© IPA, 2011 - 30th Annual Convention Proceedings (Volume 2), 2005

IPA05-E-128

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirtieth Annual Convention & Exhibition, August 2005

CHARACTERIZATION OF GAS RESERVOIRS USING PRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS -

PRE-TERTIARY BASEMENT GAS RESERVOIR, SOUTH SUMATRA, INDONESIA

Helmi Pratikno*
Teddy H. Komaroedin*
Taufan Marhaendrajana**

ABSTRACT pressure data as a function of time simply cannot be

This paper presents a field case history of the
integrated analysis and interpretation developed using
continuously measured rate from production ticket
and surface pressure and static reservoir pressure data
from pre-tertiary basement gas reservoir in South
Sumatra, Indonesia. The primary objective of this
work is to estimate areal distributions of flow
properties (effective permeability and skin factor) as
well as "volumetric" properties (original gas in place,
gas reserves and reservoir drainage area – per well
basis). The outcomes are then used to evaluate the
effectiveness of well spacing and to identify
additional potential area for infill well.
Throughout this study, a type curve approach is used
to analyze production data, which enable us to
perform real-time evaluation and monitoring of the
well performance. This approach is cross-validated
with conventional material balance analysis.
Combination of the two analyses should provide more
consistent results for characterizing the pre-tertiary
basement gas reservoir. In addition, the evaluation of
production data can identify the occurrence of
possible well interference.
INTRODUCTION
In most cases, production rate and pressure data might
be the only data available in any significant quantity,
particularly for older wells and marginally economic
wells where both the quantity and quality of any of
data are limited. The production data more likely
represent the true response from reservoir. Therefore,
characterization of reservoir behavior using rate and
* ConocoPhillips Indonesia, Ltd.
** Institute Technology Bandung
overlooked.
Production data analysis has been initiated in 1940
where Arps introduced his work, a compilation of
empirical results including the exponential,
hyperbolic, and harmonic rate decline relations. The
use of type curves - dimensionless rate solution
plotted on a scaled graph - for analysis of production
data was introduced by Slider (1968) and Gentry
(1972).
In 1980, Fetkovich addressed his significant work in
development of type curve by plotting his unified
exponential decline solution simultaneously with the
Arps hyperbolic decline stems. This type curve is
then called "Fetkovich" type curve, which provides
for the simultaneous analysis of production data
during transient and boundary-dominated flow
conditions.
The depletion of a closed real gas reservoir can be
expressed as an exponential decline (b=0) if a
normalized time is used, as described by Fraim and
Wattenbarger (1985).
McCray (1990) introduced the so-called "Fetkovich-
McCray" type curve format by proposing auxiliary
decline type curve variables i.e., the dimensionless
rate integral and rate integral-derivative functions to
present data function with better resolution, as well as
to account for variable-rate/variable pressure drop
conditions. The use of this decline type curve for the
analysis of production data is demonstrated in
references.
In addition, Blasingame (1994-1996) introduced the
dimensionless rate derivative function.
Unfortunately, Blasingame does not expect

81
dimensionless rate derivative function to be of much
use in the analysis of production data due to the
volume of random error found in production data,
where these random errors will only be magnified by
the differentiation process.
APPLICATION OF GAS PRODUCTION DATA
USING TYPE CURVES
We present the procedure and application of the
Fetkovich-McCray type curves (Figure 1) for rate-
time production analysis. Particularly this study is
tailored to the case of vertical well centered in a
bounded circular reservoir. Procedures for applying
the decline type curve analysis for this case are given
below. While the working analysis relations are
summarized in later section.
Type Curve Matching Procedure
1. Assemble the gas production (MSCF/D) and
bottomhole pressure (psia) data versus time (in
days). The material balance pseudotime function
(Fraim and Wattenbarger (1985)) is given by:
µ gi c gi t
∫ 0 µ ( p ) c ( p ) dτ
qg (τ )
ta =
qg (t ) g g
2. Compute the pressure drop normalized rate, rate
integral, and rate integral-derivative functions.
The pressure drop normalized rate function is
given by:
qg / ∆pp = qg / ( ppi − ppwf )
the appropriate Fetkovich-McCray format type
curve: (in our case, vertical well)
a. (q g / ∆pp ) versus ta
b. (q g / ∆pp ) i versus ta
c. (q g / ∆pp) id versus ta
4. We now "force" match the depletion data trends
onto the Arps b=1 (harmonic) stems for each of
the Fetkovich-McCray style type curves being
used: qDd, qDdi, and qDdid.
Once a "match" is obtained, we record the "time"
and "rate" axis match points as well as the reD
transient flow stem. Recall that for this case, reD
= re/rwa.
a. Rate-axis "Match Point:"
Any (q ∆p ) MP − (qDd ) MP pair
b. Time-axis "Match Point:"
Any (t ) MP − (t Dd ) MP pair
c. Transient flow stem: (reD)
Select the ( q ∆p ) , ( q ∆p ) i , and ( q ∆p ) id
(1) functions that best match the transient data
stems.
d. Calculate/estimate the bpss value using Eq. 5.
Estimation of Reservoir Properties
Using the results of the "match point," we can
estimate the following reservoir properties:
(2)
• Pseudosteady-State Flow Constant:

The pressure drop normalized rate integral (qDd ) MP

function is given as: b pss = (5)
(q g /∆pp ) MP
1 ta qg
(q g / ∆pp ) i =
∫
t a 0 ∆pp
dτ (3) • Original volume-in-place:

1 (ta ) MP (q g /∆pp ) MP
The pressure drop normalized rate integral- G= (6)
cgi (t Dd ) MP (qDd ) MP
derivative function is given by:

d
(qg /∆pp ) id =
dln(t a )
[
(qg /∆pp )i = −]1 d
ta dta
[ ]
(qg /∆pp )i • Reservoir drainage area:

(4) GBgi
3. The following data functions are plotted on a A = 5.6148 (7)
scaled log-log grid for type curve matching using φh(1 − S wirr )

82
• Reservoir drainage radius:
re = A/π
• Effective wellbore radius:
r • Transient stem match, reD = re/rwa, and
rwa = e
reD
• Formation gas permeability: (effective
permeability)
B gi µ gi 1 ⎡ 4 A ⎤ ⎡ (q g / ∆pp ) MP ⎤
k g = 141.2 ln ⎢ 2 ⎥⎢
h 2 ⎣ e γ C A rwa ⎦ ⎣ (q Dd ) MP ⎦
• Radial flow skin factor:
⎡r ⎤
s = ln ⎢ w a ⎥
⎣ rw ⎦
Data Requirements and Analysis Procedure
We provide the overall procedures that are used to
analyze and interpret production well performance
data. These procedures are:
1. Verification of pertinent rock, fluid, and
completion data using available field records and
fluid property correlations. The data required for
the analysis include:
• Viscosity at pi, µgi
• Fluid compressibility at pi, cgi (or cti, if used)
• Formation volume factor at pi, Bgi
• Wellbore radius, rw
• Porosity, φ
• Net pay or production interval, h
• Irreducible water saturation, Swirr
2. Initial screening of field production data using
Cartesian, semilog, and log-log plots:
• Identify errors or anomalies in the production
data.
• Identify changes in the operational practices.
3. Perform type curve analysis using the Fetkovich-
McCray decline type curve to determine the time
(8) and rate match points — as well as the transient
stem match (i.e., reD). These match points are
then used to estimate the following:
• Total system volume for production, G
(9)
• Pseudosteady-state flow constant, bpss.
These results are then used to estimate the
reservoir drainage area, formation permeability,
and the near-well skin factor.
⎥ 4. To estimate the gas reserves, Gp,res, at current
producing conditions, we use the following
approach:
(10)
• Plot (qg/∆pp), versus cumulative gas produc-
tion, Gp, and extrapolate to (qg/∆pp) = 0.
(11)
To make brief and concise example calculations will
be given for well 1 and 10.
Fluid Properties and Production Data
Reservoir Properties:
Wellbore radius, rw = 0.30 ft
Est. net pay thickness, h = 351 ft
Ave. porosity, φ = 0.15 fraction
Ave. irred. water sat., Swirr = 0.40 fraction
Fluid Properties: (γg=0.86 (air=1), T=286 deg F)
Gas form. vol. factor at pi, Bgi = 1.241 RB/MSCF
Gas viscosity at pi, µgi = 0.0208 cp
Gas compressibility at pi, cgi = 3.203x10-4 psi-1
Production Parameters:
Initial reservoir pressure, pi ≈ 2,822 psia
Material Balance Analysis
Figures 2 and 7 show plots of semilog rate and
Cartesian production pressure history versus time.
The production data show generally well behaved and
correlated. All wells has been started to produce at
the same time and has been on production to date for
about 2,300 days or 6.4 years. The cumulative
83
production of the field as of December 2004 is 397 Pseudosteady-State Flow Constant
BSCF.
(qDd ) MP
Data Function Analysis b pss = (5)
(q g /∆pp ) MP
Figures 3 and 8 show the normalized rate function, 1
b pss = = 7.95 x10 − 3 psi/MSCF/D
(qg/∆pp), versus the material balance pseudotime (126 MSCF/D/psi)
function which have been calculated using Eqs. 1 and
2, respectively. In this figure we note that production
data have been refined to eliminate transient data Gas-in-Place
"spikes" which result from major transient in the rate
history (e.g., recovery after shut-in due to workover
or well service).
1 (t a ) MP (q g /∆pp ) MP
G= (6)
Figures 4 and 9 shows the rate, (qg/∆pp), rate integral, ct (t Dd ) MP (q Dd ) MP
(qg/∆pp)i, and rate integral-derivative, (qg/∆pp)id 1 (433 days) (126 MSCF/D/psi)
functions versus the material balance pseudotime G= −4 -1
(3.203x10 psi ) 1 1
function which have been calculated using Eqs. 3 and
4, respectively. From this figure we clearly note a = 1.70 x10 8 MSCF
linear trend predicted by material balance. = 170 BSCF

Decline Type Curve Analysis Results

Reservoir Drainage Area
We match the rate function (qg/∆pp), the rate integral
function (qg/∆pp)i, and the rate integral-derivative
function (qg/∆pp)id — which are plotted versus the GB gi
material balance pseudotime function, t , on the A = 5.6148 (7)
Fetkovich-McCray type curve for a vertical well
φh(1 − S wirr )
centered in a bounded circular reservoir for all wells (1.70x10 8 MSCF) (1.241 RB/MSCF)
(Figures 5 and 10). The three rate functions are A = 5.6148
(0.15) (351 ft) (1 − 0.40)
"forced matched" on the Arps b=1 (harmonic) decline
stem (at late times) as this behavior is required by = 37,461,600 ft 2 = 860 acres
pseudosteady-state theory. After we complete the
matching process, we then obtain the match points
from the data/type curve overlay. Reservoir Drainage Radius

The production rate and pressure history provide

strong evidence of boundary-dominated flow re = A/π (8)
behavior. As such, we obtained good matches of the
data for all wells on the depletion stem as well as re = (37,461,60 0 ft 2 )/π = 3,453 ft
unique matches on the transient stem for reD values.
The type curve matching parameters are summarized
in Table 1. Using reD and the time and rate match
points, we then estimate gas-in-place, reservoir Effective Wellbore Radius
drainage area, effective permeability to gas, and the
skin factor. re
rwa = (9)
Calculations reD

Example calculation will be given using Well 1 and

3,453 ft
summary of calculation for other wells can be seen in rwa = = 21.58 ft
Table 2. 160

84
Effective Gas Permeability factor) and wellbore flowing pressure (recorded or
computed from wellhead pressure) using
Bgi µ gi 1 ⎡ 4 A ⎤ ⎡ (q g/ ∆pp ) MP ⎤ pseudosteady-state equation. Then p/z by well can be
k g = 141.2 ln ⎢ 2 ⎥⎢ ⎥ (10) generated from which initial gas-in-place by well is
h 2 ⎣ eγ C A rwa ⎦ ⎣ (q Dd ) MP ⎦ obtained. Both the decline type curve and p/z by well
methods are used iteratively so that the two methods
(1.241 RB/MSCF)(0.0208 cp) yield the same initial gas-in-place. Although, the
k g = 70.6 ×
(531 ft) decline type curve method can be used independently,
⎡ (4)(37,461,600 ft 2 ) ⎤ ⎡ (126 MSCF/D/psi) ⎤ the iterative process provides a quality control of the
ln ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ decline type curve matching.
⎣ (1.871)(31.62)(21.58 ft) ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦
Results in this paper show that gas-in-place from the
k g = 5.98 md three methods above yield closely similar number
with each other. Therefore, decline type curve
Radial Flow Skin Factor: independently or together with p/z by well can be
utilized to estimate gas-in-place without shutting the
The pseudoradial flow skin factor is estimated as wells in.
follows:

⎡r ⎤ Reservoir Characterization
s = ln ⎢ w a ⎥ (11)
⎣ rw ⎦
Summary of the results are included in Table 2 and
⎡ 21 .58 ft ⎤ shown graphically in Figure 13 for drainage area.
s = ln ⎢ = −4.30
⎣ 0.3 ft ⎥⎦ This figure shows that the drainage areas of some
wells overlap each other, which may indicate well-to-
Summary of Results: well interference. From our perspective, this figure
only shows a simplified visualization of individual
Gcgi = 54,464 MSCF/psi kgh = 2,101 md-ft well drainage areas, assuming a circular shape. The
G = 170 BSCF kg = 5.99 md decline type-curve analyses of all wells in this field
A = 860 acres s = - 4.30 do not show an indication of well interference
re = 3,453 ft (deviation of late material balance line from early
material balance line) as suggested by
Complete of calculation results for other wells are Marhaendrajana et al. (2001). The overlapping well
summarized in Table 2. drainage areas in Figure 13 is due to the limitation of
the decline type curve method, which cannot give
information about the orientation of the drainage area.
SUMMARY DISCUSSION

We estimate the gas-in-place, G, using type curve CONCLUSIONS

approach (Figures 5 and 10), p/z by well (Figures 6
and 11), and p/z by field method (Figure 12). Please
note that p/z by field method requires shut-in well to
obtain equilibrium reservoir pressure, whereas, p/z by
well method can be estimated using daily production
and pressure data without having to shut the well in.
The results of these methods are summarized in
Table 3. p/z by well method is a relatively a new
approach. This is not a stand-alone method, but is
used together with the decline type curve approach.
Average pressure of well drainage area is
reconstructed from the computed reservoir/well
parameters (permeability, drainage area and skin
The following conclusions are derived from this
study:
1. We have successfully characterized pre-tertiary
basement reservoir by analyzing production data
using type curve approach, which enabled us to
perform real-time evaluation and monitoring of
the well performance.
2. This type curves approach can be applied to
analyze and interpret production data from a
vertical well to estimate the following:

85
 • Volume of in-place fluids, Constants
• Reservoir drainage area, and
• Formation permeability. π = circumference to diameter ratio,
3.1415926…
γ = Euler’s constant, 0.577216…
3. The calculation of gas-in-place using type curve
approach and p/z by well method yield acceptable Subscripts
results with one calculated from material balance
p/z by field using shut-in bottom hole pressure Dd = dimensionless decline variable
data. Therefore, p/z by well from production data g = gas
can be used to estimate gas-in-place without i = integral function
shutting the wells in. id = integral-derivative function

Recommendation for Future Study ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We suggest comparing this study using pressure We acknowledge the permission from BP Migas,
transient analysis to characterize the reservoir. ConocoPhillips Indonesia and, Talisman Asia to
publish field data.

NOMENCLATURE
REFERENCES
Dimensionless Variables (Real Domain)
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W.,
qDd = dimensionless decline rate function and Fussell, D.D., 1989. Analyzing Well Production
qDdi = dimensionless decline rate integral function Data Using Combined Type Curve and Decline Curve
qDdid = dimensionless decline rate integral- Analysis Concepts, paper SPE 49222 prepared for
derivative function presentation at the SPE ATCE, New Orleans, LA, 27-
rD = re/rwa dimensionless radius 30 September.
reD = dimensionless drainage radius of reservoir
tD = dimensionless time based on wellbore Arps, J.J., 1945. Analysis of Decline Curves, Trans.,
radius AIME , 160, p. 228-247.

Doublet, L.E. and Blasingame, T.A. 1996. Evaluation

Field Variables of Injection Well Performance Using Decline Type
Curves, paper SPE 35205 presented at SPE Permian
Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland,
φ = porosity, fraction TX, 27-29 March.
µ = viscosity, cp
ct = total compressibility, 1/psi
G = gas in place, MSCF Doublet, L.E., Pande, P.K., McCollum, T.J., and
Gp = cumulative gas production, MSCF/D Blasingame, T.A., 1994. Decline Curve Analysis
h = net thickness, ft Using Type Curves - Analysis of Oil Well Production
k = permeability, md Data Using Material Balance Time: Application to
pi = initial pressure, psia Field Cases, paper SPE 28688 presented at Petroleum
ppi = initial pseudopressure, psia Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in
q = production rate from reservoir, (MSCF/D) Veracruz, Mexico, 10-13 October.
re = drainage radius, ft
rwa = effective wellbore radius, ft
s = skin factor Fetkovich, M.J., et al., 1987. Decline Curve Analysis
t = material balance time, day Using Type - Case Histories, SPEFE, December, p.
ta = material balance pseudotime, day 637-656.

86
Fetkovich, M.J., 1980. Decline Curve Analysis Using
Type Curves, JPT, p. 1065-1077.
Fraim, M.L. and Wattenbarger, R.A., 1985. Gas
Reservoir Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type
Curves With Real Gas Pseudopressure and
Normalized Time, paper SPE 14238 first presented at
SPE ATCE, Las Vegas, CA, 22-25 September.
Gentry, R.W., 1972. Decline-Curve Analysis, JPT, p.
38-41.
Marhaendrajana, T. and Blasingame, T.A., 2001.
Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves -
Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a
Multiwell Reservoir System, Paper SPE 71517
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30
September - 3 October.
McCray, T.L., 1990. Reservoir Analysis Using
Production Decline Data and Adjusted Time, M.S.
Thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station, TX.
Palacio, J.C. and Blasingame, T.A., 1993. Decline
Curve Analysis Using Type Curves - Analysis of Gas
Well Production Data, paper SPE 25909 presented at
Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, 26-28 April.
Slider, H.C. 1968. A Simplified Method of
Hyperbolic Decline Curve Analysis, JPT, p. 235-236.
87
 TABLE 1

TYPE CURVE MATCHING PARAMETERS

Type Curve Match: Fetkovich-McCray rate versus

material balance time decline type curve for an unfrac-
tured well centered in a bounded circular reservoir.

Transient Match Points

Matching (tDd)MP = 1.0; (qDd)MP = 1.0
Parameter (t a ) MP (qg/∆pp)MP
Well reD (days) (MSCF/D/psi)
1 160 433 126
2 4 117 560
3 10,000 158 91
4 160 169 313
5 48 268 317
7 160 534 88
8 160 248 178
9 800 38 2,973
10 18 531 88

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF TYPE CURVES CALCULATION RESULTS

Variable Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10

Volumetric Behavior:
Total system volume/avg. total
54,464 65,551 14,274 52,898 84,785 46,882 44,114 111,919 46,797
compressibility product, Gct, MSCF/psi
Total system volume for gas
170 205 46 165 265 146 138 349 146
production, G, BSCF

Drainage area, A, acres 860 1,035 225 836 1,339 741 697 1,768 739

Effective drainage radius, re, ft 3,453 3,789 1,768 3,404 4,309 3,204 3,108 4,951 3,202

Transient Behavior:

Effective gas permeability-thickness

2,101 1,813 2,881 5,235 3,896 1,467 2,975 67,116 769
product, kgh, md-ft

Effective gas permeability, kg, md 5.99 5.17 8.21 14.91 11.10 4.18 8.47 191.18 2.19

Radial skin factor, s -4.30 -8.09 0.50 -4.29 -5.73 -4.23 -4.20 -3.05 -6.41

88
 TABLE 3

EUR AND GAS-IN-PLACE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS

Gas-in-Place, BSCF
Type P/z P/z
Well
Curve by Well by Field
1 170 170
2 205 204
3 46 41
4 165 165
5 265 266
7 146 142
8 138 139
9 349 349
10 146 148
1,630 1,624 1,650

Figure 1 - Fetkovich-McCray decline type curve — rate versus material balance time format for a vertical well.

89
 Figure 2 - Semilog rate and Cartesian production pressure versus time — Well 1.

Figure 3 - Pseudopressure drop normalized rate function (with transient "spikes" edited — "data edit plot")
versus material balance pseudotime function — Well 1.

90
Figure 4 - Pseudopressure drop normalized rate, integral, and integral-derivative functions versus material
balance pseudotime function — Well 1.

Figure 5 - Match of production data for Well 1 on the Fetkovich-McCray decline type curve (pseudopressure
drop normalized rate versus material balance time format) for a vertical well.

91
Figure 6 - p/z versus cumulative production, extrapolation yields original gas-in-place per well basis —
Well 1.

Figure 7 - Semilog rate and Cartesian production pressure versus time — Well 10.

92
Figure 8 - Pseudopressure drop normalized rate function (with transient "spikes" edited — "data edit plot")
versus material balance pseudotime function — Well 10.

Figure 9 - Pseudopressure drop normalized rate, integral, and integral-derivative functions versus material
balance pseudotime function — Well 10.

93
Figure 10 - Match of production data for Well 10 on the Fetkovich-McCray decline type curve (pseudopressure
drop normalized rate versus material balance time format) for a vertical well.

Figure 11 - p/z versus cumulative production, extrapolation yields original gas-in-place per well basis —
Well 10.

94
Figure 12 - p/z versus cumulative production, extrapolation yields original gas-in-place — all wells.

Pre-Tertiery Basement Reservoir, S. Sumatra - Indonesia

6000

Well-3
5000
Well-4

Well-8
Distance Between Wells, m

4000 Well-10
Well-7

3000 Well-9
Well-2

2000 Well-5

Well-1

1000

Well-6

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Distance Between Wells, m

Figure 13 - Distribution map of drainage area, assuming well center in a bounded circular area.

95