Determination of model parameters for hyperbolic model (DCA)

In the oil and gas industry, important decisions are made based on the results of simulation
models. One of these models is decline curve analysis or DCA. DCA is a curve fit of the past
production performance, that is extrapolated to predict future performance. These curves are
determined by their mathematical expressions.

𝑄 = 𝑄0 𝑒 −𝑑𝑡 (1)
𝑄0
𝑄= (2)
1+𝑑𝑡
𝑄0
𝑄= (1+𝑏𝑑𝑡)1⁄𝑏
(3)

Where Q0 is the initial production rate, and d and b the model parameters that must be
determined. Here, equation (1) represents the exponential model, (2) the harmonic model
and (3) the hyperbolic model. Equation (3) can also be found in the literature as:
𝑄0
𝑄= 𝑏 𝑎 (4)
(1+ 𝑡)
𝑎

Where

𝑎 = 1⁄𝑑
Usually the steps followed to predict the future performance with DCA are:
1. Identify the model by drawing straight lines for exponential model and harmonic
model (production rate versus time in Semilog for exponential, production rate versus
cumulative production in Semilog for harmonic or 1/Q versus t in cartesian). If the
model is neither exponential nor harmonic, then we must use the hyperbolic model.
2. Determine the parameters, Q0, b and d.
3. Extrapolate
The prediction will be precise if the parameters of the model are determined with good
precision. Exponential and harmonic models’ parameters are easy to determine. But when we
are dealing with hyperbolic model it is not that easy. Is it possible to predict future rates in
hyperbolic models with good precision?

Literature review
The standard procedure to determine the parameters for hyperbolic decline model is
presented in figure 1. Here by choosing two points randomly and a third point well chosen,
we can easily determine b/a, then a.
 Figure 1: Procedure to determine a and b

We have:
𝑄0
𝑄1 = 𝑎
𝑏 2
(1 + 𝑎 𝑡1 ) 𝑏 𝑏 𝑏
(1 + 𝑡3 ) = (1 + 𝑡1 ) (1 + 𝑡2 )
𝑎 𝑎 𝑎
𝑄0
𝑄2 =
𝑏 𝑎 𝑏 𝑏 2 2 𝑏 𝑏 2
(1 + 𝑎 𝑡2 ) 2 𝑡3 + ( ) 𝑡3 = (𝑡1 + 𝑡2 ) + ( ) 𝑡1 𝑡2
𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎
𝑄0 𝑏 2 𝑏
𝑄3 = 𝑎 ( ) (𝑡32 − 𝑡1 𝑡2 ) = (𝑡1 + 𝑡2 − 2𝑡3 )
𝑏 𝑎 𝑎
(1 + 𝑎 𝑡3 )
𝑏 𝑡1 + 𝑡2 − 2𝑡3
And then =
𝑎 𝑡32 − 𝑡1 𝑡2

𝑄3 = √𝑄1 𝑄2

That means
1 1
2𝑎 = 𝑎
𝑏 𝑏 𝑏
(1 + 𝑎 𝑡3 ) [(1 + 𝑎 𝑡1 ) (1 + 𝑎 𝑡2 )]
The next step is to find Q0 at t = 0, pick any point (t*;Q*) and then calculate:
𝑄0
𝑙𝑛 (⁄𝑄 )
∗
𝑎=
𝑏
𝑙𝑛 (1 + 𝑎 𝑡∗ )

But this is not really necessary since

𝑄
𝑙𝑛 ( 1⁄𝑄 )
2
𝑎=
𝑏⁄
1 + 𝑎 𝑡2
ln ( )
1 + 𝑏⁄𝑎 𝑡1
The problem with this method comes when calculating b/a. If we just take two points (t1;q1)
and (t2; q2) that are close, the calculation of b/a will not be too precise. We will illustrate this
with an example in the next part.

Determination of parameters for hyperbolic decline model with good precision

We will modify the first step of the previous method and recommend to pick two points (t1;q1)
and (t2;q2) that are far one from another. It is best to use the two end points (the first point
and the last point). Let’s consider the following production data:

Figure 2: Production data

First step is to identify the model. We first plot Q versus t in semilog

10
q (1000 STB/D)

1
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50
t (year)

Figure 3: Q versus t semilog

This is not really a straight line.

Now we plot 1/Q versus t.

0,35
1/Q
0,30

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50
t (year)

Figure 4: 1/Q versus t

This is not a straight line.

Therefore the model is hyperbolic and the parameters must be determined. First we will use
the standard procedure
Step 1:
Pick t1 = 0.10 year, q1 = 9,630 stb/day, t2 = 0.5 year, q2 = 8,350 stb/day
Step 2:
 𝑄3 = √𝑄1 𝑄2

Q3 = 8,970 stb/day

9
q (1000 STB/D)
8,95

8,9

8,85

8,8

8,75

8,7

8,65

8,6
0,20 0,22 0,24 0,26 0,28 0,30
t (year)

Figure 5: Reading t3 value

From this we can read t3 = 0.294 year

Step 3
We can easily calculate b/a = 0,329
Step 4
We can read from figure 3 that Q0 = 10,000 stb/day
Step 5:
We pick the point t = 0.70 year and q = 7,810 stb/day
Step 6:
We calculate a = 1.19
Step 7:
We calculate b = 0.39
Now if we use this relation to calculate the previous value, we find the values on figure 6.
When looking at the relative error we notice that it is getting bigger as the time is increasing.
Therefore the model does not have a good precision and will be unreliable.
 t (year) q (1000 STB/D) q th (1000 STB/D) delta (%)
0,10 9,63 9,62 0,09
0,20 9,28 9,27 0,13
0,30 8,95 8,94 0,13
0,40 8,64 8,63 0,13
0,50 8,35 8,34 0,13
0,60 8,07 8,07 0,04
0,70 7,81 7,81 0,00
0,80 7,55 7,57 0,24
0,90 7,32 7,34 0,27
1,00 7,09 7,12 0,47
1,10 6,87 6,92 0,71
1,20 6,67 6,72 0,82
1,30 6,47 6,54 1,08
1,40 6,28 6,36 1,35
1,50 6,1 6,20 1,61
1,60 5,93 6,04 1,84
1,70 5,77 5,89 2,04
1,80 5,61 5,74 2,37
1,90 5,46 5,60 2,64
2,00 5,32 5,47 2,86
2,10 5,18 5,35 3,19
2,20 5,05 5,22 3,44
2,30 4,92 5,11 3,81
2,40 4,8 5,00 4,08
2,50 4,68 4,89 4,45
2,60 4,57 4,79 4,71
2,70 4,46 4,69 5,07
2,80 4,35 4,59 5,53
2,90 4,25 4,50 5,85
3,00 4,15 4,41 6,26
3,10 4,06 4,32 6,51
3,20 3,97 4,24 6,85
3,30 3,88 4,16 7,28
3,40 3,8 4,09 7,51
3,50 3,71 4,01 8,11
3,60 3,64 3,94 8,22
3,70 3,56 3,87 8,69
3,80 3,49 3,80 8,94
3,90 3,41 3,74 9,59
4,00 3,34 3,67 9,99

Figure 6: Comparison between theoretical values and real values

Now we will use the modified procedure.

Step 1:
Pick t1 = 0.10 year, q1 = 9,630 stb/day, t2 = 4.0 years, q2 = 3,340 stb/day
Step 2:

𝑄3 = √𝑄1 𝑄2

Q3 = 5,671 stb/day

6
q (1000 STB/D) 5,95
5,9
5,85
5,8
5,75
5,7
5,65
5,6
5,55
5,5
1,50 1,60 1,70 1,80 1,90 2,00
t (year)

Figure 7: Reading t3 value

We can read t3 = 1.76 years

Step 3:
We can easily calculate b/a = 0.215
We will skip step 4 and 5, because we can still find a without it
Step 6:
Using our two points (t1;Q1) and (t2;Q2), we calculate a = 1.77
Step 7:
We calculate b = 0.38
In this case, we can see that the precision is very good.
 t (year) q (1000 STB/D) q th (1000 STB/D) delta (%)
0,10 9,63 9,63 0,01
0,20 9,28 9,28 0,03
0,30 8,95 8,95 0,05
0,40 8,64 8,64 0,04
0,50 8,35 8,35 0,01
0,60 8,07 8,07 0,00
0,70 7,81 7,81 0,05
0,80 7,55 7,55 0,06
0,90 7,32 7,32 0,06
1,00 7,09 7,09 0,02
1,10 6,87 6,87 0,03
1,20 6,67 6,67 0,06
1,30 6,47 6,47 0,01
1,40 6,28 6,28 0,03
1,50 6,1 6,10 0,04
1,60 5,93 5,93 0,02
1,70 5,77 5,77 0,05
1,80 5,61 5,61 0,00
1,90 5,46 5,46 0,01
2,00 5,32 5,32 0,09
2,10 5,18 5,18 0,06
2,20 5,05 5,04 0,11
2,30 4,92 4,92 0,07
2,40 4,8 4,79 0,12
2,50 4,68 4,68 0,08
2,60 4,57 4,56 0,15
2,70 4,46 4,45 0,13
2,80 4,35 4,35 0,03
2,90 4,25 4,25 0,05
3,00 4,15 4,15 0,00
3,10 4,06 4,06 0,10
3,20 3,97 3,97 0,12
3,30 3,88 3,88 0,07
3,40 3,8 3,79 0,19
3,50 3,71 3,71 0,02
3,60 3,64 3,63 0,23
3,70 3,56 3,56 0,13
3,80 3,49 3,48 0,25
3,90 3,41 3,41 0,01
4,00 3,34 3,34 0,01

Figure 8: Comparison between theoretical values and real values

Discussion
The reason why the initial method was not precise is simple. When we calculate the term

𝑡32 − 𝑡1 𝑡2
We obtain 0.036 which is very small. Let’s say the real value of t3 was 0.304. Then the previous
term would be 0.042 instead and when dividing 1 by this term, we would find 1/0.036 = 27.78
and 1/0.042 =23.81. So the value of b/a would be at least 1.17 times bigger using the standard
procedure, that is a relative error of 17%.
Using the modified procedure, now the term

𝑡32 − 𝑡1 𝑡2
Gives 2.6976. So if the real value of t3 was 1.77 then the term would be 2.7329. And 1/(2.6976)
is 0.371 while 1/(2.7329) is 0.366. Here b/a would be only 1.01 times bigger, that is a relative
error of only 1%.
Conclusion
To make the best prediction with a hyperbolic decline model, care must be taken when
determining the parameters a and b. The standard procedure could result in big errors if the
values of t1 and t2 were picked very close. So we found out that the model is best determined
if the picked points are the end points (first point and last point). Also there is no need to try
to estimate Q0 because we can get the value of a without it. And getting an erroneous value
of Q0 could lead to an imprecise model.

Author: Cedric BELLA AMBATINDA, petroleum engineer

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank all the students of 4th year petroleum engineering at
ISA-EMT (Cameroon)

References
Boyun Guo, Xinghui Liu, Xuehao Tan, Chapter 8 - Production Decline Analysis, Editor(s): Boyun
Guo, Xinghui Liu, Xuehao Tan, Petroleum Production Engineering (Second Edition), Gulf
Professional Publishing, 2017, Pages 197-216, ISBN 9780128093740,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809374-0.00008-8.
Tarek Ahmed, Chapter 16 - Analysis of Decline and Type Curves, Editor(s): Tarek Ahmed,
Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fourth Edition), Gulf Professional Publishing, 2010, Pages
1235-1337, ISBN 9781856178037, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-85617-803-7.50024-9.