SPE 125031

SPE 125031
Decline Curve Analysis for HP/HT Gas Wells: Theory and Applications
D. Ilk, Texas A&M University, J.A. Rushing, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., and
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
This work formalizes the Arps' D and b-parameters using a semi-analytical flow relation for a well produced at a constant
bottomhole pressure in an HP/HT reservoir. The semi-analytical formulation is given in rate-time and rate-cumulative forms,
and the definitions of the D and b-parameters are derived directly from the semi-analytical form.
The rationale for this work is the over-dependence that many analysts place on the Arps' D and b-formulations (i.e., the
original hyperbolic rate-time model), tuned to specific (i.e., constant) values of the D and b-parameters. The purpose of this
paper is to establish guidelines for reserve estimations and for production extrapolations in general. The relations developed
in this work can be applied to a number of different HP/HT tight gas and shale gas field cases — in this work we validate our
proposed procedure with a simulated example and we apply the methodology to a fractured gas well in an HP/HT reservoir.
A comprehensive workflow is provided, as well as the relevant details/formulations of the analytical flow solution for HP/HT
gas cases. We also provide decline curve plots/plotting functions to yield reserve estimates and production extrapolations.
Introduction
Unconventional gas resources comprise a very important share of the domestic natural gas resource base and offer
tremendous potential for future reserve and production growth. Unconventional gas resources — in particular, tight gas
sands — are characterized by very-low/low permeability and low porosity reservoir properties. And as the natural gas
industry continues to explore for more resources, exploration and development activities extend to much greater depths.
These depths exceed 15,000 ft and are approaching to 25,000 ft. The reservoirs in these depths exhibit abnormally high
initial pore pressure and temperature gradients resulting in high-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) reservoir conditions.
The common practice in the industry in reserves assessment is to use the Arps' [1945] hyperbolic rate decline relations.
Similar to conventional gas resources, tight gas sand reserves are frequently (often solely) assessed with Arps' hyperbolic rate
decline relations. The Arps rate decline relations are only specifically valid for boundary-dominated flow conditions, and it
is often noted that the decline curve parameter, b, should lie between 0 and 1. However, we frequently observe b-parameter
values greater than 1 — particularly in tight gas sands at HP/HT reservoir conditions, and it is well established that for cases
of b>1, the reservoir is in transient (or transition) flow. It is inappropriate (in a strict reservoir engineering sense) to use the
Arps models to estimate reserves for cases where b>1 as this will yield significant errors in reserve estimates — particularly
in unconventional resources (e.g., tight gas, shale gas, HP/HT gas reservoirs, etc).
This is not to say that the hyperbolic relation cannot be used as an "interpolation" or "fitting equation" for transient flow data
— in fact, this appears to be a common practice in the work of economic reserves practitioners. While empirical fitting of
transient flow data using the hyperbolic decline relation is "empirical" at best (i.e., an appropriate reservoir model should be
used), our concern lies not in the use of the hyperbolic relation for "fitting" the transient flow data, but rather, in the
extrapolation of the transient flow (hyperbolic) trend to estimate reserves. Extrapolation of transient flow data using any
empirical model to estimate reserves is an inappropriate practice, and should never be conducted in any capacity other than
building possible scenarios — not for estimating reserves!
Rushing et al [2007] present a study which was designed to evaluate the applicability of Arps' decline curve methodology for
assessing reserves in tight gas sands at HP/HT reservoir conditions. Their approach showed that the errors in reserve
estimates based on the hyperbolic rate decline relation were substantially higher (well over 100 percent error) when the
hyperbolic rate decline relation is applied during transient/transition flow regimes. However, they indicated that Arps'
2 D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, and T.A. Blasingame SPE 125031
relations might be appropriate for assessing reserves in tight gas sands at HP/HT reservoir conditions if applied under the
correct conditions (i.e., boundary-dominated flow conditions).
In this work our objective is to reduce the uncertainty in reserve estimates by using a combined methodology which not only
includes a semi-analytical relation proposed in this work, but also includes other (rigorous) reserves assessment techniques.
Our methodology is driven by the use of the semi-analytical rate-time/rate-cumulative production relation, which is valid for
boundary-dominated flow conditions in a moderate to HP/HT gas reservoir. We also employ the empirical, power-law
exponential rate-time relation (Ilk et al [2008]) as a standard since this model has been shown to be more robust (and more
applicable) than the typical Arps' exponential and hyperbolic families of rate decline relations. Lastly, where appropriate, we
use model-based analysis techniques (i.e., decline type curve analyses and other similar "model-based" analysis techniques).
Development of the Methodology
Knowles [1999] presented an approach for linearizing the gas flow equation — the nonlinear term (μgcg) is assumed to be
linear with pressure, which leads to a direct formulation for gas flowrate. The approach yields a (p/z)-squared form of the
stabilized gas flow equation — and when this relation is coupled with the gas material balance equation, a semi-analytic gas
flowrate equation is obtained. Ansah et al [2000] generalized the concept (linearization of the gas flow equation) proposed
by Knowles and developed several semi-analytical (i.e., direct) solutions for determining average reservoir pressure, rate, and
cumulative production for gas wells produced at a constant bottomhole pressure during reservoir depletion. Although this
relation was originally obtained for reservoir pressures lower than 6000 psia, we have found this relation useful for practical
applications (including reservoir pressures much higher than 9000 psia — see Blasingame and Rushing [2005]).
Using a straight-line linearization scheme given by Knowles [1999] for the nonlinear (μgcg) term, the following equation (in
dimensionless form) is obtained.
2
4 pwD exp[− pwD t Dd ]
q Dd = ................................................................................................................. (1)
((1 + pwD ) − (1 − pwD ) exp[− pwD t Dd ]) 2
Eq. 1 is the main equation in our work, and it is noted that Eq. 1 is only valid for the boundary-dominated flow conditions.
Further details can be found in the work by Ansah et al [2000]. The dimensionless variables are defined as:
qg
q Dd = ............................................................................................................................................................................ (2)
q gi
pwf /z wf
pwD = .................................................................................................................................................................. (3)
pi /zi
And
Jg
t Dd = t ........................................................................................................................................................................ (4)
cti G
Where Jg is the productivity index and defined as:
2kh
Jg = ............................................................................................................................................ (5)
⎡ 2.2458 A ⎤
141.2μi Bgi ln ⎢ 2
⎥
⎢⎣ C A rwa ⎥⎦
Using the definitions of the "loss-ratio" and the "loss-ratio derivative" by Arps [1945] and Johnson and Bollens [1927], we
define the dimensionless D-function (DD) and b-function (b) as:
1 dq Dd
DD = − ............................................................................................................................................................... (6)
q Dd dt Dd
⎡d q Dd ⎤
b=− ⎢ ⎥ ................................................................................................................................................. (7)
⎣ (dq Dd /dt Dd ) ⎦
dt Dd
Using these definitions (i.e., Eqs. 6 and 7) and our proposed "HP/HT" rate model (i.e., Eq. 1), we obtain the following results
for the DD and b-functions (after simplification):
pwD (1 − pwD + (1 + pwD ) exp[ pwD t Dd ])
DD = .................................................................................................................. (8)
( pwD − 1 + (1 + pwD ) exp[ pwD t Dd ])
2
2 exp[ p wD t Dd ] (1 − p wD )
b= .......................................................................................................................... (9)
(1 − p wD + (1 + p wD ) exp[ p wD t Dd ]) 2
SPE 125031 Decline Curve Analysis for HP/HT Gas Wells: Theory and Applications 3
We present the behavior of Eqs. 1, 8 and 9 in Fig. 1, which is the so-called "q-DD-b" plot for various values of pwD. As noted
earlier, these relations are only valid for boundary-dominated flow regime — and this constraint is reflected in Fig. 1 by the
near-constant values of q-DD-b at early times (typically of boundary-dominated flow models). We also note in Fig. 1 that
each of the rate cases tend to 0 due to the quasi-exponential nature Eq. 1 for very late times.
A significant conclusion drawn from Fig. 1 is that the b-parameter value is more or less constant and tends to converge to 0.5
for high drawdown cases. This plot could be considered as verification for the statement that for boundary-dominated flow
conditions, b-parameter value is almost 0.5 for high drawdown cases in gas flow (this observation is in agreement with
statements made by Fetkovich [1980] and Fetkovich et al [1987] that for gas flow cases, 0.4< b <0.6). Further, the propsoed
gas flow relation (i.e., Eq. 1) yields identical results as the numerical solutions proposed by Carter [1985]. We believe that
for HP/HT reservoir conditions, this relation should be useful in reserve estimates and production forecasts (assuming
(obviously) that boundary-dominated flow conditions are established).
Using Eq. 1, a "quadratic" rate-cumulative production relation can be obtained (see Blasingame and Rushing [2005] for
details). This relation is given (in dimensionless form) as:
α
q Dd = 1 − α G pD + G 2 ................................................................................................................................................ (10)
2 pD
Where the dimensionless variables are defined as:
Gp
G pD = ......................................................................................................................................................................... (11)
G
And
G
α= .................................................................................................................................................................... (12)
(q gi /Di )
where
2q gi
Di = ............................................................................................................................................... (13)
⎡ ⎡p /z ⎤
2⎤
⎢1 − ⎢ wf wf ⎥G ⎥
⎢ ⎣ pi / zi ⎥ ⎦
⎣ ⎦
The definitions of the "loss-ratio" and the "loss-ratio derivative" in dimensionless rate-dimensionless cumulative form
(originally given by Ilk et al [2008]), we define the dimensionless D-function (DD) and b-function (b) as:
dq Dd
DD = − ................................................................................................................................................................... (14)
dG pD
d ⎡ 1 ⎤
b = −q Dd ⎢ ⎥ .................................................................................................................................... (15)
dG pD ⎢⎣ (dq Dd /dG pD ) ⎥⎦
Substituting Eq. 10 into Eqs. 14 and 15, we obtain the following results for the DD and b-functions for the "quadratic rate-
cumulative production" relation:
DD = α (1 − G pD ) .............................................................................................................................................................. (16)
2 − 2α G pD + α G 2pD
b= .................................................................................................................................................. (17)
2α (G pD − 1) 2
In this work we utilize the rate-time/rate-cumulative production data and the associated D and b-data functions as plotting
functions. Specifically, we show that using the DD and b-models add more insight into the analysis. The model parameters
(e.g., qgi, Di, and G) are obtained using a simultaneous matching process. Our process is illustrated in the next sections.
We also use the "power-law exponential" rate decline relation which has recently been introduced by Ilk et al [2008] for
verifying the gas-in-place estimate obtained by the semi-analytical relation from an empirical standpoint. Ilk et al apply the
"power-law exponential" rate decline model to various field cases (Ilk et al [2008] and Mattar et al [2008]) as well as to
simulated data (see Mattar et al [2008]). In those efforts, the power-law exponential rate decline model is verified to be both
accurate and robust — matching transient, transition, and boundary-dominated flow data — and yielding very consistent (i.e.,
reliable) reserve estimates. For reference the power-law exponential rate decline relation is given as:
q g = qˆ gi exp[− D∞ t − Dˆ i t n ] .............................................................................................................................................. (18)
The definitions of the so called "loss-ratio" and the "loss-ratio derivative" as presented by Johnson and Bollens [1927] and
Arps [1945] help to describe the basis of the "power-law exponential" rate equation. The original definitions of the "loss-
ratio" and the "loss-ratio derivative" are:
1 q
≡− (Definition of the Loss-Ratio) ........................................................................................... (19)
D dq/dt
d ⎡1⎤ ⎡ q ⎤
d
b≡ ⎢ D ⎥ ≡ − dt
⎢ ⎥ (Derivative of the Loss-Ratio)........................................................................................... (20)
dt ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ dq/dt ⎦
The "power-law exponential" rate decline relation (Eq. 18) is derived based on the observation that the D-parameter (actually
D(t)) exhibits power-law behavior as a function of time. Ilk et al applied this new model to various field cases (Ilk et al
[2008b] and Mattar et al [2008]), as well as to simulated data (see Mattar et al [2008]) and verify that the power-law
exponential rate decline model is robust enough to match transient, transition, and boundary-dominated flow data. Further,
the "power-law exponential" rate decline has been shown to yield consistent reserve estimates for field cases.
This last step in our workflow is to apply analytical and numerical "model-based" analysis of production rate and pressure
data to estimate reservoir properties and reserves. We believe that the incorporation of these three techniques (the proposed
HP/HT formulation, the "power-law exponential" rate decline relation, and model-base analysis) provides a workflow that
will yield reliable estimates of reserves/gas-in-place for HP/HT reservoir conditions.
Validation of New Analysis Methodology
In this section we use a numerical simulation case to verify our proposed methodology. We acquired the simulated data from
the work by Rushing et al [2007]. The reservoir consists of a producing hydraulically-fractured well completed at an average
depth of 18,000 ft in a HP/HT, low permeability, low-porosity tight gas sand. The reservoir fluid was asssumed to be a dry
gas with water saturations which are only slightly higher than the irreducible values — which yields a very small mobile
water component. The reservoir and fluid properties are given in Table 1 below. The detailed information on the fluid
properties correlations can be found in the work by Rushing et al [2007].
Table 1 — Reservoir and fluid properties for the numerical simulation case (Rushing et al [2007]) — hydraulically
fractured gas well in a HP/HT reservoir.
Reservoir Properties:
Net pay thickness, h = 200 ft
Effective permeability, k = 0.009 md
Wellbore radius, rw = 0.30 ft
Formation compressibility, cf = 1×10-9 1/psi
Porosity, φ = 0.061 (fraction)
Initial reservoir pressure, pi = 16200 psia
Gas saturation, Sg = 0.636 (fraction)
Water saturation, Sw = 0.364 (fraction)
Skin factor, s = 0 (dimensionless)
Reservoir temperature, Tr = 400 oF
Drainage area, A = 80 acres
Fluid Properties:
Gas specific gravity, γg = 0.633 (air = 1)
Hydraulically Fracture Model Parameters:
Fracture half-length, xf = 200 ft
Fracture conductivity, FcD = 28 (dimensionless)
Production Parameters:
Producing time, t = 50 years
In Fig. 2 we present the flowrate data for this well which spans over 50 years (i.e., the entire simulation run). We plot the gas
flowrate data and the auxiliary functions (i.e., the rate-integral and the rate-integral derivative) for diagnosis of the flow
regimes in Fig. 3. The half-slope trend exhibited by the rate-integral derivative indicates the linear flow regime (i.e., the
signature of an infinite conductivity vertical fracture) and we also observe that the boundary-dominated flow regime is
established after almost 2500-3000 days.
Our first task is to employ the semi-analytical relations in order to estimate the gas-in-place. In Figs 4a and 4b we present
the flowrate versus cumulative production and the logarithm of flowrate versus time plots (respectively); where the data are
matched using the proposed "Ansah" semi-analytical rate model. We observe outstanding matches after boundary-dominated
flow is establish — clearly, the proposed "Ansah" model is appropriate for this case. The gas-in-place estimated using the
"Ansah" relation was found to be 8.1 BSCF.
In Figs 5a, 5b, and 5c we present the behavior of the computed D-parameter trend on different scales (Cartesian, semi-log,
and log-log, respectively). In Figs 5a, 5b, and 5c, the D-parameter trend is modeled using Eq 8 or Eq. 16 (as appropriate).
Our rationale for different scales is to understand the characteristic behavior of the computed D-parameter. As can be seen in
Figs 5a, 5b, and 5c very good matches are obtained for the boundary-dominated flow regime.
Similarly, in Figs 6a, 6b, and 6c we plot the computed b-parameter trend on different scales. At this point we should
mention that we utilize the "Bourdet" [1989] derivative algorithm for the calculation of D and b-parameters. Since we
perform the differentiantion twice to obtain the b-parameter, the "end-point" effects caused by the derivative algorithm can be
significant (or even severe). Quite interestingly Figs 6a, 6b, and 6c verify our conclusion derived by observing behavior on
Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b that for the drawdown cases where pwD tends to 0.1-0.2, the b-function exhibits an exponential decline
behavior at late times. In fact, for this case we can conclude that at late times, the reservoir is in complete boundary-
dominated flow regime — this observation can be verified by inspecting Figs 6a, 6b, and 6c. We also associate the increase
in the computed b-parameter trend after 12,000 days to end point effects (not reservoir effects).
Our next step is to apply the "power-law exponential" rate relation (i.e., Eq. 18) to estimate the reserves (i.e., the maximum
cumulative gas production as t→∞). Fig. 7 presents the "q-D-b" plot for this simulation case. We obtain excellent matches
for the computed D-parameter data and flowrate data across all flow regimes. To distinguish the effect of the complete
boundary-dominated flow regime, we also include the results when the D∞ parameter in Eq. 18 is set to zero. It is worth
noting that we obtain the same value for the reserves estimate as we estimated for gas-in-place using the "Ansah" semi-
analytical relation (Gp,max=8.1 BSCF).
Figs 8a and 8b simply present the flowrate and cumulative production forecast as specified by these two semi-analytical
analysis methods. We note that the behavior of the models is different (specifically, the "Ansah" relation does NOT model
behavior during transient flow), but the gas-in-place/reserves estimates are consistent. The analysis results for this case are
summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2 — Analysis results for the numerical simulation case.
"Semi-Analytic Relation" Analysis:
Initial gas production rate, qgi = 1450 MSCF/D
Decline constant, Di = 3.0x10-4 1/D
Gas-in-place, G = 8.1 BSCF
"Power-Law Exponential Rate Decline Model":
Initial gas production rate, q̂i = 4x105 MSCF/D
Decline constant, D̂i = 3.74 1/D
Decline constant, D∞ = 7x10-5 1/D
Time exponent, n = 0.065
Maximum gas production, Gp,max = 8.1 BSCF (D∞≠0)
Application to Field Data
We apply our proposed analysis methodology to field data acquired from a hydraulically fractured gas completed in a HP/HT
tight gas reservoir. For reference, the estimated initial pressure for this case is approximately 14,000 psia and the formation
temperature is estimated to be 260 Deg F. Approximately 3.5 years of daily wellhead and gas flowrate measurements are
available for this well. Fig. 9 presents the base gas flowrate and the calculated bottomhole pressures for this well. Inspecting
Fig. 9, we immediately observe the early well clean-up effects as well as liquid-loading and operational changes.
In Fig. 10 we plot the flowrate and its auxiliary functions for diagnosis of the flow regimes. It is very important to note that
we scrutinize the flowrate data and remove the erroneous/redundant data points. Because of the quality of these data at early
times, it is difficult to clearly distinguish the individual flow regimes. We do observe the familiar half-slope trend in the rate-
integral derivative function and we can also conclude boundary-dominated flow effects are established at late times — which
will enable us to deploy our semi-analytical flowrate models to estimate reserves and forecast production.
In Figs. 11a and 11b we present the results for the "Ansah" semi-analytical rate relation. We obtain fairly good matches of
the data with the "Ansah" model during boundary-dominated flow, and our analyses using this relation provide an estimate of
gas-in-place of approximately 8.0 BSCF. For the computation of D and b-functions we remove the outlier data points and
then we perform the numerical differentiation required for the D and b-functions. In Figs. 12a, 12b, and 12c we achieve quite
reasonable matches of the D-function data using the "Ansah" model. However; for the computation of the b-function, the
quality of the data significantly affects this computation as seen in Figs. 13a, 13b, and 13c. For this case, the matches of the
b-function data with the "Ansah" model are "problematic" — the data indicate no unique characteristic behavior.
Next, we employ the "power-law exponential" rate decline relation. Fig. 14 presents the q-D-b plot for this case, and we
observe a reasonable match of the D-parameter data trend with the power-law model. The match of the flowrate data is good
(with the exception of the early time data affected by "cleanup") and the "power-law exponential" rate model yields a
maximum gas production value (Gp,max) of about 8.0 BSCF which is consistent with the value from semi-analytical relation.
Our results for this case are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 — Analysis results for the field example (tight gas well).
"Semi-Analytic Relation" Analysis:
Initial gas production rate, qgi = 4700 MSCF/D
Decline constant, Di = 1.12x10-3 1/D
"Power-Law Exponential Rate Decline Model":
Initial gas production rate, q̂i = 3.2x104 MSCF/D
Decline constant, D̂i = 1.33 1/D
Decline constant, D∞ = 8.0x10-5 1/D
Time exponent, n = 0.15
Maximum gas production, Gp,max = 8.0 BSCF (D∞≠0)
In Figs 15a and 15b we present production forecasts for this well generated using the "Ansah" semi-analytical and the power-
law exponential rate decline models. In addition to these two models, we also use an analytical reservoir model for a vertical
well with a finite conductivity vertical fracture (the "analytical" model posted on these plots). As can be observed from Figs
15a and 15b, all of the models approximate the data quite well and yield consistent reserve/gas-in-place estimates. Finally
the history match of the flowrate and calculated bottomhole pressures generated using the analytical reservoir model is
presented in Fig. 16. We observe an excellent match of the flowrate data and a reasonable match of the pressure history.
For reference, the parameters estiamted using the analytical reservoir model are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 — Model parameters for the field example case — analytical reservoir model.
Effective permeability, k = 0.012 md

Fracture half-length, xf = 80 ft
Fracture conductivity, FcD = 3.26 (dimensionless)
Summary and Conclusions
Summary: In this work we propose a new approach for the direct estimation of gas-in-place and reserves using only rate-time
and rate-cumulative production data. We utilize a semi-analytical rate relation given by Knowles [1999] and generalized by
Ansah [2000] for the direct estimation of gas-in-place. We have formulated the "Ansah" semi-analytical rate relation to in
terms of the Arps' D- and b-functions for diagnosis and analysis. Using the definitions for the q-D-b functions we obtain the
optimum values for the model parameters and as such we can estimate the gas-in-place. It is important to note that the
"Ansah" semi-analytical gas flow relation is only valid for boundary-dominated flow.
We also use the "power-law exponential" rate relation as proposed by Ilk et al [2008] to augment and valid our other
analyses. The utility of the power-law exponential rate relation is that this generalized model can represent essentially any
flow regimes (including transient and transition flow regimes). However; one should note that this relation is empirical and
uncertainty in its application and results can increase for poor data quality. When applicable (i.e., when we have reservoir
data and a competent pressure history), model-based analysis is applied to data to further validate the results obtained from
the two semi-analytical/empirical methods. In this work we validate our methodology using a numerical simulation case and
we estimate the reserves/ gas-in-place for a tight gas well completed in an HP/HT reservoir.
Conclusions:
We state the following conclusions based on this work:
1. The most important conclusion from this work is that for high drawdown cases, the value for the Arps b-parameter
should converge to approximately 0.5 during boundary-dominated flow regime.
2. The straight-line linearization scheme proposed by Knowles [1999] and Ansah [2000] is validated for practical
purposes — including application to cases of HP/HT gas reservoirs.
3. The use of the D and b-data functions provides a unique insight to flow regime identification and the simultaneous
matching of the data with the q-D-b models (both the "Ansah" model and the "power law exponential" model is a
robust mechanism for estimating gas-in-place/gas reserves. However, this process (i.e., the computation of the D-
and b-functions) is severely affected by the data quality — therefore, vigilance is required when applying these
methods to avoid the analysis of data artifacts.
4. As the "Ansah" semi-analytical rate relation is only applicable for the boundary-dominated flow regime, in some
cases it can be difficult to identify the onset of boundary-dominated flow. Therefore, we propose the use of the
empirical power-law exponential rate decline relation in conjunction with the semi-analytical relation in order to
achieve more consistent estimates of gas-in-place/gas reserves. In addition, if wellbore pressure data are available
and an appropriate well/reservoir model can be identified, then model-based analysis should be performed to
validate the results of the semi-analytical/empirical methods addressed in this work. We strongly suggest using all
three techniques jointly to decrease the uncertainty/non-uniqueness associated with the assessment of gas reserves
for wells in HP/HT gas reservoirs.
Nomenclature
Field Variables
A = Drainage area, ft2
b = Arps' decline exponent, dimensionless
Bgi = Gas formation volume factor (initial), RB/MSCF
CA = Shape factor, dimensionless
cf = Formation compressibility, psi-1
cti = Total (initial) compressibility, psi-1
D = Arps' "loss ratio," D-1
Di = Initial decline constant, D-1
D∞ = Decline constant at "infinite time" [i.e., D(t=∞)], D-1
D̂i = Decline constant, D-1
G = Original (contacted) gas-in-place, MSCF
Gp = Cumulative gas production, MSCF
Gp,max = Maximum gas production (t→∞), MSCF
h = Formation thickness, ft
Jg = Productivity index, MSCF/D/psi
k = Formation permeability, md
n = Time exponent
p = Pressure, psia
pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psia
pwf = Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
rwa = Apparent wellbore radius (rwa=rw e-s), ft
qg = Gas production rate, MSCF/D
qgi = Gas initial production rate, MSCF/D or STB/D
q̂ gi = Rate "intercept" [i.e., qg(t=0)], MSCF/D
s = Skin factor, dimensionless
t = Time, days
Tr = Reservoir temperature, oF
xf = Fracture half length, ft
z = Gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
Dimensionless Variables
DD = Dimensionless D-parameter
FcD = Dimensionless fracture conductivity
GpD = Dimensionless cumulative production, (GpD=Gp/G)
pwD = Dimensionless pressure
qDd = Dimensionless decline rate
tDd = Dimensionless decline time
Greek Variables
α = Rate-cumulative production relation characteristic parameter, α=G/(qgi/Di) by definition
γg = Gas specific gravity, dimensionless
μg = Gas viscosity, cp
References
Ansah, J., Knowles, R.S., and Blasingame, T.A. 2000. A Semi-Analytic (p/z) Rate-Time Relation for the Analysis andPrediction of Gas
Well Performance. SPEREE. 3 (6): 525-533.
Arps J.J. 1945. Analysis of Decline Curves. Trans. AIME: 160, 228-247.
Blasingame, T.A. and Rushing, J.A. 2005. A Production-Based Method for Direct Estimation of Gas-in-place and Reserves. SPE paper
98042 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia. 14-16 September.
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M. 1989. Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation. SPEFE 4 (2): 228-293-302.
Carter, R.D.1985. Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear Gas Flow Systems: Constant-Terminal Pressure Case. SPEJ. 25 (5): 719-728.
Fetkovich, M.J. 1980. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves. JPT. 32 (6): 1065-1077.
Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D. and Kiesow, U.G. 1987. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves: Case Histories.
SPEFE. 2 (4): 637-656.
Johnson, R.H. and Bollens, A.L. 1927. The Loss Ratio Method of Extrapolating Oil Well Decline Curves. Trans. AIME 77: 771.
Ilk, D., Perego, A.D., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A. 2008. Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands — Understanding
the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps' Decline Curves. Paper SPE 116731 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 21-24 September.
Knowles R.S. 1999. Development and Verification of New Semi-Analytical Methods for the Analysis and Prediction of Gas Well
Performance. M.S Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Mattar, L., Gault, B.W., Morad, K., Clarkson, C.R., Freeman, C.M., Ilk, D., and Blasingame, T.A. 2008. Production Analysis and
Forecasting of Shale Gas Reservoirs: Case History-Based Approach. Paper SPE 119897 presented at the SPE Shale Gas Production
Conference, Fort Worth, TX, 16-18 November.
Rushing, J.A., Perego, A.D., Sullivan, R.B., and Blasingame, T.A. 2007. Estimating Reserves in Tight Gas Sands at HP/HT Reservoir
Conditions: Use and Misuse of an Arps Decline Curve Methodology. Paper SPE 109625 presented at the 2007 Annual SPE Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA., 11-14 November.
Fig. 01a — (Log-log Plot): "qDd-DD-b" plot. Definition of the DD and b-functions governed by the semi-analytical relation.
Fig. 01b — (Semi-log Plot): "qDd-DD-b" plot. Definition of the DD and b-functions governed by the semi-analytical relation.
Fig. 02 — (Semi-log Plot): qg versus Gp. Flowrate data plot — simulation case.
Fig. 03 — (Log-log Plot): qg and auxiliary functions versus t. Diagnostic plot — flow regime identification.
Fig. 04a — (Cartesian Plot): qg versus Gp. Model validation plot — the data are matched with the proposed model across the
boundary-dominated flow regime.
Fig. 04b — (Semi-log Plot): qg versus t. Model validation plot — the data are matched with the proposed model across the
Fig. 05a — (Cartesian Plot): D versus t. Model validation plot — the data are matched with the proposed model across the
Fig. 05b — (Semi-log Plot): D versus t. Model validation plot — the data are matched with the proposed model across the
Fig. 05c — (Log-log Plot): D versus t. Model validation plot — the data are matched with the proposed model across the
Fig. 06a — (Cartesian Plot): b versus t. Model validation plot — almost constant behavior (at early times) for the computed b-
parameter (b≈0.5 for early times). Note the end-point effects are caused by numerical differentiation.
Fig. 06b — (Semi-log Plot): b versus t. Model validation plot — almost constant behavior (at early times) for the computed b-
Fig. 06c — (Log-log Plot): b versus t. Model validation plot — almost constant behavior (at early times) for the computed b-
Fig. 07 — (Log-log Plot): "q-D-b" plot. Application of the "power-law exponential" rate decline relation for the simulated
example.
Fig. 08a — (Log-log Plot): qg and Gp versus t. Analysis/forecast plot — results from the semi-analytical and the power-law
exponential rate relations are shown.
Fig. 08b — (Semi-log Plot): qg and Gp versus t. Analysis/forecast plot — results from the semi-analytical and the power-law
Fig. 09 — (Semi-log/Cartesian Plot): qg and pwf versus t. Production history plot — field example case. Note the well clean-up
and liquid loading effects.
Fig. 10 — (Log-log Plot): qg and auxiliary functions versus t. Diagnostic plot — flow regime identification.
Fig. 11a — (Semi-log Plot): qg versus Gp. Model validation plot — the data are matched with the proposed model across the
Fig. 11b — (Semi-log Plot): qg versus t. Model validation plot — the data are matched with the proposed model across the
Fig. 12a — (Cartesian Plot): D versus t. Model validation plot — computed D-parameter data are matched with the proposed
model across the boundary-dominated flow regime.
Fig. 12b — (Semi-log Plot): D versus t. Model validation plot — computed D-parameter data are matched with the proposed
Fig. 12c — (Log-log Plot): D versus t. Model validation plot — computed D-parameter data are matched with the proposed
Fig. 13a — (Cartesian Plot): b versus t. Model validation plot — erratic b-parameter data behavior caused by the data quality
and numerical differentiation. Average match of the data with the model (b=0.5).
Fig. 13b — (Semi-log Plot): b versus t. Model validation plot — erratic b-parameter data behavior caused by the data quality and
numerical differentiation. Average match of the data with the model (b=0.5).
Fig. 13c — (Log-log Plot): b versus t. Model validation plot — erratic b-parameter data behavior caused by the data quality and
numerical differentiation. Average match of the data with the model (b=0.5).
Fig. 14 — (Log-log Plot): "q-D-b" plot. Application of the "power-law exponential" rate decline relation for the field example.
Fig. 15a — (Log-log Plot): qg and Gp versus t. Analysis/forecast plot — results from the semi-analytical and the power-law
Fig. 15b — (Semi-log Plot): qg and Gp versus t. Analysis/forecast plot — results from the semi-analytical and the power-law
Fig. 16 — (Semi-log/Cartesian Plot): qg and pwf versus t. Analysis summary plot (history match) — field example case.
Flowrate and bottomhole pressure values are obtained using the analytical solution for a fractured well with finite
conductivity. Very good flowrate match and reasonable bottomhole pressure matches are observed.

SPE 125031 - Decline Curve Analysis HPHT Gas Wells Theory y Applications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE 125031 - Decline Curve Analysis HPHT Gas Wells Theory y Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Effective permeability, k = 0.012 md

You might also like