Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
Tight gas reservoirs present unique challenges to the reservoir
engineer. Applying classical reservoir engineering techniques
to these reservoirs is problematic due to the length of time
required to reach pseudo-steady state flow and/or establish a
constant drainage area. This leads to an inability to accurately
estimate the recoverable reserves in a timely and consistent
manner. This paper focuses on reserve estimation techniques
for tight gas reservoirs.
Both decline curves and material balance methods were
found to have serious drawbacks when applied to tight gas
reservoirs that had not established a constant drainage area.
Gas production analysis (GPA) utilizing a combination of the
decline curves and material balance in conjunction with
classical pressure transient analysis was found to be more
accurate in determining reserves.
Introduction
For the purposes of this paper, gas reservoirs with a
permeability less than 0.1 md are considered tight gas
reservoirs. When tight gas reservoirs are produced, a
significant amount of time is required before the pressure
transient is affected by all the boundaries of the reservoir,
which can often take years. This length of time is the
principle reason why the determination of reserves for tight
gas reservoirs is problematic. Tight gas reservoirs appear to be
more heterogeneous than systems with higher permeability.
Relatively small changes in permeability can result in
uneconomical flow rates from a given well while the same
percentage variations in higher permeability systems would
result in little or no change in well performance.
Exponential
Hyperbolic
(for 0<b<1)
q( t ) =
Harmonic
(for b=1)
q( t ) =
q(i )
(1+ bDi t )
1/ b
q( i )
(1 + Di t )
G p (t ) =
q( i )
1
q( t ) +
Di
Di
q(bi ) (1 b )
q
G p (t ) =
q((i1) b )
D (b 1) (t )
i
G p (t ) = 2.303
q( i )
Di
[log q
(i )
log q(t )
V f = c f ( Pi P)
t pss =
ct A
(t DA ) pss .... (1)
0.006328k
ct = S w c w + (1 S w )c g + c f .. (2)
In order to properly apply equation 1, the fluid properties and
system compressibility must be determined at the average
reservoir pressure. If equation 1 is evaluated at initial
conditions, the time to pseudo-steady state will be
underestimated. However, the assumption of initial conditions
has been found to provide a good first order approximation of
the time required to reach BDF and thus establish a constant
drainage area.
Material Balance
Material balance can be used to understand a reservoirs past
performance and predict future performance.
These
calculations are based on the premise that the void created in
the reservoir through the production of reservoir fluids is
immediately and completely filled by the expansion of the
remaining fluids and rock. Equation 3 represents the general
material balance equation for gas reservoirs including water
and rock compressibility and aquifer influx2.
GBgi = (G GP ) Bg + VW + V f + (We W p ) Bw ..(3)
= c
( PI P )
wi
GB
1 Swi
gi
...(4)
GBgi ......(5)
1 Swi
SPE 78695
p pi G p
= 1
z z i
G
..(6)
t Dxf =
0.006328kt
3 ..(7)
c t x 2f
SPE 78695
(c )
(c )
q (t )dt
=
q(t ) ( p )c ( p )
q(t )
g i
g i
z i Gi
[m( p )] .(8)
2 pi
QDA =
4.5Tz i Gi m( p )
t DA
=
. (9)
p wD
hApi m( p )
p wD =
khm( p )
. (10)
1422Tq (t )
t DA =
0.006328kt
... (11)
(ct )i A
This equation will only equal 1/2 once the average pressure
in the system equals the bottom hole flowing pressure.
The assumptions of gas production analysis are the same as
those of traditional pressure transient analysis. The accuracy
and frequency with which production and pressure data is
gathered is the major limitation on the successful application
of production analysis. Insufficient rate and pressure data
though the transient period limits the accuracy of the analysis.
To correctly generate the time function requires that the
volumetric gas material balance equation be valid. This will
not be the case for strong water drives, changing fluid
saturations and non-sealing boundaries.
Simulation Cases
Two simulation cases were constructed and used as a control
set to test the accuracy of each analytical method. Each case
represents a single well system producing from a single layer.
The parameters that remained constant for both cases are
summarized in Table 2. Production forecasts from each model
were based on a constant flowing tubing pressure of 100 psia.
Reserve estimates were made after ninety days, one hundred
eighty days, one year, three years and after the well had
established BDF from decline curve techniques and the gas
production analysis technique. A minimum rate of 30 Mcf/D
or a maximum productive life of thirty years limited the
recoveries projected by each method.
In order to evaluate the material balance technique each model
was produced at a constant tubing pressure of 100 psia for
three years. Each model was shut-in once a year for 24 hours,
7 days and finally for a sufficient time to reach the average
reservoir pressure. The following is a summary of the results
for each simulation case.
Simulation Case 1
Simulation case 1 represents a single well producing from the
center of a 640-acre square reservoir. The model was
initialized with a gas in place of 16,415 MMscf. The ultimate
recovery, based on an abandonment rate of 30 Mcf/D,
predicted by the simulator was 13,859 MMcf after 212 years
of production. Producing time to reach BDF was estimated
from equation 1 for this system and found to be 1,807 days
assuming rock and fluid properties at initial conditions.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the rate-time decline curve
analysis and the production analysis techniques for this
system. The simulator projects a thirty-year recovery of 6,667
MMcf. The exponential and harmonic declines underestimate
recoverable reserves, while the hyperbolic decline
overestimates the recovery projected by the simulator. The
10,000
5,000
10.0
40
42.8
0.65
1.05
Reservoir Temperature, F
225
3E-6
3E-6
0.05
200
500
SPE 78695
Table 3
Time
Exponential Hyperbolic Harmonic
GPA
Days
MMscf
MMscf
MMscf
MMscf
90
596
7,016
1,773
1,120
180
1,109
7,325
2,267
3,020
365
2,119
7,576
3,598
6,090
1,095
5,569
7,775
5,061
6,158
After BDF
6,757
Na
Na
6,694
Simulation 30 year recovery 6,667 MMscf
The material balance calculations are summarized graphically
on Figure 29. These results highlight the importance of
ensuring that an accurate average pressure is obtained before
attempting to perform material balance calculations. The P/z
analysis was performed by placing a best-fit line through the
three data points, ignoring the initial pressure. The results for
the 24 hour shut-in case and the 7 day case both project an inplace volume of 6.0 BCF. The shut-in time required for the
well bottom hole pressure to equal the average reservoir
pressure ranged from 19 to 21 years.
Simulation Case 2
Simulation case 2 represents a single well producing from the
center of a 600 feet wide channel draining a 160 acre
reservoir. The model was initialized with an initial gas in
place of 4,112 MMcf. The ultimate recovery, based on an
abandonment rate of 30 Mscf/D, predicted by the simulator
was 2,807 MMcf after 81 years of production. Producing
time to reach BDF estimated from equation 1 was 5,467 days,
assuming rock and fluid properties at initial conditions.
Table 4 summarizes the results of the rate-time decline curve
analysis and the production analysis techniques for this
system. The model projects a thirty-year recovery of 1,892
MMscf. The exponential and harmonic declines underestimate
recoverable reserves, while the hyperbolic decline approaches
the actual recoverable reserves if the forecast is limited to a
thirty-year time period. The b factors for the hyperbolic
decline ranged from 1 and 2 for this case. In each case, the
wells production performance appears to have established a
reasonable decline. However, the resulting forecasts could not
accurately predict the wells recoverable reserves. A final
decline curve analysis was performed on the data set after the
well had produced beyond the time required to reach BDF.
The resulting forecast can be fit with an annual exponential
decline rate of 3.3% and projects a recoverable reserve of
2,367 MMscf, which is 25% above the simulation results.
Figures 9 through 12 present graphically the results of the
decline curve analysis for selected cases.
GPA results are consistently higher than the results obtained
from an exponential decline technique. The results of the 180day case are presented as Figures 13 and 14. Figure 13 is the
type curve match of the daily production data. The type curve
match indicates that this well is in linear flow and has not
SPE 78695
established a constant drainage area. The resulting gas-inplace shown on Figure 14 represents a minimum drained
volume. The effective drained area in the system will
continue to increase until boundary dominated conditions have
been established. Once the well has established a constant
drainage area, the gas production analysis technique will result
in a gas in place estimate consistent with the simulation
results, from which a recoverable volume can then be
estimated. Figures 15 and 16 show the final GPA results.
The values included in Table 4 for the GPA analysis represent
the effective drained volume for the first four cases and a
thirty-year projected recovery based on the final analysis.
Table 4
Time
Exponential Hyperbolic Harmonic
GPA
Days
MMscf
MMscf
MMscf
MMscf
90
130
1,540
862
480
180
448
1,720
942
680
365
630
1,794
1,073
950
1,095
1,132
1,867
1,509
1,650
After BDF
2,367
Na
Na
1,877
Simulation 30 year recovery 1,892 MMscf
The material balance calculations are summarized graphically
on Figure 30. These results highlight the importance of
ensuring that an accurate average pressure be obtained before
attempting to perform material balance calculations. The P/z
analysis was performed by placing a best-fit line through the
three data points, ignoring the initial reservoir pressure. The
results for the 24-hour case and the 7 day shut-in cases both
project an in-place volume of 1.2 BCF (29% of the actual gas
in-place). The shut-in time required for the wells bottom hole
pressure to equal the average reservoir pressure ranged from
115 to 138 years.
Field case 1
This well is producing from a sandstone reservoir at a depth of
7,700 feet with an average porosity of 8%, water saturation of
40% and net pay of 94 feet. The initial reservoir pressure was
4,060 psia. The well was fracture stimulated upon initial
completion and had an initial production rate of approximately
5.0 MMscf/D. Transient analysis indicates an effective gas
permeability of 0.03 md and an effective fracture half-length
of 160 feet. This well has a cumulative production of 360
MMscf after approximately one year of production.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the rate-time decline curve
analysis and the production analysis techniques for this well.
Ultimate recoveries from decline curve analysis techniques
were limited by an economic limit of 30 Mscf/D or thirtyyears of production. The b factors for the hyperbolic decline
ranged between 1.89 and 0.64. Figure 17 presents graphically
the results of the 322-day decline curve analysis.
Time
Days
90
180
322
Table 5
Exponential Hyperbolic
MMscf
MMscf
282
2,077
400
Na
400
516
Harmonic
MMscf
785
664
685
GPA
MMscf
400
580
650
Time
Days
90
180
365
1,374
Table 6
Exponential Hyperbolic
MMscf
MMscf
2,701
Na
2,845
Na
4,304
12,315
5,401
8,216
Harmonic
MMscf
8,363
7,208
4,085
7,595
GPA
MMscf
3,670
4,630
6,060
7,270
Time
Days
90
180
365
1,399
Table 7
Exponential Hyperbolic Harmonic
MMscf
MMscf
MMscf
1,242
Na
4,115
1,680
Na
4,154
2,446
Na
5,596
4,354
7,837
6,601
GPA
MMscf
2,500
4,260
5,510
6,081
SPE 78695
Time
Days
90
180
490
Table 8
Exponential Hyperbolic
MMscf
MMscf
556
4,871
932
3,599
1,150
4,261
Harmonic
MMscf
1,612
1,629
2,447
GPA
MMscf
870
1,230
2,200
2.
3.
SPE 78695
4.
5.
Acknowledgments
We thank the management of Marathon Oil Company for
permission to print this article. Thanks to Emery Petrof III
for constructing the simulation cases. Acknowledgment is due
to various colleagues for providing production data for the
field cases.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft
b = Arps decline curve constant
Bg = gas formation volume factor, RB/Mscf
5.
6.
7.
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Simulation Data
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Simulation Data
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Time to BDF
Jan-08
Jan-09
Simulation Data
100
Jan-02
1000
10000
Jan-03
Simulationl Data
100
Jan-02
1000
10000
100
Jan-02
1000
10000
100
Jan-02
1000
10000
8
SPE 78695
0.001
tDA
0.01
0.1
10
0.001
tDA
0.01
0.1
10
100
100
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Simulation
Analytical
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Simulation
Analytical
Gas in Place = 16.23 BCF - Equivalent Area 638 acres - Post BDF
0.16
0.02
Gas in Place = 3.02 BCF - Equivalent Area 119 acres - 180 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0001
Simulation pwD
Simulation pwD'
Analytical pwD
Analytical pwD'
0.01
0.000001 0.00001
0.1
10
100
0.0001
Simulation PwD
Simulation PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.01
0.000001 0.00001
0.1
10
100
1/PwD
1/PwD
PwD or PwD'
PwD or PwD'
SPE 78695
9
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Simulation Data
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Simulation Data
Jan-04
Jan-06
Jan-08
Jan-10
Jan-12
Jan-14
Jan-16
Jan-18
Simulation Data
10
Jan-02
100
1000
10000
100
Jan-02
1000
10000
100
Jan-02
1000
10000
Jan-03
Simulation Data
100
Jan-02
1000
10000
10
SPE 78695
0.001
TDA
0.01
0.1
10
0.001
tDA
0.01
0.1
10
0.0001
Simulation PwD
Simulation PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.01
0.000001 0.00001
0.1
10
100
0.0001
Simulation PwD
Simulation PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.01
0.000001 0.00001
0.1
10
100
100
100
1/PwD
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Simulation
Analytical
0.02
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
Gas in Place = 4.06 BCF - Equivalent Area 160 acres - Post BDF
0.14
Simulation
Analytical
0.16
1/PwD
PwD or PwD'
PwD or PwD'
SPE 78695
11
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
0.02
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Jan-07
Simulation
Analytical
Jan-02
Field Data
0.001
tDA
0.01
0.1
10
0.0001
Actual PwD
Actual PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.01
0.000001 0.00001
0.1
10
100
100
10
Jan-01
100
1000
10000
1/PwD
12
SPE 78695
PwD or PwD'
1/PwD
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
0.02
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Simulation
Analytical
Jan-99
0.16
Jan-07
Field Data
100
Jan-98
1000
10000
100000
0.01
0.0001
0.1
10
100
1000
0.01
tDA
0.1
10
0.001
Actual PwD
Actual PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
100
SPE 78695
RESERVE ANALYSIS FOR TIGHT GAS
13
PwD or PwD'
0.0
1.0
Jan-99
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
0.02
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
Jan-06
0.14
0.16
Jan-07
Simulation
Analytical
Jan-98
Field Data
0.001
0.01
tDA
0.1
10
Actual PwD
Actual PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.10
0.0001
1.00
10.00
100.00
100
100
Jan-97
1000
10000
1/PwD
14
SPE 78695
PwD or PwD'
0.0
0.5
1.0
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
0.02
0.04
0.06
QDA
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Jan-07
Simulation
Analytical
Jan-01
Field Data
100
Jan-00
1000
10000
1/PwD
0.01
0.000001
0.1
10
100
0.0001
0.001
tDA
0.01
0.1
10
0.00001
Actual PwD
Actual PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
100
SPE 78695
RESERVE ANALYSIS FOR TIGHT GAS
15
PwD or PwD'
P/z (psia)
P/z (psia)
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
3
Gp (BCF)
1000
1500
2500
Gp (Bcf)
2000
3000
3500
4000
2
Gp (BCF)
8 day shut-in
1 day shut-in
Intial
500
Initial Pressure
Simulation Average Pressure
7-day final shut-in pressure
1-day final shut-in presure
4500
27 day shut-in
4000
14 day shut-in
8 day shut-in
6000
8000
2000
2 day shut-in
1 day shut-in
Initial
2000
4000
6000
8000
Gp (Bcf)
4000
2000
1000
1000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2000
Initial Pressure
Simulation Average Pressure
7-day final shut-in pressure
1-day final shut-in presure
P/z (psia)
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
P/z (psia)
16
SPE 78695