SPE 116731 (Ilk Et Al) Power Law Exponential Relation (Wpres)

SPE 116731 Exponential vs.
Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps' Decline Curves
D. Ilk, Texas A&M University, J.A. Rushing, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., A.D. Perego, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., and T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008. 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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract When tight gas sand reserves are assessed using the Arps rate-time equations, the decline behavior is typically defined in terms of the Arps decline exponent, b. The original Arps paper indicated that the b-exponent should lie between 0 and 1.0 on a semilog plot. However, in practice we often observe values much greater than 1.0, especially prior to the onset of true boundary-dominated flow. Unfortunately, the correct b-exponent is difficult (if not impossible) to identify during the early decline period and (obviously) the selection of the wrong b-exponent will have a tremendous impact on reserve estimates, particularly when the b-exponent estimate is too high. As an exercise to evaluate the b-exponent as a continuous function of time, we have used synthetic and field production profiles. We then compare the computed b-exponent trend graphically to assess the "hyperbolic" nature of each case (recall that the b-exponent should be constant for a given hyperbolic rate decline). The field data cases used in this study were selected from a tight gas reservoir that has been previously evaluated on a per well basis using the production model based on the elliptical flow concept. These cases indicate that only portions of the production history are matched by the hyperbolic rate decline relation suggesting that using the hyperbolic relation by itself may not be appropriate for reserves extrapolations in tight gas reservoirs, or at least that great care must be used in creating production forecasts based on the hyperbolic rate decline relation. In addition to the hyperbolic rate decline relation we have also developed and employed a new "power law loss-ratio" rate relation that has more generality than the hyperbolic rate decline relation. This new model tends to match production rate functions much better than the hyperbolic rate decline relation for tight gas and shale gas applications, but we must stress that at this time, the "power law exponential decline" rate relation is empirically derived from only tight gas/shale gas performance cases. We have applied the new model as well as the hyperbolic rate model to two synthetic (simulated) and field (tight gas well) cases for production forecast. Furthermore, the results of our synthetic performance cases do suggest that layered reservoir behavior can be accurately represented by the hyperbolic rate decline relation. Unfortunately, as other studies have shown, multilayer reservoir performance can be extremely difficult to generalize particularly when layers in transient and boundary-dominated flow are in communication. Hyperbolic rate decline relation might be considered as an acceptable mechanism for estimating reserves in tight gas/shale gas systems, however we urge extreme caution as the hyperbolic relation must be constrained to a relative small duration production forecast. The major impact of this work is that it enables the analyst to have a diagnostic understanding of the hyperbolic rate decline relation (in terms of the D and b-parameters). Further, we also provide an alternative to the hyperbolic rate decline relation that appears to be substantially more robust, and the new "power law loss-ratio" rate relation can be validated and calibrated directly using rate functions.
D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame
SPE 116731
Introduction Loss-Ratio, Exponential and Hyperbolic Rate Decline Functions: Johnson and Bollens [1928] and later Arps [1945] presented the so-called "loss-ratio" and the "derivative of the loss-ratio" functions as: 1 q (Definition of the Loss-Ratio) .......................................................................................... (1) D dq/dt
q (Derivative of the Loss-Ratio).......................................................................................... (2) dq/dt Where Eqs. 1 and 2 are written in terms of "modern" variables (i.e., q, D, b). Eqs. 1 and 2 are empirical results based on observations. For the case of D = constant, Eq. 1 does yield the exponential decline which can be derived for the case of pseudosteady-state (or boundary-dominated) flow in a closed reservoir containing a constant compressibility liquid and being produced at a constant wellbore flowing pressure. The exponential rate decline relation is given as: q = qi exp[ Di t ] ............................................................................................................................................................... (3) b d dt d 1 D dt
Ilk et al [2008a] provide and alternate computation of the D and b-parameter using rate-cumulative data. The alternate Dparameter formulation is given as: dq ......................................................................................................................................................................... (4) D dQ And the alternate b-parameter formulation is given by:
bq
d 1 ................................................................................................................................................................... (5) dQ D
For reference, Blasingame and Rushing [2005] provide the derivation of the "hyperbolic" rate decline relation in complete detail. The intermediate result of interest to this work is the expression for the decline parameter (D) for a hyperbolic rate decline, the D-parameter is defined as: 1 D= ..................................................................................................................................................................... (6) 1 + bt Di Completing the derivation (see Blasingame and Rushing [2005] for details), the hyperbolic rate decline relation is given as: 1 q = qi ........................................................................................................................................................ (7) (1 + bDi t ) 1/b Eq. 6 is relevant because part of our methodology will be to calculate the D and b-parameters as functions of time to illustrate the character of these variables. We recall that for the "hyperbolic" rate decline relation (i.e., Eq. 7), the b-parameter is constant, and the D-parameter is prescribed by Eq. 6. Therefore, we can test how "hyperbolic" a particular data case may be using the D-parameter computed using Eq. 1 (rate-time) or Eq. 4 (rate-cumulative). Similarly, we can then estimate the bparameter using Eq. 4 (rate-time) or Eq. 5 (rate-cumulative). There will typically be minor differences in the "rate-time" and "rate-cumulative" estimations of the D and b-parameters this is due to data quality (the rate-cumulative is always "smoother"), as well as the numerical derivative algorithm used (end-point effects).
Historical Perspective Exponential and Hyperbolic Rate Decline Functions: As mentioned before the conditions for the establishment of the exponential rate decline is well-known constant compressibility flowing fluid under pseudosteady-state (or boundary-dominated) flow regime in a closed reservoir with constant flowing wellbore pressure operating conditions. On the other hand, the conditions under which a hyperbolic rate decline actually occurs has been a topic of debate since its introduction more than 80 years ago almost 20 years before Arps [1945], a "hyperbolic" form was in use for reserve estimation. Raghavan [1989] and Fetkovich et al [1990] focused on the case of depletion in a multilayered reservoir. Specifically, the "layered no-crossflow" model was thoroughly considered in the context of a hyperbolic decline, as well as with respect to the p/z vs. Gp behavior for layered gas reservoirs (again, Fetkovich et al [1990]).
As noted, Fetkovich et al [1990] concentrated on the rate and pressure performance of a two-layer gas reservoir with nocrossflow, and where the production is a constant flowing bottomhole pressure. Most relevant to our present study are the following conclusions of Fetkovich et al:
SPE 116731
Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps' Decline Curves
Arps depletion-decline exponents (b-values) between 0.5 and 1 can be obtained with a layered-reservoir description given (a) sufficient contrast in layer properties. A depletion-decline exponent (b) > 1.0 could not be maintained for any combination of properties investigated. Except for the special cases in which (qrnax/Gi)R approaches unity or infinity, the composite-depletion b-value is always greater than that of a single-layer system. Field and well rate/time data that exhibit higher-than-expected b-values (between 0.5 and 1.0 for gas reservoirs) suggest a layered reservoir system. Large initial percentage declines, not attributable to infinite-acting transient production, followed later by small percentage declines, are a characteristic of high b-values and suggest a layeredreservoir response.
Clearly, Fetkovich et al [1990] believed that "high" b-values must be a product of reservoir layering. In addition, Fetkovich et al [1990] also note that "infinite-acting transient production" yields "high b-values" which should NOT be interpretated as boundary-dominated flow behavior (hence, not used for reserves extrapolations). Fetkovich et al [1996] further considered the practical aspects of production performance from "layered no-crossflow" gas reservoirs. In this work Fetkovich et al suggest that "commingled" production (summed layered flowrates) can be modeled using the hyperbolic flow relation in terms of total reservoir volume and the "best fit" qi and b-parameters. Fetkovich et al [1996] also stated the following "important characteristics" of layered, no-crossflow reservoir behavior:
Low-permeability, stimulated wells' production performance can appear similar to layered, no-crossflow reservoir responses on a semilog production curve. However, a log-log type curve be used to distinguish between the two. Further confirmation of nocrossflow can be made by measuring layer pressures and having some idea of the well's permeability level. High value of the decline exponent, b: b> 0.5. This is reflected as an early rapid decline in rate followed by an extended period of a low percentage decline. Reservoir has an indicated unusually long producing life. Thick reservoirs have a very high likelihood of exhibiting layered, no-crossflow behavior. (There appears be a strong correlation of b with (reservoir) thickness.)
In a recent study, Rushing et al [2007] validated many of the points made by Fetkovich et al [1996] using a numerical simulation study that was designed to assess the validity of estimating reserves using the hyperbolic rate decline relation (Eq. 7). The Rushing et al simulation study considered the combined effects of reservoir layering, heterogeneity (positiondependent permeability), fracture half-length, and fracture conductivity as well as high reservoir pressures and temperatures, and certain pressure-dependent properties. The "approach" used was to compare the hyperbolic regression and forecast at specific time intervals (1, 5, 10, 20, and 50 years) compared to the "reference" cumulative production from the numerical model at a specified production limit (in this case, 50 MSCF/D). This approach showed that, indeed, reserves estimates based on the hyperbolic rate decline relation improve quite substantially with time from well over 100 percent error in reserves estimates in the first year, to significantly less than 1 percent error at 50 years, for essentially all cases.
Procedure and Development of the New Model: Our approach in this work differs from that of Rushing et al [2007] in that we will estimate the D and b-parameters from the rate performance data and evaluate the "applicability" of the hyperbolic rate decline relation (Eq. 7) at any particular time. Not to prejudge our process, but we expect to observe "non-hyperbolic" behavior (i.e., b exponent is not a constant) for a variety of reasons such as multilayer effects (as suggested by Raghavan [1989], Fetkovich et al [1990], and Fetkovich et al [1996]) should have a dominating effect on rate performance. We also expect the inclusion of transient flow data to significantly affect the D and b-parameters. But in addition, we believe that there may be other mechanism(s) involved in particular, in the case of low permeability/heterogeneous reservoirs, we believe that "contacted-gas-in-place" (CGIP) increases in time, and we recognize that this phenomenon will tend to cause "non-hyperbolic" behavior. The intent of this paper is not to address the "contacted-gas-in-place" concept specifically, but to recognize that this may be a controlling factor in performance behavior at all times.
As a "non-hyperbolic" approach to reserves estimations, we can also consider the recently developed Ilk, et al [2008] method which employs a different functional form for the D-parameter, where this form is given by:
D = D + D1t (1 n) ......................................................................................................................................................... (8) The physical interpretation of Eq. 8 is that the loss ratio can be approximated by a decaying power law function with a constant behavior at large times (i.e., the D-constant) this is in contrast to the hyperbolic relation for the D-parameter (i.e., Eq. 6), which has a constant behavior at very early times, then becomes a unit-slope decaying power law relation (see Eq. 6). As the behavior of the proposed relation (Eq. 8) is a decaying power law formulation, this result is called the power law loss-ratio formulation. An interesting aspect of Eq. 8 is that this model is flexible enough to model transient, transition, and boundary-dominated flow (in many cases), but at long times, the relation deduces to the traditional exponential decline relation (i.e., the contribution of the power-law term is relatively smaller). We substitute Eq. 8 into Eq. 1 and perform integration to yield:
SPE 116731
D q = exp D t 1 t n ................................................................................................................................................ (9) i n q

Which reduces in form to the power law loss-ratio rate decline relation as defined by Ilk, et al [2008b]:
t n ] ................................................................................................................................................. (9) i exp[ D t D q=q i Where: i = Rate "intercept" defined by Eq. 9 [i.e., q(t=0)] [this parameter has a different interpretation than qi in Eq. 7]. q D1 = Decline constant "intercept" at 1 time unit defined by Eq. 8 [i.e., D(t=1 day)]. D = Decline constant at "infinite time" defined by Eq. 8 [i.e., D(t=)]. = Decline constant defined by Eq. 9 [i.e., D = D /n ] [this parameter has a different interpretation than Di in Eq. 7]. D i i 1 n = Time "exponent" defined by Eq. 8.
Valko [2008] independently proposed another form of Eq. 9, specifically as a statistical relation to be used for the rapid evaluation/analysis of a database of rate behavior. The form of Valko's result is: i exp[ (t/ ) n ] ......................................................................................................................................................... (10) q=q i and n-parameters in Eq. 10 are interpreted exactly the same as the corresponding variables in Eq. 9 Where the q -parameter would be defined as (1/)n. We also note that Valko did not consider however; in Valko's nomenclature, the D i the "long-time" behavior which would lead to the inclusion of the D-constant. We again note that Valko did not try to develop a "rate-time" analysis relation but rather; he utilized the form given by Eq. 10 (which he references as a "statistical identity") as a means of evaluating a database of production data. In this work we focus on the use of Eq. 9 (and its associated relations) as a "unifying" model one which provides data diagnostics and is essentially a self-calibrating model (i.e., the key behavior is given by Eq. 8). We believe that Eq. 9 is appropriate for reserves evaluation and will demonstrate its characteristics using the synthetic and field data cases evaluated in the next section.
Illustrative Production Behavior

Orientation: In this section we provide diagnostic validation of the hyperbolic and "power law loss ratio" rate decline models using synthetic and field data cases. The synthetic cases are designed to assess the validity of the hyperbolic rate decline relation in terms of multiple layers and gas flow behavior. The field cases are sampled from a tight gas sand field study where each well was evaluated using modern production data diagnosis and analysis (elliptical flow model-based matching using timepressure-rate data) (Ilk et al [2008b]). As a prelude, we present the schematic plot of the rate (q) and the D and b-parameters versus time on a log-log plot in Fig. 1. This plot serves a schematic or prototype from which we can establish our expectations of performance for the hyperbolic rate decline relation (Eq. 7) and the power law loss-ratio rate decline relation (Eq. 9). We immediately note in Fig. 1 that, for the hyperbolic relation, the D-parameter has a near-constant behavior at early times and a unit-slope, power law decay at late times. As one may expect, for the "power law loss ratio" relation the D-parameter exhibits a power law decay behavior from transient through transition flow, and then turns gently towards a constant value (i.e., D) at very large times. Synthetic Case: Gas Multilayer Case In this case we prepared a 3-layer reservoir simulation model (see Table 1 for system properties). This model was designed to have at least one layer which exhibited transient/transition flow for decades (or even hundreds of years) the purpose of which was to evaluate the application of the hyperbolic rate decline relation (Eq. 7) for a layered reservoir case. This effort was developed to validate the observations of Raghavan [1989] and Fetkovich et al [1990] for the case of depletion in a multilayered reservoir but specifically for the case of a well in a very low permeability layered reservoir systems, where transient flow can exist (at least in one of the layers) for several hundred years. The layer and total rates from the numerical simulation are presented in Fig. 2, and we have also superimposed the hyperbolic rate trend on to the latest portion of the total flowrate data. The "q-D-b plot" for this synthetic case is shown in Fig. 3. Our focus is first on the behavior of the D-parameter, which is essentially a power law straight-line, although the trend shift in the later data is indicative of a change from transient to boundary-dominated flow behavior. The most apparent features of our model matches are that the hyperbolic formulation for the D-parameter is only valid for boundary-dominated flow in contrast, the best match we can achieve with the "power law loss ratio" formulation for the D-parameter is an "average" straight-line trend that balances the earliest and latest data, but weakly matches transition in the data trend.
SPE 116731
Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps' Decline Curves Table 1 Reservoir and fluid properties for the three layered gas reservoir (hydraulically fractured gas well) simulation case.
Reservoir Properties: Layer 1 net pay thickness, h1 Layer 2 net pay thickness, h2 Layer 3 net pay thickness, h3 Layer 1 permeability, k1 Layer 2 permeability, k2 Layer 3 permeability, k3 Wellbore radius, rw Formation compressibility, cf Porosity, Outer boundary radius, re Initial reservoir pressure, pi Wellbore storage coefficient, CD Gas saturation, Sg Skin factor, s Reservoir temperature, Tr Fluid Properties: Gas specific gravity, g
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
10 ft 30 ft 60 ft 0.1 md 0.01 md 0.001 md 0.35 ft 110-9 1/psi 0.06 (fraction) 2980 ft 10000 psia 0 (dimensionless) 1.0 (fraction) 0 (dimensionless) 300 oF 0.65 (air = 1)
Hydraulically Fractured Well Model Parameters: = 450 ft Fracture half-length, xf = 2 (dimensionless) Fracture conductivity, FcD Production Parameters: Flowing pressure, pwf Producing time, t = = 500 psia 7300 days
The result of this calibration is that we achieve a very good match of the boundary-dominated flow data (all models), but only a "qualitative" match of the early data using the power law loss ratio model, and a very poor match using the hyperbolic model. The b-parameter defined by data as shown in Fig. 3 has a very distinct oscillation as one might expect, this oscillation is due to the "addition" of the individual layer performances in the numerical simulation (recall that this is a "layered no-crossflow" case analogous to the work of Raghavan [1989] and Fetkovich et al [1990]). This behavior is quite unusual by comparison to single-layer cases and the field cases we present in this work. While we believe that our basis relation for the power law loss ratio (i.e., Eq. 8) is generally applicable, there will always be exceptions in this particular case, no simple relation is perfect (nor perhaps should it be given the degrees of freedom in a multilayer system). In summary, as Raghavan [1989] and Fetkovich et al [1990] noted for the case of a multilayer reservoir, we achieved a reasonable match using the hyperbolic rate relation further; we also achieved a reasonable match of these data using our new power law loss ratio relation (i.e., Eq. 9). The log-log and semilog plots of the rate and cumulative data and the associated model functions are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Finally, the comparison of gas-in-place obtained using model-based analysis and the gas reserves estimated using the hyperbolic and power-law exponential rate relations are given in Table 2.
Table 2 Power law exponential and hyperbolic model parameters and reserve estimates (i.e., maximum cumulative gas production, Gp,max) for the three layered hydraulically fractured gas well simulation case. (G=100 BSCF from numerical simulation.)
Model Power Law Exponential Power Law Exponential (D=0) Hyperbolic (b=1)
i or (qi) q
(MSCFD) 6.5x104 6.5x104 2095
or Di D i
(D ) 2 2 8.0x10-4
-1
D (D-1)
n (d.less)
Gp,max (BSCF)
1.6x10-7 0 N/A
0.1 0.1 N/A
99.6 230.8 3030.0
Synthetic Case: Tight Gas (Single-Layer) Case This synthetic case is derived from a classical field example of a tight gas well performance behavior that has been previously presented (Pratikno et al [2003] for the early production data; and Ilk et al [2008b] for the near-current production data). In this work we use the model parameters and that were previously obtained (the well model includes a vertical
SPE 116731
fracture with finite conductivity) and we assume a constant flowing wellbore pressure to generate the synthetic flowrate performance. We use a numerical derivative (differentiation) algorithm to compute the D and b-parameters as a function of time, and we present these results on the "q-D-b plot" (log-log format) in Fig. 6. We note that there are apparent "end-point" effects (i.e., artifacts) in the computed D and b-parameters, which are caused by the numerical derivative algorithm in particular, at late times. The D-parameter exhibits a power-law trend (i.e., a straight line on a log-log plot) until the boundary effects begin to dominate the rate performance. Once the boundary effects are fully established, we find that the character of the D-parameter trend tends to deviate from our presumed power-law (i.e., straight line) behavior. We note that our simulation model considers the case of a 2x1 rectangular shaped reservoir, and that the well is produced well into boundary-dominated flow. We first use the hyperbolic model to approximate the D-parameter trend, and we note that early part of the data does not match with the hyperbolic model as should be expected because it is known that hyperbolic model is only applicable for the boundary-dominated flow regime. We obtain a good match of the hyperbolic model with the D-parameter data trend during full boundary-dominated flow conditions. For this case (and all of the cases in this work), we set the b-parameter equal to 1 (one) as a maximum value. The reserve estimation using the hyperbolic rate decline model (with b=1) gives almost more than 4 (four) times the reserves used as input for the simulation. We present this example specifically to emphasize that care must be taken when using the hyperbolic rate decline model and in particular, for production forecasting of gas wells. In conclusion, this example shows that using b=1 will yield an overestimation of reserves for this case in particular, but in general as well. Next, we employ the new "power law exponential" model proposed in this work, this result (in q(t)) is derived from the "power law loss ratio" relation for the D-parameter. The calibration of our new model consists of two steps. We first approximate the D-parameter data trend with only a power law function (i.e., setting D=0 in Eq. 8) this can be considered to be an "aggressive" estimate of reserves. In the next step, we adjust the D-term to obtain a best fit of the D-parameter data trend (as seen in Fig. 1), the D-term only affects the late portion of Eq. 8. This process of calibrating the D-term provides a lower bound for the reserves estimate, and not surprisingly (at least for this case), we obtain a result which is very close to the value of gas-in-place input into the numerical model. In Fig. 6 (i.e., the "q-D-b plot") we note that the matches of the data functions and power law exponential model are excellent; the rate data are uniquely matched using the new "power law exponential" model across all flow regimes. The results for this case are summarized in Table 3. In Figs. 7 and 8 we present the rate and cumulative production data and production forecasts on log-log and semilog coordinates. Our final diagnostic is a comparison of the b-parameter data trend versus time: As we noted earlier, the end-point effects caused by the derivative algorithm are quite apparent on the computed D-parameter data trend. Computation of the b-parameter requires an additional numerical differentiation and therefore we believe that the end-point effects are amplified, causing an even larger oscillatory feature in the b-parameter data function. For this reason we believe that we cannot effectively match the b-parameter data function using the power law exponential model only early part of the computed b-parameter data set is matched with this model assuming D=0. For the case where D0, we note on Fig. 6 that our model does yield an average trend through the b-parameter data functions. Perhaps the most important aspect of this exercise is that we clearly demonstrate that the b-parameter (data function) is not constant as the rigorous hyperbolic rate relation requires.
Table 3 Power law exponential and hyperbolic model parameters and reserve estimates (i.e., maximum cumulative gas production, Gp,max) for the East Tx gas well simulation case. (G=2.55 BSCF from numerical simulation.)
i or (qi) q
(MSCFD) 2.57x10
5
or Di D i
(D ) 2.86 2.86 9.5x10-3
-1
D (D-1)
n (d.less)
Gp,max (BSCF)
2.3x10-4 0 N/A
0.105 0.105 N/A
2.5 13.9 10.6
2.57x105 5500
Field Case: Example Case 1 Small Waterfrac Gas Well (SWF1) This well is a hydraulically fractured gas well which was completed using 20/40 proppant size in the hydraulic fracture treatment. For reference, this well has been previously analyzed using an integrated production analysis approach (Ilk et al [2008b]). In this case we focus our attention on the character of D and b-parameters in the hyperbolic rate decline relation and we apply our new ("power law exponential") rate decline relation to yield a production forecast along with the production forecast generated by the hyperbolic rate decline relation.
SPE 116731
In Fig. 9 we present the "q-D-b plot," and we immediately note that erroneous rates (caused by liquid loading) exist in the latter part of the data set. In addition, the early-time rate performance data are clearly affected by well clean-up effects. As in previous cases, we compute the D and b-parameters from the rate-time and rate-cumulative data using Eqs. 1 and 4, respectively. Although the computation using Eq. 4 appears to yield smoother results, we believe that the end-point effects generated by the derivative algorithm may be more severe for this Eq. 4 (see Fig. 9). In this case we clearly observe the onset of boundary-dominated flow at about 800 days. In terms of rate extrapolations, we first use the hyperbolic rate decline relation forcing b=1 where the b=1 condition yields a very optimistic estimation of reserves for this case. In our next step we match the D-parameter data trend using a straight-line trend (i.e., setting D=0 in Eq. 8). We then calibrate the D-parameter to obtain the best match of the entire D-parameter data trend with the model (Eq. 8). Although there is considerable scatter in the data, we obtain very reasonable matches of the flowrate data using the power law exponential rate decline model (see Fig. 9) for both the D=0 and D0 cases. We compare the reserves estimates in Table 4, and as expected, applying Eq. 9 with the condition that D0 yields a very close comparison with the result obtained using the model-based production analysis methods provided in (Ilk et al [2008b]). In Figs. 10 and 11 we present the log-log and semilog plots of the rate and cumulative data and the associated model functions, respectively.
Table 4 Power law exponential and hyperbolic model parameters and reserve estimates (i.e., maximum cumulative gas production, Gp,max) for Example Case 1 small waterfrac well 1 (SWF1). (G=5.4 BSCF from Ilk et al [2008b]).
i or (qi) q
(MSCFD) 1.7x104 1.7x104 6000
or Di D i
(D-1) 0.33 0.33 4.0x10-3
D (D-1)
n (d.less)
Gp,max (BSCF)
3.0x10-5 0 N/A
0.3 0.3 N/A
5.4 6.1 26.0
Field Case: Example Case 2 Small Waterfrac Gas Well (SWF2) This well is a hydraulically fractured gas well which was completed using a 40/70 proppant size in the hydraulic fracture treatment. In Fig.12, we present the "q-D-b plot," and we immediately recognize the liquid loading problem on the rate data. The D and b-parameters are computed from rate-time and rate-cumulative data using the derivative algorithm. In this case an obvious power law character is exhibited by the computed D-parameter data trend. We first make use of the hyperbolic rate decline relation by forcing b=1 and we then approximate the D-parameter data trend using the hyperbolic relation. In this case the early part of the data are not matched. In terms of forecasting and reserves extrapolation, the estimation of reserves from the hyperbolic rate decline relation is very optimistic compared to results from the model-based matching (see Table 5).
Table 5 Power law exponential and hyperbolic model parameters and reserve estimates (i.e., maximum cumulative gas production, Gp,max) for Example Case 2 small waterfrac well 2 (SWF2). (G=2.3 BSCF from Ilk et al [2008b]).
i or (qi) q
(MSCFD) 3.2x104 3.2x104 3600
or Di D i
(D-1) 1.24 1.24 6.0x10-3
D (D-1)
n (d.less)
Gp,max (BSCF)
1.5x10-4 0 N/A
0.17 0.17 N/A
2.3 3.8 10.0
As mentioned previously, the character of the D-parameter data trend clearly suggests that a power-law straight-line would be an acceptable model. In the calibration of our new model, we initially obtain a quite good match of the rate data using the power law exponential model where D=0 is used. However, we note that the reserves estimate is relatively higher than the contacted gas-in-place estimate in the work by Ilk et al [2008b]. We then adjust the D in the power law exponential model to set the lower bound for the reserves estimate. We observe essentially the same data matches, where the only difference is in the production forecast (i.e., the rate extrapolation). In this case (D0) we essentially have the same estimate for reserves as with the contacted gas-in-place estimate obtained previously (Ilk et al [2008b]). Figs. 13 and 14 present the log-log and semilog plots of the rate and cumulative data and the associated model functions for this case, respectively. For reference, there is excellent agreement in the data and model functions as shown in Figs. 13 and 14.
SPE 116731
Lastly, when we compare the character of the b-parameter data function with our models, we observe very good matches upto about 1000 days for the D0 case. We suspect that this disagreement could be due to the noise in the rate data and/or the end-point effects of the differentiation algorithm, or this feature could just be an artifact in the data. Field Case: Example Case 3 Large Waterfrac Gas Well (LWF1) Using this example, we begin our review of the large waterfrac cases. This is a case of a hydraulically fractured gas well where the well was completed using 20/40 proppant size. In Fig. 15 (the "q-D-b plot") we identify the liquid loading effects by inspecting the rate behavior between 400-1000 days. Also in Fig.15 we observe that the computed D and b-parameters exhibit outstanding diagnostic character a near-perfect straight line trend is exhibited by the computed D-parameter data and the computed b-parameter data trend converges to unity. We obtain a good match of the hyperbolic rate decline model (b=1) except for the transient part of the data. Again, the production forecast from the hyperbolic rate decline model overestimates the contacted gas-in-place estimate using the model-based production analysis methods provided in Ilk et al [2008b]. We use the power law exponential model first with by setting D=0 and obtain a very good agreement of the D-parameter data trend and the model given by Eq. 8. The match of the rate data with the power law exponential rate decline model is excellent. Furthermore, we observe very good match of the computed b-parameter data with the model as well. However, this production forecast yields twice and half more estimate of reserves than the contacted gas-in-place estimate by the model based production analysis techniques in the work by Ilk et al [2008b]. We adjust the value of D and obtain an excellent match of the data trends and the power law exponential model where the reserves result is consistent with the contacted gas-in-place estimate obtained from the model based techniques. In Figs. 16 and 17, we present the log-log and semilog plots of the rate and cumulative data and the associated model functions for this example case and Table 6 summarizes our results for this case.
Table 6 Power law exponential and hyperbolic model parameters and reserve estimates (i.e., maximum cumulative gas production, Gp,max) for Example Case 3 large waterfrac well 1 (LWF1). (G=3.0 BSCF from Ilk et al [2008b]).
i or (qi) q
(MSCFD) 3.8x104 3.8x104 2000
or Di D i
(D-1) 1.64 1.64 2.4x10-3
D (D-1)
n (d.less)
Gp,max (BSCF)
4.3x10-5 0 N/A
0.14 0.14 N/A
3.0 7.4 13.1
Field Case: Example Case 4 Large Waterfrac Gas Well (LWF2) This example case is the second large waterfrac gas well where a smaller proppant size is used (i.e., 40/70 sand) in the hydraulic fracture treatment. In Fig.18 (i.e., the "q-D-b plot"), we observe an erratic rate behavior caused by liquid loading in the latter part of the rate data. For this case we note that the behavior of the computed D and b-parameters is almost identical to the previous case which suggests that these data are consistent. We obtain outstanding matches of the computed D and b-parameters data trends with the power law exponential model. The match of the hyperbolic rate relation is also good for the boundary-dominated flow portion of the data but the estimation of reserves is almost five times higher than the contacted gas-in-place predicted previously (Ilk et al [2008b]). Once again, the only difference in the production forecast the power law exponential model with D0 provides a conservative estimate of reserves in agreement with the estimate from Ilk et al [2008b]. Figs. 19 and 20 present the rate data and the related model functions for this case in log-log and semilog coordinates, respectively. Table 7 summarizes the results for this case.
Table 7 Power law exponential and hyperbolic model parameters and reserve estimates (i.e., maximum cumulative gas production, Gp,max) for Example Case 4 large waterfrac well 2 (LWF2). (G=6.0 BSCF from Ilk et al [2008b]).
i or (qi) q
(MSCFD) 4.2x10
5
or Di D i
(D ) 3 3 1.4x10-3
-1
D (D-1)
n (d.less)
Gp,max (BSCF)
5.0x10-5 0 N/A
0.1 0.1 N/A
6.0 25.8 31.7
4.2x105 2660
SPE 116731
Field Case: Example Case 5 Hybrid Waterfrac Gas Well (HWF) Our last example is a "hybrid" waterfrac gas well case (Ilk et al [2008b]). In Fig. 21 we present the "q-D-b plot" and we recognize that again we have a significant liquid loading problem at late times. In fact, the liquid loading distortion seems more significant than for the large waterfrac cases. The computed D and b-parameters reflect the effects of liquid loading, but the D-parameter trend is essentially power-law, and the b-parameter trend, while erratic, is apparently converging to unity (i.e., b=1 at late times). Considering the D-parameter data trend (i.e., our calibration tool), we could probably assume D=0 however; as shown in Fig. 21, when we do calibrate the D-parameter, we in term obtain a more conservative estimate of reserves. The log-log and semilog data and forecast functions are shown in Figs. 22 and 23, respectively. In Table 8 we compare the model-based estimate of contacted gas-in-place with the reserves estimate based on D=1.0x10-4 in short, this is an excellent comparison of results (G=1.4 BSCF (model-based match) and Gp,max=1.4 BSCF (power-law exponential rate relation, D=1.0x10-4).
Table 8 Power law exponential and hyperbolic model parameters and reserve estimates (i.e., maximum cumulative gas production, Gp,max) for Example Case 5 hybrid waterfrac well (HWF). (G=1.4 BSCF from Ilk et al [2008b]).
i or (qi) q
(MSCFD) 1.38x105 1.38x105 3600
or Di D i
(D-1) 2.79 2.79 1.1x10-2
D (D-1)
n (d.less)
Gp,max (BSCF)
1.0x10-4 0 N/A
0.11 0.11 N/A
1.4 3.9 5.6
Summary and Conclusions Summary: Perhaps the most important conclusion of this study is that the hyperbolic rate decline relation (i.e., Eq. 7) has, at best, a reasonable predictive capability in the case of reserves estimations for tight gas sands and then only for cases of boundary-dominated flow behavior. As described in our methodology section, we use the continuous (rate-time and ratecumulative-based) estimates of the Arps D and b-parameters to guide our fit of a data set with a particular mode we note that this approach yields an excellent diagnostic capability (for orientation), as well as providing a direct analysis component when the D-parameter is correlated with the proposed power law model.
In this work we present a new "power law loss ratio" formulation for the D-parameter, which in turn translates into the proposed "power law loss ratio" rate decline model (i.e., Eq. 9). Eq. 9 is derived from the observation of the power law behavior of the D-parameter, and we have found that when properly constrained, this is an outstanding predictor of reserves for tight gas and shale gas reservoir systems.
Hyperbolic Rate Decline Relation: (Eq. 7) In our experience, the hyperbolic rate decline relation is almost always an excessive predictor for reserves, with errors easily on the order of 100 percent or more if this analyst is not careful. In this study we had the benefit of a prior work where we had developed a model-based match of the production rate and pressure history and we used these results as a "lower bound" of the reserves estimates for each case. From the log-log plots of the D and b-parameters versus time, the hyperbolic rate decline relation is often weakly correlated with the production (particularly during transient flow, but on occasion for boundary-dominated flow as well). The cases we have selected for this work yield reasonable to good correlations with the hyperbolic relation, but we have seen many cases particularly shale gas cases where the reserves are severely overestimated by the hyperbolic rate decline relation. "Power Law Loss Ratio" Rate Decline Model: (Eq. 9) We have derived, validated, and demonstrated a new model using the observed behavior of the Arps loss ratio function (i.e., D = (1/q) dq/dt) specifically that the D-parameter has a power law relationship with time. This new production performance model is given as:
t n ] ..................................................................................................................................... (9) i exp[ D t D q=q i
Our new "power law loss ratio" rate decline model (i.e., Eq. 9) has several unique aspects in terms of its behavior. For example, at large times the D will dominate, and Eq. 9 reverts to an exponential decay. In addition, the tn term dominates the transient and transition flow regimes in both fractured and unfractured wells and this portion of the relation typically yields extraordinary matches of the given production data In addition the "power law loss ratio" rate decline model can easily be calibrated with data using the log-log plots of the D and b-parameters versus time verifying the strong correlative nature of this relation.
10
SPE 116731
Conclusions: 1. This work provides the development of a new diagnostic plot a log-log plot of the D and b-parameters versus time, where the D and b-parameters are computed using rate-time and rate-cumulative data functions. The rate data and all associated model functions (q, D, b) are also presented on these plots. These plots provide unique a diagnostic insight (i.e., whether or not the data is "hyperbolic" in nature) as well as an analysis/calibration function. 2. This work provides a thorough investigation of the classical hyperbolic rate decline relation in the context of synthetic model cases and field data cases for tight gas reservoirs. While tuned to yield reserve estimates which are "conservative" (based on the model-based analyses performed in another work), the hyperbolic decline relation typically tends to yield high to excessively high reserve estimates. 3. This work provides a new "power law loss ratio" rate decline model (i.e., Eq. 9). This model is much more flexible it can be used to match transient, transition, and boundary-dominated flow data, and by the use of the decline constant at "infinite time" (D i.e., as defined by Eq. 8), Eq. 9 yields an exponential decay at very large times. In addition, the "power law loss ratio" rate decline model can be tuned graphically using a log-log plot of the D parameter versus time. The "power law loss ratio" rate decline model is the most substantive contribution of this work.
Nomenclature
Field Variables b cf cg ct CD D Di D1 D D i FcD G Gp Gp,max h k n pi ptf pwf p qg qi i q re rw s Sg Swi t Tr xf z
g g
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Arps' decline exponent, dimensionless Formation compressibility, psi-1 Gas compressibility, psi-1 Total compressibility, psi-1 Wellbore storage coefficient, dimensionless Arps' "loss ratio," D-1 Arps' initial decline rate (hyperbolic model), D-1 Decline constant "intercept" at 1 time unit defined by Eq. 8 [i.e., D(t=1 day)], D-1 Decline constant at "infinite time" defined by Eq. 8 [i.e., D(t=)], D-1 = D /n ], D-1 Decline constant defined by Eq. 9 [i.e., D i 1 Fracture conductivity, dimensionless Original (contacted) gas-in-place, MSCF Cumulative gas production, MSCF Maximum gas production, MSCF Net pay thickness, ft Average reservoir permeability, md Time exponent defined by Eq. 8 Initial reservoir pressure, psia Flowing tubing (surface) pressure, psia Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia Pressure drop (pi-pwf), psi Gas production rate, MSCF/D Initial production rate, MSCF/D or STB/D Rate "intercept" defined by Eq. 9 [i.e., q(t=0)], MSCF/D Reservoir drainage radius, ft Wellbore radius, ft Skin factor, dimensionless gas saturation, fraction Initial water saturation, fraction Time, days Reservoir temperature, F Fracture half-length, ft Gas compressibility factor
Greek Variables = Reservoir gas specific gravity (air = 1) = Effective porosity, fraction = Gas viscosity, cp
SPE 116731
11
References
Arps J.J.: "Analysis of Decline Curves," Trans. AIME (1945) 160, 228-247. Blasingame, T.A. and Rushing, J.A.: "A Production-Based Method for Direct Estimation of Gas-in-Place and Reserves," paper SPE 98042 presented at the 2005 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Morgantown, W.V., 1416 September 2005. Fetkovich, M.J., Works, A.M., Thrasher, T.S., and Bradley, M.D.: "Depletion Performance of Layered Reservoirs Without Crossflow," SPEFE (Sept. 1990). Fetkovich, M.J., Fetkovich, E.J., and Fetkovich, M.D.: "Useful Concepts for Decline-Curve Forecasting, Reserve Estimation, and Analysis," SPERE (February 1996) 13-22. Johnson, R.H. and Bollens, A.L.: "The Loss Ratio Method of Extrapolating Oil Well Decline Curves," Trans. AIME (1927) 77, 771. Ilk, D., Rushing, J.A., Sullivan, R.B., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Evaluating the Impact of Waterfrac Technologies on Gas Recovery Efficiency: Case Studies Using Elliptical Flow Production Data Analysis," paper SPE 110187 presented at the 2007 Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA., 11-14 November 2007. Ilk, D., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A.,: "Estimating Reserves Using the Arps Hyperbolic Rate-Time Relation Theory, Practice and Pitfalls," paper CIM 2008-108 presented at the 59th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society, Calgary, AB, Canada, 17-19 June, 2008a. (in preparation) Ilk, D., Perego, A.D., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A.,: "Integrating Multiple Production Analysis Techniques To Assess Tight Gas Sand Reserves: Defining a New Paradigm for Industry Best Practices," paper SPE 114947 presented at the 2008 Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, AB, Canada, 17-19 June, 2008b. Pratikno, H., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves: Fractured Wells," paper SPE 84287 presented at the 2003 Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO., 05-08 October 2003. Raghavan, R.: "Behavior of Wells Completed in Multiple Producing Zones," SPEFE (June 1989) 219-30. Rushing, J.A., Perego, A.D., Sullivan, R.B., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Estimating Reserves in Tight Gas Sands at HP/HT Reservoir Conditions: Use and Misuse of an Arps Decline Curve Methodology," paper SPE 109625 presented at the 2007 Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA., 11-14 November 2007. Valko, P.P.: Personal Communication, Texas A&M University, (June 2008).
12
SPE 116731
Fig. 1 Schematic Plot: (Log-Log Plot) Hyperbolic and power law exponential rate decline and loss ratio models are illustrated for orientation purposes.
Fig. 2 Numerical Simulation: (Log-Log Plot) 3 layered reservoir (gas well) individual layer rate and total rate responses are shown. Total rate response is matched by a hyperbolic function at late times for illustrative purposes.
SPE 116731
13
Fig. 3 Numerical Simulation: (Log-Log Plot) 3 layered reservoir (gas well) definition of the D and b-parameters.
Fig. 4 Numerical Simulation: (Log-Log Plot) 3 layered reservoir (gas well) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic rate models.
14
SPE 116731
Fig. 5 Numerical Simulation: (Semilog Plot) 3 layered reservoir (gas well) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic rate models.
Fig. 6 Numerical Simulation: (Log-Log Plot) East Tx gas well (SPE 84287) definition of the D and b-parameters.
SPE 116731
15
Fig. 7 Numerical Simulation: (Log-Log plot) East Tx gas well (SPE 84287) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
Fig. 8 Numerical Simulation: (Semilog Plot) East Tx gas well (SPE 84287) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
16
SPE 116731
Fig. 9 Example Case 1: (Log-Log Plot) Small waterfrac gas well (SWF1) (SPE 114947) definition of the D and b-parameters.
Fig. 10 Example Case 1: (Log-Log Plot) Small waterfrac gas well (SWF1) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
SPE 116731
17
Fig. 11 Example Case 1: (Semilog Plot) Small waterfrac gas well (SWF1) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
Fig. 12 Example Case 2: (Log-Log Plot) Small waterfrac gas well (SWF2) (SPE 114947) definition of the D and b-parameters.
18
SPE 116731
Fig. 13 Example Case 2: (Log-Log Plot) Small waterfrac gas well (SWF2) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
Fig. 14 Example Case 2: (Semilog Plot) Small waterfrac gas well (SWF2) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
SPE 116731
19
Fig. 15 Example Case 3: (Log-Log Plot) Large waterfrac gas well (LWF1) (SPE 114947) definition of the D and b-parameters.
Fig. 16 Example Case 3: (Log-Log Plot) Large waterfrac gas well (LWF1) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
20
SPE 116731
Fig. 17 Example Case 3: (Semilog Plot) Large waterfrac gas well (LWF1) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
Fig. 18 Example Case 4: (Log-Log Plot) Large waterfrac gas well (LWF2) (SPE 114947) definition of the D and b-parameters.
SPE 116731
21
Fig. 19 Example Case 4: (Log-Log Plot) Large waterfrac gas well (LWF2) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
Fig. 20 Example Case 4: (Semilog Plot) Large waterfrac gas well (LWF2) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
22
SPE 116731
Fig. 21 Example Case 5: (Log-Log Plot) Hybrid waterfrac gas well (HWF) (SPE 114947) definition of the D and b-parameters.
Fig. 22 Example Case 5: (Log-Log Plot) Hybrid waterfrac gas well (HWF) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
SPE 116731
23
Fig. 23 Example Case 5: (Semilog Plot) Hybrid waterfrac gas well (HWF) (SPE 114947) empirical matches are shown using power law exponential and hyperbolic models.
SPE 116731
D. Ilk, Texas A&M University A.D. Perego, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. J.A. Rushing, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.458.1499 dilhan@tamu.edu
2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Denver, CO 2124 September 2008 SPE 116731 Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps' Decline Curves (Ilk/Perego/Rushing/Blasingame) D. Ilk Texas A&M University (23 September 2008)
Slide 1/28
Rationale For This Work Overview of Decline Curve Analysis
Development of the New Rate Decline Model Illustrative Examples Conclusions
Definition of the Loss Ratio (Johnson and Bollens) Arps Exponential and Hyperbolic Rate Functions Historical Perspectives Characterization of the D-parameter Power-Law Exponential Rate Decline Function
Numerical Simulation 3 Layered Gas Reservoir Numerical Simulation East Tx Gas Well (SPE 84287) Field Examples 5 Tight Gas Well Cases
Slide 2/28
(Outline)
Presentation Outline
ASSUMPTION: The Arps decline parameter, b, defines the decline behavior when tight gas sand reserves are assessed. REALITY: Difficult to identify the correct b-parameter during the early decline period selection of the wrong bparameter greatly impacts reserve estimates.
Slide 3/28
a. (Semilog plot) Production forecast of a tight gas well.
b. (Log-log plot) Production forecast of a tight gas well.
(Rationale)
Rationale For This Work
The primary objectives of this work are:

thetic and field production profiles for tight gas reservoirs. To provide a diagnostic understanding of the hyperbolic rate decline relation in terms of the D- and b-parameters. To assess the applicability of the hyperbolic rate decline relation to layered reservoir performance. To provide an alternative to the hyperbolic rate decline relation that should be flexible enough to represent transient, transition, and boundary-dominated flow data.
To evaluate the b-parameter as a function of time using syn-
a. Various sandstone depositional sequences.
b. Decline curve behavior of a tight gas well.
Slide 4/28
(Rationale)
Rationale For This Work
Loss Ratio: (basis for exponential rate decline) qg 1 q g = q gi exp[ Di t ] D dqg /dt Loss Ratio Derivative: (basis for hyperbolic rate decline) q gi q d 1 d g qg = b (1 / b ) (1 + bD t ) / dt D dt dq dt i g
[From: Johnson, R.H. and Bollens, A.L.: "The Loss Ratio Method of Extrapolating Oil Well Decline Curves," Trans., AIME (1927) 77, 771.]
Slide 5/28
(Overview)
Overview: Loss Ratio (Definition and Behavior)
Case
Exponential: (b=0)
Rate-Time Relation Cumulative-Time Relation

qg = qgi exp[ Di t ]
Gp = Gp = Gp =
qgi Di
[1 exp[ Di t ]] qgi [1 (1 + bDi t )1(1 / b ) ]
Hyperbolic: (0<b<1) q g = Harmonic: (b=1)
qgi (1 + bDi t ) (1 / b )
(1 b ) Di qgi Di
qg =
qgi (1 + Di t )
ln(1 + Di t )
[From: Arps, J.J: "Analysis of Decline Curves," Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 228-247.]
Slide 6/28
(Overview)
Overview: Arps' Rate Decline Functions
Exponential Rate Decline (b=0): (various authors)

Constant compressibility flowing fluid (i.e., black oil). Boundary-dominated flow regime. Constant flowing wellbore pressure (i.e., pwf = constant).
Hyperbolic Rate Decline (0<b<1): Fetkovich [1990, 1996]

"Applicable for "layered no-crossflow" reservoir case." "High value of b is reflected as an early rapid decline and followed by an extended period of low percentage decline." "Performance of low permeability, stimulated wells can appear similar to layered, no-crossflow reservoir responses." b>1: Transient flow. Objective: Assess the validity of estimating reserves using the
Rushing et al Study [2007]:
Slide 7/28
hyperbolic rate decline relation. Conclusion: Reserves estimates based on the hyperbolic rate decline relation improve quite significantly with time (i.e., the hyperbolic rate relation becomes more applicable at late times).
(Overview)
Overview: Historical Perspective
Hyperbolic Rate Relation for Tight Gas Systems: (model study)

x
X
Pressure Monitoring Point No. 2
Wellbore
y
X
Pressure Monitoring Point No. 1
Hydraulic Fracture
Numerical Model Considers: Reservoir Layering. kv/kh ratio. Fracture Length, xf. Fracture Conductivity, FcD. Analysis/Validation Approach: Fit q(t) with Arps' hyperbolic relation. Compare reserves to model at 30 years.
[From: Rushing, J.A., Perego, A.D., Sullivan, R.B., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Estimating Reserves in Tight Gas Sands at HP/HT Reservoir Conditions: Use and Misuse of an Arps Decline Curve Methodology," paper SPE 109625 presented at the 2007 Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA., 11-14 November 2007.]
Slide 8/28
(Overview)
Overview: Rushing et al Study [2007]
Observed Behavior of Decline Parameter (D):
1 dq (1n) D D + nDi t q dt
Solving for Flowrate:
n i exp[ D t Di t ] q=q
Solving for the b-Parameter:
b=
Slide 9/28
n ( 1 ) 2 [nDi + D t ]
(1 n) nD i
n t
(New Rate Equation)
New Rate Equation: Ilk et al [2008]
"Power-Law Exponential Rate Decline": Discussion
through transition flow, then becomes constant value at large times.
Slide 10/28
Use as a self-calibrating model that provides data diagnostics. "Power-law loss ratio" function exhibits a power law decay for transient
(New Rate Equation)
New Rate Equation: Illustrative Behavior
Numerical Simulation: Gas Multilayer Case
a. Numerical simulation: "Semi-log plot" 3-layered reservoir individual layer rate and total rate responses are shown.
b. Numerical simulation: "Log-log plot" 3-layered reservoir total rate response is matched by a hyperbolic function at late times.
Objective: To apply the hyperbolic rate relation to a case of depletion in a

Slide 11/28
very low permeability multilayered reservoir system. Method: 3-layered gas reservoir is simulated this model is designed to have at least one layer which exhibits transient/transition flow for a considerable period (for decades or even hundreds of years).
(Numerical Simulation Case 1)
Illustrative Examples: Gas Multilayer Case
a. Numerical simulation: "q-D-b plot" 3-layered reservoir definition of the "D and b" parameters.
b. Empirical matches are shown using power-law exponential and hyperbolic models.
Numerical Simulation: Gas Multilayer Case
The best match with the "power-law loss ratio" relation is obtained with
an average straight line balancing the earliest and latest time data. The hyperbolic formulation for the D-parameter is only valid for the boundary-dominated flow regime. We assume that the oscillation in the b-parameter data trend is due to the addition of individual layer performances.
Slide 12/28
Illustrative Examples: Gas Multilayer Case
"q-D-b" Plot: TG Example zD-parameter data trend exhibits a power-law behavior essentially a straight line. zb-parameter data trend is not constant (contrary to hyperbolic formulation).
Numerical Simulation: East Tx Gas Well (SPE 84287)
Previously obtained model parameters are used to generate the synthetic

gas flowrate performance. Once the boundary-dominated flow regime is established, the trend for the D-parameter deviates (somewhat) from power-law behavior. D is set to 0 (aggressive reserves estimate) at first, and then adjusted to obtain the best match.
Slide 13/28
Illustrative Examples: Tight Gas Case
Numerical Simulation: East Tx Gas Well (SPE 84287)
a. Semi-log plot empirical matches are shown using power-law exponential and hyperbolic models.
b. Log-log plot empirical matches are shown using power-law exponential and hyperbolic models.
A good match is obtained using the hyperbolic rate relation during the
Slide 14/28
boundary dominated flow regime (b=1). The process of calibrating D provides a lower bound for the reserves estimate and we obtained very close agreement with the input G-value. Rate data are uniquely matched using the new "power-law exponential" model (D0) across all flow regimes.
Illustrative Examples: Tight Gas Case
"q-D-b" Plot: SWF1 zD-parameter data trend exhibits a power-law behavior. zb-parameter data trend is not constant (contrary to hyperbolic formulation). zNote the end-point effects.
Discussion: Small Waterfrac Gas Well (SWF1)
obtain the best match.
Slide 15/28
Early-time rate performance data are affected by well clean-up effects. The effects of liquid loading are observed at late times. The onset of boundary-dominated flow is observed at about 800 days. D is set to 0 (aggressive reserves estimate) at first and then adjusted to
(Field Example 1)
Field Examples: Small WF Gas Well (SWF1)
Hyperbolic rate relation (using b=1) yields the most optimistic reserves
Slide 16/28
estimate for this case. Reasonable matches of the rate data are obtained using the power-law exponential model using both D=0 and D0 cases. Reserves estimates obtained by the power-law exponential model agree well with the results from previous model-based PA study (SPE 114947).
(Field Example 1)
"q-D-b" Plot: SWF2 zD-parameter data trend exhibits a power-law behavior essentially a straight line. zb-parameter data trend is not constant (contrary to hyperbolic formulation). zComputation of the bparameter is severely affected by noise.
Liquid loading effects are obvious in the latter portion of the flowrate data. The onset of the boundary-dominated flow regime is observed. D is set to 0 initially, then tuned to the latest data we obtain a very
Slide 17/28
good match of the D-parameter data trend with the power-law models. We observe a very good match of the flowrate data with the "base" powerlaw exponential model (i.e., D=0).
(Field Example 2)
The hyperbolic rate relation (b=1) yields the highest reserves estimate. Excellent matches of data are achieved using the power-law exponential
Slide 18/28
model for both the D=0 and the D0 cases. The lower bound for the reserves estimate is 2.3 BSCF, which is consistent with our results from the model-based PA study (SPE 114947).
(Field Example 2)
"q-D-b" Plot: LWF1 zD-parameter data trend exhibits a power-law behavior essentially a straight line. zb-parameter data trend is not constant (contrary to hyperbolic formulation). zComputation of the bparameter is somewhat affected by noise.
Discussion: Large Waterfrac Gas Well (LWF1)
The effects of liquid loading are observed between 400-2000 days. The D- and b-parameters exhibit outstanding diagnostic character a
Slide 19/28
near perfect straight line is exhibited by the computed D-parameter data. A good match is obtained using the hyperbolic rate decline model (b=1), except at early times (i.e., the transient part of the data).
(Field Example 3)
Field Examples: Large WF Gas Well (LWF1)
The hyperbolic rate relation only matches the boundary-dominated flow
Slide 20/28
portion of the data yields highest reserves estimate for this case (b=1). Excellent matches are obtained using the power-law exponential model both the D=0 and the D0 cases match well across all flow regimes. Production forecast using D=0 yields a reserves estimate which is 2.5 times the model-based estimate of contacted gas-in-place in SPE 114947.
(Field Example 3)
"q-D-b" Plot: LWF2 zD-parameter data trend exhibits a power-law behavior essentially a straight line. zb-parameter data trend is not constant (contrary to hyperbolic formulation). zComputation of the bparameter is significantly affected by noise.
Erratic rate behavior caused by liquid loading is seen in the latter portion
of the rate data. The behavior of the computed D- and b-parameters is almost identical to the previous case suggesting (to some degree) consistency of the data. Outstanding matches of the computed D- and b-parameters with the power-law exponential model are observed.
Slide 21/28
(Field Example 4)
Estimation of the reserves using the hyperbolic rate decline relation is

almost five times higher than the contacted gas-in-place predicted previously using a model-based match (SPE 114947). Outstanding matches of the data are obtained using the power-law exponential model, both the D=0 and the D0 cases. The D0 model provides the most conservative estimate of reserves.
Slide 22/28
(Field Example 4)
"q-D-b" Plot: HWF1 zD-parameter data trend exhibits a power-law behavior essentially a straight line. zb-parameter data trend is not constant (contrary to hyperbolic formulation). zComputation of the bparameter is severely affected by noise.
Discussion: Hybrid Waterfrac Gas Well (HWF1)
Severe liquid loading is observed at late times. The computed D- and b-parameters reflect the effects of liquid loading
Slide 23/28
however; the D-parameter data trend is essentially power-law. Good matches of the computed D- and b-parameters are obtained using the power-law exponential model.
(Field Example 5)
Field Examples: Hybrid WF Gas Well (HWF1)
Discussion: Hybrid Waterfrac Gas Well (HWF1)
The hyperbolic rate relation (b=1) yields the highest reserve estimate. Reasonable matches of the rate data are obtained using the power-law
Slide 24/28
exponential model for both the D=0 and the D0 cases. The power-law exponential model applied using D0 provides the most conservative estimate of reserves (as is expected) this result is quite comparable to the model-based results obtained in SPE 114947.
(Field Example 5)
Field Examples: Hybrid WF Gas Well (HWF1)
Investigation of Hyperbolic Rate Decline Relation: While tuned

to yield reserve estimates which are "conservative" (based on the model-based analyses performed in another work), the hyperbolic rate decline relation typically yields high to excessively high estimates of reserves in this work.
Slide 25/28
(Conclusions)
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
Development of a New Diagnostic Plot: Log-log plot of the D-
and b-parameters versus time, where the D- and b-parameters are computed using rate-time and rate-cumulative data functions. These plots provide a unique diagnostic insight, as well as an analysis/calibration function.
Slide 26/28
(Conclusions)
Conclusions:
Conclusions: (continued)
Conclusions: (continued)
New "Power-Law Loss Ratio" Rate Decline Model: Very flexible

model that can be used to match transient, transition, and boundary-dominated flow data. By the use of the decline constant at infinite time (D) we obtain an exponential decline at very late times, which can provide a lower bound for reserve estimates.
Slide 27/28
(Conclusions)
Conclusions:
SPE 116731
End of Presentation
D. Ilk, Texas A&M University A.D. Perego, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. J.A. Rushing, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.458.1499 dilhan@tamu.edu
Slide 28/28

SPE 116731 (Ilk Et Al) Power Law Exponential Relation (Wpres)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SPE 116731 (Ilk Et Al) Power Law Exponential Relation (Wpres)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SPE 116731 Exponential vs.

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D q = exp D t 1 t n ................................................................................................................................................ (9) i n q

Illustrative Production Behavior

0.1 0.1 N/A

99.6 230.8 3030.0

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

0.105 0.105 N/A

2.5 13.9 10.6

0.3 0.3 N/A

5.4 6.1 26.0

0.17 0.17 N/A

2.3 3.8 10.0

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

0.14 0.14 N/A

3.0 7.4 13.1

0.1 0.1 N/A

6.0 25.8 31.7

0.11 0.11 N/A

1.4 3.9 5.6

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, A.D. Perego, and T.A. Blasingame

Rationale For This Work Overview of Decline Curve Analysis

Development of the New Rate Decline Model Illustrative Examples Conclusions

a. (Semilog plot) Production forecast of a tight gas well.

b. (Log-log plot) Production forecast of a tight gas well.

Rationale For This Work

The primary objectives of this work are:

To evaluate the b-parameter as a function of time using syn-

a. Various sandstone depositional sequences.

b. Decline curve behavior of a tight gas well.

Rationale For This Work

Overview: Loss Ratio (Definition and Behavior)

Rate-Time Relation Cumulative-Time Relation

[1 exp[ Di t ]] qgi [1 (1 + bDi t )1(1 / b ) ]

Hyperbolic: (0<b<1) q g = Harmonic: (b=1)

Overview: Arps' Rate Decline Functions

Exponential Rate Decline (b=0): (various authors)

Hyperbolic Rate Decline (0<b<1): Fetkovich [1990, 1996]

Rushing et al Study [2007]:

Overview: Historical Perspective

Hyperbolic Rate Relation for Tight Gas Systems: (model study)

Pressure Monitoring Point No. 2

Pressure Monitoring Point No. 1

Overview: Rushing et al Study [2007]

Observed Behavior of Decline Parameter (D):

(New Rate Equation)

New Rate Equation: Ilk et al [2008]

"Power-Law Exponential Rate Decline": Discussion

through transition flow, then becomes constant value at large times.

(New Rate Equation)

New Rate Equation: Illustrative Behavior

Numerical Simulation: Gas Multilayer Case

Objective: To apply the hyperbolic rate relation to a case of depletion in a

(Numerical Simulation Case 1)

Illustrative Examples: Gas Multilayer Case

Numerical Simulation: Gas Multilayer Case