See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283152650

Production Decline Models: A Comparison Study

Conference Paper · October 2015

DOI: 10.2118/177300-MS

CITATIONS READS
3 700

2 authors:

Tariq Ali James J. Sheng

Texas Tech University Texas Tech University
7 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    217 PUBLICATIONS   2,251 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Inverse miniemulsion polymerization of water-soluble thermoviscosifying polymer to use in chemical EOR process View project

Pore network modeling of multiphase flow View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tariq Ali on 11 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-177300-MS

Production Decline Models: A Comparison Study

Tariq A. Ali, Chesapeake Energy; James J. Sheng, Texas Tech University

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, 13–15 October 2015.

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
Erroneous reserve estimates associated with improper application of Arp’s relations has led to the
development of alternative rate-time models based on empirical considerations. These models can equally
provide good fits for only limited duration production data, but they yield significantly different
30-year-estimated ultimate recovery (EUR).
In our previous work, we extensively demonstrated the reliability of cumulative-production model to
analyze the production performance of fractured dominated tight and shale reservoirs.
In this paper, a number of real field examples are used to generate 30-year-EUR estimates using
different rate-time models as well as a production-decline model.
Results show that some of rate-time models overestimate EUR with more than 150% compared with
the cumulative production-decline model which yields correct estimates in most of the cases.

Introduction
Reserves estimation in unconventional reservoirs has become a topic of increasing interest as more of
these resources are being developed especially in the United States. The use of conventional reserves
estimation relations (i.e. Arps’ 1945) is only applicable for boundary dominated flow. Rushing et. al
(2007) showed and we also show in this work that the analysis of production data (early rate-time data)
before the onset of boundary dominated flow for unconventional gas reservoirs will often lead to
significant overestimation of reserves. This issue is problematic for oil and gas operators producing from
these unconventional gas reservoirs as they rely on accurate reserves estimates for field development,
business planning and SEC reporting requirements.
To avoid this drawback, Ilk et al. (2008) presented the power-law exponential rate decline relation
based on the inverse of the “loss-ratio” (D-parameter) behavior of the time-rate data. Valko (2009)
introduced the stretched exponential decline model to describe observed decline behavior of a database of
rate data obtained from unconventional reservoirs. The stretched exponential model is similar to the
power-law exponential model in matching the early time data, but it lacks the boundary conditions
necessary to match log-time boundary conditions. Duong (2010) proposed a time-rate relation based on
a long-term linear flow exhibited in hydraulically fractured shale, and tight wells. He showed that a
log-log plot of rate divided by cumulative production versus time yields a straight line trend. He also
indicated that the slope and intercept of the straight line are characteristics of the reservoir.
2 SPE-177300-MS

Clark et al. (2011) introduced a new time-rate model by matching a type of logistic growth model to
production data of oil and gas wells. The logistic growth model is capable of modeling long transient
behaviors of unconventional reservoirs, and boundary conditions. Vanorsdale (2013) concluded that the
Duong and Power-Law models may overestimate recovery as a result of changing the flow regime during
the first ten years of the life of the wells. He also concluded that continuous changing of flow regime may
result in overestimation of recovery.
The purpose of this work is to propose a “Production-Decline Model” as a coherent approach to
reserves estimation, and to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method by applying the approach
to two field data sets from unconventional gas reservoirs.

Review of Decline Curve Analysis Models

The following is a brief summary of reserve estimation techniques detailing their assumptions, basic
theory and implementation.
Arp’s Models
Decline curve analysis is the most commonly used method of estimating ultimate recoverable reserves and
future performance. The decline curve analysis technique is based on the assumptions that past perfor-
mance trends can be characterized mathematically and used to predict future performance. Decline curve
analysis is based on the fundamental assumptions; that past operating conditions will remain unchanged,
a well is produced at or near capacity, the well’s drainage remains constant, and is produced at a constant
bottom hole pressure.
In most cases, tight/shale wells are producing at capacity and approach a constant bottom hole pressure,
if produced at a constant line pressure. However, it can be challenging to determine when a tight/shale gas
well has defined its drainage area.
Hyperbolic Model
(1)

Exponential Model
(1a)
Where q is the time varying production rate, qi is the initial production rate parameter, b is the
hyperbolic decline exponent parameter b⬍1, and Di is the initial decline rate parameter. Integration of Eq.
(1) and Eq. (2) lead to an expression for cumulative production Gp for Hyperbolic model and Exponential
model respectively:
(2)

(2a)

Lee and Sidle (2010) concluded that the analysis of production data from tight/ shale gas wells using
Eq. (1) typically results in a value of greater than unity for the decline exponent parameter, b. This leads
to the physically unrealistic result that cumulative production becomes unbounded as time increases, as
can be seen from the following:
(3)
SPE-177300-MS 3

Fetkovich et.al (1987) argued that such anomalous behavior (b⬎1) arises when fitting data from the
transient flow period to a model that is only appropriate during boundary dominated flow. Blasingame and
Rushing (2005) observed that as more production data become available the b value that starts out being
greater than unity tends to decrease with time. The use of the Arps model, however, continues to remain
popular for reserves estimation. A heuristic approach is to keep the long term reserve estimate finite, with
b value ⬎1, limit the forecasted producing life with some minimum value for the decline rate.
Power Law Exponential Decline Model
The model was introduced for decline curve analysis by Ilk et al. in 2008. It is based on Arps exponential
decline model. The only difference is that the decay in the exponential decline model is constant, whereas
the power law model considers the decay to be a power law function
(4)

where qi is the rate intercept or q(t ⫽ 0), Di (1/d) is the decline constant, D⬁ (1/d) is the decline constant
at infinite time, and n is a time exponent.
The power law model behaves differently from the exponential model with several distinct advantages.
At early times the tn term will match the transient flow regime. At late times the D⬁ will govern the decline
behavior, eventually causing the rate to terminate (Ilk et al., 2008).
Practical application of the power law model is not as simple as an empirical fit with the Arps equation.
The final decline rate D⬁ is arbitrary, and with insufficient data it is unclear what its value should be. The
power law model can result in non-unique solution because of four degrees of freedom resulting from the
four unknown parameters.
Stretched Exponential Decline Model
Valko (2009) proposed the model in order to avoid the arbitrariness associated with long-term reserve
estimates from the hyperbolic model. The model, unlike other models, does have a basis in physics and
is governed by a defining differential equation. The production rate declines with time according to the
following relationship:
(5)

where q is the time varying production rate, q0 is the initial production rate, parameter ␶ is the
characteristic time parameter and n is the exponent parameter.
Eq. (5) looks very similar to the power law model, and can be equated when D⬁ is equal to zero and
␶ is equal to 1/Di. However, the stretched exponential model differs from the power law model in not
relying on a single interpretation of the parameters, but instead uses two-parameter gamma functions
(Valko, 2009). This is because of the fact that not a single set of ␶ and n parameters exists but instead there
is a sum of multiple exponential declines which follows the fat tail distribution (Valko, 2010). Fat tail
distributions can experience any number of standard deviations away from the mean and still have a
likelihood of occurrence.
Integration of Eq. (5) leads to an expression for cumulative production Gp
(6)

where ⌫ is the incomplete Gamma function (Abramowitz and Stegun. 1972).

Application of the stretched exponential model for decline curve analysis is different from the other
models, and more complicated to apply. The stretched exponential model is used for large scale evaluation
of entire fields, and does not emphasize the individual well analysis.
4 SPE-177300-MS

Duong Model
Multiple-staged hydraulic fractured horizontal wells (MFHW) became a preferred method of development
in tight/ shale gas reservoirs, and an early production characteristic of these reservoirs is a linear flow time.
For finite conductivity fractures, the flow will be bilinear which represents on a log-log p rate time plot
with a negative quarter slope. Whereas for infinite conductivity fractures, flow will be linear and
characterized by a negative half-slope line on the same plot. Duong (2011) has shown that a log-log plot
of cumulative production vs. time will yield a straight line with a unity slope regardless of fracture types.
(7)

Where a is the intercept constant and m is the negative slope parameter. Duong (2011) derived
expressions for production rate and cumulative production as given below:
(8)

(9)

To determine q1, gas flow rate should be plotted against t(a, m) where . The
q vs. t(a, m) plot should give a straight line through the origin with slope of q1. Due to the current wellbore
conditions, however, this may not be the ideal case. Therefore, Eq. (5), and Eq. (6) become:
(8a)

(9a)

Vanorsdale (2013) indicated that when the flow regime changes during the life of the well, Duong’s
model may overestimate recovery for the first ten years. Also, Vanorsdale indicated that Duong model
may provide conservative recovery estimate in vertical, non-hydraulically fractured classic shale wells.
Ali Model
Ali et al. (2014) have shown that if a well produces at a constant flowing pressure, a log-log plot of
cumulative gas production versus production time yields a straight line with the slope equal to unity.
However, analysis of field data from several shale gas horizontal wells has shown that the relationship
between these variables is better described using the following empirical form:
(10)

Where c is the intercept constant and n (⫽ dt-p) is the slope parameter which is a time function defined
as a power law function. Ali et Al. (2014) derived the expression for the production rate that satisfies Eq.
(7) as given below:
(11)

The proposed models were verified by a large number of well production data in tight and shale
reservoirs. These models were also validated by numerically simulated cases.

Examples
Two field examples are presented from unconventional tight and shale gas reservoirs to provide a
comparative assessment of various decline curve analysis models and to quantify the uncertainty
SPE-177300-MS 5

associated with 30-year EUR estimates. These examples will be first analyzed using the six decline curve
analysis models described earlier, viz., Arps’ exponential model hyperbolic model, power-law exponential
decline model, stretched exponential decline model, Duong model, and Ali model to estimate the 30-year
EUR. Next, we compare reserve estimations together.

Example 1
This example is field data taken from a 6-year dataset presented as Example 3 in the rate/ time data
analysis spreadsheet developed at Texas A & M University. The data has been filtered to remove any
outliners which may cause an error in properly analyzing the production data. The gas rate production
declined from 5706 MSCF/d to ~ 490 MSCF/d. The trend of production rate data suggests that either
transition or boundary dominated flow regimes has not been established yet, but the flow regime is still
long linear flow.
Hyperbolic Model We fit the model into the ratio of observed production rate (q) and cumulative
production (Gp) (i.e., ratio of q/Gp from Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)) to estimate the decline exponent (b) and the
initial decline rate (Di) using regression line. The resulting best fit parameters are b ⫽ 2.177 and Di ⫽
0.0231 1/d. The next step is to calculate the initial production rate (qi) by fitting the observed q(t) data to
Eq. (1). The resulting best fit parameter is qi ⫽ 4500 MSCF/d. We compare the observed production rate
q(t) with that estimated using the best Eq.(1) as shown in Fig. 1. The model matches the observed data
in the beginning. At t ⫽ 14 days, the fit diverges until the end of the data record. The 30-year production
rate (q30) is estimated to be 247.4 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to
be 4.859 BSCF. We compare the observed cumulative production to the estimated cumulative production
using Eq. (2). Fig. 2 shows that the model matches the observed data in the beginning of time through t
~ 100 days, then the model starts overestimating the values of cumulative production.

Figure 1—Example 1: Hyperbolic Model fit to gas production rate

6 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 2—Example 1: Hyperbolic Model fit to cumulative gas production

Exponential Model We fit Eq. (1a) into the observed gas production rate to determine both the initial
production rate (qi), and the initial decline rate (Di) using Microsoft Excel’s Solver add-in. The best fit
parameters are qi ⫽ 1930.513 MSCF/d and Di ⫽ 0.001045 1/d. We compare the observed production rate
with production rate estimated by Eq. (1a) as shown in Fig. 3. The estimated production rate is not
matching the observed data. The 30-year production rate (q30) is estimated to be 0.021MSCF/d, and the
30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to be 1.847 BSCF. Fig. 4 compares the cumulative
production data and shows that Exponential model starts underestimating the cumulative production from
t ⫽1 day to t ~ 250 days. Then, the model starts overestimating the cumulative production from t ⫽ 284
days to the end of observed time.
SPE-177300-MS 7

Figure 3—Example 1: Expontional Model fit to gas production rate

Figure 4 —Example 1: Expontional model fit to cumulative gas production

8 SPE-177300-MS

Power Law Model Eq.(4) is fitted into the observed production data to determine the four unknown
parameters; the intercept production rate, the decline constant, the decline constant when producing time
approaches infinity, and the time exponent. We use Microsoft Excel’s Solver add-in to optimize these
parameters. The best fit parameters are qi ⫽ 40,000 MSCF/d, Di ⫽ 2.007 1/d, D⬁ ⫽ 2.09E-04 1/d, and
n ⫽ 0.095. We compare the observed production rate with the production rate estimated by Eq. 4 as in
Fig. 5. The model matches the observed data very well through the middle section; however, it
underestimates the observed data in both the beginning and the end of data record. Cumulative production
is calculated using Trapezoidal rule. We compare the observed cumulative production to the estimated one
as shown in Fig. 6. The model matches the observed data until t ⫽ 47 days. Then it starts gradually
diverging from observed data causing overestimation of reserve. The 30-year production rate (q30) is
estimated to be 31.57 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to be 2.904
BSCF.

Figure 5—Example 1: Power Law model fit to gas production rate

SPE-177300-MS 9

Figure 6 —Example 1: Power Law model fit to cumulative gas production

Stretched Exponential Model The first step is to determine the peak production rate from the observed
data which is qi ⫽ 38,664 MSCF/d. The next step is to fit Eq. 5 into the observed production rate to
optimize between the characteristics time parameter and the exponent parameter using Microsoft Excel’s
Solver add-in. The corresponding best fit parameter for ␶ ⫽ 27.53 1/d and n ⫽ 0.2. The model starts off
by underestimating the production rate; however, it starts matching the observed data from t ⫽ 147 days
to t ⫽ 1014 days. Then, the model starts overestimating the production rate as in Fig.7. Similarly, the
model behaves in exactly the same way as in the case of production rate. Fig. 8 shows the comparison
between the observed and estimated cumulative production obtained using Eq.6. The 30-year production
rate (q30) is estimated to be 280.2 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to
be 4.51 BSCF.
10 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 7—Example 1: Stretched Expontional model fit to gas production rate

Figure 8 —Example 1: Stretched Expontional model fit to cumulative gas production

SPE-177300-MS 11

Duong Model We fit Eq.7 into the observed production rate q(t) divided by cumulative Production (Gp)
to estimate the intercept constant (a) and the slope parameter (m). The corresponding best fit parameters
are a ⫽ 1.0732 1/d and m ⫽ 1.129 as shown in Fig. 9. The next step is to determine theoretical rate (q1)
by performing a linear regression of the observed production rate q(t) against the time function t(a, t).. Fig.
10 shows that we have a special case of Duong Model where the straight line does not go through the
origin. Therefore, we have to use Eq.(8a) to estimate (q1) and (D⬁). The best fit parameters are q1 ⫽
4234.2 MSCF/d, and q⬁ ⫽ 731.92 MSCF/d. We compare the observed production rate q(t) with that
estimated using Eq.(8a) as shown in Fig. 11. The model perfectly honor the trend of observed data through
t ~61 days, after that the model starts diverging and estimating production rates higher than observed data.
In Fig. 12, we compare the observed cumulative production with that obtained using Eq. (9a). The model
accurately matches the cumulative production till t~ 61 days, then the model gradually diverges from the
observed data. The 30-year production rate (q30) is estimated to be 771 MSCF/d, and the 30-year
cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to be 9.335 BSCF.

Figure 9 —Example1: Duong Model fit to the ratio of production rate and cumulative gas production
12 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 10 —Example 1: Production rate vs. t(a,m) for Duong model

Figure 11—Example 1: Duong model fit to gas production rate

SPE-177300-MS 13

Figure 12—Example 1: Dunong Model fit to cumulative gas production

Ali Model The first step is to fit Eq. (10) into the observed cumulative gas production to estimate the
intercept constant (c) using linear regression. Fig. 13 shows the corresponding best fit parameter for the
intercept c ⫽ 0.0104 1/d. The next step is to estimate the change of slope (n) with time. The change of
slope (n) can be calculated by inverting Eq.10 for each time step as n(slope) ⫽ (log(Gp2)-log(Gp1))/
(log(t2)-log(t1)). Then we draw the slope points versus time on log-log plot. Fig. 14 shows the change of
slope over time, the best fit regression function to the slope is n⫽ 0.719 t-0.01. We compare the observed
production rate with that obtained using Eq.11. The model perfectly matches the observed data as shown
in Fig. 15. Similarly, we compare the observed cumulative production with that obtained using Eq.10. The
model has the same trend as the observed data. It matches the observed data at the beginning, then it starts
diverging as shown in Fig. 16. The 30-year production rate (q30) is estimated to be 180.617 MSCF/d, and
the 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to be 4.056 BSCF.
14 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 13—Example 1: Cumulative gas production vs. actual time for Ali Model

Figure 14 —Example 1: Slope (n) vs. actual time for Ali Model
SPE-177300-MS 15

Figure 15—Example 1: Ali Model fit to gas production rate

Figure 16 —Example 1: Ali Model fit to cumulative gas production

16 SPE-177300-MS

Aggregation of Results As has been discussed previously, some models honor the trend of the data
recorded better than others. The 30-year forecasts show that the hyperbolic model and the Duong model
both yield the most optimistic projection, whereas the exponential model and the power-law model both
yield the most pessimistic projection as shown in Fig.17. These trends are also reinforced in the overlay
for the cumulative production as shown in Fig.18.

Figure 17—Example 1, Comparison of 30-year forecasts for gas production rate

SPE-177300-MS 17

Figure 18 —Example 1: Comparison of 30-year forecasts for cumulative gas production

Example 2
We analyzed the six-year- daily production data obtained from a hydraulically fractured Horizontal well
completed in a tight gas reservoir. The data is available as East Texas Example in the rate/ time
spreadsheets on Texas A&M University website. We identify a smooth decline throughout the life of this
well after removing some of data outliers. Visual inspection of the rate data suggests that full boundary
dominated flow regime has not been established yet, but the flow regime is no long linear flow. This flow
regime is known as transitional flow regime.
Hyperbolic Model We start with fitting the ratio of observed production rate, q, and cumulative
production, Gp, to the model (i.e., ratio of q/Gp from Eq. (1) and (2)) to estimate the decline exponent, b,
and the initial decline rate, Di, using linear regression. The resulting best fit parameters are b ⫽ 1.676 and
Di ⫽ 0.0716 1/d. The next step is to determine the initial production rate (qi) by fitting the observed q data
to Eq. (1). The resulting best fit parameter is qi ⫽ 10609.67 MSCF/d. We compare the observed
production rate, q, with that obtained using Eq. (1). The model matches the data record very well from
t ⫽1day to t ⫽ 67days. After t ⫽70 days the model fails to match the observed data, and most of the time
underestimates the production rates as shown in Fig. 19. We compare the cumulative production, Gp, with
that estimated using Eq. (2) as shown in Fig. 20. The model matches the observed data very well, after
t ⫽ 90 days the model starts gradually diverging from the observed data. The model slightly overestimates
cumulative production until t ⫽ 712 days, then the difference starts gradually increasing to reach 0.13
BSCF at t ⫽ 2088 days. The 30-year production rate, q30, is estimated to be 511.7 MSCF/d, and the
30-year cumulative production (30-year EUR), Gp,30, is estimated to be 3.83 BSCF.
18 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 19 —Example 2, Hyperbolic fit to gas production rate history

Figure 20 —Example 2, Hyperbolic fit to cumulative gas production data history

SPE-177300-MS 19

Exponential Model We use Microsoft Excel’s Solver add-in to fit Eq. (1a) into the observed gas
production rate to determine both the initial production rate (qi), and the initial decline rate (Di). The best
fit parameters are qi ⫽ 380.83 MSCF/d and Di ⫽ 0.00258 1/d. In Fig. 21, we compare the observed
production rate with production rate obtained by Eq. (1a). The estimated production rate is not matching
the observed data because the initial production rate is too low compared to the observed data. The model
underestimates production rate from t ⫽ 1day to t ⫽ 29 days. At t ⫽ 30days, the model starts
overestimating production rate until t ~ 500 days. The model again starts underestimating the production
rate till the end of data record. The 30-year production rate (q30) is estimated to be 0.021MSCF/d, and the
30-year cumulative production (30-year EUR), Gp,30, is estimated to be 1.847 BSCF. Fig. 22 compares the
cumulative production data, and shows that Exponential model behaves in very much the same way as in
the case of production rate, where the model underestimates, then overestimates, and re-underestimates
the cumulative gas production at the end.

Figure 21—Example 2, Expontional Model fit to gas production rate data history
20 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 22—Example 2, Expotional Model fit to cumulative gas production data history

Power Law Model We fit Eq.4 into the observed production data to determine the intercept production
rate, the decline constant, the decline constant at an infinite time, and the time exponent. We use Microsoft
Excel’s Solver add-in to optimize between these parameters. The best fit parameters are qi ⫽ 38,664
MSCF/d, Di ⫽ 1.22 1/d, D⬁ ⫽ 4.19E-05 1/d, and n ⫽ 0.178. We compare the observed production rate
with the production rate estimated by Eq.4 as in Fig. 23. The model perfectly matches the observed
production rate throughout the data record; however, it overestimates the initial production rate. Cumu-
lative production is calculated using Trapezoidal rule. We compare the observed cumulative production
to the estimated one as shown in Fig. 24. The model matches the observed data until t⫽ 700 days. Then
it starts gradually diverging from observed data causing overestimation of reserve. The 30-year production
rate (q30) is estimated to be 42.39 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to
be 1.65 BSCF.
SPE-177300-MS 21

Figure 23—Example 2, Power Law Model fit to gas production rate

Figure 24 —Example 2, Power Law Model fit to cumulative gas production

22 SPE-177300-MS

Stretched Exponential Mode The peak production rate from observed data is qi ⫽ 10962 MSCF/d. We
fit Eq.5 into the observed production rate to optimize between the characteristics time parameter and
exponential parameter using Microsoft Excel’s Solver add-in. The corresponding best fit parameter for ␶
⫽ 6 1/d and n ⫽ 0.2. We compare the observed production rate to that estimated using Eq.5. The model
starts off by underestimating the production rate until t ⫽ 750 days, after which the model starts
overestimating the production rate as in Fig. 25. Similarly, the model behaves in exactly the same way as
in the case of production rate. Fig. 26 shows the comparison between the observed and estimated
cumulative production obtained using Eq.6. The 30-year production rate (q30) is estimated to be 123
MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to be 3.68 BSCF.

Figure 25—Example 2 Streteched Exponential Model fit to gas production rate

SPE-177300-MS 23

Figure 26 —Example 2 Streteched Exponential Model fit to cumulative gas production

Duong Model We start with estimating the intercept constant (a) and the slope parameter (m) by fitting
Eq.7 into the ratio of observed production rate q(t) and cumulative Production (Gp). The corresponding
best fit parameters are a ⫽ 1.346 1/d and m ⫽ 1.157 as shown in Fig. 27. The theoretical rate at day one
(q1) is calculated by performing a linear regression of the observed production rate q(t) against the time
function t(a, t). In Fig. 28, the resulting best fit parameter is q1 ⫽ 6313.6 MSCF/d. We compare the
observed production rate, q, with estimated production rate obtained using Eq.8. We note that Duong
model honors the trend of observed data. However, it underestimates the production rate at t ⫽1day
compared with the observed data as shown in Fig. 29. Similarly, we compare the cumulative production
(Gp) with that estimated by Eq.9. The model underestimates the cumulative production in the same way
as in the case of production rate as shown in Fig. 30. The reason is that Duong model underestimates the
initial production rate at t ⫽1day, which causes the model to underestimates the cumulative production.
The 30-year production rate (q30) is estimated to be 96.82 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production
(30-year EUR), (Gp,30) is estimated to be 3.392 BSCF.
24 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 27—Example 2, Duong Model fit to the ratio of production rate and cumulative gas production

Figure 28 —Example 2, Production rate vs. t(a,m) for Duong model

SPE-177300-MS 25

Figure 29 —Example 2: Duong Model fit to production rate

Figure 30 —Example 2, Duong Model fits to Gas cumulative production

26 SPE-177300-MS

Ali Model The first step is to fit the empirical model as in Eq. (10) into the observed cumulative gas
production to estimate the intercept constant (c). The corresponding best fit parameter is c ⫽ 0.0314 1/d
as shown in Fig. 31. The next step is to determine the slope (n) as a function in time. We calculate the
slope for each time step in data record, then we draw the slope points against time on Cartesian plot. The
corresponding time function is n ⫽ 0.64 t-0.026 as shown in Fig. 32. We compare the observed production
rate with that estimated using Eq.(11). We have an excellent match between the estimate values and the
observed data, but the initial production rate is slightly lower than the observed data as shown in Fig. 33.
Similarly, we compare the observed cumulative production with that estimated using Eq. (10). Fig. 34
shows that the model matches the observed data very well with small difference between the observed and
the estimated value of ~ 0.05 BSCF. The 30-year production rate, q30, is estimated to be 106.67 MSCF/d,
and the 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) is estimated to be 3.289 BSCF.

Figure 31—Example 2, Ali Model fits to Gas Cumulative Production

SPE-177300-MS 27

Figure 32—Example 2, slope(n) vs. time for Ali Model

Figure 33—Example 2, Ali Model fit to gas production rate data history
28 SPE-177300-MS

Figure 34 —Example 2, Ali Model fit to cumulative gas production data history

Aggregation of Results An overlay of 30-year production rate forecasts from each of these four models
is shown in Fig. 35. Some models match the trend of observed data better than other models. The 30-year
production rate forecasts show that the Duong model and Hyperbolic model both yield the most optimistic
projection, whereas Exponential model yields the most pessimistic projection. These trends are also
reinforced in the overlay for the 30-year cumulative production shown in Fig. 36. A comparison of the
30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) shows that Power Law model estimation is as low as the estimation
of Exponential model. The other model estimations are very close.
SPE-177300-MS 29

Figure 35—Example 2: Comparison of 30-year forecasts for gas production rate

Figure 36 —Example 2, Comparison of 30-years forecasts for cumulative gas production

30 SPE-177300-MS

Conclusions
1. The two real field examples show the robust and competitive answer provided by Ali model for
reserve estimation compared to other emperical models.
2. Power Law model honors the trend of gas production rate. However, it underestimates reserve in
both case studies. The estimation of 30-year cumulative production (Gp,30) was as pessimistic as
the reserve estimation of Exponential model.
3. Duong model continues to overestimate gas reserve once flow regime changes from linear flow as
shown in example1.
4. We suggest using weight-average technique (i.e.GLUE) to determine an average value for 30-year
cumulative production (Gp,30).

Nomenclature
a ⫽ Intercept constant defined in Duong Model, 1/d
b ⫽ Arps hyperbolic decline exponent, dimensionless
c ⫽ Intercept constant defined in Ali Model
Di ⫽ Initial Decline, 1/d
D1 ⫽ Decline constant after 1 time unit, 1/D, in Power Law Model
Di ⫽ Decline constant equal D1/n, 1/D in Power Law Model
D⬁ ⫽ Decline constant at infinite time, 1/D in Power Law Model
d ⫽ Intercept constant defined in Ali Model
G ⫽ Original gas-in-place, SCF
Gp ⫽ Cumulative gas production, SCF
Gp, 30 ⫽ Cumulative gas production at 30 years, SCF
L ⫽ Likelihood, dimensionless
m ⫽ Slope defined in Duong Model, Dimensionless
n ⫽ Slope defined in Ali Model, Dimensionless
n ⫽ Exponential parameter in Stretched Exponential Model
n ⫽ Time Exponent in Power Law Model
p ⫽ Slope constant defined in Ali Model
q ⫽ Production Rate, SCF/ d
q0 ⫽ Peak production rate in Stretched Exponential, MSCF/d
qi ⫽ Initial production rate in Hyperbolic Model SCF/d
t ⫽ Time, days
␶ ⫽ Characteristic time parameter, days
⌫ ⫽ incomplete gamma function

References
Abramowitz, and Stegun, I.A. eds. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas,
Graphs and Mathematical Tables, New York: Dover Publications.
Ali, T.A., Sheng, J.J and Soliman, M. Y. 2014. New Production-Decline Models for Fractured Tight
and Shale Reservoirs. Paper SPE 169537 presented at the 2014 SPE Western North America and
Rocky Mountain joint Region Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 16 –18 April 2014.
Arps, J.J. 1945. Analysis of Decline Curves. Published in Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 160 (1945):
228 –247.
Beven, K.J. and Binley, A. 1992 the future of Distribution Models: Model Calibration and Uncertainty
Prediction. Hydrological Processes, 6:278 –289.
 SPE-177300-MS 31

Clark, A.J. 2011. Decline Curve Analysis in Unconventional Resource Plays Using Logistic Growth
Models, M.S. Thesis, the University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Clark, A.J., Lake, L.W. and Patzek, T.W. 2011. Production Forecasting with Logistic Growth Models.
Paper SPE 144790 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
CO, USA.
Duong, A. 2010. An Unconventional Rate Decline Approach for Tight and Fracture-Dominated Gas
Wells. Paper CSUG/SPE 137748 presented at the 2010 Canadian Unconventional Resources and
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October.
Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D. and Kiesow, U.G. 1987. Decline Curve Analysis using
Type Curves: Case Histories. SPEFE 2(4):636 –657.
Ilk, D., Rushing, J. A. and Blasingame, T.A. 2008. Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas
Sands Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps’ Decline
Curves. Paper SPE 116731 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, Denver, CO, USA, 21-24 September.
Lee, W.J. and Sidle, R.E. 2010. Gas Reserves Estimation in Resource Plays. Paper SPE 130102
presented at the 2010 SPE Unconventional Reservoir Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 12-25
February.
Mattar, L., Gault, B., Morad, K., Clarkson, C.R., Freeman, C.M., Ilk, D. and Blasingame, T.M. 2008.
Production Analysis and Forecasting of Shale Gas Reservoirs: Case History-Based Approach.
Paper SPE 119897 presented at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Fort Worth, TX,
USA, 16-18 November.
Mishra, S. 2012. A New Approach to Reserves Estimation in Shale Gas Reservoirs Using Multiple
Decline Curve Analysis Models. Paper SPE 161092 presented at the 2012 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, Lexington, KT, USA, 3-5 October.
Neuman, S.P. 2003. Maximum Likelihood Bayesian Averaging Techniques for Quantifying Concep-
tual Model Uncertainty. Ground Water 48 (5): 291–305.
Pratikno, H., Reese, D., and Maguire, M. 2013. Production Analysis in the Barnett Shale- Field
Example for Reservoir Characterization Using Public Data. Paper SPE 166176 presented at the
2013 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LO, USA, 30 September-2
October.
Rubin, B. 2010. Accurate Simulation of Non Darcy Flow in Stimulated Fractured Shale Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 132093 presented at Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, USA, 27-29
May.
Texas A&M 2014. www.pe.tamu.edu/blasingame/data/z-RateTimeSpreadsheet
Valko, P. P. and W. J. Lee (2010). A Better Way to Forecast Production from Unconventional Gas
Wells. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Florence, Italy.
Valko, P.P. 2009. Assigning value to stimulation in the Barnett Shale-A simultaneous analysis of 7000
plus Production histories and well completion records. Paper SPE 119639 presented at the 2009
SPE hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, the Woodlands, TX, USA, 19-21 January.
Vanorsdale, C., 2013. Production Decline Analysis Lessons from Classic Shale Gas Wells. Paper SPE
166205 Presented at the 2013 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
LA, USA, 30 September 2 October.

View publication stats