SPE 108176
Improving Reserves Estimates From Decline Curve Analysis of Tight and Multilayer
Gas Wells
Y. Cheng, SPE, W.J. Lee, SPE, and D.A. McVay, SPE, Texas A&M U.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and
Evaluation Symposium held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 1–3 April 2007.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Decline curve analysis is one of the most commonly used
techniques to estimate reserves from production data. In tight
formations that have been stimulated, especially when there
are multiple layers that communicate only at the wellbore, the
uncertainty in reserves estimates from this technique is quite
large because forecasting future performance is quite difficult.
This uncertainty can affect the classification of reserves, and
could limit what we should call “proved developed reserves.”
In this paper, we present new procedures to mitigate the
complexity of decline curve analysis in multilayer tight gas
wells. Using synthetic and field examples, we demonstrate
how reserves can be estimated more reliably.
For tight and multilayer gas wells, it is not uncommon that
decline curve analysis yields an Arps decline-curve parameter
‘b’ larger than 1. Single-layer hydraulically fractured tight gas
wells also appear to have b values greater than one. Different
practices are used to handle such complexity. For forecasts,
some analysts simply use the ‘b’ value obtained from
matching production data, while others force the ‘b’ value to
be 1. Still others use the hyperbolic decline and the matched
value of ‘b,’ but, when the decline rate reaches a
predetermined limit, they switch to exponential decline for the
remainder of the forecast. Thus, forecasted performance
differs significantly when different analysts analyze the data.
Consequently, the reserves estimate has large uncertainty,
which can, in turn, affect its classification.
In this paper, we first present an in-depth investigation of
decline behavior of tight, single-layer and multilayer gas wells
by analyzing depletion characteristics using simulated data
sets. We illustrate the long-duration transient effects present in
single-layer stimulated tight gas wells and the complex flow
regimes present when wells in layered reservoirs are produced
commingled. Our work indicates that, as observed in field
data, transient effects and coexistence of different flow
regimes between layers lead to abnormal decline behavior
(b>1.0) in multilayer tight gas wells, which leads to errors in
production forecasts. Our new procedure provides a method to
minimize these errors.
Introduction
Decline curve analysis is one of the most commonly used
techniques to predict future production performance and
estimate reserves from routinely available production data.
Although Arps’ decline equations were developed
empirically,1 the parameter b in the decline equations was
proved to be related to fluid properties and production
conditions.2-3 Conventional decline curve analysis inherently
assumes a single-layer reservoir, the well producing at
constant bottomhole pressure, and stabilized flow conditions.3
In addition, use of Arps’ equations implies that there are no
changes in completion and operating conditions. It is well
documented that the decline exponent should range between
zero and 1.0 when these assumptions are satisfied.1,3
Tight gas reservoirs are characterized by permeabilities
less than 0.1 md. Gas wells in tight formations usually require
hydraulic fracturing of multiple layers to be commercially
viable. Therefore, analysis of decline behavior in tight gas
wells presents unique technical challenges.4-5 It is often very
difficult, if not impossible, to estimate reserves accurately in a
timely and consistent fashion with decline curve analysis.
Long times, often years, are required to reach so called
pseudo-steady state flow (actually, boundary-dominated flow,
since the term “pseudo-steady state” strictly applies only to
constant-rate production). The production data available for
decline curve analysis are, therefore, typically not stabilized.
As a result, it is not uncommon for tight gas wells to exhibit
Arps’ decline constants, b, that exceed 1.0.6 With b-values
greater than 1.0, future performance and remaining reserves
will be greatly overestimated. In conventional practice, some
analysts simply use the b value obtained from matching of
production data, while others force the b value to be 1.0. Still
others use the hyperbolic decline and the matched value of b,
but, when the decline rate reaches a predetermined limit, they
switch to exponential decline for the remainder of the forecast.
However, this procedure has no physical basis. This type of
decline behavior is highly unlikely in nature.
Another complication in analysis of decline data in tight
gas wells is that, in most cases, production is commingled
from multilayered formations that are hydraulically fractured
with multiple stages. Due to variations in formation
2 SPE 108176
permeability and fracture half length, different flow regimes
may co-exist in different layers. Lower permeability zones
may be in transient flow while higher permeability zones have
established stabilized, boundary-dominated flow. The profile
of production contribution by individual layers constantly
changes with time. Given these complications, decline curve
analysis of multilayer tight gas wells is especially difficult,
particularly with regard to estimating long-term production
and reserves.
The objective of this study is to develop methodology to
improve reserve estimates from decline curve analysis of tight
and multilayer gas wells. We first generated simulated data
sets representing two synthetic cases – a single-layer gas well
and a multilayer gas well. We then analyzed the characteristics
of decline equation parameters resulting from fitting the
simulated rate data. Since the true reserves for the simulated
cases are known, we determined the errors in projecting future
performance and estimating reserves using current analysis
techniques. We show that decline curve analysis using
stabilized data is sufficient to produce accurate reserves
estimates. However, given the fact that, in most tight wells, we
have to work with transient flow data to estimate reserves
from early-time production data, we propose an improved
analysis technique to effectively handle such cases.
Improvement in reserves estimates for synthetic and field
examples are illustrated using the proposed technique.
Analysis of Decline Behavior
We generated two synthetic cases using a commercial
reservoir simulator. These two synthetic cases illustrate the
decline behavior of a fractured, single-layer well and a
fractured multilayer well.
Synthetic cases
Synthetic Case 1. In this case, a gas well produces from a
hydraulically fractured single-layer reservoir. The well is
centered in a square reservoir with a drainage area of
1867*1867 ft2 (80 ac). Basic reservoir, fracture and fluid
properties are listed below:
Reservoir and fracture properties
Reservoir temperature = 250 oF
Initial reservoir pressure = 5,000 psi
Net pay thickness = 150 ft
Gas porosity = 0.06
Gas permeability = 0.006 md
Fracture half-length = 450 ft
Fracture conductivity = 100 md•ft
Bottom-hole flowing pressure = 1,000 psi
Fluid properties
Gas gravity (air=1) = 0.65
Initial gas viscosity = 0.025 cp
Initial gas compressibility = 1.2*10-4 psi-1
Initial gas production rate = 2,000 Mscf/d
The decline performance of this gas well during a 30-year
history is shown in Fig. 1. The time to achieve stabilized,
boundary-dominated flow is about 1,600 days. However, from
simulation results, the time at which production response
“feels” the boundary effects is much earlier than the
stabilization time. After 4 months of production, the pressure
at the nearest boundaries (from the hydraulic fracture tips)
dropped 10 psia. Therefore, although the flow regime is
transient before stabilized flow is reached, boundaries begin to
affect production data prior to complete stabilization. Thus,
the possibility exists of predicting long-term behavior with
unstabilized data.
Synthetic Case 2. In this case, a gas well produces from
three layers with three hydraulic fracture treatment stages.
These three layers communicate only at the wellbore. As in
Case 1, the well is centered in a square reservoir with a
drainage area of 1867*1867 ft2. The permeabilities of the three
productive formations are 0.02 md, 0.006 md and 0.002 md.
The adjacent productive layers are separated by shale zones 50
ft thick. Each productive formation has 50 ft of net pay and a
fracture half-length of 450 ft. Other basic reservoir, fracture
and fluid properties are the same as in synthetic Case 1.
The 30-year decline behavior of this gas well is shown in
Fig. 2. The production rates from each of the three layers are
also displayed in this figure. Because of the differences in
layer permeabilities, the production rates in the different layers
vary significantly. The higher permeability layer has a
relatively high early-time production rate and a steeper
decline. Lower permeability layers decline less rapidly and
dominate the later time production. Due to permeability
differences, the time required to establish boundary-dominated
flow is very different in the different layers. For the 0.02-md
layer, 480 days, or 1.3 year, were required to reach stabilized
flow while the 0.002-md layer required 4,800 days, or 13
years.
Dynamics of decline curves and forecast errors
Decline behavior of oil and gas wells is often described
by Arps’ decline curve equations. Arp’s equation for a
hyperbolic decline is
− 1b
q = qi (1 + Di bt ) (1)
where q is production rate at time t, qi is the initial production
rate, Di is the initial decline rate, and b is the decline exponent.
When b approaches 0, the decline becomes exponential; when
b approaches 1, the decline becomes harmonic.
In tight reservoirs, determination of b has often been
problematic. Some analysts simply take the b value obtained
from matching of production data (which is often greater than
1), while others force the b value to be 1. The value of b
significantly affects the projection of future rates.
Use of b-value obtained from best fit with transient data
included. We first determine the b-values and other decline
equation parameters from the best fit to simulated rate data, in
which transient data are included, with varying fraction of the
total production history starting from time zero. The regressed
parameters are then used to forecast the production for a total
well life of 30 years. Table 1 gives regressed values of the
parameters (qi, b, Di) for the single-layer case. As we can see,
SPE 108176
the b-values decrease as more production data are used in
regression, but they are all larger than 1. We also notice that
Di is positively correlated with b. Fig. 3 shows a set of
production forecasts using the b-values and corresponding qi
and Di from best curve fits of one year, ten years and twenty
years of production data. Note that the quality of the matches
is good for 1-year production data, but deteriorates as longer
production data (such as 10 years and 20 years) are matched.
Fig. 3 clearly indicates that future production is greatly
overestimated in all cases. The b-values greater than 1 leads to
these overestimated future production values.
For the multilayer commingled production case, the b-
values obtained from history matching are also all greater than
1, as shown in Table 2. Again, Di is positively correlated with
b. Fig. 4 is a set of production forecasts with these b-values
and other regressed parameters. Future projections are
overestimated for all scenarios investigated.
As a conclusive observation, for both single-layer and
multiple layer cases, decline curve fitting with transient flow
data included leads to b-value greater than 1, and forecasting
using b-values≥1.0 overestimates remaining reserves.
Use of b-value forced to be 1 with transient data included.
With b constrained between 0 and 1 during history matching,
we obtained other sets of production forecasts. Table 3 gives
regressed values of the decline parameters (qi, b, Di) for
synthetic Case 1. Di continuously decreases as production time
increases whereas b is constant at 1 for all history match
periods. Fig. 5 shows the forecasted production rates. When
one year of rate data is used in history matching, future
production is greatly underestimated. When 5 years of rate
data are used for history matching, projected performance
approaches the actual performance at late times, but most of
the projection is still less than actual. History matching and
forecasted production change only slightly when history
matching duration increases from 5 years to 10 years. The
projected rate curve crosses the actual rate curve and leads to
an overestimated prediction.
For synthetic Case 2, multilayer production, Table 4
provides the regressed values of the decline parameters (qi, b,
Di) for various senarios. Future production is also
underestimated for short history match periods, but is much
closer to the true value than the single-layer case (Fig. 6). The
projections almost overlap for history matching durations of 5
years and 10 years.
These observations indicate that b constrained to be less
than or equal to 1 can result in either underestimated or
overestimated production forecasts. With values of qi and Di
obtained from history matching of very early-time data (such
as one year), future production would typically be
underestimated. When more late-time data are included,
forecasts approach and surpass the true values. Forecasts tend
to become more stable as more late-time data are included in
the analysis. Note that as b is constrained to be less than 1.0,
the quality of the matches becomes worse (as we compare the
matches from the best curve fit).
Use of b-value obtained from best fit of only stabilized
data. We also examined b-value variation when only
stabilized data during boundary-dominated flow are used in
3
the analysis and transient flow or unstabilized data are
excluded from history matching.
For the single-layer case, boundary-dominated flow is
reached at about 1,600 days, or 4.4 years. We discarded the
data for the first five years to exclude transient data and began
history matching starting at 1,825 days, or 5 years. Table 5
provides the regressed values of the three decline parameters
based on history matching to the end of the 6th through the
10th year. The value of b generally decreases as we include
more late-time data in history matching, but all are less than
1.0. Di also decreases as b decreases. Future production was
forecasted using the regressed parameters (as shown in Fig. 7),
and the relative errors in estimated remaining reserves are
presented in Table 5. The range of relative errors is from 1%
to 4%.
For the multilayer production case, we also used only data
after the fifth year for decline curve analysis. Recall that the
two layers with higher permeabilities have reached boundary-
dominated flow while the bottom layer with the smallest
permeability is still in transient flow at the end of the fifth
year. Nevertheless, the total well production appears to be
stabilized after five years of production. The regressed
parameters obtained from history matching of one year’s
production data (from the end of the fifth year to the end of the
sixth year) through five years of data (from the end of the fifth
year to the end of the tenth year) are shown in Table 6. The b-
value changes slightly, but remains near 0.6. The error in the
forecast is quite small, varying from 0.2% to 1.2%. In contrast
to the single-layer case, the forecast errors decrease steadily as
more data are available for history matching. The forecasted
future production is shown in Fig. 8.
Results from this section demonstrate that decline curve
analysis using only stabilized data is sufficient to produce
accurate reserves estimates.
Improved Analysis Technique
For tight gas wells, transient flow may last many years. We
often have to forecast future production and estimate
remaining reserves when we have only transient data.
Methodology to improve the reliability of decline curve
analysis based on only transient flow data would be of
significant value to the industry.
Methodology
In the previous section, we saw that b-values obtained from
regression are all greater than 1 when transient data are
included in the history match. Use of b-values greater than 1
leads to a significantly overestimated production forecast.
Constraining b-values to be less than or equal to 1 also fails to
provide accurate projections. To project future performance
accurately, the b-value that represents stabilized flow is
required. Unfortunately, such a b-value cannot be obtained
from analysis of transient flow data.
We propose an improved technique to analyze transient-
flow-dominated production data. There are two key
components in our proposed method. First, we estimate a
priori a b-value that can reasonably represent stabilized
(boundary-dominated) flow. Second, we fix this b-value in
history matching of production data to determine other decline
parameters (qi and Di) in a backward data fitting fashion. The
4 SPE 108176
parameters qi and Di are extrapolated backward to time zero,
and the resulting set of decline parameters including the
predetermined b-value is then used for future projections.
For a gas well producing from a single layer, the
representative b-value for stabilized flow has been shown to
be related to the reservoir drive mechanism,3 and also to the
fluid properties and reservoir conditions.2-3 b is not a constant
but decreases as the reservoir depletes at constant BHP.
Although instantaneous values of b can be larger than 1 under
some conditions, the average b during the entire depletion
phase will be less than 1.2 As b is a variable, but depends on
the time segment used for history matching, Chen2 proposed a
model to estimate an average b as a best approximation during
boundary-dominated depletion. From commonly available
reservoir properties, Chen proposed that we calculate an
average b, called bE, using pseudopressure7:
pi c gi p p ( pi ) − p p ( p wf )
bE = 1 − ………………...…(2)
zi pi p wf
( )−( ) our method, compared to 56.2% and -35.2% using
zi z wf
For a gas well producing from multiple layers, finding the
representative value of b is more difficult. Table 7 gives the
range of b-value obtained from matching the remaining well
life at different production stages using data from synthetic
Case 2. This table provides insight to help us identify the
“best” representative value of b for the duration of the
projection because we obtained b directly by matching the
data in the projection period. As we can see, b demonstrated a
quite stable value of about 0.6 during most stages of depletion.
Therefore, we suggest using b = 0.6 for multilayer production
cases. We will further validate the choice of this b-value later,
and we note that this value is supported by the work of
Fetkovich et al.8
When b is determined, we need to find appropriate
values of qi and Di for forecasting. We used a backward
analysis scheme.9 In this approach, we start at the latest point
of available production data and go back a selected time
interval to obtain a segment of data for history matching. We
obtain one set of parameters from fitting the selected data
segment. If we start at the end and go back further to another,
earlier time point, we can obtain another segment of data for
history matching and thus obtain another set of parameters. In
this way, we obtain multiple sets of regressed parameters with
available data. Each set of parameters (qi and Di) correspond
to a given backward time interval. If we then plot log Di vs.
backward time interval and extrapolate the plot to time zero,
we obtain the Di corresponding to the latest time for which we
have production data. The same procedure is also applied to qi
to obtain the value of qi corresponding to the latest time.
Forecasting is then initiated at the latest point of production
data with extrapolated values of qi and Di, and the preselected
b-value.
Validation with synthetic cases
We used the two synthetic cases given in the previous
section to validate the proposed method.
Synthetic Case 1. We assume that only the production data
from the first three years of well life are available for the
analysis, and that we need to forecast the production
performance for the remaining 27 years.
Table 8 provides multiple sets of regressed parameters (qi
and Di) by backward analysis. Note that b is fixed at 0.433,
which is estimated using Eq. 2. We then plot log qi and log Di
vs. backward time interval, respectively, as shown in Figs. 9
and 10. Extrapolating these two plots to time zero, we obtain
the values of qi and Di at the end of the third year, 494
MSCF/D and 0.000284 1/D, respectively. Taking the end of
the third year as the initial time for prediction, we used qi =
494 MSCF/D, b = 0.433 and Di = 0.000284 1/D to predict
production performance for the remaining 27 years, as shown
in Fig. 11. The production performance predicted using
conventional practices of decline curve analysis – (1) using the
b-value from the best fit regardless of the value, or (2)
constraining b to less than or equal to 1, as discussed
previously – are also presented in Fig. 11 for comparison. The
relative errors in estimated remaining reserves are -2.8% using
conventional practices.
This synthetic case indicates that our method significantly
improves future projection with decline analysis for single-
layer, hydraulically fractured tight gas wells.
Synthetic Case 2. In this case, we assume that only the first
year’s production data are available for decline analysis, and
production performance for the remaining 29 years needs to be
forecasted. We fixed b at 0.6 and history matched the data to
determine qi and Di. With the backward scheme, we obtained
multiple sets of qi and Di, as summarized in Table 9. Plotting
log qi and log Di vs. backward time interval, we obtained the
values of qi and Di at the end of the first year by extrapolation.
Using b = 0.6 and the extrapolated values qi = 861 MSCF/D
and Di = 0.000815 1/D, we projected future production
performance (Fig. 12). The predicted performance from two
conventional practices used in decline curve analysis is also
presented in Fig. 12. The relative errors of estimated
remaining reserves are -14.7% from our method, compared
with 109.9% and -28.3% from other methods. It is obvious
that our method provides much better estimation than
conventional practices of decline analysis.
We examined the effectiveness and superiority of our
method when more production data are available. Fig. 13
presents the forecasts for 28 and 27 years. The 28-year
projection corresponds to two years of production data
available for analysis, while the 27-year projection
corresponds to three years of production data available for
analysis. The 29-year projection is also included in Fig. 13.
The error in the production forecast is reduced significantly
when more production data are available. Using decline
analysis of two years of production data, we obtained the
estimated remaining reserves with a relative error of -4.5%,
compared to -14.7% when only one year of data was available.
Using decline analysis of three years of production data, we
obtained the estimated remaining reserves with a relative error
of -2.0%.
Synthetic Case 2 indicates that our method greatly
improved production forecasts and reserves estimates for
SPE 108176
multilayer tight gas wells when only transient flow data are
available for the analysis. It is superior to conventional
practices used in decline analysis. This new method
consistently provides more accurate forecasts when more
production data are available.
Field example
We next apply our new method to a field example and
demonstrate its applicability to typical well data.
This field example is a gas well producing from a tight gas
reservoir with permeabilities ranging from 0.002 to 0.02 md.
The initial reservoir pressure was about 4,500 psi and the net
pay is estimated to be 150 ft. Three staged hydraulic fracture
treatments were implemented on multiple productive zones.
The fracture half-lengths are estimated to range between 300 ft
and 600 ft. This well was plugged after 20 years of production.
Fig. 14 shows the monthly gas rate history over the well life.
We applied our decline analysis method to the first three
years of data and then predicted performance for the
remaining 17 years. Fig. 15 is the plot of log qi vs backward
time interval. The value of qi extrapolated to time zero is
7,315 MSCF/mo. Fig. 16 is the plot of log Di vs backward
time interval. The value of Di extrapolated to time zero is
0.0087 1/mo. Note that outliers were removed for
extrapolation because we need to characterize the overall
decline trend instead of localized variation. We took the end of
the third year as the initial point of projection, and used the set
of parameters qi = 7,315 MSCF/mo, b = 0.6 and Di = 0.0087
1/mo for forecasting. The projected performance is shown in
Fig. 14, along with the actual production performance. Fig. 14
shows that the predicted decline behavior is very consistent
with the observed behavior. The relative errors of estimated
remaining reserves and ultimate reserves are -2.97% and -
1.97%, respectively. Our method led to a forecast that is a
good representation of actual production history.
Fig. 17 presents the projections obtained using
conventional practices in decline analysis, with the same
production data as we used in our method, i.e, the first three
years of production data. One forecasts far too much future
production, and the other forecasts far too little future
production. The relative errors in estimated remaining reserves
are 36.50% and -47.18%, respectively, for these other
methods.
This field example indicates that our method can
significantly improve the reliability of decline curve analysis
in multilayer tight gas wells, since the error of reserves
estimation and production forecast is greatly reduced.
Conclusions
1. Conventional practices of decline curve analysis in tight
gas wells are problematic in forecasting long-term
performance, and typically provide quite inaccurate
reserves estimates.
2. We have developed a new method to accurately project
production performance and reliably estimate remaining
reserves from decline analysis of the early-time
production data.
5
3. The proposed method mitigates the complexity of decline
curve analysis in tight gas wells. Our method was
validated using synthetic examples for single-layer and
multilayer gas wells. Accurate reserves estimates and
performance forecasts were obtained.
4. Practical applicability of our method was demonstrated
with an actual tight gas well producing from multiple
zones fractured with multistage treatments. The forecast is
quite consistent with the actual behavior. Similar to the
synthetic examples, an accurate reserves estimate and
performance forecast were obtained.
5. The new method provides a useful tool to estimate
reserves and forecast future performance from decline
analysis of the early-time production data in tight gas
wells. Althrough there are some limitations, it should still
be far better than conventional practices.
Nomenclature
b = Arps’ decline exponent
bE = average decline exponent
cgi = initial gas compressibility, 1/psia
Di = initial decline rate, 1/D or 1/mo
p = initial pressure, psia
pp = pseudopressure, psia2/cp
pwf = bottom-hole flowing pressure, psia
q = gas production rate, MSCF/D
qi = initial gas production rate, MSCF/D
t = time, days or months
zi = initial gas compressibility factor, 1/psi
zwf = gas compressibility factor at BHP, 1/psi
References
1. Arps, J.J.: “Analysis of Decline Curves,” Tran., AIME (1945)
160, 228.
2. Chen, Her-Yuan.: “Estimating Gas Decline-Exponent before
Decline-Curve Analysis,” SPE 75693 presented at the 2002 SPE
Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30
April-2 May.
3. Fetkovich, M.J., Fetkovich, E.J. and Fetkovich, M.D.: “Useful
Concepts for Decline-Curve Forecasting, Reserve Estimation
and Analysis,” SPERE (Feb. 1996) 13.
4. Cox, S. A.: “Reserve Analysis for Tight Gas,” paper SPE 78695
presented at the 2002 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Lexington, KT, 23-25 October.
5. Neal, D.B. and Mian, M. A..: “Early-Time Tight Gas Production
Forecasting Technique Improves Reserves and Reservoir
Description,” SPEFE (Mar. 1989) 25.
6. Maley, S.: “The Use of Conventional Decline Curve Analysis in
Tight Gas Well Applications,” paper SPE/DOE 13898 presented
at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, CO, 19-22 May.
7. Lee, W.J., Rollins, J.B., and Spivey, J.P.: Pressure Transient
Testing, Textbook Series, SPE Richardson, TX (2003) Vol. 9.
8. Fetkovich, M.J. et al: “Depletion Performance of Layered
Reservoirs without Crossflow,” SPEFE (Sept. 1990) 310.
9. Cheng, Y., Wang, Y., McVay, D.A. and Lee, W.J.: “Practical
Application of a Probabilistic Approach to Estimate Reservoirs
Using Production Decline Data,” SPE 95974 presented at the
2005 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12
October.
6 SPE 108176

Table 1. Regressed parameters from history Table 5. Regressed parameters from history
matching different duration periods for synthetic matching of only boundary-dominated (stabilized)
case 1 (b obtained from best curve fit) flow data for synthetic Case 1
HM* period, year HM period, year
q i , MSCF/D b D i , 1/D q i , MSCF/D b D i , 1/D Error*
Start End Start End
5 6 428.5 0.362 0.0002620 1.0%
0 1 2025 2.93 0.0164
5 7 428.5 0.432 0.0002621 3.7%
0 2 2030 3.01 0.0171
5 8 428.5 0.432 0.0002620 4.1%
0 3 2031 3.02 0.0173 5 9 428.5 0.419 0.0002617 3.1%
0 5 2023 2.96 0.0164 5 10 428.4 0.397 0.0002608 3.6%
0 10 1945 2.59 0.0114 * Relative error in estimated remaining reserves
0 20 1675 1.90 0.0045
* History matching
Table 6. Regressed parameters from history
matching only boundary-dominated (stabilized) flow
Table 2. Regressed parameters from history data for synthetic Case 2
matching different duration periods for synthetic HM period, year
q i , MSCF/D b D i , 1/D Error*
case 2 (b obtained from best curve fit) Start End
HM period, year 5 6 401.4 0.615 0.000413 1.2%
q i , MSCF/D b D i , 1/D
Start End 5 7 401.4 0.606 0.000413 0.9%
0 1 2027.6 3.16 0.0100 5 8 401.3 0.598 0.000412 0.6%
0 2 2006.3 2.84 0.0086 5 9 401.3 0.592 0.000412 0.4%
0 3 1971.5 2.52 0.0071 5 10 401.3 0.588 0.000412 0.2%
0 5 1891.9 2.03 0.0050 * Relative error in estimated remaining reserves
0 10 1744.2 1.43 0.0029
0 20 1622.5 1.06 0.0019
Table 7. Regressed parameters from history
matching late-time data for synthetic Case 2
HM period, year
Table 3. Regressed parameters from history q i , MSCF/D b D i , 1/D
Start End
matching different duration periods for synthetic
1 30 885 0.638 0.00071
case 1 (b constrained to be < 1)
2 30 687 0.605 0.000578
HM period, year
q i , MSCF/D b D i , 1/D 5 30 401 0.589 0.000412
Start End
10 30 215 0.594 0.000287
0 1 1745 1.0 0.0046
13 30 161 0.599 0.000242
0 2 1581 1.0 0.0030 16 30 126 0.592 0.000208
0 3 1474 1.0 0.0022 19 30 102 0.571 0.000182
0 5 1348 1.0 0.0016 20 30 95 0.554 0.000175
0 10 1229 1.0 0.0011
0 20 1199 1.0 0.0010
Table 8. Regressed qi and Di for synthetic Case 1
HM period, days Time interval qi b Di
Table 4. Regressed parameters from history
Start End days MSCF/D 1/D
matching different duration periods for synthetic 182 1095 913 864 0.433 0.00067
case 2 (b constrained to be < 1) 365 1095 730 733 0.433 0.00051
HM period, year q i , MSCF/D b D i , 1/D 547 1095 548 658 0.433 0.00043
Start End 730 1095 365 605 0.433 0.00038
0 1 1810 1.0 0.0033 912 1095 183 564 0.433 0.00035
0 2 1699 1.0 0.0024
0 3 1643 1.0 0.0020
0 5 1594 1.0 0.0018 Table 9. Regressed qi and Di for synthetic Case 2
0 10 1573 1.0 0.0017 HM period, days Time interval qi b Di
0 20 1589 1.0 0.0018 Start End days MSCF/D 1/D
91 365 274 1285 0.6 0.00152
182 365 183 1104 0.6 0.00119
273 365 92 989 0.6 0.00101
SPE 108176 7

10000
10000
True production
1 year HM
10 year HM
20 year HM
Gas rate, MSCF/D

Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000 1000

100
100

10
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 10
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Time, days
Time, days

Fig. 1—Production performance for hydraulically fractured well in Fig. 4—Predicted performance resulting from conventional
single-layer reservoir (Case 1). decline analysis techniques for synthetic Case 2 (b obtained from
best curve fit).

10000
10000
True production
Layer 1: k=0.02 md 1 year HM
Layer 2: k=0.006 md 5 year HM
Layer 3: k=0.002 md 10 year HM
1000 Total production
Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000
Gas rate, MSCF/D

100

100

10

10
1
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Time, days
Time, days

Fig. 2—Production performance for hydraulically fractured well in Fig. 5—Predicted performance resulting from conventional
multilayer reservoir (Case 2). decline analysis technique for synthetic Case 1 (b constrained to
be < 1.0).

10000 10000
True production Total production
1 year HM 1 year HM
10 year HM 5 year HM
20 year HM 1000 10 year HM
Gas rate, MSCF/D
Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000

100

100
10

10 1
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Time, days Time, days

Fig. 3—Predicted performance resulting from conventional Fig. 6—Predicted performance resulting from conventional
decline analysis techniques for synthetic Case 1 (b obtained from decline analysis technique for synthetic Case 2 (b constrained to
best curve fit). be < 1.0).
8 SPE 108176

10000 0.01
Series1
HM over 5 years to 8 years
HM over 5 years to 7 years y = 0.000284e0.00087x
HM over 5 years to 6 years
HM over 5 years to 9 years R2 = 0.9497
Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000 HM over 5 years to 10 years

Di , 1/day
0.001

100

0.0001
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
10
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Backward time interval, days

Time, days
Fig. 10—Extrapolating Di to the initial time of projection for
Fig. 7—Predicted performance resulting from stabilized flow for
synthetic Case 1.
synthetic Case 1.

10000
True production 10000
HM over 5 years to 10 years True production
HM over 5 years to 9 years b=3.0 for best fit, error=56.2%
HM over 5 years to 8 years b=1.0 for b≤1 constraint, error=-35.2%
HM over 5 years to 7 years b=0.433, new method, error=2.8%
Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000 HM over 5 years to 6 years

Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000

100
100

HM Forecast

10
10
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Time, days
Time, days

Fig. 11—Forecasts using different decline analysis techniques for

Fig. 8—Predicted performance resulting from stabilized flow for
synthetic Case 1.
synthetic Case 2.

10000 10000
True production
y = 494.3e0.0006x b=3.16, best fit, error=109.9%
b=1, constraint b≤1, error=-28.3%
R2 = 0.9702 b=0.6, new method, error=-14.7%
Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000
qi , MSCF/D

1000

100 HM

Forecast

100
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 10
Backward time interval, days 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Time, days
Fig. 9—Extrapolating qi to the initial time of projection for Fig. 12—Forecasts using different decline analysis techniques for
synthetic Case 1. synthetic Case 2.
SPE 108176 9

10000
0.1
True production
1 year HM, error=-14.7%
2 year HM, error=-4.7%
3 year HM, error=-2.0% Outlier
Gas rate, MSCF/D

1000

Di , 1/mo
0.01

100
y = 0.0087e0.0375x
R2 = 0.9483

0.001
10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Backward time interval, months
Time, days

Fig. 13—Forecasts using our decline analysis technique for Fig. 16—Extrapolating Di to the initial time of projection for field
synthetic Case 2. example.

100,000 100,000
Actual data
Actual data b=0.6, new method, error=-2.97%
b=1, constraint b≤1, error=-47.18%
Predicted performance Gas rate, MSCF/mo b=2.65, best fit, error=36.50%
Gas rate, MSCF/mo

10,000 10,000

1,000 1,000

100 100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time, months Time, months

Fig. 14—Production history and forecast for field example. Fig. 17—Forecasts using different decline analysis techniques for
field example.

100,000
y = 7315.1e0.025x
R2 = 0.9723
qi , MSCF/mo

10,000

1,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Backward time interval, months

Fig. 15—Extrapolating qi to the initial time of projection for field

example.