DEDICATION

My humble effort I dedicate to my and loving parents.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
At the end of this work, I wish to extern my deepest thanks to all those who in recent
years have supported me and have always been there for me.

I first thank God Almighty for all his blessing, mercy, love, and strength that he has never
ceased to grant.

I would like to warmly thank:

 Pr. ABDOUL Wahabou, the Director of the School of Geology and Mining
Engineering, for his engagement in the management of this end of training.
 Pr. NGOUNOUNO Ismaïl, the formal Director of the school of geology and
Mining engineering for the priceless efforts, quality training and for all his efforts
 Dr.Ing. MAMBOU NGUEYEP Luc Leroy, Head of Department of Petroleum and Gas
Engineering and my Academic supervisor for his availability, his advice, his perpetual
assistance both moral and material he has granted me for the realization of this work.
 Engineer NKENGAFAC Armstrong Menjua, my academic coach for the academic
support and moral assistance towards the realization of this work.
 Mr. SAMBA KOUKOUARE Prosper, for his help trough learning, orientations and
analyses needed for the realization of this work.
 All the staff at the School of Geology and Mining Engineering most especially: MR.
DJOTSA NGUIMEYA Victorial, MR. ROGER Songwa, MR. SELEMA SIRE Georges
Pascal, Dr. ABDOURAMANI, for support, help, documentation, availability,
encouragements, and the numerous advice that they never stopped giving me all along my
training.
 My sincere acknowledgment go the member of the jury for the time taking to evaluate
and accept my work.

 My parents SOUNFON Emmanuel and TOUTRERE Jaquelline for the endless love,
financial and moral support, advice and encouragement, and above all for their fervent
prayers. Dad and mum thank you very much.
 My host Mr. NJEMOQUE Augustin who has taken upon himself to see that I never go
hungry. Thank you for your sacrifice love and care towards me. To my brothers and
 Sister: Mr. MICHIREN SOUNFON Armand, Dr. NGAPNA NSOUNFON Yves, Mr.
MOUNJOUOWOU SOUNFON Gorge, Dr NDAPEN SOUNFON Jerome Landry, Mr.
YENDE MFONGEN Verdie and Mrs. MVUH SOUNFON Alvin Laure for the sincerely
love and brotherhood we share.
 I want to thank my step-aunt, ASABA Veronica, for the motherly love you have shown
me this past five year my God continue to bless you
 To all those who trusted in me and have always encouraged me to succeed in my studies,
particularly my dearly LAOBEL JOEL Aubin, Ing. ORU Emmanuel, FEUTIO Giselle,
papa NJIFON, Papa NDUCSA.
 To all my classmates particularly NTONYE Maurice Lavenire, NZER Jean Franky,
TUMU Andrian for all the moments spent together.
 All academic elders from first and second batch of PGE
 To my wonderful spiritual family most especially to the pastor of the Evangelic Church of
Cameroon Meiganga congregation Pastor Emmanuel for his endless prayers to see me
succeed.
 Finally, all the people who contributed directly or indirectly to the accomplishment of this
work are warmly thanked.

Table des matières

DEDICATION.................................................................................................................................1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT..................................................................................................................2
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................6
Resumer............................................................................................................................................7
List of fiuures...................................................................................................................................8
List of tables...................................................................................................................................10
Abreviations...................................................................................................................................11
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................13
Chapter 1: GENERALITIES..........................................................................................................15
Introduction................................................................................................................................15
Definitions..................................................................................................................................15
Basic concepts of oil production................................................................................................16
Primary recovery:...................................................................................................................17
Secondary recovery:...............................................................................................................17
Tertiary recovery:...................................................................................................................17
Bases on reservoir fluid flow......................................................................................................18
Production decline and decline rate............................................................................................19
Review of forecasting models....................................................................................................20
Volumetric method.................................................................................................................20
Decline curve method.............................................................................................................20
Material balance method........................................................................................................21
Reservoir simulation method..................................................................................................21
Decline curve analysis................................................................................................................22
Arps decline curve analysis....................................................................................................22
Stretched Exponential Production Decline.............................................................................25
Duong’s Production Decline..................................................................................................26
Chapter 2: Materials used and methods..........................................................................................28
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................28
 Workflow chart:..........................................................................................................................29
Tools and material used:.........................................................................................................30
Software used:........................................................................................................................30
Field location and data used...................................................................................................33
Methodology...............................................................................................................................36
General input data...................................................................................................................36
Data analyses and treatment...................................................................................................36
Data preparation.....................................................................................................................37
Production data DCA.............................................................................................................37
DCA principle and function...................................................................................................40
Chapter 3: Results and interpretation.............................................................................................44
Data analyses..............................................................................................................................44
Data preparation.........................................................................................................................47
Production plots and prediction..............................................................................................47
Determining best forecasting model.......................................................................................51
Production Forecast................................................................................................................57
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................60
Future work................................................................................................................................60
Index...............................................................................................................................................61
Activities performed by OFM....................................................................................................61
Tables and graphs of production wells Feckovish forecasting on OFM....................................63
Tables and graphs for production well forcasting......................................................................67
Refrences........................................................................................................................................72
ABSTRACT

This work focuses on predicting the future production rate of an oil well using decline
curve analysis and reservoir properties. An oil field in the northern sea was used as the case
study. python software was used to upload and search missing data using Gaussian liner
interpolation. Based on past production history and reservoir conditions, standard curves were
generated using exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic decline model equations from which
comparative study of production decline rate trend analysis was carried out whit the help of OFM
simulator. The model equations were used to project future oil productions for a period of 10
years. The exponential model was observed to be the best in this case with a b value between
0.03-0.55. Also, history match was performed to evaluate the production behaviour of the field.
Several simulation cases were run to assess the reservoir energy (pressure) and the field water cut
in relation to oil production from the well in the reservoir investigated. Afterwards, production
forecast model was built following a field development plan to project the yearly and cumulative
oil productions of the field from 2012 to 2021. The skip frim the initial years of production2008
is to ensure a normal decline rate after the pick production is attained. Results from the
production forecast where then compered to actual field data and an alignment of 92% however,
a concluding speculation is that if one can predict the possible respond of a field so as to foresee
possible workover activities, a 100% matching of actual field conditions and forecasting could be
observed.
KEYWORDS: decline rate trend analysis, production forecast, history matching, reserves
estimations, production pick.
Resumer
Ce travail est basé sur la prédiction du taux de production futur d'un puits de pétrole en
utilisant l'analyse de la courbe de déclin et les propriétés du réservoir. Un champ pétrolifère de la
mer du Nord a servi d'étude de cas. Le logiciel python a été utilisé pour télécharger et rechercher
les données manquantes à l'aide de l'interpolation de la ligne gaussienne. Sur la base de
l'historique de production et des conditions du réservoir, des courbes standard ont été générées à
l'aide d'équations de modèle de déclin exponentiel, hyperbolique et harmonique, à partir
desquelles une étude comparative de l'analyse de tendance du taux de déclin de la production a
été réalisée à l'aide du simulateur OFM. Les équations du modèle ont été utilisées pour projeter
les futures productions de pétrole sur une période de 10 ans. Le modèle exponentiel s'est avéré
être le meilleur dans ce cas avec une valeur b comprise entre 0,03 et 0,55. Une comparaison avec
l'historique a également été effectuée pour évaluer le comportement de la production du champ.

Plusieurs cas de simulation ont été exécutés pour évaluer l'énergie du réservoir (pression)
et la teneur en eau du champ par rapport à la production de pétrole du puits dans le réservoir
étudié. Ensuite, un modèle de prévision de la production a été construit suivant un plan de
développement du champ pour projeter les productions annuelles et cumulatives de pétrole du
champ de 2012 à 2021. Le saut à partir des premières années de production (2008) vise à assurer
un taux de déclin normal après l'atteinte de la production de pointe. Les résultats de la prévision
de la production ont ensuite été comparés aux données réelles du champ et une concordance de
92% a été obtenue. Cependant, on peut conclure que si l'on peut prédire la réponse possible d'un
champ afin de prévoir les activités de reconditionnement possibles, une concordance de 100%
des conditions réelles du champ et de la prévision pourrait être observée.

MOTS CLÉS : analyse de la tendance du taux de déclin, prévision de la production,

concordance de l'historique, estimations des réserves, prélèvement de la production.
List of fiuures
Figure 1: Factors to take in to consideration in petroleum production forecasting........................14
Figure 2: Idealized behaviour of an oilfield production.................................................................15
Figure 3: Decline curve rate/time for exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic curves....................24
Figure 4: Detail work flow chart....................................................................................................28
Figure 5: OFM interface.................................................................................................................30
Figure 6: OFM Master Data Base..................................................................................................30
Figure 7:Map of Oil and Gas field of the north sea........................................................................34
Figure 8: code used for library and data uplaoding........................................................................35
Figure 9: code for convertion of datatime to pabdas datetime.......................................................36
Figure 10: Code for missing values interpolation..........................................................................36
Figure 11: data type setting............................................................................................................37
Figure 12: steps for data uploading................................................................................................37
Figure 13: OFM tool of calculation................................................................................................38
Figure 14: tools for graph plotting and forecasting........................................................................39
Figure 15: property tool bar............................................................................................................39
Figure 16: Use of OFM in this study..............................................................................................42
Figure 17: a plot of water and oil production agains time..............................................................43
Figure 18: histogram plot for all production data...........................................................................44
Figure 19: visualisation of missing data befor interpolation..........................................................45
Figure 20: visualisation of missing data after interpolation of data...............................................45
Figure 21: data base converted and prepered in microsoft excel...................................................46
Figure 22: grid well location..........................................................................................................47
Figure 23: reservoir surface view...................................................................................................48
Figure 24: multipl production of all wells......................................................................................49
Figure 25: downhole pressure and temperature plot......................................................................50
Figure 26: Fetkovich decline technic.............................................................................................51
Figure 27: Arps decline technic......................................................................................................51
Figure 28: Water cut.......................................................................................................................53
Figure 29: WOR rate forcast..........................................................................................................54
Figure 30: Oil face forecasting.......................................................................................................56
List of tables

Table 1: Table of Arps equations...................................................................................................23

Table 2: Identification of drive mechanism....................................................................................24
Table 3: material and software used for DCA analyses.................................................................32
Table 4: Geology of the study field................................................................................................34
Table 5: Table of visualised production data.................................................................................44
Table 6: well coordinates................................................................................................................48
Table 7: Arps historical regression.................................................................................................53
Table 8: Calculated water cut from OFM.......................................................................................54
Table 9: Historical regression calculated by OFM.........................................................................56
Table 10: Forecasting of WOR.......................................................................................................56
Table 11: Set variables for the oil face forecasting........................................................................58
Table 12: Results of the forecast....................................................................................................58
Abreviations
SPE: Society of Petroleum Engineering
EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery
EUR: Estimated Ultimate Recovery
PVT: Pressure Volume and Temperature
DCA: Decline Curve Analyses
bbl or b: barrel
b/d: barrel/day
US:
API: American Petroleum Institute
APM: Artificial Pressure Maintenance
CO2: carbon dioxide
q:volumetric flow rate (cm3/s)
k: permeability (darcy),
A: cross-sectional area to the flow (cm2),
µ: viscosity (centipoise)
ꝺP/ꝺL: pressure gradient over the length of the fluid flow path
Vb: bulk volume
N: volume of oil
G:Volume of gas
∅: porosity
Swc: connate water saturation
qt: production flow rate at time t, stb/day or stb/time
qi: initial flow rate, stb/day or stb/time
Di: initial decline rate constant, 1/day or 1/time
Np(t) = Cumulative production at time t, STB
b: Arp’s decline curve exponent; b=0 for exponential, 0<b<1 for hyperbolic and b=1 for
harmonic.
t : time
SEPD: Stretched Exponential Production Decline
BDF: Boundary Dominated Flow
a and m: empirical constants
tD : dimensionless time
Q : cumulative production
qin f : intercept of the plot of qt vs. tD.
GB: Giga bite
Hz: herds
OFM: Schlomberger Oil Field Management
ai = nominal decline rate,year-1
a =decline rate, year-1
md = effective decline rate, year-1
t= decline period, year
Np= cumulative oil production, stb
INTRODUCTION
Predicting the future life of producing wells for a petroleum reservoir and more
significantly estimating recoverable oil and gas reserves has been a difficult task for petroleum
engineers. This has been a major challenge in the oil and gas industry over years. Oil and gas
productions and reserves have to be properly forecasted. This is because wrong forecast of oil and
gas productions can lead to insignificant cost and failure of various oil recovery techniques.
Several techniques have been adopted in literature to predict the amount of oil and or gas
production rate with time. These include the material balance, decline curve analysis, volumetric
calculations, pressure transient analysis and reservoir simulation, among others.
. In the oil and gas upstream companies, predicting future production of oil and or gas is
very impotent for preparing annual business plan. From these predictions, the companies can then
estimate the reserves and forecast future production in hydrocarbons that will give flour to
petroleum engineers in decision-making for the corporate management and architectural
company’s strategies (society of petroleum engineering(SPE), 2019).
Many researches such as those conducted by Fetkovich (1984), Blasingame et al (1989),
Hubbert and Robertson (2004), Agrawal and Gardner (2008), have applied the decline model
concept in diverse ways to forecast future oil and gas productions. Fetkovich (1984) in his study
applied the decline concept to predict oil and gas productions in comingled layered reservoirs. He
adopted an advanced decline analysis approach applicable for drainage and pressure change
conditions. His approach was similar to pressure transient testing. In his research, it was stated
categorically that under certain production conditions and scenarios, the initial rate does not
decline significantly. Fetkovich finally concluded that the Arps empirical model equations are
only applicable to rate-time depletion data.
Problem definition
The total productivity of every well depends largely on its flow rate. Depending on the
rate at which the reservoir fluid is been delivered to the surface, the future performance can be
forecasted. However, forecasting the productivity of a reservoir have not so far been reliable at a
hundred percent due to some uncertainties. These uncertainties in prediction are due to
production correlate with scatter data caused by; change production schedule, bad well
completion, workovers, bad calibration, and bad data collection way (Zais, 2008).

Objectives
The main purpose of this work is to develop an optimal decline curve model used in an oil
field to come out with an optimal model or method of forecasting future production of oil and gas
production and EORs from estimated reserves. With all the uncertainties associated to oil and gas
production forecasting in mine, in other to come out with more accurate results, this work will
approach the DCA method taking into consideration all this sources of errors. The flow regime
and conditions of the reservoir (that is; fluid density, permeability, saturation and porosity) will
also be correlated to production to see how this affects production.
The specific interest of this study consist of:
Determining a method of treating scattered data,
Estimation of reservoir conditions influencing production rate,
- Determination of the decline curve techniques that work best,
- Estimation of change in fluid flow regime,
- Simulation of changing fluid flow regime in decline curve analysis,
- Evaluation of 30 year production forecasts

Thesis plan.
This study is structured in to three main chapters. The first chapter is generalities; here,
definitions, some bases on oil and gas production forecasting techniques, a background on
reservoir regime and production will be discussed. The second chapter describes the data,
tools, methods, and procedures used to attain the objective stated. Finally, the last chapter
presents results and tentative interpretations followed by a conclusion.
Chapter 1: GENERALITIES
Introduction
Forecasting of the petroleum production is a very pertinent task in the petroleum industry,
where the accurate estimation of petroleum reserves involves massive investment of money, time
and technology in the context of a wide range of operating and maintenance scenarios.
This chapter is based on some definitions, principles and concepts of petroleum production
forecasting, reservoir characteristics and reserves estimation and finally production proper. This
is done in other to understand the factors that affects production then carry out a more reliable
forecasting technique.

Definitions
 Production forecasting;

Figure 1: Factors to take in to consideration in petroleum production forecasting.

source: Production-Forecast.jpg (764×376) (vital-petroleum.com)

 Reserves estimation; A typical reservoir is a rock of considerable pore space where

petroleum resides in the tiny void spaces between the rock grains and is permeable as
well, allowing for the rock to conduct the fluids stored up within the pores, such as
sandstone or carbonates.
  Flow rate;

 Decline rate; The decline rate, λ, is the reduction in the production rate from an individual
well, or a group of wells, after the production has peaked and is regularly stated on an
annual or monthly or sometimes daily basis.

 Production lifetime;

Figure 2: Idealized behaviour of an oilfield production.

Source:

Basic concepts of oil production.

Crude oil is formed due to accumulation of organic materials subjected to multiple
tectonic processes under specific conditions (that is very high temperatures and pressure) over a
long period in underground formations known as reservoirs. Crude oil can then be accessed
through drilling from the surface to the zone of interest. Two types of reservoirs exist; the
conventional resources are considered to be found in the typical rock configurations with a source
rock, a reservoir rock and a trap, and the unconventional resources, which are fossil resources
where one, or more of the components of the conventional resources are missing. 90 percent of
the Wolds crude is from conventional resources the remaining 10 percent is shared between
unconventional crude oil and natural gas liquids. Oil production fluid volume is frequently
measured in barrels (b or bbl) equivalent to a volume of 42 US gallons or approximately 159
litres. Alternatively, production flow rate, expressed in barrels per day (b/d or bbl/d) can be used.
During the production life of a reservoir, three production phases are basically observed in the
extraction of the oil property, namely: primary (natural energy), secondary (pressure
maintenance) and tertiary recovery (enhanced oil recovery) methods. Some operations may
ignore one or two of the methods depending on the overall energy of the system.
Generally, movement of downhole fluids in a reservoir depend on a number of factors. These
include;
 Depletion (decline in reservoir flowing pressure),
 Total compressibility of the system (rock or fluid or both),
 Volume of gas phase dissolved into the liquid phase,
 Angle of inclination (formation dip),
 Capillary rise through minute pores,
 Surrounding aquifer or overlying gas cap providing extra energy for pressure
maintenance,
 Water or gas injection, and manipulations of fluid properties or by thermal means.( Slatter
et al, 2008).

Primary recovery:
About 10-25% of the reservoirs, oil originally in place is extracted. This is the first stage
of petroleum production based on buoyancy (Archimedes principle) and reservoir pressure, in
which natural reservoir energy is used to push the oil to the surface. Here, artificial lift procedures
like pumps can be used to push the oil to the surface. This primary recovery becomes limited at a
point where the reservoir pressure is too low to maintain economical production rates then we
move to enhance oil recovery (EOR)

Secondary recovery:
The largest percentage of the total oil recovery is achieved by secondary recovery
methods. A combination of primary and secondary recovery methods can extract to about 30–
50% of the oil in place. The concentration of secondary recovery is on artificial pressure
maintenance (APM) strategy, where fluids are carefully injected to support the energy of the
system by maintaining reservoir pressure. The most common method is water flooding and it is
used when the oil API > 25◦ and the viscosity is relatively low (below 30 centipoise). It
works best in homogeneous reservoir formations. when the viscosity of the oil is far more
than the injected water, fingering effect occurs(for Oil of API gravity greater than 10) where
water moves in thin uneven fingers instead of as a unified front. The water front bypasses
substantial volumes of recoverable oil and likely to cause an early water breakthrough into
the production wells.

Tertiary recovery:
It is also called the enhanced oil recovery method and it consists manipulating rock and
fluid properties targeted at increasing the mobility of the oil to increase production. EOR method
is based on Darcy’s law, oil movement can be enhanced in a reservoir by decreasing its viscosity
as long as delta pressure remains constant. There are four techniques of EOR, chemical, thermal,
miscible and microbial methods (Höök et al, 2014);
  The thermal method which makes up to almost half of entire worldwide EOR projects is
the most common. This method consists in altering the viscosity of oil by thermal means,
such as hot-water flooding, steam flooding or in situ combustion, which produces heat
that burns a portion of the oil in place by igniting the bottommost reservoir formation.

 Miscible methods focus on injection of a gas or solvent miscible with the oil resulting in
an improved recovery efficiency. It accounts for near 41% of worldwide EOR projects.
Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) injection is widely applicable to many reservoirs than other
methods at lower miscibility pressures. the net volume swells up as a portion of the CO 2
dissolves in the oil and reduces the viscosity of the oil. Due to the low interfacial tension,
it makes it possible for the CO2 and oil to flow together as the miscibility progresses.
Lighter hydrocarbons (mainly natural gas) if available, can as well be injected to create
miscibility, which decreases the oil viscosity while increasing oil volume via same
swelling process. In high-permeability reservoir formations holding light oil, nitrogen or
flue gas, is sometimes a substitute. These gases are less expensive than CO2 and lighter
hydrocarbon but they are not sufficient enough.

 Chemical flooding makes up to about 11% of EOR projects. Chemical flooding applies
the injection of polymers, surfactants, and caustic alkaline or other chemicals. The
conditions favourable for the water flooding technique is also applied here since they are
grounded on similar principle save the polymer used instead of water. Polymers can be
used to enhance water flooding process by changing water viscosity and mobility. After
the water floods, more oil will be produced in the initial stage, and this is the key
economic benefit, as ultimate recovery is mostly the same as for conventional water
flooding. Surfactants are also used to recover extra oil by enhancing mobility and
solubility of oil and emulsifying oil and water.

Bases on reservoir fluid flow.

Fluid flow in a reservoir follows the principle Darcy’s law by a French physicist, Henry
Darcy in 1864. Basically, Darcy’s law states that a fluid which has a high viscosity will have a
low flow rate at constant delta pressure; and that if the rock permeability is high, a high flow rate
is anticipated; and that pressure gradient is necessary for fluid to flow. The negative sign in the
Darcy’s equation also indicates that the fluid flows oppositely (from higher to lower potential) of
the pressure gradient.

Equation 1

where q is the volumetric flow rate (cm3/s), k is the permeability (darcy), A is the cross-
sectional area to the flow (cm2), µ is the viscosity (centipoise), and ꝺP/ꝺL is the pressure gradient
over the length of the fluid flow path (atm/cm)^2. describes a unidirectional flow, where the fluid
is transmitted straight in one single direction. However, the flow inside the rock formation is far
more complicated. Despite this, Darcy’s law is important when studying fluid flow in oil
reservoirs since it gives the physical boundaries to the possible production rate and indicates in
what manner the flow rate is affected by the different parameters.
The transport of petroleum fluid through the reservoir formation is to a significant extent
dictated by physical properties related to the geological formation of the reservoir under
discussion and the characteristics of the petroleum it contains. Disparities in these characteristics
cause production rates to vary from field to field. A reservoir houses its fluid in tiny microscopic
pores inside the rock formation, and the term porosity of a rock is defined as the ratio of the pore
spaces to the rocks bulk volume. The larger the porosity, the better the rock is at storing fluids.
The key constraint for the fluid to flow is the pressure gradient hence the greater the pressure
gradient, the greater the flow rate. When recovering oil or gas from a reservoir, the pressure
gradient decreases along with the extraction. When the pressure in the reservoir has decreased to
a level too low to drive the flow any longer the pressure can be maintained by feeding additional
energy into the reservoir by a secondary recovery method, injecting water and/or gas.

Production decline and decline rate.

Crude oil being an unrenewable resource after producing at reservoir pressure, the
production rate reduces leading to a decline in production as seen in figure 2 above. The speed of
decline depends on the output of the wells and on other factors as earlier described. The idea of
decline rate is fundamental whenever future estimation of an oilfield production is concerned.
Changes can be either positive or negative but are usually negative so long as a field has passed
its peak of production.
Equation 2

Since the early years of the petroleum industry, increasing exploitation and depleting reserves has
been related to declining production. The analysis of decline curves has since then been a
practical tool for predicting field behaviour and forecasting well life. Decline rates seen in actual
oilfields can vary significantly and research has shown that those of small fields may vary from
those of giant fields. Physical and intrinsic factors driving the oil depletion like falling reservoir
pressure, increasing water cut etc., does not certainly relate to the decline rate studies.
Nonphysical factors such as underinvestment, government policies, production shares, damage or
interruption has been observed to affect decline. In essence, decline rates simply provide
uncertain indications for unguarded analysts. Compound connections between reservoir physics,
economics, technology and decision-making has been found to frequently influence decline in
production. Production rates are influenced by many factors and much care must be taken in
extrapolating decline trend into the future.
Review of forecasting models.
Reservoir evaluation and the science of projecting future production can be sectioned into
four areas that roughly correspond to the allotted time and effort to be consumed as well as the
quantity and quality of information. Several methods of analysis have been developed and each
of them was analysed and by Poston (2007). The advantages and shortcomings are also presented
in this publication. The results of these computations can be presented as 1-, 2-, or 3-dimensional
spatial analysis of the reservoir operating under diverse well-configuration and different
conditions of depletion. These methods are discussed below;

Volumetric method.
It is a low-cost method such that isopach maps can be combined with structural maps to
provide a comprehensive picture for making reservoir and field extent estimations. The volume
of hydrocarbon (N or G for oil and gas respectively) in the subsurface reservoir formation
depends on the reservoir bulk volume (Vb), fraction of the bulk volume which is porous (∅), and
the connate water saturation (Swc). The equations below apply to oil and gas respectively;

Equation 3

Equation 4

This method however has several limitations. The results are dependent on the well
spacing and the quality of porosity and saturation values, which are mostly not achieved due to
the degree of reservoir heterogeneities, especially using a single porosity as a representative for
the entire reservoir formation. The maps are also unable to generate future forecast and difficulty
in predicting recovery from layered or naturally fractured formation or in reservoirs with
commingled production.

Decline curve method.

It is of a great advantage to apply production decline curves due to the readily availability
of production data. It is a low-cost method and time efficient as well as being easy to be
programmed for operation on personal computers. This method consist of plotting rate of
production against time for a single or several wells can be inferred into the future to provide an
approximation of the future rates of production of a well. With the future rates known, it is of
course possible to determine the future total production or reserves of the well.
 Changes in operating conditions or any probable changes must be carefully considered
when developing the equation representing a production decline curve and, more particularly,
when predicting performance. Some of this methods limitations include; the alteration of the
profile of the decline curve when operating conditions are changed, inability to quantitatively
infer the reservoir characteristics from the shape of the curve, and the struggle in interpretation of
the future performance in low-permeability, multi-layered or fractured reservoirs due to the high
variability and uncertain effects of crossflow.

Material balance method.

Here, analysis is a tank-type model based on the conservation of mass, which does not
take into consideration variable flow conditions. For a saturated oil reservoir with constant porous
volume, its material balance on a Cartesian plot produces a straight line with a slope of slope N
(Oil Originally in Place) as shown in the equation below;

Equation 5

Equation 5 (Shilthuis Equation) is based on production history data. Pressure-dependent

rock and fluid properties are built into a reservoir material-balance-type equation. The strong
point of material-balance-type calculations include; Pressure-dependent reservoir rock and fluid
properties, as well as the production history are included in a reservoir model; it is also a low-cost
and time efficient analysis method that can be easily computed with a computer program. This
method can also be easily applied to determine the depletion efficiency in a moderate-to-high
permeability field. Recovery factor is needed to calculate reserves which makes the material
balance method a weak asset in such estimation. Moreover, vertical and areal variations in the
reservoir character must be included as part of the reserves calculations.
Recovery factors should be applied only to fairly homogeneous, modest-sized reservoirs
in which the producing zone exhibits permeability greater than 100 md for oil reservoirs and 1
md or less for gas reservoirs.

Reservoir simulation method.

They can be applied to a 2D or 3D system and also to systems with widely changing fluid
composition; it allows all probable variables to be involved in the model making it easy to study
the effects of reservoir heterogeneity and variation on future performance. It applies a
combination of several equations; material balance equation, diffusivity flow equation, and
equation of state into an iterative process to calculate the effect of the depletion history for each
cell in the system. The reservoir simulation method generally requires a person skilled in the
technique of running the model to be involved in the study; the models comes with its
complications and requires a considerable amount of time, effort and expense to run and a huge
volume of field data. The field model is often simplified by forcing reservoir heterogeneities and
geology to fit the computer model, therefore, the results obtain are dependent on the quality of the
input data.

Decline curve analysis

Production decline curve analysis is one of the oldest methods for predicting oil or gas
reserves. Decline curve analysis (DCA) is a means of predicting the future production of oil or
gas from a well or series of wells, based on extrapolation of production history. They play a vital
role in determining the value of oil or gas wells. If the conditions affecting the rate of production
are not changed, the curve will furnish useful knowledge as to the future production of the well.
With this knowledge the value of a property may be judged, and proper economic analysis can be
made. DCA is one of the most common methods for forecasting of oil and gas production. The
main advantage of decline curve analysis is that, it uses historical data which is usually very easy
to obtain. The results of decline curve are simple plots and easy to visualize, analyse and
understand. To date various methods have been developed for decline curve analysis of which the
most common include Arps, Duong and Stretched Exponential Production decline methods.

Arps decline curve analysis.

Although automated decline curve tools using neural network or mathmatical algorthim or
correlation between reservoir properties with performance are widely used ( Yunan Li et al,
2017), the application of conventional decline curve analysis in the industry is still considered as
most reliable which based on equations and curves described by Arps. Arps applied
the equation of hyperbola to define three general equations (exponential, hyperbolic and
harmonic) to model production declines.
Table 1: Table of Arps equations

Source:
Where;
qt = production flow rate at time t, stb/day or stb/time
qi = initial flow rate, stb/day or stb/time
Di = initial decline rate constant, 1/day or 1/time
Np(t) = Cumulative production at time t, STB
b = Arp’s decline curve exponent; b=0 for exponential, 0<b<1 for hyperbolic and b=1 for
harmonic.
t = time
Although exponential decline expected during depletion drive for reservoirs without
energy support, clearly all wells do not exhibit exponential behavior during depletion. In many
cases a more gradual hyperbolic decline is observed where rate time performance is better than
estimated from exponential solutions implying that hyperbolic decline results from natural and
artificial driving energies that slow down pressure depletion by injection of water or gas. The
type of decline and its characteristic shape is a major feature of DCA. While performing DCA
analysis following are the key factors need to be considered-the most representative period in
history that will also represent future, type of decline during the selected historical period, the
decline rate during the selected historical period, start point of forecast and the constraints under
which the forecast needs to be made. Field cases with water flood generally support hyperbolic or
harmonic decline for late stage waterflood behavior meaning that value of b (hyperbolic constant
of Arps equation) lies 0<b<1 ( Kegang Ling et al, 2013).
Table2: Identification of drive mechanism

Source:
The assumption governing Arp’s analysis rate-time decline curves are constant drainage
areas, wells are producing at or near capacity and operation is under constant bottom-hole
pressure. This is generally for pseudo-steady state flow conditions (the existence of a
boundary-dominated flow regime) which is observed for most conventional reservoirs. The
idealistic shape of each of the hyperbolic family equations from Arps’s deduction is shown in
figure 3.
Figure 3: Decline curve rate/time for exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic curves

Source:
Regarding the appropriate level at which DCA should be carried out is always a point of
discussion, lowest levels namely completion level and the very highest level namely field or
reservoir level. Generally reservoir level considered as the highest level, although it would of
course be possible to carry out a DCA at even higher levels than this, such as at asset level. It is
advisable that forecasts based on DCA methods must always be done at the lowest producing
level, such as at completion level if multiple zones have been completed in a well, or at well level
if wells are completed in a single reservoir, although it requires involvement of huge resources
and time (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2009).

Stretched Exponential Production Decline.

To avoid the uncertainty associated with long term reserve estimates from the Arps
model, Valko (Valko, 2009) proposed a new method the Stretched Exponential Production
Decline. This equation normally tends to fit all the data and it can also handle high initial rates
followed by a rapid decline, which are common for wells with multi-stage fracturing. As it tends
to fit most of the data, the more historical data, more accurate will be the EUR. Compared to the
Arps hyperbolic model, SEPD has a most significant advantage: EUR is bounded for any
individual well. The SEPD can be applied using the following equations:
 ….(6)

…..(7)

…..(8)

……(9)
where qt is the time-varying production rate, qi is the initial production rate, Q is the cumulative
production, n is the exponent parameter for SEPD model, t is a characteristic time parameter, r21
is the ratio of two year production to one year production; and r31 is the ratio of three year
production to one year production.
The stretched exponential production decline (SEPD) model acknowledges the
heterogeneity of a reservoir in that the actual production decline is determined by a great number
of contributing volumes individually in exponential decay, but with a specific distribution of
characteristic time constants (Valko and Lee, 2010). SEPD appear to fit field data from various
shale plays quite well, thereby providing an effective alternative to Arps model (Lee, 2012). It
predicts a lower EUR that would be obtained from extrapolation of Transient flow regime
without the transition to exponential decline, as in the case of Arps. But this method has some
serious shortcomings. The equations are very complex and difficult to solve. It relies on complete
and incomplete gamma function, for which computer codes are required. The application of this
method requires a relatively long production history of the well. Though this equation always
obtains a solution, the solutions ability to predict EUR may be too poor or of lesser quality.

Duong’s Production Decline.

Duong’s method was empirically derived based on a long-term linear flow in a large
number of wells in tight and shale gas reservoirs (Duong, 2011). "A loglog plot of rate over
cumulative production vs. time is observed to fit a straight line in most unconventional reservoir
cases studied. The slope and intercept are related to reservoir rock characteristics, fracture
stimulation practice, operational conditions and possibly liquids content" (Duong, 2011).
Duong’s equations are described below,
 …..(10)

…..(11)

…….(12)

……(13)
Where; qt represents production rate at time t, q1 represents stabilized rate at t = 1,a and
m are empirical constants, tD is dimensionless time, Q is cumulative production and qin f is the
intercept of the plot of qt vs. tD.
The Duong equation differs from the previously mentioned methods due to the simplicity
and ease with which the equation is solved. This method is easy and simple to use for predicting
future rate and EUR. The equation can be solved in a simple spreadsheet. This equation was
formulated for the use for unconventional resources. Duong equations can be solved in just two
steps:
- The first step is plotting ratio of production rate, q, and cumulative production, Q, vs.t
on log - log coordinates. The parameters a and m can be obtained from intercept and
slope respectively.
- The second step is to plot dimensionless time vs rate, to solve for q1 and qin f. However,
the derivation of equation 5.4 does not include qin f so the trend line should be obtained
in such a way so as to force the qin f to be zero.
Duong’s method appears to fit production data from both vertical and horizontal wells. The
EUR (Estimated Ultimate Recovery). Estimated Ultimate Recovery is not based on the traditional
concept of drainage area (BDF) but on the constraints of the latest trends with both time and
economic rate limits (Duong, 2011). The Duong equation models transient flow, so it assumes
prolonged production within this flow regime. Duong model is suitable for a single flow regime
but currently has not been proved and is questionable for wells with transitions from linear to
boundary-dominated flow (Freeborn and Russell, 2012). The equation is useful only for a
transient flow regime and maybe a poor estimator of EUR. But it gives accurate estimates so long
as the transient flow regime persists. In addition, the solution is quite sensitive to small variations
in data.
Chapter 2: Materials used and methods.
Introduction:
In other to realise DCA, some software’s needs to be used to process production data. In
this chapter, the tools, materials used and data for the realisation of DCA are presented. The
methodology and function of each tool or material and how it helped for this study will also be
discussed.
Workflow chart:

START

Data Collection and

Preparation

Coordinates and reservoir data Production data

Data processing

OFM data upload

Field scenarios

Production performance and

forecast

Economic limit

NO
Recovery

Success END
parameter
YES
Figure 4: Detail work flow chart
Tools and material used:
To estimate the remaining oil in place and proper production forecasting, the following
materials where used;
1. An ASUS computer of a 500 GB (giga bite) internal storage capacity, Dual-core 2830
with a processor of 2.5Hz for collection, treatment, analysis and simulation purposes.
2. An android phone of 32GB internal storage capacity and 2 GB RAM for internet research,
consultations and notes.
3. A notebook with a pen to mace summaries, some calculations and structure an approach
to the study.

Software used:
In this study, three main software where used for collection, treatment, analysis and
simulation purposes.
1. Python 3.9; Python is an easy to learn, powerful programming language. It has efficient
high-level data structures and a simple but effective approach to object-oriented
programming. Python’s elegant syntax and dynamic typing, together with its interpreted
nature, make it an ideal language for scripting and rapid application development in many
areas on most platforms. It was used to analyze the production data and interpolating the
missing data.
2. Excel 2016; Microsoft excel is a software program created by Microsoft that uses
spreadsheets to organize numbers and data with formulas and functions. Excel analysis is
ubiquitous around the world and used by businesses of all sizes to perform financial
analysis. It was used for data preparation for OFM upload.
3. OFM 2014.1; Schlumberger Oil Field Manager 2014.1 well and reservoir analysis
software offers advanced production surveillance views and powerful production
forecasting tools to manage and improve oil and gas field performance throughout the
entire life cycle. Rapidly connect to the information you need. Analyse any asset and
share results using standards.
OFM software allows view, relate, and analyze reservoir and production data with
comprehensive workflow tools, such as interactive base maps with production trends,
bubble plots, diagnostic plots, decline curve analysis, and type curve analysis. Recent
architectural changes and usability improvements further enable organization to be more
productive. The OFM application provides a privilege access to the data quickly,
wherever it may be located spreadsheets, databases, or other repositories. It also acts as a
single point of analysis for reservoir and production engineers to collaborate and manage
more wells in less time.
The multiple visualization canvases (charts, reports, and maps) and fast filtering
data fed to enable improvement for field performance by promptly identifying the
well or wells that offer an opportunity to increase production.
Figure 5: OFM interface

Figure 6: OFM Master Data Base

4. Name Material Description use

 ASUS laptop 4GB RAM and 500 GB internal The ASUS
computer storage laptop use for fast accurate laptop computer
simulation was use as the
machine to
simulate, analyse
and tabulate
results of the
predictions

OFM 2014.1 well and reservoir analysis In this project, a

software offers advanced simulated
production surveillance views reservoir surface,
and powerful production calculate some
production
forecasting tools to manage and
variables and oil
improve oil and gas field
field forecasting
performance throughout the snslyses.
entire life cycle.

Python 3.9 The soft wear

A high-performance programing was for
language for technical programming an
computing.it integrates computing, uploading and
visualization, and programming in searching
an easy-to-use environment where missing data
solutions are expressed in familiar
mathematical language

Excel 2016 Handy software that can be Use in

used to store and organize organizing data
many data sets. in this work

Table3: material and software used for DCA analyses

Field location and data used

The North Sea basin occupies a spacious depression almost isometric in shape. In
the west and northwest, the basin is bordered by the continental crust consolidated
during the Precambrian, Caledonian, and Hercynian orogenic epochs, which now forms
epiplatformal orogenic structures. They are represented by the London-Brabant uplift
and the Arden massif in the southwest and south and the Baltic Shield in the east and
northeast. The North Sea basin may be considered as an ancient aulacogen that was
transformed in the Early Mesozoic into a complex system of continental rifts and
grabens. The sedimentary cover of the basin is represented by a thick (8.5–12.5 km)
Ordovician-Quaternary sequence. Oil and gas generation in the sedimentary cover of the
basin is likely connected with four main productive sequences: the coaliferous Upper
Carboniferous (Westphalian), the subsalt Zechstein, the Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous
(Lotharingian, Toarcian, Kimmeridgian, and Weldian bituminose shales), and the shaly
Cenozoic. The large oil and gas reserves in the North Sea’s sedimentary cover (over 280
fields) implies that the above-mentioned sequences have realized their oil-generating
potential. The present-day position of the main oil and gas generation zones in the
sedimentary section of the North Sea explains the distribution of the oil and gas fields
through the basin from the genetic standpoint. The petroleum resource potential of the
basin is still significant. In this regard, most promising are the spacious shelf areas,
turbidite sediments, deep Paleozoic sequences, and continental slopes in the northern
part of the basin, which remains insufficiently investigated (Zabanbark et Al, 2012).

North Sea oil and gas fields – Geology

Geological Geological Age, million

Fields
Era Epoch years

Tertiary Pliocene 2–5

Miocene 5–23

Oligocene 23–34

Eocene 34–56 Frigg, Gannet, Alba

 Arbroath, Balmoral, Everest, Forties, Heimdal, Maureen,
Palaeocene 56–66
Montrose, Nelson

Cretaceous 66–145 Lower: Britannia, Scapa

Upper: Moray Firth fields, Brae, Buzzard, Claymore,

Fulmar, Magnus, Piper, Scott, Tiffany

Jurassic 145–201 Kittiwake, Gannet

Mesozoic
Middle: Brent, Bruce, Eider, Heather, Hutton, Ninian, Tern
Lower to Middle: Beatrice

Upper: Beryl
Dotty, Douglas, Esmond, Hamilton, J-Block, Morecambe
Triassic 201–252 Bay
Lower: Hewett

Upper Permian (Zechstein): Argyll, Auk

Permian 252–299 Lower Permian (Rotliegend): Camelot, Indefatigable,
Leman, Viking, West Sole

Carboniferous 299–359 Caister, Murdoch

Palaeozoic Devonian 359–419 Buchan
Silurian 419–444
Ordovician 444–485

Cambrian 485–541

Table 4: Geology of the study field

 Oil field

Gas field

Figure 7:Map of Oil and Gas field of the north sea

Methodology

General input data

Data analyses and treatment

This is the most sensitive part of this study because any mistake will lead to ironical
results or even not upload in the software used. OFM takes specific data format.
Python programing was used to visualize and interpolate missing data. Using
googlecolab, data file was uploaded and nonpy, matplotly, seaborn, missingno libraries were
imported for data analyses.

Figure 8: code used for library and data uplaoding

Date time was converted to pandaers data time column to suit the data for;at in python
using the function numpy. Then a plot of water and gas production for data visualization using
matplotlip. After this a histogram plot of the production data was donne using sobplot to identify
(verify) the nature of the data used.
Figure 9: code for convertion of datatime to pabdas datetime

with the help of missingno library, production data was visualized and ploted then
interpolations were done to bring out the missing data. This was done for each of the wells both
production and injection wells. Liner interpolation was used;

Figure 10: Code for missing values interpolation

Data preparation
After all the missing data interpolated, the database was then converted to an excel table
form. This was done to reorganize the data to suit the language of OFM; well name followed by
date then production data. Also, it was important to place similar characters in the same cell that
is numbers goes with numbers then letters with letters.

Production data DCA

After all this data analyses and preparation, the data was then uploaded in OFM soft wear.
After selectin new in the file list, the side of the data were defined and selected as seen bellow.
Coordinates and production data were then shown in the workspace file.
Figure 11: data type setting

Figure 12: steps for data uploading

On the OFM, the uploaded data were then processed to calculate the initial reserves and recovery
factor using the JJ method. Arps Processing of production data is carried out for input to the Oil
field Manager (OFM) Software (Salih et al., 2016). Before proper forecasting was done, several
variables where calculated with the help of calculator on the menu bar of OFM in addition to
others done automatically by this software. , water cut, and WOR(water oil ratio) production rate,
oil and gas production rate and cumulative production for each were calculated.

Figure 13: OFM tool of calculation

The calculations carried out in this tool bar were automatic but some formouma were used
to calculat other variabels .
In OFM Software, a reservoir behaviour chart can be determined and production
forecasting was done for a particular period. At the home page on the tool bar, plot was used to
carry out the different production graphs. Forecast for predictions and report to show the data
used and the different results. The properties of the graph were set with the help of property on
the workspace file
Figure 14: tools for graph plotting and forecasting

Figure 15: property tool bar

The next step was to develop the field scenarios on layers. If the oil production rate in the
scenario before the forecasted period is below the economic limit, wells on that layer must be
suspended. Some conditions were set such as; if the recovery factor is small, the field
development scenario on the layer must be replaced or added so that the Recovery Factor value is
large and of course the oil production rate is above the economic limit( 10 bbl/bay). Further
explanations will be presents with results in the next chapter.
At the end of these steps, the different plots were done and proper DCA stated. OFM
software forecasting module consist of four major categories (techniques) which are; Empirical
(using Arps equations), Fetkovich, Locke & Sawyer and Analytical Transient solutions. Each
method as used in production rate plotting and the most suiting model was selected for
forecasting.

DCA principle and function.

Decline curve analyses is done after taking into consideration one basic assumption,
wherever causes controlled the train of a curve in the past will continue to govern it train in the
future in a uniform manner.(flow regime, production model, drive mechanism just to name a feu )
The major application of DCA in upstream companies today is still based on equations and
curves described by Arps. This DCA is based on the following equation;

Arps general decline eauqation for wells

Where; qi= initial rate, Di = initial decline rate and b is the degree of carvature if the line. These
values must be known in other to locatr the hyperboler in space.
From this eqauation, three other eauqtions for general DCA models of production decline
(exponential, hyperbolic and hamonic)
- For exponential decline model, the decline rate a does not varies with q; a = constant
where d = 0
Production rate q at any time
q=qi/eat= qie-at
Cumulative oil production, Np
NP=(qi-q)/a
- For harmonic decline, the decline rate a varies linearly with q; where d = 1
aq=aqi
Production rate q at any time
q=qi/(1+ait)
Cumulative oil production, Np
NP= (qi/ai)ln(qi/q)
- For hyperbolic decline model, the decline rate a varies geometrically with q i.e.; where
0<d<1
Production rate q at any time
q=qi/(1+dait)1/d
Cumulative oil production, Np

Where;
qi = initial oil production rate, stb/day
q = oil production rate, stb/day
ai = nominal decline rate,year-1
a =decline rate, year-1
md = effective decline rate, year-1
t= decline period, year
Np= cumulative oil production, stb

Inother to determin futher well performance, it is important to examine what is controling

the oil decline rate and take into consideration the following factores;
 The most representative period in hystory that will also represent future.
 The decline trend during that period.
 The start point (rate) of forcast.
 The constraints under which the forecast needs to be made.
With all this in mined, a step-by-step methodology of using Arps (1945) model equations and
stochastic (probabilistic) modelling technique are presented to predict future performance of an
oil well in a reservoir within section of the field of study(NS field). The dataset used in this study
was obtained from the NS field. The scope of this research concentrates on predicting the
performance of an oil well using decline curve analysis, performing history match to evaluate
field development strategies (scenarios) and forecasting future oil production rate of the field
from proposed development plan. The empirical equations were used to generate standard curves
to predict future oil production rates and cumulative productions at specific periods. Production
decline rate trend analysis was performed and the estimated oil productions from the model
equations were compared in terms of respective tank values. Initialization run was conducted on
the input data (models) prepared using OFM software and history matching was carried out. The
history match data file was run and certain input parameters varied. This was done to match Field
Pressure (FPR) and Field water cut (FWCT) in order to calibrate the proposed model of the field.
The parameters varied were fluid saturation, relative permeability, transmissibility and pore
volume. These parameters were varied to match FPR and FWCT of the model to the observed
history data. Finally, production forecast model and volumetric reserve model were built for the
field. The decline curve analysis and simulation technique demonstrated how the individual well
and field performance trends may be significantly analysed so as to provide detailed information
about future production rate and the remaining oil reserves. OFM software was used for
production decline analysis and estimating reserves for the field. The results obtained were
analysed, discussed and conclusions drawn.
Figure 16: Use of OFM in this study
Chapter 3: Results and interpretation
This chapter presents different results obtained using material and methods described
in the previous chapter. These will be discussed and interpreted to better understand the how
DCA can be conducted another to come out with a better forecasting of the file 0 in this our
study.

Data analyses
Importing data from googlecolab was done in other to carry out proper interpolation of
missing data. Since date time in python need to be in the form of panders time column, a library
was then uploaded to ease all function order set in the programing software. At the end of this
process, a visualisation graph to give an idea of the data nature (tendency) and probable missing
points plotted.

Table 5: Table of visualised production data

Figure 17: a plot of water and oil production agains time

 Looking at this plot, it is observed that oil priduction starts in 2008. This plot help us to
see if efectively ther is a discontinuity in the graph and beteewen 2012 and 2013 there is a
discontinuity. Then from this observation histogram plots were done to observe the type of
progression this data follows.

Figure 18: histogram plot for all production data.

This shows a normal Gousien progression from this it simple to follow a liner
interpolation to generate missing results.
Figure 19: visualisation of missing data befor interpolation

Figure 20: visualisation of missing data after interpolation of data

It is observed in figure that there are several discontinuities from average downhole
pressure to average choke size volume. These are the missing data to be interpolated. Then the
results can be observed in figure where the values have been competed . the data base is then
competed and ready to be used. It should be noted here that the interpolation was done only for
the production data needed in graph plotting the rest were calculated by OFM simulator.
Data preparation
OFM admit a fixed form of data table. The first column is always the name of the well.
This is the only line of cells that admit both numbers and letter character. Followed by date
column (day/month/year) then the rest of production data in numerical form can follow. The data
was prepared on excel.

Figure 21: data base converted and prepered in microsoft excel

The first row is the name of the data found in the column thia is what istuct OFM during
data plotting or calculations. From the first column OFM automaticaly distinguishes between the
wells and can come out with the diferent plots.OFM upload access data and excel data but it is
more practical to prepere data on excel since it is alredy predented in a table sheet. This is why
data preparation was done on excel.

Production plots and prediction

In other to understand the field nature, a base map was plotted from the coordinates
capsuled with a reservoir surface view.
WELL Bottom
NAME X Coordinates Y Coordinates Total dept Top perf perf
15/9=F-1C 1671818 392103 1756 1700 1740
15/9-F11 1671968 391668 1863 1803 1860
15/9-F-12 1670665 391073 1698 1623 1691
15/9-F-14 1672657 393075 1797 1723 1759
15/9-F-
15D 1682667 395515 1746 1699 1939
15/9-F-4 1672563 399752 1694 1650 1680
 15/9-F-5 1681648 401562 1801 1759 1790
Table 6: well coordinates

1668000 1672000 1676000 1680000 1684000 1688000

402500 402500
15/9-F-5

400000 15/9-F-4 400000

397500 397500

15/9-F-15D

395000 395000

15/9-F-14

392500 15/9=F-1C 392500

15/9-F11
15/9-F-12

390000 390000
1668000 1672000 1676000 1680000 1684000 1688000

Figure 22: grid well location

Date:01/12/2016

top_perf
1623.00 1713.00 1803.00

Figure 23: reservoir surface view

 From this plot, it is observed that the field has seven wells. The yellow color represents
exploitable reserves this implies some of the wells are either dry wells or injection wells. It can
also be observed that the reservoirs are not interconnected this could be due to some tectonic
processes from the irregular reservoir surface. The bleu sections indicts a water reservoir from
this, it is possible to have a water drive reservoir. All these are observations are possible
scenarios and it is Important to know the type of drive mechanism this will help in doing a better
and more realistic production prediction.
The plot of all production data is done so as to confirm the first observation and identify
or have an idea on fluid flow mechanism. This is not very important since OFM simulator can do
that automatically.

200000 25000000
Axis 1 15/9-F-12
160000 20000000
Oil_Production:Completion:
120000 15000000
80000 10000000
40000 5000000
0 0
2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Date
150000 25000000
120000 Axis 1 15/9-F-14 20000000
Oil_Production:Completion:
90000 15000000
60000 10000000
30000 5000000
0 0
2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Date
10000 2000000
8000 1600000
6000 1200000
Axis 1 15/9-F-5
4000 Oil_Production:Completion: 800000
2000 WAT_Production:Completion: 400000
0 0
2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Date

Figure 24: multipl production of all wells

Out of the feven wells shown in the grid map, only tree presents production data. The
tables and the gas production data will be presented in the index. From this, it can then be
concluded that our field of study comprises tree production wells the four authers could be
injection wells to improve in the production rate. It is also observed that production stoped in
midel 2012 then resum with a high watwer production hence possible waterflodding (secondary
recovery). In other to sertify this hipotheses, a dounhold presur and themperature grahpe was
plotted for confermation analysis.
It should be noted that in this analysis a particouler forcost was based on well 15/f9-14 for
the other two production wells, they will be presented on the index. This is so in other to avoid
futher repitation and help understand better how forcasting results could be analysed using OFM
sorfwear and also to limit the bolck or voluminus work

15/9-F-14
10000
15/9-F-14
DOWNHOLE_PRESSURE_Avg
DOWNHOLE_TEMPERATURE_Avg
8000

6000

4000

2000

0
2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Date

Figure 25: downhole pressure and temperature plot

Generally , downhole pressur decreses throug out production due to decress in reservoir
fluid, permeability disturtion (deu to fracture narrowing or formation of asphalts) or wellbore
reservoir damage. This greatly afect production hence need for workover to improve the
production or just tu shrtoff the reservoir for huldup bottomn hole pressur. At the end of all thes
processes, oil production is set and a pick of production and borehold pressur will be observed.
In this gragp, after surting the well in 2012, it is observed that production and bourhold
pressur climes sharply but downhole pressur continur to incres. From this observation, it can then
be concluded that the other wells are injection wells and the type of EOR waterfooding.

Determining best forecasting model

OFM shows four technics of forecasting that is; Empirical (using Arps equations),
Fetkovich Locke & Sawyer and Analytical Transient solutions. There are two main ways of
determining best forecasting:
  The first way was plotting using the different technics of OFM. the results of
alignment after matching the different models (exponential, harmonic and
hyperbolic) observed. From the table generated, the best R2 value (closes to 1) the
model of DCA could be selected. Since the decline was observed to be a gosean
normal progression, empirical models were used ( Arps and Fetkovich)

Figure 26: Fetkovich decline technic

 15/9-F-14
10000 Rate-Time Decline Analysis
Working forecast Parameters
Phase : Oil
Case Name : Case1
b :0
Di : 0.0422101 M.n.
1000 qi : 42.7742
ti : 12/31/2012
te : 11/30/2015
Final Rate : 9.78061
Cum. Prod. : 3942.27
OIL_rate

Cum. Date : 07/31/2016

100 Reserves :0
Reserves Date : 11/30/2015
EUR : 3942.27
Forecast Ended By : Rate
DB Forecast Date : 06/24/2021
Reserve Type : None
10

1
2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Date

Figure 27: Arps decline technic

From the graph properties, they are similar but Arps model matches best.
 the second method was just to set in properties auto-matching this will
automatically select the best technic and model that suit to the data uploaded and
the outcome model and technique is exponential Arps model.
Table7: Arps historical regression

The same graph as in figure was observed and from the table generated, an R 2 value of
90.42% realized.
From this observation WOR (water oil ratio), Watercut, production rate (of oil, gas and
water), cumulative production rate (of oil, gas and water) and oil rate so as to do a realistic field
production from true conditions.
 15/9-F-14
750000000 Rate-Time Decline Analysis

600000000 Case Name : Case1

Slope : 895367
Intercept : -2.83513e+009
Start WCT : 7.12123e+008
End WCT : 95
450000000
Cum_Wat

Cum. Prod. : 3942.27

Reserves : 0
EUR : 3942.27

300000000

150000000

0
0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000
Cum_Oil

Figure 28: Water cut

Table 8: Calculated water cut from OFM

 A plot of water oil ratio (WOR) against cumulative oil is a straight line in a semi-log plot
for strong water drive reservoirs or reservoirs that are water flooded. This WOR plot can only be
applicable for DCA for higher water saturation scenario that is higher water cut, considering
operating conditions remain unchanged. This plot is often used for well DCA to cross-check the
reserves of an individual well with conventional decline curve analysis at the same limiting oil
production. However, WOR analysis should be used with extreme caution at a group level and
only usefull for fully developed reservoir with all wells producing at similar level of water cut
One of the major challenges while conducting well DCA is for wells with no historical decline
trend. Best practice is of using type curves for wells with insufficient historical production or no
decline trend. Type curves should be based upon analogue wells, reservoir simulation forecast
and analytical calculation. For this case, the time from which well will start decline always
subject to uncertainty and to be judged based on analogue well ple1atue period, remaining
reserves and cumulative water injection volume for water flood reservoirs. In some cases, group
decline from the sector in which well belong to also imposed for forecasting well production with
no historical decline.
Reservoir production with high watercut, high GOR need to be analysed using ratio plots
in conjunction with conventional plots to ensure there is no overestimation of volumes based on
rate plots only( Log WOR vs Np, Log GOR vs Np, Watercut vs Np). care needs to be taken to
understand the minimum criterion for applying this plots. But Log WOR vs Np can only be used if
WOR is equal to or greater than one (water cut is equal to or greater than 50%.).
Rate-Time Decline Analysis
2 15/9-F-14
10

1
10

0
10

-1
10
WOR

-2
10
Case Name : Case1
Slope : 0.000545113
-3 Intercept : 7.93968e-005
10 Start WOR : 0.0754148
End WOR : 19
Cum. Prod. : 3942.27
-4
10 Reserves : 4405.14
EUR : 8347.41

-5
10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Cum_Oil

Figure 29: WOR rate forcast

Table 9: Historical regression calculated by OFM

Table 10: Forecasting of WOR

 After using data collected from the field and hence applied the decline curve
analysis methods here enclose is the concise of the type of decline curve analysis model is set, the
hypothesis proven and hence forecasting can start.

Production Forecast
It is important to have in mind in this study that the data used arise from a field which had
competed its life cycle. Hence forecasting based the concepts of reservoirs conditions that could
influence production could be observed.

10000 15/9-F-12
Rate-Time Decline Analysis

1000

Working forecast Parameters

OIL_rate

100 Phase : Oil

Case Name : Case1
b : 0.553642
Di : 0.0383813 M.n.
10 qi : 46.5484
ti : 12/31/2012
te : 04/30/2018
Final Rate : 9.88139
1 Cum. Prod. : 4579.62
2008
Cum. Date09 10
: 08/31/201611 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Reserves : 7.16864 Date
Figure 30: Oil face Reserves Date : 04/30/2018
forecasting
EUR : 4586.79
The lightForecast
blue Ended
curveBy : bellow
Rate the dotted graph is the oil forecast. The key shows basic
information about DBthe
Forecast Date but
graph : 06/22/2021
would be better explained using the table of results generated by
OFM simulator. It Reserve Type
is observed : None
from the graph that the forecast goes until early 2018.
Table 1: Set variables for the oil face forecasting

Initial decline Di was calculated for the wells and varies between 0.03-0.556M.n., an initial oil
production rate of 46.5484 bbl/day, period of forcastiog 12/31/2012-04/30/2018 and the
economic limite set to be 10bbl/day.

Table 12: Results of the forecast

On this table (table 12), are observed the results of the forecast. The table contrarily to the
graph presents ending production on 2016 this is so because it take into consideration economic
limit set for this study. EUR is 41.294bbl and total recoverable 34.125.
 The negative sign on the difference compared to actual in the red cycle on table 12 is due
to the fact that in the forecast study, the years considered did not start from the beginning of
production that is from 2008. This omission was done in other to be sure our forecasting stat from
a stable production rate hence increases chances of attaining the Absolut zero in errors.
The blue cycle on the same table shows monthly results of the forecast and it was
observed when economic limit is attained, the average rate becomes negative and initial rate too.
Generally, the negative singe in rate is to show direction (opposite that set to be the normal flow)
but in this case, it mine one is ripping from a dry reservoir which is not possible.
After comparison of actual field data to that forecasted, the results shows a percentage
alignment of 92.4%. Perhaps the 100% could be achieved if workover activities were added in
the forecast.
Conclusion
As a rundown of this work, the study aimed at investigating the influence of reservoir
conditions on production forecasting. A literature review of methods of forcasting was first
studied, then Arps model and different types of DCAs recalled.
After compaiting the results to that of previos works in the same field with the same
sorftwear, it is obsedved that there is and improvement of 6% from 86% satisfaction optained in
this srudy to the 92% observed here. It there by implys that if one could assochiet further
reservoir paramethers to the forcast, it will be possible to incloud workover activities to theis
forcast and even have an apersu of the probelems to solve even befor it arrises. This will be a
revolution in ths minimg field and this will mark and end to all oil field desasters like cick,
blowout or even wrong EOR.

Future work
In upcoming studies , we will try to see the correlation between physical properties of an
oil field reservoir and Arps equations so as to develop a new model for forecasting
Implement this method of forecasting in machine learning .so as to greatly reduce risk of
errors.
Index
Activities performed by OFM
OFM work sheet

OFM work sheet

Data importation on OFM

Calculated vareables on OFM
Tables and graphs of production wells Feckovish forecasting on OFM

Working forecast Parameters

15/9-F-14 Phase : Oil
1000 Rate-Time Decline Analysis
Case Name : Case1
b :
Di :
100 qi :0
ti :
te :
Oil Rate (Dimensionless)

Final Rate :0
10 Cum. Prod. : 3942.27
Cum. Date : 07/31/2016
Reserves :0
1 Reserves Date : N/A
EUR : 3942.27
Forecast Ended By : Time
Initial Date : 01/31/2008
0.1 DB Forecast Date : 06/24/2021
Reserve Type :

0.01

0.001 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time (Dimensionless)
 Working forecast Parameters
15/9-F-5 Phase : Oil
1000 Rate-Time Decline Analysis Case Name : Case1
b :
Di :
qi :0
100
ti :
te :
Final Rate :0
Oil Rate (Dimensionless)

Cum. Prod. : 41.163

10 Cum. Date : 08/31/2016
Reserves :0
Reserves Date : N/A
EUR : 41.163
1 Forecast Ended By : Time
Initial Date : 08/31/2007
DB Forecast Date : 06/21/2021
Reserve Type :
0.1

0.01

0.001 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time (Dimensionless)
Tables and graphs for production well forcasting

15/9-F-5
1000 Rate-Time Decline Analysis
Working forecast Parameters
500 Phase : Oil
Case Name : Case1
b :0
Di : 0.0146132 M.n.
qi : 288.032
ti : 12/31/2012
100 te : 03/31/2032
Final Rate : 9.85454
Cum. Prod. : 41.163
OIL_rate

50
Cum. Date : 08/31/2016
Reserves : 294.912
Reserves Date : 03/31/2032
EUR : 336.075
Forecast Ended By : Rate
10 DB Forecast Date : 06/21/2021
Reserve Type : None
5

1
200708 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Date
 15/9-F-14
10000 Rate-Time Decline Analysis
Working forecast Parameters
Phase : Oil
Case Name : Case1
b :0
Di : 0.0422101 M.n.
1000 qi : 42.7742
ti : 12/31/2012
te : 11/30/2015
Final Rate : 9.78061
Cum. Prod. : 3942.27
OIL_rate

Cum. Date : 07/31/2016

100 Reserves :0
Reserves Date : 11/30/2015
EUR : 3942.27
Forecast Ended By : Rate
DB Forecast Date : 06/24/2021
Reserve Type : None
10

1
2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Date
Refrences
H. M, D. S, T. X and J. S, "Decline and depletion rates of oil production: a comprehensive
investigation," Philosophical transactions of the royal society, p. 0448, 2014.
International Energy Agency, "World energy outlook," 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.
worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/2008-1994/.
S. A, I. GM and B. JL, Practical enhanced reservoir engineering, Tulsa: Pennwell Books, 2008.
T. E, G. A, G. C. C and P. S. D, "Enhanced Oil Recovery using Carbon Dioxide in the European
Energy System," European Commission Joint Research Center.
R. Amit, "Petroleum reservoir exploitation: switching from primary to secondary recovery,"
Oper. Res, vol. 34, pp. 534-549, 1986.
A. Muggeridge, A. Cockin, K. Webb, H. Frampton, I. Collins, T. Moulds and P. Salino,
"Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits," Phil. Trans. R. Soc, vol. A 372,
2014.
H. M, . S. B, . J. K and A. K, " The evolution of giant oil field production behaviour," Natural
Resources Research, vol. 18, no. March, pp. 39-56, 2009.
M. Höök, "Depletion rate analysis of fields and regions: A methodological foundation," Fuel,
vol. 121, pp. 95-108, 2014.
S. W. a. P. B. D. Poston, Analysis of Production Decline Curves, Richardson: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 2007.
H. Slider, Worldwide Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Methods, Pennwell Publishing
Company, 1983.
Arps and J. J, "Analysis of Decline Curves," Transactions of the American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, pp. 160,228-247, 1945.
A. A. Hamouda, "Production Technology," Stavanger, 2015.
A. J. Clark, Decline Curve Analysis in Unconventional Resource Play using Logistic Growth
Models, The University Texas at Austin, 2011.
L. Lund, "Decline Curve Analysis of Shale Oil Production," Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, 2014.
D. A. (. A. I. L. Mattar, "A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced Analysis
of Production Data," in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
2003.
Freeborn, R. and Russell, B., 2012. How To Apply Stretched Exponential Equations to Reserve
Evaluation. Paper SPE-162631-MS presented at the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation
Symposium. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 24-25 September 2012.
Lee, W.J. and Sidle, R.E., 2010. Gas Reserves Estimation in Resource Plays. Paper SPE 130102
presented at the 2010 SPE Unconventional Reservoir Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 23-25
February.
Lee, W.J., 2012, Estimating Reserves in unconventionalResources, Unpublished SPE Webinar
Notes, 23 February.
Valko, P.P., Assigning Value to stimulation in the barnett Shale: A simultaneous Analysis of
7000 Plus Productio Histories and Well Completion mrecords, SPE 119369 presented at 2009
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 19-21 January 2009.
The Practice of Decline Curve Analysis by Purvis, SPE-179979-MS, 2016
Decline Curve Analysis using Type curves by Fetkovich, SPE-13169-PA, 1987
Therotical basis of Arps empirical decline Curves by Kegang Ling, SPE-161767-MS, 2012
Decline Curve Analysis for Production Forecasting Based on Machine Learnings by Yunan Li,
SPE-189205-MS, 2017
Tectics and Pitfalls in Production Decline Curve Analysis by Kegang Ling, SPE-164503-MS,
2013
Blasingame, R. McClay and Palicio J. (1989). Rate Integral Function and Rate Integral
Derivatives Function Types Curve Analysis, Journal of Petroleum Technology.
Fetkovich, M.J. (1984). Advanced Decline Curve Analysis Approach, Journal of Petroleum
Technology.
Salih, O. A. N., Tantawy, M., ELayouty, S., & Abd hady, A. (2016). Oil reserves evaluation and
field development plan of hakim oil field in Libya. Journal of Petroleum and Mining
Engineering, 18(1), 39-53.
Ahmed, R., & Hasan, M. A. (2018). Evaluation of well performance of titas gas field by
decline curve analysis using type curves. Journal of Nature Science and Sustainable
Technology, 12(2), 89-196.