SPE 94859

Decline-Curve Analysis for Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs

J.L. Frederick, SPE, Apache Corp., and M. Kelkar, SPE, U. of Tulsa

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
This paper introduces a new method for analyzing solutiongas production to determine the ultimate recovery of a well or
a field. The procedure developed and outlined in this paper
requires very little input data and is easily implemented. By
modifiying the equations for dimensionless rate and
dimensionless cumulative production derived for the single
phase model, a new set of equations is developed to
approximate the ultimate recovery of a solution-gas well.
Using the approximate material balance equation based on
numerical results by Vogel1 and the equation for the
production rate derived by Fetkovich et al.2,3,4, this new set of
dimensionless rate and dimensionless cumulative production
equations are derived. Using the relationship between these
equations and an iterative calculation procedure, the ultimate
recovery for the solution-gas well can be easily determined.
All that is needed as input is the producing bottom-hole
pressure, the initial pressure, and the oil production data. The
method has been validated with twelve simulator cases, six
under constant bottom hole pressure production constraint and
six under variable bottom hole pressure production constraint.
Furthermore, several field cases have been analyzed. The
synthetic and field cases validate the procedure. Using the
early pseudo-steady state production data in the analysis the
results generated by the method are consistent with the actual
ultimate recoveries.
Literature Review
Production data are widely available for any producing oil
and/or gas well. For this reason it is often analyzed to
determine information about the reservoir. By analyzing the
production data using rate-time analysis the future
performance of the well can be predicted and an estimate of
the recoverable reserves can be calculated. If sufficient
transient production data are present, rate-time analysis can be
used to estimate the reservoir permeability and skin factor.

The estimates of permeability can then be used to predict rate

vs. time behavior for wells without existing production data.
This is extremely useful to predict rates vs. time for newly
drilled wells. Also, the skin factor data can be used as a tool
to evaluate the effectiveness of the completion. If the results
are not favorable, the completion technique can be redesigned
for future wells. Currently, there are several rate-time
methods available to analyze single-phase production data.
This section will outline the methods developed by Arps5,
Fetkovich et al.2,3,4, and Palacio and Blasingame6.
Arps5 Decline Curves. Arps5 discovered that the natural
decline in production data for pseudo-steady state production
can be explained by three types of empirical curves:
exponential, hyperbolic, and harmonic.
The general equation for Arps curves is given in Equation 1.
qi
, .....................................................Equation 1
q=
(1 + bDi t )1 / b
Where q is the flow rate at time t, qi is the initial flow rate, Di
is the initial decline rate, t is time, and b is the hyperbolic
exponent and ranges from b = 0 to b = 1. For the harmonic
case, b = 1 and Equation 1 reduces to,
qi
q=
, ............................................................Equation 2
(1 + Dt )
And for the exponential case, b = 0 and Equation 1 reduces to,
q = qi e Dt , ...............................................................Equation 3
It can be shown that for single phase oil or gas wells
producing at a constant bottom hole pressure will result in an
exponential decline. The exponential case is often referred to
as the constant percentage decline because the decline rate
remains constant throughout the life of the well.
Work of Fetkovitch et al.2,3,4 Fetkovich et al.2,3,4 added to the
work of Arps5 by incorporating transient data into the ratetime analysis. He observed that by using dimensionless rate
and dimensionless time variables, the transient data could be
combined with Arps5 pseudo-steady state decline curves and
both transient and pseudo-steady state data can be analyzed
together.
For constant bottom hole pressure production,
Fetkovich et al.s2,3,4 dimensionless rate and dimensionless

SPE 94859

time for oil wells are given below as Equation 4 and Equation
5 respectively.

q Dd =

r
qo
= q D ln e
qi
rwa

r
141 . 2 q o B o o ln e
rwa
=
kh p i p wf

t Dd =

tD
r
1 ln e
rwa

1 re

2 rwa

0.00634 kt
=

2
ct rwa
1 re

2 rwa

1

2

1 , ............ Equation 4

2

1

2

1
r
1 ln e
rwa

,.... Equation 5

1

2

By matching the production data to the type curve the

values of external radius (re), permeability (k), and skin factor
(sf) can be determined
Work of Palacio and Blasingame6. The methods outlined
above are valid for constant bottom hole pressure production.
Palacio and Blasingame6 demonstrated that for gradual
changes in rate and/or pressure the pseudo-steady state
production data can be evaluated using an equivalent time.
For oil wells the equivalent time is,
Np
, ................................................................. Equation 6
te =
qo

q Dd =

Where teDd is the dimensionless time in terms of equivalent

time (see Equation 5). Equation 9 represents a harmonic
decline, so a type curve match will provide us with a value of
qi and Di.
Solution-Gas Drive Analysis
One of the most common drive mechanisms for a reservoir is
solution-gas drive. Currently there are limited rate-time
analyses methods available to estimate the expected recovery
from a solution-gas drive well. First, we will provide an
overview about the method, followed by the calculation
procedure and validation using several synthetic cases. Next,
the method is validated using several field cases, and finally,
an analysis of the results will be presented.
Overview. This method only uses pseudo-steady state
production data to estimate the ultimate recovery of a solutiongas drive well. One of the benefits of this method is that it
requires very little input data to be used. All that is required is
the oil production data, the initial reservoir pressure, and the
wellbore flowing pressure. Additionally, the calculation
procedure for this method is very simple and can be performed
using a simple spreadsheet program. A detailed derivation of
the method is given in Appendix A.
Calculation Procedure. As mentioned above, there is very
little required input and the calculation procedure is simple.
This section provides a step-by-step procedure for estimating
the ultimate recovery of a solution-gas drive well using only
the pseudo-steady state oil production data.
1.
2.

By using equivalent time instead of actual time we can

demonstrate that for oil and gas wells,
QDd + q Dd = 1 , ........................................................ Equation 7
Where QDd and qDd are the dimensionless cumulative
production and dimensionless rate respectively. For oil wells
qDd is defined by Equation 4 and QDd is defined as,
5.615 N p Bo
,......................................... Equation 8
QDd =
Ahct pi p wf

Palacio and Blasingame6 further show that,

Guess a value of ultimate recovery (Npf)

Using only the pseudo-steady state oil production data,
calculate the average reservoir pressure ( p ) using the
guess of Npf for each Np value and,
Np 2
p 2 = pi2
pi p 2f , ..............................Equation 10
N pf

3.

If we plot qDd vs. QDd using pseudo-steady state

production data, we should get a straight line with an xintercept of 1.0. Agarwal et al.7 have demonstrated that the
plot is relatively insensitive to permeability and skin factor.
Therefore, only reasonable estimates of permeability and skin
factor are needed to calculate Ah. Ah is obtained by using
an initial estimate of Ah and iterating its value until the plot
gives an x-intercept of 1.0.

1
,.........................................................Equation 9
1 + t eDd

Calculate qDd and QDd using Equation 11 and Equation 12

respectively.
qo
pi
, ................................Equation 11
q Dd =
2
2
J oi pi p wf p
QDd =

4.

(p
(p

2
2
i pf
2
2
i p wf

)N
)N

,..................................Equation 12

pf

Generate the qDd vs. QDd plot. If the x-intercept is 1.0, Npf
has been determined. Otherwise, refine the guess of Npf
and return to step 2.

Synthetic Data Validation. Eclipse 100 was used to generate

a two-phase radial reservoir model with 1 grid block in the direction (0 to 360 degrees), 1 grid block in the z-direction (10
feet thick), and 50 grid blocks in the r-direction (0.1 to 1000
feet increasing logarithmically). The permeability in the r and
directions is 50 md and 0 md in the z-direction. The

SPE 94859

is able to accurately estimate the ultimate recovery of a

solution-gas drive well.

45,000
40,000
35,000

Np (STB)

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0

500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

Pr (psia )
2

Figure 1: Case #1 constant pressure Np vs. Pr plot.

60,000

50,000

40,000

Np (STB)

porosity for all grid blocks is 10%. Additional information

about the simulator model is available in Appendix B. The
simulator was run for ten different cases. Five different
relative permeability curves were used to generate the ten
cases. Of the ten cases, five have constant bottom hole
pressure and five have variable bottom hole pressure. Often,
the bottom hole pressure is not constant, but its value is not
known. For this reason, the five variable bottom hole pressure
cases will be also analyzed assuming a constant bottom hole
pressure equal to the average of the bottom hole pressure
values.
The proposed method is based on two assumptions:
k ro
1.) Np vs. p 2 is linear and 2.)
vs. p is linear. These
o Bo
two assumptions are validated using the reservoir simulator
results. A plot of Np vs. p 2 for Case #1 is given in Figure 1
for the constant pressure case and Figure 2 for the variable
pressure case. The assumption that this relationship is linear
holds. The deviation from the straight line when the average
reservoir pressure is small (late times) does not deflect the Np
value at the y-intercept enough to cause a significant error.
k ro
Furthermore, a plot of
vs. p for Case #1 for several
o Bo
different time steps is given in Figure 3 for the constant
pressure case and Figure 4 for the variable pressure case.
From these plots we can see that this assumption is also valid.
Now that the assumptions have been validated, the method
will be used to predict future production. To determine if the
method is able to accurately predict future production, only
the early production data was used to estimate the ultimate
recovery. For example, in Case #1 with constant pressure, the
simulator runs for 5640 days, but days 285 to 390 were the
only ones used to estimate the ultimate recovery. Days 0 to
284 are left out because the well is still in transient flow.
Days 285 to 390 provide sufficient pseudo-steady state data to
estimate the ultimate recovery for the well at abandonment.
For the constant pressure cases, the Eclipse ultimate recovery
occurs when the average reservoir pressure is equal to the
wellbore flowing pressure, so for the analysis pf = pwf. For the
variable pressure cases (constant rate), the Eclipse ultimate
recovery occurs when the average reservoir pressure is equal
to 14.7 psia, so pf = 14.7 psia.
The plots used in Case #1 are shown in Figure 5
(constant pressure), Figure 6 (variable pressure), and Figure
7(variable pressure analyzed as constant pressure). The results
for the 10 synthetic cases are given in Table B-10. The results
show that the method is able to predict the ultimate recovery
with favorable accuracy using limited production data. The
highest relative error, 9.90% (Case #1 Variable Pressure), is
acceptable for an engineering approximation. Furthermore,
the results for the variable bottom hole pressure cases that
were predicted using constant pressure are given in Table B-1.
As expected the percent difference is higher than the cases
where the bottom hole pressure is known, but even with
limited knowledge about the bottom hole flowing pressure
reasonable estimates of ultimate recovery can be made. The
overall results of the synthetic cases validate that the method

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000
2

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Pr (psia )

Figure 2: Case #1 variable pressure Np vs. Pr plot.

SPE 94859

0.9

0.8

qDd

Kro/(o Bo) (md STB/(RB cp))

R2 = 0.9989
0.7

0.6

0.5

R2 = 0.9978
0.4

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.7200

y = -5.5901x + 5.5847

0.7400

0.7600

0.7800

0.8000

0.8200

QDd

0.3

R2 = 0.9989
0.2
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Figure 6: qDd vs. QDd plot for Case #1 with variable bottom hole
pressure.

Grid Block Pressure (psia)

5.7 days

150 days

300 days

Linear (5.7 days)

Linear (150 days)

Linear (300 days)

q Dd

Figure 3: Case #1 constant pressure mobility vs. pressure plot.

Kro/( o Bo) (md STB/(RB cp))

0.9

R2 = 0.9958

0.8
0.7

R2 = 0.9987
0.6

0.78

0.8

0.82

QDd

R2 = 0.9989

0.5

1.6
1.4
1.2
y = -5.5849x + 5.5846
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.72
0.74
0.76

Figure 7: qDd vs. QDd plot for Case #1 with variable bottom hole
pressure, but analyzed assuming a constant bottom hole
pressure.

0.4
0.3

0.2
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Grid Block Pressure (psia)

4 days

150 days

300 days

Linear ( 4 days)

Linear ( 150 days)

Linear (300 days)

Figure 4: Case #1 variable pressure mobility vs. pressure plot.

0.2
0.15

Field Case Validation. Once the method was validated using

the synthetic cases, it is further verified using several field
cases. The first two field cases chosen are from currently
abandoned reservoirs. Abandoned wells have been used
because the ultimate recovery of the wells is known. The third
field case is an active field, so the results are compared with a
constant percentage decline method. This comparison is used
because constant percentage decline analysis is a widely used
method to estimate ultimate recoveries, but according to
Fetkovich et al.2,3,4 it is not applicable for analyzing solutiongas drive reservoirs. As with the synthetic cases, only the
early production data will be used to test the methods ability to
predict the ultimate recovery.

q Dd

y = -0.9739x + 0.9738
0.1
0.05
0
0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

QDd

Figure 5: qDd vs. QDd plot for Case #1 with constant bottom hole
pressure.

Field Case #1: McKey #1. The first field case is based on
production data from a well called the McKey #1. It is located
in the Ella-Robberson field located in Garvin County,
Oklahoma and was produced from the Bromide formation
from January of 1979 to April of 1989. The initial pressure
and flowing bottom hole pressure for the well are unknown, so
reasonable estimates will be used.
The Bromide is
approximately 8000 ft TVD, so using a gradient of fresh
water, the initial pressure would be 3470 psi. A reasonable
estimate for the flowing bottom hole pressure of 50 psi held
constant has been assumed. The well has an increasing gas oil
ratio (GOR), which is characteristic of solution-gas drive
wells. The GOR, Gas Rate, and Oil Rate vs. time are shown
in Figure 8.

SPE 94859

14
12
10

1000

8
6

100

4
10
2

q Dd

10000
GOR (Mcf/STB)

Rate (STB/Month; Mcf/Month)

100000

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.7

0.8

0.9

1
0
Jan-78 May-79 Oct-80 Feb-82 Jul-83 Nov-84 Mar-86 Aug-87

Figure 10: McKey #1 qDd vs. QDd plot used to estimate the ultimate
recovery.

Time
Gas

Oil

GOR

Figure 8: McKey #1 GOR, Gas Rate and Oil Rate vs. Time plot.

The wells ultimate recovery for the life of the well

(124 months) was 932,561 STB of oil. The procedure
discussed earlier will be used to predict the ultimate recovery
of the McKey #1 using only the early pseudo-steady state data.
Figure 9 is used to determine when the pseudo-steady state
production begins. In this case, only production from months
55 to 69 will be used to predict the ultimate recovery at the
end of the wells life.
100000

10000
Oil Rate (STB/Month)

QDd

1000

100

Field Case #2: Hardy Field. The second field case

analyzed is the Hardy field. This field is located in Osage
County, Oklahoma. It was initially drilled in July 1961 and is
currently still producing under secondary recovery. The
secondary recovery began in November of 1997, so the
primary production data that will be used is from July 1961 to
October 1997 (436 months). The field produces from the
Mississippi Chat formation about 3500 feet TVD. Again, the
initial reservoir pressure and bottom hole flowing pressures
are unknown so reasonable estimates will be used. The initial
pressure is assumed to be 1518 psia. This is based on a fresh
water gradient at 3500 feet. The average wellbore flowing
pressure is assumed to be 100 psia. Because the field
produced over a long period of time, the number of wells in
the field varies significantly. Because of this fluctuation in the
number of producing wells, the production data will be
normalized to the number of wells, that is, the production data
plotted will be on a per well basis. The normalized production
data and GOR are given in Figure 11.

10

100

1000

10000

Np/qo (Months)

Figure 9: McKey #1 Rate vs. equivalent time plot used to

determine when pss period begins.

Next, using only the production data for months 55 to

69 the qDd vs. QDd plot is generated by varying Npf until the xintercept of the plot is 1.0. The plot is shown in Figure 10.
The calculated ultimate recovery is 956,821 STB which is
only a 2.60% difference when compared to the actual recovery
of 932,561 STB. These results are favorable considering the
assumptions made about the well pressure data and the noise
associated with the field data.

Normalized
Production (BPM/Well
or Mcf/Month/Well)

900.00

40.00

800.00

35.00

700.00

30.00

600.00

25.00

500.00
20.00
400.00
15.00

300.00

10.00

200.00

GOR (Mcf/STB)

10

5.00

100.00
0.00
0

100

200

300

400

0.00
500

Months

Normalized Oil Production

Normalized Gas Production

GOR
Figure 11: Plot of normalized production data for Hardy field.

The total recovery under primary production for the

field was 1,483,532 STB of oil and the average number of
wells throughout the life of the production was 21.8 wells. An
analysis of the normalized production data using the method
outlined will give an ultimate recovery on a per well basis, but
knowing the average number of wells in production the
ultimate recovery can be calculated. As with the previous

SPE 94859

field case, not all of the production data will be used to predict
the ultimate recovery. In this case the production data from
the 77th month to the 198th month (121 months total) are used
to determine the ultimate recovery. The q vs Np/q plot is
shown in Figure 12 and the qDd vs. QDd plot is shown in Figure
13.

100.00

10.00
100
Second wel l i n
pr oducti on

1.00
10

100

1000

10000

N p/q o (STB/Well)

Figure 12: q vs. Np/q plot for Hardy field.

q Dd

The constant percentage decline will be performed first.

Using a semi-log plot of normalized oil rate vs. time the
decline rate is determined. From Figure 14, we can see that the
decline rate is 67.3% per year. Using the current production
rate the remaining recovery is estimated to be 9,521 STB/well.
Using the average number of wells, 1.6, the remaining
recovery becomes 15,233 STB for the field. Currently the
field has produced 33,638 STB, so the ultimate recovery using
a constant percentage decline is 48,871 STB.

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Normalized Oil Rate

(STB/day/well)

Normalized Oil Rate

(STB/Month/Well)

1000.00

estimate future production. As with Field Case #2, the

production data is normalized on a per well basis to smooth
the production data.

67.3%Decl i ne /

10
1/1/2003

1/1/2004

12/ 31/2004

Month
Normalized Daily Oil Production

Normalized M onthly Average

Fut ure Decline

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

QDd

Figure 13: qDd vs. QDd plot for Hardy field.

The calculated normalized ultimate recovery for the

Hardy field is 58,583 STB/well. Using the average number of
the wells over the life of the primary recovery (21.8 wells) the
ultimate recovery for the field is 1,277,109 STB. When
compared to the actual primary recovery of the field
(1,408,716 STB) there is an -9.34 % difference. Again, the
accuracy is acceptable, based on the assumptions made and
the noise associated with the field production data.
Field Case #3: Vertz Field. The third and final field case
is the Vertz field located in Payne County, Oklahoma. This
field currently consists of two wells producing from the Vertz
Sand at approximately 1860 feet TVD. The field was initially
drilled in March of 2003 and began producing in April of 2003
from one well. The second well began producing in
September of 2003. The field currently produces about 57
STB/day of oil. The gas production is not measured, so the
GOR is unknown, but characteristics of the reservoir are
similar to that of a solution-gas drive reservoir. Because the
field is still under primary production, the results will be
compared to those of a constant percentage decline analysis
(an exponential decline, see Literatur Review for details). A
constant percentage decline is a common method used to

Figure 14: Semi-log plot of normalized oil rate vs. time for Vertz
field.

Next, the method outlined in this paper is used. In

this case the pressure data is known. The initial pressure is
765 psia, from initial pressure build-up test, and the wellbore
flowing pressure is 50 psia, from pumping fluid level. Using
the pressure data and the production data from January 18,
2004 to the present (183 days) the ultimate recovery is
calculated as 37,194 STB/well, or using 1.6 wells, the ultimate
recovery for the field is 59,510 STB. It should be noted that
the average number of wells will change with time. For
example, in this case if the number of wells stays at two, as
time increases the average number of wells will increase. To
prevent having to constantly update the average number of
wells, the results can be left normalized. The plots for this
field case are given in Figure 15 and Figure 16.
As expected the percent difference between the two
methods is high, 17.8%. This is to be expected because,
according to Fetkovich et al.2,3,4, the most likely b value for a
solution gas drive reservoir is b = 0.3. The constant
percentage decline assumes b = 0, so although the constant
percentage decline is widely used and is easy to implement, if
used to analyze a solution-gas drive reservoir, the ultimate
recovery calculated is less than the actual ultimate recovery.

SPE 94859

Normalized Oil Rate

(STB/day/well)

100

10

1
1

10

100

1000

10000

N p /q o (day/well)
Figure 15: Normalized oil rate vs. Np/qo for Vertz field.
2.5

q Dd

2
1.5
1

D
Di
h
Joi
k
kro
Np
Npf
Nu
p
pf

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

p
pi
pwf
QDd
q
qDd
qi
qoi
RF
re

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

decline rate
inintal decline rate
reservoir thickness, ft
initial oil productivity index, STB/day/psi
permeability, md
oil relative permeability, md
cumulative liquid production, STB
cumulative liquid production at pf, STB
ultimate liquid production at p = 0, STB
pressure, psia
reservoir pressure at which Npf is calculated (pi
pf pwf), psia
average reservoir pressure, psia
initial reservoir pressure, psia
wellbore flowing pressure, psia
dimensionless cumulative production
flow rate, STB/day or Mscf/day
dimensionless rate
Intial rate, STB/d or Mscf/day
Initial oil rate, STB/day
recovery Factor
external radius, ft

rw
rwa
t
tD
tDd

=
=
=
=
=
=

wellbore radius, ft
apparent wellbore radius, ft
time, days
dimensionless time based on real time
dimensionless time based on tD
dimensionless time based on area and real time

0.5
0
0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

QDd

Figure 16: qDd vs. QDd plot for Vertz field.

Conclusions
Based on the work presented here, following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. A new method to analyze production data from
solution gas drive reservoirs is presented. The
method is capable of determining the ultimate
recovery from such reservoirs using easily available
data.
2. The proposed method is based on analytical
understanding of the reservoir as well as assumptions
used commonly in the industry.
3. The assumptions are validated by testing them
against commercial simulator.
4. The method is first validated by testing it against
several cases generated by commercial simulator.
The method is put to ultimate test of predicting the
ultimate recoveries of abandoned reservoirs using
early production data. The method was able to
correctly predict the ultimare recovery using the
production data.
5. The method is robust and relatively insensitive to
lack of information regarding available bottom hole
pressure data, thus, very practical.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft2
b = Hyperbolic exponent (0 b 1)
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RBO/STBO
Boi = initial oil formation volume factor, RBO/STBO
ct = system compressibility, psia-1

t DA

dimensionless time based on area and equivalent

time
Greek Letters
= viscosity, cp
o = oil viscosity, cp
= porosity, decimal
= 3.14159

t DA

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.

Vogel, J.V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for SolutionGas Drive Wells, JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92; Trans., AIME, 243
Fetkovich, M.J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,
JPT (June 1980) 1065-1077.
Fetkovich, M.J., Fetkovich, E.J., and Fetkovich, M.D.: Useful
Concepts for Decline Curve Forecasting, Reserve Estimation,
and Analysis, SPERE (Feb. 1996) 13-22.
Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D., and Kiesow,
V.G.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Case
Histories, SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 637-656.
Arps, J.J.: Analysis of Decline Curves, Trans. AIME, Vol.
160, (1945) 228-247.
Palacio, J.C. and Blansingame, T.A.: Decline Curve Analysis
Using Type Curve Analysis of Gas Well Production Data, SPE
25909, paper presented at Joint Rocky Mountain Regional and
Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver, CO (April 2628, 1993).
Agarwal, R.G. et al.: Analyzing Well Production Data Using
Combined-Type-Curve and Decline-Curve Analysis Concepts,
SPEREE (Oct. 1999) 478.

SPE 94859

Appendix A
Derivation of solution-gas drive procedure.
Based on numerical results by Vogel1, the approximate
material balance equation for solution-gas drive reservoirs is
defined as,
Np

.............................................. Equation A-1

p 2 = pi2 1
N u

where Nu is the ultimate recovery when the average reservoir

pressure is zero (0).
And the equation for production rate for solution-gas drive
reservoirs from Fetkovich et al.2,3,4 is,
p
2
qo = J oi p 2 p wf
,..................................... Equation A-2
p
i

Re-arranging Equation A-1,

p2
pi2 p 2 = N p i ,.............................................. Equation A-3
Nu
Re-arranging Equation A-2,
q p
2
p 2 p wf
= o i ,............................................. Equation A-4
J oi p
Adding Equation A-3 and Equation A-4,
p2 q p
2
pi2 p wf
= N p i + o i , ............................. Equation A-5
N u J oi p

2
,
Dividing both sides by pi2 p wf

1= Np

pi2
pi2

2
p wf

)N

+
u

qo

J oi pi2

2
p wf

pi
,.......... Equation A-6
p

Define dimensionless rate as,

qo
pi
,..................................... Equation A-7
q Dd =
2
p
J oi pi2 p wf

Where,
2
qoi = J oi pi2 p wf
, ............................................ Equation A-8

And the dimensionless cumulative production as,

Np
p2
, ....................................... Equation A-9
QDd = 2 i 2
pi p wf N u

Equation A-6 can be written as,

1 = q Dd + QDd ,................................................... Equation A-10
In Equation A-1, Nu is the ultimate recovery when the average
reservoir pressure is zero. But if pwf is some value other than
zero the calculated value of Nu, in Equation A-9, will be
higher than the actual recovery because the average pressure
will be equal to the value of pwf and not zero. To account for

this a more general form of Equation A-1 and Equation A-9

are given below.
Np 2
p 2 = pi2
pi p 2f , .................................Equation A-11
N pf

Where Npf is the ultimate recovery at pf, and pf is some

pressure value between pi and pwf. If pwf and pf are equal to
zero then Equation A-11 reduces to Equation A-1 and Npf =
Nu. Using Equation A-11, a more general form of Equation
A-9 is defined as,
pi2 p 2f N p
, .....................................Equation A-12
QDd = 2
2
N pf
pi p wf

(
(

)
)

So a plot of qDd vs. QDd should intersect the x-axis at 1.0. The
unknown in Equation A-12 is Npf. By adjusting the value of
Npf and calculating p using Equation A-11, qDd vs. QDd can be
plotted until an x-intercept equal to 1.0. This allows Npf to be
determined.
In Equation A-2, the value of Joi is calculated as,
7.08 10 3 kh 1 k ro
, ................Equation A-13

J oi =
re
2 pi o Bo p
i
0.75
ln
rwa

This is based on the assumption that ro is linearly

o Bo
related to pressure.
Defining an equivalent dimensionless pressure as,
2
2
1 k ro pi p wf

p D = 7.08 10 3 kh
,...Equation A-14
2 pi o Bo p
qo
i

Multiplying both sides of Equation A-14 by Equation A-3 and

re-arranging,
p D = 2t DA ,.......................................................Equation A-15
Where equivalent time is defined as,
Np p
te =
,.......................................................Equation A-16
q o pi
And,
t DA =

0.00633kt e 1
, ....................................Equation A-17
RFAh oi 1
pi

This definition of tDA is different from the traditional

definition, but the units match. RF is the recovery factor.
Re-arranging Equation A-10,
Q
1
Dd = 1 ,..................................................Equation A-18
q Dd q Dd
Substituting in Equation A-7 and Equation A-12 gives,

SPE 94859

t Dd =

p i2 p 2f J oi
Q Dd
t e , .......................... Equation A-19
=
q Dd
N pf

Substitute Equation A-19 into Equation A-18 and rearrange,

1
q Dd =
,................................................... Equation A-20
1 + t Dd
Equation A-20 is an equivalent expression for harmonic
decline.
Appendix B
Eclipse synthetic data and results.
Item
Inner Radius
Outer Radius
Wellbore Radius
# Radial Blocks
Porosity
OOIP
Permeability r,
Permeability z
Height
Pi
Pbub
Rsi
Depth to Top
Sgi
Swi
Swc

Value

0.1
1000
0.1
50
0.1
467,313
50
0
10
1820.4
1820.4
0.4
5000
0
0
0

Unit
ft
ft
ft

FVF (RB/Mscf)
208.037
50.901
11.273
6.212
4.230
3.175
2.582
2.084
1.768
1.532
1.387
1.224
1.197
1.158
1.133

Pressure
(psia)
14.5
59.1
259.8
460.5
661.2
861.9
1040.3
1263.4
1464.1
1664.8
1820.4
2043.9
2155.4
2200.0

FVF
(RB/STB)
1.0360
1.0379
1.0500
1.0649
1.0816
1.0998
1.1171
1.1400
1.1618
1.1847
1.2029
1.1994
1.1979
1.1974

Table B-3: Live oil PVT properties

STB
md
md
ft
psia
psia
Mscf/STB
ft

Table B-1: Eclipse 100 reservoir model parameters

Pressure (psia)
14.5
59.1
259.8
460.5
661.2
861.9
1040.3
1263.4
1464.1
1664.8
1820.4
2043.9
2088.5
2155.4
2200.0

Rs
(Mscf/STB)
0.0012
0.0064
0.0383
0.0764
0.1182
0.1626
0.2040
0.2578
0.3080
0.3595
0.4000

Visc (cp)
0.01232
0.01236
0.01266
0.01306
0.01338
0.01365
0.01393
0.01432
0.01470
0.01513
0.01588
0.01664
0.01679
0.01703
0.01719

Table B-2: Dry gas PVT properties

Fluid
Oil
Water
Gas

Density (lbm/cu ft)

53.03
62.4
0.06054

Table B-4: Fluid densities at the surface.

So
0.00
0.11
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.56
0.67
0.78
0.89
1.00

Kro
0.0000
0.0041
0.0233
0.0642
0.1317
0.2300
0.3629
0.5335
0.7449
1.0000

Krg
1.0000
0.9959
0.9767
0.9358
0.8683
0.7700
0.6371
0.4665
0.2551
0.0000

Table B-5: Case 1 relative permeability.

So
0.00
0.11
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.56
0.67
0.78
0.89
1.00

Kro
0.0000
0.0001
0.0018
0.0099
0.0332
0.0847
0.1821
0.3480
0.6098
1.0000

Krg
1.0000
0.9999
0.9982
0.9901
0.9668
0.9153
0.8179
0.6520
0.3902
0.0000

Table B-6: Case 2 relative permeability.

Visc
(cp)
3.682
3.534
2.854
2.292
1.968
1.694
1.506
1.323
1.193
1.087
1.018
1.040
1.051
1.056

10

SPE 94859

So
0.00
0.11
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.56
0.67
0.78
0.89
1.00

Kro
0.0000
0.0002
0.0028
0.0138
0.0423
0.1010
0.2057
0.3753
0.6317
1.0000

Krg
1.0000
0.9998
0.9972
0.9862
0.9577
0.8990
0.7943
0.6247
0.3683
0.0000

Table B-7: Case 3 relative permeability.

So
0.00
0.11
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.56
0.67
0.78
0.89
1.00

Kro
0.0000
0.0001
0.0011
0.0071
0.0260
0.0710
0.1613
0.3227
0.5886
1.0000

Krg
1.0000
0.9999
0.9989
0.9929
0.9740
0.9290
0.8387
0.6773
0.4114
0.0000

Table B-8: Case 4 relative permeability.

So
0.00
0.11
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.56
0.67
0.78
0.89
1.00

Kro
0.0000
0.0002
0.0034
0.0157
0.0466
0.1084
0.2160
0.3868
0.6407
1.0000

Krg
1.0000
0.9998
0.9966
0.9843
0.9534
0.8916
0.7840
0.6132
0.3593
0.0000

Table B-9: Case 5 relative permeability.

SPE 94859

11

Case
1
2
3
4
5

Case

1
2
3
4
5

Variable
or
Constant
Pressure

Eclipse Days
Produced

Eclipse Oil Rate

at 1035 days
(STB/day)

Eclipse
Cumulative
Production (STB)

Days Used in
Calculation

Calculated
Cumulative
Production (STB)

Relative
Error
(%)

Constant

5640

0.00

41,501

285-390

41,859

0.86%

Variable

5640

0.00

49,299

630-765

44,418

-9.90%

Constant

5640

0.00

58,380

345-465

57,996

-0.66%

Variable

5640

0.51

64,379

630-765

59,711

-7.25%

Constant

5640

0.10

90,101

435-615

91,549

1.61%

Variable

5640

0.94

95,282

855-1035

93,034

-2.36%

Constant

5640

0.00

48,431

315-420

48,188

-0.50%

Variable

5640

0.38

54,150

465-540

48,984

-9.54%

Constant

5640

0.02

73,865

390-540

73,753

-0.15%

Variable

5640
0.71
80,024
750-900
Table B-10: Summary of results for the 10 synthetic cases.

76,612

-4.26%

Average Flowing
BHP (psi)
103
127
182
111
153

Eclipse Ultimate
Recovery (STB)
49,299
64,379
95,282
54,150
80,024

Calculated Ultimate
Recovery (STB)
43,572
59,619
92,719
49,864
75,441

Absolute
Error (STB)
(5,727)
(4,760)
(2,563)
(4,286)
(4,583)

Relative
Error (%)
-11.62%
-7.39%
-2.69%
-7.92%
-5.73%

Table B-11: Summary of results for the 5 variable pressure synthetic cases calculated using a constant bottom hole pressure equal to the
average flowing bottom hole pressure.