
2. If the VEH aquifer time constant, a, and radius ratio, rD , are
treated as unknowns in an unconstrained material-balance regression
analysis, the OHIP solution will be nonunique. At least one, and usually two, OHIP solutions may be found for any assumed value of rD .
A unique OHIP solution may be found by constraining the analysis
132

Fig. 10Havlena and Odeh1,2 OGIP solutions and effective aquifer compressibilities for various aquifer radius ratio values; effective aquifer compressibility varies between solutions.

Fig. 11Tehrani3 OGIP solutions and effective aquifer compressibilities for various aquifer radius ratio values; effective
aquifer compressibility varies between solutions.

with an aquifer time constant, a, calculated from aquifer properties,

then varying the rD value to obtain the minimum regression error.
3. Best-fit regression analysis values for the VEH water influx
constant, U, must be checked against the known range of aquifer
properties to ensure that a realistic aquifer constant has been obtained.
Failure to perform this reality check can result in mathematically valid OHIP solutions corresponding to unrealistic aquifer descriptions.
4. The CARET solution technique is less sensitive to errors in early-time pressure data than the Havlena and Odeh method and produces more well-defined regression error minimums.
5. The Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani waterdrive material-balance
regression analysis techniques effectively allow the aquifer compressibility, ce , to vary by several orders of magnitude during the regression analysis. This effect can give low regression errors for OHIP
solutions corresponding to unrealistic aquifer descriptions.
Nomenclature
a+ VEH aquifer time constant, 1/t, 1/years
Bg + gas formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/Mscf
Bgi + initial gas formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/Mscf
Bo + oil formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

Boi + initial oil formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB

Bw + water formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB
ce + effective aquifer compressibility, cf )cw, Lt2/m,
1/psi
cf + pore volume compressibility, Lt2/m, 1/psi
cw + brine compressibility, Lt2/m, 1/psi
Efwg + gas zone formation and water expansion term,
L3/L3, RB/Mscf
Efwo + oil zone formation and water expansion term, L3/L3,
RB/STB
Eg + free gas expansion term, L3/L3, RB/Mscf
Eo + oil and solution gas expansion term, L3/L3, RB/STB
Eog + combined oil and free gas expansion term, L3/L3,
RB/STB
F+ cumulative reservoir voidage, L3, res bbl
F+ arithmetic average of F, L3, res bbl
G+ original free gas in place, L3, Mscf
Gi + cumulative gas injection, L3, Mscf
Gp + cumulative gas production, L3, Mscf
hA + aquifer thickness, L, ft
hR + reservoir thickness, L, ft
k+ aquifer brine permeability, L2, md
m+ initial gas cap to oil zone volume ratio, L3/L3,
RB/RB
n+ number of pressure points in regression analysis
N+ OOIP, L3, STB
Np + cumulative oil production, L3, STB
p+ average reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia
pi + initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia
rD + ratio of outer to inner aquifer radius, ro /ri , L/L, ft/ft
ri + inner aquifer radius, L, ft
ro + outer aquifer radius, L, ft
Rs + solution-gas/oil ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB
Rsi + initial solution gas/oil ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB
S+ aquifer influx function, m/Lt2, psi
+ standard error of estimate of F from ECARET, L3,
s FE
CARET
res bbl
Sog + initial gas cap oil saturation, fraction
Swg + initial gas cap water saturation, fraction
Swo + initial oil zone water saturation, fraction
t+ time, t, years
U+ aquifer influx constant, L4t2/m, RB/psi
V+ coefficient of variation, L3/L3, percent
VpA + aquifer pore volume, L3, res bbl
VpR + reservoir pore volume, L3, res bbl
We + cumulative water influx, L3, RB
Wi + cumulative water injection, L3, STB
Wp + cumulative water production, L3, STB
m+ aquifer brine viscosity, m/Lt, cp
f+ aquifer porosity, fraction
q+ aquifer angle open to flow, degrees

I would like to thank Arco management for allowing me to publish

this paper. Also, special thanks are due to those who provided the
example data and helpful suggestions regarding the software developed for this analysis.
References
1. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an Equation of a
Straight Line, JPT (Aug. 1963) 896900.
2. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an Equation of a
Straight LinePart II, Field Cases, JPT (July 1964) 815822.
3. Tehrani, D.H.: An Analysis of a Volumetric Balance Equation for Calculation of Oil in Place and Water Influx, JPT (Sept. 1985) 16641670.
4. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 305324.
5. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Science
Publishing, New York (1978) 305.
6. Wang, B. and Teasdale, T.S.: GASWAT-PC: A Microcomputer Program
for Gas Material Balance With Water Influx, paper SPE 16484 presented at the 1987 Petroleum Industry Applications of Microcomputers
Conference, Montgomery, TX, June 2326.
7. McEwen, C.R.: Material Balance Calculations with Water Influx in the
Presence of Uncertainty in Pressures, SPEJ (June 1962) 120128.
8. Klins, M.A., Bouchard, A.J., and Cable, C.L.: A Polynomial Approach
to the van Everdingen-Hurst Dimensionless Variables for Water Encroachment, SPERE (Feb. 1988) 320326.
9. Wallis, W.A. and Roberts, H.V.: Statistics: A New Approach, The Free
Press, New York City (1962) 536537.
10. Beyer, W.H.: CRC Standard Mathematics Tables, 24th edition, CRC
Press, Cleveland, OH (1973) 474.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl 1.589 873
cp 1.0*
ft 3.048*
ft3 2.831 685
F (F*32)/1.8
md 9.869 233
psi 6.894 757
psi*1 1.450 377
*Conversion factor is exact.

E*01 +m3
E*03 +Pa@s
E*01 +m
E*02 +m3
+C
E*04 +mm2
E)00 +kPa
E*01 +kPa*1
SPERE

Stephen R. Sills is a senior principal reservoir engineer at Arco's

E&P Technology Center in Plano, TX, where he provides reservoir
performance analysis consulting and technical training. He has
worked in reservoir and operations engineering with Arco for 18
years in various locations including the gulf coast, Permian Ba
sin, midcontinent region, and Alaska. Sills holds a BS degree in
mechanical engineering from Rice U.

Acknowledgments
The methodology presented in this paper was developed and tested
with the support and encouragement of several people within Arco.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996

133