SPE 120737

A Rapid and Efficient Production Analysis Method for Unconventional &
Conventional Gas Reservoirs
C.L. Jordan, SPE, BOE Solutions; C.R. Smith, SEMCams; and R. Jackson, SPE, BOE Solutions

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 4–6 August 2009.

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
Currently, there is an industry assortment of production analysis methods ranging from traditional decline and type curve
matching to rate-pressure normalization techniques and detailed production history matching. Yet despite its many
limitations, conventional decline analysis is still commonly used in gas (and oil) production analysis due to its minimal data
requirements and ease of application (regardless that without modification the method cannot be used to estimate reservoir
properties or formation damage). As a result, this paper presents an automated computer method for estimating original gas-
in-place and other reservoir flow parameter for conventional and unconventional gas reservoirs. This procedure overcomes
the limitations of convention decline in which the analyst must properly select the type of decline to avoid erroneous
forecasts, as well as more exotic methods requiring iterative computational procedures.

Onshore and offshore case studies and examples presented in this paper will demonstrate that a modified decline and
production analysis procedure will allow for proper identification of flow regimes, reliable evaluation of drainage area and
OGIP, and the prediction of future deliverability and depletion. Case studies will also show that up-scaled and aggregate
reservoir properties can provide a real measure of gas well deliverability and therefore a simpler, time-efficient model
analysis can be used. Data uncertainty, PVT error, stimulation appraisal, gas storage system (free or complex mechanisms
such as absorbed gas) and other factors will be discussed in the context of the case studies, and general reservoir
management.

When used appropriately, the approach is generally accurate and robust enough that it can provide valuable information in
circumstances of poor data quality. Finally, the procedure is extremely simple and can be implemented in desktop
applications or spreadsheets with minimal computational effort.

Introduction
Decline curve analysis has been used worldwide (particularly for single phase fluid flow) for forecasting future production
from oil and gas fields since Arps [1945] formularized the technique during the 1940’s. Allegedly, the procedure can be
applied to production data for any reservoir drive or mechanism, and has been shown to be suitable for both vertical and
horizontal wells [Dou et al. 2009]. Fetkovich [1968] actually established guidelines about how decline curvature can indicate
different reservoir systems. However, despite its simplicity (and limitations of constant flowing pressure and fluid
properties), analysts typically want more information without having to incur more time consuming and costly processes; for
example, they are interested in reservoir permeability, formation damage (wellbore skin), and original fluid-in-place (OFIP)
in addition to expected ultimate recovery (EUR) generated from conventional decline. Furthermore, there is a desire to use
the aforementioned information to generate production forecasts, and evaluate varying operating conditions such as
compression.

As result, Fetkovich [1968] later proposed a substantial improvement in decline curve analysis by matching production data
onto specialized type curves for reservoir characterization: the procedure (which is a powerful diagnostic tool), used the Arps
depletion stems to analyze boundary dominated flow, and the van Everdingen and Hurst [1949] constant pressure type curves
for transient production. Al-Hussiany et al. [1966] later improved type curve analysis by addressing the effects of pressure
dependant gas properties viscosity and supercompressibility through the use of pseudo-pressure, while Agarwal [1979]
presented a pseudo-time function for incorporating pressure dependant properties gas viscosity and compressibility.

Modern methods such as those of Blasingame et al. [1991] and Argawal-Gardner [ 1998] are similar to Fetkovich in that they
use type curves for production data analysis (PDA). However, they are independent of production constraints and use
flowing pressure data, combined with analytical solutions, to evaluate hydrocarbons-in-place. Another highly popular

2 SPE 120737

method is the flowing material balance (FMB): a procedure in which variable rate-pressure data can be normalized for a
linear extrapolation to fluids-in-place [Mattar and Anderson, 2003]. Other procedures use tangent methods for evaluating
original gas-in-place (OGIP) based on the superposition of pseudo-steady-state (PSS) time functions. In general, the modern
methods (as summarized by Matter and Anderson [ 2003]) improve upon traditional techniques by normalizing variable rate-
pressure data, and handling non-linear fluid properties. These methods have become very popular and can even compete
with traditional well tests which provide many of the reservoir flow parameters (assuming suitable data is available), and
have been demonstrated to work for both conventional and unconventional gas systems including tight gas and shale gas
[Khasanov, Kransnov and Guk, 2008; Mattar, Gault, et al., 2008].

On the other hand, despite the power of modern production data analysis methods, they generally deviate from the general
work flow process and lose the simplicity that keeps the Arps decline popular: in short, economic constraints and timing of
projects prevent analysts from performing more advanced analysis. For example, a number of factors, including time to
reach pseudo-radial flow and the desire to maximize daily production, have made operators tend to decrease the number of
well tests performed [Khasanov, Kransnov and Guk, 2008]. Therefore, after acknowledging that the analyst should always
use all of the data at their disposal to develop an understanding of the production scenario [Blasingame, 2003], there is a need
for functionality comparable to the aforementioned advanced decline methods, but in a process similar to Arps decline.

To continue, given the problems generally associated with production data including poor resolution of rate measurements, or
even lack of backpressure measurements, a rigorous analysis method is not always possible. And as noted by Anderson et
al. [2006], production data often does not contain the quality nor the frequency sufficient to produce estimates of reservoir
flow parameters such as unique combinations of permeability and skin. For reservoirs with a moderate to high permeability,
Anderson et al. [2006] stated that one should not expect to be able to estimate permeability etc. with confidence based on
monthly production rates and pressures (although monthly production data may be sufficient for wells in low permeability
reservoirs where transient flow exists for months). Although the basic theory is the same for pressure transient analysis
(PTA) and rate transient analysis (RTA), each methodology is appropriate only is its own domain: RTA tends to provide less
quality and/or accuracy than PTA, but can be utilized to provide a full life cycle analysis [Mattar et al., 2008].

Recently, Muhammad Buba [2003], following the work of Knowles [1990], presented a summary of semi-analytic identities
and plotting functions which can be used to extrapolate or estimate OGIP using only production data (qg and Gp) without a
prior knowledge of formation and/or fluid compressibility, or even average reservoir pressure. However, the work
presented by Muhammad Buba [2003] and Knowles [1990] required atypical plotting functions and plots, and fell into the
category of advanced production analysis. Yet, an evaluation of the relationship (referred to as the BK model for simplicity)
shows that it can be re-arranged for a rapid evaluation of OGIP without deviating significantly from Arps decline method.
Specifically, the analyst performs the traditional decline process, and obtains the initial decline rate (qgi) of the Arps decline,
which is used by the BK model to provide OGIP as a function of time. Once OGIP and qgi are obtained, the procedure can be
modified (and automated) to produce either actual (or effective) reservoir parameters for rapid rate forecasting, with
applications to both conventional and unconventional gas. The integration of an automated reservoir model into the decline
process would ideally help remove some of the uncertainty associated with other modern PDA methods, as it is generally
accepted that if a good history match is achieved, it can be used as a proxy (or analog) for estimating future performance. In
the majority of this work, a “tank” model has been coupled to the BK model for history matching as it does not require any
complex coding of functions such as pseudo-time [Hager, Brown and Jones, 2001]. Generally, the objective is to balance
speed and accuracy of the analysis method.

As implied above, the modeling process in this work is capturing an analog reservoir which can be used for forecasting. As a
result, deviations in actual versus effective permeability will manifest themselves as errors in transient periods, but long-term
production forecasting will be reliable. Nonetheless, it has been shown that a simpler model reservoir model (a single well
completed in the centre of a circular reservoir) can be used to represent a far more complex reservoir system and still provide
representative reservoir characterization and accurate production forecasting. Jordan et al. [ 2006] empirically showed (using
synthetically generated data) that radial composite reservoirs, dual porosity reservoirs, and other complex scenarios could be
effectively reduced to an equivalent radial homogeneous (ERH) system with accurate reserves, using an equivalent effective
permeability (EEP). Most of the aforementioned work by Jordan et al. [2006] was based on introducing permeability
calculations into the popular a) “rate-cumulative production type curves” introduced by Argawal and Gardner [1998], as well
as b) “normalized rate-time plots” introduced by Ibrahim and others (Ibrahim 2004; Ibrahim, Wattenbarger and Helmy, 2003;
Ibrahim et al. 2003] whose objective was to linearize variable rate-pressure data to the equivalent single rate or constant
pressures cases and then evaluate OGIP. This procedure can also be justified in that despite SCADA systems, there is many
times still a lack of proper pressure recording/measurements required for the proper adaptation of modern PDA methods
[Mattar et al. 2008].

In short, the procedure will result in an effective permeability for many cases as the rate model assumes a vertical well fully
penetrating a producing zone within a circular bounded reservoir. Given the averaging effect of production data analysis,

Using the effective values.e. erratic data sets and data smoothing. An initial rate (qgi) of 30. Volumetrically.SPE 120737 3 non-unique matches.3 md. permeability and net pay) in a manner similar to that suggested by Toh [1997].05 to 21 md. reservoir temperature at 212 oF. and gas gravity at 0. production rate.4 Bcf as shown in Figure 4. it is anticipated that the less rigorous approach used in this paper will be justified. drainage area etc. as the Arps decline is performed. 1995]. as well as OGIP without having to deviate significantly away from traditional Arp’s decline Theory & Definitions The BK model (outlined in Appendix A) is simply a quadratic equation relating OGIP to production rate and pressure.e. zero permeability and porosity in the hole). Basically. The modification to these processes produced an equivalent permeability as suggested by Toh [1997] who using numerical simulation showed that random permeability fields could be represented by an average effective permeability during pseudo- steady state which was generally equal to the geometric mean permeability).000 x 10. Using the BK model. Incidentally. respectively. the popular FMB provided a permeability estimate of 16.7. and OGIP/permeability results while Figure 3 shows the history matching results (including the NPI type curve match [Blasingame et al. and finally material balance is not simply a quadratic relationship.1 to 18 m) respectively with average values of about 5. The internal boundary model assumes a 640 Acre reservoir with a 72 Acre hole (i. to improve the successful use of the model. Toh [1997] made a general statement that the depletion performance of all reservoirs with randomly distributed heterogeneity (and 88% of reservoirs) with sectional permeability fields can be predicted with an equivalent homogeneous reservoir.5 md and an OGIP of 5. it is recommended that the analyst evaluates the OGIP trend established from a series of data measurements and that the results be used in conjunction with a simultaneous Arps decline and production model. Figure 1 shows a reservoir schematic of the internal boundary system. In the next example.5 MMscf/d was used to achieve the matches. the OGIP was estimated to be approximately 85 to 86 Bcf as shown in Figure 6. And since most production and pressure transient methods “see” the reservoir as a volume average set of properties [Blasingame.3 md and 10. 1986]. 1966].1 m. while a history match is generated based on a tank (or other) model. a forecast was generated using an “internal boundary” model assuming a constant sandface pressure (100 psia) using pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time [Al- Hussiany and Ramey.4 Bcf with a reservoir permeability of 20 md. Using FMB.. and that it was generally equal to the geometric mean permeability.2 m (refer to Figure 5). the examples in this work illustrates the ability to extract an effective productivity index (or permeability.000 ft.3 and 59 ft (0. a suitable production history match was achieved as shown in Figure 8.1 MMscf/d was used to achieve the matches. The reservoir was set to a square with sides of about 10. an OGIP curve is automatically calculated (drainage radius. Horne and Sageev. An initial rate (qgi) of 14. This implies that the OGIP can be determined directly from standard flowing data recognizing that 1) cumulative production. The assumed net pay was 9. For analysis. and other relevant parameters such as permeability are automatically extracted). The BK model provided an OGIP of 5. the procedure is applied to random rock properties (i. and 0. the OGIP and effective permeability was evaluated as shown in Figures 7. 1989]). In short. Figure 2 provides the Arp’s Decline. Gao and Yang. Data & Results: Simulated Examples Internal Boundary Based on the work of Horne and Sageev [1983. Ultimately. and 2) one should not attempt to rely solely on the identity for calculation of OGIP from one individual data point [Buba. values for permeability and net pay were varied from 0. there is not necessarily a need for more detailed modeling and that a bounded radial .4 Bcf.Knowles. For comparison. with the calculated average (effective) values to be 85 Bcf and 8. similar work by Toh [1997] who evaluated the depletion performance of heterogeneous reservoirs (based on production analysis of geostatistical models) indicated that an equivalent effective permeability (EEP) could generally be observed. the reservoir has an OGIP of 5. 1990]. the analyst solely adjusts the initial decline rate (qgi) until a linear zero slope of both OGIP and permeability trend is achieved alongside a reasonable production match. and that it remained generally constant throughout time. 2003]. Random Heterogeneity Using an evenly distributed random number generator. This procedure can be compared to the well recognized and established methods which generate productivity indices as a measure flowing capacity based on production and rate data analysis [Yang. 2003.000 psia. as well as the tank model for gas production modeling.). flowing pressure. and an effective permeability estimate of 10 to 16 md (depending on whether P2/z2 or pseudo-pressure is used) which provided a suitable history match despite although the calculated permeability is lower than the true reservoir permeability of 20 md. Initial pressure was set to 5. the BK model is tied to both Arps decline. As a result.

Finally. Once the procedure is modified for absorbed gas.3 psia. After a number of simulations runs. [2006] does suggest the method is suitable to sectionally homogenous reservoirs (i. indicating a value of 19 md (the FMB assumes an average net pay of 19 ft). reservoir temperature at 212 oF. net pay at 76 ft.4 SPE 120737 homogeneous model may be suitable even if heterogeneity exists in a number of forms. Figure 11 shows the Arp’s decline analysis. work by Yang et al. respectively. Random Heterogeneity Incorporating Structure Similar to the previous example. The corresponding history match is shown in Figure 21. it was found that the difference in the definition of pressure between Eqn (1) and Eqn (9) can sometimes manifest itself into serious permeability calculation errors. as well as a cross-section of the pool showing the variation in formation top and thickness. and 13 to 33 md. The flowing pressure was 362. As shown in Figure 15.. Ireland (Chu.]. the formation top was set to increase approximately 422 over a distance of 14.7. [1995] states that equivalent or effective values determined from productivity equations in heterogeneous systems can act as a soft input for numerical simulation. In this example. while Figure 12 shows the calculated OGIP and effective permeability. Similarly. Therefore. Langmuir pressure.200 psia. 2007]) confirmed the OGIP to be 1. Langmuir Volume were set to 0. Unconventional Gas Systems It is important to note that in order to adapt the proposed procedure to unconventional gas.000 ft in the north east direction.2 MMscf/d.e. In the following examples.5 md was generated using a numerical simulator. The rate history match (and NPI type curve) is shown in Figure 18. Eqn (9) uses the concept of pseudo-pressure whereas the Eqn (1) uses an approximate form of pseudo-pressure defined as P/z. the OGIP was estimated to be 23.3%. the appropriate material balance must be employed for the system under consideration. Cleat porosity. [Clarkson and McGovern n. an evenly distributed random number was used to generate values for net pay and permeability varying from 30 to 105 ft. FMB (which was also modified to account for adsorpted gas [Clarkson et al. Toh’s [1997] results also suggested that the EEP does may not always perform appropriately for highly heterogeneous reservoirs with the well completed in a high permeability zone. the work presented by Jordan et al. Using FMB. Figure 9 shows the net pay and permeability maps for this system. As suggested by the analysis. respectively (not shown). A random permeability example that incorporates structure is shown in the next section. For example. the average OGIP is about 25 Bcf. respectively.100 md. It is interesting to note that the measured gas rates and BHP are not entirely representative of a constant pressure condition the BK model is robust enough to provide reasonable estimates of OGIP and proxy forecasting parameters. a major gas accumulation in the Celtic Sea. the BK model can then be applied to unconventional gas systems. Again. Additionally. and gas gravity at 0.. a low pressure gas system (Pi = 600 psia). while the effective permeability for this system is only marginally below 20 md. to include absorded and free gas. porosity at 22. Figure 13 shows the rate history match using the results from the BK Model. and with a low reservoir permeability of 0. Data & Results: Field Examples Ballycotton Well: Gas production data was taken from the Ballycotton Field. 661 psia.5 BCF and 0.554. Specifically. for CBM problems Eqn (10) was used to calculate permeability.5 md. average OGIP was determined to be 38 Bcf (Figure 20).d. the permeability calculation is obtained using Eqn (10) of Appendix 1. Based on these results.5 Bcf in Figure 16. while Figure 14 shows the corresponding Blasingame and NPI type curves.3%. . a 50 yr rate forecast was generated using a bottomhole pressure of 100 psia. In this example. Initial reservoir pressure was set at 1. Initial pressure was set to 1160 psia. respectively. or King [1993] should be used. and permeability was estimated to be about 109 . unconventional gas field problems are addressed.6 Bcf as shown in Figure 10. triple zone composite reservoirs). The results from the BK model are shown in Figure 17 which indicates OGIP and effective permeability to be about 1. gas gravity abd reservoir temperature was set to 0. the material balance method outlined by Clarkson et al. Figure 19 shows a plot of the measured gas and flowing bottom hole pressures. respectively (with average values both at 19). formation temperature at 120 oF. which is common in shale and CBM gas systems. Fleming and Caroll 2000). and 250 scf/ton.554 and 120oF. Using the BK model and an initial rate (qgi) of 53. and gas gravity at 0.

41. gas gravity.006 md. again by linking the tank model to the Arps decline and the BK model. Average net pay. 3.747.2 MMscf/d over a period of 5 years Figure 24 shows the measured gas rates and the associated decline line. Following the BK methodology (Figure 28). the two best fits reported by the authors were that of the linear homogeneous closed reservoir and radial transient dual porosity closed reservoir providing an OGIP ranging from 6.65. flowing material balance).1 Bcf.SPE 120737 5 Tight Gas Well J7 Wattenbarger et al. [1998]. The results also indicated fracture half-length to be approximately 130 – 150 ft (which equivalent to a skin about -6.9 ft.2 Acres) and roughly equal to an OGIP of about 1. Based on these methods. The well was hydraulically fractured and had been producing for nearly 23 years. one of which was J7. Permeability was estimated to be 0.5 acres. both the results from type curve analysis and normalized decline (i. while flowing pressure was about 20 psia. Figure 25 shows the results from the BK model which provides an average OGIP of approximately 1.33 g/cm3. Finally. and reservoir temp are 49. 47%. it was hydraulically fractured with approximately 470. water saturation. 1991]. this data set could be treat as purely a tight gas example as opposed to an absorbed gas example. Although the calculated permeability is high compared to the results from the original analysis. 15 %. was drilled and completed in the latter part of 1985 [GRI. a wellbore skin (-1. an early Barnett Shale gas well. the results indicate an OGIP of 1. but declined to about 0. it is an effective permeability for the matrix and wellbore fracture combined and provides a reasonable history match as shown in Figure 26 (Appendix B outlines the relationship between real and equivalent effective permeability). and reservoir temperature of 4.55.000 psia while the flowing bottomhole pressure has been relatively constant at 200 psia throughout the life of the well. and 192 oF respectively.000 psia. Drainage radius was estimated to be approximately 200-300 ft (28.8 – 1. Flowing type curve and buildup pressure analysis.9 %. coal density was 1. Initial pressure was 8. 0. and 67 oF respectively. and that the equivalent radial model is suitable. porosity.4 Bcf. Upon completion. .1 Bcf (which is slightly lower than the reported results).1 g/cm3. net pay.2%. A review of the production history match indicated that the results were generally suitable (Figure 23). Nonetheless. The original work indicated an initial pressure. data is taken from a multiple layer problem in the Horseshoe Canyon coals of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin [Clarkson. indicated an effective permeability of about 7.e. It is obvious that the early transient time is not matched as the well is stimulated and the parameter has not been incorporated into the analysis.9 – 7.010 md.9 Bcf (a drainage radius of about 345 ft which is slightly higher than that presented by Lewis [2007]) and an effective permeability of about 0. 2008]. Shale density was estimated to be 2. and produced commingled. and an average drainage area of 40 to 48 Acres (refer to Figure 22). 0. respectively. given the low amount of absorbed gas (i. and finally an OGIP of 152 MMscfd. and 290 oF respectively. including type-curve analysis with pseudo-time. and an extracted permeability of 0. do not show significant transient data suitable to extracting detailed near wellbore flow characteristics.4. the low gas content) in the Barnett Shale example. with an effective permeability of about 0.1).000 lb and 20/40 mesh sand. and reservoir temp were 92 ft. gas gravity. respectively (shale density was not provided and assumed to be 1. Monthly production rates and fluid/rock properties are the only data available. 32 months Barnett shale gas production data (refer to Figure 27) was obtained from an unnamed well previously evaluated by Lewis et al.005 md and OGIP to be 1.4) to (+0. and 180 o F. Performing production data analysis using PROMATTM. Incidentally. The individual coals are low rank (sub-bituminous) seams and were N2 stimulated. gas saturation. porosity. 433 ft. Average net pay.3 g/cc).2 md. After a number of simulation runs and regressing on model parameters. Barnett Shale Wells Stella Young 4. Rates were initially high at 2 MMscf/d.e. Initial reservoir pressure was estimated to be 4. 0. as well as others presented an analysis of tight gas wells from a field in South Texas.1 Bcf (unique combinations of permeability and skin could not be resolved in the original work). water saturation.2). Langmuir parameters VL and PL were 89 scf/ton and 635 psia. porosity.000 gal of gel and 875.1 %. Bustin and Seidle. gas gravity. the original study estimated permeability to be approximately 0. and reservoir temp were 184 ft. the data indicated a drainage radius of 300 ft which equated to 1.009 md. performed by the original analysts. Although the original work suggested the ability to extract dual porosity and/or layered results from the type curve analysis (Figure 30). Horseshoe Canyon (HSC) Coal Gas In this example. a suitable production history match was obtained automatically. Average net pay. 5%. 0. For a more recent example. Langmuir isotherm values PL and VL were estimated to be 400 psia and 40 scf/ton. The BK model provided an initial OGIP of approximately 4.003 to 0. 100%.02 md. FMB analysis (Figure 29) suggested a value more comparable to Lewis’s work.3 to 9.800 psia.1 Bcf with a drainage area of 24. using advanced PDA methods. cleat porosity. Initial reservoir pressure was low at 86 psia.

the BK model is adapted such that rates and cumulative production is based on total pool rates. The process is also assumes that the data does exhibit traditional constant pressure decline (the method is highly comparable to conventional decline with respect to the limitation of constant BHP). and reservoir temp were 100 ft. Las Vegas. and D had constant BHP of 1000. coding and implementation in spreadsheets or other desktop tools is easily accomplished. Diagnostics. It is understood that these linearization methods presented were developed under the assumption that PSS flow exists (permeability. The primary impact of multiphase production in gas wells is in the wellbore.6 SPE 120737 Figure 31 shows the raw data. The assumption of single-phase production in the reservoir is. the production analog can be based on “tank” type models as heterogeneity and similar anomalies are assimilated through the EEP – although. wellbore skin. D. Reservoir permeability was 10 md. 1966: 624-636.65. Initial reservoir pressure was 5. Blasingame. "Analyzing Well Production Data Using Combined Type Curve and Decline Curve Concepts. Assuming PSS. D. as well as abnormally pressure systems. "'Real Gas Pseudo-Time' . Once the OGIP for the pool is evaluated. W. while pressures are evaluated at the well level. the method appears to be robust and able to tolerate a small deviation from a non-constant BHP condition. . Jr. then permeability for each well is calculated according to Eqn (9) or (10) based on well rates and flowing pressures. water saturation. SPE 57916. A review of the BK model in Figure 32 provided an OGIP of 150- 170 MMscf. 2006]. porosity. Anderson. in most cases. and an average effective permeability of 10-15 md (assuming zero skin)." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 24-27 September 2006. respectively. some non-volumetric effects. References Agarwal. As indicated in the theory section of Appendix A. Also. SPE 102048. given the simplicity of the approach. "Application of Real Gas Flow Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting. The reservoir was kept circular (refer to Figure 30) with the four wells spaced asymmetrically throughout the reservoir. The procedure can be applied to both conventional and unconventional gas systems. and D. and H.5 Bcf (i. Stotts. and the Arps decline match. G. G. W. and 120oF. a four well pool (refer to Figure 34) with an OGIP of 159. Errors in reservoir parameters such as initial pressure and formation temperature appear to have minimal impact on the calculated OGIP. there is no reason why the procedure cannot be automated using a coupled transient-PSS model incorporating pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time. Wells A. Essentially this procedure results in “j” OGIP and permeability curves for a pool with “j” wells. New Orleans. L. The BK Analysis. is shown in Figure 35. similar to all analytical methods. B. 23-26 September 1979. D. Nonetheless. the methodology presented in this paper does make certain simplifying assumptions about production data analysis. 1025. such as water-drive and interference among multiple wells can be handled effectively using influence functions (e. net pay. this analysis was performed using the modified BK model. The associated history match is shown in Figure 33." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.e. C. are not so interchangeable during transient flow periods). it does assume single phase volumetric reservoir behavior. Kleinsteiber. Agarwal. also considered valid especially for gas wells (as gas compressibility dominates the material balance).g. long-term deliverability and productivity is generally of more concern than transient or flush production. A. 980. 0. J. Ramey. Multi Well Examples In order to evaluate production data from multiple wells simultaneously.. R. Mattar. G. and obtain OGIP for a pool (as opposed to the individual wells stabilized drainage area). S. For example." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 27-30 September 1998." JPT. R. Gardner.A New Function for Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells. SPE 8279. San Antonio.. Pitfalls. C.. Nevada.J. Blasingame type curves have a multi well feature that can accommodate and account for interference effects). Of course. and 1000 psia respectively. Fenniak and Smith.. which linked to production modeling. M. However. "Production Data Analysis . Net pay. R. as well as the total rate history. D. 0%. Fussell. However. where special care must be taken to ensure that the pressure loss from surface to bottomhole conditions is estimated correctly. Conclusions The BK model.000 psia.Challenges. IIk. Al-Hussiany. and T. In this example. etc. is fairly robust can provide a reasonable estimate of OGIP and an analog model for effective equivalent permeability (EEP) and/or effective drainage radius. a drainage area of 640 Acres) was created using an analytical simulator [Jordan. gas gravity.

CIPC 2003-12.. Seidle. California. "Type-Curve Analysis Using the Pressure Integral Method. "Reservoir Parameters Evalaution Based on Production Data Analysis. GRI Topical Report: Contract No. Analysis and Production of Well Test Data from Barnett Shale Wells Operated by Mitchell Energy Corporation. May 2008. Ibrahim. and W. GRI.. Calgary. M. 2000. Bakersfield. SPE 100313. T. Fenniak. and V. History Matching Pressure Response Functions From Production Data. Calgary.. and W. Colorado. J. Blasingame. 1945: 228-247. Denver. P. 2006. Venezula. A. 2009: 68-78. SPE 15585." SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium. M. 21-23 May 2001. Calgary.. A New Tool for Unconventional Reservoir Exploration and Development Applications." SPE Gas Technology Symposium. R.. Denver. R. SPE 21513. Seidle. Alberta. R. Bustin. and C. "Analysis of Reservoir Peformance: Introduction. Wattenbarger. M. H.. M. and A. F. Blasingame. A. Fetkovitch. November 13. Gierhart. J.Sc. and J. Fleming. "Interference Testing: Detecting an Impermeable or Compressible Region. and J. Calgary. C. "Case Studies: A Practical Approach to Gas-Production Analysis and Forecasting. Kransnov.. M. 15-17. L." Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Smith. "Analysis & Comparison of Decline Models: A Field Case Study for the Intercampo Oil Field. Alberta. Jordan. 5086-213-1446. SPE 99352." Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference . 2004. M. McCray. and W. J. Ph." SPE Reservoir Engineering. Khasanov.. C. Ibrahim. 2003. Development and Verification of New Semi-Analytical Methods for the Analysis and Prediction of Gas Well . "Analyzing Flowing Production Data with Standard Pressure Transient Methods. "An Efficient Model for Gas Rate Forecasting in Complex Reservoirs. H. February 1993: 67-72. "Decline Curve Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flow Rate Systems. Jones." JPT. T. Guk. A. R.SPE 120737 7 Arps." Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Texas A&M University. Chu. R. Offshore Ireland. Helmy. Brown. M. "Analysis of Decline Curves.. Ibrahim. Lee. GRI. Caroll. Colordao. Blasingame.. 28-30 October 2008. R. SPE 84286. May 2006. Buba. Horne. and J. Smith. W. Internal Document. SPE 59791." Gas Technology Symposium . M. College Station: Texas A&M Thesis. 23-24 January 1991. Lee. I." CIPC 2003. C. et al. Wattenbarger. R. Clarkson.D Thesis. 1986. 15-17. R. Alberta. M..." Gas Technology Symposium. Sageev. Clarkson. Clarkson. "Production Data Analysis of Single Phase (Gas) CBM Wells. S. T. SPE 18799. Alberta.New Methods. and W. Moscow. Keystone. L.. J. G. L.. AIME. J. R." Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium. A. 2003. 2007. M. L. "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves. T. V. J. King. Direct Estimation of Gas Reserves Using Production Data. C. SPE 107705. 2003. "Production Data Analysis of CBM Wells. Dou. and J. Calgary." Gas Technology Symposium. M. Knowles. L. "Material-Balance Techniques for Coal-Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs with Limited Water Influx." California Regional Meeting . C. Colordao. J. and K." Trans. R.. Hager. McGovern. Jordan. R. "Determination of OGIP for Tight Gas Wells . August 1991. C. SPE 117406." Course Notes: PE 663. C. R." SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference in Moscow. C." SPE Reservoir Evaluation and ENgineering. Jordan. Russia. Alberta. 1989. College Station: Texas A&M Thesis. Johnston. C.. T. J. "Determination of Original Gas-In-Place in Bally Cotton. March 1968: 1065-1077. Burlington Resources. Helmy. SPE 71033. "Determination of OGIP for Wells in Pseudo-Steady State: Old Techniques. New Approaches. New Orleans. Fenniak. SPE 99351. P. N. and M. R. A. 2003.

SPE 119897. and M. "Production Analysis and Forecasting of Shale Gas Reservoirs: Case History-Based Approach. A. Thesis. 1949: 306-324. MMscfd rw = wellbore radius. College Station: Texas A&M University . M. Stanford University. College Station: Texas A&M University. md OGIP = Initial Gas-In-Place. dimensionless tf = formation/reservoir temperature.8 SPE 120737 Peformance. Yang. dimensionless Greek Variables ψ wf = Wellbore flowing pseudo-pressure. Fort Worth.. psia Pwf = Flowing BHP. SPE 84472. Sageev. Louisiana State University . and W. 1997. M. R. A. ft s = Skin. Lewis. PhD Thesis. L." Rocky Mountain Regional Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium." Trans. md keff = Reservoir permeability. Geothermal Program Interdisciplinary Research Report.. Dallas. A. Y. "Production Analysis of Linear Flow into Fractured Tight Gas Wells. and A Yang. Toh. Villegas." SPE Shale Gas Production Conference.. Pressure Transient Analysis of Reservoirs with Linear or Internal Circular Boundaries (SGP-TR-65). 2007.. "Application of Well Production Data to Reservoir Characterization. E. psia qgi = Arps Initial gas rate. Gao. S. A. The Depletion Performance of Hetergensous Reservoirs. 1995. ft re = reservoir radius. A. "A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced Analysis of Production Data. L. MSc Thesis. Nomenclature Greek Variables a = Quadratic equation variable b = Arps decline exponent. 16-18 November 2008. M. van Everdingen. "Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs. Production Data Analysis of Shale Gas Reservoirs. Mattar. 1983. H. psia/cp2 . et al. Denver. Anderson. 5-8 October 2003. and D. psia/cp2 ψi = Initial Reservoir Pseudo-pressure. MMscf k = Reservoir permeability. April 1998. SPE 33931. El-Banbi. 1990. oF/oR z = z-factor.Sc. qg = Gas Rate." Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. F. Hurst.. Colordao. Wattenbarger. AIME.. H." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Mattar. dimensionless b = Quadratic equation variable C1 = Constant for PSS equation c = Quadratic equation variable Di = Arps constant (initial decline rate) Gp = Gas producced. Denver. 5-8. SPE 30708. USA. Texas. BCF Pi = Initial Reservoir Pressure.

b. and (A-5) shown below. 1 (2 ⋅η ± 2 ⋅ (η + η ⋅ qg −η ⋅ qgi ) )G p 2 0. (A-4). solving for OGIP can now be easily accomplished as shown in (A-6). presented the semi-analytic “quadratic rate-cumulative production” relation as shown in (A-1).5 (A-6) OGIP = 2 (qgi − qg ) 1 qgi η= 2 ⎛ ⎡ pwf ⎤ 2 ⎞ (A-7) ⎜ ⎟ ⎜1 − ⎢ zwf ⎥ ⎟ ⎜ ⎢ pi ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎢ zi ⎥ ⎟⎟ ⎝ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎠ . and c are defined by equations (A-3). and qgi is one of Arps variables as shown in (A-8).SPE 120737 9 APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND THEORY Muhammad Buba [2003] and Knowles [1990]. 2qgi qgi qg = qgi − Gp + G p2 (A-1) ⎡ ⎡ pwf ⎤ 2 ⎤ ⎡ ⎡ pwf ⎤ 2 ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ zwf ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ z wf ⎥ ⎥ ⎢1 − ⎢ ⎥ ⎥OGIP ⎢1 − ⎢ ⎥ ⎥OGIP2 ⎢ ⎢ i p ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ i p ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢⎣ zi ⎥⎦ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢⎣ zi ⎥⎦ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ A general review of (A-1) will show that it is a quadratic equation which can be simplified to (A-2) where a. where “η” is defined as shown in (A-7). q g = c − b(G p / OGIP) + a (G p / OGIP) 2 (A-2) qgiG p2 a= ⎡ ⎡ pwf ⎤ 2 ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ zwf ⎥ ⎥ ⎢1 − ⎢ ⎥ ⎥ (A-3) ⎢ ⎢ pi ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢⎣ zi ⎥⎦ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ 2qgiG p b= ⎡ ⎡ pwf ⎤ 2 ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ zwf ⎥ ⎥ (A-4) ⎢1 − ⎢ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ pi ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎣⎢ zi ⎦⎥ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ c = q gi (A-5) Since (A-2) is a quadratic equation.

Eqn’s (A-6) and (A-11) can be adjusted such that gas rate and cumulative gas produced is based on total pool production rates. the best results for permeability extraction are obtained if (A-9) is modified to (A-10) to be consistent with the definition of normalized pressure in (A-1) (ψ R − ψ wf )k g h qg = (A-9) ⎡ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎤ C1T f ⎢ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − + s ⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎝ w ⎠ r 4 ⎦⎥ ⎛ ⎛ P ⎞2 ⎛ P ⎞ ⎞ 2 (A-10) ⎜ ⎜ R ⎟ − ⎜ wf ⎟k h ⎟ ⎜⎜ z ⎟ ⎜ z ⎟ g⎟ qg = ⎝ ⎝ R ⎠ ⎝ wf ⎠ ⎠ ⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ 3 ⎤ C1T f ⎢ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − + s ⎥ ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎦ For adaptation to coal-gas. pool ) )Gp. This constant accounts for the fact that empirical testing showed that the BK results were typically 60% of the actual OGIP. and (A-14). Assuming that the drainage area of the well is constant during PSS.5 OGIP = = 6 2 (qgi − qg ) 12 (qgi − qg ) (A-11) For adaptation to pool evaluations. pool ) )Gp. (A-13). an estimate of gas permeability (kg) can be calculated if reservoir pressure (material balance) calculations are automated using the average OGIP estimated from (A-6) and the measured field data. testing has shown the best results are obtained when a constant of 10/12 is included in the solution as shown in (A-11). pool 2 0. pool − η ⋅ qgi.5 2 0. However. pool ) . recognizing the PSS relationship in given in (A-9).5 OGIP = (A-13) 12 (qgi. These comments are summarized by Eqn’s (A-12). systems where there is absorbed and fee gas. 1 (2 ⋅η ± 2 ⋅ (η + η ⋅ qg . but flowing pressure (found in “η”) is based on the individual well. Also. an evaluation of OGIP can be automatically evaluated by substituting qgi from (A-8) into (A-6) given knowledge of flowing pressure and initial pressure. 10 1 (2 ⋅η ± 2 ⋅ (η + η ⋅ q g −η ⋅ qgi ) )G p 10 (2 ⋅η ± 2 ⋅ (η + η ⋅ qg −η ⋅ qgi ) )G p 2 0. pool 2 0. (A-6) can be used. pool ) (A-12) 10 (2 ⋅η ± 2 ⋅ (η + η ⋅ qg . However. pool − qg .10 SPE 120737 qgi qg = (A-8) (1 + bDit )1/ b If one performs a traditional decline.5 OGIP = 2 (qgi. pool − η ⋅ qgi. pool − qg. then a relatively linear plot of OGIP should also be produced as function of time.

one takes Eqn (B-1) and equates it to Eqn (B-2).SPE 120737 11 1 q gi. pool η= 2⎛ ⎡p ⎤ ⎞⎟ 2 ⎜ wf . (ψ R − ψ wf )kh qg = (B-1) ⎡ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎤ C1T f ⎢ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − + s ⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎥⎦ (ψ R − ψ wf ) keff h qg = (B-2) ⎡ ⎛ r ⎞ 3⎤ C1T f ⎢ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − ⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎦⎥ k ⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ 3 ⎤ keef = ⎢ln⎜ ⎟ − ⎥ (B-3) ⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ 3 ⎤ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ rw ⎟⎠ 4 ⎥⎦ ⎢ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − + s ⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎦⎥ .welli ⎥ ⎟ (A-14) ⎜1 − ⎢ pi ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎝ ⎢ ⎣ zi ⎦⎥ ⎟⎠ APPENDIX B: EQUIVALENT PERMEABILITY ESTIMATES The procedure outlined in Appendix A describes how to extract an equivalent effective permeability from production data. This procedure assumes that subject well is a vertical well. Eqn (B-3) provides the effective or equivalent effective permeability. To estimate the equivalent effective permeability. completed in the center of homogeneous reservoir. resulting in (B-3). welli ⎜ ⎢ z wf .

12 SPE 120737 Figure 1: Internal Boundary Schematic (NTS) Figure 2: Decline and BK Analysis for Internal Boundary Example .

SPE 120737 13 Figure 3: Production History Match for Internal Boundary Example .

14 SPE 120737 Figure 4: FMB Analysis for Internal Boundary 10.000 ft 10.000 ft Figure 5: Permeability (md) and Net Pay (m) Distributions Figure 6: FMB Analysis for Random Heterogeneity Example .

SPE 120737 15 Figure 7: Decline and BK Analysis for Random Permeability Example .

16 SPE 120737 Figure 8: Decline Analysis and BK Analysis for Internal Boundary Example .

Net Pay.SPE 120737 17 Figure 9: Permeability. and Cross-Section for Structure Example Figure 10: Flowing Material Balance for Structure Example .

18 SPE 120737 Figure 11: Arp’s Decline for Structure Example Figure 12: BK Model Results for Structure Example .

SPE 120737 19 Figure 13: Rate History Match for Structure Example Figure 14: BK Model Results for Structure Example .

20 SPE 120737 Figure 15: Simulated Raw Data for CBM Example Figure 16: FMB for Simulated CBM Example .

SPE 120737 21 Figure 17: OGIP and Permeaibility Results for Simulated CBM Example Figure 18: Rate History Match and NPI Type Curve for Simulated CBM Example .

22 SPE 120737 Figure 19: Raw Data for Offshore Example Figure 20: OGIP Analysis for Offshore Example Figure 21: Rate History Match for Offshore Example .

and History Match for J7 Figure 23: Rate History Match & Type Curve for J7 . OGIP Analysis.SPE 120737 23 Figure 22: Raw Data.

24 SPE 120737 Figure 24: Raw Data and Decline Match for Stella Young 4 Figure 25: OGIP and Permeability Analysis for Stella Young 4 Figure 26: History Match for Stella Young 4 .

SPE 120737 25 Figure 27: Raw Data for Lewis Barnett Shale Example Figure 28: OGIP and Permeability Analysis for Lewis Barnett Shale Example .

26 SPE 120737 Figure 29: FMB Analysis for Lewis Barnett Shale Example Figure 30: History Match & NPI Typecurve for Lewis Barnett Shale Example .

SPE 120737 27 Figure 31: Raw Data And Decline Match for HSC Example Figure 32: OGIP and Permeability Analysis for HSC Example Figure 33: History Match for HSC Example .

28 SPE 120737 re = 2978.9 ft Figure 34: Reservoir Schematic for Multi-Well Example Figure 35: OGIP and Permeability Analysis for Multi-Well Example .