Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PETROLEUM SOCIETY
CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM
Material-Balance-Time During
Linear and Radial Flow
D.M. Anderson, L. Mattar
Fekete Associates, Inc.
This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2003, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 10 – 12, 2003. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the
technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for
publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.
2
pD = ptD .......................................................................(1) Equation (7) indicates that material-balance-time is
double the actual time during pure linear flow.
Substituting (7) into (5), we get:
1
qD = 1/ pD †
= ...........................................................(2)
ptD p2
tDr = tDmb = 1.23tDmb ..................................................(8)
The constant pressure solution3 is: 8
†
3
using logarithmic superposition time. Here, we present
3.90086 + 2.02623t Dp (ln t Dp - 1) both synthetic and field examples.
qD =
t D (ln t Dp )
2
Synthetic Data Examples
For each synthetic example, two cases are
tDp>200 .............................. (10) investigated:
For any given q D, the ratio of t Dr to t Dp can be A) Smoothly varying rate profile and
determined by solving the (9) and (10) simultaneously. B) Discontinuous rate profile
Unlike the linear flow case, the ratio does not remain
For all cases, the following parameters are used; gas
constant for radial flow, but approaches unity as time
reservoir (hence pseudo-pressure (Y) is used instead of
increases (see inset of Figure 1(b)
pressure):
For very small values of tD, the ratio of t Dr to t Dp
approaches that of linear flow (2.46). At a tD of 25, which pi = 20,000 kPa
is the approximate start of practical logarithmic radial h = 10 m
flow, the ratio is about 1.6 (60 % correction). Although
porosity = 20 %
this seems significant, Figure 1(b) shows that graphically,
the two solutions are practically indistinguishable for sw = 0 %
values of tD larger than 25.
For each of these cases, a comparison has been
As Figure 2(b) indicates, the use of material-balance- generated between a diagnostic plot created using the
time further reduces the ratio (at tD = 25) to about 1.17 logarithmic superposition time function and one created
(17 % correction). Again, the magnitude of these using material-balance-time. The diagnostic plots are
correction factors can be misleading, as Figure 2(b) presented in normalized rate format (q/ D Y). The
shows that the constant rate and material-balance-time derivative on the plots is simply the inverse of the
corrected constant pressure solutions are essentially standard pressure derivative used in welltest analysis.
indistinguishable for all values of tD.
Vertical Well in Infinite Reservoir
k = 1 mD
CASE STUDIES
s=0
Mathematically, we have shown that there is very little
observable difference between a diagnostic plot that uses The synthetically generated data from this case is
material-balance-time, and the constant rate solution. representative of pure radial flow. The diagnostic plots
Indeed, during boundary dominated flow, the using logarithmic superposition time and material-
transformation is exact. It is important to note that this balance-time are shown in Figures 3a (smooth rate
mathematical development inherently assumes smoothly decline) and 3b (discontinuous rates), compared against
varying rate and constant pressure conditions. With real the constant rate solution.
data, this assumption is commonly violated. Thus, the
It is clear from Figures 3a and 3b that there is
case studies will investigate both ideal and non-ideal
practically no difference between the diagnostic plots
operating conditions (discontinuous rate / pressure
produced from the two time functions when production
profiles). The objective is to determine to what extent
variation is smooth.
(and under what conditions) the use of material-balance-
time negatively influences the interpretation of the Both diagnostic plots show a deviation in their
diagnostic plot. An additional objective is to compare the derivatives from the true solution, in early-time. This is a
results to those obtained using a diagnostic plot generated data-averaging phenomenon that arises from not using
small time-steps at the beginning of the flow period.
4
For the discontinuous rate case (Figure 3(b)), the dominated flow. Although not shown, the plot will also
diagnostic plot derived from material-balance-time shows yield the correct value of OGIP (Original Gas-in-Place),
a false boundary dominated trend developing in the late- based on matching to a constant rate typecurve. The
time. The logarithmic superposition diagnostic plot logarithmic superposition time diagnostic plot, however,
correctly indicates radial flow for the duration of the does not correctly predict the onset of boundary
production period. dominated flow, and in fact, suggests a much larger
drainage area than is actually present. Both plots match
Hydraulically Fractured Well in Infinite Reservoir
the early-time transients reasonably well (each is
k = 0.05 mD subjected to the same early-time averaging error
kfw = 1000 mD.m previously mentioned).
xf = 100 m Figures 5b(i) and 5b(ii) show that under abrupt rate
This example exhibits the formation linear flow period changes, both diagnostic plots exhibit a reasonable match
of a hydraulically fractured well. The diagnostic plots are of q/ D Y. However, the material-balance-time plot
shown in Figures 4a(i), 4a(ii), 4b(i) and 4b(ii). derivative (5b(i)) suggests pre-mature boundary flow,
The smooth rate case (a) clearly indicates that both while the logarithmic superposition time plot derivative
diagnostic plots (4a(i) and 4a(ii)) provide the correct flow shows the onset of boundary dominated flow occurring
regime identification. However, as expected, the too late.
diagnostic plot using material-balance-time is offset by a Field Examples
factor of about 20%. The diagnostic plot using
logarithmic superposition time is also offset (this offset There are many examples of real production data that
could be corrected by using square-root time). exhibit both smooth and discontinuous variations in rate
and flowing pressure profiles. The discontinuities can
The discontinuous rate profile shows significant occur with a wide range of frequencies and amplitudes.
problems with the diagnostic plot using material-balance- For example, high frequency rate changes (production
time (4b(i)). Both the normalized rate and derivative data “noise”) may be caused by wellbore and/or surface
have a negative unit slope, suggesting pure boundary dynamics. In contrast, low frequency “step” changes may
flow, which is of course false. The superposition time occur as a result of mechanical changes to the well, or
diagnostic plot (4b(ii)) has little diagnostic value, as no due to a shift in back pressure (for example,
clear interpretation is evident. implementing compression).
Hydraulically Fractured Well in Bounded Reservoir The data are analyzed using an Agarwal-Gardner
k = 1 mD diagnostic plot2, which matches the normalized rate and
(inverse) pressure derivative (smoothed using the
kfw = 1000 mD.m
pressure integral method) to constant rate typecurves
xf = 50 m based on dimensionless time. The diagnostic plot uses
re = 200 m material balance pseudo-time. To test the validity of the
diagnostic plot, the data are also history matched using an
This case provides production data that should exhibit,
analytical model with rigorous superposition.
in sequence, fracture flow, pseudo-radial flow, followed
by boundary dominated flow (volumetric depletion). The Example 1: Smoothly Varying Production Data with Step
diagnostic plots are shown in Figures 5a(i), 5a(ii), 5b(i) Change (long term production)
and 5b(ii). Example 1 is a hydraulically fractured well with
This case shows that under smoothly varying approximately 1.5 years of smoothly declining flow rates
conditions, the material-balance-time diagnostic plot and bottomhole pressures, but with a fairly abrupt shift in
(5a(i)) accurately predicts the onset of boundary rate near the end of the first year. Figure 6a shows the
5
production / pressure history for the well. Figure 6b is the on the derivative plot is not quite reached on the
diagnostic plot and Figure 6c is the history match using logarithmic superposition diagnostic plot).
the analytical model.
For this case, it appears that the diagnostic plot created
The diagnostic plot shows a reasonable match to one of using material-balance-time is sufficiently suited for
the fracture typecurves, with a transition into boundary approximate reservoir characterization and proper
dominated flow. The typecurve match indicates a fracture identification of flow regimes.
half-length in the order of 45 meters (assuming infinite
Example 3: Noisy Production Data (short term
conductivity). The optimum history match is obtained
production)
using a fracture half-length of 60 meters. The 25%
difference is likely a result of the material-balance-time Example 3 has five months of daily production and
error discussed in the theory section. Both analyses yield pressure data. The well has been hydraulically fractured.
an OGIP of approximately 75 106m3, indicating that the The operational conditions for this well are such that
diagnostic plot appears to predict the onset of boundary there is a great deal of noise (high frequency and
dominated flow correctly. amplitude rate changes). This example could be
considered the field equivalent of synthetic case 2b (or
Example 2: Smoothly Varying Production Data with Step
3b). The input and results are shown in Figures 8a, 8b
Changes (short term production)
and 8c.
Example 2 contains hourly production and pressure
The diagnostic plot (8b) indicates fracture linear flow,
data for a period of approximately 2 months, during
followed by a late-time transition to boundary dominated
which there are several step changes in pressure. The well
flow. The plot suggests a fairly well developed boundary
is not hydraulically fractured. Figure 7a shows the
dominated trend with an OGIP in the order of 70 106m3.
production history. Figure 7b is the diagnostic plot.
However, the pressure history match from the analytical
Figure 7c is the model history match.
model (8c) shows that a satisfactory match can be
The diagnostic plot indicates radial flow, with a obtained assuming an unbounded reservoir. The transient
slightly negative skin, followed by a transition into analysis (k and xf) obtained from the diagnostic plot
boundary dominated flow in the late-time. The OGIP is agrees reasonably well with the pressure history match.
estimated to be in the order of 40 106m3. The model As expected, the logarithmic superposition diagnostic
history match agrees very well with the diagnostic plot, plot (not shown) also indicates infinite acting flow for the
indicating that the severity of the rate discontinuities in entire production period.
this case is not enough to cause potential for
misinterpretation. It should be noted that the late-time DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
data does not show a well developed boundary dominated
Overall, the study has shown that a diagnostic plot that
trend (this is evident on the diagnostic plot).
uses material-balance-time is usually adequate for flow
Consequently, the model history match is non-unique in
regime identification and reservoir characterization, even
determining OGIP. Nevertheless, the model (rectangular
early in the production life, when boundary flow has not
single layer) requires the presence of at least three
been reached. The comparison of constant pressure (using
boundaries to adequately match the late-time pressure
material-balance-time) and constant rate solutions
behavior. It is also interesting to note that a diagnostic
indicates that the expected error is usually minimal. More
plot using logarithmic superposition time (not shown)
importantly, the solutions are seen to converge with time.
shows a similar early time radial flow period, followed by
(For instance, a hydraulically fractured well may have a
a transition period in the late-time. However, the
23 % error during early-time linear flow that diminishes
transition period observed on the logarithmic
significantly during pseudo-radial flow, and finally
superposition plot suggests a much larger (2 times)
converges to the true solution during boundary dominated
minimum OGIP (a PSS (pseudo-steady-state) slope of 1
flow). The mathematical comparisons are only valid for
6
constant bottomhole pressure conditions (smoothly superposition, to refine the estimates obtained from
varying rates), but also have practical application for the diagnostic plot. (The diagnostic plot is sufficient
smoothly declining rates and pressures, and step rate for obtaining a rough approximation of transient
changes. parameters.) The calculation of fluids-in-place is
rigorous for the diagnostic plot.
Real production data is rarely without some degree of
discontinuity (whether its high frequency noise or 3) There is the potential for misinterpretation of flow
occasional step changes in rate/pressure). The synthetic regimes when abrupt rate / pressure fluctuations
and field examples have shown that severe fluctuations in occur in combination with transient data, if material-
rate/pressure can present the possibility for balance-time is used. Under these conditions, the
misinterpretation of flow regimes. This is in addition to analyst should have access to both diagnostic plots
the existing transient error associated with material- (material-balance-time based and logarithmic
balance-time. The most severe examples are caused by a superposition time based). The material-balance-
combination of the following two conditions: time plot will tend to under-predict the time of the
onset of boundary dominated flow, while the
• High frequency and high amplitude noise
logarithmic superposition time plot will tend to
• Low permeability reservoir / short producing time overpredict it.
These conditions cause the diagnostic plot to show a 4) For production data that has severe rate / pressure
pre-mature boundary dominated trend. Thus, the fluctuations, neither the logarithmic superposition
material-balance-time diagnostic plot will almost always time plot nor the material-balance-time plot provide
be conservative in its estimation of drainage area and gas- meaningful interpretations of either reservoir
in-place. parameters or flow regime identification.
A diagnostic plot using logarithmic superposition time
also provides significant potential for misinterpretation of NOMENCLATURE
flow regimes. It tends to overestimate the time to h = net pay (m)
transition into boundary dominated flow, even when k = permeability (mD)
discontinuities in the rate profile are absent. Indeed, this kfw = fracture conductivity*width (mD.m)
type of plot is far better suited for analyzing infinite
pi = initial shut-in pressure (kPa)
acting flow.
qD = dimensionless rate
QD = dimensionless cumulative production
CONCLUSIONS
re = reservoir radius (m)
1) A diagnostic plot that uses material-balance-time can rwa = apparent wellbore radius (m)
be used with confidence in identification of flow s = wellbore skin
regimes, provided that the rate and pressure ta = pseudo-time (days, hours)
variation is smooth with time.
tD = dimensionless time
2) The above mentioned diagnostic plot (smoothly tDA = dimensionless time based on area
varying rate) can also be used to quantify reservoir tD p = dimensionless time from constant pressure solution
properties (permeability and skin), but has early- tD r = dimensionless time from constant rate solution
time errors associated with it. In most cases, the tDmb = dimensionless material-balance-time
magnitude of the errors will be negligible in tmbDA = dimensionless material-balance-time based on
comparison to the resolution of the production data.
area
Nevertheless, to obtain a more accurate and
tmb = material-balance-time (days, hours)
complete reservoir characterization, the analyst
xf = fracture half-length (m)
should use a model with rigorous time
7
REFERENCES 4. Energy Resources Conservation Board: “Gas Welltesting,
Theory and Practice,” textbook, fourth edition, 1979
1. Blasingame, T.A, McCray, T.L, Lee, W.J: “Decline Curve
Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate 5. Edwardson, M.J, Girner, H.M, Parkison, H.R, Williams,
Systems,” paper SPE 21513 presented at the SPE Gas C.D, Matthews, C.S: "Calculation of Formation
Technology Symposium, 23-24 January, 1991 Temperature Disturbances Caused by Mud Circulation,"
paper SPE 124 presented at the 36th Annual Fall Meeting of
2. Agarwal, R.G, Gardner, D.C, Kleinsteiber, S.W, and
SPE, Dallas, 8-11 October, 1962.
Fussell, D.D.: “Analyzing Well Production Data Using
Combined Type Curve and Decline Curve Concepts,” paper 6. Ehlig-Economides, C., Ramey Jr., H.: “Transient Rate
SPE 57916 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Decline Analysis for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure,”
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 27-30 September. paper SPE 8387 presented at the Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition of SPE, September, 1979
3. Poe Jr., B.D.: “Effective Well and Reservoir Evaluation
Without the Need for Well Pressure History” paper SPE
77691 presented at the SPE Annual Conference and
Technical Exhibition, October, 2002
8
APPENDIX A Material-balance-time is now calculated as follows:
9
The inverse of the above is pD:
Ê re 3 ˆ
pD = 2ptmbDA + Á ln - ˜
Ë rwa 4 ¯
10
Figure 1b: Comparison of Constant Pressure and Constant Rate Solutions
Figure 1a: Comparison of Constant Pressure and Constant Rate Solutions Cylindrical Reservoir with Vertical Well in Center
Fracture Linear Flow
10000 1000
3
Ratio of tDr to tDp
100 2
Ratio of tDr to tDp is constant
with time (2.46)
10
1
1000
qD and 1/pD
qD and 1/pD
0.1
Constant Rate Constant Rate
100
0.01
10
0.0001
Constant Pressure Constant Pressure
0.00001
1 0.000001
0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09 1E+10 1E+11 1E+12 1E+13 1E+14
0
tD
tD
Figue 2b: Comparison of Constant Pressure (Material Balance Time Corrected) and Constant
Figure 2a: Comparison of Constant Pressure (Material Balance Time Corrected) and Constant Rate Solutions
Rate Solutions Cylindrical Reservoir with Vertical Well in Center
Fracture Linear Flow 1000
3
10000
Ratio of tDr to tDmb
100 2
1
10
Ratio of tDr to tDmb is
1000 constant with time (1.23)
1
qD and 1/pD
0.1
Ratio = 1.17 (tD = 25)
qD and 1/pD
100 0.01
0.001
10 0.0001
single line during
boundary dominated flow
0.00001
0.000001
1 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09 1E+10 1E+11 1E+12 1E+13 1E+14
0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 tD
tD
11
Figure 3a: Case 1a- Vertical Well in Infinite Reservoir - Smooth Rate Profile (constant pressure Figure 3b: Case 1b- Vertical Well in Infinite Reservoir - Discontinuous Rate Profile
Diagnostic Plots Using Radial Superposition Time and Material Balance Time
production)
Diagnostic Plots Using Radial Superposition Time and Material Balance Time
q/Dy , inv(DER)
q/Dy , DER
Figure 4a(i): Case 2a- Fractured Well in Infinite Reservoir - Smooth Rate Profile (constant Figure 4a(ii): Case 2a- Fractured Well in Infinite Reservoir - Smooth Rate Profile
pressure production) (constant pressure production)
Diagnostic Plot Using Material Balance Time Diagnostic Plots Using Radial Superposition Time
q/Dy , DER
q/Dy , DER
xf = 140 m
xf = 80
m
mbtq/dp mbt der constant rate q/dp constant rate der 12 super t q/dp super t der constant rate q/dp constant rate der
Figure 4b(i): Case 2b- Fractured Well in Infinite Reservoir - Discontinuous Rate Profile
Diagnostic Plot Using Material Balance Time Figure 4b(ii): Case 2b- Fractured Well in Infinite Reservoir - Discontinuous Rate Profile
Diagnostic Plots Using Radial Superposition Time
q/Dy , DER
q/Dy , DER
Radial superposition
time does not yield a
useful diagnostic plot
Using mbt causes false
boundary dominated flow
trend; linear flow not
evident from analysis
mbt dp/q mbt der constant rate q/dp constant rate der supt dp/q supt der constant rate q/dp constant rate der
Figure 5a(i): Case 3a- Fractured Well in Bounded Reservoir - Smooth Rate Profile (constant Figure 5a(ii): Case 3a- Fractured Well in Bounded Reservoir - Smooth Rate Profile
pressure production) (constant pressure production)
Diagnostic Plot Using Material Balance Time Diagnostic Plot Using Radial Superposition Time
q/Dy , DER
q/Dy , DER
Radial superposition
time diagnostic plot
Mbt diagnostic plot overpredicts the time of
transition to boundary
correctly predicts the onset
dominated flow
of boundary dominated flow
mbt dp/q mbt der constant rate q/dp constant rate der super t dp/q super t der constant rate q/dp constant rate der
13
Figure 5b(ii): Case 3b- Fractured Well in Bounded Reservoir - Discontinuous Rate Profile
Figure 5b(i): Case 3b- Fractured Well in Bounded Reservoir - Discontinuous Rate Profile Diagnostic Plot Using Radial Superposition Time
Diagnostic Plot Using Material Balance Time
Mbt diagnostic plot does not have enough character to identify flow regimes; however,
the q/dp data matches the constant rate case very well
q/Dy , DER
q/Dy , DER
supt dp/q supt der constant rate q/dp constant rate der
mbt q/dp mbt der constant rate q/dp constant rate der
k = 0.25 mD
xf = 47 m
6 3
OGIP = 79 10 m
14
Figure 6c: Field Example 1- Model History Match Figure 7a: Field Example 2- Production History
k = 0.23 mD
xf = 60 m
6 3
OGIP = 75 10 m
Figure 7b: Field Example 2- Diagnostic Plot (Radial Flow Tyepcurves) Figure 7c: Field Example 2- Model History Match
k=0.35 mD
k=0.36 mD s = -2.5
s = -1.7 6 3
OGIP = 40 10 m
6 3
OGIP = 38 10 m
15
Figure 8a: Field Example 3- Production History Figure 8b: Field Example 3- Diagnostic Plot
k = 0.21 mD
xf = 153 m
6 3
OGIP = 69 10 m
k = 0.17 mD
xf = 152 m
Unbounded Reservoir
16