Modern Production Data Analysis

Toll Free: 1.800.625.2488 :: Phone: 403.213.4200 :: Email: fast@fekete.
com
fekete.com
Modern Production Data Analysis
Day 1 - Theory
1. Introduction to Well Performance Analysis
2. Arps Theory
a) Exponential
b) Hyperbolic
c) Harmonic
3. Analytical Solutions
a) Transient versus Boundary Dominated
Flow
b) Boundary Dominated Flow
i. Material Balance Equation
ii. Pseudo Steady-State Concept
iii. Rate Equations
c) Transient Flow
i. Radius of Investigation Concept
ii. Transient Equation (Radial Flow)
4. Theory of Type Curves
a) Dimensionless variables
b) The log-log plot
c) Type Curve matching
5. Principle of Superposition
a) Superposition
b) Desuperposition
c) Material Balance Time
6. Gas Corrections
a) Pseudo-Pressure
b) Pseudo-Time
Modern Production Data Analysis
Day 2 - Practice
7. Arps Practical Considerations
a) Guidelines
b) Advantages
c) Limitations
8. Analysis Using Type Curves
a) Fetkovich
b) Blasingame (Integrals)
c) AG and NPI (Derivatives)
d) Transient
e) Wattenbarger
9. Flowing Material Balance
10. Specialized
11. Modeling and History Matching
12. A Systematic and Comprehensive
Approach
13. Practical Diagnostics
a) Data validation
b) Pressure support
c) Interference
d) Liquid loading
e) Accumulating skin
damage
f) Transient flow regimes
14. Tutorials
15. Selected Topics and Examples
Introduction to Well
Performance Analysis
Traditional
- Production rate only
- Using historical trends to predict future
- Empirical (curve fitting)
- Based on analogy
- Deliverables:
- Production forecast
- Recoverable Reserves under current conditions
Modern
- Rates AND Flowing Pressures
- Based on physics, not empirical
- Reservoir signal extraction and characterization
- Deliverables:
- OGIP / OOIP and Reserves
- Permeability and skin
- Drainage area and shape
- Production optimization screening
- Infill potential
Recommended Approach
- Use BOTH Traditional and Modern together
- Production Data Analysis should include a
comparison of multiple methods
- No single method always works
- Production data is varied in frequency, quality
and duration
Welltest Analysis
- High resolution
early-time
characterization
- High resolution
characterization
of the near-
wellbore
-Point-in-time
characterization
of wellbore skin
- Estimation of
reserves when
flowing pressure
is unknown
Empirical Decline
Analysis
- Flow regime
characterization over
life of well
- Estimation of fluids-
in-place
- Performance based
recovery factor
- Able to analyze
transient production
data (early-time
production, tight gas
etc)
- Characterization
of perm and skin
-Estimation of
contacted
drainage area
-Estimation of
reservoir
pressure
- Projection
of recovery
constrained
by historical
operating
conditions
Modern Production Analysis
Modern Production Analysis -
Integration of Knowledge
Arps - Empirical
Traditional Decline Curves
J.J. Arps
- Graphical Curve fitting exercise
- Empirical No theoretical basis
- Implicitly assumes constant operating conditions
The Exponential Decline Curve
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
G
a
s
R
a
t e
,
M
M
s
c
f d
Rate vs Time Unnamed Well
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
10
-1
1.0
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
M
M
s
c
f
d
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50
Gas Cum. Prod., Bscf
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
M
M
s
c
f
d
Rate vs. Cumulative Prod. Unnamed Well
t D
i
i
e q q

=
log log
2.302
i
i
Dt
q q =
i i q q DQ =
2.302* i D Slope =
i D Slope =
i
Slope
D
q
=
The Hyperbolic Decline Curve
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
G
a
s

R
a
t
e
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
b
i
i
t bD
q
q
/ 1
) 1 ( +
=
( ) D f t =
i
b
b
i
D
D q
q
=
Hyperbolic Exponent b
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
G
a
s
R
a
t e
,
M
M
s
c
f d
Mild Hyperbolic b ~ 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05
Gas Cumulative, Bscf
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
M
M
s
c
f
d
Rate vs. Cumulative Prod. NBU 921-22G
Strong Hyperbolic b ~ 1
Analytical Solutions
Transient vs Boundary Dominated Flow
Transient Flow
- Early-time OR Low Permeability
- Flow that occurs while a pressure pulse is
moving out into an infinite or semi-infinite acting
reservoir
- Like the fingerprint of the reservoir
- Contains information about reservoir
properties (permeability, drainage shape)
Boundary Dominated Flow
- Late-time flow behavior
- Typically dominates long-term production data
- Reservoir is in a state of pseudo-equilibrium
physics reduces to a mass balance
- Contains information about reservoir pore volume
(OOIP and OGIP)
Definition of Compressibility
V
p
i
V
dV
p
i
-dp
p
V
V
c
c
c
=
1
Compressibility Defines Material Balance of a
Closed Oil Reservoir (above bubble point)
1 p
i
p
i
t
i pss p
N
c
N p p
N
p p
c N
p p m N
=
=
=
Note: only valid if c is constant
V=N
AV = N
p
Ap = p
i
- p
Single Phase Oil MB
i p p
p N
pss m slope =
p pss i N m p p
mx y
=
=
Distance
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
r
w
Constant Rate q
1 p
1
Illustration of Pseudo-Steady-State
p
wf1
r
e
2 p
p
wf2
2
3 p
p
wf3
3
time
Flowing Material Balance
p N
pss m slope =
b N m p p
b mx y
p pss wf i + =
+ =
wf i p p
b
Steady-State Inflow Equation
Distance
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
r
w
r
e
p
p
wf
p
i
Inflow (Darcy) pressure drop- Constant-
Productivity Index
) , , ( area s kh f b
qb p p
pss
pss wf
=
=
Variable Rate
q
Np
pss m slope =
pss
p pss wf i
b
q
N m
q
p p
b mx y
+ =
+ =
q
p p wf i
pss b
The Three Most Important Equations
in Modern Production Analysis
i pss p p p m N =
wf pss p p qb = +
pss p pss wf i qb N m p p + =
Constant Pressure
=
Production
Constant Rate
=
Welltest
q
p
wf
q
p
wf
Operating Conditions - Simplified
- Invert the PSS equation
1 1
( )
1
( )
1
pss p
i wf pss pss
pss
pss
pss
i wf
pss
q
m N
p p t m t b
b
q
q
b
m
p p t
t
b
= =
+
+
=
+
Constant Rate Solution
Relate Back to Arps Harmonic
Constant Flowing Pressure Solution
- Required: q(t), N
pmax
and N for constant pwf
- Take derivative of both equations and solve for q
- Integrate to find Np(t), as t goes to infinity Np goes to
N
pmax
( )
max
( )
pss
pss
m
t
i wf
b
pss
i wf
p i wf t
pss
p p
q t e
b
p p
N p p c N
m
= =
Constant Flowing Pressure Solution
Relate Back to Arps Exponential, Determine N
max
max
( ) ( )
i wf
i
pss
pss
i
pss
i
p
i
t i wf t i wf i
p i
p p
q
b
m
D
b
q
N
D
c p p c p p D
N
N q
=
=
=

= =
Plot Constant p and Constant q together
0
0. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 7
0. 8
0. 9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Constant rate q/Ap (Harmonic)
Constant pressure q/Ap (Exponential)
1
( )
1
pss
pss
i wf
pss
q
b
m
p p t
t
b
=
+
( ) 1
pss
pss
m
t
b
i wf pss
q t
e
p p b

=
Transient Flow
-4000 -3600 -3200 -2800 -2400 -2000 -1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Radii, ft
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Cross Section Pressure Plot
Numerical Radial Model
10
Cross Section
Plan View
Transient and Boundary Dominated Flow
Boundary Dominated
Well Performance =
f(Volume, PI)
Transient Well
Performance = f(k, skin,
time)
-4000 -3600 -3200 -2800 -2400 -2000 -1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Radii, ft
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Cross Section Pressure Plot
Numerical Radial Model
10
Cross Section
Plan View
948
948
inv
inv
kt
r
c
kt
A
c
|
t
|
=
=
Radius (Region) of Investigation
Transient Equation
1
( ) 141.2 1 0.0063
ln 0.4045
2
i wf
t
q kh
p p B kt
s
c
|
=
| |
+ +
|
\ .
Describes radial flow in an infinite acting reservoir
q(t)s compared
0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1
1. 2
1. 4
1. 6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Transient flow: compares to Arps super
hyperbolic (b>1)
Type Curves
Blending of Transient into
0
0. 5
1
1. 5
2
2. 5
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Complete q(t) consists of:
Transient q(t) from t=0 to tpss
Depletion equation from t = tpss and higher
Log-Log Plot: Adds a New
Visual Dynamic
Comparison of qD with 1/pD
Cylindrical Reservoir with Vertical Well in Center
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.000001 0.0001 0.01 1 100 10000 1000000 100000000 1E+10 1E+12 1E+14
tD
q
D

a
n
d

1
/
p
D
0.9
Constant Pressure Solution Exponential
Harmonic
Infinite Acting
Boundary Dominated
Type Curve
- Dimensionless model for reservoir / well system
- Log-log plot
- Assumes constant operating conditions
- Valuable tool for interpretation of production and
pressure data
Type Curve Example - Fetkovich
10
-1
1.0 10
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
2
3
4
5
6
7

R
a
t
e
,
Fetkovich Typecurve Analysis
Exponential
Harmonic
q
Dd
t
Dd
Dd t
Dd e q

=
1
1
Dd
Dd
q
t
=
+
t D t
q
t q
q
i Dd
i
Dd
=
=
) (
Hyperbolic
1/
1
(1 )
Dd
b
Dd
q
bt
=
+
Plotting Fetkovich Type Curves-
Example
Well 1 (exponential)
q
i
= 2.5 MMscfd
D
i
= 10 % per year
Well 2 (exponential)
q
i
= 10 MMscfd
D
i
= 20 % per year
Raw Data Plot
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0 5 10 15
Time (years)
R
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
Well 1
Well 2
Dimensionless Plot
0.10
1.00
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
tDd
q
D
dWell 1
Well 2
Time (years)
Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2
0 2.50 10.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
1 2.26 8.19 0.10 0.20 0.90 0.82
2 2.05 6.70 0.20 0.40 0.82 0.67
3 1.85 5.49 0.30 0.60 0.74 0.55
4 1.68 4.49 0.40 0.80 0.67 0.45
5 1.52 3.68 0.50 1.00 0.61 0.37
6 1.37 3.01 0.60 1.20 0.55 0.30
7 1.24 2.47 0.70 1.40 0.50 0.25
8 1.12 2.02 0.80 1.60 0.45 0.20
9 1.02 1.65 0.90 1.80 0.41 0.17
10 0.92 1.35 1.00 2.00 0.37 0.14
Rate (MMscfd) tDd qDd
Fetkovich Typecurve Matching
In most cases, we dont know what qi and Di are ahead of time. Thus, qi and Di
are calculated based on the typecurve match (ie. The typecurve is superimposed on
the data set
t
t
D
q
t q
q
Dd
i
Dd
i
=
=
) (
Knowing qi and Di, EUR (expected ultimate recovery) can be calculated
1.0 10
1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2
Time
10
-1
1.0
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

R
a
t
e
,
Fetkovich Typecurve Analysis NBU921-22G
q
Dd
t
Dd
q
t
Analytical Model Type Curve
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0 10
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
10
1
2
3
4
6
9
2
3
4
6
9
2
3
4
6
9
2
3
4
6

R
a
t
e
,
Fetkovich Typecurve Analysis
Exponential
Transient Flow
r
e
/r
wa
= 10 r
e
/r
wa
= 100 r
e
/r
wa
= 10,000
q
Dd
t
Dd
Modeling Skin using Apparent Wellbore
Radius
rw
re
rwa (s)
rwa(d)
s
w wa e r r

=
P(s)
P(d)
Dimensionless Variable Definitions
(Fetkovich)
2
2
141.2 1
ln
( ) 2
0.00634
1 1
ln 1
2 2
e
Dd
i wf wa
wa
Dd
e e
wa wa
q B r
q
kh p p r
kt
ctr
t
r r
r r
|
(
| |
=
|
(
\ .

=
(
(
| | | |

(
| |
(
\ . \ .
(

Type Curve Matching (Fetkovich)
2
141.2 1
ln
( ) 2
0.00634 1
ln
1 1
ln 1
2 2
141.2 0.00634
2
( )
e
i wf wa Dd
match
w
wa
t Dd wa
e e
wa wa
match
e
i wf t Dd Dd
match
match
B r q
k
h p p r q
k t r
r s
c t r
r r
r r
B q t
r
h p p c q t
|
|
(
| |
=
| (
\ .

| |
= =
|
(
\ .
(
| | | |

(
| |
(
\ . \ .
(

=
The Fetkovich analytical typecurves can be used to calculate three parameters:

permeability, skin and reservoir radius
Type Curve Matching - Example
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0 10
1
2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78
Time
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
10
1
2
3
4
6
8
2
3
4
6
8
2
3
4
6
8
2
3
4
6
8

R
a
t
e
,
Fetkovich Typecurve Analysis 10
Exponential
Transient Flow
t
Dd
r
eD
= 50
q
Dd
q
t
k = f(q/q
Dd
)
s = f(q/q
Dd
* t/t
Dd
, r
eD
)
r
e
= f(q/q
Dd
* t/t
Dd
)
Superposition
What about Variable Rate / Variable Pressure
Production? The Principle of Superposition
Superposition in Time:
1. Divide the production history into a series of constant rate periods
2. The observed pressure response is a result of the additive effect of each rate
change in the history
Example: Two Rate History
q
1
q
2
Effect of (q
2
-q
1
)
t
1
1 2 1 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) i wf p p q f t q q f t t = +
q
p
wf
The Principle of Superposition
1 2 1 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) i wf p p q f t q q f t t = +
Two Rate History
N - Rate History
1 1
1
( ) ( )
N
i wf j j j
j
p p q q f t t
=
=
f(t) is the Unit Step Response

Superposition versus Desuperposition
Simple
- Unit step response f(t)
- Type Curve
- Superposition Time
Complex
- Real rate and pressure
history
- Modeling (history
matching)
Superposition
Desuperposition
q
pwf
q
pwf
Superposition Time
Convert multiple rate history into an equivalent single rate history by re-plotting
data points at their superposed times
1
1
1
( )
( )
N
i wf j j
j
N N
j
p p q q
f t t
q q

=

=
The Principle of Superposition

PSS Case
1
1
1
( )
( )
N
i wf j j
j
N N
j
p p q q
f t t
q q

=

=
141.2 3
( ) ln
4
i wf e
t wa
p p t B r
f t
q c N kh r

| |
= = +
|
\ .
1
1
1
1 ( ) 141.2 3
( ) ln
4
1 141.2 3
ln
4
N
i wf j j e
j
N t N wa
j
i wf p e
N t N wa
p p q q B r
t t
q c N q kh r
p p N B r
q c N q kh r
=

| |
= +
|
\ .
| |
= +
|
\ .
Superposition Time: Material Balance Time

Definition of Material Balance Time
(Blasingame et al)
Actual Rate Decline
Equivalent Constant Rate
q
Q
actual
time (t)
Q
= Q/q
material
balance
time (t
c
)
Features of Material Balance Time
-MBT is a superposition time function
- MBT converts VARIABLE RATE data into an
EQUIVALENT CONSTANT RATE solution.
- MBT is RIGOROUS for the BOUNDARY
DOMINATED flow regime
- MBT works very well for transient data also, but
is only an approximation (errors can be up to 20%
for linear flow)
Comparison of qD (Material Balance Time Corrected) with 1/pD
Cylindrical Reservoir with Vertical Well in Center
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.000001 0.0001 0.01 1 100 10000 1000000 100000000 1E+10 1E+12 1E+14
tD
q
D

a
n
d

1
/
p
D
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
R
a
t
i
o

1
/
p
D

t
o

q
D
Beginning of "semi-log" radial flow (tD=25)
Ratio (qD to 1/pD) ~ 97%
0.97
Very early time radial flow
Ratio (qD to 1/pD) ~ 90%
MBT Shifts Constant Pressure to
Equivalent Constant Rate
Constant Pressure Solution q
D
Corrected to Harmonic
1/p
D
Harmonic
Corrections for Gas Reservoirs
Corrections Required for Gas
Reservoirs
Gas properties vary with pressure
Formation Volume Factor
Compressibility
Viscosity
Corrections Required for Gas
Reservoirs
141.2 3
ln
4
o e
i wf
o wa
qt qB r
p p
c N kh r
| |
= +
|
\ .
Depletion Term
Depends on
compressibility
Reservoir FlowTerm:
Depends on B and
Viscosity
Darcys Law Correction for Gas
Reservoirs
Darcys Law states :
q p A
}
=
p
p
Z
pdp
p
0
2
Solution: Pseudo-Pressure
For Gas Flow, this is not true because
viscosity () and Z-factor (Z) vary with pressure
Depletion Correction for Gas
Reservoirs
Gas properties (compressibility and viscosity) vary
significantly with pressure
Gas Compressibility
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psi)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
1
/
p
s
i
)
p
cg
1
~
Solution: Pseudo-Time
( )
}
=
g
t
g
i g a
c
c
dt
c t
,

0
Evaluated at average reservoir

pressure
Not to be confused with welltest pseudo-time which evaluates properties
at well flowing pressure
Depletion Correction for Gas
Reservoirs: Pseudo-Time
Equation for Gas
|
.
|
\
|
+ = = A
4
3
ln
* 6 417 . 1
) (
2
wa
e
a
i i g
i
pwf pi p
r
r
kh
Tq e
qt
G Z c
p
p p p
Pseudo-pressure
Pseudo-time
Constant Rate Case
Variable Rate Case
pss
i
pa p
b
qG
G
q
p
+ =
A o
Pseudo-Cumulative Production
Overall time function - Material
Balance Pseudo-time
( )
} }
}
= =
=
t
g
i g
ta
a ca
t
c
c
qdt
q
c
qdt
q
t
qdt
q
t
0 0
0

1
1

( )
| |

0
ca
) ( 1
) (

t
i f t
i t
dt
p p c c
t q
q
c
t
}

=
Improved Material Balance

Pseudo-time
Overall material balance pseudo-time function (corrected for
variable fluid saturations, water encroachment, in-situ fluids & formation expansion and
desorption):
Arps Practical Consideration
Notes About Drive Mechanism and
b Value (from Arps and Fetkovich)
b value Reservoir Drive Mechanism
0 Single phase liquid expansion (oil above bubble point)
Single phase gas expansion at high pressure
Water or gas breakthrough in an oil well
0.1 - 0.4 Solution gas drive
0.4 - 0.5 Single phase gas expansion
0.5 Effective edge water drive
0.5 - 1.0 Layered reservoirs
> 1
Transient (Tight Gas)
Advantages of Traditional
- Easy and convenient
- No simplifying assumptions are required regarding the
physics of fluid flow. Thus, can be used to model very
complex systems
- Very Real indication of well performance
Limitations of Traditional
- Implicitly assumes constant operating conditions
- Non-unique results, especially for tight gas (transient flow)
- Provides limited information about the reservoir
Example 1: Decline Overpredicts
Reserves
October November December January February March April
2001 2002
4
G
a
s

R
a
t
e
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50
0
1
2
3
4
G
a
s

R
a
t
e
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
EUR = 9.5 bcf
Example 1 (contd)
Flowing Pressure and Rate vs Cumulative Production
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cumulative Production (bcf)
R
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
F
l
o
w
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
True EUR does not
exceed 4.5 bcf
Rates
Pressures
Forecast is not
valid here
Example 2: Decline Underpredicts
Reserves
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
G
a
s

R
a
t
e
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
EUR = 3.0 bcf
Example 2 (contd)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Normalized Cumulative Production, Bscf
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
0.055
0.060
0.065
0.070
0.075
0.080
0.085
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
a
t
e
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
/
(
1
0
6
p
s
i
2
/
c
P
)
Flowing Material Balance Unnamed Well
Original Gas In Place
Legend
Decline FMB
OGIP = 24 bcf
Example 2 (contd)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720
Time, days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
G
a
s
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Data Chart Unnamed Well
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
Operating conditions: Low drawdown
Increasing back pressure
Arps Production Forecast
0.01
0.1
1
10
Dec-00 May-06 Nov-11 May-17 Oct-22 Apr-28 Oct-33
Time
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
Economic Limit =
0.05 MMscfd
b = 0.25,
EUR = 2.0 bcf
b = 0.50,
EUR = 2.5 bcf
b = 0.80,
EUR = 3.6 bcf
Example 3 Illustration of Non-
Uniqueness
Analysis using Type Curves
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis
Blasingame typecurves have identical format to those of Fetkovich. However, there
are three important differences in presentation:
1. Models are based on constant RATE solution instead of
constant pressure
2. Exponential and Hyperbolic stems are absent, only
HARMONIC stem is plotted
3. Rate Integral and Rate Integral - Derivative typecurves are used
(simultaneous typecurve match)
Data plotted on Blasingame typecurves makes use of MODERN DECLINE ANALYSIS
methods:
- NORMALIZED RATE (q/Ap)
- MATERIAL BALANCE TIME / PSEUDO TIME
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis-
Comparison to Fetkovich
log(q
Dd
)
log(t
Dd
)
log(q/Ap)
log(tca)
log(q
Dd
)
log(t
Dd
)
log(q)
log(t)
Fetkovich
Blasingame
- Usage of q/Ap and tca allow boundary dominated flow to be represented by harmonic
stem only, regardless of flowing conditions
- Blasingame harmonic stem offers an ANALYTICAL fluids-in-place solution
- Transient stems (not shown) are similar to Fetkovich
Definitions
Normalized Rate
Typecurves Data - Oil Data - Gas
(
|
.
|
\
|
A
=
2
1
ln
2 . 141
wa
e
Dd
r
r
P kh
q
q
|

P
q
A

p
P
q
A

( )dt t q
t
q
DA
t
Dd
DA
Ddi
}
=
0
1

}
A
= |
.
|
\
|
A
c
t
c i
dt
P
q
t P
q
0
1

}
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
ca
t
p ca
i
p
dt
P
q
t P
q
0
1

DA
Ddi
DA Ddid
dt
dq
t q =
c
i
c
id
dt
P
q
d
t
P
q
|
.
|
\
|
A
= |
.
|
\
|
A

ca
i
p
ca
id
p
dt
P
q
d t
P
q
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
A

Rate Integral
Rate Integral - Derivative
Q
rate
integral =
Q/t
actual rate
Q
actual
time
Concept of Rate Integral
(Blasingame et al)
actual
time
Rate Integral: Like a Cumulative
Average
Effective way to remove noise
t
1
Average rate over time period
0 to t
1
q
Average rate over time period
0 to t
2
t
2
}
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
c
t
c
i
dt
p
q
t p
q
0
1
Rate Integral: Definition
Typecurve Interpretation Aids:
Integrals, Derivatives
Integral /
Cumulative
Removing the scatter from
noisy data sets
Dilutes the reservoir
signal
Fetkovich,
Blasingame, NPI
Derivative
Amplifying the reservoir
signal embedded in
production data
Amplifies noise -
often unusable
Agarwal-Gardner,
PTA
Integral-Derivative
Maximizing the strengths
of Integral and Derivative
Can still be noisy Blasingame, NPI
Used in Analysis Typecurve Most Useful For Drawback
Other methods: Data filtering, Moving averages, Wavelet decomposition
Rate Integral and Rate Integral
Derivative (Blasingame et al)
Rate Integral
Rate (Normalized)
Rate Integral Derivative
Transient Calculations
Oil:
k is obtained from rearranging the definition of
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
1
r
r
ln
kh
2 . 141
p
q
q
match
wa
e
Dd
|
A
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
1
r
r
ln
h
2 . 141
q
p
q
k
match
wa
e
match
Dd
| A
Solve for r
wa
from the definition of
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
1
r
r
ln 1
r
r
r c
2
1
kt 006328 . 0
t
match
wa
e
2
match
wa
e
2
wa t
c
Dd
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
1
match
wa
r
e
r
ln 1
2
match
wa
r
e
r
2
1
t
c
k 006328 . 0
match
Dd
t
t
wa
r
c
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
wa
w
r
r
ln s
Boundary Dominated Calculations-Oil
Oil-in-Place calculation is based on the harmonic stem of Fetkovich typecurves.
In Blasingame typecurve analysis, q
Dd
and t
Dd
are defined as follows:
( )
( )
c i Dd
i
Dd
t D t
p q
p q
q =
A
A
= and
/
/
Recall the Fetkovich definition for the harmonic typecurve and the PSS equation for oil in
harmonic form:
1
1

1
and
1
1
+
=
A +
=
c
t
Dd
Dd
t
Nb c
b
p
q
t
q
From the above equations:
Nb c
D
b p
q
t D
p
q
p
q
t
i
i
c i
i
1
and ,
1

ere wh
1
= =
|
|
.
|
\
|
A +
A
=
A
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
PSS equation for oil in
harmonic form, using
material balance time
Definition of Harmonic
typecurve
Boundary Dominated Calculations-Oil
Oil-in-Place (N) is calculated as follows:
Rearranging the equation for Di:
b D c
N
i t
1
=
Now, substitute the definitions of q
Dd
and t
Dd
back into the above equation:
( )
( )
(
A
(
=
(
A
(
=
Dd Dd
c
t Dd
c
Dd
t
q
p q
t
t
c
p q
q
t
t
c
N
/ 1
/
1
Y-axis match-point
from typecurve analysis
X-axis match-point from
typecurve analysis
( ) b G c Z
p
D
b p
q
t D
p
q
p
q
i i t
i
i
i
p c i
i
2
and ,
1

ere wh
1
= =
|
|
.
|
\
|
A +
A
=
A
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis- Boundary
Dominated Calculations- Gas
Gas-in-Place calculation is similar to that of oil, with the additional complications of pseudo-
time and pseudo-pressure.
In Blasingame typecurve analysis, q
Dd
and t
Dd
are defined as follows:
( )
( )
ca i Dd
i p
p
Dd
t D t
p q
p q
q =
A
A
= and
/
/
Recall the Fetkovich definition for the harmonic typecurve and the PSS equation for gas in
harmonic form:
( )
1
2

1
and
1
1
+
=
A +
=
ca
i i t
i
p Dd
Dd
t
b G c Z
p
b
p
q
t
q
PSS equation for gas in

harmonic form, using
material balance pseudo-
time
Definition of Harmonic
typecurve
From the above equations:
Gas-in-Place (G
i
) is calculated as follows:
Rearranging the equation for Di:
( )b c Z D
p
G
i t i
i
i
2
=
Now, substitute the definitions of q
Dd
and t
Dd
back into the above equation:
Y-axis match-point
from typecurve analysis
X-axis match-point from
typecurve analysis
Boundary Dominated Calculations- Gas
( )
( )
( )
(
A
(
=
A
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
Dd
p
Dd
ca
i t
i
p
Dd
i t
ca
Dd
i
i
q
p q
t
t
c Z
p
p q
q
c Z
t
t
p
G
/ 2
) / (
2
Agarwal-Gardner Typecurve Analysis

Agarwal and Gardner have developed several different diagnostic
methods, each based on modern decline analysis theory. The AG
typecurves are all derived using the WELLTESTING definitions of
dimensionless rate and time (as opposed to the Fetkovich
definitions). The models are all based on the constant RATE
solution. The methods they present are as follows:
1. Rate vs. Time typecurves (tD and tDA format)
2. Cumulative Production vs. Time typecurves (tD and tDA
format)
3. Rate vs. Cumulative Production typecurves (tDA
format)
- linear format
- logarithmic format
Agarwal-Gardner Typecurve Analysis
Agarwal-Gardner - Rate vs.
Time Typecurves
Agarwal and Gardner Rate vs. Time typecurves are the same as
conventional drawdown typecurves, but are inverted and plotted in
tDA (time based on area) format.
qD vs tDA
The AG derivative plot is not a rate derivative (as per Blasingame).
Rather, it is an INVERSE PRESSURE DERIVATIVE.
p
D
(der) = t(dp
D
/dt) q
D
(der) = t(dq
D
/dt)
1/p
D
(der) = ( t(dp
D
/dt) )
-1
Time Typecurves
Comparison to Blasingame Typecurves
Rate Integral-
Derivative
Inv. Pressure
Integral-
Derivative
qDd and tDd
plotting format
qD and tDA
plotting fomat
Cumulative Typecurves
Agarwal and Gardner Rate vs. Cumulative typecurves are different from
conventional typecurves because they are plotted on LINEAR
coordinates.
They are designed to analyze BOUNDARY DOMINATED data only. Thus,
they do not yield estimates of permeability and skin, only fluid-in-place.
Plot: qD (1/pD) vs QDA
Where (for oil):
( )
( ) t p p
t q
kh
B
q
wf i
D
=
2 . 141
wf i
i
wf i
t
DA D
DA
p p
p p
p p N c
Q
t q Q
= =
t t 2
1
ely alternativ or
) ( 2
1
*
Where (for gas):
( )
( ) t
t q
kh
T e
q
wf i
D

=
* 6 417 . 1
( )
wf i
i
wf i
i i t
ca
DA D
DA
G Z c
qt
t q Q

t t
= =
2
1
ely alternativ or
) (
2
2
1
*
qD vs QDA typecurves
always converge to 1/2t
(0.159)
NPI (Normalized Pressure Integral)
NPI analysis plots a normalized PRESSURE rather than a normalized
RATE. The analysis consists of three sets of typecurves:
1. Normalized pressure vs. tc (material balance time)
2. Pressure integral vs. tc
3. Pressure integral - derivative vs. tc
- Pressure integral methodology was developed by Tom Blasingame;
originally used to interpret drawdown data with a lot of noise. (ie.
conventional pressure derivative contains far too much scatter)
- NPI utilizes a PRESSRE that is normalized using the current RATE.
It also utilizes the concepts of material balance time and pseudo-
time.
NPI (Normalized Pressure Integral):
Definitions
Normalized Pressure
| q
P kh
P
D
2 . 141
A
=
q
P A
q
P
p
A
( )
DA
D
Dd
t d
dP
P
ln
=
( )
c
d
t d
q
P
d
q
P
ln
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
( )
( )
ca
p
i
p
t d
q
P d
q
P
ln
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
( )dt t P
t
P
DA
t
p
DA
Di
}
=
0
1
}
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
c
t
c
i
dt
q
P
t q
P
0
1
}
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
ca
t
p
ca
i
p
dt
q
P
t q
P
0
1
DA
Di
DA Did
dt
dP
t P =
c
i
c
id
dt
q
P
d
t
q
P
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
ca
i
p
ca
id
p
dt
q
P
d t
q
P
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
Conventional
Pressure Derivative
Pressure Integral
Pressure Integral -
Derivative
Diagnostics
Transient
Boundary
Dominated
Integral - Derivative
Typecurve
Normalized
Pressure
Typecruve
Calculation of Parameters- Oil
Oil - Radial
| q
P kh
P
D
2 . 141
A
=
2
00634 . 0
e t
c
DA
r C
kt
t
t|
=
match
D
q
P
P
h
k
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
=
| 2 . 141
match
DA
c
t
e
t
t
C
k
r
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
t|
00634 . 0
match
wa
e
wq
r
re
r
r
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
wa
w
r
r
S ln
match
DA
c
match
D
t
t
t
q
P
P S
C
N
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
|
.
|
\
|
=
1000 * 615 . 5
2 . 141 00634 . 0
0
(MBBIS)
Gas Radial
Tq
P kh
P
p
D
6 417 . 1 E
A
=
2
00634 . 0
e ti i
ca
DA
r C
kt
t
t|
=
match
p
D
q
P
P
h
T
k
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
E
=
6 417 . 1
match
DA
ca
ti i
e
t
t
C
k
r
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
t|
00634 . 0
match
wa
e
e
wa
r
r
r
r
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
wa
w
r
r
S ln
( )( )
9
10 *
6 417 . 1 00634 . 0
match
p
D
match
DA
ca
sc i ti i
sc i g
q
P
P
t
t
P z c
T P S
G
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
|
|
.
|
\
| E
=
(bcf)
Calculation of Parameters- Gas
Transient (tD format) Typecurves
Transient typecurves plot a normalized rate against material balance time
(similar to other methods), but use a dimensionless time based on
WELLBORE RADIUS (welltest definition of dimensionless time), rather
than AREA. The analysis consists of two sets of typecurves:
1. Normalized rate vs. tc (material balance time)
2. Inverse pressure integral - derivative vs. tc
- Transient typecurves are designed for analyzing EARLY-TIME data to
estimate PERMEABILITY and SKIN. They should not be used (on their
own) for estimating fluid-in-place
- Because of the tD format, the typecurves blend together in the early-time
and diverge during boundary dominated flow (opposite of tDA and tDd
format typecurves)
Transient versus Boundary
Scaling Formats
log(q
Dd
)
log(t
Dd
)
log(t
D
)
log(q
D
)
Transient (tD format) Typecurves:
Definitions
Normalized Rate
P kh
q
q
D
A
=
| 2 . 141
P
q
A
p
P
q
A
( )
1
0
1
/ 1

(
(
=
}
dt t P
t
P
DA
t
p
DA
Di
1
0
1

(
(
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
}
c
t
c i
dt
q
P
t q
P
Inv
1
0
1

(
(
A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
}
ca
t
p
ca
i
p
dt
q
P
t q
P
Inv
1
/ 1

(
=
DA
Di
DA Did
dt
dP
t P
1
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
c
i
c
id
dt
q
P
d
t
q
P
Inv
1
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=
|
|
.
|
\
| A
ca
i
p
ca
id
p
dt
q
P
d t
q
P
Inv
Inverse Pressure
Integral
Inverse Presssure
Integral - Derivative
Diagnostics (Radial Model)
Transient
Transition to Boundary
Dominated occurs at
different points for
different typecurves
Inverse Integral -
Derivative
Typecurve
Normalized Rate
Typecurve
Finite Conductivity Fracture Model
Increasing Fracture
Conductivity (FCD
stems)
Increasing
Reservoir Size
(xe/xf stems)
Calculations (Radial Model)
Oil Wells:

Using the definition of qD,

permeability is calculated as follows:

From the definition of tD,

rwa is calculated as follows:

Skin is calculated as follows:

/

2 . 141
match
D q
p q
h
B
k
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=

/

2 . 141 00634 . 0

match
D
c
match
D t
wa
t
t
q
p q
h
B
c
r |
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
| A
|
.
|
\
|
=
|

) (
2 . 141
wf i
D
p p kh
qB
q
=

00634 . 0

2
wa t
c
D
r c
kt
t
|
=
ln
w
|
.
|
\
|
=
wa r
r
s
Gas Wells:

For gas wells, q
D
is defined as follows:

The permeability is calculated from above, as follows:

From the definition of t
D
and k, r
wa
is calculated as follows

Skin is calculated as follows:

q 6 .417 1
p
R
D
p kh
T E
q
A
=

/ 6 .417 1
match
D
p R
q
p q
h
T E
k
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=

/ 6 .417 1 00634 . 0

match
D
p
match
D
ca R
ti i
wa
q
p q
t
t
h
T E
c
r
|
|
.
|
\
| A
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
ln
w
|
.
|
\
|
=
wa r
r
s
Flowing p/z Method for Gas
Constant Rate
p G
Measured at well
during flow
Pressure loss due to flow
in reservoir (Darcys Law)
is constant with time
i G
i
i
z
p
wf
wf
z
p
- Mattar L., McNeil, R., "The 'Flowing' Gas
Material Balance", JCPT, Volume 37 #2, 1998
constant +
|
.
|
\
|
=
wf
z
p
z
p
p G
Measured at well
during flow
wf
wf
z
p
Graphical Method Doesnt
Work!
Graphical Flowing p/z Method
for Gas Variable Rate
i G
?
i
i
z
p
p G
Measured at well
during flow
Pressure loss due to flow
in reservoir is NOT
constant
i G
i
i
z
p
wf
wf
z
p
pss
wf
qb
z
p
z
p
+
|
.
|
\
|
=
Unknown
Flowing p/z Method for Gas
Variable Rate
Variable Rate p/z Procedure (1)
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70
Cumulative Production, Bscf
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
F
l
o
w
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Legend
Static P/Z
*
P/Z Line
Flowing Pressure
Step 1: Estimate OGIP and
plot a straight line from pi/zi
to OGIP. Include flowing
pressures (p/z)wf on plot
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
2.40
2.80
3.20
3.60
4.00
4.40
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
/
(
1
0
6
p
s
i
2
/
c
P
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
F
l
o
w
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Legend
Static P/Z
*
P/Z Line
Flowing Pressure
Productivity Index
Step 2: Calculate bpss for
each production point using
the following formula:
Plot 1/bpss as a function of
Gp
line wf
pss
p p
z z
b
q
| | | |
| |
\ . \ .
=
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
2.40
2.80
3.20
3.60
4.00
4.40
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
/
(
1
0
6
p
s
i
2
/
c
P
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
F
l
o
w
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Legend
Static P/Z
*
P/Z Line
Flowing Pressure
Productivity Index
Step 3: 1/bpss should tend
towards a flat line. Iterate on
OGIP estimates until this
happens
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
2.40
2.80
3.20
3.60
4.00
4.40
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
/
(
1
0
6
p
s
i
2
/
c
P
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
P
/
Z
*
,

F
l
o
w
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Legend
Static P/Z
*
P/Z Line
Flowing P/Z
*
Flowing Pressure
Productivity Index
Step 4: Plot p/z points on the
p/z line using the following
formula:
Fine tune the OGIP estimate
pss
data wf
p p
qb
z z
| | | |
= +
| |
\ . \ .
1/b
pss
Specialized
Modeling and History Matching
Well / Reservoir
Model
Well Pressure at Sandface
Production Volumes
Constraint (Input)
Signal (Output)
Well / Reservoir
Model
Production Volumes
Well Pressure at Sandface
Constraint (Input)
Signal (Output)
1. Pressure Constrained System:
2. Rate Constrained System:
Models - Horizontal

Rectangular reservoir with a horizontal well located anywhere inside.

L
Models - Radial

Rectangular reservoir with a vertical well located anywhere inside.

Models - Fracture

Rectangular reservoir with a vertical infinite conductivity fracture located anywhere inside.

A Systematic and Comprehensive
Method for Analysis
Modern Production Analysis
Methodology
Diagnostics
Interpretation and
Analysis
Modeling and
History Matching
Forecasting
- Data Chart
- Typecurves
- Analytical Models
- Numerical Models
- Data Validation
- Reservoir signal
extraction
- Identifying dominant
flow regimes
- Estimating reservoir
characteristics
- Identifying important
system parameters
- Qualifying
uncertainty
- Traditional
- Fetkovich
- Blasingame
- AG / NPI
- Flowing p/z
- Transient
- Validating interpretation
- Optimizing solution
- Enabling additional
flexibility and complexity
- Reserves
- Optimization scenarios
Practical Diagnostics
Qualitative investigation of data
Pre-analysis, pre-modeling
Must be quick and simple
A VITAL component of production data
analysis (and reservoir engineering in
general)
What are diagnostics?
Illustration- Typical Dataset
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540
Time, days
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
L
i
q
u
i
d

R
a
t
e
s

,

b
b
l
/
d
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
G
a
s

,

M
M
c
f
d
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,

p
s
i
Data Chart
Unnamed Well
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
Face Value Analysis of Data
OGIP = 90 bcf
Go Back: Diagnostics
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540
Time, days
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
L
i
q
u
i
d

R
a
t
e
s

,

b
b
l
/
d
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
G
a
s

,

M
M
c
f
d
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,

p
s
i
Data Chart
Unnamed Well
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
Data Chart
Unnamed Well
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
Pressures are not
representative of
bh deliverability
Correct Data Used
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540
Time, days
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
L
i
q
u
i
d

R
a
t
e
s

,

b
b
l
/
d
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
G
a
s

,

M
M
c
f
d
4600
4800
5000
5200
5400
5600
5800
6000
6200
6400
6600
6800
7000
7200
7400
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,

p
s
i
Data Chart
Unnamed Well
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
Oil Production
Water Production
OGIP = 19 bcf
Diagnostics using Typecurves
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 2 3 4 5 7
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
10
-7
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
Blasingame Typecurve Match
Radial Model
qDd
tDd
Base Model:
- Vertical Well in Center of Circle
- Homogeneous, Single Layer
Transient
(concave up) Boundary Dominated
(concave down)
Material Balance Diagnostics
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 2 3 4 5 7
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
10
-7
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
Radial Model
Leaky Reservoir
(interference)
Reservoir With
Pressure Support
qDd
tDd
Productivity Diagnostics
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 2 3 4 5 7
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
10
-7
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
Radial Model
Well Cleaning Up
Liquid Loading
Increasing Damage (difficult to identify)
qDd
tDd
Productivity Shifts
(workover,
unreported tubing
change)
Transient Flow Diagnostics
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 2 3 4 5 7
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
10
-7
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
Radial Model
Transitionally
Dominated Flow (eg:
Channel or Naturally
Fractured)
Fracture Linear Flow
(Stimulated)
Radial Flow
Damaged
qDd
tDd
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 5 7 2 3 4 5 7
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
10
-7
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
3
5
8
2
Radial Model
Ap in reservoir is too high
-Tubing size too large ?
- Initial pressure too high ?
- Wellbore correlations
underestimate pressure loss ?
Ap in reservoir is too low
-Tubing size too small ?
- Initial pressure too low ?
- Wellbore correlations
overestimate pressure loss ?
qDd
tDd
Bad Data Diagnostics
Selected Topics and Examples
Tight Gas
Industry Migration to Tight Gas
Reservoirs
Production Analysis Tight Gas versus
Conventional Gas
Analysis methods are no different from that
of high permeability reservoirs
Transient effects tend to be more dominant
Establishing the region (volume) of
influence is critical
Drainage shape becomes more important
(Transitional effects)
Linear flow is more common
Layer effects are more common
Tight Gas- Common Geometries
Tight Gas Type Curves
1.00E-11
1.00E-10
1.00E-09
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
tDd
q
D
d
Linear flow
dominated
Limited, bounded
drainage area
Infinite acting reservoir
1/2
1
Tight Gas Model 1
Extensive, continuous porous media; very low
permeability
Pi = 2000 psi
1800 psi
Pi = 1500 psi
1.00E-11
1.00E-10
1.00E-09
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
tDd
q
D
d
1/2
Infinite Acting System
Example#1 Infinite Acting System
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Material Balance Pseudo Time
10-2
10-1
1.0
101
102
2
3
5
7
2
3
5
7
2
3
4
6
9
2
3
5
7
2
3
4
6
2
N
o
r
m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t
e
Agarwal Gardner Rate vs Time Typecurve Analysis 10
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10-2
10-1
1.0
101
102
2
3
5
7
2
3
5
7
2
3
4
6
9
2
3
5
7
2
3
4
6
2
N
o
r m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t e
Agarwal Gardner Rate vs Time Typecurve Analysis 10
k = 0.08 md
xf = 53 ft
OGIP = 10 bcf
k = 0.08 md
xf = 53 ft
Minimum OGIP = 2.6 bcf
No flow continuity across reservoir- Well only
drains a limited bounded volume
Tight Gas Model 2
Example: Lenticular Sands
Bounded Reservoir
1.00E-11
1.00E-10
1.00E-09
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
tDd
q
D
d
1/2
1
- Limited or no flow continuity in reservoir
- Very small drainage areas
- Very large effective fracture lengths
Commonly observed in practice
Example #2- Bounded Drainage
Areas

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 More
Drainage Area (acres)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Frequency Cumulative %
10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78
10-2
10-1
1.0
101
2
3
5
7
2
3
5
7
2
3
5
7
2
N
o
r
m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t
e
ROBINSON11-1 ALT

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
xf (feet)
O
G
I
P

(
b
c
f
)

.
- West Louisiana gas field
- 80 acre average spacing
- All wells in boundary dominated flow
Linear flow dominated system
Tight Gas Model 3
kx
ky
Example: Naturally fractured, tight reservoir
Infinite Systems versus Linear Flow
Systems
Establish
permeability and
xf independently
Establish xf sqrt
(k) product only
Linear Flow Systems
1.00E-11
1.00E-10
1.00E-09
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
tDd
q
D
d
1/2
- Channel and faulted reservoirs
- Naturally fractured (anisotropic) reservoirs
- Very large effective fracture lengths
- Very difficult to uniquely interpret
Commonly observed in practice
Example #3- Linear Flow System
10
1
10
2
10
3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-8
10
-7
5
7
9
2
3
4
5
7
2
3
4
5
Fracture Model
k = 1.1 md
xf = 511 ft
ye = 5,500 ft
yw = 2,900 ft
y
e
2xf
y
w
More Examples
Example #3- Multiple Layers
10
-1
1.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
-1
1.0
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
3
N
o
r
m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t
e
1.0 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
2
3
4
6
8
2
3
4
5
7
Multi Layer Model
Well
- Blasingame typecurve match, using Fracture Model
- Pressure support indicated
- Three-Layer Model (one layer with very low
permeability) used, late-time match improved
Example #4- Shale Gas
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
-1
1.0
3
4
5
6
7
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
3
4
5
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
a
t
e
Agarwal Gardner Rate vs Time Typecurve Analysis Well
- Multi-stage fractures, horizontal well
- Analyzed as a vertical well in a circle
k = 0.02 md
s = -4
OGIP = 4.5 bcf
Tight Gas: Assessing Reserve Potential
Recovery Plots
Objectives
Determine incremental reserves that are added as the
ROI expands into the reservoir (only relevant for
infinite or semi-infinite systems)
To establish a practical range of Expected Ultimate
Recovery
Typical Recovery Profile
Recovery Curves for k = 1 md
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Original Gas in Place (bcf)
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
1 md reservoir, unfractured
(~10 bcf / section)
100% Recovery
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
EUR- unlimited time
Actual EUR (qab = 0.05 MMscfd)
100% Recovery
(~10 bcf / section)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
EUR- 30 year EUR- unlimited time
30 Year Limited
100% Recovery
(~10 bcf / section)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
EUR- 30 year EUR- 20 year EUR- unlimited time
20 Year Limited
30 Year Limited
100% Recovery
(~10 bcf / section)
Tight Gas Recovery Profile
Recovery Curves for k = 0.02 md
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
EUR- unlimited time
0.02 md reservoir,
fractured
(~10 bcf / section)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
EUR- 30 year EUR- unlimited time
30 Year
0.02 md reservoir,
fractured
(~10 bcf / section)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
30 Year
20 Year
0.02 md reservoir, fractured
(~10 bcf / section)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
30 Year
Max EUR (30 y) = 2 bcf
20 Year
0.02 md reservoir,
fractured
(~10 bcf / section)
Example South Texas, Deep
Gas Well
1.0 10
1
10
2
10
3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-9
10
-8
7
9
2
3
4
5
7
2
3
AG Typecurve Match
Fracture Model
Sqrt k X xf = 155
Min OGIP = 4.2 bcf
Example South Texas, Deep
Gas Well
Recovery Plot - Linear System
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
ROI (acres)
E
U
R

(
b
c
f
)
Minimum EUR = 3.5 bcf
Maximum EUR = 6.7 bcf
Recovery period = 30 years
sqrt k X xf = 155
pi = 6971 psia
Water Drive Models
Water Drive (Aquifer) Models:
Models for reservoirs under the influence of active water encroachment can
be categorized as follows:
1. Steady State Models (inaccurate for finite reservoir sizes)
- Schilthuis
2. Pseudo Steady-State Models (geometry independent,
time discretized)
- Fetkovich
3. Single Phase Transient Models (geometry dependent)
- infinite aquifer (linear, radial or layer geometry)
- finite aquifer (linear, radial or layer geometry)
4. Modified Transient Models
- Moving saturation front approximations
- Two phase flow approximations
Pseudo Steady-State Models
PSS models (such as that of Fetkovich) use a TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT (similar to a well productivity index) to describe the
PSS rate of water influx into the reservoir, in conjunction with a
MATERIAL BALANCE model that predicts the decline in reservoir
boundary pressure over time.
The Fetkovich model is generally used to determine reservoir fluid-
in-place by history matching the CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION and
AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE.
Pseudo Steady-State Models
Advantages:
- Geometry independent (applicable to aquifers of any shape, size or
connectivity to the reservoir)
- Works well for finite sized aquifers of medium to high mobility
- Computationally efficient
Disadvantages:
- Does not provide a full time solution (transient effects are ignored)
- Does not work well for infinite acting or very low mobility aquifers
Pseudo Steady-State Model- Equations
The Fetkovich water influx equation for a finite aquifer is:
The above equation applies to the water influx due to a constant pressure difference between aquifer and
reservoir. In practice, the reservoir pressure p will be declining with time. Thus, the equation must be
discretized as follows:
( )
/
1
|
.
|
\
|
=
i e i
i
i
ei
e
W t Jp
e -p p
p
W
W Initial encroachable water
Aquifer transfer coefficient
Reservoir boundary pressure
( )
/
1
1
|
.
|
\
|
= A

i
n n
e i
n
a
i
ei
e
W t Jp
e p - p
p
W
W
The average aquifer pressure at the previous timestep (n-1) is evaluated explicitly, as follows:
1
1
1
1
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
=

ei
n
j
ej
i a
W
W
p p
n
(1)
Pseudo Steady-State Model- Equations
But there is another equation that relates the average reservoir pressure to the amount of water
influx: the material balance equation for a gas reservoir under water drive.
1 1
-1
|
.
|
\
|

|
.
|
\
|
=
i
i e
i
p
i
i
G
B W
G
G
z
p
z
p
Now, we have one equation with two unknowns (water influx W
e
and reservoir boundary
pressure p)
As with the water influx equation, the material balance equation can be discretized in time:
(2)
1 1
-1
|
.
|
\
|

|
.
|
\
|
=
|
.
|
\
|
i
i e
i
p
i
i
n
G
B W
G
G
z
p
z
p
n n
Equations 1 and 2 are now solved simultaneously at each timestep, to obtain a discretized
reservoir pressure and water influx profile through time.
Cumulative Production
FVF at initial conditions
Gas-in-place
Transient Models
Transient models use the full solution to the hydraulic DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION to
model rates and pressures.
The transient equations can be used to model either FINITE or INFINITE acting
aquifers. There are a number of different transient models available for analyzing
a reservoir under active water drive:
- Radial Composite (edge water drive)
- Linear (edge water drive)
- Layered (bottom water drive)
Advantages:
- Offers full continuous pressure solution in the reservoir
- Includes early time effects
Disadvantages:
- Geometry dependent (only a disadvantage if aquifer properties are unknown)
- Limited to assumption of single phase flow
- Does not account for water influx
Water Drive (Aquifer) Typecurves:
Radial Composite Model
Blasingame, AG and NPI dimensionless formats can be used to plot
typecurves for SINGLE PHASE production (oil or gas) from a reservoir under
the influence of an EDGE WATER DRIVE. A typecurve match using this
model can be used to predict
1. Reservoir fluid-in-place
2. Aquifer mobility
- These typecurves are designed to estimate fluid-in-place by
detecting the shift in fluid mobility as the transient passes the reservoir
boundaries, into the aquifer.
- Their usefulness is limited to single phase flow (ie: the transition from
reservoir fluid to aquifer is assumed to be abrupt)
Definitions
Model Type: Radial Composite (two zones);
outer zone is of infinite extent
Reservoir
Aquifer
aq
res
res
aq
res
aq
k
k
M
M
M
= =
Mobility Ratio (M):
Diagnostics
Increasing Aquifer Mobility
(M)
M=0 (Volumetric Depletion)
M=10 (Constant Pressure System
(approx))
Decreasing reD value
Diagnostics
M=10 (Constant Pressure System
(approx))
M=0 (Volumetric Depletion)
Decreasing reD value
Increasing Aquifer Mobility
(M)
Modified Transient Models
1. Moving aquifer front (reservoir boundary)
The radial composite model previously discussed can be enhanced to
accommodate a shrinking reservoir boundary, caused by water influx.
This is achieved by discretizing the transient solution in time and using
the PSS water influx equations to predict the advancement of the aquifer
front. The solution still assumes single phase flow, but can now more
accurately estimate the time to water breakthrough.
2. Two phase flow (after M. Abbaszadeh et al)
The previously discussed model can also be modified toaccommodate a
region of two-phase flow (located between the inner region - hydrocarbon
phase and outer region - water phase). Thus, geometrically, the overall
model is three zone composite. The pressure transient solution for the
two-phase zone is calculated by superimposing the single phase
pressure solution on a saturation profile determined using the Buckley-
Leverett equations.
Water Drive (Aquifer) Models: Example
10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10-2
10-1
1.0
101
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
N
o
r m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t e
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis Example F
-Boundary dominated
-Pressure support evident
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
2002 2003
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
G
a
s
,
M
M
s
c
f d
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
P
re
s
s
u
re
,
p
s
i
Data Chart Example F
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
-Gulf coast gas
condensate reservoir
10-1 1.0 101 102
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4
10-2
10-1
1.0
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
N
o
r m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t e
, D
e
r i v
a
t i v
e
Agarwal Gardner Rate vs Time Typecurve Analysis Example F
k = 8.5 md
s = 0
OGIP = 12 bcf
M = 0.001
Transient Water Drive
Model
10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10-2
10-1
1.0
101
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
N
o
r m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t e
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis Example F
k = 3.1 md
s = -4
OGIP = 13.5 bcf
IWIP = 47 MMbbl
PI (aq) = 0.59 bbl/d/psi
PSS Water Drive Model
Multiple Well Analysis
1. Empirical- Group production decline plots
2. Material Balance Analysis- Shut-in data only
3. Reservoir Simulation
4. Semi-analytic production data analysis methods
- Blasingame approach
Multi-well / Reservoir-based Analysis-
Available Methods
Multi-Well Analysis- When is it
required?
1. Situations where high efficiency is required
- Scoping studies / A & D
- Reserves auditing
2. Single well methods sometimes dont apply
- Interference effects evident in production / pressure
data- Wells producing and shutting in at different times
- Predictive tool for entire reservoir is required
- Complex reservoir behavior in the presence of
multiple wells (multi-phase flow, reservoir
heterogeneities)
Multi-Well Analysis- When is it not
required?
The vast majority of production data can be analyzed
effectively without using multi-well methods
1. Single well reservoirs
2. Low permeability reservoirs
- Pressure transients from different wells in reservoir
do not interfere over the production life of the well
3. Cases where outer boundary conditions do not change
too much over the production life of the well
- Wide range of reservoir types
Identifying Interference
Well A Well B
Rate is adjusted at Well A
q
Q Q
Response at Well B
Correcting Interference Using
Blasingame et al Method
A
B A
tot
ce
q q
t
Q Q

Q +
=
Define a total material balance time function
t
ce
is used in place of t
c
to plot the data in the typecurve match
(for analyzing Well A)
Multi-Well Analysis as a
Typecurve Plot
log(q/Ap)
t
ce
= (Q
B
+Q
A
)/q
A
log(tc)
t
cA
t
ce
MBT is corrected for
interference caused
by production from
Well B
Analysis of Well A:
Also applies to Agarwal-Gardner, NPI and FMB
Multi-Well Analysis- Example
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
O
i
l

/

W
a
t
e
r

R
a
t
e
s
,

b
b
l
/
d
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
G
a
s
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
26000
28000
30000
32000
34000
36000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Data Chart Well 1
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
Pool Production
Water Production
-Three well system
-Staggered on-stream dates
-High permeability reservoir
Aggregate production of well group
Production history of well to be analyzed
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
10
1
2
3
4
5
7
2
3
4
5
7
2
3
4
5
7
N
o
r
m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t
e
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis Well 1
Leaky reservoir diagnostic
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
10
1
2
3
4
5
7
2
3
4
5
7
2
3
4
5
7
N
o
r
m
a
l i z
e
d
R
a
t
e
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis Well 1
Corrected using multi-well model
Total OGIP = 7 bcf
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20 3.60 4.00 4.40 4.80 5.20 5.60 6.00 6.40 6.80 7.20 7.60
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
P
/Z
*,
p
s
i
Flowing Material Balance Well 1
Legend
P/Z Line
Flowing P/Z
*
OGIP for subject well = 3.5 bcf
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20 3.60 4.00 4.40 4.80 5.20 5.60 6.00 6.40 6.80 7.20 7.60 8.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
P
/Z
*,
p
s
i
Flowing Material Balance Well 1
Legend
P/Z Line
Flowing P/Z
*
Total OGIP = 7.0 bcf
Overpressured Reservoirs
1. Analysis methods are the same as normally pressured case
2. Additional parameters to be aware of
Formation compressibility
In-situ water compressibility
Compaction effects (pressure dependent permeability)
3. Two models available, depending on required complexity
p/z* model (accounts for constant cf, cw and co in
material balance equation
Full geomechanical model (accounts for cf(p) and k(p))
Overpressured Reservoirs
Compresibilities of Gas and Rock

Compressibility vs. Pressure (Typical Gas Reservoir)
0.00E+00
5.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.50E-04
2.00E-04
2.50E-04
3.00E-04
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
1
/
p
s
i
)
gas
formation
Formation energy is critical in this region
Formation
energy may
be influencial
in this region
Formation
energy is
negligible in
this region
p/z* Model Corrects Material
Balance
( )
ca
0
( )

1 ( )
t
t i

t f i
c
q t
t dt
q c c p p
(
(

=

}
*
1
1
1 ( )
1
i
i
p
f i
p
p p
G
z
z c p p
OGIP
p p
G
z
z
OGIP
( | |
| (
| (
| (
(
\ .
(

( | |
| (
| (
|
(
\ .
=

=
Flowing MB
Typecurves
Geomechanical Model Corrects
Well Productivity
|
.
|
\
|
+ = A
4
3
ln
* 6 417 . 1
) (
2
* *
wa
e
i
a
i i t
i
p
r
r
h k
Tq e
t
G Z c
qp
p
}
= A
pi
pwf
i
p
z
pdp p k
k
p
) ( 2
*
}
=
t
t i
i t
a
c
dt k
k
c
t
0
*
) (
where
In the standard pressure transient equations, permeability is usually considered to be
constant. There are several situations where this may not be a valid assumption:

1. Compaction in overpressured reservoirs
2. Very low permeability reservoirs in general
3. Unconsolidated and/or fractured formations

One way to account for a variable permeability over time is to modify the definition of
pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time.
Pressure dependent
permeability included in
pseudo-pressure and pseudo-
time
Overpressured Reservoirs -
Example
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
a
t
e
Gulf Coast, deep gas condensate reservoir
Boundary dominated flow
OGIP = 17 bcf
Example
June July August September October
2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
R
a
t
e
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
History Match
Radial Model
218 Prod and Pressure Data
Good flowing pressure match,
Poor shut-in pressure match
OGIP = 17 bcf
Example
June July August September October
2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
R
a
t
e
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
History Match
Radial Model
Good flowing pressure match,
Good shut-in pressure match
OGIP = 29 bcf
Example
0 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000
Pressure, psi(a)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
k

/

k
i

k (p)
k (p) Permeability
Legend
Default
Custom
Interpolation
Assumed permeability profile
Horizontal Wells
Horizontal Wells
Horizontal wells may be analyzed in any of three different
ways, depending on completion and petrophysical details:
1. As a vertical well,
if lateral length is small compared to drainage area
2. As a fractured well,
if the formation is very thin
if the vertical permeability is high
if the lateral is cased hole with single or multiple stage
fractures
to get an idea about the contributing lateral length
3. As a horizontal well (Blasingame model)
all others
Where is the square root of the anisotropic ratio:
Horizontal Wells Blasingame
Typecurves
The horizontal well typecurve matching procedure is based on a square shaped reservoir with uniform thickness (h).
The well is assumed to penetrate the center of the pay zone.
The procedure for matching horizontal wells is similar to that of vertical wells. However, for horizontal wells, there is
more than one choice of model. Each model presents a suite of typecurves representing a different penetration ratio
(L/2xe) and dimensionless wellbore radius (rwD). The definition of the penetration ratio is illustrated in the following
diagram:
L
r
r
wa
wD
2
=
h
L
L
D
| 2
=
v
h
k
k
= |
The characteristic dimensionless parameter for each suite of horizontal typecurves is defined as follows:
For an input value of L,
|

L
2x
e

r
wa

h
Plan
Cross Section
L
2x
e
Horizontal Wells Example
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
10
1
10
2
2
3
4
6
8
2
3
4
6
8
2
3
4
6
8
2
3
4
6
8
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
a
t
e
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis Unnamed Well
L/2xe = 1
rwD = 2e-3
Ld = 5
Le = 1,968 ft
k (hz) = 0.18 md
k (v) = 0.011 md
OGIP = 1.1 bcf
Oil Wells
Oil Wells
Analysis methods are no different from that
of gas reservoirs (in fact they are simpler)
provided that the reservoir is above the
bubble point
If below bubble point, a multi-phase
capable model (Numerical) must be used
Include relative permeability effects
Include variable oil and gas properties
Oil Wells Example
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
2001 2002
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
L
i
q
u
i
d

R
a
t
e
s
,

b
b
l
/
d
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
G
a
s
,

M
M
s
c
f
d
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Data Chart example7
Legend
Pressure
Actual Gas Data
Oil Production
Water Production - Pumping oil well
- Assumed to be pumped off
Producing GOR ~ constant
(indicates reservoir pressure is above
bubble point
Oil Wells Example
Rs input from production data,
P
bp
and c
o
calculated using
Vasquez and Beggs
Oil Wells Example
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1.0 10
1
10
2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Material Balance Time
10
-2
10
-1
1.0
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
a
t
e
Blasingame Typecurve Analysis example7
k = 1.4 md
s = -3
OOIP = 2.4 million
bbls
Oil Wells Example
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
O
i
l

R
a
t
e
,

b
b
l
/
d
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Numerical Radial Model - Production Forecast example7
Legend
History Oil Rate
Flow Press
Syn Rate
History Reservoir Press
Forecasted Press
Forecasted Reservoir Press
Forecasted Rate
240 month forecast
EUR = 265 Mbbls

Modern Production Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Production Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toll Free: 1.800.625.2488 :: Phone: 403.213.4200 :: Email: fast@fekete.

The Fetkovich analytical typecurves can be used to calculate three parameters:

f(t) is the Unit Step Response

The Principle of Superposition

Superposition Time: Material Balance Time

Evaluated at average reservoir

Improved Material Balance

PSS equation for gas in

Agarwal-Gardner Typecurve Analysis

You might also like