You are on page 1of 2

/936

Letters to JPT Forum are limited to a maximum


of 750 words, including 200 words for each table
and illustration, Acceptable stt~ects include new
engineering ideas, progress reports from the lab
and field, and descriptions of unique equipment,
processes or practices, Letters should be sent to
the Editor. SPE reserves the right to edit ma.
terial to eliminate excessive commercialism or
remarka of a questionable nature.

A Simplified Method of Hyperbolic values of n between O and 1.0 , Place these overlays over
Decline Curve Analysis actual production rate-time curves plotted on graph paper
of the same size and then shift them, keeping the axis of
Present dcclinc curve analysis methods encompass both the overlay and actual data parallel. Find the curve that
nlathemaficat mrd graphical approaches. ” ‘“ Most engi- best fits and note n and a, and the octwrl rate q, corres-
neers now usc only the constant pcrcwrt decline (cxponen. ponding to a q/q, of 1.0.
tial) analysis.” The proposed curve-fittiilg technique is illustrated in
The method presented herein proposes thr usc of several Fig. 3. The plotted points are actual production vs time.’
simple hyperbolic curves plotted on transparmrt paper. The curve shown is the fit obtained using an overlay of
Once these basic curves have been prepared, a cttrvc- the n = 0.5, rI, = O.001/day curve from Fig. 1. The posi-
matching technique can bc used to oblain hyperbolic Cx: tion of the axis of the subject plot ncccssary to give this
trapolations with about tht same effort required for a con- curve fit indicates that the decline rate of 1.5 months after
s[mrt percentage decline extrapolation. Jan., 1941, is O.001/day. This corresponds to the (q/q. )
In hyperbolic decline the dcclinu rate varies with thu = 1.0 or f) time of the overlay curve, The actual protluc-
production rate. tion rate corresponding to (his point is about 1.800 bbl of
oil a month (BOPM ). This curve frt was ChOSL’11 so tha[
n
-.[1 “
.
()
a,”-(i)’””’”” ‘“”””
where a is the declirw riitc whun the production rate is q,
(1) Fig, 3 would be readable. In actual practice it is advisable
to fit the data with a curve whose zero point is as CIOSC
as possible tu the last data point to obtain the grca!cst
and a, and q, arc the duclinc rate ami production rate cxtmpolation accuracy. The zero time may actually cor-
when time /=0. The constwrt n is bctwccn O and 1,0 and rwpond to some time buyond the last data point.
is cnaractcristic of a particular hyperbolic dcclinc, This With the following data fixed by the tiurvc match of
n can bc shown to bc equal to the change in (l/d) with Fig. 3 [n = 0.5. a, = O.OO1/day and q, = 1,800 flOPM ).
time, a production rate can be calculated for any future time.
If the time of interest falls within the time limit of the
,1= _,+! I/(/]
(2)
r-””’’””’””””
It also can he shown mathematically that fLlr hyperbolic . . . . .
decline 1
. .

(3)
“=[l+:,rfl]”’”” “ “
Also. the total production JV,. during the hyperbolic de.
:.. . .
cline from a rate q, to a rate q is

(4) . . . . . . . .

I
The proposed curve-matching method offers a simple.
efiicient and effective solution to the curve-fitting prob-
lem. A plot of production rate vs time is prepared on
semilog paper. Using a set of general, preconstructed de-
cline curves, each representing a different combination of
?7and a,, the best fit to the production curve can be found.
.. 4, 0, =.000 c?/Doy
Fig. 1 illl~strates a group of such curves reprewrting an 6, o,=.0006/Doy
n of 0.5 and a variety of initial decline rates. Note that 8, 0,=.0006/ Day
data for such curves can bc calculated from Eq. 3 by using 10, o,=.0010/ Doy
negative times anti defining a, as the dcc[inc rate when
q/q, is 1.0.
---’ --! .-. —
Once the constants n and a, and the producing rate
I
corresponding to a q/q, of 1.0 has been obtained by curve
fitting, the future production rates, reserves and remaining
life can be calculated from Eqs. 3 and 4 or obtained
graphically from a series of curves illustrated by Fig. 2. 1 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -lo 0
The procedure for determining the best fit of the rate- # in Months
time curve is relatively simple. Make transparent overlays Fig. l—Hyperbolic decline jactors for negative times
of a series of figures (such as Fig. 1) representing various and n = 0.5.

2 5
Lo

m
.-

--
- --- -

..—.
.- ..— .
..-J—.——
. . . .— ––
+
—-.—.
+2~.
—.
..—.
.4..
!
,
i~,

,
>

Y
:

;“
.-

1
. . 6 . .

8
~
to,ooo --‘-----—’, >--
0.3 --- .— .
“lo -. .—.-.
_ L
..—
1111
LEGEN’D ‘-~
6000 ~~
.
--
—.

Curve2, 0,=.0002/DOy

J
1.
,, 4, 0,=.0004/Day – -.+- . [O(j
0.1 ..- “ 6, 0,..00061 O0y ——. ---— 3000 -.T~.
--+ -l—
,, 8, a,..0008/D0y :--.$-”;: :
,r 10, 0,..0010/Doy -.
— -2- 60 0

1- . ---- .- 11 5 *
-40. ~

mu
}-- -;- --- i -’;-
Tir
E - i I
..— to 30 : 1000 ‘
o 7-3? 7 38 7-39 7-40 7.41 2
1-37 1-38 1-39 1-40 1-41 1-42
Date in Mon. - Yr.

J i:l data used were originally published’ to illustrate the loss


I I I I 10
ratio method and are presented in the Campbell text.’
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Reference [o these publications will show [hat the loss
~ in Months ratio did not become constant (indicating true hyperfmlic
Eg.2—llyp1’t-/) olicdeclirie foclIw\ jtwpcmiiive times declint ) for the history shown, but varied from 0.28 10
(rtldl? = 0.5! 0.70. This is as expected since the method relies upl~n a
finite difference application that is not accurate until [he
prepared data (in our “case. 70 months as shown in Fig.
change in rate with time is small.
2). q/q, can be read for the appropriate timeand the rale
can be calculated. For example, July, 1946. corresponds A typical graphical loglog plot analysis of Ihe cxdnlplc
to +64.5 months (115 – 50.5). and (q/q, ) for n = 0.5 data would show the solution to be very insensitive. with
and ~1,=0.001/day is read at +64,5 from Fig, 2 as about a wide variety of )1 and ~{, constants giving apparent
0.253 ;then q= O.253X 1.800=455 BOPM. straight-line plots.
Toestimatet hecumulativep reduction from I =0 (mid- Other more complex methods of analysis could lw used
March. 1~41. to July. 1946). we read (AN,,/q, ) from Fig. to analyze the data of the example and presumably obtain
2 as 33.5 and calculate AN,, = 33.5 X 1,800 = 60,300 bbl. comparable results. These methods include polynomial
When the times of interest exceed the range of the pro curve filting and complex data plots of combinations o
pared curves, Eqs. 3 and 4 can be used to calculate the q, q,, NV and I.
rates and cumulative. For example. July. 1948, is 88.5 By preparing several general. ba~ic curves based on hy
months after [he zero time which, as previously stated, was perbolic decline equations. a curve-matching technique
1.5months after Jan.. 1941. Then by Eq.3, can bc used to recognize and extrapolate hyperbolic dc
1.800 ciirw curves with a minimum of difficulty and with maxi-
mum accuracy. The curve-matching method appcar~ tn
9“”= [l.O~(O-OO1 )(0.5 )(88;5j (30.4 )”]’”i” ‘328 B0pM”
be superior 10 other hyperbolic decline analysis mwhods
Given an economic limit on the producing rate. the
now commonly used. However. a reasonable amount o
remaining life and reserves of a lease can be calculated decline-curve work must bc anticipated to juslify prepara-
simply. Assume that the remaining life and reserves of the
tion of the basic curves.
subject lease are to be estimated as of July, 1942, if the
ecorlomic limit is 300 BOPM. First calculating the remain- Rcfcrenccs
ing life from I =0 according to Eq. 3, 1, Arps, J. J.: Trwn.s.,AltllE ( 1945) Vol. 160, 228-247.
... 1.800 2. Arps, J. J.: Treas., AIME (1956) Vol. 207, 182-t 91.
—-— -—— ——. 3, Brous. Folkerl: ““Cn the Use and Misuse of Production De
30”= ~-+-(o.oo] )(o.5)(30.4) (f,,,.,,,,,, )]wuJ
cline CLwves’”.Pdper 801-39E, API ( 1963).
I = 230 months from I -= O, or 230 – 16.5 = 213.5 months 4. Campbell, John L!,: Oil Propwry E\wlwrion, Prentice-Hall,
from July, 1942. inc., lnglewood Cliffs. N. J. ( 1959) 177-208.
To calculate the reserves as of July, 1942, first calculate 5. Chatas. A. T. and Yan!iie, W. W., Jr.: Trwm., AIME ( 1958)
the reserves from I = O and deduct the production from vol. 213, 399-401,
r =0 to July, 1942, which will be considered as 23,000 6. Cutler, W. W., Jr.: “Estimatiun of .Unsfergmunsi Oil Reserve
by Well Production Curves’”, Ba/1.. USBM (1924) 2?K
bbl. Using Eq. 4,
7. Gray, K. E.: “Constant Percentage Decline Curve”, Oil w?
(;a.$ J. ( Aug. 20, 1960).
IN, = -———
(1 - o.5:;:L-(703”i [(1,800)’”- (30”)1.:.] 8, Gray, K. E.: “HOW to Analyze Yearly Production Data fo
= 70,000 bbl.’ - ‘ ‘ Constant Percent Decline”, Oil and Gas J. (Jan. 1, 1962).
Reserves as of July, 1942 = 70,000 – 23,000 = 47,000 9. Pirson, S. J.: “Production Decline Curve of Oil Well May
Be Extrapolated by Loss-Ratio”, Oil cud Gas J. (Nov. 14
bbl.
1935).
Space does not permit a mathematical analysis of the H. C. SLIDER
example data using other published methods, However. OHIO STATE U.,COLU M BUS,OHIO

You might also like