Example 1: Tight Gas Well, Piceance Basin, Colorado

Objectives:
1. Evaluate reserves, forecast production
2. Determine effective drainage area
3. Determine permeability and fracture half-length

Background:
Reservoir- Region consists of multiple stacked producing horizons, each with
many individual producing “lenses”. Most of these localized layers are not
continuous over the field.

Completion- Well is completed and fracture stimulated in multiple stages over the
gross perforated interval, which is about 300 feet, top to bottom. Tubing is
landed above the top perforations at 8,400 feet.

Production- Well produces gas, water and condensate through 2 3/8 inch tubing
to a surface separator. Tubing pressure measurements are recorded
electronically and averaged daily. Fifteen months of daily production and flowing
pressures are provided.

Instructions:
Setting up the file

1. Use the ASCII Import functionality in F.A.S.T. RTA to import the

“Example 1.csv” file.

2. Enter the following reservoir and fluid properties on the “Quick Props”
page
 Bottom Hole Pi = 5272 psi
 Reservoir Temperature (TR) = 170 degrees F
 Net Producing Interval (h) = 303.5 feet
 Wellbore Radius (rw) = 0.167 feet
 Porosity = 8.97 %
 Initial Water Saturation (Sw) = 29%
 Gas Gravity = 0.627
 Carbon dioxide = 0.55 %
 Nitrogen = 0.25 %
 Oil density = 30 API

3. Enter the following wellbore properties on the “Wellbore” page

 Pressure Source = Tubing
 Producing Through = Tubing
 Fluid Used for Static Calc. = Gas
 MPP = 8,787 feet
  Tubing ID = 1.995 inches, Tubing OD = 2.375 inches
 Tubing Depth = 8,439 feet
 Casing ID = 4 inches
 Casing Depth=9010 feet
 Wellhead Flowing Temperature = 72.8 degrees F
 Wellhead Static Temperature = 70 degrees F

4. Under “pressure loss correlation” tab, choose Gray and click the
“Calculate” button to convert surface pressures to bottomhole pressures.
(Note: since the pressure source is through tubing, the pressure
calculations will include both hydrostatic and friction components)

5. The well is now ready for analysis. View the production / pressure data on
the “Raw Data” plot and check for continuity and rate / pressure
correlation.

Analyzing the Well Performance

Traditional:
1. Determine the “best fit” hyperbolic decline curve (adjust the “b” value
and decline parameters manually / on-screen, until you achieve a
visually satisfactory curve fit)
a. What is the EUR?
b. What is the duration of the production forecast?
2. Use an exponential decline to fit the last ~20% of the data set.
a. What is the EUR?

Fetkovich:
1. Perform type curve match
a. What qualitative conclusions can you draw?
b. What is the optimum reD match?
c. What is the optimum b match?
d. What is the EUR?
e. Are there any alternative interpretations?

Blasingame
1. Filter the data
a. Use the “magic wand/median filter” automatic filter to hide errant
data points
2. Perform type curve match, use the “Fracture” , ”Finite Cond Fracture”
and “Elliptical Flow” Models
a. What qualitative conclusions can you draw?
b. What is the optimum reD match?
c. What is the OGIP?
 d. What permeability and fracture half-length have you
interpreted?
e. Are there any alternative interpretations?
f. What is the quality of the type curve match?

Agarwal Gardner / NPI:

1. Perform type curve match, use the “Fracture Model”
a. What qualitative conclusions can you draw?
b. What is the optimum reD match?
c. What is the OGIP?
d. What permeability and fracture half-length have you interpreted?
e. Are there any alternative interpretations?
f. What is the quality of the type curve match?

Flowing Material Balance:

1. Perform a “best fit” match of the last ~10% of the data set
2. What is the OGIP?
3. What is the drainage area?
4. Is this a minimum OGIP or a fixed volume OGIP?

Transient:
1. Select the Finite Conductivity Fracture model
2. Match the data using an FCD of 5 and an xeD of 2
3. What permeability and xf have you interpreted?
4. What is the quality of the type curve match?

Comparison of Interpretations:
1. Click on the “Results Summary” button on the main toolbar
2. Identify and explain any inconsistencies.
3. After comparison of the different methods, decide on a “best”
interpretation and provide a description as follows:
a. Is the well draining a fixed volume?
b. What is the effective fracture length?
c. What is the permeability
d. What are the expected reserves and OGIP?

Analytical Models:
1. Input the results of your interpretation into the Fracture model and
evaluate the resulting history match. Tip: you can approximate a
pressure loss in the fracture using the “choke skin” (sc) parameter-
start with a value of ~0.1 and increase from there.
a. What is the quality of the history match? (remember to use both
the linear history plot and the type curve match)
b. Can it be improved?
Forecasting:
1. Select the Fracture Model from the “Available Models” list
2. Set the flowing pressure to 516 psia, forecast period to 240 months (10 y)
and the Abandonment rate to 0.05 MMscfd.
3. Read the final cumulative value from the forecast table. This is the EUR.
a. How does the analytical EUR compare to the Traditional methods?
b. How could you use RTA to constrain a Traditional (Arps) decline
curve forecast?
Advanced Analysis
On detailed inspection of the data and models, it becomes evident that this well
may not be draining a completely closed system. This is evident after
experimenting with different boundary configurations in the model, and by looking
at the shape of the type curve response (extended transition region).

Two alternative interpretations may be explored for this well. The standard
Fractured well in a bounded reservoir is one, but the reservoir and completion
data suggests that there may be some multi-layer behavior also. For these
exercises, go to “Options/Pseudo Time” and check the “ Use Corrected Pseudo-
time(Models Only)”

Fracture Model:
 Invoke the “Boundaries” option in the Fracture model
 Change the shape of the outer drainage are so that it has a 2:1
aspect ratio in the x:y direction
 Model a boundary (fault) in close proximity in the y direction
 Extend the x boundary (xe) to 500, 1000, 5000 and 10000 feet.
Determine the minimum reservoir size.

Multi-layer Model:
 Use all three layers
 Assume h/3 for each layer thickness
 To start, select permeability and skin values similar to those
observed in the typecurve match.
 Use the “auto” functionality to optimize the match based on k, s
and OGIP for all three layers (9 parameter variable optimization)

Questions:
 How does additional contacted OGIP translate into recoverable
reserves, in this case?
 How unique are these advanced model history matches?
Answers:

Traditional:

1.

2.
Fetkovich:

a. Decline behavior is highly strongly hyperbolic, transient response is

non-unique
b. reD match is non-unique
c. b value is harmonic or higher

Blasingame / Agarwal Gardner / NPI:

Fracture cleanup or
finite conductivity

Transition to
boundary dominated
flow
 3. Perform type curve match, use the “Fracture Model”
a. Well shows cleanup, fracture flow, followed by an extended
transition into boundary dominated flow. Note: boundary
dominated flow has not been confirmed

Basingame: Finite Cond Fracture / Elliptical flow

By matching on FcD of 5 and re/xf of 2, the early data points yield a better match
and the early time mismatch can be associated with finite conductivity effect
rather than a clean up effect.
Matching with typecurve parameter values close to Finite Conductivity Fracture,
the calculated values for transient parameters and OGIP would be very close to
previous models. Note that the two dimensions of the Elliptical drainage area
(a&b) are very close which is an indication of a drainage area closer in shape to
a circle rather than full ellipse. Also pay attention to penetration ratio Xf/a which
implies the same fact
Flowing Material Balance

OGIP appears to be a
minimum. FMB
shows curvature.

Transient
Comparison of Interpretations:

The primary inconsistency is the disconnect between hyperbolic decline curve

analysis and the modern methods. The modern methods show a much more
reliable interpretation, with less uncertainty.

A satisfactory interpretation, given the available data is as follows:

Finite conductivity fractured well draining a limited system that may or may not be
enclosed (tank-like). There is potential for some pressure support, especially
given the multi-layer nature of the completion. The minimum OGIP is in the order
of 1.3 to 1.5 bcf. Permeability and fracture length are in the order of 0.005 md
and 250 feet, respectively (based on FCD type curve match). The effective
drainage area (equivalent of the entire contacted volume) is less than 6 acres.
However, certain layers may be draining more and some may be draining less.

Analytical Models:

Forecasting:
4. Select the Fracture Model from the “Available Models” list
5. Set the flowing pressure to 516 psia, forecast period to 240 months (10 y)
and the Abandonment rate to 0.05 MMscfd.
6. Read the final cumulative value from the forecast table. This is the EUR.
a. How does the analytical EUR compare to the Traditional methods?
 b. How could you use RTA to constrain a Traditional (Arps) decline
curve forecast?

Advanced Analysis

Fracture Model:

In working with this model, you will notice that the history match is insensitive to
changes in xe beyond the minimum (shown above). This suggests that the well
may be draining a reservoir whose full area has not yet been contacted. Try
running production forecasts for several of these models. You will see that the
addition of OGIP, in this case, does not necessarily translate to the addition of
reserves.

Multi-Layer Model:
The multi-layer solution shown here is non-unique. There are other combinations
of parameters that will yield a satisfactory match. See if you can identify them.
Note that layer 3 may be increased to any OGIP desired without affecting the
quality of the match. To reduce the amount of non-uniqueness in “advanced
modeling”, more data are required. For example, production logs (4D), indicating
how layer contributions are changing over time could be used to constrain the
multi-layer history matching problem.

As with the fracture model, the multi-layer model suggests limited additional
reserve potential, even though the size of the contacted drainage area can be
arbitrarily increased.