Duong Method Applied to Typical Shale Gas Wells

8/14/2011
Production Forecasting for

Unconventional Resources
Lecture 9
Duong Method
Typical Shale Gas Well Exhibits Linear Flow

for Over Five Years (Duong, SPE 137748)
1
8/14/2011
Duong Method (SPE 137748, June 2011 SPEREE)

 For linear or bilinear flow, 𝑞 = 𝑞1 𝑡 −𝑛
𝑞1 𝑡 1−𝑛
 Cumulative production, 𝐺𝑝 =
(1−𝑛)
𝑞 1−𝑛
 Ratio =
𝐺𝑝 𝑡
𝑞
 Real life = 𝑎𝑡 −𝑚 … which models
𝐺𝑝
observed behavior remarkably well
Caution: Possible Misuse of Model

 Model conservative (reaches finite limit
as time becomes large) for m > 1
 For m < 1, model (like Arps for b > 1)
blows up at long times (Gp overstated)
 For good quality data, m > 1 seems to fit
(certainly true in shales)
 For poorer quality data, m < 1 may seem
to fit … caution is in order
2
8/14/2011
Duong Method Applied to Shale Well
Comparison Between Arps’ and Duong’s Models
3
8/14/2011
Comparison Between Arps’ and Duong’s Models

 Arps’ b = 0.5 corresponds to Duong’s m
= 1.96
 Significance: b = 0.5 good fit for gas wells
in boundary-dominated flow
 For larger values of b (e.g., 1), Arps’
model predicts generally larger values of
Gp than Duong’s model predicts
Condensate Shale-Gas Example
4
8/14/2011
Bakken Oil Example, Vertical Well, Viewfield

Pool, Sasketchewan, 26-Year Life
Comparison of Arps, Power-Law (Stretched

Exponential), and New Approach (Duong)
5
8/14/2011
Applying Method 1: Check and Correct Data

 Plot histories such as flowing WHP, gas rate,
water rate vs. time
 Identify non-idealities such as choked-back
flow (rate increasing or constant, high WHP,
flat rates)
 Correct (normalize) rates for changes in BHP
 Correct wet-gas rates to equivalent dry-gas
rates for high condensate/gas ratios
Applying Method 1: Check and Correct Data
6
8/14/2011
Applying Method 2: Determine a and m

 Construct log-log plot of q/Gp (or q/Np
for oil) vs. time
 Determine which section of data should
be fitted with straight line
 Determine a, m and R 2
 R 2 > 0.95 good target
Applying Method 2: Determine a and m
7
8/14/2011
Applying Method 3: Determine q1

 Plot q vs. t(a,m), where
𝑎 𝑡 1−𝑚 −1
−𝑚
𝑡 𝑎, 𝑚 = 𝑡 𝑒 1−𝑚 … (1)
 Plot should yield straight line through origin with
slope q1
 Intersection of line up or down from origin may be
necessary to improve fit, leading to non-zero
intercept, q∞
𝑞 = 𝑞1 𝑡 𝑎, 𝑚 + 𝑞∞ … (2)
 Base abandonment rate on economics
 Forecast future production from eq. (1) or (2)
Applying Method 3: Determine q1
8
8/14/2011
Applying Method 4: Estimate Reserves

 Estimate cumulative production at given
rate from
𝑞
𝐺𝑝 = 𝑡 𝑚 , q > qeco
𝑎
 Estimate EUR from
𝑞𝑒𝑐𝑜
𝐸𝑈𝑅 = (𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑜)𝑚
𝑎
where
qeco = minimum economic rate
teco = time at q = qeco
Applying Method 4: Estimate Reserves
9
8/14/2011
Comparison of Arps, Power-Law (Stretched

Exponential), and New Approach (Duong)
Examples from Gas Shales
10
8/14/2011
Barnett Shale – Denton County
No. of months No. of wells 30 Yr EUR (BSCF) BSCF/Well b value De StdDev(σ) σ (2yrs from end)
54 237 319.463 1.348 b=2,0.5 67.27,18.58 0.083 0.067
54 237 428.165 1.807 b=2 (EOP) 10.470 NA NA
54 237 408.459 1.723 b=1.54 67.820 0.083 0.069
54 237 388.521 1.639 Duong (a = 1.06, m= 1.17) N/A 0.049 0.043
54 237 397.583 1.678 Terminal Decline @5% N/A 0.088 0.074
54 237 346.763 1.463 SEPD N/A 0.228 0.074
65 132 201.259 1.525 b=2,2,0.5 84.9, 61.5, 16.1 0.066 0.044

65 132 249.049 1.887 b=1.6 82.340 0.064 0.051
65 132 256.013 1.939 b=2 (EOP) 8.820 N/A N/A
65 132 237.321 1.798 Duong (a = 1.02, m= 1.158) N/A 0.034 0.032
65 132 210.342 1.594 SEPD N/A 0.151 0.023
11
8/14/2011
54 237 319.463 1.348 b=2,0.5 67.27,18.58 0.083 0.067
54 237 428.165 1.807 b=2 (EOP) 10.470 NA NA
54 237 408.459 1.723 b=1.54 67.820 0.083 0.069
54 237 388.521 1.639 Duong (a = 1.06, m= 1.17) N/A 0.049 0.043
54 237 346.763 1.463 SEPD N/A 0.228 0.074
65 132 201.259 1.525 b=2,2,0.5 84.9, 61.5, 16.1 0.066 0.044

65 132 249.049 1.887 b=1.6 82.340 0.064 0.051
65 132 256.013 1.939 b=2 (EOP) 8.820 N/A N/A
65 132 237.321 1.798 Duong (a = 1.02, m= 1.158) N/A 0.034 0.032
65 132 210.342 1.594 SEPD N/A 0.151 0.023
12
8/14/2011
Barnett Shale – Johnson County
44 months 155 226.549 1.462 b=2,0.5 96.94 , 39.36 0.118 0.075
44 months 155 368.685 2.379 b=2 N/A N/A
44 months 155 312.772 2.018 b=1.18 86.69 0.203 0.100
44 months 155 289.161 1.866 Duong (a = 1.18, m= 1.27) N/A 0.145 0.062
44 months 155 312.027 2.013 Terminal Decline @5% N/A 0.177 0.110
44 months 155 238.769 1.540 SEPD N/A 0.279 0.049
60 months 127 329.618 2.595 b=2,0.5,2 95.72, 38.3, 13.1 0.121 0.074
60 months 127 321.401 2.531 b=2 N/A N/A
60 months 127 267.404 2.106 b=1.17 85.85 0.152 0.070
60 months 127 212.677 1.675 SEPD N/A 0.234 0.081
13
8/14/2011
Barnett Shale – Johnson Country
44 months 155 226.549 1.462 b=2,0.5 96.94 , 39.36 0.118 0.075
44 months 155 368.685 2.379 b=2 N/A N/A
44 months 155 312.772 2.018 b=1.18 86.69 0.203 0.100
44 months 155 238.769 1.540 SEPD N/A 0.279 0.049
60 months 127 329.618 2.595 b=2,0.5,2 95.72, 38.3, 13.1 0.121 0.074
60 months 127 321.401 2.531 b=2 N/A N/A
60 months 127 267.404 2.106 b=1.17 85.85 0.152 0.070
60 months 127 212.677 1.675 SEPD N/A 0.234 0.081
14
8/14/2011
Barnett Shale – Wise County
45 months 163 201.03 1.23 b=2,2,0.5 71.78, 33.97, 22.4 0.064 0.048
45 months 163 314.35 1.93 b=2 12.51 NA NA
45 months 163 317.25 1.95 b= 1.73 67.47 0.058 0.066
45 months 163 258.249 1.584 SEPD N/A 0.219 0.073
62 months 143 200.157 1.400 b=2,2,0.5 71, 31, 17.6 0.055 0.041
62 months 143 275.659 1.928 b=2 9.360 NA NA
62 months 143 269.139 1.882 b=1.6 65.260 0.039 0.055
62 months 143 235.820 1.649 SEPD N/A 0.137 0.080
69 months 106 148.424 1.400 b=2,2,0.5 75.16, 31.2, 18.5 0.047 0.028
69 months 106 203.361 1.919 b=2 8.34 NA NA
69 months 106 201.992 1.906 b=1.57 67 0.043 0.064
69 months 106 188.013 1.774 SEPD N/A 0.049 0.072
15
8/14/2011
45 months 163 201.03 1.23 b=2,2,0.5 71.78, 33.97, 22.4 0.064 0.048
45 months 163 314.35 1.93 b=2 12.51 NA NA
45 months 163 317.25 1.95 b= 1.73 67.47 0.058 0.066
45 months 163 258.249 1.584 SEPD N/A 0.219 0.073
62 months 143 200.157 1.400 b=2,2,0.5 71, 31, 17.6 0.055 0.041
62 months 143 275.659 1.928 b=2 9.360 NA NA
62 months 143 269.139 1.882 b=1.6 65.260 0.039 0.055
62 months 143 235.820 1.649 SEPD N/A 0.137 0.080
69 months 106 148.424 1.400 b=2,2,0.5 75.16, 31.2, 18.5 0.047 0.028
69 months 106 203.361 1.919 b=2 8.34 NA NA
69 months 106 201.992 1.906 b=1.57 67 0.043 0.064
69 months 106 188.013 1.774 SEPD N/A 0.049 0.072
16
8/14/2011
Barnett Shale – Tarrant County
No. of months No. of Wells 30 Yr EUR (BSCF) BSCF/Well b value De StdDev(σ) σ (2yrs from end)
60 205 448.102 2.186 b=2,2,0.51 19.056 0.146 0.098
60 205 551.456 2.690 b=1.388 66.394 0.191 0.101
60 205 596.335 2.909 b=2(EOP) 9.518 NA NA
60 205 539.926 2.634 Duong (a = 1.14, m= 1.187) N/A 0.082 0.074
60 205 436.871 2.131 SEPD N/A 0.249 0.099
17
8/14/2011
Fayetteville Shale – Conway County
18
8/14/2011
Fayetteville Shale – Conway County
No. of months No. of Leases 30 Yr EUR (BSCF) BSCF/Well b value De StdDev(σ) σ (2yrs from end)
42 100 133.934 1.339 b=2,0.5 82.19,24.1 0.061 0.053
42 100 195.774 1.958 b=1.69 77.68 0.055 0.047
42 100 208.402 2.084 b=2 13.255 N/A N/A
42 100 183.228 1.832 Duong (a = 0.823, m= 1.13) N/A 0.049 0.040
42 100 168.451 1.685 SEPD N/A 0.127 0.041
Fayetteville Shale – Van Buren County
19
8/14/2011
Fayetteville Shale – Van Buren County
No. of months No. of Leases 30 Yr EUR (BSCF) BSCF/Lease b value De StdDev(σ) σ (2yrs from end)
41 107 156.922 1.467 b=2,0.9 88.86,41.77 0.059 0.046
41 107 180.488 1.687 b=1.22 83.1 0.111 0.047
41 107 220.691 2.063 b=2 (EOP) 13.52 N/A N/A
41 107 168.947 1.579 Duong (a = 1.067, m= 1.23) N/A 0.034 0.015
41 107 176.898 1.653 Terminal Decline @ 5% N/A 0.090 0.043
41 107 140.679 1.315 SEPD N/A 0.148 0.032
Fayetteville Shale – Conway and Van Buren
20
8/14/2011
No. of months No. of Leases 30 Yr EUR (BSCF) BSCF/Well b value De StdDev(σ) σ (2yrs from end)
34 393 588.896 1.498 b=2,0.5 86.6, 29.9 0.221 0.199
34 393 809.951 2.061 b=1.39 83.9 0.263 0.222
34 393 958.820 2.440 b=2 16.47 N/A N/A
34 393 744.190 1.894 Duong (a = 1.05, m= 1.21) N/A 0.145 0.111
34 393 777.75 1.979 SEPD N/A 0.778 0.223
45 139 173.682 1.250 b = 2,0.5 92.6,27.8 0.072 0.055

45 139 249.444 1.795 b=1.54 85.7 0.091 0.064
45 139 263.462 1.895 b=2 12.4 N/A N/A
45 139 227.858 1.639 Duong (a = 0.868, m= 1.156) N/A 0.074 0.039
45 139 220.264 1.585 SEPD N/A 0.189 0.040
21
8/14/2011
Conclusions
 Duong method easily applied to forecast
future production and reserves for low-
permeability wells
 Method appears to be reliable for both
horizontal and vertical wells, but verification
for shales not possible without long-term
performance data for comparison
 Method currently unproved for wells with
transitions from linear (or bilinear) flow to
boundary dominated flow
Production Forecasting for

Unconventional Resources
Lecture 9
Duong Method
22

Duong Method Applied to Typical Shale Gas Wells

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Duong Method Applied to Typical Shale Gas Wells

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/14/2011

Production Forecasting for

Typical Shale Gas Well Exhibits Linear Flow

Duong Method (SPE 137748, June 2011 SPEREE)

Caution: Possible Misuse of Model

Duong Method Applied to Shale Well

Comparison Between Arps’ and Duong’s Models

Comparison Between Arps’ and Duong’s Models

Condensate Shale-Gas Example

Bakken Oil Example, Vertical Well, Viewfield

Comparison of Arps, Power-Law (Stretched

Applying Method 1: Check and Correct Data

Applying Method 1: Check and Correct Data

Applying Method 2: Determine a and m

Applying Method 2: Determine a and m

Applying Method 3: Determine q1

Applying Method 3: Determine q1

Applying Method 4: Estimate Reserves

Applying Method 4: Estimate Reserves

Comparison of Arps, Power-Law (Stretched

Examples from Gas Shales

Barnett Shale – Denton County

Barnett Shale – Denton County

65 132 201.259 1.525 b=2,2,0.5 84.9, 61.5, 16.1 0.066 0.044

Barnett Shale – Denton County

Barnett Shale – Denton County

65 132 201.259 1.525 b=2,2,0.5 84.9, 61.5, 16.1 0.066 0.044

Barnett Shale – Johnson County

Barnett Shale – Johnson County

Barnett Shale – Johnson Country

Barnett Shale – Johnson County

Barnett Shale – Wise County

Barnett Shale – Wise County

Barnett Shale – Wise County

Barnett Shale – Wise County

Barnett Shale – Tarrant County

Barnett Shale – Tarrant County

Barnett Shale – Tarrant County

Fayetteville Shale – Conway County

Fayetteville Shale – Conway County

Fayetteville Shale – Van Buren County

Fayetteville Shale – Van Buren County

Fayetteville Shale – Conway and Van Buren

Fayetteville Shale – Conway and Van Buren

Fayetteville Shale – Conway and Van Buren

45 139 173.682 1.250 b = 2,0.5 92.6,27.8 0.072 0.055

Production Forecasting for

You might also like