IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Decline Curve Analysis for Production
Novel Method of Production Decline Analysis Forecast and Optimization of Liquid-
Dominated Geothermal Reservoir
I Hidayat
To cite this article: Shan Xie et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 113 012007
- Prediction of shale oil production based on
Prophet algorithm
Xiaolong Wan, Yongling Zou, Juan Wang
et al.

View the article online for updates and enhancements. - Coal transitions—part 1: a systematic map
and review of case study learnings from
regional, national, and local coal phase-
out experiences
Francesca Diluiso, Paula Walk, Niccolò
Manych et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 114.125.24.211 on 23/11/2021 at 15:35

ICAESEE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science1234567890
113 (2018) 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/113/1/012007

Novel Method of Production Decline Analysis

XIE Shan1,2, LAN Yifei1,2,HE Lei1,2, JIAO Yang1,2 ,WU Yong1,2

1
National Engineering Laboratory for Low-Permeability Petroleum Exploration and
Development, Xian, Shaanxi, P.R China
2
Research Institute of Exploration and Development, Changqing Oilfield Company，
Petro China, Xian, Shaanxi, P.R China
xies_cq@petrochina.com.cn,lanyf_cq@petrochina.com.cn,hel_cq@petrochina.com.cn
,jyang_cq@petrochina.com.cn,wuyong_cq@petrochina.com.cn

Abstract. ARPS decline curves is the most commonly used in oil and gas field due to its
minimal data requirements and ease application. And prediction of production decline which is
based on ARPS analysis rely on known decline type. However, when coefficient index are very
approximate under different decline type, it is difficult to directly recognize decline trend of
matched curves. Due to difficulties above, based on simulation results of multi-factor response
experiments, a new dynamic decline prediction model is introduced with using multiple linear
regression of influence factors. First of all, according to study of effect factors of production
decline, interaction experimental schemes are designed. Based on simulated results, annual
decline rate is predicted by decline model. Moreover, the new method is applied in A gas filed
of Ordos Basin as example to illustrate reliability. The result commit that the new model can
directly predict decline tendency without needing recognize decline style. From arithmetic
aspect, it also take advantage of high veracity. Finally, the new method improves the
evaluation method of gas well production decline in low permeability gas reservoir, which also
provides technical support for further understanding of tight gas field development laws.

1. Introduction
Production decline analysis as a fundamental method for production prediction, is closed related to
optimization working schedule and formulation of production measures. Bases on ARPS decline
curves(exponent, hyperbolic and harmonic) proposed in 1945[1], production analysis method is
continuously developing ranging from typecurve matching to rate-pressure normalization techniques
and detailed production history matching[2][3][4][5]. However ARPS decline curves(despite it's many
limitation like constant bottom hole pressure) is still commonly used in domestic and overseas gas
field due to its minimal data requirements and ease application[6] [7].
ARPS decline curves refers to using production data of decline stage, via determining decline
index(Qi ，Di ，n) by correlation coefficient, then to establish empirical formulas realizing future
production trend prediction[8]. The key point for this method is decline type determination. Yet low
permeability-tight gas reservoir cases studies and experiences demonstrates that coefficient index are
very approximate under different decline type(value of correlation coefficients are very closed in the
Table 1). In another words, it is difficult to directly recognize decline trend of matched curves or to
finish prediction.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICAESEE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science1234567890
113 (2018) 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/113/1/012007

Table 1. Contrast results of correlation coefficient for Well X1 in Changqing gas field
Decline type n Q0 Di r
Harmonic decline 1 3.21 0.0414 0.855
Depletion decline 0.5 2.49 0.0194 0.861
Hyperbolic decline 0.5 2.49 0.0194 0.862
Exponent decline 0 2.27 0.0123 0.851
Linear decline -1 2.17 0.0067 0.780
As typical low permeability gas field, Changqing face the same problem. Besides, considering
features of unstable working schedules(different production rate arrangement with viable bottom hole
pressure) and large number of wells, accurate and quick evaluation for production decline is very
difficult[9]. Therefore, it is necessary to study a method with merits of convenient access to data, ease
application and without recognizing decline type.

2. Response surface analysis

Response surface analysis is a research method combining mathematical methods, experimental
design and statistical analysis [10][11].Specifically speaking, it mainly rely on the experiments to obtain a
large number of measurement data, then according to responses of the system (or a object) as one or
more factors function to establish mathematical model, and finally realize visual analysis. Comparing
with traditional single factor analysis, response surface analysis can be quantitative evaluation about
multi- factors and their interactions.
Usually, multiple linear regression is effective way to set up the modeling. After modeling,
engineers verdict reliability by the difference of calculation and experimental values whether meet the
requirements. The qualified one with features such as correlation coefficient(calculated by
experimental values and model calculation) is close to 1 or all of the relevant points nearly a straight
line.
According to the response surface analysis method principle, decline rate can be set to be output
response, while mainly factors which affect rate decline of low permeability gas reservoir are used to
design experiments, finally decline rate and rate are predicted without recognize decline type realizing
accurately and quickly evaluation.

3. Method

3.1 Production decline approach

From introduction above, research approach is clearly explicated. First of all, the paper designs the
experiments of gas well production decline. The former large work demonstrate that multi-factors
affect rate which can be summarized as physical parameters, dynamic reserves, field pressure and
working schedule(production rate per day arrangement) four aspects. As a result, on the basis of
production of gas field, permeability, dynamic reserves, working schedule and field pressure labeled
as 4 factors 5 levels and more than 30 design parameters of the experimental group are
considered(Table 2). Then setting decline rate as output response (target function) to convey each
factors inter-action. Finally numerical simulation method are used to simulate 20 years of production
of various projects (simulation results in Table 3).
Table2. Experiment design parameters
Permeability Dynamic reserves Production rate Filed pressure
（mD） （108m3） （104m3/d） (MPa)
0.1 0.4 2 10
2.07 1.3 3.5 15
4.05 2.2 5 20
6.02 3.1 6.5 25
8 4 8 30

2
ICAESEE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science1234567890
113 (2018) 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/113/1/012007

Table 3. Results of response surface experiments

Decline rare of experiments
Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Factor 1
B:Field C:Dynamic D:Rate
No. A:Permeability
Pressure reserves arrangement Initial 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year 6th year 7th year 8th year 9th year 10th year 11th year
mD
MPa 108m3 104m3

1 2.07 15 1.3 3.5 0.284396208 0.196017 0.186489 0.176634 0.174135 0.166175 0.161401 0.155522 0.156276 0.150988 0.148495
2 6.02 15 1.3 3.5 0.435310218 0.380538 0.35705 0.341559 0.329932 0.326294 0.319695 0.319912 0.306779 0.308949 0.307058
3 2.07 25 1.3 3.5 0.213561593 0.262237 0.241466 0.222372 0.211758 0.197829 0.187913 0.177786 0.175083 0.166988 0.162079
4 6.02 25 1.3 3.5 0.369386771 0.388499 0.366817 0.347302 0.335014 0.325593 0.323213 0.319977 0.312753 0.30649 0.308608
5 2.07 15 3.1 3.5 0.155093892 0.108167 0.101923 0.098694 0.093514 0.09559 0.090582 0.088246 0.083803 0.086608 0.082273
6 6.02 15 3.1 3.5 0.087812916 0.229234 0.215356 0.204989 0.194486 0.190855 0.182805 0.177478 0.171156 0.171721 0.166543
7 2.07 25 3.1 3.5 0.12330771 0.13786 0.128756 0.122736 0.115431 0.11514 0.10841 0.104506 0.098692 0.100088 0.094745
8 6.02 25 3.1 3.5 0.073338552 0.23038 0.216331 0.205774 0.195081 0.191355 0.183191 0.177823 0.171446 0.171942 0.166761
9 2.07 15 1.3 6.5 0.284396472 0.209381 0.196017 0.186489 0.176634 0.174135 0.166175 0.161401 0.155522 0.156278 0.150983
10 6.02 15 1.3 6.5 0.509982053 0.377563 0.354992 0.340117 0.328893 0.325732 0.319687 0.318536 0.306707 0.308825 0.307276
11 2.07 25 1.3 6.5 0.376714544 0.277427 0.251742 0.232431 0.214854 0.205689 0.192679 0.183622 0.174242 0.172078 0.164442
12 6.02 25 1.3 6.5 0.148950896 0.451272 0.410413 0.379228 0.356157 0.343549 0.331356 0.324691 0.318744 0.321811 0.308386
13 2.07 15 3.1 6.5 0.155093125 0.108167 0.101923 0.098695 0.093513 0.095591 0.090581 0.088246 0.083803 0.086608 0.082273
14 6.02 15 3.1 6.5 0.304230672 0.227557 0.212861 0.202818 0.192674 0.189416 0.181501 0.17639 0.170242 0.17105 0.165903
15 2.07 25 3.1 6.5 0.200751877 0.160574 0.148953 0.140784 0.132028 0.129834 0.12158 0.116482 0.109543 0.109952 0.103653
16 6.02 25 3.1 6.5 0.02101176 0.248472 0.235293 0.220028 0.208698 0.197461 0.193435 0.184773 0.179286 0.172682 0.172902
17 0.1 20 2.2 5 0.107900368 0.036526 0.02381 0.018747 0.013291 0.017016 0.013343 0.012732 0.009666 0.014779 0.011904
18 8 20 2.2 5 0.115647213 0.350394 0.32887 0.308347 0.296877 0.284257 0.275751 0.268572 0.267793 0.26294 0.261109
19 4.05 10 2.2 5 0.228009029 0.173363 0.167276 0.163999 0.159632 0.161555 0.157247 0.155534 0.153519 0.156873 0.152013
20 4.05 30 2.2 5 0.171310685 0.264743 0.244591 0.227961 0.212856 0.205603 0.194215 0.186627 0.178308 0.177026 0.170493
21 4.05 20 0.4 5 0.730324553 0.561793 0.536898 0.525468 0.514229 0.514911 0.512135 0.51138 0.510412 0.512237 0.510598
22 4.05 20 4 5 0.024131726 0.214274 0.198306 0.187232 0.174844 0.170261 0.160278 0.153752 0.145898 0.145381 0.138697
23 4.05 20 2.2 2 0.063529863 0.215712 0.203482 0.197807 0.18789 0.181215 0.173774 0.17345 0.167304 0.164032 0.159716
24 4.05 20 2.2 8 0.357468503 0.260656 0.240492 0.224708 0.210151 0.203316 0.192423 0.185066 0.177013 0.175996 0.1696
25 4.05 20 2.2 5 0.173250959 0.264173 0.244241 0.227723 0.212683 0.20547 0.194116 0.186555 0.178246 0.176978 0.170453
26 4.05 20 2.2 5 0.173250959 0.264173 0.244241 0.227723 0.212683 0.20547 0.194116 0.186555 0.178246 0.176978 0.170453
27 4.05 20 2.2 5 0.173250959 0.264173 0.244241 0.227723 0.212683 0.20547 0.194116 0.186555 0.178246 0.176978 0.170453
28 4.05 20 2.2 5 0.173250959 0.264173 0.244241 0.227723 0.212683 0.20547 0.194116 0.186555 0.178246 0.176978 0.170453
29 4.05 20 2.2 5 0.173250959 0.264173 0.244241 0.227723 0.212683 0.20547 0.194116 0.186555 0.178246 0.176978 0.170453
30 4.05 20 2.2 5 0.173250959 0.264173 0.244241 0.227723 0.212683 0.20547 0.194116 0.186555 0.178246 0.176978 0.170453
31 4.05 20 2.2 5 0.173250959 0.264173 0.244241 0.227723 0.212683 0.20547 0.194116 0.186555 0.178246 0.176978 0.170453

The decline rate value from table 3 is used as response of surface analysis experimental. Then
regression model of four viable quadratic equation, the years’ decline rate and key elements effects
can be simulated. The usually formation is
k k k
y   0    i xi    i xi2    ij xi x j   （1）
i 1 i 1 i  j j 2

3.2 Quantitative analysis of main controlling factors

Variance analysis is an effective method to do significant analysis of coefficient from linear equation
regression. One aspect of its purpose is determined main controlling factors and multi-factors
interaction degree. The other aspect is used to simplified model by removing no significant effect
factors. For example of 1st year decline model, from significant analysis of F 、 P value(F 、 P as
dimensionless number of significance test, F>0.1、P≤0.05 indicates that factor is significant effected ),
quantitative evaluation results are shown in table 4.
The F value illuminates influence order is dynamic reserves(557.71)> Permeability(505.26)> filed
pressure (44.13) > working schedule(8.25). In the meanwhile, The P value show that single factor and
quadratic term are significant (<0.01) especially for permeability interact with OGIP(0.0017), while
others terms are not significant which can be removed from the final model.

3
ICAESEE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science1234567890
113 (2018) 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/113/1/012007

Table 4. Results of factor interaction

Factors F P
A 505.26 <0.0001
B 44.13 <0.0001
C 557.71 <0.0001
D 8.25 0.0111
AB 3.32 0.0871
AC 14.08 0.0017
AD 0.16 0.6919
BC 3.27 0.0893
BD 3.17 0.0939
CD 0.63 0.4374
2
A 44.90 <0.0001
B2 20.13 0.0004
C2 102.71 <0.0001
D2 8.02 0.0120

Sum to say, the effect of dynamic reserves on the production decline rate are the greatest, and the
permeability and work schedule are the next, the last one is field pressure. From figures of surface
analysis (Figure 3, figure 4), in the case of a certain permeability, decline rate will decrease with
dynamic reserves increasing; in the case of a certain dynamic reserves, decline rate will increase with
permeability increasing.

Figure 1. 2D graph of response surface analysis Figure 2. 3D graph of response surface analysis

3.3 Models
According to the results of the significance analysis, the annual decline rate model can be simplified
and established.
For the first year,
R1  0.090551 0.094042 A 0.024932 B  0.20879C  0.042396 D 8.15528103 AC
 4.96369  10 3 A 2  5.18527  10 4 B 2  0.036151C 2  3.63577  10 3 D 2 (2)
For the second year,
R2  0.050507  0.089606  A  0.021573 B  0.20557  C  0.036962  D  7.56924 103 A C
 4.78208  10  3 A 2  4.50191  10  4 B 2 +0.036003 C 2  3.21836  10  3 D 2 (3)
For the third year,
R3  0.09066  0.085406 A  0.0177 B  0.21102 C  7.65047  10  3 AC
4.44929 103 A2  3.69869 104 B 2  0.038081C 2 (4)
For the forth year,

4
ICAESEE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science1234567890
113 (2018) 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/113/1/012007

R4  0.11869  0.0851045 A  0.015206 B  0.21399C  7.60067  10 3 AC

4.0441103 A2  3.19384 104 B 2  0.038998C 2 (5)
The rest of other years can also be drawn in turn.

4. Model reliability verification

Take the first year decline rate as example to verify reliability with numerical analysis method. The
figure 3 show that The normal probability distribution of residuals for R1 model is basically in a
straight line which indicates high accuracy. In addition, the bulk value and prediction value is better
distributed on line Y=X around in the figure 4 also convey that model with high accuracy can be
applied directly.

Figure 3. The normal probability distribution of residuals Figure 4. R1 actual value vs. model predictive value

5. Example
Taking the well X2 in the A gas field (in the Changqing area)as an example, predicted vale of model
and actual production can be contrasted. Well X2 is typical low permeability gas well with relative
long production history. The basic parameters of the gas well are as follows: the reservoir permeability
is 0.12mD, the field pressure is 17.47MPa, the dynamic reserve is 1.2×108m3; and the production rate
of arrangement(before constant pressure production)is about4.2×104m3. Using the formula (1) ~ (5),
the annual decline rate of the well can be calculated year by year (Figure 5), and the production
decline is predicted in the Figure 6.

12 3.0
Model predicted rate
G as production rate (104 m 3 /d)

Production history
A nnual decline rate（ % ）

8 2.0

4 1.0

0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
10/10/2006 11/18/2010 12/27/2014 2/4/2019 3/15/2023
Time（year） Time(day)

Figure 5. Annual decline rate of X2 Figure 6. Production history vs. model values
It can be seen from Figure 6, response surface decline rate prediction and actual production is
basically the same, which is mean that the decline model can be accurately predict trend of production
decline and decline rate.

6. Conclusions
(1)For low permeability gas reservoir in Changqing gas field, dynamic reserves have the greatest
influence on the rate of decline in production, the permeability is the second, and then the working

5
ICAESEE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science1234567890
113 (2018) 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/113/1/012007

system, field pressure is the least. In the case of a certain permeability, decline rate will decrease with
dynamic reserves increasing; while in the case of a certain dynamic reserves, decline rate will increase
with permeability increasing.
(2) Annual decline rate can be predicted by response surface analysis without recognizing decline
type. The advantage of the new method is summarized as high accuracy and adaptability for low
permeability reservoir.

Nomenclature
Qi—production rate per day,104m3/d; Di—decline rate; n— coefficient for decline type; x1 、
x2……xk—regression model factors; β0、βi、βij—regression coefficient;  —outliers; F、P—
dimensionless number of significance test; A—permeability，mD; B—field pressure，MPa；D—
working schedule(production rate arrangement),104m3/d；Ri—annual decline rate by years.

References
[1] Arps JJ. Analysis of decline curves[M].Petroleum Transaction: AIME, 1945. 228-247.
[2] Fetkovich MJ. Decline curve analysis using type curves[J].Journal of Petroleum
[3] Liu Xiaohua, Zou Chunmei,Jiang Yandong et al. Theory and application of modern production
decline analysis[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2010,30（5）:50-54.
[4] Palacio J C，Blasingame T A. Decline curve analysis using type curves analysis of gas well
production data[J].SPE25909，1993.
[5] Fraim M L, Wattenbarger R A. Gas reservoir decline curve analysis using type curves with real
gas pseudo-pressure and normalized time [J] SPEFE, 1987, 18(2): 6711
[6] Long D R, Davis M J. Decline curve analysis using type curve[J]. JPT,1988,40(7):909~912.
[7] Chen Yuanqian. Calculation method of reservoir engineering[M].Beijing: Petroleum Industry
Press,1990:210-227.
[8] Shaoyong Yu. An Improved Methodology To Obtain the Arps Decline Curve Exponent (b) for
Tight/Stacked Gas Reservoirs[J].SPE-143907-MS present in North American Unconventional
Gas Conference and Exhibition, 2011,14-16 June, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
[9] Zhang Chunyu, Jin Daquan, Liu Gangguo et al. Analysis of production rules if horizontal wells in
low-permeability sandstone gas reservoirs and rational production allocation[J]. Journal of oil
and gas technology, 2014,36(11):223-227.
[10] Wang Tao, Yan Ming, Guo Haibo. Application of response surface regression analysis technique
to numerical simulation[J]. Lithologic Reservoir, , 2000,23:451-455.
[11] Annadurai G. Design of optimum response surface experiments for adsorption of direct dye on
chitosan [J]. Bioprocess Engineering, 2000,23:451-455.