SPE 71517
Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior
in a Multiwell Reservoir System
T. Marhaendrajana, Schlumberger, and T. A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.
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, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In this paper we present a new multiwell reservoir solution
and an associated analysis methodology to analyze single well
performance data in a multiwell reservoir system. The key to
this approach is the use of field cumulative production data
and individual well flow rate and pressure data. Our new
solution and analysis methodology couples the single well and
multiwell reservoir models⎯and enables the estimation of
total reservoir volume and flow properties within the drainage
area of an individual well⎯with the analysis performed using
a single well reservoir model (type curve). This multiwell
analysis using a single well model is made possible by a
coupling of the single well and multiwell solutions based on a
total material balance of the system. The data required for this
approach are readily available in practice: basic reservoir
properties, fluid properties, well completion data, and well rate
(and pressure) data and cumulative production data for the
entire field.
Currently, all existing decline type curve analyses assume a
single well in closed system (or single well with constant
pressure or prescribed influx at the outer boundary). In many
cases a well produces in association with other wells in the
same reservoir⎯and unless all wells are produced at the same
constant rate or the same constant bottomhole flowing
pressure, nonuniform drainage systems will form during
boundary-dominated flow conditions.
Furthermore, it is well established that new wells “steal”
reserves from older wells, and this behavior is commonly
observed in the production behavior. Our new approach
accounts for the entire production history of the well and the
reservoir and eliminates the influence of well interference
effects. This approach provides much better estimates of the
in-place fluids in a multiwell system, and the methodology
also provides a consistent and straightforward analysis of
production data where well interference effects are observed.
This work provides the following deliverables:
1. A new multiwell reservoir solution for which the
formulation yields a simplified form for an arbitrary
(individual) well during boundary-dominated flow
conditions.
2. A complete analysis methodology for oil and gas reservoir
systems based on conventional production data (on a per-
well basis) as well as the cumulative production of the
entire field.
3. A systematic validation of this approach using a numerical
reservoir simulator for cases of homogeneous, regionally
heterogeneous, and randomly heterogeneous reservoirs.
4. An application to a large gas field (Arun field, Indonesia).
This approach provides very consistent estimates of in-
place fluids and reservoir properties. All analyses
(simulated and field data) clearly demonstrate that the
effects of well interference on individual wells were
eliminated as a result of this analysis methodology.
Introduction
The single well model has been widely used to forecast the
production decline of reservoir and wells systems. Although
the analytical solutions for a single well in circular reservoir
came as early as in 1934,1 this effort was pioneered by Arps,2
who presented a suite of (empirical) exponential and
hyperbolic models for this purpose.
Fetkovich3 presented the theoretical basis for Arps’s
production decline models using the pseudosteady-state flow
equation. He also developed decline type curves that not only
enable us to forecast well performance but also to estimate
reservoir properties (i.e., flow capacity kh) as well as original
oil-in-place (OOIP). This classic work by Fetkovich laid the
foundation for all the work that followed regarding decline
type curves.
McCray4 (1990) developed a time function that transformed
production data for systems exhibiting variable rate or
pressure drop performance into an equivalent system produced
2 T. Marhaendrajana and T. A. Blasingame
at a constant bottomhole pressure (this work was later
extended by Blasingame et al.5 (1991) to an equivalent
“constant rate” analysis approach). In 1993, Palacio and
Blasingame6 developed a solution for the general case of
variable rate/variable pressure drop for the flow of either
single-phase liquid or gas.
Rodriguez and Cinco-Ley7 (1993) developed a model for pro-
duction decline in a bounded multiwell system. The primary
assumptions in their model are that the pseudosteady-state
flow condition exists at all points in the reservoir and that all
wells produce at a constant bottomhole pressure. They con-
cluded that the production performance of the reservoir was
shown to be exponential in all cases, as long as the bottomhole
pressures in individual wells are maintained constant.
Camacho et al.8 (1996) subsequently improved the
Rodriguez–Cinco-Ley model by allowing individual wells to
produce at different times. However, Camacho et al. also
assumed the existence of the pseudosteady-state condition and
that all wells produce at constant bottomhole pressures.
Valko et al.9 (2000) presented the concept of a multiwell
productivity index for an arbitrary number of wells in a
bounded reservoir system. These authors also assumed the
existence of pseudosteady-state flow, but proved that the
concept was valid for constant rate, constant pressure, or
variable rate/variable pressure production.
The limitations of the available multiwell models are summar-
ized as follows:
Constant bottomhole pressure production (except for
Valko et al. 9). This is rarely the case in practice.
The assumption of pseudosteady-state may be violat-
ed, especially for conditions where the production
schedule (rate/pressure) changes dramatically, the
reservoir permeability is very low, and/or the well
spacing changes (because of infill wells).
None of the available multiwell methods provides
mechanisms for rigorous production data analysis.
In this work, we have developed a general multiwell solution
that is valid for all flow regimes (transient, transition, and
boundary-dominated flow). This new solution is rigorous for
any rate/pressure profile (constant rate, constant pressure, or
variable rate/variable pressure). It also provides a mechanism
for the analysis of production data based on a material balance
for the entire reservoir system.
Decline Curve Analysis in a Multiwell Reservoir
System.
Motivation. Fig. 1 is a typical p/z plot of a gas well producing
from Arun field (Indonesia). The data plotted in this figure are
from Syah.10 This plot is characterized by concave downward
behavior that could easily be interpreted as an abnormal
pressure system. However, application of the material balance
that accounts for abnormal pressure mechanisms does not
validate that assumption.
SPE 71517
Fig. 2 illustrates an attempt to match the well performance
data functions with the single well decline type curve as pro-
posed by Palacio and Blasingame.6 The well performance data
functions deviate from the b = 1 stem during boundary
dominated flow condition (the b = 1 stem represents the
material balance model for the reservoir system). This
behavior (i.e., data functions deviating from the material
balance trend) has been consistently observed for the analysis
of well performance data from Arun field.10
It is interesting that the p/z versus Gp plot for the total field
performance at Arun field shows a straight-line trend—as
expected for a volumetric gas reservoir (Fig. 3). This
observation suggests that the behavior observed in Figs. 1 and
2 is perfectly correct—individual wells compete for reserves,
while the cumulative (or aggregate) performance of the system
is represented by a total balance of pressure and production.
In other words, if we intend to consider the “local”
performance of an individual well, then the effects of other
nearby wells must also be considered. To prove this point we
cannot rely solely on total field analyses (such as shown in
Fig. 3) because the computation of the average pressure from
the total field is based on an averaging of the available local
pressure measurements.
This averaging technique itself may yield numerical artifacts,
and the issue of the accuracy and relevance of the local
pressures becomes quite important. How accurate and
representative are locally averaged pressures? The
development of an analysis and interpretation approach that is
rigorous, yet does not rely on an average reservoir pressure
scheme, was our motivation.
Our strategy was to develop a multiwell data analysis method
using a general multiwell model—but to develop this model in
such a form that it uses individual well performance data in
the estimation of total reserves and the permeability in the
drainage region for a particular well.
Multiwell Solution. The general solution for the well perfor-
mance in a bounded multiwell reservoir system is given by
(see Appendix A for details)11:
pD([xwD,k + ε],[ywD,k + ε],t DA) =
Σ
d pD,cr(t DA – τ )
dτ
tDA
q D,i(τ)
nwell
dτ
i=1 k,i
0
+ q Dk(t DA) sk ..................................................... (1)
The physical model used to develop Eq. 1 is shown in Fig. 4.
This model assumes a closed rectangular reservoir with a con-
stant thickness, which is fully penetrated by multiple vertical
wells (the well locations are arbitrary). The reservoir is
assumed to be homogeneous, and we also assume the single-
phase flow of a slightly compressible liquid. The solution for a
single well produced at a constant rate in a bounded rect-
angular reservoir is given by Eq. A-11 (or Eq. A-12).12 The
SPE 71517 Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System
constant rate solution inside the integral in Eq. 1 is computed
at a particular well (well “k”) and includes the effects of each
well in the reservoir system.
The accuracy of Eq. 1 is validated using numerical reservoir
simulation. We use a homogeneous square reservoir of
constant thickness and include nine wells in the system in a
regular well pattern. Each well is assigned an arbitrary
bottomhole flowing pressure that can vary with time (Fig. 5).
This solution can also include an arbitrary flow rate scheme.
The reservoir and wells configuration is shown in Fig. 6, and
the reservoir and fluid property data for this case are listed in
Table 1. The computation of the oil flow rate from both the
analytical solution and numerical reservoir simulation are
plotted in Fig. 7. Note that the analytical solution is in close
agreement with numerical solution.
Decline Type Curve Analysis for a Multiwell Reservoir
System. Having developed and validated our multiwell
solution, we proceeded with the development of a data
analysis methodology that could be derived from the multiwell
solution. In Appendix B we show that Eq. 1 can be written as
qk(t)
= 1
( pi – pwf ,k(t)) 1 t + f (t ) ........................................ (2)
Nct tot
Σ q (τ)d τ = q (t) .................................. (3)
where
t n well N p,tot
t tot,k = 1
q k(t) i replace pressure, time, and the total material balance time,
0 i=1 k
The variable f(t) is obviously time-dependent (see Appendix
B)—however, this variable becomes constant during boun-
dary-dominated flow conditions. Eq. 2. represents a general
formulation of Arp’s harmonic decline equation and should be
recognized as a material balance relation. Note that this
formulation accounts for the variations in production
schedules that occur in practice—in particular, the approach is
valid for constant rate, constant pressure, or variable
rate/variable pressure behavior during boundary-dominated
flow conditions. This equation suggests that if we plot
qk(t)/(pi-pwf,k(t)) versus the “total material balance time”
function, then we can estimate the original oil-in-place (OOIP)
for the entire reservoir using decline type curves.
For boundary-dominated flow, Eq. 2 can be written in terms of
the dimensionless decline variables as
q Dde = 1 ................................................................ (4)
t Dde + 1
where
141.2 Bμ
ln reD/ β D – 1 ............ (5)
qk(t)
qDde =
kh ( pi – pwf ,k(t)) 2
2π
φμct A
0.00633 k ttot
ln reD/ β D – 1
tDde = .............................. (6)
2 this case implies (as would any reservoir engineering solution)
This result states that the performance of an individual well in
a multiwell system behaves as a single well in a closed
3
system—provided that the total material balance time function
is used. Furthermore, this observation implies that the
include both transient and boundary-dominated flow ⎯can
Fetkovich/McCray type curves for a single well⎯which
also be used to analyze data from a multiwell reservoir system,
provided that properly defined dimensionless variables are
used (Eqs. 5 and 6).
To validate our concept we use Eq. 1 as a mechanism to
generate the behavior of a multiwell reservoir system. This is a
substantial departure from the work of Fetkovich3 (and
others), where a well centered in a closed circular reservoir is
used as the reservoir model. In particular, we use a square
reservoir with nine wells on a regular well spacing and
producing at the same constant rate.
Using the case described above we found that we can produce
results that are essentially identical to the Fetkovich/McCray
type curve developed for a single well. For the multiwell
reD/ β D as the “family” parameter (as shown in Fig. 8). We
reservoir case we plot qDde versus tDde on log-log scale and use
define an “interaction coefficient” βD,which is used to
represent the other wells in the multiwell system. An inter-
action coefficient of 1 is the single well case and, con-
sequently, is a special case of the multiwell model.
For gas reservoirs, Eqs. 1 through 6 are valid—provided that
we use the appropriate pseudopressure, pseudotime, and total
material balance pseudotime functions. These functions
respectively. The pseudopressure and pseudotime functions
are defined by6,13
μz
p
μ z dp′ ...................................................... (7)
p′
pp = p
i
pbase
ta = μct 1 d τ ................................................... (8)
t
0 μct pavg
i
and the total material balance pseudotime is expressed as6
μct
d τ .............................................. (9)
t qg,tot
0 μct p
i
ta,tot = qg
avg
Application of Multiwell Model to Simulated Cases
Homogeneous Reservoir Example. In this particular case we
can directly validate the multiwell solution proposed in the
previous section. The reservoir and well configuration is
shown in Fig. 5 and the well performance behavior is shown
in Figs. 5 and 7. The important issue for this case is that the
analytical solution (Eq. 1) and the numerical simulation model
represent exactly the same case of a homogeneous, bounded
rectangular reservoir. Validation of the analytical solution for
that this result can be used for the analysis and interpretation
of performance data.
4 T. Marhaendrajana and T. A. Blasingame
The well performance data for all wells are plotted on a log-
log scale in Fig. 9. Note that all the data trends from the nine
wells (each with a different production schedule) overlie one
another. The behavior at early time (all trends overlie)
confirms the homogeneous nature of the reservoir, whereas the
alignment of all the data at late time confirms our total
material balance on the entire reservoir system. An important
note is that we have not modified any data or data trend shown
in Fig. 9—the excellent agreement of these data is solely due
to the accuracy of the new solution.
The value of this example is the confirmation that the per-
formance of a single well can be used to establish the reservoir
volume. It appears that the early time (tran-sient flow) data
can be used to estimate the permeability in the local drainage
area for each well. We con-firm this hypothesis using the
locally homogeneous and heterogeneous reservoir cases
considered in the fol-lowing sections.
Another advantage of using our multiwell approach (i.e., the
total material balance time function) over the single well
approach (i.e., the material balance time function for a single
formance of well [3,2] ⎯the data are plotted on a log-log
well) can be observed in Fig. 10. This figure shows the per-
scale using both the single and multiwell approaches. The data
for the multiwell approach (denoted by open symbols) clearly
best match the type curve model for all flow regimes
(transient, transition, and boundary-dominated).
The data for the single well approach (denoted by solid
symbols) deviate systematically from the decline type curve
model. The deviation is significant during boundary-
dominated flow. Any analyses based on this match of the data
could easily yield erroneous results.
To extend this approach for the analysis of gas well
performance, we must extend the concept of our material
balance time function to include the total gas production. This
requires modification of the pseudotime formulation for the
gas reservoir case and combination with the material balance
time concept. This is relatively straightforward (see Eq. 9).
The remainder of this section is devoted to the validation of
the gas well performance case.
Figs. 11 through 13 show the application of our multiwell
decline type curve method to simulated performance data from
a homogeneous, dry gas reservoir. The reservoir and wells
configuration is the same as for the oil case (Fig. 6). The fluid
and reservoir properties are listed in Table 2. Fig. 13 indicates
that all the well performance data imply a particular reservoir
volume (i.e., a unique original gas-in-place, OGIP) as
predicted by our multiwell analysis technique. This behavior is
denoted by the convergence of the boundary-dominated data
(i.e., the late time data) for all wells into a single material
balance trend.
Locally Homogeneous Reservoir Example. In this example,
the reservoir and fluid properties are the same as in Table 1 for
the homogeneous bounded reservoir. The primary difference
in this case is that the reservoir permeability distribution is not
SPE 71517
homogeneous, but is considered locally homogeneous (Fig.
14).
Similar to the previous case, a numerical simulation is per-
formed where each well is produced under variable bot-
tomhole flowing pressure conditions. The bottomhole pres-
sure profile for each well is shown in Fig. 15, and the oil flow
rate response for each well is shown in Fig. 16.
The well performance data for all wells are plotted on a log-
log scale in Fig. 17. All the data trends converge to a single
material balance trend at late time, which corresponds to a
unique reservoir volume. Also note that the different responses
at early time correspond to the different average permeabilities
for the drainage areas defined by individual wells. The data in
Figs. 17 and 18 clearly show the ability of our multiwell
approach to model the entire system based on the well
performance data for in-dividual wells.
Simultaneous matching of the data for all wells using the Fet-
kovich/McCray decline type curve is shown on Fig. 18. The
data for all wells match the type curve very well for all flow
regimes (transient, transition, and boundary-dominated). The
data are a little scattered in the transition flow regime, where
this behavior is due to a sudden change of the well flowing
condition⎯gradual, rather than sudden, changes in rates and
pressures are more likely in practice. The results for this
example are listed in Table 3.
Input and calculated values of OOIP are in excellent
agreement—but this is somewhat expect-ed because the total
material balance time correlates with the total (in-place)
volume. The differences in estimated permeability values
occur because of the frame of reference. The input
permeability is the value assigned to the well spacing for a
particular well; whereas the calculated permeability is the
harmonic average of the permeabilities that occur in the
drainage area of a particular well. The issue of a drainage area
for an individual well in a multiwell reservoir system is
somewhat problematic because the drainage areas change with
time, corresponding to changes in the production schedule for
all the wells in the reservoir.
Heterogeneous Reservoir Example. This case differs from
permeability distribution is random (see Fig. 19) ⎯the
substantially from the two previous cases in that the reservoir
permeability values are assigned to grid blocks arbitrarily
from 0.1 to 10 md and vary throughout the well spacing and
the reservoir. This case is intended to demonstrate how well
our multiwell analysis/interpretation approach works for a
randomly heterogeneous reservoir. The reservoir and fluid
properties are as listed in Table 1. The specified bottomhole
flowing pressure profile for each well is also different from
the two previous cases (Fig. 20), and the oil flow rate response
for each well is shown in Fig. 21.
The well performance data for all wells are shown on log-log
scale in Fig. 22. Again, all well responses con-verge to a
single material balance trend at late time, which again
corresponds to a unique reservoir volume. As we noted for the
SPE 71517 Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System
locally homogeneous reservoir, the different trends at early
time are due to the different average permeabilities within an
individual well drainage areas.
In Fig. 23 all the data trends match the correct (material
balance) solution at late time (i.e., boundary-domi-nated flow).
The variations in the early time (transient flow) behavior
correspond to different permeabilities. The scat-tered data
within the transition region are due to severe rate changes that
affect the derivative computation. In practice, such severe rate
changes are unlikely to occur. If they do occur, screening the
“bad” data provides a smoother derivative function. The
results of our analysis are provided in Table 4.
Again, the input and calculated values ofOOIP are in excellent
agreement. The OOIP is a unique property of the reservoir,
and using our multiwell approach preserves this uniqueness
(based on the total material balance time).
Although it is somewhat unclear as to how to compare the
input and calculated permeability values for each well, we
chose to compare the harmonic average permeability within a
particular well spacing to the calculated permeability from the
decline type curve match. The results in Table 4 confirm our
proposition that this approach can be used to estimate
permeabilities in a heterogeneous multiwell reservoir system.
Field Application
To demonstrate the application of our method to field data, we
analyzed several cases of well performance data from Arun
field (Indonesia). Arun field has 111 wells (79 producers, 11
injectors, 4 observation wells, and 17 abandoned wells). The
layout of Arun field is shown in Fig. 24 would certainly be
considered a multiwell reser-voir system.
Arun field is a supergiant gas condensate reservoir with a
maximum liquid dropout of approximately 1.5% at the
dewpoint (although most data suggest that the maximum
liquid production should be less than 1%). In our analysis, the
variation of fluid properties with pressure is incorporated by
the use of pseudopressure and pseudotime. In addition, we use
the total (molar) gas rate. Using this procedure we expected to
estimate the correct gas-in-place volume for the entire field, as
well as correctly estimate the local (per well) effective
permeabilities to gas.
We analyzed selected cases of well performance data from the
following Arun field wells:
Well C-II-01 (A-037) Well C-III-04 (A-016)
Well C-II-03 (A-032) Well C-III-05 (A-035)
Well C-II-04 (A-024) Well C-III-06 (A-017)
Well C-II-16 (A-029) Well C-III-09 (A-028)
Well C-III-02 (A-015) Well C-III-15 (A-041)
Well C-III-03 (A-034)
We discuss in detail the analysis results obtained using the
production data from Well C-III-02 (A-015). The produc-tion
history of Well C-III-02 (A-015) (wellhead pressure and gas
rate versus time) is plotted in Fig. 25. The production history
5
includes both wellhead flow rates and flowing wellhead
pressure data.
In this example, we use both single well (i.e., single well
material balance pseudotime) and our proposed multiwell de-
cline type curve analysis (i.e., total material balance
pseudotime) techniques. The decline type curve matches for
both the single and multiwell approaches are shown in Fig. 26.
Our multiwell analysis approach matches the production data
functions (solid symbols) to the type curve very well (we used
pseudopressure and pseudotime functions to account for the
dependency of fluid properties on pressure).
The single well approach (based only on the rate and pressure
data for a single well) fails to match the late time material
balance trend, where the boundary-dominated flow data
deviate systematically from the type curve (Fig. 26, open
symbols). We recognize that this behavior is due to well
interference effects caused by competing producing wells, but
the single well approach has no mechanism to correct or
account for well interference behavior.
Our analysis using the multiwell approach yields an estimate
of the OGIP for Arun field of approximately 19.8 TCF. The
estimate of the effective flow capacity (to gas) for this well is
2,791 md-ft, which is based on the match of the early time
(transient flow) data.
Figs. 27 and 28 show the log-log plots of the rate/pressure
drop and decline type curve match, respectively, for all 11
wells that we considered for our combined analysis. All the
curves converge to the unique material balance trend at late
time. This region (i.e., the boundary-dominated flow data) will
be used to establish an estimate of the total (in-place) gas
reservoirs for Arun field.
The results of our analysis for the 11 wells selected from Arun
field are summarized in Table 5. The OGIP computed using
our approach is consistent⎯that is, each of the well analyses
yields the same estimate of OGIP for the entire Arun field.
Our methodology assumes that the OGIP is constant;
therefore, we should be able to force all analyses to a single
value of gas-in-place, which is what we obtained.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are derived from this work.
We have developed a general multiwell solution that
is accurate and provides a mechanism for the analysis
of production data from a single well in a multiwell
reservoir system.
We have developed a methodology for the analysis of
production data from an individual well in a
multiwell system. Using this method we can estimate
the original fluid-in-place for the entire reservoir, as
well as the local permeability. Our methodology can
be applied for both oil and gas reservoirs.
Our approach uses the single well decline type curve
(i.e., the Fetkovich/McCray type curve) coupled with
the appropriate data transforms for the multiwell
6 T. Marhaendrajana and T. A. Blasingame SPE 71517

reservoir system. We developed a total material D = dimensionless

balance time plotting function, which includes the k,i = well index
performance from all the producing wells in the MP = match point
multiwell reservoir system. mw = multiwell
Our method honors the volumetric balance of the ref = reference
entire reservoir and preserves the uniqueness of the Acknowledgements
reservoir volume. Furthermore, the estimates of flow
capacity (or permeability) obtained from our The authors thank the former Mobil E&P Technology Co.
numerical simulation studies indicate that our (MEPTEC, now ExxonMobil) in Dallas, Texas, for financial
approach provides estimates that are both accurate and computing services support provided during this work.
and representative for homogeneous and hetero- The first author also thanks Ms. Kathy Hartman, Mr. Norman
geneous reservoir systems. Kaczorowski, and Mr. Ravi Vaidya of ExxonMobil for
Nomenclature virtually unlimited access to data and specifically for the
personnel support.
A = area, ft2
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB References
ct = total compressibility, psi1 1. Hurst, W.: “Unsteady Flow of Fluids in Oil Reservoirs,” Physics
Gp = cumulative gas production, MMscf (Jan. 1934) 5, 20.
h = net pay thickness, ft 2. Arps, J.J.: “Analysis of Decline Curves,” Trans., AIME (Dec.
k = permeability, md 1945) 160, 228–247.
N = original oil-in-place, STB 3. Fetkovich, M.J.: “Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves”
Np = cumulative oil production, STB JPT (June 1980) 1065–1077.
4. McCray, T.L.: “Reservoir Analysis Using Production Decline
nwell = number of wells Data and Adjusted Time,” MS thesis, Texas A&M University,
p = pressure, psia College Station, TX (1990).
pi = initial pressure, psia 5. Blasingame, T.A., McCray, T.C. and Lee, W.J.: “Decline Curve
pp = pseudopressure function, psia Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate
pwf = well flowing pressure, psia Systems,” paper SPE 21513 presented at the 1991 SPE Gas
q = flow rate, STB/D Technology Symposium, Houston, Jan. 23–24.
qg = gas flow rate, MSCF/D 6. Palacio, J.C. and Blasingame, T.A.: “Decline Curve Analysis
qg,tot = total gas flow rate (all wells), Mscf/D Using Type Curves: Analysis of Gas Well Production Data,”
qtot = total flow rate (all wells), STB/D paper SPE 25909 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
re = reservoir radius, ft April 12–14.
rw = wellbore radius, ft 7. Rodriguez, F. and Cinco-Ley, H.: “A New Model for Production
s = near-well skin factor, dimensionless Decline,” paper SPE 25480 presented at the 1993 Production
t = time, day Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 21–23.
ta = pseudotime, day 8. Camacho-V, R., Rodriguez, F., Galindo-N, A. and Prats, M.:
ta,tot = total material balance pseudotime, day “Optimum Position for Wells Producing at Constant Wellbore
ttot = total material balance time, day Pressure,” SPEJ (June 1996) 155–168.
9. Valko, P.P., Doublet, L.E. and Blasingame, T.A.: “Development
x = x coordinate from origin, ft and Application of the Multiwell Productivity Index (MPI),”
y = y coordinate from origin, ft SPEJ (Mar. 2000) 21.
xe = reservoir size in the x direction, ft 10. Syah, I.: “Modeling of Well Interference Effects on The Well
ye = reservoir size in the y direction, ft Production Performance in A Gas-Condensate Reservoir: A
xw = x coordinate of well from origin, ft Case Study of Arun Field,” PhD dissertation, Texas A&M
yw = y coordinate of well from origin, ft University, College Station, TX, 1999.

βD
z = gas z-factor 11. Marhaendrajana, T.: “Modeling and Analysis of Flow Behavior
in Single and Multiwell Bounded Reservoir,” PhD dissertation,
ε
= multiwell interaction coeeficient, dimensionless
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2000.
μ
= small step, dimensionless 12. Marhaendrajana, T. and Blasingame, T.A.: “Rigorous and Semi-

τ
= fluid viscosity, cp Rigorous Approaches for the Evaluation of Average Reservoir

φ
= dummy variable Pressure from Pressure Transient Tests,” paper SPE 38725
= porosity, fraction presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5–8.
Subscripts 13. Fraim, M.L. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Gas Reservoir Decline
A =area is used as the reference Analysis Using Type Curves with Real Gas Pseudopressure and
avg = average Normalized Time,” SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 620.
bar = evaluation is performed at average pressure
base = arbitrary reference
cr = constant rate
SPE 71517 Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System 7

Σ
tDA

q D,i(τ) ×
Appendix A—General Solution for Multiwell System

dτ
nwell
The mathematical model describing the pressure behavior in a
∂ pD,cr (xD, yD,t DA – τ,xwD,i, ywD,i)
bounded rectangular reservoir with multiple wells is in ref. 11. pD(xD, yD,t DA) =
∂t DA
i=1
In this model each well produces at an arbitrary constant rate
and any well can be located at an arbitrary position in the 0

Σ
reservoir (as shown in Fig. 4). This solution is given as
∂2 p ∂2 p φμct ∂ p
n .................................................................................... (A-7)
δ(x – xw,i, y – yw,i) =
well

∂x ∂y k ∂t
qi(t)B
μ
2
+ 2
– (A-1) If all wells are produced at individual (constant) flow rates,

Σq
i = 1 Ah(k/ )
Eq. A-7 can be simplified to yield
Eq. A-1 can be written in terms of the traditional dimension- nwell

Σ
less variables as follows: pD(xD, yD,t DA) = D,i pD,i(xD, yD,t DA,xwD,i, ywD,i) ....... (A-8)
∂ pD ∂ pD ∂ pD
q D,i(t DA) δ(xD – xwD,i, yD – ywD,i) =
i=1
+ 2π
2 2 nwell

∂x2D ∂ yD2 ∂t
+ Using Eq. A-7, the pressure solution for well “k” is given by:
pD([xwD,k + ε],[ywD,k + ε],t DA) =
i=1 DA

Σ
..................................................................................... (A-2)
d pD,cr(tDA – τ )
qD,i(τ) d τ ............ (A-9)
nwell tDA

dτ
where
2πkh ( pi – p(x, y,t))
qref Bμ
i=1

φμct A
k,i
pD = ; t DA = kt (Darcy units) 0

To account for the effect of the near-well skin factor s at well

q(t) y k we use
pD([xwD,k + ε],[ywD,k + ε],t DA) =
q D(t DA) = q ; xD = x ; yD =
ref A A

Σ
d pD,cr(tDA – τ )
In field units, the dimensionless variables are defined as
qD,i(τ) dτ
nwell tDA

dτ
kh ( pi – p(x, y,t))
141.2qref Bμ φμc t A
pD = ; t DA = 0.00633 kt
i=1 0 k,i

Employing of Duhamel’s principle for variable rate/variable

pressure systems, we obtain the following solution for Eq. A- + q Dk(t DA) sk ............................................... (A-10)

Σ
2—subject to the presumed no-flow outer boundary condition: The constant rate solution for an arbitrary location in a bound-

pD(xD, yD,t DA) = 2π q D,i(τ) ψi (xD, yD,t DA – τ,xwD,i, ywD,i) d τ

nwell ed rectangular reservoir is given by11,12
tDA

i=1 0 pD,cr(xD, yD,t DA) = 2πt DA

1 – exp – n 2π tDA
Σ
2 2
∞
cos xnπ xD cos xnπ xwD
..................................................................................... (A-3)
where ψ (xD,yDt DA,xwD, ywD) is an instantaneous line source + 4π
xeD
n=1 n 2π 2 eD eD
solution with unit strength located at (xw,yw). From Eq. A-3, 2
xeD
we can write the constant rate solution for a single well as
1 – exp – n 2π tDA
pD,cr(xD,yD,tDA) = 2π
Σ
ψ (xD,yD,tDA – τ,xwD,ywD) d τ ... (A-4)
2 2
∞
cos ynπ yD cos ynπ ywD
tDA

+ 4π
yeD
n 2π 2
We define ξ=tDA-τ and use this definition in Eq. A-4 to obtain
0 eD eD
n=1
2
yeD

1 – exp – n 2π + m 2π tDA
ΣΣ
pD,cr(xD,yD,tDA) = 2π ψ (xD,yD,ξ,xwD,ywD) d ξ ........... (A-5)
tDA 2 2 2 2
∞ ∞
+ 8π
xeD yeD
n 2π 2 + m 2π 2
0
m=1 n=1
Taking the derivative of Eq. A-5 with respect to tDA, we ob- 2
xeD 2
yeD

× cos xnπ xD cos xnπ xwD cos m π mπ

tain
∂ pD,cr(xD, yD,t DA)
= 2π ψ (xD, yD,t DA,xwD, ywD) ................ (A-6)
yeD yD cos yeD ywD
∂t DA
eD eD

Substituting Eq. A-6 into Eq. A-3, we obtain the convolution
integral formulation for the pressure response at any location
in an arbitrary multiwell reservoir system.
.................................................................................. (A-11)
From ref. 10 we note that Eq. A-11 can also be written in the
form of an exponential integral series:
pD,cr(xD, yD,t DA) =
8 T. Marhaendrajana and T. A. Blasingame SPE 71517

Σ Σ
∞ ∞
1 (x + x + 2nxeD) 2 + ( yD + ywD + 2m yeD) 2 Appendix B—Development of Production Data
E1 D wD
2m = – ∞ n = – ∞ 4tDA Analysis Technique in Multiwell System
In this Appendix we develop the plotting functions that serve
(xD – xwD + 2nxeD) 2 + ( yD + ywD + 2m yeD) 2
+ E1 as the basis for our proposed decline type curve analysis of
4tDA
well and field production performance data from a bounded
(xD + xwD + 2nxeD) 2 + ( yD – ywD + 2m yeD) 2 multiwell reservoir system.

Σ
+ E1
4tDA We begin by substituting Eq. A-13 into Eq. A-10:

pD(xwD,k + ε, ywD,k + ε,t DA) = 2π q Di(τ)d τ

nwell
tDA
(x – x + 2nxeD) 2 + ( yD – ywD + 2m yeD) 2
+ E1 D wD ... (A-12)

Σ
4tDA i=1 0

+2π q Di(τ) F([xwD,k + ε],[ ywD,k + ε],[t DA – τ],xwD,i, ywD,i)d τ

The pressure response for an individual well produced at a nwell
tDA
constant rate is given by
pD,cr([xwD,k + ε],[ ywD,k + ε],t DA) = 2π t DA
i=1 0

1 – exp – n 2π tDA
Σ
+ q Dk (t DA) sk ................................................................... (B-1)
2 2
∞
+ 4π cos xnπ (xwD + ε) cos xnπ xwD
xeD
n 2π 2
where
F([xwD,k + ε],[ ywD,k + ε],[t DA – τ],xwD,i, ywD,i) =
n=1 eD eD

Σ exp – nx π (t
2
xeD
∞
1 – exp – n 2π tDA cos xnπ (xwD,k + ε) cos xnπ xwD,i
Σ
DA – τ)
2 2 2 2
∞
cos ynπ ( ywD + ε) cos ynπ ywD
+2
+ 4π

Σ exp – ny π (t
2
yeD
nπ
n=1 eD eD eD

∞
cos ynπ ( ywD,k + ε) cos ynπ ywD,i
2 2

DA – τ)
n=1 eD eD
2 2 2
yeD +2

Σ Σ exp –
2

1 – exp – n 2π + m 2π tDA
eD eD

ΣΣ
n=1 eD
∞ ∞
n 2π 2 + m 2π 2 (t – τ)
2 2 2 2
∞ ∞
+ 8π
xeD yeD
n 2π 2 + m 2π 2
+4 2 2 DA
m=1 n=1 xeD yeD

× cos xnπ (xwD,k + ε) cos xnπ xwD,i

m=1 n=1
2
xeD 2
yeD

× cos xnπ (xwD + ε) cos xnπ xwD

eD eD

× cos m π mπ
yeD ( ywD,k + ε) cos yeD ywD,i .......... (B-2)
eD eD

× cos m π mπ
yeD ( ywD + ε) cos yeD ywD .......... (A-13) Writing Eq. B-1 in field units and multiplying both sides by

Σ q (τ)dτ
Substituting Eq. A-12 into Eq. A-13 we obtain qref/qk(t), we obtain
pD,cr([xwD + ε],[ ywD + ε],t DA) =
kh ( pi – pwf ,k(t)) = 2π 0.00633 k 1
t nwell

141.2Bμ φμct A qk (t)

Σ Σ (2xwD + ε + 2nxeD) + (2 ywD + ε + 2m yeD)
∞ ∞
qk(t) i
2 2 0 i=1
1
+ 2π 0.00633 k ×
2m = – ∞ n = – ∞ 1
E
4tDA
φμc t A

Σ q(τ) F([x
(ε + 2nxeD) + (2 ywD + ε + 2m yeD)
2 2

w,k + ε],[ yw,k + ε],[t – τ],x w,i, yw,i)d τ

+ E1 t n well
4tDA 1

(2xwD + ε + 2nxeD) + (ε + 2m yeD)

q k(t) 0 i=1
2 2
+ E1 + s ............................................................................... (B-3)
4tDA

(ε + 2nxeD) + (ε + 2m yeD)

Σ q (τ)d τ .................................................. (B-4)

2 2 We immediately recognize that
+ E1 ........ (A-14) t n well
4tDA
N p,tot = i
0 i=1
SPE 71517 Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System 9

rate. We call this ratio the interaction coefficient βD.

where Np,tot is the cumulative oil production for the entire depends on the ratio of producing rate to total field producing
field. Furthermore, we define a “total material balance time”

Σ
as
For boundary-dominated flow, Eq. B-8 becomes

q i(τ)d τ =
t n well N p,tot q k(t)
1 = 1 ............................ (B-11)
t tot,k = .............................. (B-5) ( pi – pwf ,k (t)) 1 t +b
q k(t) 0 i=1 q k (t) tot pss,mw
Nc t

by 141.2Bμ/(kh), we obtain
Substituting Eq. B-5 into Eq. B-3 and multiplying both sides
Bμ 1 4 A/ β D
where

kh 2 eγ CArwa
( pi – pwf ,k(t)) b pss,mw = 141.2 2
.................................. (B-12)
= 1 ttot
qk(t) Nct

Σ q(τ) F([x
Fetkovich3 used a modified definition of the bpss variable
defined as
w,k + ε],[ yw,k + ε ],[t – τ],x w,i, yw,i)d τ Bμ
t n well
+ 1 1
Nc t q k(t) 0 i=1
b pss = 141.2 ln reD – 1 ....................................... (B-13)
kh 2
141.2 Bμ Eq. B-13 has been used as the defining “transform” variable
+ s ................................................................ (B-6) for all the decline type curves presented for the case of a
kh
single well centered in a bounded circular reservoir. Accord-
For simplicity, we can write Eq. B-6 as ingly, we present a similar expression for the multiwell sys-
( pi – pwf ,k(t)) tem:
Bμ
= 1 ttot + f (t) ....................................... (B-7)
ln reD/ β D – 1 ....................... (B-14)
qk(t) Nct
b pss,mw = 141.2
Taking reciprocal of Eq. B-7, we obtain kh 2

sides by 141.2Bμ/(kh), we obtain

qk(t) Substituting Eq. B-14 into Eq. B-11 and multiplying both
= 1
( pi – pwf ,k(t)) 1 t + f (t) .................................... (B-8)
Nct tot 141.2 Bμ q k (t)
=
The variable f(t) is obviously time-dependent—however, this kh ( pi – pwf ,k(t))
variable becomes constant during boundary-dominated flow
1
+ ln reD/ β D –
........... (B-15)
2π
conditions. Eq. B-8 is the general formulation of Arp’s
φμct A
0.00633 k ttot 1
harmonic decline equation. This is an elegant relation, 2
considering that it is rigorous and yet simple. Specifically, this
result takes into account the complexity of the production Rearranging Eq. B-15 slightly, we finally arrive at the follow-
schedule (constant rate, constant pressure, or variable ing formulation:
141.2 Bμ
ln reD/ β D – 1 =
rate/variable pressure). qk(t)
The formulations given by Eqs. B-7 and B-8 are convenient kh ( pi – pwf ,k(t)) 2
for data analysis—except that f(t) is time-dependent. Never-
1 .............................. (B-16)
2π
theless, during boundary-dominated-flow conditions this term
φμct A
0.00633 k ttot
becomes constant and we can treat the analysis of multiwell

ln reD/ β D – 1
performance data in the same manner as the single well case. +1
Our purpose is to use the traditional single well decline type 2
curve analysis techniques to estimate the (total) volume and
The appropriate dimensionless “decline” variables are defined
(near-well) flow properties simultaneously.
as
141.2 Bμ
ln reD/ β D – 1 ...... (B-17)
Recalling the boundary-dominated flow (or pseudosteady-state qk(t)
flow) solution for a single well, we have qDde =
kh ( pi – pwf ,k(t)) 2

2π
q(t) 1
= ....................................... (B-9)
φμct A
( pi – pwf ,k (t)) 1 t+b 0.00633 k ttot
ln reD/ β D – 1
Nct pss tDde = ........................ (B-18)

where 2
Bμ 1 4 A Hence we can write Eq. B-16 as
kh 2 eγ CArwa
b pss = 141.2 2
................................... (B-10) 1 .......................................................... (B-19)
q Dde =
t Dde + 1
For the multiwell case, the Dietz shape factor is determined
not only by reservoir shape and well position but also by the We immediately recognize that Eq. B-19 is the Arp’s
state of the other wells (number, position, and rate/pressure). harmonic decline relation. This result verifies that the
The apparent drainage area of a well in multiwell system production decline character of an individual well in a multi-
well reservoir system has the same behavior as a single well in
10 T. Marhaendrajana and T. A. Blasingame SPE 71517

a closed reservoir if we use the total material balance time. Table 3 – Results of Multiwell Analysis (Locally Homoge-
Furthermore, the Fetkovich/McCray type curves for a single neous Example).
well system can be used for the analysis and interpretation of
the performance of a multiwell reservoir system—provided Well Permeability, k (md) Absolute
that we use the appropriate definitions of the dimensionless (calculated) (input) Relative Error (%)
variables (Eqs. B-18 and B-19). [1,1] 22.70 25 9.2
[1,2] 5.15 5 3.0
Table 1 – Reservoir and Fluid Properties for Synthetic Exam- [1,3] 10.10 10 1.0
ple, Oil Reservoir. [2,1] 5.15 5 3.0
Reservoir Properties: [2,2] 9.77 10 2.3
Initial Pressure, pi = 5,000 psia [2,3] 13.80 15 8.0
Reservoir Thickness, h = 500 ft [3,1] 9.94 10 0.6
Total Reservoir Area, A = 6525.7 acres [3,2] 14.20 15 5.3
Original-Oil-In-Place, OOIP = 4,278 MMSTB [3,3] 18.90 20 5.5
Permeability, k = 5 md Original Oil-In-Place (input) : 4,278 MMSTB
Original Oil-In-Place (calculated) : 4,278 MMSTB
Porosity, φ
Wellbore radius, rw = 0.5 ft
= 0.2 (fraction) Table 4 – Results of Multiwell Analysis (Heterogeneous Ex-

= 3 × 10–6 psia–1
Fluid Properties: ample).

Oil Viscosity, μ
Total Compressibility, ct
= 0.8 cp Well Permeability, k (md) Absolute
Oil Formation Volume Factor, B = 1.184 RB/STB (calculated) (input) Relative Error (%)
[1,1] 4.04 4.10 1.5
Table 2 – Reservoir and Fluid Properties for Synthetic Exam- [1,2] 3.27 3.31 1.2
ple, Gas Reservoir. [1,3] 4.44 4.40 0.9
Reservoir Properties: [2,1] 4.30 4.36 1.4
Initial Pressure, pi = 5,000 psia [2,2] 2.52 2.48 1.6
Reservoir Thickness, h = 500 ft [2,3] 3.38 3.42 1.2
Total Reservoir Area, A = 6525.7 acres [3,1] 3.93 3.90 0.8
Original-Gas-In-Place, OGIP= 6.34 Tscf [3,2] 3.99 4.05 1.5
Permeability, k = 5 md [3,3] 3.64 3.73 2.4

Porosity, φ
Well radius, rw = 0.25 ft Original Oil-In-Place (input) : 4,278 MMSTB
= 0.2 (fraction) Original Oil-In-Place (calculated) : 4,278 MMSTB
Fluid Properties:
Table 5 – Summary of the Decline Type Curve Analysis
Pressure z-Factor Gas FVF Viscosity Compressibility Results for Arun Field, Indonesia (Multiwell Ap-
(psia) (bbl/scf) (cp) (1/psi) proach).

[Δt/tDde]MP [q/Δp]/ r eD/ β D

15 0.999316 0.260185 0.014063 6.825951E-02
259 0.988224 0.014556 0.014216 3.905187E-03 Well OGIP kh
503 0.978366 0.007415 0.014490 2.025620E-03 Name [qDde]MP (Tcf) (md-ft)
748 0.969839 0.004949 0.014836 1.370734E-03
992 0.962745 0.003702 0.015052 1.035210E-03 C-II-01 18,404 95 10,000 19.8 2,946
1236 0.957165 0.002953 0.015377 8.294915E-04 C-II-03 18,404 95 80 19.8 1,313
1480 0.953160 0.002456 0.015796 6.892390E-04 C-II-04 21,855 80 800 19.8 1,762
1725 0.950759 0.002103 0.016253 5.866594E-04
2213 0.950758 0.001638 0.017123 4.450539E-04
C-II-16 20,569 85 28 19.8 857
2702 0.956868 0.001351 0.017946 3.508966E-04 C-III-02 19,433 90 10,000 19.8 2,791
3191 0.968472 0.001158 0.018934 2.836388E-04 C-III-03 15,979 105 10,000 19.8 3,256
3679 0.984786 0.001021 0.019922 2.335652E-04 C-III-04 15,894 110 800 19.8 2,422
4168 1.005009 0.000920 0.020937 1.952878E-04
4656 1.028410 0.000842 0.022007 1.654585E-04
C-III-05 19,427 90 28 19.8 908
5023 1.047668 0.000796 0.022809 1.472588E-04 C-III-06 9,202 190 10,000 19.8 5,893
C-III-09 15,204 115 10,000 19.8 3,567
C-III-15 13,449 130 18 19.8 1,106
SPE 71517 Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System 11

(0,0)

yw,i
ye

xw,i

xe
Figure 1 – Typical p/z plot for a well in Arun field (Well A-015). Figure 4 – Bounded rectangular reservoir with multiple wells
located at arbitrary positions within the reservoir.

Figure 2 – Decline type curve match using single well ap-

proach (Well A-015).

Figure 5 – Bottomhole flowing pressure profiles (homogene-

ous reservoir example).

16000
[3,1] [3,2] [3,3]
14000

12000
Y-Direction, ft

10000 [2,1] [2,2] [2,3]

8000

6000

4000 [1,1] [1,2] [1,3]

2000
Figure 3 – p/z plot for Arun field (total field performance).
0
2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000
0

X-Direction, ft

Figure 6 – Homogeneous bounded square reservoir with nine

producing wells (homogeneous reservoir example).
12 T. Marhaendrajana and T. A. Blasingame SPE 71517

Figure 10 – Log-log plot of rate/pressure drop functions as a

function of total material balance time (homogen-
eous reservoir example — all cases).
Figure 7 – Oil rate versus time profiles (homogeneous reser-
voir example).

Figure 8 – Plot of Dimensionless decline variables for single

Figure 11 – Bottomhole flowing pressure profiles for individual
well and multiwell performance cases⎯simulated
wells (gas, homogeneous reservoir example).
performance was used to validate the multiwell
concept.

Figure 9 – Log-log plot of rate/pressure drop functions as a

function of total material balance time (homogen-
eous reservoir example).

Figure 12 – Gas flow rate profiles for individual wells (gas,

homogeneous reservoir example).
SPE 71517 Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System 13

Figure 13 – Log-log plot of rate/pseudopressure drop functions

versus total material balance pseudotime (gas,
homogeneous reservoir example).

Figure 16 – Oil rate versus time profiles for individual wells

(locally homogeneous reservoir example).

Figure 17 – Log-log plot of the rate/pressure drop versus total

Figure 14 – Locally homogeneous bounded square reservoir material balance time (locally homogeneous
with nine producing wells (locally homogeneous example).
reservoir example).

Figure 18 – Decline type curve match using the multiwell

approach (total material balance time) (locally
homogeneous example).
Figure 15 – Bottomhole flowing pressure profiles for individual
wells (locally homogeneous reservoir example).
14 T. Marhaendrajana and T. A. Blasingame SPE 71517

Figure 22 – Log-log plot of the rate/pressure drop versus total

material balance time (heterogeneous reservoir
example).

Figure 19 – Random permeability case, bounded square

reservoir with nine producing wells (heterogeneous
reservoir example).

Figure 23 – Decline type curve match using the multiwell

approach (total material balance time)
(heterogeneous reservoir example).

Figure 20 – Bottomhole flowing pressure profiles for individual

wells (heterogeneous reservoir example).

Figure 24 – Layout of the Arun field, Indonesia.

Figure 21 – Oil rate versus time profiles for individual wells

(heterogeneous reservoir example).
SPE 71517 Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves—Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System 15

Figure 28 – Decline type curve match for 11 wells of Arun field,

Indonesia.
Figure 25 – Production history of Well C-III-02 (A-015)⎯Arun
Gas field, Indonesia.

⎯single well and multiwell approaches.

Figure 26 – Decline type curve match of Well C-III-02 (A-015)

Figure 27 – Log-log plot of rate/pressure drop functions versus

total material balance pseudotime for 11 wells of
Arun Field, Indonesia⎯note that all curves
converge to a unique material balance trend.