NFR Participants

Reservoir Characterization
of
Naturally Fractured Gas Condensate Reservoirs
Dr. Tarek Ahmed

Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd
www.TarekAhmedAssociates.com
Tahmed@Mtech.edu
Professor Emeritus of Petroleum Engineering

Montana Tech of the University of Montana
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
1
Course Content
1. Understanding Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
2. PVT Laboratory Data
 CCE
 CVD
 Swelling
3. QC/QA (Validation) of Laboratory PVT
4. Condensate Buildup in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
5. Reservoir Characterization for Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs
6. Fracture Porosity of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
2
7. Capillary Pressure, Fractured Porosity and Relative
Permeability Concepts, including:
 Capillary Pressure and Fluid Distributions
 Normalization of Relative Permeability
 Generating Relative Permeability Ratio from CCE Tests For
Modeling Retrograde Gas Reservoirs
8. Impact of Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability on
Productivity
9. Properties of Matrix Blocks ad Fractures
 Warren and Root Storage Capacity Ratio ω
 Warren and Root Geometry Parameter α
 Warren and Root Interporosity Parameter λ
10. Mechanism of Flow In Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
3
11. Analysis of Condensate Buildup and Flow Impairment of Retrograde Gas if
Fissures Reservoirs
12. Complexity of Well Testing Analysis of Naturally- Fractured Gas-Condensate
Wells
13. Interpretation in Well Test Analysis
14. Well Test Analysis in NFGCR
15. Well Test Analysis in NFGCR below Dewpoint Pressure
16. Analysis of Recovery Mechanisms for NFGCR
17. Deliverability of Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
18. Recovery of Retrograde Condensate from NFGCR by Gas Injection
19. Modern Decline and Type Curves Analysis Models NFGCR
Probability-Log Scale Performance
Decline in unconventional reservoirs.
Use of type curves for estimating reserves.
Traditional Arps decline curves
Modified Arps’ Method
Duong’s Method
Weibull Growth Model
Power Law Function
Modified Hyperbolic Function
Approximation of the Complete and Incomplete Gamma Function
Stretched Exponential Function
Comparison of Different Methodologies © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
4
20. Estimated Ultimate Recovery “EUR”
 Generating Type Curves
 How to generate the P90, P50, and P10 Type Curves?
 Decoupling Well Stream Type Curves
 Probability-Log Scale Performance of Shale
 P10, P50, and P90
 EUR
21. Gas Cycling in NFGCR
5
Fundamentals of Reservoir Fluid & Rock
Characterization
6
Fluid Characterization
7
Single Component System
P-V Diagram
Liquid Region C
4 Liquid+Gas Tc
Region Pc, Tc& Vc
3 2 1
P-T Diagram
4 Liquid Region
2 &3 Gas Region

1
8
9
9
10
10
Binary System
pd  pb
Vapor
11
Mixture Critical Point is a Strong
function of Composition
Comp. Mix 1 Mix 2 Pc, psia Tc, R 
CO2 0.009 0.000 1,071 547.9 0.225
N2 0.003 0.000 493 227.6 0.040
C1 0.535 0.350 667.8 343.37 0.0104
C2 0.115 0.100 707.8 550.09 0.0986
C3 0.088 0.060 616.3 666.01 0.1524
i-C4 0.023 0.020 529.1 734.98 0.1848
n-C4 0.023 0.020 550.7 765.65 0.2010
i-C5 0.015 0.001 490.4 829.1 0.2223
n-C5 0.015 0.002 488.6 845.7 0.2539
C6 0.015 0.030 436.9 913.7 0.3007
C7+ 0.159 0.417 320.3 1139.4 0.5069
12
Reservoirs Classification
Based on Hydrocarbon Tc & Reservoir Temperature “T”
Oil reservoirs Gas reservoirs

T <Tc T >Tc
Near Critical Reservoirs !!!

( T ≈ Tc )
13
P-T diagram for a Hydrocarbon Mixture
Tc ?
Oil Reservoir Gas Reservoir
14
Impact of Methane and the Plus-Fraction:
The % of C1 & C7+ in the hydrocarbon system are

perhaps the most important two components in a
naturally occurring hydrocarbon system due to the
fact that they impact the classification and
volumetric behavior of the system. Their impacts,
include:
1. Size & Shape of Phase Envelop (P-T Diagram)

2. The Type of the Hydrocarbon System
3. The Shift of the Critical Point
4. Critical Pressure & Temperature
© 2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
15
1. Low % of Methane
2. High % of C7+
1. High % of Methane
2. Low % of C7+
16
The Eagle Ford Challenges
The Eagle Ford shale is one of the newest shale plays. Located in S.
Texas, it extends over an area of about 20,000 square miles
Hydrocarbon Windows
17
Mol% of C1& C7+will Determine Type of the
Hydrocarbon System
Increasing %C1
Pressure
Black Oil
Volatile Oil
Increasing % C7+
Gas Condensate System
Wet Gas System
Dry Gas System
OF
18
Constructing & Importance of
The P-T Diagram
19
Temperature “T”
% of Oil as
function of
Pressure
PVT Cell
20
Constant Composition Expansion
CCE
Pb P1<Pb P2 <P1 P3 <P2

Pi> Pb
100 % 100 %
oil 90 %
oil oil 705% 65 %
oil oil
Hg
Constant Temperature “T1”
21
P-T Diagram
Liquid Region Gas Region
C
Liquid+Gas
T1 T2 T3 T4
22
Identifying the Reservoir
Hydrocarbon System
23
Oil Reservoirs
Reservoir Temperature “T” < Oil TC
Type of Reservoirs Type of Crude Oils

 Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs.  Ordinary black oil
 Saturated Oil Reservoirs.  Low-shrinkage crude oil
 Gas-cap Reservoirs  High-shrinkage (volatile) crude oil
 Near-Critical Reservoirs  Near-critical crude oil
 Critical Mixture
24
Type of Reservoirs
Undersaturated Saturated Gas-Cap
reservoir reservoir reservoir
Pi >Pb Pi = Pb
25
Type of Crude Oils
1) Ordinary black oil

2) Low-shrinkage crude oil
3) High-shrinkage (volatile) crude oil
4) Critical Mixture !!!!
The Key: Liquid Shrinkage Curve

“a Plot of % Liquid Volume vs. pressure”
26
1- Ordinary Black Oil.
Quality lines are evenly spaced
Initial pi and T C
pressure
Temperature
Liquid Volume
Evenly Spaced Quality Lines will

Produce straight-line relationship
Liquid-shrinkage curve
for black oil.
pressure
27
Ordinary “Black” Oil is Typically defined by:
API gravity: <40 API

GOR: <700 scf/STB
Oil FVF < 1.5 bbl/STB
Color,…etc
28
2- Low-shrinkage Oil.
Quality lines are far from the bubble-point curve
100%
0%
Pressure
90% Liquid+Gas
80%
70% 50% 40%
100%
Liquid Volume
0% Pressure pb
29
Low-shrinkage Oil Typically is defined by:
 Oil formation volume factor <1.2 bbl/STB
 Gas-oil ratio < 200 scf/STB
 Oil gravity < 35o API
 Black or deeply colored
30
3- Volatile “High Shrinkage” Crude Oil
Quality lines are close to the bubble-point curve
C
Initial pi and T
pressure
Temperature
Liquid Volume
Rapid shrinking
of the oil
Liquid-shrinkage curve
for Volatile Oil
pressure
31
Volatile crude oil is Characterized by:
 Oil formation volume factor > 1.5 bbl/STB
 Gas-oil ratios between 2,000-3,000 scf/STB
 Oil gravities between < 55o API
 Greenish to orange in color
32
4- Near-critical Oil Reservoirs
Key: Reservoir Temperature very close to critical Temperature
Initial pi and T Notice; all quality lines

C Converge at the critical point
pressure
Temperature
Liquid Volume
Liquid-shrinkage curve for

near-critical crude oil
33
Liquid shrinkage Curves for crude oil systems.
100%
E
Liquid Volume
0
%
Pressure pb
34
GAS-OIL CONTACT
“GOC”
35
Gas-Cap Drive Reservoir
Pi < Pb
Pd A must Condition:
Pi pd = pb= pi
Pb
36
Gas-Cap Reservoir
pressure
 p  g
   ; psi / ft
 D  g 144
depth
GOC pd = pb= pr
 p  
   o ; psi / ft
 D o 144
Determination of GOC from Pressure gradients

37
Pressure Gradient
 p  g
Gas Gradient    ; psi / ft
 D g 144
 p  o
Oil Gradient    ; psi / ft
 D o 144
 p  
Water Gradient    w ; psi / ft
 D  w 144
38
Comment on Pressure Gradient:
Traditionally, the Reservoir Pressure Gradient
is Treated as a Straight-line Relationship,
however, the Relationship is NOT a Straight-
line, particularity for hydrocarbon system with
compositional variations. This Will Impact the
GOC and WOC
 p  
Oil Gradient    o ; psi / ft
 D o 144
39
Saturation pressure & % C7+ Saturation pressure & %C1
pd
pd
C7+ C1
GOC
pb
pb
Less gas in solution, Less gas in solution,
i.e. less GOR i.e. less GOR
depth depth
40
Gas-Cap Reservoir
GOC
Bubblepoint pressure
41
Gas-Cap Reservoir
Depth Pressure Temperature Phase Sat Point Molecular Fluid Dens GOR STO Oil Dens
ft psia °F psia Weight lb/ft³ Scf/stb lb/ft³
7500 3727.52 169.27 Gas 3303.38 23.8 15.381 47382.8 58.616
7600 3738.31 175.17 Gas 3392.63 24.3 15.567 40288.5 58.618
7620 3740.48 176.35 Gas 3410.86 24.4 15.612 38991.5 58.621
7650 3743.74 178.12 Gas 3438.55 24.6 15.684 37111.6 58.627
7750 3754.78 184.02 Gas 3534.33 25.2 15.979 31337.5 58.667
7786 3758.8 186.14 Gas 3570.23 25.4 16.109 29425.2 58.688
7800 3760.37 186.97 Gas 3584.44 25.5 16.164 28701.7 58.697
7850 3766.03 189.92 Gas 3636.67 25.9 16.385 26193.1 58.738
7900 3771.78 192.87 Gas 3691.56 26.4 16.65 23783.9 58.789
7930 3775.28 194.64 Gas 3726.19 26.7 16.837 22372.1 58.828
7954 3778.1 196.06 Gas 3755.08 27 17.007 21251.9 58.863
7960 3778.81 196.41 Gas 3762.49 27 17.052 20972.5 58.873
7970 3780 197 Gas 3775.03 27.2 17.131 20506.2 58.889
7972 3780.24 197.12 Gas 3777.57 27.2 17.148 20412.9 58.893
7974.4 3780.52 197.26 Gas GOC 3780.57 27.2 17.167 20303.2 58.897
7974.4 3780.52 197.26 Oil 3780.51 61.3 39.095 2440.2 64.821
7980 3782.16 197.59 Oil 3772.82 61.7 39.239 2414.7 64.86
8000 3787.64 198.77 Oil 3750.63 62.7 39.654 2340.9 64.972
8080 3809.99 203.49 Oil 3673.85 66.2 40.999 2111.6 65.326
8100 3815.7 204.67 Oil 3656.89 67 41.278 2065.6 65.398
42
Estimating the Location of
“GOC”
43
A Discovery Well penetrates an oil column
what is the possibility of a GAS CAP UPDIP ?
ONLY a possibility
gas zone ! Well

GOC ???
po  pb
D
 p 
 
 D o
po
 p  
   o ; psi / ft
 D o 144
44
A Discovery Well penetrates a Gas column
what is the possibility of an Oil Rim ?
Well
pg
pb  p g
D
 p 
 
 D  g
GOC ???
oil zone !!
ONLY a possibility
 p  g
   ; psi / ft
 D g 144
45
Two Discovery Wells
Maximum POSSIBLE Oil Thickness
pb  p g
D1 
 p g 
 
 D  g
gas ∆D1
GOC !?
∆D
D2  D  D1  D3
WOC !?
∆D3
Water ( pw  pb )  (po / D) ( D  D1]

 D3 
[ (pw / D)  (po / D) ]
 p  
   w ; psi / ft
 D  w 144
46
Given:
Pg = 1745 psi
ρg = 14.4 lb/ft3
Pw = 1808 psi
ρw = 57.6 lb/ft3
Pb = 1750 psi
ρo = 50.4 lb/ft3
Estimate:
1- maximum possible oil column thickness
2- Possible depth to GOC 4950 ft
3- Possible depth to WOC
gas
GOC !?
WOC !?
5150 ft
Water Just remember; pressure gradient in psi/ft is given by:


; psi / ft
144
47
Given:
Pg = 1745 psi
ρg = 14.4 lb/ft3
Pw = 1808 psi
ρw = 57.6 lb/ft3
Pb = 1750 psi
ρo = 50.4 lb/ft3
Estimate:
1- maximum possible oil column thickness
2- Possible depth to GOC 4950 ft
3- Possible depth to WOC
gas
GOC !?
WOC !?
5150 ft
Water Just remember; pressure gradient in psi/ft is given by:


; psi / ft
144
48
Gas Reservoirs
Reservoir Temperature “T” > Gas TC
1. Dry Gas Reservoirs

2. Wet Gas Reservoirs
3. Retrograde Gas Reservoirs
4. Near Critical reservoirs
49
1- Dry Gas Reservoirs
Gas Reservoirs
Separator
50
2- Wet Gas Reservoirs
Gas Reservoirs
51
Wet Gas Reservoir
Gas
VST Liquid
Single Phase 2-phase

region
“Gas”
T
52
Equivalent Gas Volume:
When liquid is separated from the gas at the surface, the
cumulative liquid volume must be converted into an equivalent
gas volume “Veq” and added to the cumulative gas production
or to gas production rate qgas. If Np STB of liquid (condensate)
has been produced,
[Qgas,, GP ]Psep
p/z
Qo, NP
GP
gas gas
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights

Reserved.
53
14.7 psia
PV  Z n R T
Z sc n (10.73) Tsc
Vsc 
Psc
60 oF
1 STB for n  1
Vsc  379.4 scf
mo Vo o (5.615) (62.4  o )
no   
Mo Mo Mo
1mole occupies 379.4 scf
(5.615) (62.4  o )
Veq  379.4 no  379.4
Mo
o
Veq  133,000 scf / STB
Mo
Reserved.
54
o [Qgas,, GP ]Psep
Veq  133,000
Mo
GP  Veq N P  (GP ) sep scf Qo, NP
Qgas  Veq QO  (Qgas ) sep scf/day

gas gas
p/z
GP
Where:
Veq = equivalent gas volume, Scf / STB
Np = cumulative, or daily, liquid volume, STB
Qgas = gas rate volume, scf/day
Qo = gas rate volume, STB/day
ᵞo = specific gravity of the liquid, 60o/60o
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All
Mo = molecular weight of the liquid Rights Reserved.
55
Useful Expressions:
141.5 6084
o  Mo 
API  131.5 API  5.9
An expression for the ratio ᵞo/Mo as a function of the condensate stock-tank

API gravityis given by:
ᵞo / Mo = 0.001892 + 7.35 (10-5) API – 4.52 (10-8) (API)2

Reserved.
56
o
Veq  133,000
Mo
ᵞo / Mo = 0.001892 + 7.35 (10-5) API – 4.52 (10-8) (API)2
Veq = 252 + 9.776 API – 0.006 (API)2
900
800
700
Veq 600
Scf/STB 500
400
300
200
100
0
40 45 50 55 60
API
57
Class Problem
The following data is available on a wet-shale gas reservoir:
initial reservoir pressure pi = 3200 psia

reservoir temperature T = 200oF
average porosity = 8%
average connate water saturation Swi = 30%
condensate daily flow rate Qo = 400 STB / day
API gravity of the condensate = 50o
daily separator gas rate qgsep = 4.20 MM Scf / day
Average separator gas specific gravity = 0.65
daily stock-tank gas rate qgst = 0.15 MM Scf / day
Calculate the daily well stream gas flow rate in Scf / day

Reserved.
58
3- Retrograde Gas Reservoirs
“Rich & Lean”
59
What Does “Retrograde” Mean?
Means: Opposite to the usual order; inverted or reversed.
Gas Normal Behavior Gas Reversed Behavior

Increasing P Increasing P
Condensation
Vaporization
Condensation
Retrograde
Vaporization
Retrograde
Normal
Normal
Decreasing P
Decreasing P
60
Retrograde Gas Reservoirs
C
Upper pd Decreasing pressure
Upper Pd
Vaporization
reversed
Normal
P
Lower pd
15%
Lower pd
10% 5% 0%
Temperature © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
61
Retrograde Gas Reservoirs
Critical Cricondentherm
Temperature Temperature
62
Retrograde Gas Reservoir
Gas
VST Liquid
P< Pd
C
Two-Phase System
“Gas & Liquid”
T
63
Liquid Dropout “LDO”
Qg & GP Qg & GP
Qo & NP Qo & NP
Pd ≤ Pi P <Pd

Rights Reserved.
64
Liquid dropout & Condensate Yield Curves
Maximum LDO
Condensate Yield, STB/MMscf

LDO, %
65
Lean Condensate System
Liquid Dropout for

Lean Condensate System
66
Near-critical Gas-condensate Reservoirs
Notice; all quality lines converge

at the critical point
67
68
Near Critical Gas & Oil Reservoirs
69
Near Critical Systems
Shifting the Critical Point With Changing Composition
critical point T critical point
70
Saturated Oil System
Gas Condensate System
71
Identifying Hydrocarbon System
By
The Ternary Diagram
72
Each corner of the triangular plot
represents 100% of a given fraction,
(e.g. Saturation) progressive from 0% Sg
at the opposite side of each corner to 100%
100 % (usually with incremental step
size of 10%).
70%
0
0
20%
SO
100% 0 SW
100%
73
Representing Hydrocarbon System in the Ternary Diagram
A valuable approach for representing the phase behavior of multicomponent

hydrocarbon mixtures and their interaction with a displacing gas is the use of the
pseudo-ternary diagram. The components of the reservoir fluid are grouped into
three pseudocomponents located on the corners of the ternary plot. One
possible grouping that has been used frequently includes the following mixed
components:
Component 1:
represents a volatile pseudocomponent and is composed of methane,
nitrogen and carbon dioxide located on the uppermost of the triangle,
Component 2:
represents a pseudocomponent that is composed of intermediate
hydrocarbon components such as ethane through hexane. The
component is located on the lower right corner of the plot. It should be
pointed out that sometimes CO2 is included with the intermediate
components
Component 3:
is essentially the heptanes-plus fraction “C7+” and is located on the
lower left corner of the plot.
74
CO2+ N2+C1
Each corner of the triangular plot 100%
represents 100% of a given
pseudo-component, progressive
from 0% at the opposite side of
each corner to 100 % (usually with
incremental step size of 10%).
70%
0
0
20%
C7+
100% 0 C2-C6
100%
75
Key Components
C1=65.41% & C7+=9.526%
76
C1+N2+CO2
A
A- Dry Gas
D
B- Wet Gas
C- Retrograde Gas
D- Near Critical
E- Volatile Oil
F- Ordinary Oil C B
G- Low Shrinkage Oil
C7+
C2-C6
77
System CGR GOR API
STB/MMscf SCF/STB C1+N2+CO2
Dry Gas - > 100,000 -
Wet Gas 10-15 70,000- > 60 D A
100,000
Retrograde 15-300 3,300-70,000 > 50
Gas
Near Critical >300 > 3,300 > 50
C B
Volatile Oil - 1,000-3,300 > 45
Ordinary Oil - 200-1,000 < 45
Low - < 200 < 20
Shrinkage
Oil
E
G Increasing
GOR
C7+ C2-C6
78
fundamental Laboratory Tests for
Hydrocarbon Systems
79
Laboratory Analysis of Gas Condensate Systems
In the laboratory, a standard analysis on a gas-condensate
sample consists of:
1. Recombination and analysis of separator samples

2. Constant-Volume Depletion Test (CVD)
3. Measuring the pressure-volume relationship, i.e., constant
Composition Expansion Test “CCE”.
4. Swelling Tests
80
Surface & Bottom-hole Sampling
81
Complications in Sample Collection
Bottom-hole Sampling Tools:
a) Wireline Formation Tester “FT” Surface Sampling
b) Repeat Formation Tester “RFT”
c) Modular Formation Dynamics Tester “MDT”
d) Samples from DST Psep
Tsep 4- Separator instability
Inaccurate rate measurements
Separator
2- Release of contaminates from Tubing/annulus

3- Water and Gas Coning
Comingled Production
Poor cleanup of drilling/workover fluids
pr
1- Two phase flow
5- two phase flow in to tool
Loss of seal
Leaky cylinder
pwf Wellbore damage
82
DEFINITION OF
REPRESENTATIVE FLUID SAMPLE !!!
83
Fluid Sample from
Well 1 Fluid Sample from
Well 3
Fluid Sample from

Well 2 Fluid Sample
From Well 4
Gas Coning Below Saturation Pressure

4 samples; Which sample is considered Representative?
84
Impact of Sampling on:
a)Black Oil Modeling (Tabulated PVT-Data): You

need a Representative Sample
b)Compositional Modeling: Best if You Obtain

Multiple Samples (Representative and
Unrepresentative) for Tuning EOS Parameters
85
On Sampling
A. Based on the definition of a “NOT REPRESENTATIVE
FLUID SAMPLE” or when we question the volatility of
the PVT analysis performed on
“UNREPRESENTATIVE FLUID SAMPLE”; engineers
tend to disregard the sample and do not include the
Laboratory data when developing the PVT Model !!!.
B. It is STRONGLY recommended against this definition

of “UNREPRESENTATIVE FLUID SAMPLE.” It is a
definition that costs the industry in terms of money,
time, and lost opportunity. It is important to keep in
mind that:
86
Fluid Sample from
Well 1
Sample from well 1:
Swelling !!!!!!!
Fluid Sample from

Well 2
Fluid Sample Contaminated with Gas

Coning
Is STILL a VALID SAMPLE for EOS
Applications
Swelling
87
Fluid Sample from
Well 3
Fluid Sample from

Well 4
Fluid Sample Taken Below
Saturation Pressure; is
STILL a VALID SAMPLE
for EOS Applications
Below Saturation Pressure
88
Advise:
Any Fluid Sample that Produces
from a Reservoir Should be
Automatically Considered as a
Representative of the Reservoir.
After All, this Sample is Produced
from the Reservoir
89
The final EOS fluid characterization of a field
should match all accurate PVT
measurements of all samples produced from
the reservoir, independent of whether the
samples are representative or not of in-situ
compositions
90
Surface Sampling
91
Surface Sampling:
Surface sampling consists of capturing oil and gas samples from outlet streams of a
conventional production test separator. These samples must be subsequently
recombined based on a measured stable GOR. The following five operational
requirements must be met to ensure that recombined samples are representative of the
reservoir fluids:
1) Rate measurements must be taking at regular intervals to determine
when steady state flow is achieved. The well must be producing under
a constant GOR with A MINIMUM 24 hours of stabilized GOR is
recommended before obtaining a representative sample
2) Drawdown must be as low as possible; i.e. Low Flow Rate
3) The gas and liquid samples must be recombined accurately in the

laboratory, QC the recombining GOR is a MUST
4) The produced GOR must be representative of the actual solution GOR,

i.e. Rs.
5) The GOR must be accurately determined through monitoring GOR with

time and during well conditioning
92
The instantaneous GOR is defined by:
 krg Bo o 
GOR  Rs   
k B 
 ro g g 
A Representative Sample, Surface or Bottom-hole Sample
can be obtained when:
a) The well is producing a STABLIZED GOR; i.e.

GOR=constant
b) The reservoir pressure ≥ pb which suggests a single
phase is flowing; i.e.:
 krg Bo o 
  0 GOR  Rs
 kro Bg  g 
93
Surface Sampling Challenges:
 Conditioning and monitoring well rate
 Gas and Oil are not in equilibrium at the

separator, i.e. separator instability
 Uncontrolled drawdown
 Inaccurate gas and oil rate measurements; i.e.

GOR
94
Surface Sampling
Separator Gas Sample
Separator Gas
Sample Cylinder
Separator Liquid Sample
Separator Liquid
Sample Cylinder
95
Surface Sampling
The required Combination of Gas-Oil Ratio in scf/bbl is:
Recombined (GOR)scf/bbl = (GOR)scf/STB (S)STB/bbl
Psep & Tsep

GOR, scf/STB
Separator
Separator Shrinkage Factor “S” STB/bbl
96
Quality Checks of Separator Oil & Gas Samples
When separator products arrive in the laboratory for use in the performance of a
reservoir fluid study, it is critical that each sample be checked for its integrity. The
“quality” checks of the various samples include the following:
Separator Gas Samples

1) Opening pressure of each sample cylinder.
2) The existence of condensed liquids at separator temperature.
3) Air content determination of samples selected for possible use after screening
The gas sample cylinders should open at a pressure near the pressure of the separator
in the field. The cylinder(s) found to have such pressure are heated to a temperature
slightly warmer than that of the separator in the field. Once equilibrated at this
temperature, the sample cylinders which are found to contain no condensed
hydrocarbon liquids are selected for possible use in the recombination and reservoir fluid
study.
The gas sample cylinder with the highest opening pressure not containing liquid phase is
analyzed for air. If the air content is found to be less than 0.2 mole percent, the
hydrocarbon analysis is continued through at least Heptanes plus. The gas will later be
used in the recombination of separator products and reservoir fluid study.
97
Separator Liquid Samples
1) Opening pressure of each sample cylinder.
2) Presence and quantity of water collected in each sample cylinder.
3) Bubblepoint pressure determination of each sample.
4) Volume of separator liquid contained in each sample cylinder.
Once each separator liquid sample cylinder opening pressure is measured, the
bottom cylinder valve is opened slightly to check for the presence of water. If
water is found to be present, it is drained and its volume measured. Often the
water recovered from the cylinder is subjected to a water analysis to determine
its origin.
Each separator liquid sample is next subjected to a bubblepoint determination
at laboratory temperature. The bubblepoint pressure of each sample is
compared to that of the separator in the field. Each of these bubblepoint
pressures are also compared to each other.

Reserved.
98
Comments on Quality Checks
1) If the samples were collected properly and none of the sample cylinders
had leaked during transit to the laboratory, the quality checks on all
samples should suggest whether or not the separator pressure reported
from the field is reasonably correct. If the opening pressures of the gas
samples and bubblepoint pressures of the liquid samples are similar to the
reported field separator pressure, the indication is that the reported
separator is reasonably correct.
2) At times, there are quality check results which indicate that first stage
separator gas had been collected with the separator liquid sample had
been collected from a secondary separator. In this situation, the
separator gas samples would open at a pressure near that of the first stage
separator, and the bubblepoint pressures of the liquid samples would be
significantly lower than the first stage separator pressure. Under no
circumstances should this combination of separator products be
used for to combine the two samples

Reserved.
99
100
Recombining Fluid Samples when Pd > Pcurrent
Physical Recombination
The selected separator gas and separator liquid samples are physically
recombined using the reported Gas/Oil Ratio (GOR) and the Dew Point of the
recombined sample is measured at the reservoir temperature. If the
measured Dew Point Pressure is above the reservoir pressure; the dew point
pressure of the recombined fluid is adjusted to a specific dew point pressure
(equal to reservoir pressure) as follows:
Adjustment of Dew Point Pressure

A Large volume of recombined reservoir fluid is charged to PVT Cell at its dew
point pressure, which is preheated to reservoir temperature. After thermal
stabilization at reservoir temperature, the pressure in the PVT Cell is slowly
reduced to the current reservoir pressure “pcurrent” and the sample is
stabilized at that pressure and temperature for approximately 6 hours. After
establishing complete equilibrium at reservoir pressure and temperature, the
gas phase is slowly transferred to another Lab storage cylinder leaving behind
the liquid formed. The transferred gas phase (adjusted fluid) will have the
dew point pressure equal to the current reservoir pressure. This adjusted
fluid is used for further PVT analyses.
101
Bottom-Hole Sampling
102
Bottom-hole Sampling:
To obtain a bottom-hole sample, a period of reduced flow rate that generally last
from 2 to 4 days are required. After the reduced flow rate period, the well would
be shut-in and allowed to reach static pressure. This shout-in period generally last
from one day up to a week of more, based primarily on the permeability.
Downhole sampling techniques capture the fluid at reservoir native conditions
using of the following tools:
a) Wireline Formation Tester “FT”

b) Repeat Formation Tester “RFT”
c) Modular Formation Dynamics Tester “MDT”
d) Samples from DST
Challenges:
a) Capturing a representative samples
b) Contamination with drilling fluids and mud filtrates
c) Uncontrolled drawdown
d) Obtaining large fluid volume
e) Can not use if water is produced with hydrocarbon fluid
103
Impact of Error in Pb Measurement on Prediction of Oil Recovery for a
Solution Gas Drive Reservoir (Black Oil)
unrepresentative Sample
“WHY”
104
Impact of Error in Pb Measurement on Prediction of Oil Recovery for a
Solution Gas Drive Reservoir (Black Oil)
105
Effect of OBM Contamination on
PVT Properties
106
Effect of OBM Contamination on Rs
PVT Properties
Rs
Bo, bbl/STB Bo
Rs, scf/STB Bo
Pressure
20% Mole OBM
% LDO
5% Mole OBM
0% Mole OBM

Reserved.
Pressure
107
The Skimming Method:
The skimming method is based on plotting the weight
fraction of C10 – C30 of a contaminated liquid versus the
molecular weight on a semi-logarithmic scale that will
show the departure from the linear trend over the range
affected by the contaminants. The concentrations of the
contaminants are then skimmed from the semi-log
straight line that is assumed to represent
uncontaminated reservoir fluid . The gamma distribution
function is normally fitted to the composition of the C7+
portion of contaminated oil samples and excluding the
composition of contaminants from the data-fitting
procedure.
108
The Skimming Method
Semi-log Plot of Composition vs. MW
zi  a eb ( MW )i
Composition, wt%
Molecular Weight
109
OVERALL COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS
“ zi”
© 2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
110
Multiple Fluid Samples
Identifying the Outliers
1. Saturation pressure vs. depth

2. C1 mole% vs. depth
3. C7+ mole% vs. depth
4. MC7+ vs. depth

111
111
Saturation Pressure
X
True Vertical Depth
X
X
X
X
X Outlier (removed) data
Measured Saturation Pressure versus Depth

112
112
Mol % of Methane
X
True Vertical Depth
X X
X
X
Measured Methane Content versus Depth

113
113
Mol% of Heptane-Plus Fraction
X
True Vertical Depth
X
Measured Mol % of C7+ versus Depth

114
114
Molecular weight of Heptane-Plus Fraction
X
True Vertical Depth
Measured C7+ Molecular Weight versus Depth

115
115
On the Molecular Weight of “C7+”
116
Universal Oil Products (UOP) characterization factor:
The molecular weight “M” specific gravity “γ” and boiling point temperature Tb
are considered the key properties that reflect the chemical makeup of
petroleum fractions. Watson et al (1935) introduced a widely used
characterization factor, commonly known as the “Watson” or “Universal Oil
Products (UOP) characterization factor”, that is based on normal boiling
point and specific gravity. This characterization parameter is given by the
following expression:
 Tb 
1/ 3
( K w )C 7  
   C 7
The Watson factor can be correlated with the molecular weight “M” specific gravity “γ”
by the following expression:
 M 0.15178 
( K w )C 7  4.5579  0.84573 
  C 7
117
Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid Sample
 Tb1/ 3 
( K w )C 7  
   C 7
 M 0.15178 
( K w )C 7  4.5579  0.84573 
  C 7

Reserved.
118
It should be pointed fluid samples from the same field often display a constant
Kw which suggests that a plot of (MW) C7+ vs. (у )C7+ can be used for checking the
consistency of C7+ measurements.
Samples Show 11.98 < Kw <12.00 with an

Average Kw =11.99
119
120
120
121
121
Generalized Physical Properties
a5
  a1  a2 n  a3n 2  a4 n3 
n
122

a5
  a1  a2 n  a3n 2  a4 n3 
n
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
M -131.11375000 24.96156000 -0.34079022 2.4941184 x 10-3 468.3257500
Tc, oR 915.53747000 41.42133700 -0.75868590 5.8675351 x 10-3 -1.3028779 x 103
pc, psia 275.56275000 -12.52226900 0.29926384 -2.8452129 x 10-3 1.7117226 x 103
Tb, oR 434.38878000 50.12527900 -0.90972930 7.0280657 x 10-3 -601.8565100
ω -0.50862704 8.70021100 x 10-2 -1.84848140 x 10 -3 1.4663890 x 10-5 1.8518106
 0.86714949 3.41434080 x 10-3 -2.83962700 x 10 -5 2.4943308 x 10-8 -1.1627984
Vc ft3/lb 5.223458 x 10-2 7.87091369 x 10-4 -1.93244320 x 10 -5 1.7547264 x 10-7 4.4017952 x 10-2
123
Edmister’s Acentric Factor equation
3 log ( pc / 14.70)
 1
7 [(Tc /Tb 1)]
124
Class Problem:
A plus-fraction has a molecular weight and specific gravity
of 150 and 0.78, respectively.
Please Characterized the fraction in terms of it critical

properties and acentric factor
125
QC & QA Evaluation Techniques
126
QC Overall Compositional Analysis
“ zi”
127
128
The Equilibrium Ratio
“The K-Value”
129
The K-Value:
In a multi-component system, the equilibrium ratio Ki of a given component is defined
as the ratio of the mole fraction of the component in the gas phase “yi” to the mole
fraction of the component in the liquid phase “xi”. Mathematically, the relationship
is expressed as:
yi
Ki 
xi
The K-value is an equilibrium property criteria that correctly measure the tendency
of any component in a mixture to escape[e from one phase to another. This
suggests when the K-value for a component is greater than 1, i.e. Ki >1, the
component tends to concentrate in the gas phase.
The proper calculations of the K-value provide the basis for compositional
modeling and the volumetric behavior of the hydrocarbon system
130
Equilibrium Ratio
P&T
MBE:
Gas
zi nt = yi nv + xi, nL
ZV, nV & yi
nt =1= nL + nv
yi
Overall System Ki 
Zi, nt xi
KCO2  KC1 KC 2
Liquid
ZL, nL & xi
131
A MUST Condition:
KN2>KC1>KCO2>KC2>KC3>…..>KC+
KCO2  KC1 KC 2
132
yi
Ki 
xi
KN2>KC1>KCO2>KC2>KC3>…..>KC+
133
The K-Value Consistency Criteria
Component xi yi zi Ki= yi/xi
% % %
CO2 3.65 1.29 2.46 0.353
N2 5.74 0.2 2.95 0.035
C1 10.01 57.48 33.94 5.742

C2 5.34 15.84 10.63 2.966
C3 3.64 14.04 8.88 3.857
i-C4 2.76 2.15 2.45 0.779
n-C4 2.76 5.3 4.04 1.92
i-C5 2.23 1.29 1.76 0.578
n-C5 2.23 1.44 1.83 0.646
C6s 1.86 0.74 1.3 0.398
C7s 1.6 0.2 0.89 0.125
DISCARD
C8s 1.41 0.03 0.71 0.021
C9s 1.25 0 0.62 0
C10s 50.81 0 25.2 0
134
Consistency Criteria
“The Hoffman Plot”
135
Consistency Criteria for Composition
yi The Hoffman Plot
Ki 
xi
Pci  (1 / Tbi )  (1 / Tsep ) 
bi  log( )
14.7  (1 / Tbi )  (1 / Tci ) 
xi yi K=y/x
Comp. % %
N2 CO2 5.04 8.82 1.7500

C1
N2 0.08 0.77 9.6250
CO2
C1 15.71 74.92 4.7689
C2
C2 6.26 8.64 1.3802
iC4 C3 C3 8.33 4.5 0.5402
log Ki nC4 i-C4 2.33 0.61 0.2618
Or nC5 iC5 n-C4 4.84 0.97
EOS 0.2004
log PsepKi i-C5 2.81 0.24
Lab 0.0854
n-C5 3.09 0.22 0.0712
C6s 5.11 0.12 0.0235
C7s 8.31 0.1 0.0120
C8s 11.46 0.07 0.0061
C9s 7.53 0.02 0.0027
C10+ 19.1 0
0 0.0000
-3 bi 0 +3
136
yi
Ki 
xi
Pci  (1 / Tbi )  (1 / Tsep ) 
bi  log( )
14.7  (1 / Tbi )  (1 / Tci ) 
DISCARD
N2
CO2 C1
C2
C3
iC4
Log Ki nC4
Or nC5
iC5
Log Psep Ki
0
-3 bi 0 +3
137
138
139
140
Separator
Pressure: 535 psia
Separator
Temperature: 98 °F
Separator Separator
Liquid Gas K = yi/xi log(K*P) Tb Tc Pc b b(1/Tb-1/T)

mole % mole % °R °R psia
Methane 12.269 78.003 6.358 3.532 200.95 343.01 667.0 803.9 2.5589
Ethane 9.016 12.963 1.438 2.886 332.21 549.74 707.8 1412.6 1.7191
Propane 8.406 4.529 0.539 2.460 415.94 665.59 615.0 1798.2 1.0987
i-Butane 2.990 0.859 0.287 2.187 470.45 734.08 527.9 2037.3 0.6773
n-Butane 5.514 1.153 0.209 2.049 490.75 765.18 548.8 2151.2 0.5260
i-Pentane 3.420 0.338 0.099 1.723 541.76 828.63 490.4 2383.7 0.1255
n-Pentane 4.109 0.274 0.067 1.552 556.56 845.37 488.1 2478.2 0.0089
hexane 6.396 0.200 0.031 1.223 615.37 911.47 439.5 2795.3 -0.4700
heptane 6.873 0.105 0.015 0.912 668.74 970.57 397.4 3079.2 -0.9171
octane 8.254 0.061 0.007 0.597 717.84 1023.17 361.1 3344.4 -1.3381
nonane 6.039 0.020 0.003 0.248 763.07 1070.47 330.7 3592.9 -1.7342
Stock Tank Oil Molecular Weight Comparison
141
4.0
C1
3.0
R² = 0.9986
C2
Log(k*p)
C3
iC4
2.0 nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
1.0
C7
C8
C9
0.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
b(1/Tb - 1/T)
142
QC The Reported GOR
143
The required Combination of Gas-Oil Ratio in scf/bbl is:
Recombined (GOR)scf/bbl = (GOR)scf/STB (S)STB/bbl
Psep & Tsep

GOR, scf/STB
Separator
Separator Shrinkage Factor “S” STB/bbl
144
Psep
Gas Sample
yi, nv
zi, nt Tsep
Oil Sample
MW, xi, nL, ρo
MBE:
zi nt = yi nv + xi, nL
145
 Material Balance Tests
zi nt  xi nL  yi nv
yi nt nL xi
  ( ) yi/zi
Slope = - nL/nv
zi nv nv zi
Calculate GOR: 0
0 xi/zi
(379.4) (5.615) ( o ) Psep ,Tsep
GOR  ; scf / bbl
( MW ) Liquid ( slope)
GOR  GORscf / STB SSTB / bbl ; scf/bbl

146
Class Problem:
Using the lab data given in the next two
slides for a Condensate System; QC the
reported GOR
147
148
149
Consistency Criteria for Flash Data
Sample 1: Condensate System
xi yi zi
Component % % %
CO2 5.04 8.82 8.60
N2 0.08 0.77 0.73
C1 15.71 74.92 71.44
C2 6.26 8.64 8.50
Measured Data:
C3 8.33 4.50 4.73 Liquid density = 44.94 lb/ft3
i-C4 2.33 0.61 0.71 Liquid MW = 92.13
Gas Gravity = 0.7702
n-C4 4.84 0.97 1.20 GOR (scf/sep bbl) = 16616.8
i-C5 2.81 0.24 0.39
n-C5 3.09 0.22 0.39
C6s 5.11 0.12 0.41
C7s 8.31 0.10 0.58
C8s 11.46 0.07 0.74
C9s 7.53 0.02 0.46
C10+ 19.10 0.00 1.12
150
Class problem-Condensate System
Given Measured Data:
Liquid density = 44.94 lb/ft3
Liquid MW
Gas Gravity
= 92.13
= 0.7702
Calculate GOR
GOR (scf/sep bbl) = 16616.8
Component xi yi zi
% % %
CO2 5.04 8.82 8.6
N2 0.08 0.77 0.73
C1 15.71 74.92 71.44
C2 6.26 8.64 8.5
C3 8.33 4.5 4.73
i-C4 2.33 0.61 0.71
n-C4 4.84 0.97 1.2
i-C5 2.81 0.24 0.39
n-C5 3.09 0.22 0.39
C6s 5.11 0.12 0.41
C7s 8.31 0.1 0.58
C8s 11.46 0.07 0.74
C9s 7.53 0.02 0.46
C10+ 19.1 0 1.12
151
Class Problem: Crude Oil System
xi yi zi
Component % % %
CO2 3.65 1.29 2.46

N2 5.74 0.20 2.95
C1 10.01 57.48 33.94
Measured Data:
C2 5.34 15.84 10.63
Liquid density = 44.73 lb/ft3
C3 3.64 14.04 8.88 Liquid MW = 160.7
Gas Gravity = 0.966
i-C4 2.76 2.15 2.45 GOR (scf/sep bbl) = 572
n-C4 2.76 5.30 4.04
i-C5 2.23 1.29 1.76
n-C5 2.23 1.44 1.83
C6s 1.86 0.74 1.30
C7s 1.60 0.20 0.89
C8s 1.41 0.03 0.71
C9s 1.25 0.00 0.62
C10s 55.52 0.00 27.54
152
Constant Volume Depletion Test
“CVD”
153
Performance of Retrograde Gas Wells
Two significant factors that impact the performance of a
Retrograde Gas Well; these are:
1. The reservoir pressure as it drops below the
dewpoint pressure
2. The formation of Liquid Blockage
To evaluate the above two factors it requires fully

understanding the following Four Elements:
A. The CVD Test and Liquid-Dropout “LDO”
B. Importance of Gas Equivalent Volume
C. Difference between :
 Condensate Yield “Y”
 Condensate Gas Ratio “CGR”
D. Relative Permeability © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights
Reserved.
154
Constant-Volume-Depletion “CVD” Test
The CVD Test is Designed to Duplicate the

Reservoir Depletion and Liquid Dropout
Process in the Lab through the CVDTest
155
Air Bath at
Constant Temperature “T”
Vgas
Voil
Original Oil
PVT Cell
156
Simulating the LDO in the Pore Space
Using Data from the CVD Test
Qg & GP Qg & GP
Qo & NP Qo & NP
Pd ≤ Pi P <Pd

Rights Reserved.
157
Pd P<Pd GP & composition
Vgas Vgas
Voil
PVT Cell PVT Cell
158
Constant Volume Depletion
CVD
0 % oil 10 % oil 20 % oil
P1 P1
Pd P2 P2
100 % Vsat
Gas Vsat Vsat
Vt VL
Vt VL
Hg
Constant Temperature
VL
Gas at
Pd
LDO 
Vsat
159
Constant-Volume-Depletion “CVD” Test
P1=Pd P2<Pd P2 Gas P3 P3
Qg Qg &
GP
Gas
Gas Gas Gas Gas

Gas Qo & NP
Qo & NP
Vd Vd Vt
Vt Vd
VL VL
VL
VL
VL
LDO
Vd
160
161
162
163
164
Liquid dropout curve
Maximum LDO
Rich Retrograde Gas System
165
Correcting for Condensate Saturation
So = (1 – Swi) LDO
166
Understanding the Z-Factor
a) Gas Z-Factor
b) Two-Phase Z-Factor
Gas EOS
PV
PV  Z n R T n
Z RT
167
168
Traditional MBE for
Volumetric Gas Reservoirs
Pi GP P
nP
V, Zi n p  ni  nr
V, Z
ni nr Psc GP PV
 i 
PV
Z sc R Tsc Z i R T Z R T
The Tank Model
V, Zi V, Z
ni nr
169
The Tank Model Approach
n p  ni  nr
psc G p pi V p V p pi p T p pi
     sc  G p   ( m) G p
R Tsc Zi R T Z R T Z Zi  Tsc V  Z Zi
pi/Zi
p/Z
G
0
0 G
© 2006Tarek Ahmed P& Associates, Ltd.
All Rights Reserved.
170
On the Slope “m”
p pi  p sc T  p pi
  ( m )G p
    G p
Z Z i  Tsc V  Z Zi
p T
m   sc 
 Tsc V 
Gas Formation Volume Factor
Bg 
psc Z T
; ft3/scf p T
Tsc p
V   sc  ; ft3
 Tsc m 
p Z T
V  G Bgi  G  sc i 
 Tsc pi 
 p 
G   i  ; scf
 Zi m 
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd.
171
NON-Traditional MBE
When the reservoir pressure drops below
the dewpoint pressure, condensate drops
out of the reservoir gas. This violates
several of the basic assumptions implicit in
the traditional gas material balance
equation,
172
Pi GP P
nP
V, Zi V, Z
ni nr
V, Z
V, Zi
ngas
ni
Liquid Dropout
n p  ni  nr How do you determine?
173
P
P Vgas P (0.9)
Z gas  
ngas R T (8) R T
Gas
P Vtotal P (1)
ng=8 moles Vtotal=1 cu ft
Z 2phase  
nr= 10 moles
nr R T (10) R T
Vg=0.9 cu ft
Zgas
IF we know Z2-phase; we can
then calculate the total
Liquid remaining total moles “nr”
n p  ni  nr
Psc GP PV PV
 i 
Z sc R Tsc Zi R T Z 2  phase R T
174
Pi GP P
nP
V, Zi V, Z2-Ph
ni nr
V, Z2-Ph PV
V, Zi nr 
nr Z 2 phase R T
ni
n p  ni  nr
Psc GP PV PV
 i 
Z sc R Tsc Z i R T Z 2 phase R T
175
The Modified MBE
A New Approach
176
Produced Gas
P < Pd “nP”
Pd
Initial ni Remaining nrV

Gas Gas
Remaining nrL
Hg Liquid
Hg
Total remaining
moles
nP = ni – nrg - nrL
177
The Modified MBE:
stream nP = ni – nrg - nrL
pscGP V pi V (1 LDO) p V ( LDO) p
  
R Tsc Z sc R T Zi RT Z g RT Z L
 p T Zi 
V  G  sc 
T p
 sc i 
1  ( LDO) ( LDO)  pi  pi 
p  L 
    GP
 Z g Z
Z  i  G Z i
p pi  GP 
If LDO=0  1
Z Zi  G 
178
1  ( LDO) ( LDO)  pi  pi 
p  L 
    GP
 Z g Z  Zi  G Zi 
1  ( LDO) ( LDO)  pi  pi 
p  L 
    [(GP ) sep  N P Veq ]
 Z g Z Z
 i  G Z i
Key: Liquid Deviation Factor “ZL” from CVD
L Z 2 phase Z g ( LDO)
Z 
Z g  [ Z 2 phase ( LDO  1) ]
179
A Modified MBE for Retrograde Gas Reservoirs:
1  ( LDO) ( LDO)  pi  pi 
p  L 
    GP
 Z g Z
Z  i  G Z i
Z 2 phase Z g ( LDO)
ZL 
Z g  [ Z 2 phase ( LDO  1) ]
(pd/Zd)
(p/Z)
1  ( LDO) ( LDO) 
p  
 Z g Z L 
GP
180
“ZL” from CVD should be modified to account for Swi
181
Produced Gas
P < Pd “nP”
Pd
Initial ni Remaining nrV

Gas Gas
Remaining
nrL Liquid
Swi Swi
Hg
Hg
Total remaining
moles
nP = ni – nrg - nrL
182
1  ( LDO) ( LDO)  pi  pi 
p  L 
    GP
 Z g Z  Zi  G Zi 
“ZL” from CVD should be modified to account for Swi
Z 2 phase Z g ( LDO) (1 Swi )

ZL 

Z g  Z 2 phase [ LDO (1 S wi )  1] 
183
A Modified MBE for Retrograde Gas Reservoirs:
1  ( LDO) ( LDO)  pi  pi 
p  L 
    GP
 Z g Z
Z  i  G Z i
Z 2 phase Z g ( LDO) (1 Swi )
ZL 

Z g  Z 2 phase [ LDO (1 S wi )  1] 
(pd/Zd)
(p/Z)
1  ( LDO) ( LDO) 
p  
 Z g Z L 
GP
184
Liquid Deviation Factor “ZL” from CVD!!!!
L Z 2  phase Z g ( LDO)
Z 
Z g  [ Z 2  phase ( LDO  1) ]
p ( LDO)
nL 
Z L RT Remaining Moles in the PVT
Cell /Reservoir as a function
p  1 ( LDO) 
of Pressure, very significant
ng    L 
RT Z
 2 phase Z 
RF from CVD
QC/QA: ng
[1 ( RF )] pi
 nL  ng nL
R T Zi
185
QC CVD Test Data
 Zd  p 
Z 2 phase     
 pd  1   RF  
Remaining Number of Moles:
[1 ( RF )] pi
 nL  ng
R T Zi
186
Class Problem:
QC the given laboratory CVD data in terms of Z2-phase and
remaining number of moles at each depletion pressure
187
Destructive CVD
P1=Pd P2<Pd P2
Gas
Gas Gas Gas

yi
Vd P2
Vd
Vt
xi
T, P
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates,

Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
188
Condensate Yield “Y”
&
Condensate-Gas-Ratio “CGR”
189
Impact on Condensate Yield “Y” &
Condensate-Gas-Ratio “CGR”
Gas
VST Liquid
P< Pd
C
Two-Phase System
“Gas & Liquid”
T
190
LDO & Condensate Yield Curves
Maximum LDO
Condensate Yield, STB/MMscf

LDO, %
191
Reminder of Important Relationships
o
Veq  133,000 Qg
Mo
141.5
o  QStream
API  131.5
6084 Qo
Mo 
API  5.9
Where:
Veq = equivalent gas volume, Scf / STB
yo = specific gravity of the liquid, 60o/60o
Mo = molecular weight of the liquid
qstream= Qstream Bg
192
o
Veq  133,000
Mo
ᵞo / Mo = 0.001892 + 7.35 (10-5) API – 4.52 (10-8) (API)2
Veq = 252 + 9.776 API – 0.006 (API)2
900
800
700
Veq 600
Scf/STB 500
400
300
200
100
0
40 45 50 55 60
API
193
How do you express the CGR & Condensate Yield “Y”?
Qo Qg
CGR 
Qg
Qo
Qstream CGR 
Qo Qg
Y
Qstream Qo
Qstream  Veq QO  (Qg ) sep scf/day
qgas= Qgas Bg
194
LDO, Y, & CGR
Y& CGR, STB/MMscf

LDO, %
195
Veq = 252 + 9.776 API – 0.006 (API)2
Qo
Y
Qstream
Qg
Qo
Y CGR 
Qo
Veq Qo  Qg Qstream Qg
Qo
CGR
Y
Veq CGR 1
Y < CGR
qgas= Qgas Bg
196
CGR 1 1
Y Veq 
Veq CGR 1 Y CGR
1
Y
Veq
1
1 1 Y
CGR CGR
Pressure Pd
197
1 1
Veq 
Y CGR
1
Y
45o
Veq
1
CGR
198
Separator Tests
Condensate Yield &
Plant Product
199
Gas to Pipe-Line
Gas Gas
Gas
Stream
Well
Oil Oil
Oil
zi
1st separator 2nd separator Stock-Tank
Separator Tests
200
Separator Test
P1=Pd P2<Pd P2
Gas
Gas Gas Gas

Condensate Yield
Vd &
Vd Plant Product
Vt
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates,

Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
201
202
Plant Productions & Condensate Yield:
Surface gas is processed to remove and liquefy all hydrocarbon

components that are heavier than methane, i.e., Ethan,
Propane, .etc. These liquids are called plant products or the
liquid yield. These quantities of liquid products are expressed in
gallons of liquid per thousand standard cubic feet of gas
processed, i.e., gal/Mscf , and is denoted by “GPM”. It is
usually reported for C3+ through C5+ groups in the produced
wellstreams at each pressure-depletion stage. Simple plant
efficiency “EP” can liquefy:
5% of C2
80% of the wellstream C3
95% for C4, and
100% for the heavier components
203
The following expression can be used for calculating the
anticipated GPM for each component in the gas phase.
 p y M  y M 
GPM i  11.173 sc   i i  ( EP )i GPM i  0.31585  i i  ( EP )i
 Tsc    oi    oi 
With a total plant product GPM as given by the summation of

GPM of individual components, i.e.:
GPM   GPM i
i
For example, the liquid yield of the C3+ group at CVD depletion
stage k is given by:
C 7 C 7  yi M i ( EP )i 
(GPM )C 3   (GPM i )k  0.31585    
i C 3 i C 3  oi k
204
It should be pointed out that the complete recovery of these products is not feasible.
As a rule of thumb, 5 to 25% of ethane, 80 to 90% of the propane, 95% or more of
the butanes, and 100% of the heavier components can be recovered from a simple
surface facility.
C 7 C 7   yi M i  
(GPM ) C 3   (GPM i ) k  0.31585   
i C 3   oi
 E P 
i C 3  k
Where EP is the plant efficiency.
205
Class Problem:
Table below shows the wellstream compositional analysis of the Nameless Field.
Calculate the maximum available liquid products assuming plant efficiency of 5% for C2,
80% for the C3, 95% for C4, and 100% for the heavier components can be recovered
from the surface facility.
206
Constant Composition Expansion
“CCE”
207
Constant Composition Expansion CCE
0 % oil 0 % oil 10 % oil 15% oil 20 % oil

Pi> Pd Pd P<Pd P <<Pd P <<Pd
100 %
Gas Vt Vsat Vt Vt Vt
Hg
Vt
Vrel 
VSat
VL
( LDO)Vsat 
VSat
VL
( LDO)VTot 
Vt
208
Total
PVT Cell “Gas+Liquid”
Volume “Vt”
“CCE”
Vt
Vrel 
VSat
VL
( LDO)Vsat 
VSat
VL
( LDO)VTot 
Vt
209
Laboratory Reporting CCE Data:
 Dewpoint Pressure
 Relative Volume:
Vt
Vrel 
VSat
 Liquid Volume Referenced to Saturation Volume:
VL
( LDO)Vsat 
VSat
 Liquid Volume Referenced to Total Volume:

VL
( LDO)VTot 
Vt
210
Vt
Vrel  ( LDO)Vsat 
VL
VSat VSat
211
CCE
Pressure Rel Vol (LDO)Vsat (LDO)Vtot Density
Vrel Ref. Vsat Ref. Tot Vol.
9750 0.8691 0 0 0.4333 Pd
8850 0.8991 0 0 0.4189
8400 0.9164 0 0 0.411
7950 0.9357 0 0 0.4025
7500 0.9574 0 0 0.3934
7050 0.9818 0 0 0.3836
6750 1 0 0 0.3766
6417.5 1.0244 12.91 12.6 0.5104
6085 1.0506 14.46 13.76 0.523 Vsat VTot
5752.5
5420
1.0803
1.1144
15.94
17.31
14.76
15.54
0.5334
0.5425
Vg
5087.5 1.1539 18.55 16.07 0.5509
4755 1.1999 19.64 16.37 0.5589
4422.5 1.2544 20.61 16.43 0.5667
4090
3757.5
1.3195
1.3986
21.44
22.14
16.25
15.83
0.5744
0.5823
VL
Vtotal
3425 1.4962 22.73 15.19 0.5904 Vrel 
3092.5 1.6185 23.11 14.28 0.5985 VSat
2760 1.7758 23.44 13.2 0.6071
2427.5 1.9829 23.63 11.92 0.6161
VL
2095 2.2641 23.65 10.44 0.6253 ( LDO)Vsat 
1762.5 2.6632 23.52 8.83 0.6354 VSat
1430 3.2621 23.2 7.11 0.6456
1097.5 4.2437 22.64 5.33 0.6566 VL
765 6.103 21.68 3.55 0.6686 ( LDO)VTot 
432.5 10.8268 19.73 1.82 0.6817 Vtotal
100 44.5614 9.25 0.21 0.6964
212
Retrograde-Gas Reservoirs
QC & Consistency Tests of PVT
213
QC the CCE & CVD
 P Vrel  s
Z    Z dew 
 PSat  Vrel
( LDO)Vsat
( LDO)VTot 
Vrel
 Zd  p 
Z 2 phase     
 pd  1   RF  
214
Consistency Tests
( LDO)Vsat 
VL VL
VSat
> CVD > ( LDO)VTot 
VTot
1.2
CCE VL
( LDO)Vsat 
1 VSat
0.8
CVD
LDO0.6
0.4 VL
( LDO)VTot 
VTot
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
pressure
215
Either CCE or CVD Results are incorrect
1.2
VL
( LDO)Vsat 
CCE VSat
1
0.8
LDO
0.6
CVD
0.4 VL
( LDO)VTot 
VTot
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pressure
216
Class Problem:
Perform the following QC and consistency tests on the
laboratory data listed in the previous slides:
1- Calculate Z2-phase and compare with the lab data
2- Calculate Z-factor and ρ for p>pd and compare with lab data
3- Please, using the previous CCE and CVD test data, plot
LDO, (Vrel)Vsat and (Vrel)Tot as function of pressure, starting
from dew point pressure. Are these data are consistent?
217
Estimating krg/kro Ratio
from
the CCE Test Data
218
Three Possible Flow Regions Near Wellbore:
Region 1: 2-Phase, Gas and Liquid Are Flowing
Region 2: 2-Phase, Gas is the Only Flowing Phase
Region 3: Single Phase, Only Gas is Flowing
Qg
Qo
Region 3 Region 2 Region 1

P>Pd P<Pd P<Pd
Kro=0 kro>0 kro>0 Kro=0
So>Soc So>Soc
So=0 0<So<Soc So<Soc
219
Region 2
Region 1
Region 3
Region 2
Region 3
Region 1

Reserved.
220
Flowing Fluid Phases Near Wellbore:
Near well region 1: “Two-Phase Flow”:
P < Pd
So > Soc
kro > 0
Condensate buildup region 2: “Single-Phase Flow”:
P < Pd
0< So < Soc
kro = 0
Single-phase gas region 3: “Single-Phase Flow :
P > Pd
So = 0
kro = 0
221
The Three Possible Flowing Phases
Near Wellbore
Pwf > Pd Pwf < Pd Pwf < Pd

& &
0<So< Soc So> Soc
Gas ONLY is Flowing Gas ONLY is Flowing Gas & Oil are Flowing
Qg=f(krg) & krg=f(Sg,So) Qo=f(So, kro)
Generating Relative Permeability is a Problem

222
CCE P* CVD
Oil Saturation
Flowing
Oil+ Gas
Flowing Flowing
Gas Gas
Oil
Radius, ft
223
Modeling Region 1
Relative Permeability Ratio “krg/kro”

from the CCE Test Data
224
The Three CCE Important Relationships:
Vtotal VL VL
Vrel  ( LDO)VTot  ( LDO)Vsat 
VSat Vtotal VSat
VL Vg VL V
Vrel  ( LDO)VTot  ( LDO)Vsat  L
VSat VL Vg VSat
225
VL Vg
Vrel  VL Vg VL Vg
VSat Vrel  ( LDO )Vsat   
VL VSat VSat VSat
( LDO)Vsat 
VSat
VL  VSat ( LDO)Vsat 
Vg VSat Vrel  (Vrel )Vsat 
Vg Vrel  ( LDO)Vsat

VL ( LDO)Vsat
Vrel
 1
( LDO)Vsat

Rights Reserved.
226
Vg Vrel
 1
VL ( LDO)Vsat
Vg 1
Recalling: 1 
VL ( LDO)VTot
VL
( LDO)VTot 
VL Vg
Vg (krg k h p) /[u g (ln( re / rw )]


VO (kro k h p) /[uo (ln( re / rw )]
krg  1  g
 1
kro  ( LDO )VTot  o
227
CVD
CCE
Pressure LDO Z-Factor Two-Phase % Gas
% Z-Factor Prod.
Pressure Rel Vol LDO LDO
6750 0 1.2624 1.2624 0
Ref. Vsat Ref. Tot Vol.
9750 0.8691 0 0 5500 16.8 1.1043 1.1417 9.86
8850 0.8991 0 0 4500 19.47 1.013 1.0514 19.87
8400 0.9164 0 0
7950 0.9357 0 0
3500 20.95 0.9458 0.9724 32.55
7500 0.9574 0 0 3000 21.05 0.9237 0.9371 39.96
7050 0.9818 0 0 2000 20.53 0.9063 0.8702 56.79
6750 1 0 0
6417.5 1.0244 12.91 12.6 1000 18.97 0.9283 0.7671 75.32
6085 1.0506 14.46 13.76
5752.5 1.0803 15.94 14.76
5420 1.1144 17.31 15.54
5087.5 1.1539 18.55 16.07 VTot
4755 1.1999 19.64 16.37 Vg
4422.5 1.2544 20.61 16.43
VL
4090
3757.5
1.3195
1.3986
21.44
22.14
16.25
15.83 ( LDO)Tot 
3425 1.4962 22.73 15.19 VTot
3092.5 1.6185 23.11 14.28
2760 1.7758 23.44 13.2 Vo
2427.5 1.9829 23.63 11.92
 krg   1   g 
2095 2.2641 23.65 10.44
    1  
1762.5
1430
2.6632
3.2621
23.52
23.2
8.83
7.11 k
 ro  P   LDO Tot 
 o 
1097.5 4.2437 22.64 5.33
765 6.103 21.68 3.55
432.5 10.8268 19.73 1.82
100 44.5614 9.25 0.21 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
228
CVD CCE
P1=Pd P=P2 P<P2 P<<P2
P2<Pd P2
Gas
Gas Gas Gas
Gas Gas Gas
Liquid Liquid
Relative Permeability for a  krg   1   g 

    1  
dewpoint pressure gas of P2 k
 ro  P2   LDO Tot 
 o 
229
CVD CCE
P1=Pd P2<Pd P2 P3 P3 P=P3 P<P3 P<<P3
Gas
Gas
Gas Gas Gas
Liquid Liquid
Relative Permeability for a  krg   1   g 

    1  
 kro  P3  LDO Tot   o 
dewpoint pressure gas of P3
230
Class Problem:
Using the North Sea Gas-Condensate CCE and assuming

a constant gas and oil viscosity of 0.02 and 1.6 cp,
respectively, generate the relative permeability ratio as a
function of pressure.
231
CCE
Pressure Rel Vol LDO LDO
9750 0.8691
Ref. Vsat
0
Ref. Tot Vol.
0 North Sea Condensate System
8850 0.8991 0 0
8400 0.9164 0 0
7950 0.9357 0 0
7500 0.9574 0 0
7050 0.9818 0 0
6750 1 0 0
6417.5 1.0244 12.91 12.6
6085 1.0506 14.46 13.76
5752.5 1.0803 15.94 14.76
5420 1.1144 17.31 15.54
5087.5 1.1539 18.55 16.07 VTot
4755 1.1999 19.64 16.37
4422.5 1.2544 20.61 16.43
4090 1.3195 21.44 16.25
3757.5 1.3986 22.14 15.83
3425 1.4962 22.73 15.19
3092.5 1.6185 23.11 14.28
2760 1.7758 23.44 13.2 Vo
2427.5 1.9829 23.63 11.92
 krg     g 
2095 2.2641 23.65 10.44
1762.5 2.6632 23.52 8.83
1
1430 3.2621 23.2 7.11
    1  
 kro  P  LDO Tot   o 
1097.5 4.2437 22.64 5.33
765 6.103 21.68 3.55
432.5 10.8268 19.73 1.82
100 44.5614 9.25 0.21 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
232
Near Wellbore “krg/kro” Ratio
233
Qg , scf / day
rs ; STB/scf
Qo Rs , scf / day
volatized CGR “rs”
Qg rs , STB / day
Rs ; scf / STB
Qg  Qo Rs
Bo , bbl / STB GOR  RP 
Qo  Qg rs
Qo , STB / day
Near Wellbore
234
Relative Permeability Ratio from GOR & CCE:
Qg  Qo Rs
GOR  RP  Surface Equation
Qo  Qg rs
Qg k rg  o Bo
 Reservoir Equation
Qo k ro  g Bg
k rg  o Bo
RP  Rs  (1  rs RP )
k ro  g Bg
 k rg   RP  Rs   g Bg
    
 k ro  P  1  rs RP   o Bo
235
The relative permeability ratio krg/kro ratio can also be expressed
in terms of the oil relative volume (LDO)Tot at pressure “p” from
the CCE test as given by:
 krg   1   g 
    1  
k
 ro  P   LDO Tot 
 o 
and
 krg   RP  Rs   g Bg
    
k
 ro  P  1  rs P  o Bo
R
Equating the above two expressions, the volatized CGR “rs” can be
calculated for any producing GOR, i.e. Rp, by :
1  1 ( Rs / R p )  Bg
rs   
RP 1  ( LDO )Tot  Bo
236
Relative permeability
Special Core Analysis
For Condensate Systems
237
CVD Inlet outlet
pressure pressure
P1=Pd P2<Pd P2 ∆p
gas
Gas
Core oil
Gas Gas Gas
Qg  g L
krg 
k A p
Qo o L
kro 
k A p
Core Relative Permeability for a

238
CVD Inlet
pressure
outlet
pressure
P1=Pd P2<Pd P P3 P3 ∆p
2
Gas
Gas
Core oil
Qg  g L
krg 
k A p
Qo o L
kro 
k A p
Core Relative Permeability for a
239
Proposed Experimental Procedure
The main use of relative permeabilities in gas condensate reservoirs is for well
deliverability calculations. The deliverability loss is largest near the wellbore
(Region 1). The most important relative permeability data for well deliverability
calculations is therefore krg=f(krg/kro). It is recommended that this relation
always be determined accurately for (krg/kro values ranging from a maximum
of (krg/kro)=50 to a minimum determined by PVT calculations, based on
 krg   1   g 
    1  
 k ro  P  Vrel Tot   o 
Gas relative permeability as a function of oil saturation at lower oil saturations

may be useful for calculations in the condensate buildup region (Region 2).
The range of oil saturations needed for Region 2 is defined by the CVD liquid
dropout curve. This data is usually only needed for gas condensates where the
maximum liquid dropout is greater than 10%. For leaner gas condensates the,
the maximum reduction in krg in Region 2 is less than 10-20%.
240
Region 1: Steady-State Flow Measurements [krg=f(krg/kro)]
The proposed procedure is based on conducting steady-state flow

tests on core plugs. Core plug flow tests should be conducted
such that they are representative of conditions in Region 1
throughout depletion. It is recommend to use gas from different
CVD pressure stages in the steady-state flow tests. The gas is
flashed and the resulting gasoil mixture flows through the core.
At least five or six steady state points should be measured to

define the krg = f(krg/kro) relation. Flowing conditions for these
points are determined using the PVT derived plot of (krg/kro)(p)
241
Impact of Liquid Blockage
Gas Flow Potential
A. Traditional Gas Deliverability Equation
B. Formation and Accounting for Wellbore Blockage
C. Removal of Liquid Blockage
242
A) Traditional Gas Rate Equation
kh [m( p r )  m( pwf )]
Qg 
 r  
1422 T ln  e   0.75  s 
  rw  
 2p 
pr
m  pr     dp
 Z
o g 
p wf
 2p 
m  pwf      dp
 Z
o  g 
243
(1/g Bg)
(1/g Bg)
(2 p/gZ)

Low Intermediate High
Pressure Region Pressure Region Pressure Region
2000 3000
Pressure
Reserved.
244
Region 1. High-pressure Region
Pressure-Approximation Method:
When both pwf and pr are >3000 psi, the pressure functions (2p/gZ) and
(1/gBg) are nearly constants. This observation suggests that the pressure
term (1/g Bg) can be treated as a constant and removed outside the integral,
to give the following approximation:
kh
pr
 2p  kh
pr
 2p 
  dp    dp
Qg 
 r     Z  r     ZT 
1422 T ln  e   0.75  s  pwf  g  1422 ln  e   0.75  s  pwf  g 
  rw     rw  
ZT
  Bg  0.00504
p

  
7.08 106 k h 
 pr
 1 
Qg 
 r    
  g Bg

 dp


 ln  e   0.75  s  pwf
  rw  
245
 

Qg  
7 .08 
10 6
k h

 pr
 1 
 r    
  g Bg

 dp


 ln  e   0.75  s  pwf
  rw  
Qg 
  
7.08 106 k h p r  pwf 
  re  
 g Bg  ln
avg  
 
  0.75  s 
  rw  
p r  p wf
p avg 
2
ZT
Bg  0.00504
p

Reserved.
246
Qg 
  
7.08 106 k h p r  pwf 
  re  
 g Bg  ln
avg  
 
  0.75  s 
  rw  
Where:
Qg = gas flow rate, Mscf/day
k = absolute permeability, md
h = thickness, ft
re = drainage radius
rw = well base radius
pr = reservoir pressure, psi
Pwf = bottomhole flow pressure
Bg = dry gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf
s = skin factor
247
Region 2. Intermediate-Pressure Region
Between 2000 and 3000 psi, the pressure function shows distinct
curvature. When the bottom-hole flowing pressure and average
reservoir pressure are both between 2000 and 3000 psi, the
pseudo-pressure gas pressure approach should be used to
calculate the gas flow rate, i.e.:
Qg 

kh m( p r )  m( pwf ) 
  re  
1422 T ln    0.75  s 
  rw  
248
Region 3. Low-Pressure Region
Pressure-Squared Approximation Method:
At low pressures, usually less than 2000 psi, the pressure function (2p/Z)
exhibits a linear relationship with pressure. The product (gZ) is essentially
constant when evaluating at any pressure below 2000 psi, to give:
pr pr
kh  2p  kh
Qg 
 r    

 dp 
 g Z 
  r    2 p dp
1422 T ln  e   0.75  s  pwf
1422(  g Z ) T ln  e   0.75  s  pwf
  rw     rw  
k h  p r  pwf
2 
2

Qg   
 r  
 
1422T  g Z avg ln  e   0.75  s 
  rw  
2
p r  p wf
2
p avg 
2
249
Summary of Traditional Gas Flow Equations
Use at all pressures
k h [ m( p r )  m( pwf ) ] pr
Qg  p pwf
 r  
m( p r )  2  p
1422 T ln  e   0.75  s 
  rw   0
 Z
dp m( pwf )  2 
0
Z
dp
Use at high pressures when pwf & pe > 3000 psi
  
7.08 10 6 k h p r  p wf 
Qg  p r  p wf
  re  
 g B g avg ln    0.75  s 
p avg 
2
  rw  
Use at low pressures < 2000 psi
k h  p r  pwf
2 
2

  2
Qg  p r  p wf
2
 r   p avg 
 
1422T  g Z avg ln  e   0.75  s  2
  rw  
Rights Reserved.
250
Class Problem:
A gas well with a specific gravity of 0.65 is producing under the
pseudosteady-state condition. The following additional data is
available:
k = 65 md h = 15’ T = 600oR
re = 1000’ rw = 0.25’ s = 0.4
Calculate the gas flow rate under the following conditions:

1) avg res pressure = 4000 psi, pwf = 3200 psi
2) avg. res pressure = 2000 psi, pwf = 1200 psi
Use the appropriate approximation methods and compare results with

the exact solution.

Rights Reserved.
251
Development and Accounting for
Wellbore Blockage
252
The Three Flow Regions
Near well region 1: region 2: Pd region 3:
“Two-Phase Flow”:
P* Single-Phase Flow 1-Phase Flow
25 Pe
20
15
10
0
0 2000 Pressure 4000 6000 8000
rw radius re
253
Three Possible Flow Regions Near Wellbore:
Region 1: 2-Phase, Gas and Liquid Are Flowing
Region 2: 2-Phase, Gas is the Only Flowing Phase
Region 3: Single Phase, Only Gas is Flowing
Qg
Qo

P>Pd P<Pd P<Pd
Kro=0 kro>0 kro>0 Kro=0
So>Soc So>Soc
So=0 So<Soc So<Soc
254
Flowing Fluid Phases Near Wellbore:
Near well region 1: “Two-Phase Flow”:
P < Pd
So > Soc
kro > 0
Condensate buildup region 2: “Single-Phase Flow”:
P < Pd
So < Soc
kro = 0
Single-phase gas region 3: “Single-Phase Flow :
P > Pd
So = 0
kro = 0
255
The Three Possible Flowing Phases
Near Wellbore
Pwf > Pd Pwf < Pd Pwf < Pd

& &
So< Soc So> Soc
Gas ONLY is Flowing Gas ONLY is Flowing Gas & Oil are Flowing
Qg=f(krg) & krg=f(Sg,So) Qo=f(So, kro)
Generating Relative Permeability is a Problem

256
Case # 1: Pwf > Pd
CGR & Y
Qo Qg
Q Y
CGR  o
Qg Veq Qo  Qg
Main Characteristics behavior: Qo

1. Constant CGR
2. Constant “Y”
3. Constant Gas Deliverability
Pwf > Pd
257
Case # 2: Pwf < Pd & So < Soc
CGR & Y Qg
Qo Qo
CGR  Y
Qg Veq Qo  Qg
Qo
Main Characteristics behavior:
1. Reduction in Y
2. Reduction in CGR !!!
3. Loss of gas Deliverability
kro=0
kro=0 krg=f(Sg,So)
So<Soc So<Soc
258
Case # 3: Pwf < Pd & So > Soc
CGR & Y Qg
Q Y
Qo
CGR  o Veq Qo  Qg
Qg
Qo
Main Characteristics behavior:
1. Constant Y
2. Constant CGR
3. Loss of gas Deliverability, depends
whither region 2 exists or not
kro>0 kro>0
Krg=f(Sg,So) Krg=f(Sg,So)
So>Soc So>Soc
So<Soc So<Soc
259
Depletion Performance of
Gas-Condensate Wells
260
Gas-Condensate Flow Rate
Qg , scf / day
total Qg  Qo Rs  (Qg )free

Qo Rs , scf / day
On the assumption that oil is flowing !
kh rP  krg 
Free Gas Qg     dp
 r     g Bgd 
141.2 ln  e   0.75  s  Pwf
  rw  
P
kh r  kro  
Qo      dp
  re  P
141.2 ln    0.75  s  wf  o Bo  
  rw  
So>Soc ?
261
Surface Oil Rate So>Soc ?
P
Qo      dp
  re  P  B
 o o  
141.2 ln    0.75  s  wf
  rw  
Surface Gas Rate

Total Qg= (Qg)free + Qo Rs
kh
P
r  krg 
(Qg ) free 
  re  P
 
 B
 dp
141.2 ln    0.75  s  wf  g gd 
So>Soc ?
  rw  
P
(Qg ) solution     Rs  dp
  re  P  B
 o o  
141.2 ln    0.75  s  wf
  rw  
262
Total Surface Gas Rate
Qg  Qo Rs  (Qg ) free
kh
Pr
 k ro  k rg 
Qg 
  re  
 Pwf

  o Bo
 Rs 

 dp
 g Bgd 
141.2 ln    0.75  s 
  rw  
Pr
 k ro  k rg 
Qg  C 
Pwf
 

 o Bo 
Rs   dp
 g Bgd 
263
kh
Pr
 kro  krg 
 Pwf
Qg   
 R   dp
 o Bo   g Bgd 
s
  re 
141.2 ln    0.75  s 
  rw  
Where:
Qg = gas flow rate, scf/day
k = absolute permeability, md
h = thickness, ft
re = drainage radius
rw = well base radius
pr = reservoir pressure, psi
Pwf = bottomhole flow pressure
Bgd = dry gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
s = skin factor
264
The problem is how to integrate between pr and pwf BECAUSE
the gas flowing through 3 regions ????
Pr  kro  krg 
Qg  C   
 Rs   B  dp
Pwf  B
 o o  g gd 

1 P* 2 3
pwf pr
Two-phase Singe phase Singe phase

Flowing Flowing Flowing
265
Near Wellbore Liquid buildup Single Phase Gas
X
P*
P dewpoint pressure
Pwf
Gas
So
0
Two-Phase
Flowing
single-Phase Flowing
krg
krg & kro kro Gas
0
Distance fromAhmed
© 2006Tarek wellbore
& Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
266
The pressure integral can be divided into three parts
corresponding to the three flow zones:
(∆p)Total = ( ∆p)region 1 + ( ∆p)region 2 + ( ∆p)region 3
pR
 k rg k 
  ro Rs  dp 
Total p   B  
pwf  gd g Bo o 
Region 1 : Region 2 : Region 3 :

pd pr
p*
k rg k k rg 1
 (  ro Rs ) dp 
Bgd  g Bo o

p*
Bgd  g
dp  k rg ( swi ) 
pd
Bgd  g
dp
p wf
The problem is; how you determine:

 kro & krg
 P*
267
Observations on Near-Wellbore Region 1
 GOR & zi of the stream will remain constant.
 The dew-point pressure P* of the gas entering Region 1 must be equal
to the dew-point of the producing well-stream.
 The deliverability loss depends mainly on krg and the size of Region 1
 The pressure region 1 ranges from pwf to a pressure P*.
zi P* is the dewpoint pressure

of gas entering Region 1 or well stream pd
1 P* 2 3
Two-phase Singe phase Singe phase

Flowing Flowing Flowing
Rights Reserved.
268
The Use of Black-Oil PVT Data to determine:
kro & krg

P*
269
2- Estimating P*
270
Modified Black-oil PVT Data
P Rs Bo µo rs Bg µg  krg   RP  Rs   g Bg
    
k
 ro  P  1  rs P  o Bo
R
 g Bg  kro 
1 rs RP  ( RP  Rs )  
o Bo  krg 

P
P* rs
when p=p*, kro=0
rs =1/Rp
271
p*
kro k rg
Region 1 : 
pwf
( 
Bo o Bg  g
Rs ) dp
1. Given the constant producing GOR, i.e. “RP“, and using a black-oil
PVT approach (with rs data known as a function of pressure),
locate the pressure in the PVT table where rs =1/ RP, this pressure
defining p*.
2. In a compositional treatment by EOS, the dewpoint of the

producing wellstream composition is defined as p*.
272
Gas Deliverability Flow Rate
273
kh
Pr
 kro  krg 
 Pwf
Qg   
 R   dp
 o Bo   g Bgd 
s
  re 
141.2 ln    0.75  s 
  rw  
pR
 krg k 
  ro Rs  dp 
Total p   B  
pwf  gd g Bo o 
Region 1 : Region 2 : Region 3 :

pd pr
p*
k rg k k rg 1
 (  ro Rs ) dp 
Bgd  g Bo o

p*
Bgd  g
dp  k rg ( swi ) 
pd
Bgd  g
dp
p wf
274
Removal of Liquid Blockage
By
Huff & Puff
275
Liquid Dropout and Pressure Profile in a
Gas-Condensate Well.
Single Phase Single Phase

Gas Gas
276
276
1- Effect of Pressure
2- Effect of scf/bbl
LDO
Pressure
1000 2000 3000 4000
Gas Injection
Scf/bbl
277
What is going to happen if we inject gas in the cell ; i.e.
wellbore? p
1- LDO curve
2- dewpoint pressure
Gas Inj Condensate Gas
? liquid dropout
LDO New
?
Original
New
p
Pressure
New Pd; which way will go?
278
LABORATORY STUDIES
279
Nitrogen Injection
280
Lean Injection
281
North Sea Gas-Condensate System
Pd = 6750 psi
T = 280 oF
Max LDO = 21.6%
C1 = 73.19%
C7+ = 8.21%
282
North Sea Gas Original Liquid Drop Out Curve.
25
20
Liquid Drop Out, %
15
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure, psig
283
North Sea Gas - Methane Injection commencing
at 4300 psig.
25
Original
Liquid Drop Out, %
20
500 scf/bbl
15
1000 scf/bbl
10 1500 scf/bbl
5 2000 scf/bbl
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure, psig
284
. North Sea Gas - Methane Injection commencing
at 2100 psig
35
500 scf/bbl
30
1000 scf/bbl
Liquid Drop Out, %
25
LDO20 Original
15
1500 scf/bbl
10
2000 scf/bbl
5
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Pressue, psig
Pressure
285
Comparison of North Sea Injected gas
at 3100 psig (500 scf/bbl).
Original LDO = 21.3%

30
25
20
Liquid Drop Out, %
15
10
5
0
Injected Gas
286
Comparison of North Sea Injected gas
at 1200 psig (500 scf/bbl).
Original LDO = 19.6%

Liquid Drop Out, %
40
20
0
Original N2/CO2/C1 N2/C1 CO2/C1 N2/CO2 N2 CO2 C1
Injected Gas
287
Special Laboratory PVT Tests
In addition to the previously described routine laboratory tests,
a number of other projects may be performed for very specific
applications. If a reservoir is to be depleted under gas
injection, miscible gas injection, or dry-gas cycling scheme,
any number of the following test are conducted:
a) Swelling test
b) Slim-tube test
c) Rising bubble test
d) SARA Analysis
e) Core flood
288
Swelling Test
(Psat)new
Psat i.e. Pb or Pd
Injection gas
P
Injected gas
Original Fluid
Original +
(Vsat)orig Vt (Vsat)new
Fluid Injection Gas
Original
Fluid
Hg Hg Hg
A B C
289
Swelling Test (Psat)new
Injected
Psat
Gas
Swollen
Gas (Vsat)new
Original
Original
Vsat Gas
Gas
(Vsat)new/(Vsat)original
CO2
C1
Swollen
Psat CO2
Volume
C1
1
0 0 Scf/bbl
Scf/bbl
290
5000
4800
New saturation pressure
4600
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
scf/bbl of Fluid
291
relative volume vs. volume of gas injected
2.6
2.4
2.2
swelling ratio, (Vsat)new/(Vsat)orig
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
scf/bbl of Fluid
292
PVT from EOS Model
1. Driver Program: Butte.exe

2. Simulator: Montana.exe
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
293
Steps:
Step 1: Click on: “Butte.exe”
Step 2: The model will ask you questions, answer ALL questions
do not go to step 3 until you answers all question and close the software by pressing the <ENTER> key
Step 3: Open the following file with Notepad: “PVTall.dat”
Step 4: Enter Compositions and others data
Step 5: Save the PVTall.dat File
Step 6: Run the Simulator by Clicking on: “Montana.exe”
Step 7: View Results by opening: “PVTall.out”

294
Class Problem:
North Sea Condensate System
&RDW Psat=6750.0
Temp=280.0
CO2=0.0237
N2=0.0031
C1=0.7319
C2=0.0780
C3=0.0355
iC4=0.0071
nC4=0.0145
iC5=0.0064
nC5=0.0068
C6=0.01090
C7plus=0.0821
MWC7plus= 184
spgrC7plus= 0.816
&end
Use the simulator and select the optimum gas composition to
vaporize liquid blockage
295
Basic Reservoir Rock Properties
296
Capillary Pressure
297
Capillary Pressure
When two immiscible fluids are in contact, a discontinuity in pressure exists between
the two fluids. The pressure difference between these two fluids across the interface
is called the Capillary Pressure and is referred to by “pc.“
pc = pressure on the non-wetting – pressure of the wetting phase
pcwo = po -pw
pcgo = pg- po
pcgw = pg- pw Oil Pc
If all the three phases are continuous, then
pcgw = pcwo + pcgo
Water
298
Oil Migration
Initial Condition p c = po - pw
 144 Pc 
h   
  
FWL
299
 144 Pc 
h   
  
WOC
FWL
Water
300
Porous Plate
301
Porous Plate
Most accurate
 h 
Pc    
 144 
or :
 144 Pc 
h   
  
Core
sample
Others:
1- Centrifuge Technique
2- Mercury Injection
302
Converting Laboratory Capillary Pressure Data
 res  res k core

( pc) res = ( pc) Lab
 lab  core k res
303
After Correcting Pc
Only Oil Flowing
Only Oil
 h 
Pc    
 144 
or :
Oil + Water
 144 Pc 
h   
  
Only water
304
Rights Reserved.
305
1
h
( k  )
306
Important Class Problem
A Five-layer oil reservoir is characterized by a set of five reservoir capillary
pressure-saturation curves, as shown next. The following additional data are also
available
Layer Depth, ft Permeability, md
1 4600-4700 300
2 4700-4750 3
3 4750-4850 30
4 4850-4950 100
5 4950-5000 10
FWL = 5000 ft
Water density = 65.2 llb/ft3
Oil density = 55.2 lb/ft3
Please calculate and plot water saturation versus depth for this reservoir
307
Rights Reserved.
308
Normalizing Capillary Pressure Using the
J-Function
309
Rights Reserved.
310
J-Function can be used as
Hydraulic Flow Unit Indicator
Or for Zonation
pc k
J ( S w ) = 0.21645
 
311
Class Problem
A laboratory capillary pressure test was conducted on a core sample taken from
the Nameless Field. The core has a porosity and permeability of 16% and 80
md, respectively. The capillary pressure-saturation data are given below.
Sw pc, psi
1.0 0.50
0.8 0.60
0.6 0.75
0.4 1.05
0.2 1.75
The interfacial tension is measured at 50 dynes/cm. Further reservoir

engineering analysis indicated that the reservoir is better described at a
porosity value of 19% and an absolute permeability of 120 md. Generate the
capillary pressure data for the reservoir.
312
Class problem:
Using the capillary pressure data as tabulated on the next slide; generate the
capillary pressure data for a reservoir layer as characterized by the flowing
properties:
Permeability = 72 md
Porosity = 19.1 %
Interfacial tension = 28 dynes/cm
Contact angle = 0o
313
Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4
K=11.2 md K=34 md K=157 md K=569 md
ᶲ = 0.147 ᶲ = 0.174 ᶲ = 0.208 ᶲ = 0.275
Sw, % Pc Sw, % Pc Sw, % Pc Sw, % Pc
100 2.15* 100 1.60* 100 0.93* 100 0.60*

87 2.27 82 1.79 79 1.00 65 0.67
74 2.59 54 2.28 60 1.19 47 0.87
60 2.95 43 3.25 42 1.77 40 1.15
54 3.50 35 4.91 31 3.28 33 1.63
47 3.85 29 6.55 23 5.46 29 2.31
41 4.82 28 7.92 22 7.93 22 2.80
37 5.69 27 10.25 21 10.25 19 3.59
34 7.45 16 6.52
32 10.25 16 10/25
Interfacial tension = 70 dynes/cm

Contact angle = 0o © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
314
Relative Permeability
315
Effective Permeability
For a core plug that is saturated 100 % with

a single fluid, the measured Permeability is
called Absolute Permeability “k”
When more that fluid is flowing;

the measured Permeability is called
Effective Permeability “ko kw kg ”
316
When two or more fluids flow at the same time, the relative
permeability of each phase at a specific saturation is the ratio
of the effective permeability of the phase to the absolute
permeability, or:
kg
k rg =
k
ko 0  krw , kro , krg 1
k ro =
k
kw
k rw =
k
317
Residual Oil “Sor“ & Critical Oil “Soc “Saturation
What is the difference?
o Sorw
o Sorg
o Sgc , Srg & Sgt !!!!
Movable & Miscible Oil Saturations Som & Sorm

Som = 1- Swc- Soc
Sorm is the Residual Oil Saturation to Miscible Flood;

usually <0.10
318
Drainage & Imbibition Relative Permeability
The imbibition process is performed in the laboratory by:
a) first saturating the core with the water (wetting phase)

and then displacing the water to its irreducible
saturation by oil injection This process is called
“drainage process” and is designed to establish the
original fluid saturations that are found when the
reservoir is discovered, then
b) The wetting phase (water) is reintroduced into the core

and the water (wetting phase) is continuously
increased. This is the imbibition process and is
intended to produce the relative permeability data
needed for water drive or water flooding calculations
319
Drainage Relative Permeability
Drainage Process
Oil
core 100% H2O
Kro
Krw
0% Swc Soc 100%

SW
100% SO 0%
320
321
The Imbibition Process
Drainage Process
Oil
core 100% H2O
Kro Krw
Imbibition Process
H2O
Oil + residual H2O
Swc
0% Sorw 100% SW
Soc
100% 0% SO
322
Relative Permeability Hysteresis
(Hysteresis describes the history of the saturation changes)
Drainage Process
Oil
core 100% H2O
Kro
Krw
Imbibition Process
H2O
Oil + residual H2O
0% SW 100%
100% SO 0%
323
Relative Permeability Curves
Water Wet System Oil Wet System Mixed Wettability

1
oil
Water
Water oil
oil
Water
0
0 50% 0 50% 0 50%
Water Saturation Water Saturation Water Saturation
11/21/2011
324
Valuable Approach For
History Matching Process
325
Field Relative Permeability
One of the most practical applications of the MBE is its
ability to generate the field relative permeability ratio as
a function of gas saturation that can be used to:
a) adjust the laboratory core relative permeability

data.
b) generate relative permeability ratio is that it

incorporates some of the complexities of
reservoir heterogeneity and degree of the
segregation of the oil and the evolved gas.

Reserved.
326
Gas-Oil Ratio
1) Gas Solubility Rs , scf/STB
2) Gas-Oil Ratio “GOR”, scf/STB
3) Cumulative Gas-Oil Ratio “RP”, scf/STB
total gas flow rate

instantane ous GOR 
oil flow are
free gas rate  solution gas rate

oil flow rate
GP
RP 
NP
327
Very Important
One of the most practical applications of the MBE is its
ability to generate the field relative permeability ratio
as a function of gas saturation that can be used to
adjust the laboratory core relative permeability data.
The main advantage of the field or well generated

relative permeability ratio is that it incorporates some of
the complexities of reservoir heterogeneity and degree
of the segregation of the oil and the evolved gas.
© 2006Tarek Ahmed &

Associates, Ltd. All Rights
Reserved.
328
Basic Darcy’s Law Relationships
Oil-Water System Oil-Gas System
0.00708 h k krow ( pe  pwf ) 0.00708 h k krog ( pe  pwf )

Qo  Qo 
r r
o Bo [ln( e )] o Bo [ln( e )]
rw rw
0.00708 h k krw ( pe  pwf ) 0.00708 h k krg ( pe  pwf )
Qw  Qg 
r r
 w Bw [ln( e )]  g Bg [ln( e )]
rw
rw
(Qg )free  (Qg )solution (Qg )free  Qo R s

Qw k  B  GOR  
 WOR  rw  o o  Qo Qo
Qo kro  w Bw  (Qg )free krg o Bo
GOR  R s   Rs 
Qo kro  g Bg
329
krg o Bo
GOR  Rs 
kro  g Bg
scf/STB GOR
Rs = GOR
krg o Bo
kro  g Bg
Sg = 0
Rs
pb Sgc
0 Time
Pi Pressure
330
Important Relationships
k rg  o Bo  krg  g Bg
GOR  Rs      (GOR)  Rs 
k ro   g Bg 

kro o Bo
krw  o Bo  krw  B 
WOR    WOR  w w 
kro   w Bw  kro  o Bo 
Qw WOR kro w Bw  f w 
fw     
Qw  Qo 1WOR krw o Bo 1  f w 

Rights Reserved.
331
On The Relative Permeability Ratio
Expressing the Relative Permeability Data as a
Relative Permeability Ratio is a Valuable Approach
For the History Matching Process.
332
krg/kro from Various Sources:
krg
1)  from Lab
kro
2)
krg

 g Bg
kro o Bo

(GOR) MBE  Rs 
3)
krg

 g Bg
kro o Bo

(GOR)mod el  Rs 
4)
krg
kro

 g Bg
o Bo
(GOR)observed  Rs 
333
krw/kro from Various Sources
 krw 
1)    Lab
 kro 
krw observed   w Bw 
2) WOR  
kro  o Bo 
krw Model   w Bw 
3) WOR  
kro  o Bo 
krw Analytical   w Bw 
4) WOR  
kro  o Bo 
© 2006Tarek Ahmed© 2006Tarek
& Associates, Ltd. AllLtd. All Rights Reserved.
Ahmed & Associates,
Rights Reserved.
334
Relative Permeability Ratio kro/krw
kro
 a ebS w
krw
kro
krw
kro  w Bw  f wobs 
  
krw o Bo 1  f wobs 

Rights Reserved.
335
Relative Permeability Ratio krg/kro
krg bS g
ae
kro
krg
kro
krg
kro

 g Bg
o Bo
GOR obs  Rs 
1 Sg 0

Rights Reserved.
336
Oil Saturation from the MBE
Pore Volume “P.V” = 7758 A hΦ

 N Boi 
( P.V )   
N Boi = (P.V) (1 – Swi)  1 S wi 
remainingoil volume So 
N  N  Bp o
So   N Boi 
pore volume  
 1  S wi 
 N p  Bo
So  1 S wi  1   Sg = 1 – So - Swi
 N  Boi
337
Knowing Fluid Distributions in the Reservoir Is Essential
Before Initiating IOR Project
NP, GP
SO NP, GP
NP, GP
SO
SO
 N p  Bo
So  1 S wi  1  
 N  Boi
338
Class Problem:
A volumetric undersaturated oil reservoir has a bubble-point pressure of
4500. The initial reservoir pressure is 7150 psia and the volumetric
calculations indicate the reservoir contains 750MM STB of oil initially in
place. The field was developed without pressure support by water
injection. The following additional data is available:
Swi = 43% cw = 3.00x10-6 psi-1 cf = 3.3x10-6 psi-1

Bw = 1.0 bbl/STB pb = 4500 psi
Using the field production and PVT data are summarized next; calculate
and plot the relative permeability krg/kro as a function of gas saturation on
a semi-log scale

Reserved.
339
ONLY When P≥Pb; Rs=GOR=RP scf/STB
p Qo Qg Bo Rs Bg μo/ μg Np RP
psia STB/day MMscf/day bbl/STB Scf/STB BBL/scf MMSTB Scf/STB
7150 - - 1.743 1450 - - 0 1450
6600 44230 64.110 1.760 1450 - - 8.072 1450
5800 79326 115.616 1.796 1450 - - 22.549 1455
4950 75726 110.192 1.830 1450 - - 36.369 1455
4500 - - 1.850 1450 - 5.60 43.473 1447
4350 70208 134.685 1.775 1323 0.000797 6.02 49.182 1576
4060 50416 147.414 1.670 1143 0.000840 7.24 58.383 1788
3840 35227 135.282 1.611 1037 0.000881 8.17 64.812 1992
3600 26027 115.277 1.566 958 0.000916 9.35 69.562 2158
3480 27452 151.167 1.523 882 0.000959 9.95 74.572 2383
3260 20975 141.326 1.474 791 0.001015 11.1 78.400 2596
3100 15753 125.107 1.440 734 0.001065 11.9 81.275 2785
2940 14268 116.970 1.409 682 0.001121 12.8 83.879 2953
2800 13819 111.792 1.382 637 0.001170 13.5 86.401 3103

Reserved.
340
Relative Permeability Analytical Expressions
341
Original Corey’s Correlation
Applies ONLY to well-sorted homogenous rocks
Oil-Water System:
no nw
 1  S w  Sorw   S S 
kro  kro Swc   krw  krw Sorw  w wc 
1  S wc  Sorw  1 S wc  Sorw 
Gas-Oil System:
ng
 S g  S gc  ngo
 
k rg  k rg   k ro  k ro Sgc
 1 S g  S Lc 
 
1 S Lc  S gc 
Swc
1 S gc  S Lc 
342
Accounting for Stratification
Stratification Factor “m”
no no
 1  S w  Sorw    1  S w  Sorw 
kro  kro Swc   kro  kro Swc m  
1  S  S
1  S wc  Sorw    wc orw 
nw
 S S 
nw
  S w  S wc 
krw  krw Sorw  w wc  krw  krw Sorw m  
1 S wc  Sorw    1  S wc  S orw 
ng
  S g  S gc 
 
ng
 S g  S gc  m  
 
k rg  k rg  
krg  krg Swc 1  S  S 
Swc
1 S Lc  S gc    Lc gc 
ngo
 1 S g  S Lc 
ngo   1 S g  S Lc 
k ro  k ro Sgc   kro  kro Sgc m  
1  S  S 
1 S gc  S Lc    gc Lc 
343
Relative Permeability Normalization
344
Normalization and Averaging
Relative Permeability Data
Results of relative permeability tests performed on several
core samples of a reservoir rock often vary. Therefore, it is
necessary to average the relative permeability data obtained
on individual rock samples. Prior to usage for oil recovery
prediction, the relative permeability curves should first be
normalized to remove the effect of different initial water and
critical oil saturations. The relative permeability can then be
de-normalized and assigned to different regions of the
reservoir based on the existing critical fluid saturation for
each reservoir region.
345
To perform the normalization procedure, it is helpful to set up the calculation
steps for each core sample i in a tabulated form as shown below:
Relative Permeability Data for Core Sample i

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
S  S wc k * k rw
S *w  w
*
k ro  ro
k rw 
Sw kro krw 1 S wc  Soc k ro @ S wc k rw @ S oc
The following normalization methodology describes the necessary steps for a

water-oil system as outlined in the above table.
Step 1. Select several values of Sw starting at Swc (column 1), and list the
corresponding values of k ro and krw in columns 2 and 3.

Rights Reserved.
346
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
S  S k * k rw
S *w  w wc *
k ro  ro
k rw 
Step 2. Calculate the normalized water saturation S *w for each set of relative
permeability curves and lists the calculated values in column 4 by
using the following expression:
S w  S wc
S *w 
1 S wc  Soc
Step 3. Calculate the normalized relative permeability for the oil and
water phase at different water saturations by using the following
relationships and list results in column 5 and 6:
k ro krw
k ro* 
*
krw 
k ro Swc krw  Soc
Rights Reserved.
347
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
S  S k * k rw
S *w  w wc *
k ro  ro
k rw 
Step 4. Using regular Cartesian coordinate, plot the normalized k *ro and k*rw
versus S*w for ALL core samples on the same graph.
S*w
Rights Reserved.
348
S*w
Step 5. Determine the average normalized relative permeability values for oil
and water as a function of the normalized water saturation by select
arbitrary values of S*w and calculate the average of k *ro and k*rw by
applying the following relationships:
 h k k 
n
 h k k 
n
* * where
ro i rw i
k  k 
i 1 i 1
n= Total number of core samples
*
ro avg 
*
rw avg  n hi= Thickness of sample i
n
 h k i  h k 
i 1
i
ki= Absolute permeability of sample i
i 1

Rights Reserved.
349
Step 6. The last step in this methodology involves de-normalizing the average
curve to reflect actual reservoir and conditions of Swc and Soc. These
parameters are the most critical part of the methodology and,
therefore, a major effort should be spent in determining
representative values.
When representative critical saturations have been estimated, it is
again convenient to perform the de-normalization calculations in a
tabular form as illustrated below:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
S*w (k*ro)avg (k*rw)avg

 
Sw  Sw* 1  Swc  Soc   Swc kro  (kro )avg k ro
*
Swc krw  (krw
*
) avg k rw   Soc
Where average (kro)Swc and average (krw)Soc are the average relative permeability
of oil and water at connate water and critical oil, respectively, and given by:
n n
 h k k    h k k  
k 
ro Swc i
k 
rw Soc i
i 1
ro Swc  n rw Soc
i 1
n
 h k i
i 1
 h k  i
i 1

served.
350
The Swc and Soc are usually determined by averaging the core data, log analysis, or
correlations. Versus graphs, such as: (kro)Swc vs. Swc, (krw)Soc vs. Soc, and Soc vs.
Swc should be constructed to determine if a significant correlation exists. Often plots
of Swc and Sor versus log k  may demonstrate a reliable correlation to determine
end-point saturations as shown schematically below :
x x x
x x x
x
x x
x x
x x
Swc Soc

Rights Reserved.
351
Class Problem
Relative permeability measurements are made on three core samples. The measured data
are summarized below:
Core Sample #1 Core Sample #2 Core Sample #3
h = 1ft h = 1ft h=1
k = 100 md k = 80 md k = 150 md
Soc = 0.35 Soc = 0.28 Soc = 0.35
Swc = 0.25 Swc = 0.30 Swc = 0.20
Sw kro krw kro krw kro krw

0.20 - - - - 1.000* 0.000
0.25 0.850* 0.000 - - 0.920 0.008
0.30 0.754 0.018 0.800 0 0.839 0.027
0.40 0.557 0.092 0.593 0.077 0.663 0.088
0.50 0.352 0.198 0.393 0.191 0.463 0.176
0.60 0.131 0.327 0.202 0.323 0.215 0.286
0.65 0.000 0.400* 0.111 0.394 0.000 0.350*
0.72 - - 0.000 0.500* - -
*values at critical saturations
Generate the relative permeability for a zone that It is characterized by a connate

water saturation of 0.27 and a critical oil saturation of 30%
352
Modeling of
Three Phase Relative Permeability Hysteresis
“Impact on the WAG Flood”
353
WAG
Trapped
Gas
Water Gas Water Gas Water
Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved 7/6/2014
354
Relative Permeability Hysteresis
1)The hysteresis process describes the history of the
saturation changes as well as the saturation path.
2)The most important quantity determining the

significance of hysteresis effects is the trapped
nonwetting-phase saturation. The hysteresis
course is created in the laboratory be performing the
imbibition test.
355
Objective is to establish/model the imbibition
curve after flow reversal
How to construct /model

this imbibition Cycle ???
krg
Sgi
Sgc Sgti Sgi Sgt,max Sgmax

Saturation at the start
of the flow reversal cycle
356
Trapped Gas & Initial Gas Saturation
Existing graphical relationship
11/21/2011
357
Land’s Trapping Coefficient
It has been verified experimentally that there is a relationship exits relating the
initial gas saturation to the trapped gas saturation left after the imbibition
cycle. Land suggested that the difference in the reciprocals of initial gas
saturation Sgi and trapped gas saturation Sgt is constant “C” for a given
sand, i.e.
1 1 1 1 In general 1 1
   C  C
S gt1 S gi1 S gt 2 S gi 2 S gt S gi
Sgt1 S gi
S gt 
1  C S gi
Sgt2
Since “C” is constant, Sgt

can be determined during
any of the imbibition cycle
11/21/2011 Sgi2 Sgi1
358
Laboratory Primary Drainage & Imbibition Relative Permeability
“Key Endpoints on the Bounding Curves & Land’s Trapping Coefficient”
1 1
 C
S gti max S gi max
“C” is constant for a given sand
ib
d krg
krg krg
Sgc Sgti,max Sgimax
The trapped gas saturation will impact the subsequent cycles
359
Class Problem:
Determine Land’s trapping coefficient “C” using the following bounded experiment relative
permeability data. The data can be expressed by the following relationships
Drainage:
Krg = -0.86849 Sg3 + 2.36496 Sg2 - 0.04969 Sg+ 0.00267
Imbibition
Krg = -2.37443 Sg3 + 6.38378 Sg2 - 2.59518 Sg + 0.26555
Drainage Imbibition
sg krgD Sg krgi
0 0 0.3 0
0.01 0.002 0.35 0.034
0.03 0.007 0.4 0.095
0.05 0.01 0.45 0.175
0.1 0.02 0.5 0.269
0.15 0.04 0.55 0.376
0.2 0.075 0.6 0.494
0.25 0.127 0.65 0.623
0.3 0.18 0.7 0.76
0.35 0.24 0.75 0.908
0.4 0.31 0.78 1
0.45 0.373
0.5 0.46
0.55 0.55
0.6 0.64
0.65 0.73
0.7 0.825
0.75 0.92
0.78 1
360
Since “C” is constant, Sgti can be determined
during any of the imbibition cycle starting at ANY
Sg; e,g. Sgi
S gi
S gti 
1  C S gi
d
krg
ib
krg
krg
Sgc Sgti Sgi Sgti,max Sgimax

361
From primary curves
1 1
 C
S gti max S gi max
d
krg
ib
k rg
krg
Sgc Sgti Sgi Sgti,max Sgimax
1 1 S gi
 C S gti 
S gti S gi 1  C S gi
362
Class Problem:
Using the relative permeability data given in the
last class problem, determine the trapped gas
saturation assuming that the imbibition process
is reversed at a gas saturation of 50%
363
Impact of the Trapped Non-Wetting Phase
a) Trapped of the non-wetting phase, e.g.

gas, will alter all the subsequent cycles
of gas and oil relative permeability.
b) Trapped gas saturation is determined

during the IMIMBITION CYCLE (i.e. when
gas is displaced by the wetting phase)
364
Sgi is initial gas saturation
at the start flow reversal
d
Lab k rg
krg
Sgi
Lab
ib
i krg
krg
Relative Permeability Hysteresis are based on determining

a) the trapped gas saturation “Sgti” of the New Imbibition Cycle
b) remaining free saturation portion “Sgf”
365
Trapped Gas and Free Gas Models
To develop a mathematical expression to model the impact of
saturation changes on the imbibition relative permeability; its
necessary to be able to predict :
a) Trapped gas saturation Sgti of the New Imbibition Cycle

b) Remaining free (mobile) gas saturation Sgf
Land suggested that total gas saturation “Sg” during the

imbibition process can be divided into two contributions, trapped
“Sgti” and mobile (free) gas “Sgf”, i.e.:
Sgi = Sgti + Sgf
11/21/2011
366
a) Trapped Gas Saturation:
The most important quantity determining the significance of
hysteresis effects is the trapped gas saturation after flow reversal,
i.e. from drainage to imbibition. Most relative permeability models
make use of the trapping theory proposed by Land. In this theory,
the trapped gas saturation is given by
S gi
S gti 
1  C S gi
Where Sgi is the gas saturation at the NEW flow reversal
b) Remaining Free Gas Saturation

Land expressed the free gas saturation as a function of C and Sg with
the associated with NEW Sgti as
1 4 
S gf  ( S g  S gti )  ( S g  S gti )2  ( S g  S gti ) 
2 C 
11/21/2011
367
Relative Permeability Hysteresis Models
Trapping of the gas phase will significantly:
a) Alter the relative permeability of the liquid phase since the space
accessible for liquid movement is reduced by the trapped gas.
b) Reduce residual oil saturation
The above two effects must be modeled and reflected correctly on the
relative permeability and hysteresis. A number of hysteresis empirical
models have been developed to characterize the hysteresis effect on
relative permeability. Most of relative permeability hysteresis
methodologies incorporate Land’s trapping expression “C” , including
models proposed by:
a) Carlson
b) Killough
11/21/2011
368
Relative Permeability Hysteresis Models
“Key Saturation Endpoints”
d
Lab k rg
krg
Sgi
Lab
ib
i krg
krg
S gi 1 1
S gti   C
1  C S gi S gt , max S g max
369
Carlson’s Hysteresis Model
Carlson hysteresis model is based on constructing an intermediate imbibition
“scanning” curves parallel to the primary imbibition curve, with the scanning
curve is originating from a gas saturation “Sgi” on primary drainage curve.
Carlson’s methodology utilizes:
a) Land gas trapping coefficient “C”

b) Trapped and free gas saturations, i.e. Sgt&Sgf
Carlson proposed the following expression for constructing a scanning

imbibition curve starting from a point on the primary drainage curve:
k 
i
rg @ S
g
 
d
 krg @ S gf
Where:
1 4 
2 C 
370
Carlson Hysteresis Model Steps
1) Using the experimental bounding drainage and imbibition curves, calculate Land’s C:
1 1
C 
S gt max S g max
2) Assume the secondary “Scanning” imbibition starting at Sgi, calculate the associated
trapped gas saturation Sgti from:
S gi
S gti 
1  C S gi
3) Assume several values of Sg, i.e. Sgti < Sg < Sgi ,and caudate the free gas saturation
“Sgf” at each assumed value of Sg from:
1 4 
2 C 
4) Tabulate values of krg from primary drainage curve as a function of Sgf from step 4
5) Set the imbibition scanning krg equal the drainage krg of step 4
k 
i
rg @ S
g
 
d
 krg @ S gf
371
Drainage Rel Perm Imbibition Rel Perm
0.9
Carlson’s Hysteresis Model
0.8
0.7
0.6
Sgi is initial gas saturation Sgi
0.5
at the start flow reversal
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
b)Sgti d)Sgf
c) Sg a)Sgi
S gi Assumed
S gti  Notice: Sgti < Sg < Sgi
1  C S gi
1 4 
2 C 
372
Class Problem:
Using the relative permeability data given in the last class problem,
determine and plot the scanning imbibition curve assuming that the
imbibition process is reversed at a gas saturation of 50%
373
Killough’s Hysteresis Model
In Killough’s hysteresis model, the gas relative permeability along a scanning
curve is given by:
k d
k 
i
rg @ S
g
 
ib
 krg @ S *g k 
d
rg @ S
gi
with: S *  S
g gt max 
( S g  S gti ) ( S gi max  S gt max )
rg @ S
gi max
S gi  S gti
Where:
Sgti<Sg<Sgi k d
rg @ S
gi max
d
Lab krg
krg
k d
rg @ S
gi
Sgi
Lab
ib
i k rg
krg
Sgc Sgti Sgi Sgt,max Sgimax
374
Class Problem:
Using the relative permeability data given in the last class problem,
compare Killough’s model with Carlson’s
375
The Concept of
Permeability Jail
376
Typical reservoir rock
377
Poor quality reservoir rock Critical Saturations increase
378
Worse quality reservoir rock
379
Worse quality reservoir rock
All show and no flow!!
“Permeability
Jail”
380
Characterization of
Reservoir Rocks
381
Methods of Reservoir Characterization
1) Porosity-Permeability Cross Plot
2) Hydraulic Flow Unit “HFU” Approach
3) FOIL Function
4) Pore Size Distribution Index
5) Pore Throat Radius “R35”
382
Permeability-Porosity Cross Plot:
Many of the petrophysical models used for simulation studies are based on the classical
approach of cross plotting the logarithms of permeability versus porosity and then, by
fitting a regression line on this plot, predicting the permeability through the reservoir
rock. This approach is critical when used to model permeable rocks, as it implies two
misleading concepts:
a) It considers the relationship between the logarithms of permeability versus porosity

as linear, although there is no theoretical basis to support this assumption.
b) Using log porosities on this plot to predict the permeabilities would imply a scaling
agreement between the macroscopic level (core plug)
Core Permeability and the mega-scopic level
vs Porosity
Ourhoud Field
(log data).
10000.00
1000.00
Horiz. Perm (mD)
100.00
Permeability 10.00
Log-scale to 1.00
Compressed the data 0.10
0.01
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Porosity (%)
383
Hydraulic Flow Unit Definition
Hydraulic Flow Units are reservoir zones, regions, or layers

that are :
a) continuous areally and vertically
b) have similar flow and layering characteristics
c) Their geological properties that control the fluid flow
are internally uniform within a certain range; e.g.
(k/Φ)1/2
384
HFU Advantages:
1) allows for more quantitative classification and

mapping parts of the formation that are most
important to reservoir behavior
2) forms a realistic basis for definition of reservoir
zonation to be used in the numerical simulation of
reservoir performance.
3) Dividing the reservoir into units such as layers or
distinct rock types and assigning values of all related
physical properties to these segments will give a
better description of the actual the reservoir
heterogeneity
385
Identifying Hydraulic Flow Units
&
Zonation
386
Prediction of Hydraulic Flow Units
“HFU”
HFU is commonly characterized by the following three functions:
1) Reservoir quality Index (RQI) :

k
RQI  0.0314

2) Pore volume to grain volume ratio
( P.V )  ( B.V )    
z   z   
(G.V )  ( B.V )  ( B.V )  1   
3) Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) :
Each distinct reservoir type has a unique Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) value; hence, an
average permeability value can be predicted for each class and assigned in the
model to the representative block or region. The FZI is defined as:
RQI log RQI  logz  log FZI

FZI 
z
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Linear equation with a unit slope
Rights Reserved.
387
log RQI  logz  log FZI
Log-log
X (FZI)avg1
X (FZI)avg2
k X (FZI)avg3
RQI  0.0314
 45o
45o
   1
z   
1   
Rights Reserved.
388
k
RQI  0.0314
RQI 
( FZI )avg 
z   
z   
1   
k
0.0314
 3
( FZI ) avg  k 1014 ( FZI )2avg
   (1  )2
1   
 
389
Selection of
Well Pairs
390
Nameless Field
Upper TAGI Formation, Described by Four Zones
1) U4: 10 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) U3: 15 Fine scale layers 2 coarse scale layers
3) U2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layer
Middle TAGI Formation, Described by Two Zones

1) M2: 3 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) M1: 35 Fine scale layers 5 coarse scale layers
Lower TAGI Formation, Described by Three Zones

1) L3: 20 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) L2: 20 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layers
179 Fine Scale Layers 19 Coarse Scale Layers

Reserved.
391
Aug03 EM
AUG03 EM (Fine Scaled)
(Upscaled) SEP05 (Fine Scaled) SEP05 EM (Upscaled)
Formation
9 Zones 171 Layers 9 Zones 19 Layers 10 Zones 173 Layers 10 Zones 19 Layers
Subunit
Petrel Petrel FS No. of Upscaled No. of

Zone Proportional Layer Zone Top Base Top Fine Base Fine
Zone Upscaled Layer Zone Proportional Layer Fine
Number Divisions Number Number Layer Layer Layer Layer
Layer Reference Divisions Number Layers
U4 1 10 1 - 10 1 1 - 10 U4 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10
2 11 - 17 2 7 11 17
U3 2 15 11 - 25 U3 2 15 11 25
3 18 - 25 3 8 18 25
Upper TAGI
U2 3 5 26 - 30 4 26 - 30 U2 3 5 26 30 4 5 26 30
5 31 - 33 5 4 31 34
6 34 - 42 6 10 35 44
U1 4 23 31 - 53 U1 4 25 31 55
7 43 - 53 7 11 45 55
M2 5 3 54 - 56 8 54 - 56 M2 5 3 56 58 8 3 56 58
9 57 - 64 9 8 59 66
TAGI
10 65 - 71 10 7 67 73
Middle TAGI
11 72 - 78 11 7 74 80
M1 6 35 57 - 91 M1 6 35 59 93
12 79 - 82 12 4 81 84
13 83 - 91 13 9 85 93
L3 7 20 92 - 111 14 92 - 111 L3 7 20 94 113 14 20 94 113

Lower TAGI
L2 8 20 112 - 131 15 112 - 131 L2 8 20 114 133 15 20 114 133
16 132 - 137 16 10 134 143

L1CD 9 20 134 153
17 138 - 147 17 10 144 153
L1 9 40 132 - 171
18 148 - 157 18 10 154 163
L1AB 10 20 154 173
19 158 - 171 19 10 164 173
392
4- Continue; Sector Modeling & Upscaling;
Ten Flow Units have been Identified by

the Rock Quality Index “RQI”
k
RQI 

Rock Property Applicable TAGI RQI Range
Class Interval
A set of relative
1 Upper & Middle < 10 permeability will be
assigned to each
2 Upper & Middle 10-20
grid block base on
3 Upper & Middle 20-40 its value of RQI
6 Upper & Middle >80
7 Lower <30
8 Lower 30-60
9 Lower 60-80
10 Lower >80
10 sets of Relative Permeability Data
393
Hydraulic Flow Units Approach
394
The proposed approach is based on utilizing to all available core data as
follows:
1) calculate RQI and Φz for each sample core data, i.e. [Φ/(1-Φ)]
2) Plot RQI vs. Φz on log-log coordinates. The plotting data will form a
straight line with a 45o degree angle if FZI is constant for all samples .
Data samples with similar but not identical FZI values will be located
around the single unit slope straight line.
3) Samples with significantly different FZI will for another parallel unit-slope
straight line
4) Each line is a FLOW UNIT that is characterized with an average FZI.

The average FZI for each FU is the intercept of a unit-slope straight
line with the coordinates Φz =1
5) Permeability of a sample point can be calculated from a pertinent HFU

using the average (FZI)avg value and the corresponding sample porosity:
3
k 1014 ( FZI )2avg
Rights Reserved. (1  )2
395
log RQI  logz  log FZI
Log-log
X (FZI)avg1
X (FZI)avg2
k X (FZI)avg3
RQI  0.0314
 45o
45o
   1
z   
1   
Rights Reserved.
396
Core
StepPermeability vs. Φ
1: Plot vsKPorosity
Ourhoud Field
Nameless Field
10000.00
1000.00
Horiz. Perm (mD)
100.00
K, md
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Porosity (%)
397
Step 2:Identifying Hydraulic Flow Units &
Average (FZI)RQI
avgfor each Flow Unit
vs PHIZ
Ourhoud Field Wells
(FZI)avg
10.00
Nameless Field HFU12
k HFU11
RQI  0.0314
 HFU10
1.00 HFU9
HFU8
HFU7
RQI
HFU6
HFU5
0.10 HFU4
HFU3
HFU2
HFU1
0.01
0.01  
0.10 1.00
z   
1   
PHIz
398
Step 3: Porosity vs. Permeability by HFU
2 3
k 1014
Core ( FZI )vs
Porosity avg Permeability
(1  )2
10000.00
HFU12
1000.00 HFU11
HFU10
100.00 HFU9
HFU8
Kah (mD)
K, md HFU7
10.00
HFU6
HFU5
1.00
HFU4
HFU3
0.10 HFU2
HFU1
0.01
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Porosity (%)
399
Class Problem:
The following tabulated data shows properties of core plugs from different field locations.
Determine the numbers of HFU
Porosity K, md Poroisty K, md Poroisty K, md Poroisty K, md
0.05 0.14 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.94 0.08 1.00
0.05 5.00 0.10 0.20 0.12 1.20 0.09 1.40
0.05 8.00 0.10 0.70 0.125 1.35 0.09 0.80
0.05 20.00 0.10 1.50 0.14 1.88 0.09 0.63
0.05 30.00 0.07 0.25 0.16 2.76 0.07 0.39
0.1 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.183 4.07 0.08 0.07
0.1 3.00 0.05 0.08 0.19 4.53 0.05 0.00
0.1 4.00 0.10 200.00 0.2 5.25 0.10 0.01
0.1 7.00 0.15 0.70 0.21 6.05 0.06 0.00
0.1 10.00 0.15 2.00 0.23 7422.27 0.10 541.67
0.1 40.00 0.15 4.00 0.24 8484.47 0.20 4783.90
0.1 70.00 0.15 5.00 0.01 0.39 0.30 17107.40
0.1 80.00 0.15 10.00 0.02 3.44 0.01 0.39
0.1 200.00 0.15 20.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 30.42
0.15 0.70 0.15 70.00 0.1 0.71 0.06 108.78
0.15 2.00 0.15 100.00 0.079 7.30 0.13 5.00
0.15 4.00 0.15 110.00 0.096 13.00 0.13 7.00
0.13 300.00 0.15 200.00 0.077 11.00 0.13 10.00
0.13 400.00 0.15 300.00 0.071 3.80 0.13 200.00
0.126 59.00 0.15 400.00 0.08 2.40 0.13 16.00
0.12 44.00 0.15 700.00 0.082 2.60 0.09 10.00
0.119 41.00 0.13 0.40 0.143 2.60 0.07 2.20
0.09 17.00 0.13 2.00 0.119 31.00 0.13 3.00
400
The FOIL Function
401
Water Saturation from the FOIL Function
Capillary pressure measurements are performed on each core plug and, after
conversion to reservoir conditions, are then converted to J-function by applying
the expression:
pc k
J ( S w ) = 0.21645
 
The FOIL function is based on the observation for a set of samples with
similar pore size distributions; plotting the Sw vs. the J-Function can be best
expressed by using a power law equation of the form:
Sw  a J ( Sw )b
The coefficient “a & b” are fitting parameters that can be determined by plotting Sw vs.
the J-Function on a log-log scale to produce a straight line:
log( Sw )  log( a)  b log[ J (Sw )]
402
The Nameless Field
Sw  a J ( Sw )b
Sw
log( Sw )  log( a)  b log[ J (Sw )]
0.207
Sw  a=0.207
J ( S w ) 0.5852 b= - 0.5852
pc k
J ( S w ) = 0.21645
 
403
The Nameless Field FOIL Function
“Water Saturation Distribution”
0.207 pc k
Sw  & J ( S w ) = 0.21645
J (S w ) 0.5852  
0.207 h
Sw= 0.5852 With: pc = ( ) 
 pc k 144
0.21645
   
0.207
S w= 0.5852
 h  k
0.21645
 144  
Sw above FWL
404
Pore Size Distribution Index “λ”
A Key Rock Characterization Parameter
405
Pore Size Distribution Index “λ”
the pore size distribution index is a parameter which

qualitatively expresses the uniformity in pore size
distribution.
a) Greater the value of “λ”, refers to the higher

degree of uniformity
b) Smaller value represents a higher degree of non-
uniformity in pore size distribution.
Pore size distribution has strong influence on the shape

of the capillary pressure curves.
406
Objective of Calculating λ
The parameter λ was introduced to represent the pore
size distribution in order to indicate the heterogeneity of
the porous medium, essentially it can be considered as
a “quantitative measure of the range of pore sizes
for a given representative rock sample”
407
DRAINAGE AND IMBIBITION CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVES
DRAINAGE
 Fluid flow process in which the

saturation of the nonwetting
phase increases
IMBIBITION
Drainage
 Fluid flow process in which the
saturation of the wetting phase
Pc increases
Four Primary Parameters

Pd Swir = irreducible wetting phase saturation
Srnw = 1 - residual non-wetting phase saturation
Imbibition Pd = displacement pressure, the pressure required
to force non-wetting fluid into largest pores
Swir Srnw
 = pore size distribution index; determines shape
0 0.5 1.0
Swt
408
Pc vs. Sw Function Reflects Reservoir Quality
Core Pore Petrophysical Gamma Ray Flow
Core Lithofacies
Plugs Types Data Log Units
Capillary
 vs k Pressure
High Quality5
Low Quality 1
Function moves up and right, and becomes less “L” shaped as

reservoir quality decreases
409
Effect of λ on Shape
20
Decreasing Permeability,
16 With Decreasing 
Capillary Pressure
12
C
B
8 A
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation
410
Effect of Grain Size Distribution on Shape
Poorly sorted
Capillary pressure, psia
Well-sorted
Decreasing 
Water saturation, %
411
Calculating Pore Size Distribution Index “λ”
In porous media, capillary pressure is the force necessary to squeeze a
hydrocarbon droplet through a pore throat. The Brooks-Corey correlation for
capillary pressure relates the capillary pressure as a function of:
a) entry (displacement) capillary pressure “pd”

b) the pore-size distribution index “λ”
c) the normalized water saturation
The expression is given by:

1
 S w  S wir  
Pc  pd  
 1  S wir  Srnw 
Brooks & Corey correlation can be linearized by taking the logarithm of both sides of the
equation; to give:
 1  Sw  S wir 
ln( Pc )  ln( pd )  ( ) ln  
  1  S wir  S rnw 
With a slope of -1/λ. Since the slope is negative then λ=abs(1/slope)
412
 1  Sw  S wir 
ln( Pc )  ln( pd )  ( ) ln  
  1  S wir  S rnw 
The above expression suggests that plotting Pc vs. the normalized water
saturation on a log-log scale would produce a straight-line relationship with a
slope=-1/λ
10
Pc
y = -1.50682ln(x) + 2.93561
-1/λ=-1.50682
1
0.01 0.1 S w  S wir 1 10
1  S wir  Srnw
413
10
Pc
y = -1.50682ln(x) + 2.93561
-1/λ=-1.50682
1
0.01 0.1 1 10
S w  S wir
1  S wir  Srnw
414
Relative Permeability
Several empirical and theoretical models have been proposed to
represent the relative permeability. The uncertainty in relative
permeability can be reduced by calculating them through the pore
size distribution index “λ”
23 
 S w  S wir  
krw   
 1  S wir  Srnw 
 2  
S w  S wir 2   S w  S wir   
krnw  (1  ) 1  

1  S wir  Srnw 1  S wir  Srnw 
  
415
Useful Approximations
640.0538 0.821 (1  Swir )0.8486

pd 
k 0.5285
0.0098 k 0.3792 pd0.6698

  0.6341
 (1  S wir )0.6835
1.6575
  
k 1017003.239 pd1.7846 (1  S wir )0.5475 1.6498  
  2
416
Class problem:
Using the capillary pressure data as tabulated
on the next slide; calculate:
1. the pore size distribution index “λ” for core

#1&4 and compare with appoximation
2. Generate relative permeability curves for the
wetting and non-wetting phase for core #1&4
417
Srnw=0.35 Srnw=0.30
Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4
K=11.2 md K=34 md K=157 md K=569 md
ᶲ = 0.147 ᶲ = 0.174 ᶲ = 0.208 ᶲ = 0.275
Sw, % Pc Sw, % Pc Sw, % Pc Sw, % Pc
100 2.15 100 1.60 100 0.93 100 0.60

87 2.27 82 1.79 79 1.00 65 0.67
74 2.59 54 2.28 60 1.19 47 0.87
60 2.95 43 3.25 42 1.77 40 1.15
54 3.50 35 4.91 31 3.28 33 1.63
47 3.85 29 6.55 23 5.46 29 2.31
41 4.82 28 7.92 22 7.93 22 2.80
37 5.69 27 10.25 21 10.25 19 3.59
34 7.45 16 6.52
32 10.25 16 10.25
Interfacial tension = 70 dynes/cm

Contact angle = 0o © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
418
The R35 Characterization Method and
Its Variations
419
Pore Throat Radius
It is well known that the pore throat size at Certain Non-wetting
Saturation can indicate reservoir quality. The challenge is to
identify at which saturation of non-wetting phase corresponds to
the pore throat radius representing of the quality of the rock.
One such approach identified the pore throat radius on the

“knees” or the flat portion on the capillary pressure curve as the
key to describe the rock quality. The reason is that pore throat
radii for all corresponding saturations are nearly equal.
The variation of the pore throat size below a CRITICAL
limit represents non-productive area.
Pc
r = [2 σ cos(ϴ)] / Pc
Sw
420
Pore throat radii in mercury injection capillary pressure
measurements are calculated using the following equation:
r = [2 σ cos(ϴ)] / Pc
Where:
Pc= capillary pressure
σ = surface tension
r = pore-throat radius at this specific pc
ϴ= contact (wetting) angle
421
The R35 Characterization Method and
Its Variations
422
Pore Throat Radius
It is well known that the pore throat size at Certain Non-wetting
Saturation can indicate reservoir quality. The challenge is to
identify at which saturation of non-wetting phase corresponds to
the pore throat radius representing of the quality of the rock.
One such approach identified the pore throat radius on the

“knees” or the flat portion on the capillary pressure curve as the
key to describe the rock quality. The reason is that pore throat
radii for all corresponding saturations are nearly equal.
The variation of the pore throat size below a CRITICAL
limit represents non-productive area.
Pc
r = [2 σ cos(ϴ)] / Pc
Sw
423
Pore throat radii in mercury injection capillary pressure
measurements are calculated using the following equation:
r = [2 σ cos(ϴ)] / Pc
Where:
Pc= capillary pressure
σ = surface tension
r = pore-throat radius at this specific pc
ϴ= contact (wetting) angle
424
Winland R35 method
Winland suggested that the effective pore system that
dominates flow through rocks corresponds to a mercury
saturation of 35%. No satisfactory explanation has been
presented to explain why this relationship is 35%, but it
corresponds to a mean pore throat size of 0.5 μm.
The variation of the pore throat size below this limit

indicates a boundary or non-productive area and is used
as a cut-off to determine the net pay intervals .
425
Winland’s Equation
From 312 mixed suite of sandstones and carbonates rock samples
taken from Spindle Field, Winland used mercury injection-capillary
pressure curves to develop an empirical relationship between:
1) porosity as %
2) Air permeability in md, and
3) pore throat radius corresponding to a mercury phase
saturation of 35% (R35), um
Windland’s expression is given by:
log (R35) = 0.732 + 0.588 log (kair) – 0.864 log(Φ )
R35= pore throat radius at which the non-wetting phase saturation is 35%
kair =uncorrected air permeability (md)
Φ = porosity (percent).
426
The R35 can be described as:
R35 is simply the pore throat radius values corresponding to

35% mercury saturation from mercury injection capillary
pressure test, and it determines the effective pore system that
dominates the flow through porous media. This 35th percentile of
the existing pore throat size where the pore network becomes
interconnected, forming a continuous fluid path through the sample
and filled with the non-wetting phase, the remaining pore system does
not contribute to flow”
427
Based on the R35 parameter, along with other petrophysical,
geological (thickness, API,…etc), and engineering data, four
petrophysical flow units are classified by ranges of R35 and
grouped by the size of pore throats :
1) Megaport with R35 values >10:

 Capable of producing tens of thousands bbl/day
2) Macroport, with R35 values between 2 and 10:
 Capable of producing thousands bbl/day
3) Mesoport, with R35 values between 0.5 and 2:
 Capable of producing hundreds bbl/day
4) Microport, with R35 values < 0.1:
 nonreservoir
428
429
Macropores Throat :
Represents high quality
reservoir rocks generally have
pore-throat sizes greater than
10 um
Mesoport Throat:
Between the micro and macro
limits is a Meso-porosity
regime
Micropore throats:
is the term applied to pore
throat sizes less than 0.5
um; such rocks have low
permeabilities and high
water saturations if water
wet
430
Capillary pressure profile relationship to pore throat distribution and
permeability for three dolomite core samples
431
432
log (kair) =[log (R35) - 0.732 + 0.864 log(Φ )] / 0.588
R35 Diagnostic plot used to establish pore throat radius size range for
microfractures.Solid lines represent a constant R35 value in microns.
433
log (R35) = 0.732 + 0.588 log (kair) – 0.864 log(Φ )
Solve for “k”:
log (kair) = [log (R35) - 0.732 + 0.864 log(Φ )] / 0.588
434
Class Problem:
The following tabulated data shows properties of core plugs from different field locations.
Calculate the R35 and make a plot similar to the plot in previous slide
Porosity K, md Poroisty K, md Poroisty K, md Poroisty K, md
0.05 0.14 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.94 0.08 1.00
0.05 5.00 0.10 0.20 0.12 1.20 0.09 1.40
0.05 8.00 0.10 0.70 0.125 1.35 0.09 0.80
0.05 20.00 0.10 1.50 0.14 1.88 0.09 0.63
0.05 30.00 0.07 0.25 0.16 2.76 0.07 0.39
0.1 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.183 4.07 0.08 0.07
0.1 3.00 0.05 0.08 0.19 4.53 0.05 0.00
0.1 4.00 0.10 200.00 0.2 5.25 0.10 0.01
0.1 7.00 0.15 0.70 0.21 6.05 0.06 0.00
0.1 10.00 0.15 2.00 0.23 7422.27 0.10 541.67
0.1 40.00 0.15 4.00 0.24 8484.47 0.20 4783.90
0.1 70.00 0.15 5.00 0.01 0.39 0.30 17107.40
0.1 80.00 0.15 10.00 0.02 3.44 0.01 0.39
0.1 200.00 0.15 20.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 30.42
0.15 0.70 0.15 70.00 0.1 0.71 0.06 108.78
0.15 2.00 0.15 100.00 0.079 7.30 0.13 5.00
0.15 4.00 0.15 110.00 0.096 13.00 0.13 7.00
0.13 300.00 0.15 200.00 0.077 11.00 0.13 10.00
0.13 400.00 0.15 300.00 0.071 3.80 0.13 200.00
0.126 59.00 0.15 400.00 0.08 2.40 0.13 16.00
0.12 44.00 0.15 700.00 0.082 2.60 0.09 10.00
0.119 41.00 0.13 0.40 0.143 2.60 0.07 2.20
0.09 17.00 0.13 2.00 0.119 31.00 0.13 3.00
435
Sector Modeling & Upscaling
Sector modeling is used to determine:
a) Optimum number of layers?
b) Identifying “Problem Layers” to down-scale
c) Best Upscaling methodology of “k”?
d) Upscale Relative Permeability?
11/21/2011
436
Selection of
Well Pairs
437
Nameless Field
Upper TAGI , Described by Four Zones
1) U4: 10 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
3) U2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layer
Middle TAGI, Described by Two Zones

1) M2: 3 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) M1: 35 Fine scale layers 5 coarse scale layers
LowerTAGI, Described by Three Zones

1) L3: 20 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
179 Fine Scale Layers 19 Coarse Scale Layers

Reserved.
438
Aug03 EM
AUG03 EM (Fine Scaled)
(Upscaled) SEP05 (Fine Scaled) SEP05 EM (Upscaled)
Formation
9 Zones 171 Layers 9 Zones 19 Layers 10 Zones 173 Layers 10 Zones 19 Layers
Subunit
Petrel Petrel FS No. of Upscaled No. of

Zone Proportional Layer Zone Top Base Top Fine Base Fine
Zone Upscaled Layer Zone Proportional Layer Fine
Number Divisions Number Number Layer Layer Layer Layer
Layer Reference Divisions Number Layers
U4 1 10 1 - 10 1 1 - 10 U4 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10
2 11 - 17 2 7 11 17
U3 2 15 11 - 25 U3 2 15 11 25
3 18 - 25 3 8 18 25
Upper TAGI
U2 3 5 26 - 30 4 26 - 30 U2 3 5 26 30 4 5 26 30
5 31 - 33 5 4 31 34
6 34 - 42 6 10 35 44
U1 4 23 31 - 53 U1 4 25 31 55
7 43 - 53 7 11 45 55
M2 5 3 54 - 56 8 54 - 56 M2 5 3 56 58 8 3 56 58
9 57 - 64 9 8 59 66
TAGI
10 65 - 71 10 7 67 73
Middle TAGI
11 72 - 78 11 7 74 80
M1 6 35 57 - 91 M1 6 35 59 93
12 79 - 82 12 4 81 84
13 83 - 91 13 9 85 93
L3 7 20 92 - 111 14 92 - 111 L3 7 20 94 113 14 20 94 113

Lower TAGI
L2 8 20 112 - 131 15 112 - 131 L2 8 20 114 133 15 20 114 133
16 132 - 137 16 10 134 143

L1CD 9 20 134 153
17 138 - 147 17 10 144 153
L1 9 40 132 - 171
18 148 - 157 18 10 154 163
L1AB 10 20 154 173
19 158 - 171 19 10 164 173
439
Ten Flow Units have been Identified by

the Rock Quality Index “RQI”
k
RQI 

Rock Property Applicable TAGI RQI Range
Class Interval
A set of relative
1 Upper & Middle < 10 permeability will be
assigned to each
grid block base on
3 Upper & Middle 20-40 its value of RQI
6 Upper & Middle >80
7 Lower <30
8 Lower 30-60
9 Lower 60-80
10 Lower >80
10 sets of Relative Permeability Data
440
Fine-Scale 173-Layer System
441
Coarse Scale 19-Layer System
442
Why the difference in Water Injection results

between:
Observed data
Numerical Simulation Studies
Theoretical/Analytical Approach ?
Again; the question is “why the difference?

What caused that?
443
Absolute Permeability Upscaling
A. Power Average
B. Arithmetic (Volumetric) Average
C. Root-Mean-Square “RMS” Average
D. Tensor Averaging
E. Renormalization
444
444
Objective is to develop a local Upscaling scheme

representing a heterogeneous fine-scale system by
its equivalent homogenous system
fine scale
20 fine-scale cells are

Reduced to one coarse cell
11/21/2011
445
Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k
Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k
Φ, k fine scale Φ, k
Φ, k
coarse scale
k
RQI = Could change based on the
 averaging technique
11/21/2011
446
Power Averaging Procedure Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k

1/  Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k
1 
 [k ] dV 

 Vb V i fine
(ki )coarse  Φ, k fine scale Φ, k

 b 
(ki )coarse  upscaled permeabili ty
Φ, k
[ki ]fine  fine - scale permeabili ty
Vb  coarse block bulk volum e coarse scale
  power average exponent !!! Choice of  is very tedious
ω lies between -1 and 1:

ω = 1; Arithmetic average (parallel flow)
ω = -1; harmonic average (Series flow)
ω = 0; geometric average (kw is replaced by ln(k))
ω = 1/3; average k will lie between geometric and arithmetic averages
ω = 0.57, for horizontal flow in shale-sand environments
ω = 0.12, vertical flow
447
Root Mean Square “RMS”
n m z
 ijk fine

(
i
k ) 2
j k
(k IJK ) coarse 
nm z
Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k
Φ, k Φ, k Φ, k
Φ, k fine scale Φ, k
Φ, k
coarse scale © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
448
Permeability Tensor
Permeability tensors allow a more rigorous representation of permeability. The method
uses the numerical solution of the PDE that governs single-phase steady state flow
conditions to calculate kxx, kyy,and kzz. The equation for the system consisting
of fine-scale blocks that fall inside the coarse black is:
 p  p  p
(k xx )  (k yy )  (k zz )  0
x x y y z z
This equation is solved with constant pressure conditions at inlet and outlet faces, which
are normal to the direction in which coarse-scale permeability is being calculated; with
closed boundaries in the other directions;
p ( x  0)  p o
k1 k2 k3 k4
p ( x  L)  p L
. . p
. y
0
. p
y 0, Ly
dp/dy = 0 0
z z  0 , Lz
The numerical solutions to the above equations provides the pressure distribution and flow rates
in the fine scale system; with coarse grid permeability as given by:
449 Kxx = µ Lx (ΣQ)fine) / [ A (po – pL)] © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All
Rights Reserved.
449
Renormalization
The Method uses the analogy between flow in Porous media and electric
circuits to calculate Kcoarse. The approach based on averaging the permeability
over small regions (2x2x2 of the fine-scale block) to form a new “average
permeability” with the equation as derived from circuit analogs.
k1 k2
KA KB
k3 k4 KCoarse
KC KD
4 A (k1  k 3 ) (k 2  k 4 )
KA 
3 B  (k1  k 2  k 3  k 4 ) A
A  k 2 k 4 (k1  k 3 )  k1 k 3 (k 2  k 4 )
B  (k1  k 2 ) (k 3  k 4 ) (k 1  k 3 ) (k 2  k 4 )
450
55×275×1 cells in The coarse-scale cell size is
fine-scale model, 275m×275m×20m
each of size number of cells is 1×5×1.
5m×5m×20m.
K, md
Fine-scale Truth Model Coarse-Scale Model

Water Flooding for History-Matching
451
Simulator
1) TA.exe (this is the driver program)
2) TAREK.exe (The simulator)
Three Files are needed to run the simulator:

 TA.dat (Initialization File)
 TA.Sim (Simulation File)
 TA.out (Output File)
Be SURE to use Notepad when you open

TA.dat & TA.sim (Remember that PLEASE)
452
STEPS TO RUN THE MODEL
Step 1: Step 2:
a) Click on: TA.exe a) Click on: TA.exe
b) Select: Initialization Run b) Select: Simulation Run
c) Follow instruction and answer c) Open: TA.sim this file
all questions contains wells info
d) AT THE END OF STEP (C); Open
d) Click on: Tarek.exe (this is
TA.dat with Notepad and Enter
Missing Reservoir Data a MUST STEP)
e) Click on: Tarek.exe (this is a
MUST STEP); simulator WILL
NOT RUN WITHOUT THIS STEP
do not go to step 2 until you:

a) answers all questions
b) close the software by pressing the <ENTER> key
c) Open TA.dat with Notepad and enter missing data
d) Clicking on Tarek.exe
453
Initialization File: TA.dat
! 3) Reservoir Model Grid Dimensions
! **********************************
10 10 1 ! x,y, and z blocks
! 4) x-direction Grid Block Lengths Each time you see

! ********************************* The Warning message;
you must enter some data
! Warning Warning Warning
! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! Please, enter below the x-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 10 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
10*300 You enter the data
! 5) y-direction Grid Block Lengths
! *********************************
! Warning Warning Warning

! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! Please, enter below the y-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 10 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
10*300 You enter the data
454
Open the Following Files with EXCEL to Make Plots
(e.g. GasRec.dat, FieldQg.dat,…etc)
File Name Contents

-------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
1) Summary.dat > History Matching info.& Well data
2) DailyQ.dat > Field Daily Flow Rates
3) OilRec.dat > Field Oil Recovery Factor
4) GasRec.dat > Field Gas Recovery Factor
5) FieldQg.dat > Field Monthly Flow Rates
6) WellQw.dat > Well Monthly Water Flow Rates
7) GasQ.dat > Field Total Daily Gas Flow Rate
8) WellQg.dat > Monthly Gas Flow Rates/well
9) Pmap.dat > Pressure Map
10) Sgmap.dat > Gas Saturation Map
11) Swmap.dat > Water Saturation Map
12) Layers.dat > Performance of layers, cross flow,…etc
13) LayerRate.dat > Production/injection rate/layer
455
The No Name GAS/Oil Field
Depletion Study
 Total area= 1290 acres
 Reservoir dimensions= ∆X=300 ft, ∆Y=300 ft, ∆Z=20 ft
 Initial # of wells= 4 wells
 Depth to top= 5000 ft
 Grid dimensions= 30 x 30 x 5
 Start date= Jan 1, 1990
 Total Thickness = 100 ft
 Simulation time= 10000 days
456
Gas Field
 Initial Pressure =4500 psia
 Temperature 150 oF
 Gas gravity=0.65
 Sgc = 0.02
 Swc = 0.30
 Sgi=0.70
 Swi=0.3
 Pressure at 5100 ft =4500 psi
 Minimum Pwf = 300 psi
457
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5
Kx, md 2 3 6 2 1
Ky, md 7 10 12 9 3
Kz, md 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.2
ᶲ 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.12
h, ft 20 20 20 20 20
∆Z, ft 20 20 20 20 20
1 x-direction (columns) 30
1
y-direction (rows) 1
30
458
Objectives:
1. Field performance for 27 years
2. Analyze Performance of each layer
3. Plot:
A. Qg/well
B. Gp/well/layer
C. Recovery Factor/field/layer
459
Introduction to
Conventional Decline Curve Analysis

460
Production Data Analysis Techniques
Essentially, there are five categories of calculation
techniques that can be used to obtain gas recovery
performance and reserves estimation, these are:
A.Traditional Decline Curve Analysis

B.Modern Decline Curve Analysis
C.Material Balance
D.Type Curve Models
E.Rate and Pressure-Transient Analysis

461
Traditional Decline Curve Analysis
The decline-curve analysis technique is based on the assumption that the
controlling parameters and past production trends of conventional oil and gas
wells will continue in the future and, therefore, can be extrapolated and
described by a mathematical expression.
The future performance and ultimate recovery of these of conventional

hydrocarbon wells can be reliably estimated using traditional Arps’ Decline
Analysis Equations. Arps’ equations are designed to fit and extrapolate
production rate versus time relationships during the Boundary Dominated
Flow “BDF” period .
Unconventional wells (e.g. Shale Gas), on the other hand, often exhibit long
transient flow periods and for most of production life and rarely meet the BDF
requirement for applying Arps’ approach .
462
Traditional Decline Curve Analysis
“Arps’ Decline Curve Methodology”
Arps Decline Curve Analysis “DCA” has been the standard for
evaluating the expected ultimate recovery “EUR” in
conventional gas and oil wells since 1950’s.
Arps’s equations were developed based on the assumptions

that wells are producing under the Boundary Dominated Flow
“BDF” and past well performance trend will continue in the
future . These production trends and the associated
parameters will remain unchanged and can be used to
extrapolate to estimate future decline in the flow rate

Rights Reserved.
463
Arps’ Decline Curve Equations
.Arps conventional decline curve analysis is based on
empirical relationships of production rate versus time as by
given by:
qi
qt 
(1  bDi t ) 1 / b
These decline curves are characterized by three factors:
initial production rate: “qi”

Decline curve exponent (curvature ): “b”
rate of decline: “Di”
Rights Reserved.
464
The curvature of decline “b” in the production rate vs.
time curve can be expressed mathematically by one
of the following three hyperbolic family of equations:
Exponential decline: “b=0”

Harmonic decline: “b=1”
Hyperbolic decline: “0<b<1”
PROBLEMS: “b>1”

Rights Reserved.
465
Identification of the Type of Decline
Exponential Decline “b=0”
Semilog scale Cartesian scale

rate vs. Time Rate vs, cum prod
1000
100
q
q
10
1
Time Cum Prod
466
Identification of the Type of Decline
Harmonic Decline “b=1”
Semilog scale
rate vs. cum
1000
100
10
1
Cumulative
467
Case b Rate-time relationship
Exponential b=0
qt  qi exp (  Di t )
Hyperbolic 0<b<1 qi
qt 
(1  b Di t ) 1 / b
Harmonic b=1 qi
qt 
(1  Di t )

Rights Reserved.
468
( qi  q t )
Exponential b = 0: G p(t ) 
Di
 (qi )    qt  1b 
Hyperbolic 0 < b < 1: G p (t )    1    
 Di (1  b)    qi  
q   qi 
Harmonic b = 1: G p (t )   i  ln  
 Di   qt 

Rights Reserved.
469
The following is a tabulation of the values of ‘b’ that should be
expected for homogeneous single-layer or layered cross-flow
systems.
b System Characterization and identification
0.0 a) Gas wells undergoing liquid loading
b) Wells with high back-pressure
c) High-pressure gas
d) Low-pressure gas with back-pressure exponent of n=0.5
e) Poor water-flood performance (oil wells)
f) Gravity drainage with no solution gas (oil wells)
g) Solution gas-drive with unfavorable kg/ko (oil wells)
0.3 Typical for solution-gas-drive reservoirs

0.4 – 0.5 Typical for gas wells
0.5 Gravity drainage will solution gas and for water-drive oil reservoirs
b>1  Flow rates are all in transient or infinite-acting period
0.5 < b < 0.9  Layered or composite reservoir

Rights Reserved.
470
When “b” > 1 and why?
It is common in tight and shale gas wells that the best fit to the
production data requires values of “b” > 1, beyond the
application limit of Arps’ equation. Main reasons that the best-fit
to the observed data requires a value of b>1 is that:
1. The data are collected in the unsteady-state (transient) flow

regime
2. Production is commingled from multilayered formations that

are hydraulically fractured with multiple stages. Because of
variations in formation permeability and fracture half-length for
each layer, different flow regimes may coexist in different
layers. Lower permeability zones maybe in transient flow,
while higher-permeability zones have established stabilized
boundary-dominated flow. © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
471
472
The Misuse of Arps’ Equations
It should be pointed out all forms of decline

curve equations are strictly applicable ONLY
when the well/reservoir is under pseudo-
steady state flow conditions, i.e. boundary-
dominated flow conditions. Arps’ equation
has been often misused and applied to model
the performance of oil and gas wells whose
flow regimes are in a transient flow.

Rights Reserved.
473
Tight and Shale gas wells are extremely
difficult to evaluate when a well in these
types of unconventional reservoirs has not
defined its drainage area and marks the
start of the Boundary Dominated flowing
condition.

Rights Reserved.
474
Modern Production Rate Analysis

Associates, Ltd. All
Rights Reserved.
475
DCA Methodologies
1) Boundary Dominated “b”
2) Modified Arp’s Method
3) Duong’s Approach
4) Logistic Growth Model
5) Power Law Exponential Decline
6) Simplified Stretched Exponential Production
Decline
7) Stretched Exponential Production Decline
8) Others
476
Recommended Approach
A. Use the Equivalent Gas Volume Concept and Determine Well-Stream
Production Performance
B. Regress and Match Cumulative Production; i.e. Gp or Np, NOT THE

RATE
C. Regress and Match ONLY 80% of Observed Data; keep the 20% for
Validation
D. Apply and Compare Different Methodologies to Provide with a

Range of Answers
E. Using a Sufficient Sample of Wells that Represent the Field and

Develop Type Curves
F. Express Results in Terms of P90, P50, and P10
477
Match Cumulative NOT the Rate
Observed SEOD-GP Observed Qg SEPD_Qg
2500000 12000
dGP
qt  10000
dt
2000000
8000
1500000
6000
1000000
4000
500000
2000
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
478
Rate Smoothing Best Approach
dGP
qt 
dt
GP
dGP
qt 
dt
Time
479
Generate Type Curves
1600 5
Well Stream Production
4.5
1400
P10
4
1200
3.5
1000
3
800 P50 2.5
2
600
P90 1.5
400
1
200
0.5
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Flowing Time, days
480
The Boundary Dominated “b”
Approach
481
Step 1: Calculate “b” during the boundary-dominated
depletion as given by:
  p
2 p 
 
(  g c g ) i  m( pi )  m( pwf )  m  p    dp
b  1  g Z 
2  pi pwf  o 
 (  ) 
 Z i Z wf 
Step 2: Keep “b” constant and use Arps’ set of equations for
matching observed production and forecast:
qi  (qi )    qt  1b 
qt  G p (t )  1    
(1  bDi t ) 1 / b 
 Di (1  b)    qi  
482
Class Problem:
Using the attached Excel Sheet Problem_1:
1) Match Cumulative Production using the boundary
dominated “b” approach
2) Forecast and PLOT future production in terms of rate
and cumulative production as a function of time
3) Determine EUR assuming the economic gas rate is
50,000 scf/day
483
Modified Arps’ Method

Rights Reserved.
484
An Improved Approach “Modified Arps Method :
Based on keeping the Boundary Dominated “b”

constant and calculate Arps’ parameters “Di & qi”
as a function of time and determine these two
parameters at the LAST OBSERVED DATA
POINT
qi
qt 
(1  bDi t ) 1 / b
485
 
Governing Equations  
(  g c g ) i  m( pi )  m( pwf ) 
b  1
2  pi pwf 
 (  ) 
 Z i Z wf 
 qi    qt  1b 
G p (t )    1    
 Di (1  b)    qi  
qi
(qi&Di)∆t1
qt 
(1  b Di t ) 1 / b
Objective:
Calculate qi & Di at tLast
(qi&Di)∆t2
qi (qi&Di)∆t3
∆t3 (qi&Di)∆t=0 =?
∆t2
∆t1
Time, t tLast Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek
486
Di vs ∆t qi vs ∆t
0.01 7600
0.009 7400
0.008 y = 1.38x + 6135.1
7200
0.007
7000
0.006 y = 0.000002x + 0.006623
6800
0.005
0.004 6600
0.003 6400
0.002 6200
0.001
6000
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
qi=6135.1
Di=0.006623
487
Details' of the Modified Arps’ Approach
The proposed methodology is designed to estimate a “b-value”
that represents stabilized boundary-dominated. This value of “b”
is kept constant throughout the remaining calculations. The
methodology is illustrated through the following steps:
Step 1 – Estimate Arps “b-parameter” by applying one of the

following expression
 
 
(  g c g ) i  m( pi )  m( pwf ) 
b  1
2  pi pwf 
 (  ) 
 Z i Z wf 
Again; “b” is kept constant throughout the remaining calculations

488
Step 2 – Select a time interval ∆t1 to obtain a segment of the production data
in terms of qt vs. t. Calculate the parameters of Arps’ equation, i.e. qi
and Di, from fitting the selected data segment to:
qi
qt 
(1  b Di t )1 / b
Designate the optimum regressed values as (qi)1 and (Di)1
qi
∆t3
∆t2
∆t1
Time, t tLast
489
Step 5 – Plot log( Di) on the y-axes versus the backward time interval (∆t)i on
the x-axis and draw the best straight line through the data points.
Extrapolate the line to intercept the y-axis to obtain the stabilized Di
corresponding to the latest time on the observed production data. Apply
the same plotting procedure of log (qi) vs. time interval and extrapolate
to zero to obtain the value of qi corresponding to the latest time. The
step is shown illustrated schematically below
10000
qi
Di
0.0001
0 ∆t2 ∆t1
Backward Time Interval © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
490
Step 6 – Predicting future production can then be initiated at the last point of
production data with extrapolated values of q i and Di, and preselected value
of parameter b from step 1.
qi
qt 
1 b Di (t )1/ b
Step 7 – Cumulative gas production GP at any time “t” can then be calculated by
applying
   qt 
(1  b )
 qi 
Gp    1    
(
 i D (1  b )    qi  
491
Class Problem:
Using the attached Excel Sheet Problem_1:
1) Match Cumulative Production using the modified
Arps’ approach
2) Forecast and PLOT future production in terms of rate
and cumulative production as a function of time
3) Determine EUR assuming the economic gas rate is
50,000 scf/day
492
Duong’s Approach

Rights Reserved.
493
Governing Equations
q  3 q3ma a t  m exp 
 1  m

 a  1 m


t  901 m 
 
 
GP  3 q3ma exp  
 1  m



  a  1 m
t  901 m 
 
 
Regression variables:
1)q3ma
2)a
3)m
494
How to Estimate the Regression variables:
1)q3ma
2)a
3)m
495
1) Estimation of q3ma:
The paramter q3ma, refers to the maximum monthly rate during
the first 3-month of production. For example:
1st Monthly production rate= 20 MMscf/month

2nd Monthly production rate= 32 MMscf/month
3rd Monthly production rate =23 MMscf/month
Then:
q3ma= 32 MMscf/month
496
2) Estimation of Parameters “a” & “m”:
Plot of qg/GP or qo/NP vs. time “t” on a log-log scale and draw a
straight-line that fits the data. Express the straight-line
mathematically by using the power-law, to give:
q
 a t m It should be pointed out that “m” is used a
GP positive value for all the calculations
qg/GP
or
qo/NP
Time, days
497
Rate and Cumulative Production
The gas or oil rate “q” and cumulative gas “GP” or oil production
“NP” as a function of time t are give by:
 
q  3 q3ma a t  m e X & GP  3 q3ma e X  
with :
 a  1 m
X 
 t  90
1  m 
1 m

498
For Short Production History < 90 days:
IF 3-month average rate q3ma is not available due to insufficient
length of production time, i.e. t<90 days; the q3ma can be
estimated by applying the following steps:
1) Introducing the time function “t(a,m)” as defined by the

expression:
t( a,m)  t e
- m F With: F 
a
1 m
t 1m

1
2) Plot of gas rate q as function of t(a,m) on a Cartesian scale and

draw a straight line relationship with a slope of q1 and
intercept of “C”, i.e.:
q  q1 t( a,m)  C
499
q  q1 t(a,m)  C
t(a,m)
3) Estimate the 3-month average rate q3ma by apply the
following expressions:
q1 A  a 
q 3ma  e  with : A    [90 ]  1
1m
3a 1 m 
In theory; the “q1” represents the gas rate at day 1 which is

considered a challenging issue to determine.
500
Procedure:
Step 1: Plot q/GP (or q/NP for oil) versus time “t” on a log-log scale and
draw the best straight line fit through the data. Determine the slope
“m” and intercept “a”
501
Step 2: IF Total time < 90 days, Plot gas rate “q” vs. “t(a,m)”
and draw the best straight line to fit the data and
determine q1
F
a

t 1m 1  t( a,m)  t - m e F
1 m
q  q1 t(a,m)  C
t(a,m) © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
502
Step 3: Determine the 3-month average rate q3ma ; if not
available, apply the following expressions:
q1 A  a 
q 3ma  e  with : A    [90 ]  1
1m
3a 1 m 
Again, apply ONLY if actual q3ma is NOT AVAILABLE
Step 4: Calculate the gas rate “q” and cumulative gas produced
GP as a function of time “t from the following expressions:
 a  1m
q  3 q3ma a t m  e X  with : X    t  90 
1 m
1 m 
GP  3 q3ma  e X 
503
Step 5: Predict and plot future production performance (i.e. “q”
and GP) as a function of time
Step 6: Regress on the parameters a, m and q3am until a
satisfactory match is achieved between the observed
cumulative and calculated production
q
&
GP
504
1)q3ma
2)a: recommended range 0.50 < a <10
3)m: recommended range 1.1< m <4
505
Class Problem:
Use your own data or the attached Excel called “Problem-1” and
determine:
a) Gas rate and cumulative gas production as a function of time
for 10000 days
b) Compare results with the historical data
c) Gas Initially in Place “G”
d) Estimated EUR assuming an economic gas rate of 50
Mscf/day
506
Constructing Type Curves
507
Constructing Type Curves and
Generating P10, P50, and P90 EUR
1) Select a set of wells that representative of the reservoirs or
hydrocarbon phase window
2) Recombine the separated gas with condensate liquid to
determine the well stream rate and cumulative production for
each well
3) Match cumulative production for both; the well stream and
condensate production for each well by regressing on the
parameters of the selected decline curve method
4) Decouple the well stream to determine the rate and cumulative
production of the decoupled gas for each well
5) Record the optimized parameters for the well stream and
condensate
6) Use the probability-log scale to determine P90, P50, and P10
for each parameter
508
Step 1: Recombine the well gas and liquid flow rates and convert into an equivalent
well-stream rate for each well using
Qg
Qgas  Veq QO  (Qg ) sep STREAM
Qgas
Qo
o
Veq  133,000
Mo
qgas= Qgas Bg
509
Step 2. Simultaneously match the total well stream [GP &
qg]stream as well as the condensate [NP & qo]condensate and
the de-Coupled gas production [GP & qg]de-coupled
Step 3. Use only 80% of the available observed production data

for the history matching process and validate the match
with the remaining 10-20% of observed production
510
Step 4: Obtain the coefficients a & m for the well stream and
condensate for each individual well in set sample of wells. Plot “a”
as a function of “m” and fit power type regression equation ; as:
a  a1 ma 2
511
Step 5:Using the estimated values for “m”, construct a probability plot
to obtain P10, P50, and P90 values for “m”
P90
P50
P10
512
Step 6: Using the P10, P50, and P90 values for “m”, calculate the
corresponding values of “a” from step 1
Step 7: Estimate the best 3-month rate averages “q3ma” for the vertical and
horizontal wells in the data set and estimate q values (P10, P50, and
P90) based on the “q3ma” for both vertical and horizontal wells using:
 a  1m
q  3 q3ma a t m  e X  with : X    t  90 
1 m
1 m 
GP  3 q3ma  e X 
513
5) Using the generated parameters a, m, and q3ma for both type of wells;
construct the type curves
Vertical Well Type Curves Horizontal Well Type Curves
514
Class Problem:
Construct the type curves in terms of P90, P50, and P10 for the condensate and
gas rate…Use your own data or data in Excel called Problem-2
515
Logistic Growth Model
“LGM ”

Rights Reserved.
516
LGM
EUR
NP or GP
Qo or qg
0
Time
517
Logistic Growth Model “LGM”:
The Logistic Growth Model “LGM” is a mathematical expression that used to forecast
growth in numerous applications, e.g. model population growth.
The LGM is commonly referred to as the “Carrying Capacity Model”. The carrying
capacity is the maximum size of a population can grow to, at which point the size of the
population, i.e. GP, will stabilize and rate of growth will terminate, e.g. at qg=0
The method is very flexible in nature and can match numerous curve shape behaviors.
The LGM expression has the form:
n
Kt
Gp 
a tn
Taking the derivative of Gp with respect to t; gives:
GP K n a t n 1
 qt 
The controlling parameters are:
t a tn  2

K = the carrying capacity
n = Hyperbolic exponent
a = constant
518
If K, i.e. EUR or GIIP, is known from anther DCA Method; then
K t nG  K t
n K 
Gp  log  1  log( a)  n log (t )
p
a tn  Gp 
a tn  
K n a t n 1
qt 
a  t 
n 2
Plot [(K/GP)-1] vs. t on a log-log scale and determine a and n
If K is not known; then

1) K
2) a
3) n
519
The Carrying Capacity “K”
Possible:
Maximum
Average
minimum
After Clark, Lake, and Patzek, SPE 144790
520
The Carrying Capacity “K”:
a) The carrying capacity “K” is defined as defined as the total amount of

gas or oil recoverable from the well primary production, independent
of time or economic constraints.
b) The K can be treated or thought of as the well Estimated Ultimate

Recovery “EUR”.
c) This important parameter acts as the term to constrain the cumulative

production. The cumulative production “Gp” will eventually approach
the carrying capacity and the production rate approaches 0.
d) It is possible to obtain the EUR, i.e. K, from the volumetric calculations

or from SRV.
e) If the K is not known, it can be used as a fitting parameter
f) The model is very flexible in nature, however, it can produce a “Non-

Unique” results if when the K is not known, as shown on the next slide
521
The Hyperbolic Exponent “n”
qg
Time, days
522
The Hyperbolic Exponent “n”:
a) The exponent “n” control the shape and decline behavior of the well
production profile
b) Used as an important regression variable to match the well observed

production history of the well
c) The value of “n” parameter controls the steepness of the decline.
d) At smaller values of “n”, the well rate will at a high rate for a short
period of time before stabilizing at low rate
e) At higher values of “n”, will decline exhibits a more gradual decline

through its life
f) For values of “n” >1, the well will exhibit a left-skewed profile, i.e.
rate initially increasing to a peak before declining
523
The Parameter “a”:
a) The parameter “a” behave much like the initial decline parameter “Di”
of Arps’ equation
b) At smaller values of “a”, the well initially produce at a high rate before
declining very steeply to a stabilizing at low rate for a long period
c) At higher values of “a”, the more stable production rate for much
longer time
524
1)K: ≈ SRV
2)a: range 10< a <200
3)n: range 0.1 < n < 1.5
525
Solving the Logistic Growth Model:
It is recommended to match both the cumulative gas production as a opposed to rate
to avoid the impact of changing operating conditions and other various occurrence
that can cause the rate data to have extreme outliers.
There are essentially two methods for solving the LGM; these are:
1) Method 1: the method involves optimizing the three parameters “a, n, and K”
to match the observed well production data using a non-linear regression
numerical scheme, e.g. Microsoft Excel Solver
2) Method 2: If the Carrying Capacity “K” is know, i.e. volumetrically from SRV,
the LGM can be normalized and solve for the parameters “a & n”, i.e.:
K tn  K 
Gp  log  1  log( a)  n log (t )
a tn  Gp 
 
With the parameter “n” as given by the slope and the parameter “a” by the intercept
526
Class Problem:
determine:
for 10000 days
Mscf/day
527
Stretched –Exponential –Production-Decline
“SEPD”

Rights Reserved.
528
Stretched –Exponential –Production-Decline
The SEPD function is essentially a form of the power law exponential function
and is expressed in the following form for the production rate:
  t n 
qt  qi exp    
    
Where:
t = time, months or days
qi = initial production rate, Mscf/month or day
n =exponent, dimensionless
Ʈ =characteristic time constant, month or day
The two controlling parameters n and Ʈ may be regarded as shape and scale
factor while qi determines the start of the production profile
529
One advantage of the SEPD method over PLE function is that it provides an
expression for calculating the cumulative gas production “Gp”. The
cumulative gas production relationship adds the option of fitting data to GP,
which is smoother and easier to regress on than the usually scattered
production trends. The Gp expression is given be:
q   1   1  t n  
Gp  i       ,    
n   n   n     
Where:
1
 
n
= complete gamma function
 1  t n 
  ,    = incomplete gamma function
 n    
530
Approximations of the Gamma & Incomplete Gamma Functions:
 g  1 ( g  1) ( g  2) ( g  1) ( g  2) ( g  3) 
g 1  h
1  h  h2

h3 
 ( g , h)  h e  
  ( g  1) ( g  2) ( g  3) ( g  4) 
 h 4 
 1 1 139 571 
 ( x  1)  x x e x 2 x 1   2
 3
 4 
 12 x 288 x 51840 x 2488320 x 
531
Estimated Ultimate Recovery EUR:
It should be realized that the most significant error source for estimating hydrocarbon
reserves using Arps methodology is the incorrect application of Arps’ equation during
transient flow or the transitional period between the end of transient and boundary
dominated flow regimes. The SEPD provides an expression for estimating ultimate
gas recovery:
   1 
EUR  qi    
n n
Where:
EUR = Estimated ultimate recovery, Mscf
532
Recovery Potential rp:
The recovery potential rp is defined as the fraction of gas remaining in the
reservoir after producing Gp Mscf of gas; as given by
GP 1  1  qt  
rP  1     ,  ln   
EUR  1   n  qi  
 
n
Where:
GP = Cumulative gas production as t, Mscf
EUR = Estimated ultimate recovery, Mscf
qt = gas rate at time t, Mscf/month or day
qi = maximum (or initial) production rate, Mscf/month or day
n = model parameter, dimensionless
533
GP 1  1  q  
rP  1     ,  ln  t  
EUR 1 n  qi  
  
n
The above expression suggests two significant observations:
a) if the parameters ‘n’ and “qi “ are known; the remaining

recovery potential “rp” can be calculated without knowing the
parameter t
b) Plotting the recovery potential “rP” as a function GP will yield a

straight line that intercepts the y-axis at rp=1 and the x-axis at
EUR
GP
rP  1 1 When Gp=0
EUR
GP
rP  1 0 When Gp=EUR
EUR
534
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Recovery potential, rp
0.6
y = -7.39E-08x + 1.00E+00
0.5
1  1  q  
0.4
rP     ,  ln  t  
 1   n  qi  
0.3
 
0.2
n
0.1
0.0
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 2.5E+06 3.0E+06 3.5E+06 4.0E+06 4.5E+06 5.0E+06
Cumulative, mscf
535
Applying the Stretched–Exponential–Production-Decline Method
Step 1. Define qi as the highest recorded gas rate
Step 2. Calculate the dimensionless gas rate at each time step, i.e.: qD=qt/qi
Step 3. Assume a value for the parameter “n”, e.g. n=0.5, and calculate the remaining
gas potential rp at each time step from:
1  1 
rP     ,  ln qD  
1 n 
 
n
Step 4. On a Cartesian scale, plot rp (on the y-axis) versus cumulative gas production
GP (on the x-axis) and extrapolate the line to intercept the y-axis.
Step 5. Adjust the value of “n” and repeat steps 3 and 4 until the straight line
intercepts the y-axis at 1.0 (see next slide)
536
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Recovery potential, rp
0.6 y = -7.39E-08x + 1.00E+00

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0E+00 1.0E+06 2.0E+06 3.0E+06 4.0E+06 5.0E+06
Cumulative, mscf
Step 6. Extrapolate the line to intercept the x-axis to read EUR
Step 7. Solve for the parameter t

( EUR) n

1
q i  
n © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
537
Step 8. Forecast future production and cumulative gas production as function of time
by applying:
  t n 
qt  qi exp    
    
qi    1   1  t n  
Gp        ,    
n   n   n     
538
Class Problem:
determine:
for 10000 days
Mscf/day
539
Power-Law Exponential Model
“PLE Model”

Rights Reserved.
540
What is the Power-Law Exponential Function?
A power law is a functional relationship between two quantities, i.e. (x,y), with a
graphical presentation of y=f(x) as shown below:
y
b>1 0<b<1 b=0 Tail
y= a xb + c
Capable of curve-fit
the entire curve
x
Perhaps the best known power-law function follows the polynomial form as
given by:
Power-Law: y= a xb
Modification: y= a xb + c
In this context, the coefficient “c” could be included to provide a simple way
for production rate to deviate from the power-law function.
541
Characteristic Behavior of the Decline Rate “D”:
It should be noted that of general characteristic behavior of the
decline rate Dt vs. time relationship can be described by the
“Power Law.“ This is a typical performance for unconventional
wells flowing under transient flow conditions.
D1
y= a xb + c Dt  D1 t (1 n)  D
y or Dt
D
x or t
542
Why the Power-Law Exponential Function?
Because:
a) The computed b & D parameters data trend indicates that the value of b
and D parameters would not be constant throughout the producing life of
the well.
b) When hyperbolic rate decline relation is applied to rate-time data in

unconventional reservoirs, the observe b-parameter IS NOT CONSTANT
with values > 1 which might lead to overestimation of reserves.
c) To prevent overestimation of reserves, production forecast with hyperbolic

rate decline relation can be switched to exponential rate decline relation
at a specified time. This procedure is called "modified hyperbolic
relation“ and is a practical way to constrain reserve estimates.
543
Power Law Exponential Function Approach:
PLE Function is decline curve expression with all its

parameters are a function of time, i.e. NOT
CONSTANT:
Dt= f(t),
bt=f(t)
βt=f(t) indicates type of the flow regime
544
The PLE Diagnostic Functions:
The fundamentals of the PLE function are based on four
diagnostic relationships that can be used to describe the
characteristic behavior of rate-time data in unconventional
reservoirs. The basic definitions are given by:
 1 dqt
1- Instantaneous Decline Parameter: Dt 
qt dt
1  qt
2- The Loss Ratio: 
Dt (dqt / dt )
d  1  1   qt 
3- Derivative of The Loss Ratio: bt     
dt  Dt  dt  (dqt / dt ) 
 t dqt
4- The Beta Function: t   t Dt
qt dt
545
The “q-D-b” Diagnostic Plot:
The diagnostic plot of the observed gas rate q and the two parameters
Dt & bt as a function of time on a log-log scale is called the "q-D-b"
plot. The q-D-b plot is developed by continuously calculating the D & b
parameters from the definitions of loss-ratio and its derivative as defined
by:
 1 dqt d 1
Dt  & bt   
qt dt dt  Dt 
The significance of making the plot is in its ability to identify the

type of production decline and deviation from Arps’ decline curve
traditional application.
546
a) Exponential Rate Decline Relation is obtained if the loss-ratio is
constant; i.e.:
1  qt
  constant
Dt (dqt / dt )
b) Hyperbolic Rate Decline Relation is obtained if the derivative
of loss-ratio as expressed by Arps’ “b” parameter is constant;
i.e.:
d 1
bt     constant
dt  Dt 
c) the computed b-parameter data trend is not constant

indicates that the well is flowing under transient flow.
547
Exponential Rate Decline Relation
1  qt

Dt (dqt / dt )
time
Hyperbolic Rate Decline Relation

d 1
bt   
dt  Dt 
time © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
548
The “βt” Diagnostic Plot:
The computed βt derivative function exhibits a strong
Diagnostic character in identifying the flowing regimes in
hydraulically fracture horizontal wells. The βt derivative
function is given by:
 t dqt
t   t Dt
qt dt
If:
a) the βt derivative is 0.5 indicates a linear flow
b) the βt derivative is 0.25 indicates bilinear flow regime
c) the βt derivative is approaching 1 indicates progressing
toward boundary dominated flow regime
549
The “βt” Diagnostic Plot:
 t dqt
t   t Dt approaching 1 indicates progressing toward
qt dt
boundary dominated flow regime
1.0
0.75
0.5 indicates a linear flow

0.5
0.25 indicates bilinear flow

0.25
0
Time
550
Strictly Linear Flow Bilinear flow to Linear Flow
Hydraulic
Fractures
Matrix
Matrix
Horizontal Well Horizontal Well
Gas flows strictly from:

Gas flows strictly from:
a) the matrix to natural fractures
a) the matrix to hydraulic fractures
b) natural fractures to hydraulic fractures
b) hydraulic fractures to the horizontal well
c) hydraulic fractures to the horizontal
well
551
Characteristic Behavior of the Decline Rate “D”:
It should be noted that of general characteristic behavior of the
decline rate Dt vs. time relationship can be described by the
“Power Law.“ This is a typical performance for unconventional
wells flowing under transient flow conditions.
D1
?
Transient Flow BDF Flow
y or Dt y= a xb + c
D
x or t
Dt  D1 t (1 n)  D
552
The D-parameter trend can be modeled by using a power-law equation which is given
as:
Dt  D1 t (1 n)  D
Substituting the above expression into the loss-ratio expression and solving the
associated differential equation; gives
1  qt  D 
 qt  qî exp  D t  1 t n 
Dt (dqt / dt )  n 
The above relationship can be expressed in a more commonly form as:

qt  qî exp  D t  Dˆ i t n 
where :
qt  Gas rate, Mscf/day
qî  Gas rate at t  0, Mscf/day
D1  Decline constant at t  1day
D  Decline constant at t  
ˆ i  Decline constant, D1 / n
D
n  Time exponent
t  Time, days
553
Properties of the Power-Law Exponential Function:

a) In early times of well production, the first term of the function is negligible
making the model a PLE function to match/describe the linear or bilinear flow
behavior, a characteristic behavior of early time production performance of
horizontally fractured shale wells i.e.:
Bilinear Flow Linear Flow

qt  qî exp  Dˆ i t n 
b) At late times of well production, the first term of the function is dominant making
the model an exponential decline function, a distinctive behavior of the late time
production performance of shale wells, i.e.:
qt  qî exp D t 
554
Governing Equations

NO EXPLICIT EXPRESSION FOR GP
Gp   qt
555
Possible Range on Regression variables:
1)qi: ≈ initial rate

2)n: <0.9
3)D∞: < 10x10-3
4)D^: < 4
556
The following 4 steps describe the methodology of solving the PLE Function:
1) Filter The Production Data

The PLE is limited by the quality of data being analyzed. Careful editing of the
production data is necessary, e.g. removing production data points that
deemed too low, points, redundant/erroneous data points,…etc
2) Estimation Initial Gas Rate at t=0 q̂i

q̂i represents the instantaneous initial gas rate of the well. It can be
determined by extrapolating the production data back to t=0.This value serves
as an anchored point and, therefore, must be carefully determined
3) Curve Fit:
Regress on the parameters D ∞ and n to match the observed production data.
MUST USE MICROSOFT EXCEL SOLVER.
4) Extrapolate Analysis to Abandonment:

Once the match has been achieved, predict the future gas rate until reaching
the economic rate and determine the EUR
557
Class Problem:
determine:
for 10000 days
Mscf/day
558
The Diagnostic Plots Approach
559
Plotting Function 3: α vs. (GP/G )
Plot “α vs. (GP/G)” on a Cartesian scale by using
 qq 
1 
  q gi 
  GP  1  GP  2 
   
  G  2  G  
560
Contacted-Gas-in-Place “G” is expressed by:
  qg   qq 
0.5   (GP ) 2  (q gi  q g ) GP 1 
  GP   q gi 

G 
  qg    GP  1  GP  2 
  (GP )  (q gi  q g )    

 PG   G  2  G  
The second plotting function “Fboundary” is defined by the following expression:
 (q gi  q g )
Fboundary  2
 
 (q gi  q g ) GP 
 
 q g 
 GP ( G )  (q gi  q g ) 
 P 
561
  qg 
0.5 
 G 
 (GP )  ( q gi  q g ) GP
2
G  P 
  qg 

 G 
 (GP )  ( q gi  q g )
 P 
 qq 
1  

 q gi 

 4.00 -9E-14
  GP  1  GP  
2 Contacted Gas in Place
    
G= 3.5 Bscf -8E-14
2 
3.50
 G 
  G   3.00
-7E-14
Starts of boundary-dominated-regime -6E-14

2.50
 (q gi  q g ) α -5E-14
Fboundary  2
2.00
  -4E-14
Fboundary
 
1.50
(q gi  q g ) G P Transition -3E-14
  1.00
-2E-14
 q g  Fboundary
 GP ( )  (q gi  q g )  0.50 -1E-14
 G P  0.00 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time, day
Figure ?-?- Plotting functions vs. Time
562
Unfractured Wells
2.50E+00 -1.40E-13
-1.20E-13
2.00E+00
-1.00E-13
1.50E+00
-8.00E-14
α FBoundary
Start of Stabilized Boundary Flow
-6.00E-14
1.00E+00
Transition
-4.00E-14
5.00E-01
-2.00E-14
0.00E+00 -1.00E-27
End of Transient Flow
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time, day 2.00E-14
Figure ?-?- Fboundary and α as a function of time
563
20
18
16
14
12
GP, Bscf
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time, day
Figure ?-?- Cumulative gas vs. Time
564
3.00E+07
Unfractured wells -2.50E-03
2.50E+07
-2.00E-03
2.00E+07
-1.50E-03
q g
1.50E+07 GP
qg, scf/day
-1.00E-03
1.00E+07
-5.00E-04
5.00E+06
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0 5E+09 1E+10 1.5E+10 2E+10
Cumulative Gas production, scf
Figure ?-?- Gas rate and d(qg)/d(GP) vs. cumulative gas production
565
Fractured wells
8.00E+07 -7.00E-03
7.00E+07 -6.00E-03
6.00E+07
-5.00E-03
5.00E+07
qg, scf/day -4.00E-03
q g
4.00E+07 G P
-3.00E-03
3.00E+07
-2.00E-03
2.00E+07
1.00E+07 -1.00E-03
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+09 1.00E+10 1.50E+10 2.00E+10
Cumulative Gas production, scf
Figure ?-?- Gas rate and d(qg)/d(GP) vs. cumulative gas production
566
Basic Reservoir Engineering
There are basically three types of flow regimes that must be
recognized in order to describe the fluid flow behavior and
reservoir pressure distribution as a function of time, these are:
A. Steady-State Flow
B. Semi-Steady (Pseudo-Steady) Flow
C. Unsteady-State (Transient) Flow
567
Understanding Flow Regimes
(x,y,z) is Essential
Any location Including

the wellbore
Steady-State  p 
  0
 t  x , y , z
 p 
   constant
Pressure
 t  x, y, z
 p 
   constant
t
  x, y , z
Time

Reserved.
568
STEADY-STATE FLOW

Rights Reserved.
569
Steady-State Flow
The flow regime is identified as a Steady-State Flow if the pressure at every
location in the reservoir (including wellbore) remains constant, i.e. does
not change with time. Mathematically, this condition is expressed as:
 p
   o
  t i , j ,k
The above equation states that the rate of change of pressure “p” with
respect to time “t” at any location “i,j,k” is zero. In reservoirs, the steady
state flow condition can only occur when the reservoir is completely
recharged and supported by strong aquifer or pressure maintenance
operations (i.e. related to Voidage Replacement Ratio≈1)
570
Steady State Flow
If:
1- Strong Aquifer Support
2- Voidage Replacement Ratio ≈1
constant Q location x,y,z or rw
 p 
P   0
or  t  x , y , z
pwf
time
Aquifer Support
Strong
distance x
r
571
Steady-State Flow
pi Pi
dV
Hydrocarbon
∆t Hydrocarbon
Pore Volume Pore Volume
V dWe V-dV
 p 
Water encroachment = Total Withdrawal   0
dWe = dV  t 
572
Average Pressure in a
Steady-Steady-State Flow Regime
pr
pressure
 p 
pwf
time   0
 t  x , y , z
p r occurs at about 61% of re
rw re
573
It should be pointed out that the Average Reservoir Pressure pr, which often
is reported in well test results, should be used in performing Material Balance
Calculations and flow rate prediction. It can be shown that this average
pressure is located at about 61% of the drainage radius re for a Steady-
State flow condition, i.e.:
Qo 

0.00708 k h p r  pwf 
 0.61r 
o Bo ln  e

r
 w 
Qo 

0.00708 k h p r  pwf 
  re  
o Bo ln    0.5
  rw  
574
BOUNDARY DOMINATED FLOW !!!
Semi-Steady State
575
When the pressure wave
reaches the Boundary is the
Starts of the BDF
576
Boundary Dominated Flow
Numerical Radial Model
3600
10
pi Cross Section Pressure Plot
3400
Cross Section 3200
3000 Pressure Profile

2800
Boundary Dominated
No Flow Boundary
2600
Transient Well Performance
No Flow Boundary
Well Performance
2400
= f(k, s, t) = f(Volume, J)
2200
psi
2000
Pressure,
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Shut-in
600
well
400
Plan View
200
0
-4000 -3600 -3200 -2800 -2400 -2000 -1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Radii, ft
577
Boundary Dominated Flow is Associated
with
“Semi-steady Flow”
Reaching the Boundary

is the Starts of the BDF
 p 
 t  x, y , z
The Well Can See the Boundary © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights
Reserved.
578
Semi-Steady State Flow
constant Q
location x,y,z or rw
p
P  p 
or pwf    constant
pwf t
  x, y , z
time
distance x
r
579
Average Pressure in a
Semisteady-Steady-State Flow Regime
pr
pressure
pwf
 p 
time  t  x, y , z
p r occurs at about 47% of re
rw re
580
It should be pointed out that the Average Reservoir Pressure pr, which often
is reported in well test results, should be used in performing Material Balance
Calculations and flow rate prediction. It can be shown that this average
pressure is located at about 47% of the drainage radius re for a
semisteady-State flow condition, i.e.:
Qo 

0.00708 k h p r  pwf 
 0.47 re 
o Bo ln  
 rw 
Qo 

0.00708 k h p r  pwf 
 r  
o Bo ln  e   0.75
  rw  
581
 p 
What is the “Constant”?!!    constant 0
 t 
“Boundary Dominated Flow”

pi Pi-dp
Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon
Pore Volume Pore Volume
V dV
 1 dV  1  dp  1  dV
c dp    dV  
V dp  c V  dt  cV  dt
dp 0.23396 q  0.23396 q  0.23396 q

  
dt c t ( re2 ) h ct A h  c t ( pore volume)
582
Estimating Well Drainage Area
Estimation of the Well Drainage Area “A”
q 
Awell  AField  well 
 qField 
A better Approximation Using Cumulative Oil “NP” or Gas “GP” :
(Pore Volume) Field  ( N p ) well 

Awell   
[ h ]well  ( N P ) Field 
Well Drainage Radius:
43,560 Awell
re 

Rights Reserved.
583
Volumetric Average Reservoir Pressure
 (G p ) well 
(Drainage Pore Volume) well  (Pore Volume) Field  
 (GP ) Field 
 (drainage Pore Volume) 

n
pi
well i
Field Average Reservoir Pressure 
(Pore Volume) Field

Rights Reserved.
584
Unsteady-state (Transient) Flow
“A Characteristic Flow Regime in

Tight Reservoirs”

Rights Reserved.
585
What is the Transient (Unsteady-State) Flow?
“that time period during which the

boundary has no effect on the pressure
behavior in the reservoir and the reservoir
will behave as its infinite in size.”

Rights Reserved.
586
Unsteady-state (Transient) Flow
“Infinite Acting Behavior”
infinite acting flow

infinite acting flow
Well Does NOT See the Boundary

587 Rights Reserved.
587
Transient and Boundary Dominated Flow
Numerical Radial Model
3600
10
pi Cross Section Pressure Plot
3400
Cross Section 3200

2800
Boundary Dominated
No Flow Boundary
2600
Transient Well Performance
No Flow Boundary
Well Performance
2400
= f(k, s, t) = f(Volume, J)
2200
psi
2000
Pressure,
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Shut-in
600
well
400
Plan View
200
0
-4000 -3600 -3200 -2800 -2400 -2000 -1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Radii, ft
588
Radius Investigation
When a shut-in well is allowed to flow at a constant flow rate of q,
a pressure disturbance will be created at the sand face. This
pressure disturbance will move away from the wellbore at a rate
that is determined by:
• Permeability “k” • Porosity “Φ”
• Fluid viscosity “µ” • Rock and fluid compressibilities “ct”
 p 
   constant
 t  x, y, z
x,y,z
589
10
Radius & Area of Numerical Radial Model
Cross Section Pressure Plot
3600
3400
Investigation
3200
No Flow Boundary
No Flow Boundary
3000
2800
2600

2200
psi
2000
Pressure,
1800
1600
kt
1400
rinv 
1200 948 c
 kt
1000
800 Ainv 
600 948 c
400
200
0
-4000 -3600 -3200 -2800 -2400 -2000 -1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Radii, ft
No Flow Boundary
590
Important Aspects of Well Testing Methodologies:
a)Recognize wellbore storage effect

b)Identifying end of wellbore storage effect
c) Proper selection of the straight-line describing the
pressure vs. time relationship
591
162.6 Qo Bo    kt  
pwf  pi  
log    3.23  0.87 s 
2
kh     ct rw  
162.6 Qo Bo    k  
pwf  pi  log t   log  2
  3.23  0.87 s 
kh     ct rw  
The above equation is essentially an equation of a straight-line and can be

expressed as:
pwf = a + m log (t)
162.6 Qo Bo    k  
a  pi  
 Log    3.23  0.87 s 
2
kh     c r
t w  
 162.6 Qo Bo o
m
kh © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights
Reserved.
592
Wellbore Storage
Draw-Down Test
(Well is initially shut-in)
Time Pwf
t1 Pwf1
t2 Pwf2
t3 Pwf3 100% flow from
t4 Pwf4 Qzone+ Qannulus the zone “Qzone”
t5 Pwf5 Q
t6 Pwf6
t7 Pwf7
t8 Pwf8
t9 Pwf9
t10 Pwf10
. .
. .
. .
0
0 Time End of
wellbore storage
1. expansion of fluid
2. changing fluid level in the casing-tubing annulus
593
Wellbore Storage
Time
t1
Pwf
Pwf1 Pressure Buildup Test
t2 Pwf2
t3 Pwf3
t4 Pwf4
t5 Pwf5
t6 Pwf6 Q
t7 Pwf7
t8 Pwf8
t9 Pwf9
t10 Pwf10
. .
. .
. .
0
0 Time End of
well-bore storage
© 2006Tarek
Ahmed &
Associates, Ltd. All
Rights Reserved.
594
Identifying End of Wellbore Storage
Log-Log Scale
∆P= Pi - Pwf
1 to 1 ½ cycle in time
end of wellbore storage

Time
595
Isotropic and anisotropic systems
Some reservoirs parameters exhibit directional dependency.
a) A reservoir exhibits isotropic property distribution if that

property has the same value regardless of the direction in
which we measure it
b) On the other hand, if a property’s value does vary with
direction, then the reservoir is anisotropic with respect to that
property.

Reserved.
596
It should be pointed out that only those properties that are not
volume-based can exhibit directional dependency; e.g. kx, ky, kz.
Porosity, for example, is a volume-based property by definition

and it utilizes all three dimensions, and therefore has zero
degrees of freedom in terms of directional variation
kx
ky
Φ
kz

Reserved.
597
Anisotropic
Kx does not equal Ky
Isotropic Kx = Ky
598
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
599
Concept of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Naturally fractured reservoirs have two distinct
porosities, one in the matrix and one in the fractures.
Although naturally fractured reservoirs consist of
irregular fractures, they can be represented by
equivalent homogeneous dual porosity systems
600
The Depletion Process of NFR
1) The volume of hydrocarbon stored within the natural fractures is
much lower than is stored in the matrix.
2) In dual porosity systems, the natural fractures have much higher
permeability than the matrix. When the well begins to flow, fluid
travels from the high permeability natural fractures to the wellbore
and is rapidly produced.
3) Once the natural fractures have been drained, the large volume
of hydrocarbons contained within the bulk of the reservoir (matrix)
begins to flow. These hydrocarbons flow to nearby natural
fractures and virtually all of the fluid is transported to the wellbore
via these fractures.
601
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Classification
A naturally fractured porous medium is comprised of two different parts: 1) the matrix
portion with relatively high porosity and low permeability, and 2) the fractures which have
high permeability and low porosity. Based on this observation, there are four types of
naturally fractured reservoirs; based on the extent the fractures have altered the
reservoir matrix porosity and permeability:
Type 1 Reservoir:
In this type of reservoirs, fractures provide the essential reservoir
storage capacity and permeability
Type 2 Reservoir:
In this type, fractures provide the essential permeability and the matrix
provide the essential storage capacity, i.e. porosity
Type 3 Reservoir:
In addition to the high fracture permeability; the matrix is also
characterized by high permeability resulting in a considerably high
well flow rates.
Type 4 Reservoir:
In this type, the fractures are filled with minerals and provide no
additional porosity or permeability. These types of fractures create
significant reservoir anisotropy and tend to form barriers to fluid flow
and partition formations into relatively small blocks.
602
It should be noted that in all the four classifications of
reservoirs, interference testing is ideal for quantifying
reservoir anisotropy and heterogeneity because they are
more sensitive to directional variations of reservoir
properties, such as type 4. It is important to take this
classification into consideration when interpreting a
pressure transient analysis data
603
Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Naturally fractured reservoirs contain a substantial amount of the
known hydrocarbons world wide. Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
(NFR) contained naturally occurring fractures with significant
permeability anisotropy. The connected porous space in these
reservoirs has been characterized and categorized by the
following dual-porosity system:
a) Matrix Porosity; categorized as Primary Porosity Φm

b) Fracture porosity; categorized as Secondary Porosity Φf
604
Primary Porosity :
Primary Porosity s established when the sediment is first
deposited
Secondary Porosity :
Also known as induced porosity and is created as a result of
geological processes after the deposition of sedimentary rock.
Most reservoirs with secondary porosity are either limestones
or dolomites. Secondary porosity is generated by penetrating
acid water which dissolves mostly limestones and dolomites.
Fissures which occur in Shale, siltstone, limestone, or dolomite
are generally vertical with no preferred orientation.
605
Fractured (Secondary) Porosity:
In general, the matrix has a large bulk porosity and relatively low permeability
compared to the fracture which has very small bulk porosity and relatively large
permeability. Fracture porosity is defined as fracture volume divided by total
volume:
fracture volume V f
f  
Total volume VT
Matrix (Primary) Porosity:
Matrix porosity is also defined with respect to total volume. The core (total)
porosity “Φcore” measured in the laboratory is used to determine the matrix
permeability from the following relationship:
m  core (1  f )
Selection of samples for core analysis typically skip fractures and thus result in
a measurement of matrix porosity. On the other hand, logging tools measure
total porosity except for the sonic tool. If two of the three unknowns in the above
expression are measured the third can then be calculated.
606
Fracture Permeability and Width:
In naturally fractured systems, the fracture permeability kf is given
by: ke
kf 
f
Where ke is the effective permeability as calculated from a
pressure-buildup test.
The width of the fracture can be estimated from:
ke
wf 
54 x109  f
Where:
kf = fracture permeability, md
wf = fracture width, inches
607
Properties of Matrix Blocks and Fractures
A naturally fractured reservoir is composed of a heterogeneous system of vugs,
fractures, and matrix which are randomly distributed. Such type of system is
modeled by assuming that the reservoir is formed by discrete matrix block
elements separated by an orthogonal system of continuous and uniform
fractures. Matrix and fractures are connected via large contact surface areas.
The mass transfer and flow interaction between these two media depend on
several forces which include:
1) fluids expansion
2) Flow velocity in the matrix and fracture (i.e. inertial effects)
3) capillary and gravity effects.
In the matrix, the inertial effects are rather small because of low velocities while
in the fractures the inertial effects could be very significant because of high
velocities. The latter can lead to significant non-Darcy flow effects – at least
in the near wellbore region.
608
Warren and Root Matrix-Fracture Interaction Model
Naturally fractured reservoirs are characterized by the presence of two distinct
types of porous media: matrix and fracture. Because of the different fluid
storage and conductivity characteristics of the matrix and fractures, these
reservoirs often are called dual-porosity reservoirs. A naturally fractured
reservoir is composed of a rock matrix surrounded by an irregular system of
vugs and natural fractures. Fortunately, Warren and Root observed that a real,
heterogeneous, naturally fractured reservoir has a characteristic behavior that
can be interpreted using an equivalent, homogeneous dual-porosity model
609
Understanding the behavior of fractured reservoirs, which are
characterized by large number of matrix blocks surrounded by
highly-conductive fractures network, depends on the
understanding of the performance of the single matrix blocks
under different boundary conditions. The reason behind the use of
single-matrix block to represent the reservoir is that a single block
that is surrounded by fracture network is in no communication with
the adjacent blocks, which makes it self-governing and a good
representative sample of the building blocks of the matrix.
610
Using the single-block matrix concept, Warren and Root employed the following
assumptions developing their proposed model to describe the fluid flow in the
idealized fractured system:
a) The rock matrix containing the primary porosity is homogeneous and

isotropic, and is contained within a systematic array of identical rectangular
parallelepipeds. The matrix is characterized with high storativity and low
permeability. In spite of the fact that most of the hydrocarbon is stored in the
matrix, the fluid can not flow to the well directly, however, the fluid has to
enter the fractures and flow to the wellbore.
b) The secondary porosity is contained within a system of continuous and

uniform fractures which are oriented so that each fracture is parallel to one
of the principle axes of permeability. These fractures are uniformly spaced
with a constant width.
611
Theory:
The fracture-network will experience a faster depletion with no change in the matrix
system pressure. However, upon the establishment of a differential pressure between
the matrix and the fracture system; the matrix blocks starts discharging fluids to the
fractures.
Warren and Root assume that the formation fluid flows from the matrix system into the
fractures under pseudosteady-state conditions with the fractures acting like conduits
to the wellbore. Mathematically, Warren and Roots introduced the matrix-fracture
transfer function “Γ” as defined by the following relationship:
k 
    m  V ( pm  p f )
 
Where:
km = matrix permeability
σ = block-shape factor
μ = fluid viscosity pm
V = matrix rock volume pf
pm = matrix pressure
pf = fracture pressure
V &Vkm
612
The shape factor “σ ” is a geometric factor that depends on the geometry and the
characteristic shape of the matrix –fissures system and has the dimension of a
reciprocal of the area and defined by the following expression:
A

Vx
Where:
A = surface area of the matrix block, ft2
V = Volume of the matrix block
x = characteristic length of the matrix block, ft
Kazemi (1969) developed a widely used expression for determining the shape factor
based on finite-difference as given by:
Ly
1 1 1 Lz V &Vkm
 4 2
 2  2
 Lx Ly Lz  Lx
Where Lx, Ly, and Lz represent the dimensions of a matrix block.
613
Two key parameters “ω” and “ƛ” were introduced by Warren and Root to characterize
naturally fractured reservoirs. These two characteristic parameters, in addition to
permeability and skin, control the behavior of double-porosity systems and given by:
1. The dimensionless parameter ω that defines the storativity of the fractures as a

ratio to that of the total reservoir. Mathematically, it is given by:
( hct ) f ( hct ) f
 
( hct ) f  m ( hct ) f  ( hct ) m
ω = storativity ratio
h = thickness
Ct = total compressibility, psi-1
Φ = porosity
The subscripts “f” and “m” refer to the fissure and matrix respectively. A typical range
of is 0.1 to 0.001.
614
2. The second parameter is the interporosity flow coefficient which describes the
ability of the fluid to flow from the matrix into the fissures and is defined by the
following relationship:
km
  ( ) rw2
kf
where
λ = interporosity flow coefficient

km = matrix permeability
kf = fracture permeability
rw = wellbore radius
615
Most of the proposed models assume that the matrix-fissures system can be
represented by one the following fours geometries:
Cubic matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as give by:
60 k m
 2
( ) rw2
Lm k f
Where Lm is the length of a block side
Spherical matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as give by:
15 k m
 2
( ) rw2
rm k f
Where rm is the radius of the sphere
616
Rectangular Slab: matrix block separated by Fractures with λ as give by:
12 k m
 2
( ) rw2
hf k f
Where hf is the thickness of an individual fracture or high permeability layer.
Vertical cylinder matrix block separated by fractures with λ as give by:
8 km
 2
( ) rw2
rm k f
Where rm is the radius of the each cylinder
In general, the value of the interporosity flow parameter ranges between 10-3 to 10-9.
617
There are two extreme interporosity flow conditions that can be
identified:
a) Restricted interporosity flow which corresponds to a

high skin between the least permeable media (matrix)
and the high permeable media (fissures) and is
mathematically equivalent to the pseudosteady state
solution.
b) Unrestricted interporosity flow that corresponds to zero

skin between the most and high permeable media and
is described by the unsteady-state (transient) solution.
618
Transient Flow Analysis
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
619
Signature of Dual Porosity During WellTesting :
Warren and Root proposed the first identification method of the double-porosity
system, as shown by the drawdown semilog plot. The curve is characterized by
two parallel straight lines due to the two separate porosities in the reservoir.
1) The first semi-log straight line is observed at early time and represents radial
flow as the fluid, initially in the fractures, travels to the wellbore because the
secondary porosity (fissures) having the greater transmissivity and being
connected to the wellbore, it responds first as described by the first semilog
straight line.
2) The second semi-log straight line occurs when the fractures deliver fluid
from the matrix to the wellbore. Because the primary porosity (matrix) having
a much lower transmissivity, responds much later. The combined effect of
the two porosities gives rise to the second semilog straight line.
3) The two straight lines are separated by a transition period during which the
pressure tends to stabilize.
620
Flow from fractures
to wellbore
Flow from:
matrix to
fractures to
wellbore
Dual Porosity Analysis

During Drawdown Test
621
Pressure Buildup Test Behavior:
The behavior the pressure buildup data for a naturally fractured
reservoir is similar to the drawdown test as illustrated by two
parallel straight lines. As for the drawdown, wellbore storage
effects may obscure the first semilog straight line.
622
Permeability-Thickness Product:
If both semilog straight lines develop, analysis of the
total permeability-thickness product is estimated from
the slope “m” of either straight line and the use of
Equation:
162.6 QB
For Oil System: ( k f h) 
m
1637 Qg T
For Gas System: ( k f h)  When using m(p) approach
m
1637 Z  Qg T
( k f h)  When using P2 approach
m
623
Determining the Storativity Ratio:
The storativity ratio “ ω” can be determined from the vertical
displacement between the two straight lines by the following
expression:
  10 (  p / m)
624
Impact of the Storativity Ratio “ω”:
A storativity ratio of one is a single porosity system with all of the reserves inside the
fractures, and a storativity ratio approaching zero is a single porosity reservoir with all
the reserves inside the matrix. Therefore, as the storativity ratio is decreased, a
greater portion of the reserves are contained in the matrix and the longer it takes for
the matrix and fracture system to reach a state of equilibrium.
Longer time to reach

state of equilibrium
625
Impact of the Interporosity Flow Coefficient (λ):
As shown in the plot below, as the interporosity flow coefficient decreases, the
transition between the two semi-log straight lines is delayed. That is, the
larger the fracture permeability is in comparison to that of the matrix, the more
time the fractures will have to drain before the contribution from the matrix
becomes significant
626
Signature of Dual Porosity on a Derivative Plot :
The signature of dual porosity on a derivative plot shows up as two regions of radial
flow with the same conductivity, kh, separated by a transition period. This is often
referred to as the dual porosity dip.
As in the case for the semi-log plot, the shape and location of this transition period or
dual porosity signature are defined by the interporosity flow coefficient (λ) and the
storativity ratio (ω) as shown in the plots below
627
Skin Factor and False Pressure:
The skin factor “s” and the false pressure P*are calculated as
described by using the second straight line.
 p 2
i  p1
2
hr k 
s \  1.151   log ( )  3.23 
 m   c r
t w
2

628
Determining the Interporosity Flow Coefficient (λ):
The interporosity flow coefficient can be determined by drawing a horizontal line through
the middle of the transition curve (or inflection point) to intersect with both semilog
straight lines and reading the corresponding time at the intersection of either of the two
straight lines, e.g. t1 or t2, and applying the following relationships:
From drawdown tests:

    (  hct ) m  rw2   1   (  hct ) m  rw2 
     
1     1.781 k t
f 1   1     1.781 k f t 2 
t1 t2
629
From Buildup tests:
    (  hct ) m  rw2   t p  t  where:

      kf= permeability of the fracture, md
1     1.781 k f t p   t 1 tp= producing time before shut-in, hrs
or rw= wellbore radius, ft
 1   ( hct )m  rw2   t p  t  µ= viscosity, cp
     
1    1.781 k t
f p   t 2
(1) (2)
630
The listed relationships indicate that the value of “λ ”is dependent
on the value of “ω ”. Since “ω ” is the ratio of fracture to matrix
storage, as defined in terms of the total isothermal compressibility
coefficients of the matrix and fissures by the equation
( hct ) f 1
 
( hct ) f  ( hct )m  ( h)m (ct )m 
1  
 ( h) f (ct ) f 
The fracture or the matrix storage can be determined from the

above relationship
631
Class Problem:
The following pressure buildup data for a double-porosity system is tabulated
below:
∆t pws (∆t+tp)/∆t
hrs (psi)
0.003 6617 3,1000,000
0.017 6632 516,668
0.033 6644 358,334
0.067 6650 129,168
0.133 6654 64,544
0.267 6661 32,293
0.533 6666 16,147
1.067 6669 8,074
2.133 6678 4,038
4.267 6685 2,019
8.533 6697 1,010
17.067 6704 506
34.133 6712 253
632
The following additional reservoir and fluid properties are available:
pi = 6789.5 psi
pwf@Δt=0 = 6352 psi
Qo = 2554 STB/day
Bo = 2.3 bbl/STB
µ = 1 cp
Tp = 8611 hrs
Rw = 0.375 ft
Ctm = 8.17 x 10-6 psi-1
Φm = 0.21
Km = 0.1 md
Hm = 17 ft
1) Estimate ω and λ
2) Calculate kf
3) Storativity of the fractures (Φ h ct)f
633
NFR Initial Depletion Stage
In naturally fractured gas condensate reservoirs, the initial depletion stage of these
systems occurs in the fracture – network. After establishing favorable gradients the
matrix blocks start discharging fluids to the fractures. In a condensate gas system, fluid
withdrawal results in condensate dropout once the system pressure drops below the
dewpoint pressure.
634
Condensate Appearance in NFR
Because the fracture network is subjected to faster depletion, condensate dropout will
be deposited in the fractures and the external edges of the matrix blocks. If the matrix
blocks are extremely tight, the inner portion of the matrix blocks may not “feel” the
pressure change until a later depletion stage. However, even if the fracture
condensate had considerable mobility, matrix condensate is expected to be nearly
immobile. Therefore, appearance of condensate on matrix block faces further
constrains gas flow from inner parts. Consequently, condensate may never be formed
in the inner-most portion of the matrix and the hydrocarbon gas located in the deeper
portions of the matrix blocks may not be easily recovered.
635
Driving Mechanism
In multi-mechanistic flow, two driving mechanisms can be identified
a) transport through the concentration field is assumed to be governed by
the Fick’s law of diffusion, and
b) transport through the pressure field is assumed to obey the Darcy’s
law.
Permeability of the system controls the prevailing mechanism, as flow through

an extremely tight matrix expected to occur due to Fickian flow alone.
636
Behavior of NFR When Diffusion is Neglected
When diffusion either does not take place in the system or has been
neglected implies that the flow is strictly follows Darcy;s law, The recovery
trend in this case is shown below. The illustration shows that the surface gas,
hydrocarbon recovery, and condensate recovery start departing significantly
from each other with the formation of liquid dropout
637
Behavior of NFR When Diffusion is Included
The presence of fractures around a matrix block of extremely low permeability
would create molecular concentration gradient in the gas phase large enough
to trigger a significant amount of gas diffusion. This second recovery
mechanism may help to considerably overcome the gas flow restriction that
created by a condensate barrier around the edges of the matrix block. In
general, the macular diffusion is one of the most important mechanisms in
production from NFR as shown below.
638
Type Curves Analysis for NFR
639
The pressure behavior in a naturally fractured reservoir is similar to that
obtained in layered reservoir with no crossflow. In fact, in any reservoir
system with two predominant rock types, the pressure buildup behavior
as shown below
640
Comments on Dual Porosity Plot:
1) The two straight lines on the semilog plot may or may not present
depending on the condition of the well and duration of the test which
suggests that the semilog plot is not an efficient or sufficient tool for
identifying double-porosity behavior.
2) In the log-log plot, the double-porosity behavior yields an S-shaped
curve. The initial portion of the curve represents the homogeneous
behavior resulting from depletion in the most-permeable medium, e.g.
fissures. A transition period follows and corresponds to the inter-
porosity flow. Finally, the last portion represents the homogeneous
behavior of both media when recharge from the least-permeable
medium (matrix) is fully established and pressure is equalized.
3) The log-log analysis represents a significant improvement over
conventional semilog analysis for identifying double-porosity behavior.
However, S-shape behavior is difficult to see in highly damaged wells
and well behavior can then be erroneously diagnosed as
homogeneous.
4) Furthermore, a similar S-shape behavior may be found in irregularly
bounded well drainage systems.
641
Pressure Derivative Approach:
1) Perhaps the most efficient means for identifying double-porosity systems is the use
of the pressure-derivative plot.
2) The approach allows unambiguous identification of the system, provided that the
quality of the pressure data is adequate and, more importantly, an accurate
methodology is used in calculating pressure derivatives.
642
Pressure Derivative Approach:
The pressure-derivative analysis involves a log-log plot of the derivative of the
pressure with respect to time versus elapsed time. The use of the pressure-
derivative type offers the following advantages:
1) The most efficient means for identifying double-porosity systems is the

use of the pressure-derivative plot.
2) The approach allows unambiguous identification of the system,
provided that the quality of the pressure data is adequate and, more
importantly, an accurate methodology is used in calculating pressure
derivatives.
3) Heterogeneities hardly visible on the conventional plot of well testing
data are amplified on the derivative plot.
4) Flow regimes have clear characteristic shapes on the derivative plot.
5) The derivative plot is able to display in a single graph many separate
characteristics that would otherwise require different plots.
6) The derivative approach improves the definition of the analysis plots
and therefore the quality of the interpretation.
643
The derivative plot shows a “minimum” or a “dip” on the pressure derivative curve
caused by the inter-porosity flow during the transition period. The “minimum” is
between two horizontal lines; the first represents the radial flow controlled by the
fissures and the second describes the combined behavior of the double-porosity
system. At early time, the typical behavior of wellbore-storage effects with the
deviation from the 45o straight line to a maximum representing a wellbore damage.
The shape of the “minimum” depends on the double-porosity behavior. For a
restricted inter-porosity flow, the “minimum” takes a “V-shaped”, whereas unrestricted
inter-porosity yields an open “U-shaped” minimum.
644
Double-Porosity Controlled Parameters:
The double-porosity behavior is controlled by the following independent
variables:
1) pD
2) tD/CD
3) CDe2s
4) ω
5) λe-2S
with the dimensionless pressure pD, dimensionless time tD , and dimensionless wellbore
storage coefficient CD as defined below:
0.0002637 k f t 0.0002637 k f t
tD  
[ (  ct ) f  (  ct ) m ]  rw2 (  ct ) f  m  rw2
 kfh   0.8936 
pD   p & CD   2
C
141.2 Q B     h c r
t w
645
where:
k = permeability, md
t = time, hrs
µ = viscosity, cp
rw = wellbore radius, ft
C = Wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi
subscripts:
f = fissure
m = matrix
f+m = total system
D = dimensionless
646
In general, there are two sets of pressure derivative type-curves with the first set is
based on the assumption that the inter-porosity flow obeys the pseudo-steady state
flowing condition and the other set assumes transient inter-porosity flow. The use of
either set involves plotting the pressure difference and the derivative function for
drawdown tests or buildup tests, versus time with same size log cycles as the type
curve.
For drawdown tests
The pressure difference : ∆p= pi - pwf
 d (p) 
The derivative function: t p \   t  
 d (t ) 
For Buildup tests
The pressure difference : ∆p= pws – pwf@∆t=0
 t  t   d (p) 
The derivative function: t e p \   t  P   
 t   d (t ) 
 t 
Where the equivalent time ∆te in hrs is given by: te    t p
t
 P  t 
647
Type Curve for inter-porosity pseudo-steady state flowing condition
648
Type Curve for inter-porosity unsteady state flowing condition
649
The selection of the best solution between the pseudo-steady
state and the transient inter-porosity flow is based on pressure
derivative responses:
a) during the transition flow regime. The transient inter-

porosity flow solutions, the transition starts from early time
and does not drop does not exceed 0.25.
b) With pseudo-steady state inter-porosity flow, the transition
starts later and the shape of the depression is much more
pronounced. There is no lower limit for the depth of the
depression when the flow from the matrix to the fissures
follows the pseudo-steady state model
650
Pseudo-steady State Inter-porosity Flow
The actual pressure response, i.e. pressure difference , is described by the
following three component curves:
1) At early times, the flow comes from the fissures and the actual pressure
difference plot, i.e. ∆p curve, matches one of the homogeneous curves
that is labeled CD e2s with a corresponding value of (CDe2s)f that describes
the fissure flow. This value is designated as [(CD e2s)f]M
2) As the pressure difference response reaches the transition regime, ∆p

deviates from the CD e2s curve and follows one of the transition curves that
describes this flow regime by λ e-2s, designated as [λ e-2s]M
3) Finally, the pressure difference response leaves the transition curve and
matches a new CD e2s curve below the first one with a corresponding
value of (CD e2s)f+m that describes the total system behavior, i.e. matrix
and fissures. This value is recorded as [(CD e2s)f+m]M
651
Transient Inter-porosity Flow
The pressure behavior is defined by three component curves, (CD e2s)f, β\
and (CD e2s)f+m. The coefficient β\ is defined as the inter-porosity
dimensionless group and given by:
\
 (CDe2 s ) f  m 
   e2s 
  
with the parameter  is the shape coefficient with assigned values as given below:
 = 1.0508; for spherical blocks
 = 1.8914; for slab matrix blocks
The first fissure flow being short lived with transient inter-porosity flow
models, the (CD e2s)f curves are not seen in practice and therefore have
not been included in the derivative curves. The dual porosity derivative
response starts on the derivative of a β\ transition curve, then follows a
late transition curve labeled until it reaches the total system regime on the
0.5 line.
652
The matching points with type carves can be used as follows:
[(C D e 2 s ) f  m ] M p 
 k f h  141.2 Q B   D 
[(C D e 2 s ) f ] M  p  MP
 0.000295 k f h  (t ) MP 0.8926 C

C  (C D ) f  m 
   (C D / C D ) MP  ct h rw2
  (C D ) f  m  (1   ) 2
[(C D e 2 s ) f  m ] M   2 
s  0.5 ln    (1   )  M (C D ) f  m
 (C D ) f  m 
653
NFR Improved Recovery
654
Recent Developments and Proposals
WAG in Condensate Reservoirs !!!
Miscible and Immiscible Gas Injection in Condensate Reservoirs !!!
Trapped
Gas
Water Gas Water Gas Water
655
WAG Process in Cycling Gas Condensate Reservoirs
The general concept of the WAG process is that relative permeability effects and
viscosity differences will reduce gas channeling and tend to divert either water or
injected gas into unswept pore space. The basic difference between the application
of WAG in an oil reservoir as opposed to application in condensate reservoir
656
RF
657
Miscible and Immiscible Gas Injection
in Fractured Condensate Reservoirs !!!
Open for discussion:

1) Is it a viable option?
2) Will the process recover condensate from the matrix or only the condensate
coating of the matrix face
3) Timing for injection; volume of gas injected, and gas composition
4) Can the miscibility really achieve ?
5) Vaporization?
6) Swelling test, EOS tuning, MMP,..etc
658
Inflow Performance Relationship
in Naturally Fractured Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
659
IPR in Naturally Fractured Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
A recent IPR expression designed to predict the performance of naturally
fractured gas condensate reservoirs was developed for systems that exit at
initial reservoir pressure “pr” greater than the dewpoint pressure “pd”, however,
the bottom-hole flowing pressure “pwf” is below pd. The expression is given by:
p 
1 a  wf 
qg  pr 
 2
qmax p  p 
1 b  wf   c  wf 
 pr   pr 
The coefficients a, b, and c are correlated with the interporosity flow

coefficient λ and fractured storativity “ω” and listed on the next slide.
It should be point out that a stabilized rate test must be conducted (qg & pwf) and used
to estimate qmax
660
ω λ
661
Future IPR
The future performance of the vertical gas well in naturally fractured gas
condensate reservoir is based on determining future (qmax,)F as the reservoir
pressure drops from the present pressure (Pr)P to future pressure (Pr)P by
applying the following relationship:
a
(qmax ) F  ( pr ) F 
 
(qmax ) P  ( pr ) P 
Where (qmax)P is the present AOF at the present pressure (pr)P with the
coefficient “a” is given below as a function ω & λ
λ ω
662
Class Problem:
A gas well in naturally fractured condensate reservoir was tested using a 3-point
conventional deliverability test. Data recorded during the test are given below;
with a stabilized flow at pwf=3387 & Qg=2190 Mscf/day::
Pwf Qg,
psia Mscf/day
Pd =3884 0
3387 2190
3268 2570
3092 3160
3015 3400
The following additional data are available:
the interporosity flow coefficient λ=2.0 *10-6
and fractured storativity “ω”= 0.02
Generate and plot the current IPR by using:
Conventional Back-Pressure Equation

NFR approach
Future IPR when reservoir pressure drops to 2900 psi
Reserved.
663
Well Testing Analysis
in Naturally Fractured Gas Condensate Reservoirs
below Dew Point Pressure
664
Basic Understanding of λ & ω
Double porosity behavior and well testing response are
controlled by two parameters, namely the storativity ratio
(ω) and the interporosity flow coefficient (λ).
A. ω is a measurement of the fluid content in the

fracture system
B. λ characterizes the communication between matrix
blocks and fractures (the lower λ, the poorer the
connection)
665
The condensate dropout in NFR has a considerable impact on
well test responses due to changing in the condensate-gas
relative permeabilities. As the radius of the condensate bank
increases away from the wellbore; well testing responses
below the dew point pressure will show:
a) the interporosity flow coefficient (λ) decreases due to

two-phase flow in the reservoir
b) the storativity ratio (ω) shows very little change
c) The condensate bank appears as an additional skin
effect, as in reservoirs with homogeneous behavior.
666
It should be pointed out that high condensate
accumulation can remove the dual porosity behavior
and condensate banking shows as a skin effect as λ
decreases to low values as the gas flow is reduced
in the fracture networks due condensate blocking.
The condensate banking can appear as a rising skin
that masks the dual porosity behavior.
667
Behavior of Unconventional Gas Wells:
It has been observed that these wells behave as though they are
controlled by transient linear Dual porosity system. In this
dual porosity system:
a) The matrix rock is the primary porosity that feeds the hydraulic
factures
b) The hydraulic fractures act as the secondary porosity
668
Matrix
Fracture
ye
h
xe
Multi-Stage Hydraulically Horizontal

Well
669
Hydraulically Fractured Reservoirs
A fracture is defined as a single crack initiated from the wellbore
by hydraulic fracturing. It should be noted that fractures are
different from “fissures” which are the formation of natural
fractures.
Vertical fractures are characterized by the following properties:
fracture half-length “ye”, in ft

Perforated well length “xe”, in ft
Fracture spacing “L”, ft
fracture height “hf”, which is often assumed equal to the
formation thickness, in ft
fracture permeability “kf” , in md
670
Analyzing the data resulting from the diagnostic plots can be enhanced
substantially if SRV is available from microseismic data
SRV ≈ 2 xe ye h
Drainage Area Length xe
ye= xf
SRV
Horizontal well
671
The Dual-Porosity Linear Model
672
Concept of the Material Balance Time
Type Curve Solution Developed for CONSTANT rate
Actual Decline Rate Equivalent Constant Rate
Material Balance Time= GP/qg
GP
or GP
NP or
NP
Actual Time
Time Material Balance
Time “tMB”
673
Vertical Hydraulically Fractured Well
BDF
Slope=1
d(1/q)/dt
Or Elliptical Radial
d(∆p/q)/dt nonlinear Slope=0
Linear
Slope=1/2
Bilinear
Slope=1/4
tMB
674
Flow Regimes & Rate Transient Signature
In Hydraulically Fractured Horizontal Well
675
1- Early Linear Flow
Matrix
d(1/q)/dt
Or
d(∆p/q)/dt
tMB
Fracture
676
2- Bilinear Flow
d(1/q)/dt
Or
d(∆p/q)/dt
tMB
677
3- Elliptical or Early Radial Flow
Zero slope if Radial

d(1/q)/dt
Or
d(∆p/q)/dt
tMB
678
Dual-Porosity Transient Linear Flow Model
Two conceptual models, with both representing dual porosity linear systems:
Model 1:
The model is a “Transient Slab Model” with the dominated fracture system
is created by hydraulic fractures which start from perforation clusters in the
wellbore and are equally spaced.
Hydraulic
Hydraulic Fracture
Fracture
Spacing L1
Drainage Half Length ye
The main calculation

advantage of the model
xe is the pre-knowledge of
Matrix
L1  the spacing cluster L1

nf since it depends on the
spacing of the
perforation clusters
Horizontal Well
Drainage Area; Length xe

Model 1 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
679
Model 2:
The model is a “Transient Cube Model” with the dominated fracture system
is created to enhance the conductivity of a natural network fracture.
Hydraulic
Fractures
Natural Fracture
Unknown Network Block Matrix
L2
The main calculation

Drainage Half Length ye
disadvantage of the
model is the fracture
spacing L2 is generally
unknown
Horizontal Well

Model 2
680
ye= xf
SRV
Horizontal well
Model 2
681
Both models assume that well performance can be effectively analyzed by
considering the linear drainage from the “homogeneous” matrix blocks into
the fractures.
Hydraulic Hydraulic
Fractures Fractures
Matrix
Matrix
Matrix
Horizontal Well Horizontal Well

Model 1- at an early stage of production Model 1- at a later stage of production
(<1 day) (>1 day)
682
Horizontal Well
Horizontal Well
Model 2- at an early stage of production Model 2- at a later stage of production

(<1 day) (>1 day)
683
There are 5 flow regimes that a hydraulically fractured
horizontal well in a shale or tight gas reservoir may
exhibit through its production life. Identifying the five
flow regions will provide the basis for selecting the type
of methodology that can be used for:
a) Matching historical production data

b) Characteristics of the SRV , e.g. km, kf,…etc
c) Forecasting well performance
d) Determining drainage area
e) GIIP or OIIP
f) EUR
684
There are 5 flow regimes that a hydraulically fractured horizontal well in
a shale or tight gas reservoir may exhibit through its production life.
1) Early transient linear flow from the hydraulic fractures system

to the horizontal wellbore
2) Bilinear flow resulting from two simultaneous transient flow
3) The flow from the homogenous matrix to the wellbore
4) The period dominated by transient linear flow from the matrix

blocks to the hydraulic fractures system.
5) boundary dominated flow
These five flow regimes are detailed next:
685
Because the hydraulic fractures have very high
conductivity, the duration of transient flow through these
fractures (Regions 1 ,2,and 3) usually is very short and
may end in less than 1 day.
686
Identifying Flow Regimes from Production Data:
It has been observed that horizontal wells with multi-stage fracturing
behave as though they are controlled by transient linear flow. This
flow regime could last for years and, in some cases, might be the only
available flow regime for analysis. Under these conditions, flow
convergence is mainly in the linear direction perpendicular to the
surfaces of the hydraulic fractures.
This linear flow behavior can be identified by a variety of

diagnostic plots ; particularly:
1) the ½ slope on the log-log plot of [m(pi)- m(pwf)] /qg or “qg” vs. “t”
2) a straight line on Cartesian coordinates of [m(pi)- m(pwf)] /qg or 1/q

vs. t0.5 plot (referred to as Square Root of Time Plot)
687
a) Log-Log Plot:
The transient linear flow is characterized by a ½ slope on a
log-log scale of:
gas rate “qg” vs. time “t” or
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg vs. “t”
The flow regimes most often observed on this type plot for
horizontal Tight and shale gas wells are linear behavior
followed by boundary dominated flow.
688
[m(pi)- m(pwf)] /qg vs. “t”
Linear Transient
Flow
Boundary Dominated
Flow
689
10000
Log-Log plot of “qg” vs. “t”
Slope = - 1/2
1000
Cleanup
Gas Rate,
Mscf/day
½ slope identifies
the transient linear flow Series1
100
Liquid Loading
10
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time, days
690
b) Square Root- Time Plot:
The linear transient flow characteristics of production performance
from unconventional gas reservoirs reveal that at a constant
flowing pressure, a plot of:
1/q vs. t0.5 or

[m(pi)- m(pwf)]/qg vs. t0.5
on Cartesian coordinates would produce a straight-line

relationship through the origin. The plot is perhaps the most
important plot for characterizing long-term Tight and shale gas
well performance. This is because fractured gas well will
typically be dominated by linear flow which appears as a straight
line on the square root-time plot.
691
1/qg vs. t0.5
1.4
y = 0.0652x + 0.0038
1.2
1
1/qg
0.8
0.6
0.4 qg must be expressed in Mscf/day
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
t
692
Transient Linear Boundary Dominated
Flow Flow
[m(pi)- m(pwf)]/qg
linear slope : m t linear slope : m t  25,000
[m(pi)- m(pwf)]/qg vs. t0.5

693
Skin Effect:
It should be pointed out that most shale gas wells seem exhibit a large
intercept on the [m(pi)- m(pwf)]/qg vs. t0.5 plot. This skin effect may be due to
well cleanup and establishing of gas flow in fractures filled with water from
hydraulic treatment.
[m(pi)- m(pwf)]/qg
linear slope : m t
Early
Skin Effect
0
0 End of
Time, days0.5 transient linear flow
694
Proposed Methodology
The proposed mathematical expressions were developed to reflect the following
four elements:
1. Linear-transient flow behavior

2. Duration of the Linear-transient flow
3. Boundary-dominated flow
4. Estimation of OGIP
695
1- Linear-Transient Flow Behavior:
The linear flow theory as proposed by Wattenbarger suggests a plot of 1/q versus t0.5
on a Cartesian scale would produce a straight-line represented by:
1
m t C
q
Where the intercept “C” is a constant that represents near wellbore effects such as
skin and finite fracture conductivity. It should be pointed out that if the intercept “C” is
zero, it indicates that there is no skin or finite fracture conductivity.
The slope “m” is given by:
315.4 T  1  1 
m    

h (  g ct )i  m( pi )  m( p )
wf  xf k 
With:
315.4 T  1  1 
xf k    
h (  g ct )i  m( pi )  m( pwf )   m 
Where:
q= gas rate, Mscf/day k= permeability, md T= temperature, oR
xf= fracture half-length, ft m=slope, day0.5/Mscf
696
2- Duration of Linear-Transient Flow Period:
The duration of linear flow period, i.e. End of Linear Flow “telf”, and hence the
beginning of the boundary-dominated flow is given by:
2
 A h m (  g ct )i [m( pi )  m( pwf )] 
telf   
A = (2xf) L !!!!
 200.6 T 
Where:
telf = beginning of the boundary-dominated flow, days A= area of SRV, ft2
Φ= porosity, fraction m= slope of the straight line h= thickness, ft
The duration of linear flow period as given above can be roughly approximated by
assuming pwf=0 and replacing m(pi) and cti with:
pi2 1
m( pi )  & cti 
(  g Z )i pi
To give the following approximation:
2
 A h  m ( )i pi 
telf   
 200.6 T Z 
697
3- Boundary-Dominated (Psuedo-Steady State) Flow Behavior:
At end of the linear flow will mark the boundary-dominated (pseudo-steady state) flow
that can be described by the traditional Arps’ equation as given by:
qelf
qt 
1 b D elf (t  telf ) 
1/ b
Where qelf and Delf are the production rate and the % decline rate at the end of the
linear flow as given by:
1  1   m 
qelf  Delf     
m telf  C  m telf  C   2 telf 
 
The Arps’ b exponent can be approximated by one of the following expressions:
 
 
1   pwf  
2
(  g c g ) i  m( pi )  m( pwf ) 
b  1 b  (2 n 1)    
 pi pwf  2n  p
2
 (  )    i  
 Z i Z wf 
Where “n” is exponent of the back pressure equation © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
698
4- Estimation of OGIP from m t and telf
OGIP can estimated from the following relationships:
200.8 T S gi  telf 
G   f CP
(  ct Bg )i  m t 

Where fCP is a correction factor that is designed to account for sensitivity of linear
flow to the level of pressure drawdown; defined by:
2
 m( pi )  m( pwf )   m( pi )  m( pwf ) 
f CP 1  0.0852    0.0857  
 m( pi )   m( pi ) 
Where m t is the slope of the line matching the linear flow data and passing
through the origin on the [m(pi)- m(pwf)]/qg vs. t0.5 plot.
Where:
Bgi = Gas formation volume factor, ft3/scf
Sgi = Initial gas saturation
699
Computational Steps:
Stpe1: Plot 1/q vs.t0.5 on Cartesian scale and draw a line through the flow data points
Step 2: Determine the slope “m”, intercept “C”, and (xf k0.5)
Step 3: Estimate the end of the linear flow time telf from:
2
 A h m (  g ct )i [m( pi )  m( pwf )] 
telf    A = (2xf) L !!!!
 200.6 T 
Stpe4: Calculate the gas flow rate at the end of the linear flow period from:
1
qelf 
m telf  C
Stpe5: Calculate Delf from:
 1   m 
Delf     
 m telf  C   2 telf 
 
700
Stpe6: Forecast the gas rates for t<telf from:
1 1
 m t  C or q 
q m t C
Stpe7: Forecast the gas rates for t>telf from:
qelf
qt 
1 b D
elf (t  telf ) 
1/ b
Stpe8: Estimate OGIP from:
200.8 T S gi  telf 
G   f CP
(  ct Bg )i  m t 

2
 m( pi )  m( pwf )   m( pi )  m( pwf ) 
f CP 1  0.0852    0.0857  
 m( pi )   m( pi ) 
701
Class problem:
A microseismic test was conducted on a shale gas well in Cut-Bank Field in
Northern Montana to give an estimated SRV of 2.5x106 ft2. The shale gas play,
with k=0.00015 md, is characterized by the following rock and gas properties:
pi =2000 psi
pwf =200 psi
m(pi) =3.89E+08 psi2/cp
m(pwf) =3748829 psi2/cp
h =100 ft
A =2.50E+0.6 ft2
cti =0.0005
T =580 oR
ᶲ =0.1
µgi =0.015 cp
Zi =0.646
Zwf =0.98
702
Observed gas well rates:
T,days q, Mscf/day
1 15200.00
2 10000.00
4 7500.00
10 5000.00
25 3000.00
50 2200.00
100 1450.00
150 1250.00
200 1100.00
250 950.00
300 900.00
325 850.00
350 820.00
400 760.00
1000 500.00
2000 340.00
4000 200.00
6000 140.00
8000 100.00
10000 75.00
12000 60.00
14000 45.00
703
Use the production data during first 300 days:
1. Determine the end of the linear flow period “telf”
2. Calculate the qelf
3. Forecast and plot gas rates during for14000 days and compare with observed
data
4. Assuming Sgi=100%, estimate OGIP
704
Naturally Fractured Gas Reservoirs
705
MBE for Naturally Fractured Gas Reservoirs
GP
G
1
P/Z
Pi / Zi

1[(1   ) Cem   Cef ] ( Pi  P) 
Cw Swm  Cm Cw Swf  C f 1
Cem  & Cef  Cf 
1  Swm 1  Swf  ln( / Ph )
Where:
σ = net stress in fracture (i.e. total stress on the fracture – fluid pressure), psi
Ph = healing pressure, psi
ω = the storativity ratio
Ce = effective compressibility, psi-1
Sw = Water saturation
∆P = initial pressure – average reservoir pressure, psi
Superscripts:
m= materix & f= fracture
706
 P/Z
GP  G 1  
1[(1   ) Cem   Cef ] ( Pi  P) 
 Pi / Zi 
The Procedure for applying the MBE for

naturally fractured gas reservoirs based on
assuming several initial values for the gas-in-
place “G” and solving the MBE for GP until
matching the historical production data
707

NFR Participants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NFR Participants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reservoir Characterization

Dr. Tarek Ahmed

Professor Emeritus of Petroleum Engineering

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

2 &3 Gas Region

Oil reservoirs Gas reservoirs

Near Critical Reservoirs !!!

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

The % of C1 & C7+ in the hydrocarbon system are

1. Size & Shape of Phase Envelop (P-T Diagram)

© 2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Gas Condensate System

Wet Gas System

Dry Gas System

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Pb P1<Pb P2 <P1 P3 <P2

Constant Temperature “T1”

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Type of Reservoirs Type of Crude Oils

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

1) Ordinary black oil

The Key: Liquid Shrinkage Curve

Evenly Spaced Quality Lines will

API gravity: <40 API

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

70% 50% 40%

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Initial pi and T Notice; all quality lines

Liquid-shrinkage curve for

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Determination of GOC from Pressure gradients

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

gas zone ! Well

Water ( pw  pb )  (po / D) ( D  D1]

Water Just remember; pressure gradient in psi/ft is given by:

Water Just remember; pressure gradient in psi/ft is given by:

1. Dry Gas Reservoirs

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Single Phase 2-phase

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights

Qgas  Veq QO  (Qgas ) sep scf/day

An expression for the ratio ᵞo/Mo as a function of the condensate stock-tank

ᵞo / Mo = 0.001892 + 7.35 (10-5) API – 4.52 (10-8) (API)2

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights

initial reservoir pressure pi = 3200 psia

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Gas Normal Behavior Gas Reversed Behavior

Temperature © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All