Rate Transient Analysis

1-4: TRADITIONAL 23-32: RADIAL TYPE

1. Traditional (Arps) Decline Curves
DECLINE ANALYSIS 3. Exponential Decline 23. Calculations for Oil
(Agarwal-Gardner Type Curves) CURVES 24. Calculations for Gas
(Agarwal-Gardner Type Curves)
EXPONENTIAL DECLINE: 23-24: RADIAL FLOW MODEL: TYPE CURVE
• Decline rate is constant. ANALYSIS
All radial flow type curves are based on the same
• Log flow rate vs. time is a straight line.
reservoir model:
• Flow rate vs. cumulative production is a straight line.
• Well in centre of cylindrical homogeneous reservoir.
• Provides minimum EUR (Expected Ultimate Recovery).
• No flow outer boundary.
re
HYPERBOLIC DECLINE: • Skin factor represented by rwa.
• Decline rate is not constant (D=Kqb). • Information content of all type curves
rwa
(Figures 25-32) is the same.
• Straight line plots are NOT practical and b is determined
by nonlinear curve fit. • The shapes are different because of
different plotting formats.
b value Reservoir Drive Mechanism • Each format represents a different “look” at the data
Single phase liquid (oil above bubble point) and emphasizes different aspects.
0
Single phase gas at high pressure
0.1-0.4 Solution gas drive
0.4-0.5 Single phase gas 25-26: BLASINGAME
2. Decline Rate Definitions 0.5 Effective edge water drive 4. Harmonic Decline 25. Blasingame: Rate (Normalized) • qDd and tDd definitions are similar to Fetkovich. 26. Blasingame: Integral-Derivative
0.5-1.0 Commingled layered reservoirs • Normalized rate (q/ p or q/ pp) is plotted.
• Three sets of type curves:
HARMONIC DECLINE: 1. qDd vs. tDd (Figure 25).
• Decline rate is directly proportional to flow rate (b=1). 2. Rate integral (qDdi) vs. tDd (has the same shape
as qDd).
• Log flow rate vs. cumulative production is a straight line.
3. Rate integral-derivative (qDdid) vs. tDd (Figure 26).
SUMMARY: 2
• Boundary-dominated flow only. • In general: qDd qD bDpss , tDd t
b Dpss DA
• Constant operating conditions.
• bDpss is a constant for a particular well / reservoir
• Developed using empirical relationships. configuration.
• Quick and simple to determine EUR.
• EUR depends on operating conditions.
• Does NOT use pressure data.
• b depends on drive mechanism.

27-28: AGARWAL-GARDNER
27. Agarwal-Gardner: Rate (Normalized) • qD and tDA definitions are similar to well testing. 28. Agarwal-Gardner: Integral-Derivative

5-10: FETKOVICH • Normalized rate (q/ p or q/ pp) is plotted.

• Three sets of type curves:
5. Analytical: Constant Flowing Pressure ANALYSIS 6. Analytical: Constant Flowing Pressure
1. qD vs. tDA (Figure 27).
2. Inverse of pressure derivative (1 / pDd) vs. tDA
(not shown).
3. Inverse of pressure integral-derivative (1 / pDid)
• qD and tD definitions are similar to well test. vs. tDA (Figure 28).
• Notes: d ( pD )
• Convenient for transient flow. 1. Pressure derivative is defined as pDd
• Results in single transient stem but multiple d (ln t DA )
boundary-dominated stems. 2. Inverse of pressure derivative is usually too noisy
and inverse of pressure integral-derivative is
used instead.

• qDd and tDd definitions are convenient for 29-30: NORMALIZED PRESSURE
production data analysis. 29. NPI: Pressure (Normalized) 30. NPI: Integral-Derivative
INTEGRAL (NPI)
• Convenient for boundary-dominated flow. • pD and tDA definitions are similar to well testing.
• Results in single boundary-dominated stem but • Normalized Pressure ( p/q or pp /q) is plotted
7. Empirical: Arps Depletion Stems multiple transient stems. 8. Empirical: Arps-Fetkovich Depletion Stems
rather than normalized rate (q/ p or q/ pp).
• Three sets of type curves:
1. pD vs. tDA (Figure 29).
2. Pressure integral (pDi) vs. tDA (has the same
shape as pD).
3. Pressure integral-derivative (pDid) vs. tDA (Figure
30).

Replot on Log-Log Scale

31-32: TRANSIENT-DOMINATED DATA

31. Rate (Normalized) • Similar to Figures 27 & 28 but uses tD instead of tDA. 32. Integral-Derivative
This format is useful when most of the data are in
TRANSIENT flow.
10. Fetkovich/Cumulative Type Curves 9. Fetkovich Type Curves • qD and tD definitions are similar to well testing.
SUMMARY:
• Normalized rate (q/ p or q/ pp) is plotted.
• Combines transient with boundary-dominated flow.
• Three sets of type curves:
• Transient: Analytical, constant pressure solution. 1. qD vs. tD (Figure 31).
• Boundary-Dominated: Empirical, identical to traditional 2. Inverse of pressure integral (1 / pDi) vs. tD (not
(Arps). shown).
• Constant operating conditions. 3. Inverse of pressure integral-derivative (1 / pDid)
• Used to estimate EUR, skin and permeability. vs. tD (Figure 32).
• EUR depends on operating conditions.
• Does NOT use pressure data.
• Cumulative curves are smoother than rate curves.
• Combined cumulative and rate type curves give more
unique match (Figure 10).

33-40: FRACTURE
33. Rate TYPE CURVES 34. Integral-Derivative

11-14: MODERN DECLINE 33-37: FINITE CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURE

•
ANALYSIS: BASIC
11. Comparison of qD and 1/pD 12. Equivalence of qD and 1/pD Fracture with finite conductivity results in bilinear flow
(quarter slope).
CONCEPTS
11-12: MATERIAL BALANCE TIME
• Material Balance Time (tc) effectively converts constant • Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity is defined as:
pressure solution to the corresponding constant rate kf w
solution. FCD
kxf
• Exponential curve plotted using Material Balance Time
• Fracture with infinite conductivity results in linear flow
becomes harmonic.
(half slope).
• Material Balance Time is rigorous during
boundary-dominated flow.

Actual Rate Decline Constant Rate

Q 1 t
• For FCD>50, the fracture is assumed to have infinite
tc qdt conductivity.
q q 0

Q
Q 35. Elliptical Flow: Integral-Derivative 36. Elliptical Flow: Integral-Derivative 37. Elliptical Flow: Integral-Derivative

Actual Time (t) Material Balance Time

(t c) = Q /q
13. Concept of Rate Integral 14. Derivative and Integral-Derivative

13-14: TYPE CURVE INTERPRETATION AIDS

Rate (Normalized)
• Combines rate with flowing pressure.
Integral (Normalized Rate)
• Smoothes noisy data but
attenuates the reservoir signal.

Derivative (Normalized Rate)

• Amplifies reservoir signal but
amplifies noise as well.
Integral-Derivative (Normalized Rate)
• Smoothes the scatter 38-40: INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURE
of the derivative.
38. Blasingame: Rate and Integral-Derivative 39. NPI: Pressure and Integral-Derivative 40. Wattenbarger: Rate

15-18: GAS FLOW

15. Darcy’s Law
CONSIDERATIONS 16. Pseudo-Pressure (pp)

15-16: PSEUDO-PRESSURE
Gas properties vary with pressure:
• Z-factor (Pseudo-Pressure, Figures 15 & 16)
• Viscosity (Pseudo-Pressure & Pseudo-Time, Figures
15, 16 & 18)
• Compressibility (Pseudo-Time, Figures 17 & 18)

• Pseudo-pressure corrects for changing viscosity and

Z-factor with pressure.
• In all equations for liquid, replace pressure (p) with
pseudo-pressure (pp).

Note: For gas,

41-43: HORIZONTAL WELL TYPE CURVES

17. Gas Compressibility Variation 17-18: PSEUDO-TIME 18. Pseudo-Time (ta) 41. Blasingame: Integral-Derivative 42. Blasingame: Integral-Derivative 43. Blasingame: Integral-Derivative
• Compressibility represents energy in reservoir.
• Gas compressibility is strong function of pressure
(especially at LOW PRESSURES).
• Ignoring compressibility variation can result in
significant error in original gas-in-place (G) calculation.
• Pseudo-time(ta) corrects for changing viscosity and
compressibility with pressure.
• Pseudo-time calculation is ITERATIVE because it
depends on μg and ct at average reservoir pressure,
and average reservoir pressure depends on G (usually
known).

Note: Pseudo-time in build-up testing is evaluated at well

flowing pressure NOT at average reservoir pressure.
2008 Fekete Associates Inc. Printed in Canada

19-22: FLOWING 44-45: WATER-DRIVE

19. Oil: Flowing Material Balance
MATERIAL BALANCE 20. Gas: Determination of bpss 44. Blasingame: Rate TYPE CURVES 45. Agarwal-Gardner: Rate

Oil Infinite Aquifer

Reservoir

• Mobility ratio (M) represents the strength of the aquifer.

Note: bpss is the inverse of productivity index and is k aq μ res
constant during boundary-dominated flow. M
kres μ aq
Copyright

Gas
• M = 0 is equivalent to Radial Type Curves (Figures
25-32).

21. Gas: Flowing Material Balance 22. Procedure to Calculate Gas-In-Place

a semi-major axis of ellipse k

h horizontal permeability q Ddi dimensionless rate integral xf fracture half length
A area k
res reservoir permeability q Ddid dimensionless rate integral-derivative ye reservoir width
b hyperbolic decline exponent or k
v vertical permeability q i initial flow rate yw well location in y-direction
SUMMARY: semi-minor axis of ellipse K constant Q cumulative production Z gas deviation factor
b dimensionless parameter L horizontal well length Q dimensionless cumulative production Z gas deviation factor at
• Uses flowing data. No shut-in required.
Dpss

b
pss inverse of productivity index M mobility ratio re
Dd

exterior radius of reservoir average reservoir pressure

• Applicable to oil and gas. B formation volume factor N original oil-in-place r dimensionless exterior radius of reservoir Zi initial gas deviation factor
α
eD

B initial gas formation volume factor N p oil cumulative production rw wellbore radius constant
φ
gi
• Determines hydrocarbon-in-place, N or G. B oil formation volume factor p pressure r apparent wellbore radius porosity
μ
o wa

B p s viscosity
• Oil (N): Direct calculation. oi initial oil formation volume factor average reservoir pressure skin
μaq aquifer fluid viscosity
c gas compressibility p reference pressure S initial gas saturation
μg
g O gi
• Gas (G): Iterative calculation because of pseudo-time. c total compressibility p dimensionless pressure S initial oil saturation gas viscosity
μg
t D oi

c total compressibility at average reservoir pressure p dimensionless pressure derivative t flow time gas viscosity at average
• Simple yet powerful. t

D nominal decline rate

Dd

p dimensionless pressure integral t pseudo-time reservoir pressure

μo
Di a

• Data readily available (wellhead pressure can be D effective decline rate p dimensionless pressure integral-derivative t material balance time oil viscosity
μres
e Did c

D initial nominal decline rate p initial reservoir pressure t material balance pseudo-time reservoir fluid viscosity
converted to bottomhole pressure). i i ca

F CD dimensionless fracture conductivity p

p pseudo-pressure t
D dimensionless time
• Supplements static material balance. G original gas-in-place p
p pseudo-pressure at average reservoir pressure t
DA dimensionless time Oil field units; q (MMSCFD); t (days)
g

• Ideal for low permeability reservoirs. G p gas cumulative production p

pi initial pseudo-pressure t
Dd dimensionless time
G pa pseudo-cumulative production p
pwf pseudo-pressure at well flowing pressure t
Dxf dimensionless time
h net pay p
wf well flowing pressure t
Dye dimensionless time
k permeability q flow rate T reservoir temperature
k
aq aquifer permeability q
D dimensionless rate w fracture width
k
f fracture permeability q
Dd dimensionless rate xe reservoir length

All analyses described can be performed using Fekete’s Rate Transient Analysis software