SPE 70017

Quantitative Analysis of Deliverability, Decline Curve, and Pressure Tests in CO2 Rich
Reservoirs
Sarfraz A. Jokhio/Mehran U. of Eng. & Tech. Jamshoro, Djebbar Tiab/U. of Oklahoma, and
Freddy H. Escobar/U. Surcolombiana

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

Analysis of field as well as simulated examples
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery resulted an absolute error range of 13-75% in the
Conference held in Midland, Texas, 15–16 May 2001.
permeability estimation in pressure tests, 77% in
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
deliverability tests, and 20-95% with pressure derivative.
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Error in AOF was observed as 15% and as high as 32 %
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at in reserve estimation.
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Introduction
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 The High energy (Temperature and Pressure)
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
environment and the presence of Oxygen rich compound
turned many of the hydrocarbon reservoirs into CO2 rich
reservoirs. Such reservoirs usually are of low
Abstract commercial value due to higher concentration of sour
This paper investigates the effect of higher concentrations (0- gases. Fig.1 shows the existence of CO2 rich reservoirs
100%) of CO2, H2S, and N2 on natural gas well deliverability, in United States. Texas, New Mexico, Colorado,
reserve estimation, and pressure test analysis quantitatively. Mississippi, Wyoming, and Utah are the states with
Physical properties of natural gases such as viscosity and abundance of this natural resource.
compressibility are corrected according to the concentrations Two major consumers of CO2 are the Chemical and
of the contaminant gases such as CO2, N2, and H2S present in Petroleum industries. Due to its miscibility in both water
it. These contaminant gases have profound impact on and oil, CO2 has found its niche in EOR operations of
pressure test analysis. The Carr et all1 viscosity correction miscible flooding. However, the potential for CO2
chart allows adjusting the viscosity up to 15% concentration flooding and its other application will be significant if it
of these contaminant gases. However, Wichert and Aziz2 is found in enough quantity. Thus, its use and production
compressibility correction chart allows up to 80% as a natural resource requires the development of
concentration of the CO2 and H2S. engineering techniques to analyze such reservoirs
Tiab3 developed an analytical method to estimate effectively.
pseudopressure function for 0-100% combined-concentration
of CO2, H2S, and N2. His pseudopressure was first re-plotted
to simplify the procedure and then it was used to analyze the
deliverability, pressure tests, and decline curves
quantitatively. The analysis was performed with Carr et all1
viscosity correction chart, pure CO2 properties, and then with
Tiab's corrected pseudopressure. Pure CO2 properties were
used due to the fact that the sample data has 98.256% CO2.
During this study it was observed that the compressibility
factor has a little effect on analysis since it is a volume-
related property. Viscosity, however, has the largest effect on
the analysis since pressure is transmitted through the fluid in Fig.1. Wells Producing CO2 Rich Natural Gas in
the porous media and viscosity works against it. It was also The United States4.
observed that the numerical method of calculating
pseudopressure function introduced successive error in the
analysis. Number of pressure data points also contributed to
the error in numerical integration of the pseudo-
pressure function.
 2 S. A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, F. H. ESCOBAR SPE 70017

Literature Survey Tpc = Tpc − ε 3

'
...........…………………….......(5)
Carr et al.6 (1954) introduced the viscosity correction
charts for Natural gas due to the presence of contaminant p pc T pc
gases, CO2, H2S, and N2. Their co-relation allows p ' pc = ..…......…………….……(6)
correcting the Natural gas viscosity up to 15% T pc + H (1 − H )ε 3
concentration of CO2, H2S, and N2. Where T’pc = adjusted pseudo-critical temperature
Wichert and Aziz10 published the compressibility p’pc = adjusted pseudo-critical pressure
correction of natural gas due to presence of CO2 and H2S H = mole fraction of H2S
up to 80 percent.
Robinson and Macrygeorgos7 (1960) studied the
ε3=120(Co0.9-Co1.6)+15(H0.5 H4)…………………...........(7)
and Co is the sum of mole fractions of CO2 and H2S.
effects of presence of CO2 and H2S on the volumetric
behavior of Natural gas.
Gas Compressibility
Ramey and Al-Hussainy2 (1966) first introduced the
Gas deviation factor for sour gas mixture can be
concept of pseudopressure function that accounts for the
corrected using Robinson et all7 correlation.
dependence of real gas compressibility and viscosity on
pressure.
Zana and Thomas5 (1970) investigated the effects of z ( p pr )
z c ( p pr ) = ...................…………….….…...(8)
contaminant gases on flow of real gases. They developed β
the pseudo pressure function by etrapolating the
correction values using Carr et al. chart. Their
pseudopressure allows the correction up to 60% Where β is the correction factor. Robinson et al7 have
combined concentration of CO2, H2S, and N2. provided several curves of correction factor for various
Gopal9 converted the natural gas compressibility combinations of contaminants as a function of pseudo-
charts into simple algebraic equations that can be used reduced pressure and temperature. They used Standing and
for computer application. Katz charts8 to evaluate Z(ppr). Unfortunately, these β
Tiab4 (1984) studied the effect of various values are not available for higher concentrations of CO2,
concentrations (0-100%) of CO2, H2S, and N2 on the furthermore, the Standing-Katz charts are too tedious for
pressure test analysis and introduced a simple analytical computer generation of m(ppr). Gopal9 correlations for
method to calculate pseudo pressure for 10-100% calculating z(ppr) were used in this study.
combined concentration of CO2, H2S, and N2.
z ( p pr ) = p pr (G1Tpr + G2 ) + G3 Tpr + G4 .............…..(9)
Mathematical Models Used in the Study
Due to their analytical nature and simplicity for Where G1, G2, G3, G4 are Gopal constants for various
computer use, following correlation were selected. ranges of pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature. Values
of G1, G2, G3, and G4 are given in Ref.9. Gopal correlation
Viscosity is non-iterative and is easily adaptable for hand calculations.
Carr et al viscosity chart is the most widely used in oil This correlation not only duplicates the gas deviation factor
and gas industry. It is tedious in nature and does not chart of Standing-Katz but also predicts the z-factor beyond
provide viscosity values for reduced pressure values less the range of the chart.
than 1. Lee correlation, however, is analytical in nature
and is therefore chosen for the computer algorithms. Gas Density
µ = 10−4 1exp ( X 2 ρ X 3 ).X1 .........……..………..(1) For density estimation, as a function pressure, we used the
Where ρ is the gas density in g/cc and µ is the gas following relationship.
viscosity in cp.
MP
(9.4 + 0.02 M )T 1.5 ρ = ………………………………………..….…(10)
X1 = ................……..……....(2) RT
209 + 19 M + T
where T is in oR, ρ is in lb/cu ft, P in psia, R is 10.732 psia-
986 cuft/(lb-mole-oR).
X 2 = 3.5 + + 0.01M ...............…..………...(3)
T Pseudo Pressure Function
X 3 = 2.4 − 0.2 X 2 .....................….....……..……...(4) Pseudo-pressure function, m(P), which considers the
pressure dependence of viscosity and gas deviation factor
for real gas is given as2
Pseudo-Critical Properties
Pseudo-Critical temperature and pressure for gas p
mixtures are corrected using Wichert and pdp
Aziz10correlation. m( p) = 2 ∫ .....…………………........(11)
pm
µ ( p ) z ( p )
 SPE 70017 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DELIVERABILITY, DECLINE CURVE, AND PRESSURE TESTS IN CO2 RICH RESERVOIRS 3

where Pm is some base pressure. There are two common

m( p pr ) = ( M c + M r ) p pr .……………...............(15)
2
methods to convert pressure data to pseudo-pressure. One by
using m(P) tables provided by Al-Hussainy and Ramey, other Where Mc is the CO2 concentration correlation factor
method is by estimating µ and Z values at given pressure given by:
6
data and integral is then evaluated numerically. Since all gas
properties are defined in terms of pseudo-reduced pressure and M c = ∑ C j (Co + 1) j −1 .........……………………..(16)
temperature, Eq.11 can be written as4: j =1

C pr
2
2 p pc Tpr p pr dp pr M r = 0.5( − 1) ..............………………………..(17)
p pr
m( p) =
µa ∫ µ
.............…....(12)
Co is the mole fraction of CO2, N2, and H2S. The
( p pr ) z ( p pr )Tpr
µa pseudo-pressure correlation factor, Cpr was then
calculated using following equation given by Tiab4:
Where µa is gas viscosity at 1 atm (14.7 psi). To establish a
relationship between m(P) and Ppr , the integral was evaluated 2m( p pr )
numerically for various isotherms. Lower limit of the integral
C pr = − 2 M c Ppr + Ppr ........…………....(18)
p pr
may be set arbitrarily at any convenient reference pressure. Al-
Hussainy and Ramey evaluated the integral in Eq. (12) using Pseudo-pressure function, m(P) for CO2 now can directly
lower limit of pressure as 0.2. To evaluate m(P) for natural be calculated using following relationship4
gases containing contaminants such as CO2, H2S, and N2, it is 2 Mt 2
m( p) = p .....................………………………(19)
necessary to make corrections to the viscosity and gas deviation µa
factor. Therefore, Eq. 12 can be expressed as4
Where Mt is the total reduced property correlation factor
given by4
µ ac
m( p pr ) = m( p) .................……………….….(13) M t = ( M c + M r )Tpr ............……………………..(20)
2 p pc 2 Tpr
Using all above equations Mt charts were develped. (Fig.
Where µac is the corrected viscosity at atmospheric 2a through k). To avoid the error in reading these charts,
pressure. Substituting Eq. 12 in Eq 13, one gets the range of interest can be plotted on large scale. Eq.19 is
then used to convert the pressure values to pseudopressure.
p pr
p pr dp pr
m( p pr ) = ∫ µ
.….....…............(14) Analysis
Using all above mentioned models of natural gas properties
( p pr ) ( p pr ) z c ( p pr )Tpr
µa
m
and the psuedopressure function pressure drawdown,
buildup, deliverability tests and decline curve examples are
The integral in Eq.13 has been evaluated for 10-60%
analyzed as follows.
combined composition of CO2 and H2S by Zana and Thomas5
using lower limit of pseudo-reduced pressure as 1 because
Data for Moqui4 Well 2
they used Carr et al6 viscosity charts to estimate viscosity
Porosity = 0.13 Av. Res. Pressure = 2533 psig
values for gas mixture at different values of pseudo-reduced
Thickness = 86 ft Sp. Gravity = 1.518
pressures which do not provide the viscosity values for
Res. Temp.= 168oF Tpr = 1.158
Ppr < 1.
Tpc = 542.14 oR µi = 0.065 cp
Corrected Real Gas Pseudo-pressure Correlation µa = 0.0170 cp q = 8.4 MCF/D
Zana and Thomas5 provided the m(Ppr) for 10-60% of CO2, rw = 0.33 ft φ = 0.13
N2, and H2S. Tiab4 expended their work and developed ct = 2.8E-4 psi-1
m(Ppr) for 70-100% concentrations of CO2, N2, and H2S. In Gas Composition
this study first we reproduced the real gas pseudo-pressure
correlation factor from Zana and Thomas’ work. All those Mol. Wt. Mole Fraction
values of m(Ppr) were plotted and curve fitted. Second order CO2 44.01 0.98256
and third order equations where necessary, were obtained. N2 28.016 0.01606
Using those equations, m(Ppr) values for 70-100% combined CH4 16.042 0.00138
composition of H2S and CO2 were estimated which laid the Σ 1
basis of development of a complete set of corrected
pseudo-pressure function evaluation charts for 0-100%
combined composition of CO2 and H2S. Pseudo-reduced
pressure function, m(Ppr) can also be calculated with
following equation4:
4 S. A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, F. H. ESCOBAR SPE 70017

Fig.2 a through k Total Reduced Properties Correlation Factor, Mt Versus Pseudo-reduced Pressure for Various
Concentrations of CO2.

Pure CO2 CO2 = 20%

Tpr
0.5 Tpr 0.45 1.8

Total Reduced Properties

Total Reduced Properties

0.45 0.4 2

Correlation Factor, Mt
Correlation Factor, Mt

0.4 1.8 0.35 1.6

0.35 2 0.3 1.4
0.3 1.6 1.3
0.25
0.25 1.4 1.2
0.2
0.2 1.3
0.15 1.1
0.15 1.2 0.1
0.1 1.1 0.05
0.05 0
0 1 10
Pseudo-reduced Pressure, Ppr
1 10
Pseudo-reduced Pressure, Ppr

CO2=30%

Pure Methane
0.5 Tpr

Total Reduced Properies

Correlation, Factor, Mt
0.45 1.8
0.5 Tpr 0.4 2
Total reduced Properties

0.45 1.8 0.35 1.6

Correlation Factor, Mt

0.4 2
1.6 0.3 1.4
0.35 1.4 0.25 1.3
0.3 1.3 0.2 1.2
0.25 0.15
1.2 1.1
0.2 0.1
0.15 1.1 0.05
0.1 0
0.05
1 10
0
1 10 Pseudo-reducedPressure, Ppr

Pseudo-reduced Pressure, Ppr

CO2=40%
CO2 = 10%

0.5 Tpr
Total Reduced Properties

Tpr
0.45
Correlation Factor, Mt

0.45 1.8
1.8
0.4
Total Reduced Properties

0.4 2
Correlation Factor, Mt

2 0.35 1.6
0.35 1.6 0.3 1.4
0.3 1.4 0.25
0.25 1.3
1.3 0.2
0.2 1.2 0.15 1.2
0.15 1.1 0.1 1.1
0.1 0.05
0.05 0
0 1 10
1 10 Pseudo-reducedPressure, Ppr
Pseudo-reduced Pressure, Ppr
SPE 70017 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DELIVERABILITY, DECLINE CURVE, AND PRESSURE TESTS IN CO2 RICH RESERVOIRS 5

CO2 = 50% CO2 = 80%

Tpr
0.5 0.45 Tpr

Total Reduced Properties

0.45 1.8
Total Reduced Properties

1.8 0.4

Correlation Factor, Mt
Correlation Factor, Mt

2
0.4 2
0.35 1.6
0.35 Tpr
1.6
0.3 1.4
0.3 1.4
0.25 1.3
0.25 1.3 1.2
0.2
0.2 1.2
1.1
0.15
0.15 1.1
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
1 10 1 10
Pseudo-reduced Pressure, Ppr Pseudo-reduced Pressure, Ppr

CO2=60%
CO2=90%

Tpr
0.45 0.5 Tpr

Total Reduced Properties

0.4 1.8 0.45 1.8
Total Reduced Properties

Correlation Factor, Mt
2 2
Correlation Factor, Mt

0.35 1.6 0.4

1.6
1.4 0.35
0.3 1.4
1.3 0.3 1.3
0.25 1.2 0.25 1.2
0.2 0.2
1.1 1.1
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0
0
1 10
1 10
Pseudo-reducedPressure, Ppr
Pseudo-reduced Pressure, Ppr

It is interesting to mention that even though Moqui

CO2=70% Well has 98.25% CO2, our analysis indicates that the
analyzing such
Tpr samples with pure CO2 properties can result in
0.45 tremendous amount of error in calculation. The main
Total Reduced Properties

0.4 1.8
2 culprit of the error is the viscosity since it is the physical
Correlation Factor, Mt

0.35 1.6
property that affects flow.
0.3 1.4 Fig.3 through 5 are the semilog plots of pseudopressure
0.25 1.3 estimated with corrected, pure CO2, and Carr et all
0.2 1.2 viscosities versus time respectively. Fig. 6 through 8 are
1.1 the semi-log plots of the pseudopressure versus Horner
0.15
time respectively.
0.1
0.05 Pressure Drawdown (Figs.3-5)
0 Fig. Method Slope [psia2/cp]/cycle m(P1hr)
1 10 3 Corrected 2.1E+6 340.2 E+6
Pseudo-reducedPressure, Ppr 4 Pure CO2 1.2E+6 171.2 E+6
5 Carr et al. 2.2 E+6 437E+6
Pressure Buildup(Figs.6-8)
Fig. Method Slope [psia2/cp]/cycle m(P1hr)
6 Corrected 2.1E+6 342.5 E+6
7 Pure CO2 1.2E+6 272.3 E+6
8 Carr et al. 2.2 E+6 437E+6
6 S. A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, F. H. ESCOBAR SPE 70017

Equations Used in Analysis gases were specifically developed for this purpose and will
Parameter Equation be published in an other paper. Summary of those
Permeability qT equations is, however, given here.
kh = 1 6 3 7
m
Apprent Skin Drwadown Well and Fluid properties
Factor  m( p ) − m( p )    T = 142 oF φ = 0.19 rw = 0.12 ft
k
S a = 11513 − log 
2  + 3.23

i 1hr
.
φ µ
S.G = 1.325 h = 24 ft q = 500 Mcf/D
 m  i ti w 
c r 
Equations Used
Buildup Eq. Para- Equation
m( pws )1hr − m( pwf )0  k   meter
Sa = 11513
.  − log  . 
2  + 323 1 k qT
 m  φ µi cti rw   k = 8 1 8 .8 6 6
h [t * ∆ m ( P ′ ) ]r
Flow Efficiency Drawdown 2 k 
 6 8 7 .8 5
qT 

 h 
0 .8 7 m S a k =
FE = 1 − 
 0 .1 7 4
qT  tX
 − (t * ∆ m P ′ ) X
m ( p i ) − m ( p w f ) 1hr  µ  C

3 k µ C  ( t * ∆ m ( P ) ′) X 
Buildup k = 9 4 1 6 .2  0 .5 + 0 .4 2 
ht X  ( t * ∆ m ( P ) ′) r 
0 .8 7 m S a
FE = 1 − 1 .2 4
 0 .8 9 3 5 C 
m( p ) − m ( p wf ) 4 Sa  t 
ws ∆t=0
S = 0 .1 7 1  x  − 0 .5 l n  
 ti   φ h c t rw
a 2

5 Sa  (t * ∆ m ( P ′) X 
1 .1
 0 .8 9 3 5 C 
Corrected Method (Drawdown) S a = 0 .9 2   − 0 .5 ln  
2 
 ( t * ∆ m ( P ′) i   φ h c t rw 
(8400)( 628 )
k = 1637 = 47 .8 m d 6 Sa 
S a = 0 .5 
∆ Pr 
− l n 
ktr  
 + 7 .4 3 
( 2 .1 x 10 6 )(86)  (t * ∆ m ( P ) ′ ) r  φ µ c t rw
2 
 

 346 − 340.2  47.8   7 C kh t i

S a = 11513
.  − log −4 2  + 3.23
C =
 2.1  ( 0.13)( 0.065)( 2.8 x10 )( 0.33 )   1695
8 C 0 .1 7 4 q T tX
= -2.8 C =
[( t * ∆ m ( P ) ′ ) X + 0 .8 4 ( t * ∆ m ( P ) ′ ) r ] µ
 0.87(2.1)( − 2.74) 
FE = 1 −  x 100 = 191%
Characteristic Points
 346 − 340.5 Corrected Method (Fig.9)
Buildup: tr 20 t*∆m(P)/r 1.95E+6
(8400)(628) ti 0.10 t*∆m(P)/x 5.0E+6
k = 1637 = 47.8md
(2.1x10 6 )(86) tx 0.85 ∆m(P)r 19E+6
/
t*∆m(P) i 1.95E+6
 342.5 − 337  47.8 
 − log  −4

2 
S a = 1.1513  2.1  (0.13)(0.0 65)(2.8 x10 )(0.33 )  Wellbore Storage Effcets (Eq.7)
 + 3.23 
0.174(500) (602) 0.85
C = = 0.177196
= -2.7 [
5 x 10 6 + 0.84(1.95 x 10 6 ) 0.037848 ]
 0.87 ( 2 .1)( − 2 .7 ) 
FE = 1 −  x 100 = 189 .6 % Permeability (Eqs. 1, 2, 3)
 342 .5 − 337 
(500)(602)
Results k = 818.866 = 5.26 md
Drawdown 24(1.95x 10 6 )
Parameter Corrected CO2 Carr Abs. Error [%]
 (500)(602) 
et al.  687.85 
CO2 Carr et al.  24 
k = = 5 .26 md
K [md] 47.8 83.6 45.6 74.8 4.6  (500)(602)  0.85
 0.174  − 5 x 10 6
Sa -2.8 -3.2 -2.8 16.36 0  0.037848  0.177196
FE [%] 191 206.7 197 7.5 3
(0.037848) (0.177196)
Buildup k = 9416.2
K [md] 47.8 79 45.6 65.2 4.6 24(0.85)
Sa -2.7 -3.2 -2.8 16.37 0  
5 x 10 6
FE [%] 189.6 215.1 197.5 13.4 4  0.5 6
+ 0.42  = 5.26 md
 1.95 x 10 
Direct Synthesis (TDS) Apparent Skin Factor (Eqs. 4, 5. 6)
Fig. 9 through 11 are the pseudopressure derivative versus
time estimated with our corrected pseudopressure, pure
CO2, and Carr et al. viscosity respectively. Pressure data
was gnerated for this example. TDS equations for real
SPE 70017 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DELIVERABILITY, DECLINE CURVE, AND PRESSURE TESTS IN CO2 RICH RESERVOIRS 7

1.24 11 1637 T
 0.85  k =
S a = 0.171   − mh
 0.1  12 a  k 
= 1 .1 5 1 3  − l o g   + 3 . 2 3
1hr
S
 0.8935(0.1 77196)  a
 m  φ µ i c ti r w
2

0.5 ln   = − 2.2
2 
 (0.19)(24) (2.02 x 10 − 4 )(0.12 )
13 − as + a s + 4 bm ( p )
2

1.1
AOF = q SC =
2b
 5 x 10 6 
S a = 0.92   − 14 3 7 6 φ µ c t re 2
 1.95 x 10
6
 t ps =
kg
 0.8935(0.1 77196) 
0.5 ln  −4 2 
 = − 2.1 Analysis (Figs. 12-14)
 (0.19)(24) (2.02 x 10 )(0.12 )  Corrected Pure CO2 Carr et al.
Slope 248E+6 140E+6 140
 19x 106  (5.26)(20)  a1hr 646 385 398
 − ln −4

2 
S a = 0.51.95x 106  (0.19)(0.037848)(2.02 x 10 )(0.12 )  = −2.6
+ 7.43 
628
Pure CO2 (Fig.10) k = 1637 = 48 .2 md
( 248 )( 86 )
tr 20 t*∆m(P)/r 1.0E+6 646  48.2  
Sa = 1.1513 − log −4 2 
 + 3.23
ti 0.11 t*∆m(P)/x 7.5E+6  248  (0.13)(0.065)(2.8x10 )(0.33 )  
tx 0.83 ∆m(P)r 1.0E+6 = −2.8
t*∆m(P)/i 1.0E+6 376(0.13)(0.065)(2.8x10−4 )(240x43560/ 3.142)
Results t ps =
Eq.# Corrected Carr et Abs. Error[%]
48.2
CO2
al. = 61.4hr
k[md] K k CO2 Carr et
al. as = 646 + 248 log (61.4) = 1089.4
1 5.26 10.27 3.4 95.2 35.3
2 5.26 10.27 3.4 95.2 35.3 −1089.4 + 1089.42 + 4(0.259)(346x103 )
3 5.26 10.27 3.4 95.2 35.3 AOF= qSC =
Sa Sa Sa 2(0.259)
4 -2.2 -2.7 -2.57 22.7 15 = 296.6MMscf/ D
5 -2.1 -2.7 -2.546 28.5 17 Results
6 -2.6 -3.8 -2.57 46.1 0 Parameter Correc- CO2 Carr et Abs. Error
C [bbl/psi] C C ted al. [%]
Carr
7 0.1772 0.26 0.1216 46.7 31.5 et al.
CO2
K [md] 48.2 85.4 85.4 77 77
Deliverability Sa -2.8 -2.9 -2.8 3.5 0
Figs. 12 through 14 are the semilog plots of flow constant at AOF 296.6 342 340 15 14.5
versus time. Again pseudopressure was estimated with [MMSCF/D]
corrected method, pure CO2 properties, and Carr et al. D 0.00123 0.00986 0.00986
viscosity. This example uses the data of Moqui Well2
assuming A= 240 Acres. Decline Curve Analysis
φ = 0.13 Av. Res. Pressure = 3000 psi
Equations Used h = 86 ft S.G = 1.518
Eq.# Equation T = 168oF Pwf = 2400 psi
8 A = 240 acres CA = 31.62
 ∆m( p) 2
q sc −
∑  
( ) ∑ ∑ rw = 0.333 ft re = 1824 ft
q sc m( p)
q sc  ∑
a = 2
µi = 0.066 cp Zi = 0.447
∑( )− ∑ ∑ ∆m( p)
N q sc q x q sc sc

9 cti = 2.8E-4 psi-

N ∑ ∆m( p) − ∑ q sc ∑
q sc
b =
N ∑ (q ) − ∑ q
sc
2
sc x ∑ q sc
10 a s = a i + m lo g t p s
8 S. A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, F. H. ESCOBAR SPE 70017

Equations Used Initial Gas Saturation = 0.95

Eq. # Equation Wellbore Radius(ft) = 0.25
15  2( P / Z ) i S gi  t   qg 
Drainage Area (sq.ft) = 1.31E+07
G=     Initial Res. Press.(psi) = 3100
 (
i
)[  ]
 µ ct m( Pi ) − m( Pwf )  t dD  match  q dD  match
Wellbore Flowing Press. (psi) = 2550
16  P 1  2 .2 4 8 5 A  Shape Factor = 31.62
  ln  
 T  SC 2  C A rw
2
  qg  Drainage Radius(ft) = 2040
kh =  
1.9 8 7 x 1 0 −5
[m ( P ) − m ( P ]
i wf )  q dD  m a tc h
CO2
H2S
= 0.60
= 0.16
17 1  r    r 
2
k   ( µ i c ti ) rw 2   t dD 
=   e  − 1  ln  e  − 0.5     N2 = 0.04
φ 2   rw 
    rw    0.00633   t  m atch CH4 = 0.2
Corrected Pseudopressure Method (Fig.16)
Example-1 P [psi] Z µ [cp] m(P) [psi2/cp]
Corrected Pseudopressure Method (Fig. 15) 3100 0.513 0.0606 455.8E+6
2
P [psi] Z µ [cp] m(P) [psi /cp] 2550 314E+6
3000 0.447 0.066 455.8E+6 Pure CO2
2400 314E+6 P [psi] Z µ [cp] m(P) [psi2/cp]
Pure CO2 3100 0.60 0.0566 455.8E+6
P [psi] Z µ [cp] m(P) [psi2/cp] 2550 0.58 0.403 314E+6
3000 0.52 0.0566 455.8E+6 Carr et al.
2400 0.45 0.403 314E+6 P [psi] Z µ [cp] m(P) [psi2/cp]
Carr et al. 3100 0.513 0.0605 634 E+6
2
P [psi] Z µ [cp] m(P) [psi /cp] 2550 0.4518 0.03955 494.3 E+6
3000 0.447 0.066 568.1 E+6
2400 0.488 0.386 408.7 E+6 Results
Example-1
Match points Parameter Correc- CO2 Carr et Abs. Error [%]
t = 10 tD = 0.096 ted al.
qg = 10,000 qD = 0.12 Carr et
 2 ( 3000 / 0 . 447 x 0 . 84  CO2 al.
G =  
−4
[
 (0 . 066 x 2 . 8 x10 ) 455 . 8 x10 − 314 . 2 x10
6 6
]
K [md]
Eq.15
48 49.6 42.6 3 11.2

 10   10 , 000  K [md] 49 42 48 12 0
    = 37 . 4 Bscf
 0 . 096  match  0 . 12  match Eq.16
G[BSCF] 37.4 38.6 33.7 2 11.2
 14 . 7  1  2 . 2485 x 240 x 43560 
  ln   Example-2
 520  SC 2  31 . 62 ( 0 . 333 2 ) 
k =
1 . 987 [
x10 − 5 455 . 8 x10 6 − 314 . 2 x10 6 ] Parameter Correc-
ted
CO2 Carr et
al.
Abs. Error [%]

 10 , 000   1  Carr et
    = 48 md
 0 . 12  match  86  CO2 al.
K [md] 25 26 22.4 4 10.3
Eq.15
1   1824 . 2  2
   1824 . 2  
k =   − 1  ln   − 0 .5  x K [md] 25 16 25 33.7 0
2   0 . 333     0 . 333   Eq.16
−4 G[Bscf] 53 70.3 47 32.5 11.5
 ( 0 . 066 x 2 . 8 x10 )( 0 . 333 )   0 . 096 
2
    ( 0 . 13 )
 0 . 00633   10  match Conclusions
= 49 md 1. Tiab Corrected method of estimating pseudopressure
values is simple and does not require numerical
Well and Fluid Data (Example-2) integration. It is further simplified to just three-step
Thickness (ft) = 55 method to calculate m(P). Thus it is advantageous as
Permeability(md) = 25 compared to traditional tedious methods of
Temp.(R) = 660 estimating and interpolating viscosity and
Porosity = 0.23 compressibility from the charts and performing
numerical integration to evaluate pseudo-pressure
Total Compressibility, psi-1 = 2.8 E-4
SPE 70017 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DELIVERABILITY, DECLINE CURVE, AND PRESSURE TESTS IN CO2 RICH RESERVOIRS 9

integral, thereby eliminating the error inherited in the Direct Synthesis

numerical integration due to large pressure steps. C = wellbore storage coefficient, cuft/psi
2. Several transient pressure tests and decline curves CD =dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
were analyzed using corrected pseudo-pressure, Carr D = non-Darcy flow coefficient, (Mscf/D)-1
et al6 viscosity, and pure CO2 properties. Deviation tDSR = dimensionless time reflecting time at which
as high as 33% in the estimation of Gas in place in storage effects can be assumed to be negligible or start of
decline curve analysis, 79% in permeability in infinite acting line
pressure tests, 15% in Absolute Open Flow Subscripts
estimation in deliverability tests, and 16% in skin i = at intersection of radial and unit slope line
factor was observed. r = of radial flow line
3. Gas compressibility changes slightly with changing SR = start of radial flow line
gas composition. Thus, it caused smaller degree of w = wellbore
error than gas viscosity in well test analysis as well as x = at maximum ‘peak’ of pressure derivative curve
decline curve analysis. wf = flowing conditions
4. Increased degree of error was observed with ws = shut-in conditions
increasing number of pressure data points when
numerical method was used to evaluate Deliverability
pseudopressure integral. It is also clear from the a = stabilized deliverability parameter,
decline curve analysis results in which only two Mpsi2/MMscf/D
pressure points are required as compared with the at = transient deliverability parameter,
pressure test analysis, which uses greater number of Mpsi2/MMscf/D
pressure points. as = stabilized deliverability parameter,
Mpsi2/MMscf/D
Nomenclature AOF = absolute open flow , MMscf/D
Drawdown and Buildup b = transient and stabilized deliverability
ct = total system compressibility, psi-1 parameter, Mpsi2/MMscf/D2
C = wellbore storage coefficient, cuft/psi D = non-Darcy flow coefficient, (Mscf/D)-1
CD =dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient m = slope of the semi-log straight line
Co = CO2 mole fraction m(p) = real gas pseudo-pressure, Mpsi2/cp
Cpr = reduced pressure correlation factor q = flow rate MMscf/D
D = non-Darcy flow coefficient, (Mscf/D)-1 re = reservoir drainage radius, ft
h = net payzone thickness, ft sa = apparent skin factor
k = effective permeability, md t = flowing time, hr
m = slope of the semi-log straight line, ts = time to stabilization, hr
m(p) = real gas pseudo-pressure, psi2/cp
M = Molecular wt of the gas Decline Curve Analysis
Mc = Concentration correlation factor A = Drainage area, sq.ft
Mr = Reduced properties correlation factor b = Decline curve parameter
Mt = Mc + Mr ct = total system compressibility, psia-1
p = pressure, psi Co = CO2 mole fraction
ppc = pseudo-critical pressure, psi G = Gas in place, Mscf
ppr = pseudo-reduced pressure m(p) = real gas pseudo-pressure, psi2/cp
pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure, psi PD0 = dimensionless pressure at time zero
Psc = pressure at standard conditions pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
q = flow rate Mscf/D qg = gas flow rate Mscf/D
re = reservoir drainage radius, ft qdD = dimensionless flow rate for decline curves
sa = apparent skin factor re = reservoir drainage radius, ft
t = flowing time, hr sa = apparent skin factor
T = reservoir temp. oR t = Production time, days
Tpc = pseudo-critical temp. oR tdD = dimensionless time for decline curves
Tpr = pseudo-reduced temp. T = reservoir temp. oR
Tsc = temperature at standard conditions. Tpc = pseudo-critical temp. oR
z = gas deviation factor Tpr = pseudo-reduced temp.
ρ = gas density, gm/cc z = gas deviation factor
µ = gas viscosity, cp µ = gas viscosity, cp
µa = gas viscosity at atmospheric pressure, cp µa = gas viscosity at atmospheric pressure, cp
φ = reservoir porosity, fraction φ = reservoir porosity, fraction
10 S. A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, F. H. ESCOBAR SPE 70017

References 19. Wattenbarger, R. A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: “Gas Well

1. D.J., Mac Allister, “Pressure Transient Analysis of CO2 Testing with Turbulence, Damage and Well bore
and Enriched -gas Injection and Production Wells”, SPE Storage,” JPT. (Aug. 1968) 877-87 trans., AIME, 243
16225, presented at SPE Production Operations Symposium 20. Tiab, D., “ Analysis of Pressure and Pressure
held in Oklahoma City, March 8-10, 1987. Derivatives Without Type-Curve Matching: I-Skin and
2. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr and Crawford, P.B.: “ Wellbore Storage,” SPE 25426 presented at the
The Flow Of Real Gases Through Porous Media,” JPT (May Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
1966),624. (March 21-23, 1993).
3. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: “ Application Of 21. Poetmann, F.H., “ Discussion of the Analysis of
Real Gas Flow Theory To Well Testing And Deliverability Modified Isochronal Tests To Predict the Stabilized
Forecasting,” JPT (May 1966), 637. Deliverability of Gas Wells Without Using Stabilized
4. Tiab, D., “Real Gas Pseudo-Pressures For CO2 Flow Data”, JPT (October 1986), 1122-1124.
Reservoirs,” SPE Journal (April 1984), 180-190. 22. Coats, K.H. et al.: “Analysis and Prediction of Gas
5. Zana, E.T and Thomas, G.W.: “ Some Effects Of Well Performance,” paper SPE 3474 presented at the
Contaminants On Real Gas Flow,” JPT (Sep. 1970), 1157. 1971 SPE Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
6. Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R. and Burrows. D.B.: “ Viscosity 23. Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells,
of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure,” Trans., AIME third edition, Energy Resources Conservation Board,
(1954) 201, 264-72 Calgary, Alberta, Canada, (1975), 3-11.
7. Robinson, D.B., Macrygeorgos, C.A., and Govier, G.W.: 24. Hinchman, S.B., Kazemi, H., and Poetmann, F.H.,
“The Volumetric Behaviour Of Natural Gases Containing “Further Discussion of The Analysis of Modified
Hydrogen Sulfide And Carbon Dioxide,” Trans., AIME Isochronal Tests To Predict the Stabilized Deliverability
(1960), 219, 54-60. of Gas Wells Without Using Stabilized Flow Data”, JPT
8. Standing, M.B. and Katz, D.L.: “Density Of Natural (January 1987), 93-96.
Gases,” Trans., AIME (1942), 146, 140-149. 25. Fetkovich, M.J., “ Decline Curve Analysis Using
9. Gopal, V.N.: “Gas Z-Factor Equations Developed For Type Curves: AIME-SPE paper 4629, (1973), 28p.
Computer,” Oil and Gas Journal (Aug. 8, 1977) 58-60. 26. Ehlig-Economides, C. A., and Ramey, H.J.,
10. Wichert, E. and Aziz, K.: “ Calculate Z’s For Sour “Transient Rate Decline Analysis for Wells Produced at
Gases,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 51, No.5, 119-22. Constant Pressure: AIME-SPE”, paper 8387, (1979), 10.
11. Lee A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E.: “The 27. Fraim, M.L. & Wattenbarger, R.A., “Gas Reservoir
Viscosity of Natural Gases,” JPT. (Aug. 1996) 997-1000; Decline-Curve Anlysis Using Type Curves With Real Gas
Trans., AIME, 237. Pseudo-pressure and Normalized Time” , SPEFE,
12. Barr, G.S. and Aziz, K. : “ Analysis Of Modified December 1987, 671-681.
Isochronal Tests to Predict the Stabilized Deliverability 28. Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D.,
Potential of Gas Wells Without Using Stabilized Flow Data,” Kiesow, U.G., “ Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type
JPT, Feb. 1978, 297-304. Curves-Case Histories,” SPEFE, December 1987, 637-
13. Witherspoon, P.A., Javandel, I., Neuman, S.P., and 656.
Freeze, R.A. :”Interpretation of Aquifer Gas Storage 29. Goodrich, J.H. “Review And Analysis Of Past And
Conditions from Water pumping Tests, Monograph on Ongoing CO2 Injection Field Tests,” SPE/DOE 8832
project NS-38, American gas Association Inc., Virginia, presented at the first joint PSE/DOE symposium on EOR,
1973. Tulsa, OK, April 20-23, 1980.
14. Mueller, T.D and Witherspoon, P.A.: “Pressure
Interference Effects Within Reservoirs and Aquifers,” JPT SI Metric Conversion Factors
(April, 1965) 471-474 acre x 4.046 856 E+03 = m2
15. Ikuku, C.U.: “Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering,” acre-ft x 1.233489 E+03 = m3
Krieger Publishing Comp., Malabar, Fl., 1984 atm x 1.01 325 E+02 = kPa
16. Houpert, A., “On The Flow Of Gases In Porous Media,” bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
Review de t’ Intitute Francais du Petrole, xiv (11), 1959, cu ft x 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
1469-1684 cp x 1.0 E-01 = Pa-s
17. Katz, D. L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F. ft x 3.048 E-01 = m
H., Vary, J A.., Elenbaas, J. R. and Weinaug, C. F. : Hand ft 2 x 9.290304 E-02 = m2
o o
Book Of Natural Gas Engineering, Mc Graw-Hill Book Co., F ( F-32)/1.8 = oC
o o
Inc., New York (1959) 177. F ( F+459.67)/1.8 = oK
18. Dranchuck, P.M. and Chwyl, E.: “Transient Gas Flow psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
Through Finite Linear Porous Media,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. psi2 x 4.753 E+01 = kPa2
(April-June 1969) 57-65 Sq mile x 2.589 988 E+00 = km2
SPE 70017 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DELIVERABILITY, DECLINE CURVE, AND PRESSURE TESTS IN CO2 RICH RESERVOIRS 11

Fig. 3. Pressure Drawdown Semilog Plot with corrected m(P) Fig. 6. Pressure Buildup Semilog Plot with Corrected m(P)

347
348 m = 2.1E+06
346

m(Pws) [psi /cp] x 1E+6

346 m(Pws)1hr =342.5E+06
344 345
m(P) [psi2/cp]

342 344
x 1E+6

2
340 343
338
342
336
341
334
332 340
0.1 1 10 100 1000 1000 100 10 1
Horner Time
Time [hrs]

Fig. 4 Pressure Drawdown Semilog Plot with Pseudopressure Fig. 7. Pressure Buildup Semilog Plot with Pseudopressure
Function Estimated with Pure CO2 Properties. Function Estimated with Pure CO2 Properties.
275.5
272.5
275 m = 1.2E+06
272

m(Pws), [psi /cp] x 1E+6

m(Pws)1hr = 272.3E+06
271.5 274.5
271 274
m(P) [psi2/cp]

270.5
273.5
x 1E+6

270 2
273
269.5
269 272.5
268.5 272
268 271.5
267.5
271
267
1000 100 10 1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 Horner Time
Time [hrs]

Fig. 8 Pressure Buildup Semilog Plot with Pseudopressure

Fig. 5 Pressure Drawdown Semilog Plot with Pseudopressure Function Estimated with Carr et al. Viscosity.
Function Estimated with Carr et al. Viscosity.

439 442
m(Pws) [psi /cp] x 1E+6

438 441
437
440
m(P) [psi 2 /cp]

436
2

439
x 1E+6

435
434 438
433 m = 2.2E+06
437
432 m(Pws)1hr = 437.6E+06
431 436
1000 100 10 1 0.1
430
0.1 1 10 100 1000 Horner Time

Time [hrs]
12 S. A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, F. H. ESCOBAR SPE 70017

Fig. 9 Log-log Plot of Pseudopressure versus Time. Fig. 12 Semi-log Plot of at versus Time.
(Corrected Pseudopressure) (Corrected Pseudo-pressure)
1000
950
100

at [Mpsi /cp-MMscf/D]
900
∆ m(P*ws) x 1E+6

850
800
10
750
700

2
650
∆ m(Pws) & t*∆

1 600
550
500
0.1 1 10 100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time [hrs]

Time [hrs]
Fig. 13 Semi-log Plot of at versus Time.
(Pure CO2)
Fig. 10 Log-log Plot of Pseudopressure versus Time.
(Pure CO2)
600
100
550

a t [Mpsi2/ cp-MMscf/D]
∆m(P*ws)

500
10
x 1E+6
∆m(Pws) & t*∆

450

400
1
350

300
0.1 1 10 100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 T im e [h r s]
T im e [hrs]

Fig. 15 Decline Curve Type Curve Match-Example-1

Fig. 11 Log-log Plot of Pseudopressure versus Time.
(Carr et Viscosity)
1000000

100
100000
m(Pws) & m(P*ws)

10000
Flow Rate [Mscf/D]

1000

10
100
x 1E+6

10

1
0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

0.1 Time [Days]

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Time [hrs]
SPE 70017 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DELIVERABILITY, DECLINE CURVE, AND PRESSURE TESTS IN CO2 RICH RESERVOIRS 13

Fig. 16 Decline Curve Type Curve Match-Example-2 Fig. 18 CO2 Viscosity 29

100000

10000

1000
FlowRate [Mscf/D]

100

10

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Time [Days]

Fig. 17 CO2 Compressibility 29