SocIety of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 25480

A New Model for Production Decline

Fernando Rodriguez, UNAM/Pemex, and Heber Cinco-Ley, UNAM
SPE Members

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A., March 21-23, 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are sUbject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083--3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

production characteristics of the wells-reservoir system.

ABSTRACT.
An analytical solution is developed in this paper
to forecast the production behavior of two-dimensional
closed-boundary reservoirs producing from multiple wells
under constant different bottomhole pressures. Wells are
represented as line sources arbitrarily located in the do-
main of the reservoir; damage is considered. Solution is
obtained through combination of Laplace transformation
and Green's functions Methods.
The production decline of the wells during the
boundary dominated flow period is shown to be of a
modified-exponential nature: qwDj (tD) = q';';;Dj + (q~Dj -
q';';;Dj)exp(-DtD), j = 1,2, ..nw. When all wells pro-
duce at the same bottom-hole pressure, it is shown that
q';';;Dj = 0 and production declines exponentially. It is
also shown that the production decline of the reservoir is
in all cases exponential: qD(tD) = q!JJ exp(-DtD), being
o _ ",nw 0
qD - LJj=l qwDj'
It is found that the decline coefficient, D, is the same
for the reservoir and for each of the wells. D depends on
the size and shape of the reservoir as well as on the num-
ber of wells, its location and damage. Parameters q~Dj'
q';';;Dj and q!JJ, besides of depending on the same parame-
ters as D, also depend on the bottomhole pressures of the
wells. As expected, production under unequal bottom-
hole pressures or under irregular wells-reservoir patterns,
yield uneven well productions. It is also found that stim-
ulation, or damage, of a single well modifies the entire
References and illustrations at the end of paper
639
A simple method of analysis that provides the production
decline parameters q~j' q:0, j = 1,2, ... , nw and D, is
developed.
INTRODUCTION.
The search for tools to forecast the production de-
cline of wells-reservoir systems has been of great interest
to many researchers. Arps empirical models 1 have been
widely used for these purposes. Analytical models for
wells producing at constant wellbore pressure in circular
reservoirs have been presented since long ag0 2 ,3,4, and
include both transient and boundary dominated flow pe-
riods.
Regarding the boundary dominated flow period,
Fetkovich 5 obtained the exponential decline solution us-
ing a material balance differential equation and the
pseudosteady state inflow equation. Later on, Ehligh-
Economides and Ramey 6 obtained the same solution;
they started from the solution for the pressure of a well
producing at constant rate in a circular reservoir during
the pseudosteady state flow period and used the Laplace
space relationship for the pressure and flow rate given by
van Everdingen and Hurst 4 . They also generalized the
solution to flow geometries other than the circular using
the shape factor concept, CA , developed for constant-rate
producing wells in closed-boundary reservoirs. 7
Camacho and Raghavan8 presented the theoretical
framework for the production performance of a well in
2 A New Model for Production Decline SPE 25480

solution gas-drive reservoirs during the boundary domi-

nated flow period and expressed the parameters in Arps
equations in terms of physical properties. Chen and
OPD
OYD
I -0
YD:::::O - ,
(5)
Poston9 presented the use of a pseudotime function in
an attempt to improve the forecasting of production per- and,
formance of constant pressure wells in solution gas-drive
reservoirs, during the boundary dominated flow period. (6)
lO
More recently, Resurreit,;3.0 and Rodriguez devel-
oped a semianalytical solution for the production decline
The problem stated by Eqs. 1 to 6 can be solved
of finite-conductivity fractured wells and characterized
by the Laplace transformation and the Green's functions
the exponential decline model. Correlations for the ini-
methods, as it is next presented.
tial dimensionless flow rate of the well, q~D' and the de-
cline coefficient, D, as a function of fracture conductivity Let us define the following Laplace transforms for di-
and size of the reservoir were provided for the case of a mensionless pressure and flow rate:
fractured well in the center of a square reservoir.
Solutions presented up to now consider a single well.
It is intended in this paper to study the production per-
formance of a reservoir with multiple wells producing at and, '
constant arbitrary pressures and to provide a model for
interpretacion and production forcasting purposes. 'iiwDj = 1
00

qwDj (tD) exp(-stD)dtD (8)

FORMULATION AND SOLUTION OF THE Laplace transformation of Eq. 1, with initial condition
PROBLEM. considered, yields:
We consider a 2D rectangular homogeneous reservoir
with uniform thickness and boundaries closed to flow,
see Fig. 1. The reservoir is produced through nw wells
at constant but different wellbore pressures. Fluids are
slightly compressible and have constant compressibility
and viscosity. Pressure is uniform at initial conditions. (9)
Flow in the reservoir is described, in terms of dimen- Transformed boundary conditions are,
sionless parameters, see Appendix A, by the following
partial differential equation:
opDI
OXD
-0
"'D:::::O - ,
(10)

(11)

_ OPD
(1)
- OtD
OPD
OYD
I' -0
YD:::::O - ,
(12)
0< XD < XeD
and,
0< YD < YeD
tD > 0
(13)
subject to the following initial and boundary conditions:

PD(XD,YD,O) = 0, (2) Solving Eq. 9 with boundary conditions 10 to 13 accord-

ing to the Green's functions method yields,

OPD
OXD
I -0
"'D:::::O - ,
(3)
nw
PD(XD,YD) = -211" 'LG(XD,YD,XDj,YDj;S)'iiwDj (14)
OPD
OXD
I"'D:::::"'eD -
-0 ,
(4)
j:::::l

640
 SP~ 25480 Fernando Rodriguez and Heber Cinco-Ley 3

where G(ZD, y/), z', Vj s) is the Green's function associ-

ated to the problem. It is obtained as the solution to the For a reservoir producing from multiple damaged-
following adjoint problem: wells under constant, but arbitrary, wellbore pressure,
the following condition is set at the location of the wells:
82 G 82 G , ,
8z,2 + 81/2 - sG = 6(z - ZD,Y - YD), (15)

with,
i =1,2, ... ,nw
8GI
8z' zo':O
=0, (16)
where Si is the damage factor for well i.
Laplace transform of condition above gives,
8GI
8z' ZO':ZO.D -
-0
,
(17) -PD ( ZDi, YDi ) =- - + s-
PwDi iqwDi (24)
S

Equation 24 can be used in Eq. 14 to yield the following

8GI
8y' y':O -
-0
,
(18) system of Eqs. in qwDj,j 1,2, ... ,nw,=
I:F. - =---
nw
PwDi
and, i'q D' i = 1,2, ... ,nw (25)
. 211's
3 w 3
3=1
8GI =0 (19)
where,
8y' ,,'=".D
Solving the adjoint problem provides the following
Fij = Gij + (}:ij (26)
Green's function: being,

(}:ij = -Si • • = J.,

':f': or zero otherwise (27)
G(ZD, YD, z', y'j s) = 211'
and,
1 cosh[y'S(YD - YeD)] cosh[y'Sy']
- y'SZeD sinh[y'SYeD] (28)

_2- t cosh[an(YD - YeD)] cosh[any'] x Eq. 25 can be written in matrix notation as:
ZeD n=1 an sinh[anYeD]
1
COS[1Ul'ZD/ZeD] cos[ml'Z'/ZeD] (20) FqwD = --2 PwD (29)
1I'S

where F is a square matrix of order nw having elements

if 0<: Y' < YD Fij given by Eq. 26; qwD is the vector of unknowns, qwDj'
or,
j =
1,2, ..., nw, and PwD is the vector of known wellbore
pressures, PwDj, j = 1,2, ..., nw.
G(ZD,YD,Z',y'jS) = Solving the system of equations given by Eq, 25 leads
to,
1 cosh[y'S(YD)] cosh[y'S(y' - YeD )] . i+'
_ 1 "nw
LA-1 (-1) 3 MijPwDi (30)
- y'SZeD sinh[y'SYeD] qwDj =- 211'S . IF I
_.1..- f: cosh[an(y' - YeD)] cosh[anYD] x
ZeD n=1 an sinh[anYeD] j=I,2, ... ,nw
cos[ml'ZD/ZeD] cos[ml'Z'/ZeD] (21)
where M ij is the minor of Fij of matrix F.
Up to our knowledge, there is no an analytic Laplace
if YD < 11 < YeD
space inversion of qwDj' Eq, 30, At large times during
being, the boundary dominated flow period, s --+ 0, equation 30
reduces to a limiting form amenable for analytic inver-
n1l'
an = S+(_)2
ZeD
jn =0,1,2, ... (22) sion, as it is next presented.

641
4 A New Model for Production Decline SPE 25480

Production Behavior of Wells Under Boundary
Dominated Flow Conditions.
In this section we focus our attention to the produc-
tion behavior of the wells during the boundary dominated
flow period. First, using properties of Laplace transfor-
mation, we establish the limiting form of the Green's
function, Eqs. 20 and 21. At large times, when s tends
to zero, Eqs. 20 and 21 can be written as:
where 'Y is the matrix of 'Yij elements; I 'Y I is the determi-
nant of 'Y and I 'Y Ik is the determinant of that matrix 'Y
containing 'Yij as elements, except for row k which have
ones, 1. The minor Mij of Eq. 30, can also be written
as,
(38)

where mij is the minor of 'Yij in matrix 'Y, and (mij)k is

__0
lim G(ZD,YD,Z',y';s) = _!s - f3(ZD,YD,Z',y') (31) obtained by replacing row k of matrix, mij, by ones.
where the function f3( Z D, YD, z', y') does not depend on Substituting Eqs. 37 and 38 in Eq. 30, and rearrang-
the Laplace parameter s. This is: ing, leads to:

_ _ q':Dj + (q~Dj/D) S
j = 1,2, ... ,nw (39)
qwDj - s(1 + s/D)

2 ~ cosh(mr(YD - YeD )/ZeD] cosh (mry' /ZeD] where,

~ mrsinh(nll'YeD/zeD] x
cos(nll'ZD/ZeD] cos(nu'/ZeD] (32) (40)

if 0< Y' < YD

and, (41)

f3(ZD,YD,Z',y') = and,

2 f:
n=1
cosh(nll'(Y' - YeD)/ZeD] cosh(nll'YD/zeD]
nll'sinh(nll'YeD/zeD] x
(42)

cos(nll'ZD/ZeD] cos(nll'z'/ZeD] (33) Laplace inversion of Eq. 39 yields the dimensionless

flow rate of the wells during the boundary dominated flow
period, this is:
if YD < y' < YeD
Using approximation 31 in Eq. 26, it follows that:
1
Fij = -- - 'Yij (34)
s The total dimensionless flow rate of the reservoir can
where, now be obtained as the summation of the dimensionless
flow rates of the wells,
'Yij = f3ij - (Xij (35) nw

and, qD(tD) = LqwDj(tD) (44)

j=1
(36) or,
Using properties of the determinants it can be demon- (45)
strated that the determinant of matrix F, with elements
Fij given by Eq. 34, can be written as follows: where,
nw
q'b = Lq~Dj (46)
(37) j=1

642
 SPE 25480 Fernando Rodriguez and Heber Cinco-Ley 5

In obtaining Eq. 45 we applied the following property: us consider the case of two wells producing at the same
wellbore pressure. Figure 2 shows the effect of stimulat-
nUl
ing on of the wells on the production performance of the
:Eq:Dj = 0 (47) system. Notice, that the decline coefficient D is larger
j=1 in the stimulated-well case, leading to a faster oil recov-
ery. Notice also that in both cases the performance of
The proof of Eq. 47 follows after considering Eq. 40 the flow rate for the non-stimulated well does not change
in Eq. 47 and by noticing that, during the transient flow period, at early times; however,
nUl as soon as the boundary dominated flow period is estab-
:E(-IY(mij)1: =0 (48) lished the flow rates decreases due to the increase in D.
On the other hand, as it is shown in Fig. 2, the pro-
j=1
duction performance of the stimulated well experiments
which is true for any i and k. a large improvement.

DISCUSSION. Production Performance of Multiple Wells Pro-

Generalities. ducing Under Same Wellbore Pressure.
It can be seen from Eq. 43 that the production de- When all wells produce under the same wellbore pres-
cline of multiple-wells producing under arbitrary constant sure, PUlfj =
PUI! j j =
1,2, ..., nw, the parameter q:Dj
wellbore pressures in a closed boundary reservoir follows a becomes zero for all wells. This follows from Eq. 40 by
modified exponential behavior during the boundary dom- noticing that:
inated flow period. We also notice from Eq. 45 that the nUl nUl-l
production decline of the reservoir is exponential. :E :E (-I)i+j (mij)1: =0 (51)
As it is seen in Eqs. 43 and 45, the decline coeficient, i=1 1:=1
D, is the same for all wells and for the reservoir. Notice which is valid for any j = 1,2, ... , nw.
that D depends on the size and shape of the reservoir and
on the number of wells, its damage and relative location The production decline of the wells, Eq. 43, becomes
in the reservoir. Parameters q~Dj' q'::Dj not only depend exponential as in the case of the reservoir:
on the same parameters as D but also on bottomhole
(52)
pressure conditions of the wells. Notice that q~Dj is the
dimensionless flow rate of well j at time zero and that
q'::Dj is the flow rate of well j at large times. Extending Production Performance of a Single Well.
the definition of qUID given in Appendix A, it follows that: In the case of a single well producing at constant pres-
o sure, equations 40 to 42 reduce to:
o p.qUlj
(49) (53)
qUlDj = 141.2kh(pi - PUlre!)

(54)
(50)
and,
Now, we notice that condition established in Eq. 47,
1
"£,j::l q'::Dj' is only satisfied if some ofthe q'::Dj values are D=- (55)
negative. From a practical point of view, this does not 111
make any sense, since negative flow rates correspond to
injection rather than production. Theoretically, however, The flow rate of the well, Eq. 43, then follows the well
it means that to satisfy the constant pressure condition known exponential behavior6 ,
set on the wells with the smallest dimensionless pressures, 1 tD
PwD, or the largest PUI!' they eventually turn into injec- qUID (tD) = --exp(--) (56)
211"111 111
tors.
Comparison of solution presented in reference 6 provides
Regarding the effect of damage on the behavior of the following expression to calculate the shape factor, CA:
the wells-reservoir system, we point out that altering the
flow conditions in the neighborhood of the well, either
by stimulation or damage, modifies the entire produc-
(57)
tion performance of the system. To illustrate this, let
643
6 A New Model for Production Decline SPE 25480

or according to definition of "y, Eq. 35, and the apparent Table 1. Wells-Reservoir Parameters.
wellbore radius, rWIJ rw exp( -5):= Reservoir dimensions, ft: Ze = 14,000
Ye = 7,000
CA = 2.2458-rA2- exp( -411'.811) (58) Wells coordinates, ft:
WIJ WeIll (3500,3500)
Well 2 (10500,3500)
Wellbore radii, ft: 0.25
METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS OF PRO- Initial pressure, psi: 3000.
DUCTION DATA. Porosity, fraction: 0.15
Permeability, mD : 100
Let us first express equations 43 and 45, for qwDj and Reservoir thickness, ft: 100
qD, in terms ofreal variables. Using definitions provided
Oil compressibility, 11psi 2e-05
in Appendix A, it follows that:
Formation volume factors used in this work were ob-
tained from: B o = Bob [1- co(p- Pb)], being Bob = 1.4987
00 + (0 00) (0.006329kD.) and Pb = 4978.05 psi.
qwj (t ) = qwj qwj - qwj exp - A.. A t (59)
'f'J1.
C t

and, Case 1.
The flowing bottomhole pressures of the wells are
qt ( t )
0 (0.006329kD t )
= qt exp - A. A
'f'J1. Ct
(60) PwJl =
1500 psi and PwJ2 =1000 psi respectively. Fig-
ure 3 shows a semilog graph of production rates versus
time of the wells and the reservoir. As expected, the
Equation 58 indicates that a semilog graph oCIn qt ver- production performance of the wells is not in this case
sus t should give a straight line of slope m* and intercept exponential. It is exponential however for the reservoir;
q~, see Fig. 3. where, from the semilog straight line exhibited by the reservoir
data, we calculat~ the following slope:
m* = _0._00.,....6_32_9:-kD_ (61)
t/JJ1. Ct A m* = 0.006 Day-l

Once m* and q~ are known, we are able to calculate Using the above value, we construct graphs of qwl and
q~j and q~ for each of the wells. In order to do this, we qw2 versus exp( -m*t), as shown in FigA. Extrapolation
notice from Eq. 59 that a graph of qwj versus exp[-m*t] of the straight lines provide the following values for q~j
gives a straight line. Extrapolation of the straight line to and q~:
the limiting abscissa values of 1 and 0 should yield q~j
and q:0 respectively, see Fig. 4.
Well 1 14,810 -1790
Characterization of performance parameters I accord- Well 2 18,361 1768
ing to the above procedure, enables us to predict the pro-
duction performance of the wells-reservoir system using Now, using definitions provided by Eqs. 40 to 42 and
equations 59 and 60. . the knowledge about the properties of the wells-reservoir
system, the following parameters are calculated:

APPLICATIONS. D = 1.495

We illustrate the application of models developed in and,

this paper by using synthetic data obtained from numeri-
cal models. Two cases are next presented, corresponding m* = 0.006 Day-l
to a rectangular reservoir that is produced through two Also,
wells. The two wells are symmetrically located in the 00
0
reservoir. Data common to both cases are presented in qwDj qwDj
Table 1. In Case 1 the flowing bottomhole pressures are Well 1 0.09327 -0.01083
different and wells are non damaged. In Case 2, bottom- Well 2 0.11492 0.01083
hole pressures are equal and Well 1 is stimulated. and,
q~i' BID q~j' BID
Well 1 15,393 -1787
Well 2 18,967 1787

644
SPE 25480 Fernando Rodriguez a.nd Heber Cinco-Ley 7

Parameters obta.ined by analyzing synthetic produc- 3. The production performance of the reservoir was
tion data are in agreement with those obtained through shown to be exponential in all cases, no matter what
the developed analytical model. the pressure conditions are imposed on the wells, as
long as pressures are maintained constant.

Case 2. 4. The decline coefficient, V, was found to be the same

for the reservoir and for each of the wells. It depends
In this case, the flowing bottomhole pressures of the on the size and shape of the reservoir, on the num-
wells are equal, PwJ1 = PwJ2 = 1500 psi; Well 1 is as- ber of wells, its relative location in the reservoir and
sumed to be stimulated and has a skin factor of, 8 1 = -3. damage.
Figure 5 shows a semilog graph of production rates versus
time of the wells and the reservoir. As it was expected, 5. Parameters q~Dj' qC:Dj and q'b, besides of depending
the production performance for both reservoir and wells is on the same parameters as D, they also depend on
exponential in this case. The slope of the semilog straight the pressure conditions of the wells.
lines is calculated as:
6. Damage or stimulation in one of the wells affects the
m* = 0.0074 Day-1 production performance of the entire wells-reservoir
system.
Notice that we can directly obtain from the extrapolation
of the straight of Fig. 5 estimates of q~j. As predicted 7. A simple method to obtain the production perfor-
by the theory, q~ is in this case equal to zero: mance parameters of the wells and reservoir was de-
veloped.
q~i' BID q';;,BID
Well 1 19,950 0
Well 2 15,329 0
NOMENCLATURE.
Now, from Eqs. 40 to 42 and using the wells-reservoir
parameters, we obtain: A reservoir area, ft 2 [m2]
B formation volume factor
v = 1.495 CA shape factor
Ct total compressibility, psi- 1 [KPat 1
and,
V decline coeffient
m* = 0.006329kD = 0.00755 Vay-1 h formation thickness, ft [m]
<PJJct A k absolute permeability, darcy [m2]
nw number of wells
Also,
P pressure, psi [Kpa]
PD dimensionless pressure
Well 1 0.12901 0.0 PD Laplace space dimensionless pressure
Well 2 0.09548 0.0 PwDj dimensionless wellbore pressure of well j
PwJj flowing bottomhole pressure of well j, psi [KPa]
and,
PwreJ reference flowing bottomhole pressure, psi [KP~l
q production rate ofthe reservoir, BID [m3 /D]
Well 1 21,291 o = wj
",ntll
qwj
Well 2 15,757 o qD dimensionless production rate of the reservoir
qwj production rate of well j, BID [m3 /D]
qwDj dimensionless production rate of well j
CONCLUSIONS.
qwDj Laplace space dimensionless production
The following conclusions can be drawn from this rate of well j
study: initial dimensionless production rate of well j
large time dimensionless production
1. A new model was developed for the production per- rate of well j
formance of reservoirs with multiple wells producing initial production rate of well j, BID [m3 /D]
at constant arbitrary pressures. large time production rate of well j,
2. The production decline of the wells during the BID [m3 /D]
boundary dominated flow period was shown to be wellbore radius, ft [m]
of a modified exponential nature. It reduces to the apparent wellbore radius, ft [m]
well-known exponential decline model when all wells Laplace space parameter
produce under the same wellbore pressure.
645
8 A New Model for Production Decline SPE 25480

Sj damage factor of well j Wells," SPE 23704 presented at II LAPEC, Cara-

t time, days . cas, Ven., 8-11 March 1992.
tD dimensionless time
Z,Y space coordinates, ft [m]
Ze length of the reservoir in z, ft [m]
APPENDIX A.
ZeD dimensionless length of the reservoir in Z
Ye length ofthe reservoir in y, ft [m] Dimensionless parameters are defined as follows:
YeD dimensionless length of the reservoir in Y Dimensionless pressure:
JJ fluid viscosity, cp [Pa.s]
tP porosity :..;Pi_--=.P..:..(z..;....,y;;..;.,-<.t)
PD ( ZD,YD,tD ) =- (A-I)
Pi - Pwre!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Dimensionless flow rate of well j:
The authors acknowledge the support provided by
Petroleos Mexicanos, Exploracion y Produccion, and by (A-2)
the University of Mexico. Special thanks to Agustin
Galindo Nava for his help in obtaining the numerical so-
Dimensionless coordinates:
lutions presented in the paper.
(A-3)
REFERENCES.
and,
1. Arps, J.J.:" Analysis of Decline Curves," 1Tans., Y
AIME (1945) 160, 228-247. YD = VA (A-4)

2. Hurst, W.:"Unsteady Flow of Fluids in Oil Reser- Dimensionless time:

voirs," Physics (Jan. 1934) 5, 20.
0.006329kt
3. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.:"The Applica- tD=---- (A-5)
tPl-'c,A
tion of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems
in Reservoirs," 1Tans. AIME (1949) 186, 305-324.
4. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.~'Nonsteady Flow
to a Well of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive
Aquifer", 1Tans., AGU (Aug. 1952) 559-569.
5. Fetkovich, M.J.:"Decline Curve Analysis Using Type
Curves," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1980) 1065-1077.
6. Ehligh-Economides, C.A. and Ramey,
H.J., Jr.:"Transient Rate Decline Analysis for Wells
Produced at Constant Pressure," SPEJ (Feb. 1981)
98-104.
7. Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W.M.:" A General Pres-
sure Buildup Theory for a Well in a Closed Drainage
Atea," JPT, (Dec. 1971), 1493-1505,
8. Camacho-V, R.G. and Raghavan, R.:"Boundary-
Dominated Flow in Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs,"
SPE Reservoir Engineering, (Nov. 1989),503-512.
9. Chen, H.Y. and Palton, S.W.:"Application of a
Pseudotime Function to Permit Better Decline-
Curve Analysis," SPE Formation Evaluation (Sep.
1989), 421-428.
10. ResurreiC$&o, C.E. and Rodriguez, F.:"Production
Decline Analysis of Finite-Conductivity Fractured

646
 100000 J t I ! ! t , ! , I , ! I ! I ! , , ! ,
SPE25480
I I I , I ! , , ! , ! , ! I I'!" I

Dashed line: S,=S2=0

Solid line: s,=-3, S2";'0

o
~
m
-
~I
Q)
8y y=ye
=0 .......... 10000
Ye I i
o ' ......
&
0::::

~
.. -",
'0,
o
• • •
nw
LL ',,-

~
~ Reservoir "-... ""'- ' .....
~Welll
~I
8., .,=0 =0 ~I
• • 8x x=ze
=0 ............... Well 2
1000 II I I I , I i I I I I I I I I I I I I Iii I I I I I I I I I Iii .:>, M I
o 100 200 300 400
Time, Days
•
Well 1
•2 •3 ... Fig. 2. Effect of stimulating Well 1 on the
performance of the system.
~
o I ,

o ~I =0 Xe
8y y=o 100000 ~ ! , I I , ! , ! , ! , ! I I I I , ! ! , , I ! I , ! I , I , , , I I I ! I I I I I , I I , , ! ! , L

Fig. 1. Wells-Reservoir system.

o 10000
~
m
"

.2o 1000
0::::

~
o
LL 100

~ Reservoir
............... Well 1
- - Well 2
10 I. I I I I I I I i II I I I Ii I I I I i i i i I I I I i Ii I I i I I I I I II I I i i i I I , I
o 100 200 300 400 500
Time, Days
Fig. 3. Flow rate versus time, (case 1).
 'SPE25 ~~ 80

20000

18000

16000

ci 14000
~
m 12000
GJ-10000
+-'
0 8000
0::::

3: 6000
0
l..L. 4000

2000
............... Welll
0
----- Well 2
-2000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
exp( -m* t)
Fig 4. Flow rate versus exp(-m*t), (case 1).

100000 +LLLL.LLL.J...l....1..L.L.L..Ll...L..Ll...L...LJ....I...LJ....Iu..Lu..LLLL.LLL.J...l....1..L.U..L.L.L...LJ....I.J..t-

o
~ 10000
m
GJ
-
+-'
o
0::::

~ 1000
l..L.

............... Reservoir
............... Welll
............... We112
100 --t-rTTTT"rT-rnrTT"r-rTTTT-rn...-rrrrTTTTT"T-rn-rT"rTTTTTTrl...-rrl-
o 100 200 300 400 500
Time, Days
Fig 5. Flow rate versus time, (case 2).

648