SPE 148717

Effects of Fluid and Rock Properties on Reserve Estimation

Kegang Ling, SPE, Zheng Shen, SPE, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Columbus, Ohio, USA, 1719 August 2011.
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
Oil and gas reserves are the most important assets for oil companies. An accurate estimation of reserves not only helps listed
oil companies prepare solid annual reserves reports required by SEC, but also guarantees the good reward from divesting
assets or reasonable price to farm-in asset. A precise reserves calculation is the fundamentality for production forecast, which
is vital to the sale contract, thus the feasibility of project. It controls the cash flow and most of all the sustainable development
of the company. The importance of reserve estimation cannot be overemphasized whatsoever.
We know that in the practice of exploration and production, all efforts are to obtain fluid and rock properties such as
porosity, permeability, saturation, rock and fluid compressibility, viscosity, fluid gravity, gas z-factor, saturation pressure,
reservoir pressure and temperature. Due to the instrument sensitivity, limitation, measurement error, environmental effect,
sample interval, location, the representative of sample, and Mother Nature of these properties, there is always uncertainty. In
this research, a systematic study on the effects of fluid and rock properties on reserves estimation had been conducted. Effect
of each property on reserves estimation is quantified through sensitivity analysis. As a result of this study, a comprehensive
picture of how fluid and rock properties affect the reserves was brought to engineers. Reserves evaluator can use this to
estimate the range of reserves as a consequence of uncertainty. With this study, we realized their different impacts on
reserves. Therefore main efforts should go to the variables that affect the reserves most.
Introduction
Fluid and rock properties are always key parameters that control original hydrocarbon in place and recoverable oil and gas. It
is observed that uncertainty and error are unavoidable due to the instrument sensitivity, limitation, measurement error,
environmental effect, sample interval, location, and the representative of sample. Shafer et al. (2008) indicated that formation
pressures at some wells are higher than 20,000 psia in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore the measurement of rock properties
under reservoir condition is very hard, if not impossible, to be conducted by existing technology, not mention the unknown
error in the lab experiment. Ling et al. (2009) investigated the gas viscosity at high pressure and high temperature and found
out that existing viscosity correlations estimate up to 10% error for gas viscosity at high pressure and high temperature
condition. Although a few former studies had tried to put some light on the link between these properties and reserves, they
just touched the surface with limited analysis; none of them approaches the problem with a thorough or systematic
investigation. Hernandez et al. (2002) used reservoir simulation to analyze the sensitivity of viscosity and indicated that the
common assumption of the accuracy of fluid viscosity has a marginal influence on the reservoir performance is false. Their
results show that 1% error in viscosity will produce a 1% error in cumulative production for heavy oils.
It is difficult to find a neat real field with all required data to analyze the effects of rock and fluid properties of
recoverable oil and gas due to the fact that operators usually do not opine to publish field data. In our study, we want to
investigate the most representative case so that the outcome of the study can be used widely for future application. As a result,
a synthetic field was built. It is an oil field with aquifer support. The initial reservoir pressure is higher than the bubble point
pressure.
To imitate the worldwide oil field development practice and make the analysis simple and easy to be understood, one
reservoir system was studied at this time. The production scenario follows ordinary operation procedure. Initially five

SPE 148717

producers were drilled to produce the oil. As the production goes on, reservoir pressure declines as a consequence of
production. When the reservoir pressure is lower than bubble point pressure, solution gas will be released from oil. At this
stage gas saturation is no longer zero anymore. Whenever gas saturation reaches critical saturation, it will flow with oil and
water. This is the three-phase flow in reservoir that we always need to deal with at middle and late production periods.
Producers locate at the flank or close to oil water contact are expected to experience the decline of oil rate and increase of
water cut. Some of them will be converted to injectors when the oil rate reaches economic rate or water cut reaches the
surface facility capacity. To maintain reservoir pressure, infill wells designed as water injectors were drilled at down-dip.
Therefore, the field has several producers at early production period. At the middle production period some of producers that
are close to oil-water contact will be converted to injectors, at the meantime new injectors were drilled and tie-in to the
injection system to support reservoir pressure. Fewer producers remain producing at late production period. All above
development/production procedures are common used for the conventional oil fields all over the world.
Considering the economic and operation requirement, reservoir/well flow capacity, formation fracture pressure, and
surface facility capacity, the producers are expected to produce above certain rate under which the operating cost of producer
and injector cannot be justified. Of course the injector is required to be able to inject a rate higher than the threshold injection
rate. Otherwise, producer and/or injector will be plugged back and abandoned.
To evaluate the oil and gas reserves, not only are the revenues from oil and gas taken into account, but also the cost to
produce these oil and gas volume. The timing of the revenue and cost certainly plays a crucial role in the evaluation. It is
noted that even with the same recoverable oil and/or gas volume, the revenue can vary significantly due to different timing
such as the life of the field, the production scenario, and cost.
Description of the Model
An analytical solution to the synthetic field is impossible. It is logical if we review oil and gas fields around the world or dig
into the historical data. To our knowledge, none of real fields can be analyzed adequately by analytical method only due to
the heterogeneity of reservoir properties. The complicated fluid and rock characteristics and the inadequate knowledge in the
interaction between fluid and rock dictate that analytical method can only be applied to solve the idealized case, or
approximate the real case. It is noted that analytical method can only be used to solve slightly compressible single-phase
fluid flows in homogeneous (uniform porosity, permeability, thickness, and regular shape) reservoir. Once anyone of the
above conditions is violated, analytical method will become unqualified.
The difficulty of analytical approach to real oil and gas fields and the objective of this investigation lead to the build of a
simulation model for this study. Our synthetic model honors the nature of reservoir with varying porosity, permeability, top
of porous sand, hydrocarbon column, aquifer column and irregular reservoir shape, which are not allowed in the analytical
method. The initial reservoir condition assumed an undersaturated oil reservoir with aquifer support. As the reservoir
pressure declines due to production, the solution gas comes out of oil. Now there are gas-oil-water three phases in the
reservoir. Water encroachment to oil reservoir also happens as the oil is withdrawed. As far as gas saturation is less than
critical saturation and water saturation is equal to irreducible water saturation, there is still single-phase oil flow in reservoir
at this stage. If pressure declines continuously, more and more gas comes out of oil and gas saturation reaches critical
saturation, gas begins to flow. Meanwhile, if water saturation is greater than irreducible water saturation, water starts to flow
with oil. Then we have three-phase flow in the reservoir as the pressure declines. To maintain reservoir pressure and oil rate,
water injection is implemented thus pressure increases. Pressure maintenance also leads to more gas goes back to solution in
oil. Water injection reduces gas rate while increases total field water cut at late period. Finally oil rate declines to economic
rate or water cut reaches the limitation defined by surface facility. Wells will be plugged back and abandoned. This is the end
of field life.
The simulation model simulates the field by discreting the reservoir into 93x93x2 grids. The reservoir is modified to
irregular shape by assigning zero porosity and permeability to some grids at the reservoir edge. To populate the rock
properties, different porosities, permeabilities, depths, and pay thicknesses are assigned to each grid. Initially, a uniform oilwater contact divides porous sand into oil zone and water zone. Pressure at datum is assigned so that pressure above and
below the datum can be calculated according to fluid density in-situ. Initial water saturation is assigned to respect the real oil
reservoir. Rock and water compressibilities are incorporated and assumed to be constant at different pressures. Oil viscosity
varies with the pressure since solution gas has a significant effect on it. Water viscosity is kept constant. Oil API gravity, gas
specific gravity, water specific gravity, oil formation volume factor, gas formation volume factor, and solution gas oil ratio
are assigned with values often found in real oil fields. Table 1 illustrates the parameters used in the simulation model. Data in
Table 1 are also used as the input for the base case in our sensitivity analysis. In sensitivity analysis we will change one of
the variables and compare the results from new parameters with those from base case.

SPE 148717

Table 1. Parameters Used in the Simulation Model for the Base Case

Gas
Specific
Gravity

Water
Specific
Gravity

Water
Compressibility

Permeability

Rock
Compressibility

Reservoir
Pressure

Oil
Gravity

(mD)

(1/psia)

(psia)

(API)

0.12-0.28

11-490

1 x 10-5

7030

28

0.62

1.01

2 x 10-6

Oil
Formation
Volume
Factor

Gas Formation
Volume Factor

Oil Viscosity

Gas
Viscosity

Water
Viscosity

Initial Oil
Saturation

Irreducible
Water
Saturation

Solution Gas Oil

Ratio

(rb/STB)

(rb/Mscf)

(cp)

(cp)

(cp)

1.1151.3922

0.6252 @5435
psi
5.1854 @500
psi

0.77-2.73

0.01360.026

0.3957

Porosity

(1/psia)

(Mscf/STB)
0.74

0.26

0.256-0.825

Sensitivity Analysis Methodology

To analyze the sensitivity of individual fluid and rock property on estimated reserves, we changed only one fluid/rock
property at a time while held other properties constant comparing with the base case. It is important that development scheme,
well number, production constraints, economic rate, injection constraint, surface facility are same for all cases. The
sensitivity analysis will not make any sense if those requirements cannot be met. Firstly the base case was run, and the
simulation results were output. Secondly one parameter was changed, and the results were output. Thirdly, the results from
interested case, or new case, were compared with those from base case. Eventually the causes to the change in result were
discussed. In this investigation we are interested in original oil and gas in place, recoverable oil and gas volumes under
economic condition, oil and gas recovery factors, and field life. All of these either contribute to cost/revenue or leave
potential for future development. To make the sensitivity analysis more general we studied the following relationships:
1) Dimensionless original oil in place and dimensionless fluid/rock property,
2) Dimensionless original gas in place and dimensionless fluid/rock property,
3) Dimensionless recoverable oil and dimensionless fluid/rock property,
4) Dimensionless recoverable gas and dimensionless fluid/rock property,
5) Dimensionless oil recovery factor and dimensionless fluid/rock property,
6) Dimensionless gas recovery factor and dimensionless fluid/rock property,
7) Dimensionless field life and dimensionless fluid/rock property,
Dimensionless variables are defined in Equations (1) through (8), which are
original oil in place from interested case
................................................... (1)
Dimensionless original oil in place =
original oil in place from base case

Dimensionless original gas in place =

original gas in place from interested case

original gas in place from base case

. ............................................... (2)

recoverable oil from interested case

. .............................................................. (3)
recoverable oil from base case
recoverable gas from interested case
. ............................................................ (4)
Dimensionless re cov erable gas =
recoverable gas from base case

Dimensionless re cov erable oil =

Dimensionless oil re cov ery factor =

Dimensionless gas re cov ery factor =

Dimensionless field life =

oil recovery factor from interested case

oil recovery factor from base case

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

gas recovery factor from interested case

gas recovery factor from base case

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

field life from interested case

. ..................................................................................... (7)
field life from base case

SPE 148717

Dimensionless fluid / rock property =

fluid/rock property from interested case

fluid/rock property from base case

................................................... (8)

It is obvious that the higher the dimensionless original oil in place, dimensionless original gas in place, dimensionless
recoverable oil, dimensionless recoverable gas, dimensionless oil recovery factor, and dimensionless gas recovery factor, the
better. The longer field life will require higher cost assuming all other parameters are same. The sensitivity analysis used
these criteria to evaluate the effects of rock/fluid properties on reserves calculation.
Effects of Rock/Fluid Properties on Reserves Estimation
Sensitivity of Rock Porosity

First property that affects reserves is porosity. It is clear from the equation used to calculate original oil and gas in place that
hydrocarbon pore volume is proportional to the porosity. Therefore we expect that original oil and gas in place will increase
as porosity increases, or vice verse. Five cases were run to allow us get an insight in to how porosity affects reserves. Two
cases whose porosities are 80% and 90% of base case porosity are denoted as low cases. Another two cases whose porosities
are 110% and 120% of base case porosity are denoted as high cases. Simulation results proof our expectation. As shown in
Figures 1 and 2, 10% change in porosity will result in 10% change in the original oil in place (OOIP), original gas in place
(OGIP), recoverable oil, and recoverable gas. Field life does not have the exact change due to nonconstant oil rate. It should
be kept in mind that permeabilities are kept constant for interested case and base case for sensitivity analysis purpose in this
study. It should not be confused with the universal knowledge that permeability varies with the porosity. So the observation
that recovery factors do not change is logical.
The significant of porosity is indicated by a 10%error in porosity produces the same error in hydrocarbon in place as
well as recoverable hydrocarbon volume. The error compromises the accurate decision on the feasibility of marginal field and
the ranking of the project in companys investigation portfolio. The linear relationship between reserves and porosity
highlights the crucial role of porosity in reservoir characterization. Tremendous efforts should focus on obtaining
representative porosity for the field.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Porosity

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.3
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio

1.2

Recoverable Oil Ratio

Recoverable Gas Ratio
Oil Recovery Factor Ratio
Gas Recovery Factor Ratio

1.1

Field Life Ratio

1

0.9

0.8

0.7
0.7

0.8

0.9
1
1.1
Interested_Case/Base_Case Porosity Ratio, (dimensionless)

1.2

Figure 1. Effect of Porosity on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

1.3

SPE 148717

Effect of Porosity on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

120 Percent of Base Case

110 Percent of Base Case

4000000

Base Case
90 Percent of Base Case

3000000

80 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Date (day)

Figure 2. Effect of Porosity on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Rock Permeability

Indicating by Darcys law, permeability is the most important variable with the highest uncertainty for fluid flow in reservoir.
It is also controls the heterogeneity of reservoir. Due to high cost and time consuming the available numbers of core
permeability are always limited and cannot represent the whole reservoir horizontally and vertically. Another issue is that
permeabilities from well test are different from core permeabilities most of time. While well test permeability is more useful
than core permeability in production analysis, existing well test number is often less than that of core permeability thus forces
us resort to core permeability. The high uncertainty on measuring permeability constrainted by current technology makes
engineers believe that the error can be several times of the measuring value. Therefore in this sensitivity analysis we deal
with the situations that permeabilities are 2, 1.5, 0.75, and 0.5 times of base case permeability. Such analysis should be able
to cover most scenarios caused by lab measurement errors.
The simulation results showed that increase in rock permeability does not necessary increase the recoverable oil in this
synthetic field (Figure 3). For the permeability ratio in the range of 0.5 to 2 the changes in recoverable oil and gas, recovery
factors, and field life are insignificant. We interpreted that both rock permeability and the vertical to horizontal permeability
ratio are main variables in controlling oil and gas flow rate and the gas/water coning speed. Although permeability increase
can increase oil flow rate, it also makes water flow easier. Due to the fact that rock permeability is high enough for oil flow at
designed rate, an increase in permeability does no contribute a lot to horizontal flow or oil production rate. As a result, the
contribution to the vertical flow out-runs that of horizontal flow considering the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio of
0.1 in the simulation model. Therefore an increase in permeability has an adverse effect on recoverable oil due to early water
breakthrough. It should be kept in mind that this is only valid for a certain permeability range. The picture should change for
low permeability situation when transmissibility cannot meet designed oil rate. To verify low oil rate and long field life due
to low permeability, a special case that has 5 percent of base case permeability was run. The resulting lower recoverable
hydrocarbon and longer field life proof that low permeability does have adverse effect on oil production (Figure 4).
The implications in this sensitivity analysis are:
1) Permeability error is more important for low permeability reservoir than high permeability reservoir.
2) High permeability does not necessary do good to all production scenarios considering strong aquifer support or
water injection.
3) Change permeability along does not change the original hydrocarbon in place.

SPE 148717

Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Permeability

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.3
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio

1.2

Oil Recovery Factor Ratio

1.1

Gas Recovery Factor Ratio

Field Life Ratio

0.9

0.8

0.7
0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

0.65

0.75

0.85

0.95

1.05

1.15

1.25

1.35

1.45

1.55

1.65

1.75

1.85

1.95

Interested_Case/Base_Case Permeability Ratio (dimensionless)

Figure 3. Effect of Permeability on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Permeability on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

200 Percent of Base Case

150 Percent of Base Case

4000000

Base Case
75 Percent of Base Case

3000000

50 Percent of Base Case

5 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Date (day)

Figure 4. Effect of Permeability on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Rock/Fluid Compressibility

Rock compressibility can vary dramatically with different rock types and has high uncertainty resulting from current lab
technique and insufficient samples to represent the reservoir heterogeneity in spatial. It is common observation that gas, oil,
and water compressibilities have lower uncertainties than rock compressibility. Gas, oil, and water compressibilities are
governed by fluid composition and calculated from existing correlations. In this investigation we consider both gas
compressibility factor and gas formation volume factor. Oil compressibility plays its role by oil formation volume factor
above bubble point pressure. For pressure lower than saturation pressure it is both solution gas oil ratio and oil formation
volume factor that contribute to oil compressibility. These will be evaluated in oil properties. The implications in the above
assumptions are: 1) gas solution in the water is very low and can be neglected, 2) oil solution in gas is negligible, and 3) the
simulation model is a black oil model. To make the model simpler, rock and water compressibilities are assumed to be
constant in a simulation model, which are reasonable because the variations of rock and water compressibilities with pressure
are so small that they can be considered as constant.
In this sensitivity analysis we assumed that rock and water compressibility are 4, 2, 0.5, and 0.25 times of base case
compressibility. To differentiate the effect of rock compressibility from fluid compressibility, we designed a two steps

SPE 148717

sensitivity analysis. In first step we analyze the effect of different rock compressibility on the simulation outcome. In second
step both rock and water compressibilities are considered. By comparing the results of first and second steps the effect of
water compressibility can be identified.
Figures 5 through 8 illustrate that high compressibility has short field life. Even the changes in OOIP, OGIP, and
recoverable oil and gas are not as much as the change in compressibility. It is also observed that oil rate is high at the
beginning but decline very quick at late period for high compressibility in this synthetic field. It is interpreted that high
compressibility facilitates oil production at early stage but will slow down the effect of water injection at late time. More
water needs to be injected to achieve the same amount of cumulative oil. High rock compressibility has a positive effect on
OOIP but a negative effect on recoverable oil and gas under injection scenario. High water compressibility affects the OOIP
and recoverable oil and gas volume as rock compressibility does.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Rock Compressibility

1.1

0.9
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio
Oil Recovery Factor Ratio
Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
Field Life Ratio

0.8

0.7

0.6
0.2

0.7

1.2

1.7

2.2

2.7

3.2

3.7

4.2

Interested_Case/Base_Case Rock Compressibility Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 5. Effect of Rock Compressibility on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation
Effect of Rock Compressibility on Cumulative Oil Production
10000000
9000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.2

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

400 Percent of Base Case

4000000

200 Percent of Base Case

Base Case

3000000

50 Percent of Base Case

25 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Date (day)

Figure 6. Effect of Rock Compressibility on Cumulative Oil Production

5000

6000

SPE 148717

Sensitivity Analysis on the Effects of Rock and Water Compressibilities

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimens

1.2

1.1

0.9
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio

0.8

Oil Recovery Factor Ratio

Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
Field Life Ratio

0.7

0.6
0.2

0.7

1.2

1.7

2.2

2.7

3.2

3.7

4.2

Interested_Case/Base_Case Rock&Water Compressibility Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 7. Effects of Rock and Water Compressibilities on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation
Effects of Rock and Water Compressibilities on Cumulative Oil Production
10000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

400 Percent of Base Case

4000000

200 Percent of Base Case

Base Case

3000000

50 Percent of Base Case

25 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 8. Effects of Rock and Water Compressibilities on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure

A good reservoir pressure is not always available because of following reasons:

1) Downhole measurement is not available
2) Well test is not long enough for the pressure reach the boundary
3) No well test performed as a result of high cost, environmental concern
4) Pressure gauge failure or downhole problem precludes the measurement
5) Instrument rating or facility constraint
It is believed that reservoir pressure governs OOIP, OGIP, recoverable oil and gas, recovery factor, and field life. These
are true after we review our simulation results. Totally five cases were simulated, including base case. Two high cases whose
initial reservoir pressures are 1.05 and 1.02 times of base case and two low cases whose initial reservoir pressures are 0.98
and 0.95 times of base case are employed to compare with base case. Figures 9 and 10 show that OOIP, OGIP, recoverable
oil and gas, gas recovery factor, and field life increase monotonically as pressure increase. Oil recovery factor decreases
slightly as pressure moves away from base case. Reservoir pressure has the higher impact on field life than other parameters.

SPE 148717

Sensitivity analysis indicates that reservoir pressure is a vital parameter in reservoir characterization, development plan,
and production scheme. Surface facility engineers use pressure as one of critical parameters in the design. Downhole
instrument is rating to the pressure expected to meet during the whole life of the well. Summary, the important of reservoir
pressure cannot be overemphasized. Enough efforts should be excercised to reduce the pressure uncertainty.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Reservoir Pressure

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.05
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio

1.03

Recoverable Gas Ratio

Oil Recovery Factor Ratio
Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
1.01

Field Life Ratio

0.99

0.97

0.95
0.94

0.96

0.98
1
1.02
Interested_Case/Base_Case Reservoir_Pressure Ratio, (dimensionless)

1.04

1.06

Figure 9. Effect of Reservoir Pressure on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Reservoir Pressure on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

105 Percent of Base Case

4000000

102 Percent of Base Case

Base Case

3000000

98 Percent of Base Case

95 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 10. Effect of Reservoir Pressure on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Oil API Gravity

During the reservoir study, fewer people will take oil API gravity into account if oil viscosity is independent from oil API
gravity because gravity drainage is not always seen, or noticed, in the field. In fact oil API gravity is related to oil viscosity,
price, gas and water coning. Low API is desirable to avoid gas coning providing that all other parameters are constant, while
high API is preferred to avoid water coning. In reservoir with both gas and water coning, API gravity plays a two-side role.
In sensitivity analysis, we assumed oil viscosity does not change to avoid the problem becoming complicated. In total five
cases, two high cases with API gravity of 1.2 and 1.1 times of base case, base case, and two low cases with API gravity of 0.9
and 0.8 times of base case, are used to analyze the impact of oil API gravity.

10

SPE 148717

Comparing the results from five cases in Figures 11 and 12, we found that its impact on OOIP, OGIP, recoverable oil
and gas, recovery factor, and field life is immaterial. The changes in these parameters with API gravity are complicated and
controlled by reservoir geometry and different development scenario. Effect of oil API gravity on recoverable oil depends on
the producer locations, production and injection scheme, production schedule. High oil API gravity facilitates oil move
upward and is good for producers in the up-dip and peripheral water injection. Low oil API gravity allows gravity drainage
flow efficiently for producers at the down-dip and no water injection scenario. In our model, the field was produced by
natural depletion, and then followed by water injection. As a result, recoverable volume does not simply follow the oil API
trend as it does in other parameters.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Oil API Gravity

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.01
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio
Oil Recovery Factor Ratio
Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
Field Life Ratio
1

0.99
0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

Interested_Case/Base_Case Oil_API Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 11. Effect of Oil API Gravity on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Oil API Gravity on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

120 Percent of Base Case

4000000

110 Percent of Base Case

Base Case

3000000

90 Percent of Base Case

80 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 12. Effect of Oil API Gravity on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Gas Specific Gravity

Same analysis method as oil API gravity is applied to the sensitivity of gas specific gravity (SG). In total five cases, base case,
two high cases with gas SG of 1.2 and 1.1 times of base case, and two low cases with gas SG of 0.9 and 0.8 times of base
case, are used to analyze the sensitivity of gas SG.

SPE 148717

11

Same observations as oil API gravity effect are observed. High gas SG has an adverse impact on gas coning. The impact
of gas SG on reserves estimation is small comparing with porosity, permeability, and pressure. The results are shown in
Figures 13 and 14.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Gas Specific Gravity (SG)

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.01

OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio

1.005

Oil Recovery Factor Ratio

Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
Field Life Ratio

0.995

0.99
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

Interested_Case/Base_Case Gas_SG Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 13. Effect of Gas Specific Gravity on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Gas Specific Gravity on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000
9000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

120 Percent of Base Case

110 Percent of Base Case
Base Case

4000000

90 Percent of Base Case

80 Percent of Base Case

3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 14. Effect of Gas Specific Gravity on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Oil Viscosity

According to former study, oil viscosity has an important influence on reserves. It is clear from Darcys law that oil viscosity
has an inverse proportional relationship with oil flow rate. As always, two high cases whose oil viscosities are 1.4 and 1. 2
times of base case and two low cases whose oil viscosities are 0.8 and 0.6 times of base case are employed to compare with
base case.
As shown in Figures 15 and 16, recoverable oil and gas volumes, oil and gas recovery factors, and field life decrease as
oil viscosity increase. OOIP and OGIP do not change with oil viscosity. In our synthetic field, a 40% error in oil viscosity
produces 4% error in recoverable oil and gas volumes, thus oil and gas recovery factors, 7% error in field life.

12

SPE 148717

Recalling that Hernandezs (2002) study shows a 1% error in viscosity will produce a 1% error in cumulative
production for heavy oils, and combining with our result we concluded that same error in oil viscosity will produce higher
error in cumulative oil for viscous oil than for light oil.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Oil Viscosity

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.1

OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio

1.05

Oil Recovery Factor Ratio

Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
Field Life Ratio

0.95

0.9
0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Interested_Case/Base_Case Oil_Viscosity Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 15. Effect of Oil Viscosity on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Oil Viscosity on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

140 Percent of Base Case

120 Percent of Base Case
Base Case

4000000

80 Percent of Base Case

60 Percent of Base Case

3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 16. Effect of Oil Viscosity on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Gas Viscosity

Again, same analysis method as oil viscosity is applied to the sensitivity of gas viscosity. A total of five cases, which are base
case, two high cases with gas viscosity of 1.4 and 1.2 times of base case, and two low cases with gas viscosity of 0.8 and 0.6
times of base case, are used to analyze the sensitivity of gas viscosity.
It is observed that gas viscosity has small impact on gas recovery in this synthetic field. It is believe that relatively high
rock permeability allows gas flow easily so that the change in gas rate is too small to be identified. Another reason is that oil
rate and solution gas oil ratio do not change, and this resulting in unchanging solution gas rate. High gas viscosity has an

SPE 148717

13

adverse impact on recoverable gas volume. Its impact on reserves estimation is small comparing with porosity, permeability,
and pressure. The results are shown in Figures 17 and 18.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Gas Viscosity

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.01
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio
Oil Recovery Factor Ratio
Gas Recovery Factor Ratio

1.005

Field Life Ratio

1

0.995

0.99
0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Interested_Case/Base_Case Gas_Viscosity Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 17. Effect of Gas Viscosity on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Gas Viscosity on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000
9000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

140 Percent of Base Case

120 Percent of Base Case

4000000

Base Case
80 Percent of Base Case

3000000

60 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 18. Effect of Gas Viscosity on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Oil Formation Volume Factor

High oil formation volume factor (FVF) compromises the economics of oil field. In the study we want to quantify its impact
on reserves. Same procedure as aforementioned parameters sensitivity analysis is adopted. A total of five cases, which are
base case, two high cases with oil FVF of 1.2 and 1.1 times of base case, and two low cases with oil FVF of 0.95 and 0.9
times of base case, are used to analyze the sensitivity of oil FVF.
Simulation result indicates that original oil and gas in place, recoverable oil and gas volumes, oil and gas recovery
factors, and field life are sensitive to oil FVF (Figures 19 and 20). Among them original oil and gas in place, recoverable oil
and gas volumes, and field life are highly sensitive. A slightly increase in oil FVF will lead to severe decline in original oil
and gas in place, recoverable oil and gas volumes, and field life. High oil FVF will lead to short field life since the wells
were shut-in due to oil rate was less than economic rate. Consequently the ultimate recoverable gas was lower than base case.

14

SPE 148717

Figures 19 and 20 show the sensitivity of oil FVF. Oil FVFs significant impact on reserves reminds us that it should not
be ignored at any time.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Oil Formation Volume Factor (FVF)
1.2
Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio

1.15

Recoverable Oil Ratio

Recoverable Gas Ratio

1.1

Oil Recovery Factor Ratio

Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
Field Life Ratio

1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.85

0.95

1.05

1.15

1.25

Interested_Case/Base_Case Oil_FVF Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 19. Effect of Oil Formation Volume Factor on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation
Effect of Oil Formation Volume Factor on Cumulative Oil Production
10000000
9000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

120 Percent of Base Case

110 Percent of Base Case
Base Case

4000000

95 Percent of Base Case

90 Percent of Base Case

3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 20. Effect of Oil Formation Volume Factor on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Gas Formation Volume Factor

Gas formation volume factor (FVF) is the ratio of gas volume at reservoir condition to gas volume at standard condition. In
total five cases, base case, two high cases with gas FVF of 1.2 and 1.1 times of base case, and two low cases with gas FVF of
0.9 and 0.8 times of base case, are used to analyze the sensitivity of gas FVF.
It is observed that gas viscosity has a small impact on gas recovery in this synthetic field. High gas FVF has high gas
recovery factor. The slightly decline in oil recovery is due to the early shut-in of oil producers resulting from high gas oil
ratio set in the simulation model. The impact of gas FVF on reserves estimation is small comparing with porosity,
permeability, and pressure. The results are shown in Figures 21 and 22.
.

SPE 148717

15

Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Gas Formation Volume Factor (FVF)

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.02
OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio

1.015

Recoverable Gas Ratio

1.01

Oil Recovery Factor Ratio

Gas Recovery Factor Ratio

1.005

Field Life Ratio

1
0.995
0.99
0.985
0.98
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

Interested_Case/Base_Case Gas_FVF Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 21. Effect of Gas Formation Volume Factor on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Gas Formation Volume Factor on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

120 Percent of Base Case

110 Percent of Base Case
Base Case

4000000

90 Percent of Base Case

80 Percent of Base Case

3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 22. Effect of Gas Formation Volume Factor on Cumulative Oil Production

Sensitivity of Irreducible Water Saturation

Irreducible water saturation, Swirr, is a key parameter not only in original oil and gas in place calculation but also in
recoverable hydrocarbon estimation. From volumetrics equation we know that hydrocarbon in place increases as Irreducible
water saturation decreases. In total five cases, base case, two high cases with irreducible water saturation of 1.2 and 1.1 times
of base case, and two low cases with irreducible water saturation of 0.9 and 0.8 times of base case, are used to analyze the
sensitivity of irreducible water saturation.
Simulation result indicates that original oil and gas in place, recoverable oil and gas volumes, oil and gas recovery
factors, and field life are sensitive to irreducible water saturation (Figures 23 and 24). Among them recoverable oil gas
volume and field life are highly sensitive. A slightly increase in irreducible water saturation will lead to severe decline in
recoverable oil and gas volume and field life. Original oil and gas in place, and oil and gas recovery factors are less sensitive
to irreducible water saturation. High irreducible water saturation will lead to short field life since the wells were shut-in due
to oil rate is less than economic rate. Consequently the ultimate recoverable gas was lower than base case.

16

SPE 148717

Figures 23 and 24 show the sensitivity of irreducible water saturation. It should be kept in mind all the time that we grab
any chance to obtain accurate and representative irreducible water saturation.
.
Sensitivity Analysis on the Effect of Irreducible Water Saturation (Swirr)

Interested_Case/Base_Case Ratio (dimensionless)

1.2

OOIP Ratio
OGIP Ratio
Recoverable Oil Ratio
Recoverable Gas Ratio
Oil Recovery Factor Ratio
Gas Recovery Factor Ratio
Field Life Ratio

1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

Interested_Case/Base_Case Swirr Ratio, (dimensionless)

Figure 23. Effect of Irreducible Water Saturation on Original Hydrocarbon in Place and Reserves Estimation

Effect of Irreducible Water Saturation on Cumulative Oil Production

10000000
9000000

Cumulative Oil Production, STB

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000

120 Percent of Base Case

4000000

110 Percent of Base Case

Base Case
90 Percent of Base Case

3000000

80 Percent of Base Case

2000000
1000000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Date (day)

Figure 24. Effect of Irreducible Water Saturation on Cumulative Oil Production

Conclusions

Upon the completion of this study, we made the following conclusions:

Porosity has a positive impact on the OOIP and OGIP, recoverable oil and gas, and field life. Its impact is significant.
Recovery factors remain unchanged for different porosity providing all other parameters are constant.
Permeability error is more important for low permeability reservoir than high permeability reservoir. The impact of
permeability on oil recovery is much higher than its impact on gas recovery.

SPE 148717

17

Although rock and water compressibilities impact field life greatly, their impacts on OOIP, OGIP, and recoverable oil and gas
are small.
Reservoir pressure has a positive impact on the OOIP and OGIP, recoverable oil and gas, recovery factors, and field life.
Error in oil viscosity produces higher error in viscous oil than in light oil. Its impact is more significant than impact caused by
gas viscosity error.
The influences of oil and gas specific gravities are immaterial comparing with other parameters.
OOIP, OGIP, recoverable oil and gas volumes, oil and gas recovery factors, and field life are sensitive to oil FVF.
A slightly increase in irreducible water saturation will lead to a severe decline in recoverable oil gas volume and field life.

Nomenclature
Abbreviation
FVF
OOIP
OGIP
SG
Symbol
Swirr

Description
formation volume factor
original oil in place
original gas in place
specific gravity
Description
Irreducible water saturation

Reference
Hernandez, J.C., Vesovic, V., Carter, J.N., and Lopez. E. 2002. Sensitivity of Reservoir Simulations to Uncertainties in Viscosities. Paper
SPE 75227 presented at the SPE/DOE IOR Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1317. April. SPE-75227.
Shafer, J.L., Boitnott, G.N., and Ewy, R.T. 2008. Effective Stress Laws for Petrophysical Rock Properties. Paper prepared for presentation
at the SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium held in Edinburgh, Scotland, May 25-28.
Ling, K., Teodoriu, C., Davani, E., and Falcone. G. 2009. Measurement of Gas Viscosity at High Pressures and High Temperatures. Paper
IPTC 13528 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 79 December.