PAPER 2003-203

PETROLEUM SOCIETY
CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

PVT Error Analysis for

Material Balance Calculations
R.O. Baker, C. Regier, R. Sinclair
Epic Consulting Services Ltd.

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2003, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 10 – 12, 2003. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the
technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for
publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT performed using the erroneous PVT data and the

Very often non-representative/“untuned” PVT
correlations or incorrect PVT data are selected for use in
material balance calculations. Although the effect of
pressure errors on material balance has been extensively
studied, there is very little discussion of the effect of PVT
errors on material balance calculation in the petroleum
engineering literature. This paper emphasizes the need to
make corrections to laboratory data or correlations to
field data.
resulting original oil in place (OOIP) and, where
applicable, water influx (We). These error-influenced
results were then compared to a base case. The effects of
different parameters on the errors in calculated OOIP
were examined, including introducing systematic error to
only one PVT property at a time, and using PVT
correlations in place of actual lab data. We also observed
differences in calculated OOIP errors for different
reservoir drive mechanisms.

This paper therefore addresses the accuracy of the
material balance calculations due to errors in PVT
properties. Systematic and random errors were
intentionally introduced into reservoir properties such as
oil, gas, and water formation volume factors (Bo, Bg, Bw),
solution gas oil ratio (Rs), bubble point pressure (Pb), and
API gravity. The amount of systematic error introduced
was +/-2 and +/-10 percent. A random error from +/-0 to
2% was applied to each PVT value to account for typical
laboratory error. Material balance calculations were
The average error observed in the OOIP calculated
from a random +/-0 to 2% error introduced to all PVT
parameters varied from +/-2.7% for a solution gas drive
reservoir with a large total pressure drop, to +/-27.6%
for a solution gas drive reservoir with a small total
pressure drop. Results did not appear to depend directly
on reservoir drive mechanism, but rather were dependent
on the degree of pressure support or total pressure drop
in the reservoir. The larger the decrease in reservoir
pressure, the less sensitiveOOIP calculations are to PVT
error. Also, solution GOR had by far the largest impact
of any PVT parameter on the material balance
calculations. These observations indicate systematic or
random PVT error can cause significant inaccuracies
when using material balance to estimate OOIP and water
influx in certain reservoir situations.
Finally, this paper discusses the use of diagnostic
plots such as OOIP versus time or cumulative oil,
Havlena and Odeh, and measured versus calculated
pressures for showing the impact of error on OOIP
calculations.
INTRODUCTION
To perform material balance calculations, production
data, pressure data, PVT data, and any remaining
reservoir characteristics are required. If any one of these
data sets contains errors or inaccuracies, it will have an
effect on the outcome of the material balance equation.
This paper will investigate the effects and show the
consequences of these errors.
Oil and gas companies earn revenue based on the
amount of oil or gas they produce; accordingly, oil and
gas production is in general measured quite accurately
and the errors in production data are small. As production
data is acquired, it can be used to reduce the uncertainty
of prior original oil in place (OOIP) calculations. One of
the most commonly used techniques to re-evaluate the
OOIP uses some form of a material balance calculation to
estimate OOIP and production. The effects of pressure
errors on material balance calculations have been
examined by many different individuals, and are
relatively well documented(1,2). This paper will examine
the errors introduced to OOIP and water influx
calculations when there are various systematic and
random errors introduced into the PVT data for three
example reservoirs.
CASE STUDIES
Three example reservoirs were selected for use in the
material balance calculation. The first is an Alberta
Cardium solution gas drive system. This example
reservoir has shown little pressure depletion throughout
its history and its PVT data was acquired using laboratory
2
analysis of fluid samples. This reservoir has therefore not
had any secondary recovery methods applied yet. The
PVT data for this reservoir was acquired using laboratory
analysis of fluid samples.
The second is also a solution gas drive system. This
reservoir passed through the bubble point pressure during
its production history and has experience a large degree
of pressure depletion throughout the field. The final
example reservoir is a combination drive reservoir with
an initial gas cap which provides most of the pressure
support for the reservoir.
Introduction of Systematic Errors
Laboratory events that may cause these types of error
include instruments calibrated incorrectly or errors in
measurement procedures (human error) (3).
Systematic errors were introduced into the reservoir
PVT properties of the three example reservoirs in two
different ways:
• One PVT property contained error while all other
PVT properties were held constant at their true
value.
• All reservoir PVT properties contained error.
An example of how systematic errors were defined is
shown in Figure 1.
For all three cases (where the foregoing example
reservoirs are respectively designated Case 1, 2, and 3),
systematic errors included sets of values 2% and 10%
above and below the true values of Rs, Bo, Bg, and Bw. As
well, a 2% increase and decrease and a 5% increase and
decrease in bubble point pressure were examined. Errors
were calculated for each PVT parameter individually as
well as all PVT parameters collectively.
For Case 2, in addition to systematic errors, the use of
correlations for values of Rs, Bo, and Bg individually in
place of the true values was examined. Trials were
performed using the correlation-generated data, and using
the same correlation-generated data but with corrections
applied based on the observed field production data for
the case. The latter method assumes that, because the
reservoir is initially above the bubble point pressure, the
initial production GOR is equal to the initial Rs. To adjust
the data, each Rs value is multiplied by the ratio of the
correlation-generated Rsi to the actual GOR determined
Rsi. Thus the correlation-generated Rs values are adjusted
to reflect this initial GOR, and values for Bo are
readjusted accordingly.
Introduction of Random Errors
Random errors were also introduced into the PVT data.
These errors were generated using a computer program
designed specifically for this purpose. The program
examined each PVT value and randomly selected a new
value, which was between +/-0 and 2% error from the
correct value. The range of +/-0 to 2% was chosen
because typical lab data typically accounts for a
maximum of +/-1% to 2% error in PVT measurements(4).
An example of random errors introduced into PVT
parameters is shown in Figure 2.
The random error generation program was used to
create 20 sets of erroneous PVT data for each of the cases
examined. This allowed for enough trials to obtain a good
average of how random errors in PVT data can affect
material balance results.
Calculation Method
The general form of the material balance equation
(MBE) is commonly expressed as:
È Ê Bg ˆ Êc S +c
N Í(Bo - Boi )+ (R si - R s )Bg + mBoi ÁÁ - 1˜˜ + (1 + m )Boi ÁÁ w wc f
ÍÎ Ë Bgi ¯ Ë 1 - Swc
= Np (Bo + (Rp – Rs)) Bg + Wp – Wi – Gi Bgi.............. (1)
Examining Equation 1 reveals that there are several
components of material balance that can cause errors in
the result. The error in OOIP (N in Equation 1) depends
on drive mechanism, total pressure drop in the reservoir,
pressure measurement accuracy, PVT accuracy, and
production measurement accuracy, or in equation form:
±OOIP = f (drive mechanism, DP, Pressure errors, PVT
errors, Production data errors)......................................... (2)
Drive mechanism is a major influence on the error in
OOIP. For example, if a reservoir is under the influence
of a strong gas cap drive mechanism, gas cap expansion
will dominate the MBE. Thus, the MBE should calculate
gas cap volume more accurately than it will calculate
OOIP. In other words, the error bars will be much smaller
for original gas in place (OGIP) than for the OOIP.
A base case calculation was performed for each
reservoir using the existing PVT data to determine the
original oil in place and the water influx for each. The
base case calculations were later used to evaluate the
percentage error in the OOIP and We calculations when
erroneous PVT was used.
Once error was introduced into the PVT properties, the
new data sets were used to recalculate the MBE, which
provided the new OOIP and, in Case 3, water influx
values. Systematic percentage errors were calculated for
all cases using Equation 3.
Trial Value - Base Case Value .....................................(3)
% Error =
Base Case Value
Each random error trial was also evaluated using
Equation 3. However, the random error trials were all
averaged together for each case study using the formula:
T
 % Error , ...........................................(4)
n =1
n
% Absolute Error =
T
ˆ ˘ where “n” represents the trial number and “T” is the total
˜DP ˙ + We
˜ ˙
¯ ˚ number of trials.
Results of Systematic Error Trials
Case 1
As indicated, the first case examined was a solution
gas drive Cardium pool located in Alberta, Canada.
Historically, the pressure depletion is relatively small,
having fallen only 14% from initial reservoir pressure.
The pool’s pressure profile is shown in Figure 3. The
reservoir fluid approaches the character of a volatile oil,
considering the values of Bo (e.g., Bob > 2.0 as shown in
Figure 6), with an API gravity of 46.1°. The average
reservoir porosity is 12%. This pool started producing in
1974 and secondary recovery methods have not yet been
applied to the reservoir because of the relatively low
pressure depletion.
3
 The MBE calculated a base case OOIP of 27.6 MMstb,
which agrees reasonably closely with the government
record of 30 MMstb.
The pool has produced about 800 Mstb during primary
production resulting in a recovery factor to date of about
3%. The production profile and drive indices plots are
shown in Figures 4 and 5.
The drive indices plot shown in Figure 5 indicates that
the solution gas drive mechanism is the dominant drive
index for this system.
The Bo versus pressure is plotted in Figure 6 and
shown to indicate the volatility of the reservoir oil, as
suggested before. The oil formation volume factor
reaches a maximum value at the bubble point of 2.13.
The systematic errors introduced to the PVT data
resulted in a range of errors in calculated OOIP and water
influx values. Table 1 summarizes the systematic error
results for Case 1.
It can be observed from Table 1 that errors in Rs
dominate the errors in OOIP; nevertheless, errors in Bo
and Pb are also quite significant. When all PVT values are
increased by 10%, the error in OOIP is negative, just as
the error in OOIP is when Rs alone is increased. This
effect is mirrored for the trials where all PVT and Rs
alone are decreased.
The smaller errors for the trials when all PVT values
are raised or lowered can be explained by observing that
errors in Bo have the opposite effect on OOIP than errors
in Rs. Thus, when both parameters are changed together,
the effects of one parameter act to offset the effects of the
other.
Finally, we note that for most of the Case 1 systematic
error trials, a +/-2% or +/-10% PVT error resulted in a
much higher degree of error in OOIP. In other words,
there was an amplification of PVT error (% error in OOIP
> % error in PVT). This result is due to the relatively
small total pressure drop experienced by the Case 1
reservoir over its production life.
Case 2
The second case examined was also a solution gas
drive reservoir. The difference Case 2 compared to Case
4
1 is that there is a much greater degree of pressure
depletion and in fact the pressure profile passes through
the bubble point (see Figure 7). This case is a textbook
example from Dake(5). The pool is a tight (K ~5mD),
naturally fractured chalk reservoir located in Texas. The
MBE calculated a base case OOIP of 568 MMstb, which
agrees closely with the value in the textbook of
570 MMstb. This reservoir oil is also somewhat volatile
(Bob = 1.85 rbbl/stb).
The pool has produced 86.4 Mstb during its production
history resulting in a recovery factor to date of about
15%. The production profile and drive indices plots are
shown in Figures 8 and 9.
The drive indices plot for Case 2 indicates a dominant
solution gas drive mechanism for this system as shown in
Figure 9. Compressible drive energy is also noticeable,
but its influence decreases once the bubble point pressure
is reached (in July 1996).
Errors in OOIP were also noticed in Case 2. Table 2
summarizes the systematic error results for Case 2.
Since the reservoir pressure in Case 2 drops below the
bubble point, the effect of introducing error into Bg was
also examined. As expected, results showed that it has an
impact in this case.
In Table 2, variances in Rs dominate the errors, but in
this case it is even more pronounced (in proportion to the
magnitudes of the other errors) than in Case 1. The
creation of a secondary gas cap is potentially the source
of this difference between the two cases. This example
also shows that an increase in Rs causes a decrease in
OOIP, and vice versa.
Errors in PVT Correlations
Trials were also conducted using “uncorrected” and
“corrected” correlations in place of various PVT
parameters for Case 2. The corrected versions were
obtained by matching the solution GOR. Table 3 shows
the resulting errors in OOIP using correlations in place of
actual Rs data for Case 2.
Use of any of the correlations resulted in substantial
errors if they were not corrected to match solution GOR.
However, when the corrections were applied, the
resulting OOIP values calculated were much closer to the
true value. Because the oil in this example is a lighter
Texas oil, the Lasater (for Rs) and Dindoruk (for Bo)
correlations (both tuned to that type of crude) are the
most appropriate in this case.
Table 4 summarizes errors in OOIP calculated for
Case 2 when various Bo correlations were used in place
of the actual PVT data.
The results listed in Table 4 indicate that Bo
correlations do not cause major errors in OOIP calculated
using material balance, especially if the correlation used
is the most applicable to the type of oil being studied.
Case 3
The final reservoir examined has a combination drive
mechanism with an initial gas cap. The reservoir is
located in the Westerose Field in central Alberta, Canada.
The pool’s pressure profile is shown in Figure 10. It is a
light oil with a gravity of 42° API. The initial gas cap has
a free gas to oil volume ratio m ~ 0.48. This pool started
producing in 1954 and has had gas and water injection as
secondary recovery methods. The MBE calculated a base
case OOIP of 188 MMstb, which agrees closely with the
known value of 185 MMstb.
The reservoir has produced a total of 146 MMstb of oil
and 269 Bscf of gas. The recovery factor to date is
approximately 79% OOIP.
The production profile and drive indices plots are
shown in Figures 11 and 12.
The drive indices plot shows that there is influence
from solution gas, the gas cap, and the aquifer. However,
the gas cap influence is the most significant. The aquifer
provides only moderate support.
Systematic error results for OOIP and We are shown in
Table 5.
In Case 3, it is evident that the systematic errors in Bg
have a huge impact on OOIP. This is to be expected for
this case: the reservoir was initially at the bubble point
pressure, and there was a large primary gas cap (m =
0.48). Also, the most significant drive mechanism for this
reservoir is gas cap expansion, indicating that the MBE
should be much more sensitive to Bg than to the other
parameters.
5
When systematic error was applied to Bw in Case 3,
very little error in OOIP and We was observed. Error in
OOIP was minimal, ranging +/-0.4%. The error in the
calculated water influx was also minimal compared to
Cases 1 and 2. Error in We was +/-7% when compared to
the base case. The explanation as to why Bw has such a
minimal effect on the MBE is that Bw is only encountered
in the underground removal term of the MBE. Although
the water formation volume factor introduces error into
the water production and injection values, considering
that Bw is usually a small number (Bw ª 1.01), a +/-2% or
+/-10% error in Bw is trivial to the overall MBE.
Errors in Bo did not significantly impact the OOIP
calculated in Case 3 as compared to errors in Rs. Error in
Bo did, however, have the greatest impact on the water
influx calculated when it was increased or decreased by
10%.
RESULTS OF RANDOM ERROR TRIALS
Discussion
Table 6 lists the maximum, minimum, and average
errors in OOIP over the 20 random error trials for each of
the three cases.
The errors in Case 1 were much larger than the errors
observed for Cases 2 and 3. As noted, the explanation for
this is that the pressure drops over the production history
in Cases 2 and 3 were much larger than the pressure
drops over the production history of Case 1. The larger
pressure drops in Cases 2 and 3 mean that the differences
in PVT values used to calculate the OOIP over various
points in the production history are larger in proportion to
the size of the errors; thus, the errors in the PVT values
have less of an impact on the overall result. Case 3 had
the lowest errors in OOIP due to randomly induced PVT
errors because it is the least volatile of the three oils and
also had a substantial pressure decrease. As previously
noted in the Case 1 discussion, lack of pressure drop
amplifies errors in PVT (%error in OOIP > % error in
PVT); in Cases 2 and 3 with larger pressure drops
(greater than 30%), the error in PVT is roughly equal to
the error in OOIP.
Diagnosing Errors
If there are sufficient pressure measurement points, it
is convenient to use a plot such as OOIP versus time(6) (or
cumulative oil produced), pressure versus time, or
Havlena and Odeh(7) to show the amount of total error in
the OOIP values calculated, and thus to help indicate the
magnitude of errors that may exist in PVT values,
pressure measurements, and production. It is also very
common that, on plots of OOIP versus time or cumulative
oil, the early time points show a wide range of OOIP, but
with elapsed time or pressure depletion, the that range of
OOIP narrows. Figure 13 shows a plot containing two
sets of OOIP versus time data for Case 2. One data set
(the more consistent one) is the calculation of OOIP at
each time interval using the actual PVT data for Case 2.
The other (more erratic) data set is the same plot with
random +/-0 to 2% errors in the PVT data.
Note that, for each data set, the initial computed OOIP
values in Figure 13 are generally too high, but as time
progresses, the material balance calculation settles out to
its reasonably consistent value. This is because the
reservoir initially has only experienced a small total
pressure drop at these early points in time, and therefore
small errors in PVT or pressure measurements are greatly
amplified during the initial part of the curve. This is
another demonstration of how material balance
calculations can contain large errors for reservoirs with a
small total pressure drop, and how large pressure drops
help make the material balance more accurate.
From Figure 13, it is also easy to see that random
errors in the PVT data translate into random errors in the
computed OOIP with time and wider error bars for OOIP.
The Havlena and Odeh plot shown in Figure 14
demonstrates the effect of PVT error as well. We have
found the use of Havlena and Odeh plots to be a valuable
diagnostic tool when examining results from the MBE
solution. When error was introduced into the PVT data,
the curve did not fit the data as accurately. Caution must
be used when interpreting the plot. Unlike an OOIP
versus time plot, where the uncertainty in OOIP can be
clearly seen, the uncertainty shown on a Havlena and
Odeh plot is not as obvious. This is due to the later points
6
which are more heavily weighted and therefore the error
is dampened and not as visible(8).
Another diagnostic tool used to evaluate the accuracy
of the MBE is a plot of both actual pressure (field data)
and calculated pressure (from MBE) versus time.
Generally, if there is a good pressure match between the
two curves, there can be more confidence in the MBE.
Shown in Figure 15 is a plot of measured pressure and
calculated pressure for Case 2. Initially, the curves do not
match exactly due to some uncertainty in OOIP. Once
this uncertainty (error) is minimized, the match between
the pressures significantly improves.
CONCLUSIONS
The results from this work indicate that the impact of
PVT errors on material balance calculations can be
significant if the decrease in reservoir pressure over the
production history of the reservoir is quite small, or if the
oil is highly volatile. These results are also a good
indication of one of the reasons why a reservoir should
have a significant amount of production and pressure loss
before it becomes a good candidate for analysis using the
MBE.
Making use of available information such as
production data, results from infill drilling and
surveillance measurements (current reservoir pressure
and contact levels), as well as ensuring that the PVT data
for the field agrees with that from the production data can
help to narrow down the possible results for a material
balance calculation. It is also important to compare initial
produced gas oil ratio to PVT data and make necessary
corrections(9). Using diagnostic plots such as OOIP versus
time, Havlena and Odeh, or calculated pressure with
measured pressure can help indicate how much error
there is in a material balance calculation, and therefore
can help determine the reliability of the results of the
calculation.
While software packages exist that greatly simplify the
task of performing material balance calculations, these
packages cannot be used blindly. A reservoir engineer
must have a good understanding of the fundamentals of
the MBE, and apply this knowledge to the software
package to produce the best results in cases with small
pressure depletion. In particular, this applies to the
selection and adjustments of any correlations used in the
calculations.
NOMENCLATURE
N = volume of original oil in place in the reservoir,
stb
Bo = oil formation volume factor, rbbl/stb
Boi = initial oil formation volume factor, rbbl/stb
Rsi = initial solution gas oil ratio, scf/stb
Rs = solution gas oil ratio scf/stb
Bg = gas formation volume factor, rbbl/scf
m = ratio of the volume of the initial reservoir gas
cap to the volume of the original oil in place,
rbbl/rbbl
Bgi = initial gas formation volume factor in the
reservoir, rbbl/scf
cw = compressibility of the water in the aquifer,psi-1
Swc = connate water saturation, fraction
cf = compressibility of the formation rock, psi-1
∆P = change in volumetric average reservoir pressure,
psia
We = cumulative water influx, rbbl
Np = cumulative volume of oil produced, stb
Rp = ratio of cumulative gas produced to cumulative
oil produced, scf/stb
Wp = cumulative produced water, stb
Wi = cumulative injected water, stb
Gi = cumulative injected gas, scf
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the fine
contributions of many individuals in the reservoir
engineering literature regarding the techniques of
material balance analysis as well as the Alberta
Energy and Utilities Board for providing an excellent
database for production data. The authors would also like
to acknowledge Eric Denbina and Trisha Anderson for
their assistance and many helpful suggestions in making
this paper a reality.
7
REFERENCES
1. Walsh, M.P., “Effect of Pressure Uncertainty on Material-
Balance Plots,” SPE paper 56691, 1999.
2. McEwan, C.R., “Material Balance Calculations with Water
Influx in the Presence of Uncertainty in Pressures,” SPEJ,
June 1962.
3. Williams, J.M., “Getting the Best Out of Fluid Samples,”
JPT, September 1994.
4. Bu, T. and Damsleth, E., “Errors and Uncertainties in
Reservoir Performance Predictions,” SPE paper 30604
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25, 1995.
5. Dake, L..P., The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier
Science B.V., 1994.
6. Campbell, J.M.: Oil Property Evaluation, Prentice-Hall Inc,
September 1959.
7. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S., “The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight Line—Part II, Field Cases,” JPT, July
1964.
8. Tehrani. D.H., “An Analysis of Volumetric Balance
Equation for Calculation of Oil-in Place and Water Influx,”
SPE paper 5990.
9. Clark, N.J., “Adjusting Oil Sample Data for Reservoir
Studies,” JPT, February 1962.
10. Wang, B., and Hwan, R.R., and Bowman II, G.W.
“OILWAT: Microcomputer Program for Oil Material
Balance With Gascap and Water Influx,” SPE paper 24437
presented at the Seventh SPE Petroleum Computer
Conference, Houston, TX, July 19-22, 1992.
11. Pletcher, J.L., “Improvements to Reservoir Material Balance
Methods,” SPE paper 62882 presented at the 2000 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX,
October 1-4, 2000.
12. Carlson, M.R., “Tips, Tricks and Traps of Material Balance
Calculations,” JCPT, December 1997.
13. Galas, C.M.F., “Confidence Limits of Reservoir Parameters
by Material Balance,” paper 94-035 presented at the 45th
Annual Technical meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM,
Calgary, AB, June 12-15, 1994.
14. Epic Consulting Services Ltd., “Theory and Practice of
Material Balance User Manual,” internal company
publication, 2001; Public version, May 2002.
15. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F., Applied Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering, Second Edition revised by R.E.
Terry, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.

16. Hwan, R.R., “Improved Material Balance Calculations by

Coupling with a Statistics-Based History Matching
Program”, SPE 26244, presented at SPE Petroleum
Computer Conference, New Orleans, July 11-14, 1993.

8
 Trial Error In OOIP
All PVT +10% -6.5%
All PVT -10% 8.0%
Rs +10% -28.3%
Rs -10% 54.7%
Bo +10% 38.8%
Bo -10% -24.6%
Pb +2% -18.1%
Pb -2% -4.7%
Table 1: Systematic Case 1 Trials and Result

Trial Error In OOIP

All PVT +10% -16.0%
All PVT -10% 22.5%
Rs +10% -16.0%
Rs -10% 22.5%
Bo +10% 10.0%
Bo -10% -8.6%
Bg +10% -7.9%
Bg -10% 11.3%
Pb +2% -3.5%
Pb -2% 11.1%
Table 2: Systematic Case 2 Trials and Results

OOIP Error for OOIP Error for

Rs Correlation
Uncorrected Corrected
Used
Correlation Correlation
Standing 121.3% 56.9%
Vasquez & Beggs 194.7% 50.3%
Lasater 66.1% 9.4%
Petrosky 257.0% 42.4%
Dindoruk 46.3% -1.24%
Table 3: Errors in OOIP Using Correlations for Rs

Bo Correlation Used OOIP Error

Standing -3.3%
Vasquez & Beggs -8.3%
Petrosky -14.2%
Dindoruk 0.9%
Table 4: Errors in OOIP Using Correlations for Bo

9
 Trial OOIP Error We Error
All PVT +10% -7.9% 39.7%
All PVT -10% 9.7% -39.7%
Rs +10% -9.4% -45.5%
Rs -10% 10.6% 48.7%
Bo +10% 1.2% 88.1%
Bo -10% -1.3% -87.6%
Bg +10% 17.1% -394.0%
Bg -10% 2.4% 196.4%
Bw +10% 0.4% -6.9%
Bw -10% -0.4% 6.8%
Table 5: Systematic Case 3 Trials and Results

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Maximum 56.9% 9.5% -2.4%
Minimum 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
Average 27.4% 3.0% 1.2%
Table 6: Max, Min, and Average Random Errors for OOIP for each Case for ±2% PVT Error

+10% ofTrue value

True value
Rs
-10% of True value

Bubble pt.

Pressure
Figure 1: Example of Systematic Error

10
 True value
Rs

Bubble pt.

Pressure
Figure 2: Example of Random Error

Pressure vs Time
4500
4000
3500
Pressure (psia)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1973 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1982 1983
Date

Figure 3: Pressure Profile of Case 1 Reservoir

Cumulative Production
Oil Water Gas

900 2,000
800
Liquid Production

700 1,500
Gas Production

600
(MMscf)
(Mstb)

500
1,000
400
300
200 500
100
0 0
1973 1976 1979 1982 1984

Figure 4: Cumulative Production for Case 1

11
 Calculated Drive Indices
Solution Gas Gas Cap Sum Indices

1.2

1.0

Drive Indices 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1974 1975 1977 1978 1979 1981 1982

Figure 5: Drive Indices Plot for Case 1

Bo vs. Pressure
2.5

2.0

1.5 Bo
(rbbl/stb)

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pressure (psia)

Figure 6: Plot of Bo vs. Pressure for Case 1

Pressure vs Time
8000
7000
6000
Pressure (psia)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Date

Figure 7: Pressure Profile for Case 2

12
 Cumulative Production
Oil Gas
100 300000

Gas Production (MMscf)

80 250000

Liquid Production
200000
60

(MMstb)
150000
40
100000
20 50000

0 0
1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2001

Figure 8: Cumulative Production for Case 2

Calculated Drive Indices vs Time

Solution Gas Compressible Sum Indices

1.2
1.0
Drive Indices

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1995 1995 1996 1997 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000

Figure 9: Drive Indices Plot for Case 2

Pressure vs Time
3000

2500
Pressure (psia)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1954 1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996
Date

Figure 10: Pressure Profile for Case 3

13
 Cumulative Production
Oil Water Gas
160 300
140

Gas Production (Bscf)

250

Liquid Production
120
100 200
(MMstb) 80 150
60 100
40
20 50

0 0
1952 1957 1962 1968 1973 1979 1984 1990 1995 2001

Figure 11: Cumulative Production for Case 3

Calculated Drive Indices

Soln' Gas Gas Cap Water Sum Indices

1.0

0.8
Drive Indices

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1952 1957 1962 1968 1973 1979 1984 1990 1995

Figure 12: Calculated Drive Indices for Case 3

(OOIP)
(OOIP) MB=570MMstb
= 570MMstb
Volumetric

(OOIP)MB
(OOIP) MB=568MMstb

Figure 13: OOIP vs. Time for Case 2, With and Without PVT Error

14
 F vs Et
No error in PVT Error in PVT
4.0E+08
3.5E+08
3.0E+08

F (bbl)
2.5E+08
2.0E+08
1.5E+08
1.0E+08
5.0E+07
0.0E+00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Et
Figure 14: Halvena and Odeh Plot for Case 2

Field vs. Calculated Pressure

Field Values Calculated
7000
6000
Pressure (psia)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1994 1996 1997 1998 2000

Figure 15: Field vs. Calculated Pressure for Case 2

15