SPE-185376-MS

Integrating Pressure Transient and Rate Transient Analysis for EUR

Estimation in Tight Gas Volcanic Reservoirs

A. Beohar, S. K. Verma, V. Sabharwal, R. Kumar, P. Shankar, and A. K. Gupta, Cairn India Ltd.

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 4–6 April 2017.

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
Raageshwari Deep Gas (RDG) is a clastic-volcanic reservoir located in the southern Barmer basin, India.
RDG is a tight retrograde gas-condensate reservoir of permeability in the range of 0.01-1 md with a
condensate gas ratio (CGR) of ~65 stb/mmscf. RDG is composed of a poorly sorted sandstone interval
(Fatehgarh formation) overlying low net-to-gross (NTG) stacked succession of thick cycles of volcanic
units (Basalt and Felsic) of ~700m gross thickness at a depth of 2800 m. RDG field is being developed
using pad-drilled deviated wells, with multi-stage hydraulic fractures.
In tight gas fields, one of the major challenges is obtaining the right set of parameters to accurately
forecast the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) per well. EUR per well depends on fracture parameters such
as fracture half-length (Xf), fracture height (Hf), fracture conductivity (Fc) and reservoir characteristics
like matrix porosity (Φ), matrix permeability (k), net pay thickness (h), drainage area, reservoir pressure,
reservoir fluid and operating conditions.
EUR may be estimated using decline curve analysis (DCA), rate transient analysis (RTA), and reservoir
simulation. DCA is the simplest method but has high uncertainty early in a well’s production history,
reservoir simulation is complex and requires detailed reservoir characterisation. RTA is easier compared to
reservoir simulation and gives reasonable estimations of fracture and reservoir parameters. Since RTA is
performance based it provides continuous evolution of high confidence EUR, even with limited production
history.
To characterize tight fields, estimating kh of various layers through pressure transient analysis (PTA)
requires long shut-in data. Thus PTA is generally only available for analysing early time effects (like fracture
parameters). Thus, in low permeability reservoirs, RTA becomes preferred tool since it does not require shut-
in data. RTA models and type curves generate non-unique solutions. Hence, integrating the petrophysical
database with production logs, PTA results and RTA results is utilized to reduce uncertainty in k, h, Fc, and
Xf. By utilizing all these data, the uncertainty in EUR estimation per well is reduced. These parameters are
used as input for history matching to validate the interpretation and to optimize the RTA solutions. It was
observed that history matches in RTA were improved when Fc and Xf from PTA were available. Flowing
material balance (FMB) was then used to estimate drainage area, GIIP and EUR per well.
This paper demonstrates the workflow to use PTA, RTA, production logs, and petrophysical data to obtain
the right set of parameters to get high confidence in EUR per well.
2 SPE-185376-MS

The finalized EUR per well for different well types can then be used for field development and deciding
well spacing. Full field production forecasting based on RTA provides additional validation or an alternative
to the estimates done through reservoir simulation.

Section – 1: Introduction
RDG field was discovered in the year 2003 with the drilling of Raageshwari – 1. It is situated at the northern
end of the central basin high (CBH). CBH is a 40km long composite structural high feature of elevated north-
south-oriented fault terraces, arranged en-echelon with the southern part of Barmer basin. CBH structure
is divided into several major horst blocks, RDG is contained within a horst block bounded by major N-
S and NW-SE trending faults (refer to Figure 1, 2a, and 2b). The targeted reservoir section is composed
of poorly sorted clastics of the Fatehgarh formation overlying a volcanic complex comprised of basic lava
flows (Basalts) atop stacked pyroclastic flows (Felsics) interbedded with Basalts. The average thickness of
the reservoir is ~700m with ~200m of clastic and ~500m of volcanic units. The depth of the reservoir is
2500 m TVDSS to below 3500 m TVDSS. Volcanic reservoirs of the RDG field contain approximately 70%
of the total gas initially in place (GIIP). A typical log showing the formations encountered in a Raageshwari
Deep Gas well is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 1—Location Map of Raageshwari Deep Gas Field in Barmer Basin

SPE-185376-MS 3

Figure 2—a) Schematic cross-section of the Central Basin High containing the Raageshwari Horst block; b) Depth
structure map at the top volcanic reservoir indicated with a blue arrow in the cross section at left and in the type log below

Figure 3—Type Log for the Raageshwari Deep Gas Reservoirs

RDG is a tight retrograde gas-condensate reservoir with a saturation pressure close to initial reservoir
pressure. Permeability varies from 0.01mD in volcanics to 1mD in clastic reservoirs. The average porosity
of the formation is ~10% with a relatively high connate water saturation of ~50%. There is low CO2 content
and no H2S present in gas with a net calorific value of about ~1070 BTU/SCF. The condensate gravity is
~56° API.
In early 2010, RDG field, during the appraisal phase, was put on production for extended well testing with
multiple wells. Until 2013, produced gas was used to meet the power and internal heating requirements for
processing of waxy crude from northern oil fields of Barmer basin in Rajasthan. The average field production
during this period was 2-4 mmscfd. In Q2 2013, gas sales were started due to increased confidence in well
deliverability following a successful hydraulic fracturing campaign. Since then average field production has
been 25-35 mmscfd1. Development wells are 3.5" mono-bore wells with 5-7 hydraulic fracture stages. High
frequency surface pressure, rate, and temperature data is acquired from all wells in a real time basis, thus
4 SPE-185376-MS

providing us access to production rates and wellhead parameters. Production logging is done in wells on a
recurrent basis which provides us time-lapse performance of individual fracs and bottom-hole pressures.

Section – 2: Challenges in Tight System

In layered tight reservoirs reasonable estimation of connected GIIP by volumetric methods alone is
difficult2. Traditional approach for estimating initial reservoir pressure (Pi), frac parameters and reservoir
characteristics require build-up tests which are not practical due to long shut-in time required for pressure
stabilization. In tight systems it may take years for pressure to stabilize. Static reservoir pressures measured
during short shut-ins cannot be used for material balance calculations.
Well test analysis (PBU) can provide high resolution early time and near well bore characteristics.
The transient data obtained during the PBU can be interpreted to yield xf, Fc, k, and skin. However, for
permeability estimation, the pressure transient should reach infinite acting radial flow (IARF) which can take
a long time and may not be practical. To estimate drainage area and Pi by PBU survey, pressure transients
should reach no-flow drainage area boundaries, Boundary dominated flow (BDF), this will take even more
time than reaching IARF. Thus in tight gas reservoirs PBU surveys are conducted with an intention to
identify the xf, Fc and k (if pressure transient reaches IARF) and not commonly used to estimate the drainage
area.
GIIP and EUR estimations are important for reservoir management and field development. To estimate
GIIP, material balance and decline curves3,4 may be used but have limitations for tight gas reservoirs.
The primary assumption in material balance is that pressure dependent properties are evaluated at average
reservoir pressure and depletion occurs in tank-type manner.
Limitations of material balance - in pavg/z vs cumulative plot, straight line extrapolation is used to predict
GIIP when there is no external recharging and the pseudo-steady state assumption is valid (i.e. constant rate
BDF). To calibrate the changing average pressure with time, multiple static tests with long shut in periods
are needed, which may not be available in tight systems. Also, most gas wells do not have extended periods
of constant rate production and thus this concept cannot be directly applied.
Limitations of DCA – conventional decline curves do not account for changes in pwf, which declines
considerably faster in tight gas reservoirs. Also, wells do not operate under similar condition throughout
their life and do not follow a unique curve, this leads to unreliable predictions. Moreover, decline curve
analysis does not hold valid many times in tight systems since it yields "b" exponents in excess of 1 in case
of transient flow conditions.

Section – 3: Workflow
The production from the well results from a combination of reservoir, fluid, fracture parameters and drainage
area. In order to generate a high confidence EUR in tight systems, detailed understanding and integration
of the following parameters are required
1. Reservoir parameters – k, h
2. Fracture parameters – xf, hf, Fc
3. Drainage - Re, GIIP
4. Gas Condensate PVT
A novel workflow is adopted for combining the above 4 sets of parameters which is shown below in
Figure 4. The continuous evolving model takes into account production and pressure data, wherein iteration
between the above parameters is carried out in a systematic manner.
SPE-185376-MS 5

Figure 4—Workflow for EUR in Tight Reservoirs.

Input data for transient analysis is typically obtained from two sources. First, from post fracture pressure
match, this gives initial estimates for xf, hf and Fc. If temperature logs post-fracturing are available,
confidence over these parameters will be increased. Second, log derived reservoir properties like k, phi and
net pay.
Together the transient data analysis comprising of PBU, FMB, and RTA is utilised to identify reservoir
and fracture properties like – xf, Fc, kh. If BDF is achieved then Re, Pi, and GIIP can be estimated.
Reservoir and fracture parameters are used to identify the presence of natural fractures, recalibration of
rock mechanics properties for frac design of future wells, and to update the reservoir properties in a static
model. These properties are used in a dynamic model for full field EUR prediction under future operating
constraints.
The reservoir data preparation and step wise procedure on transient analysis is described in the Figure 5.

Figure 5—Stepwise Procedure for Static and Dynamic Data Analysis

Procedure
For application of the above procedure, it is assumed that the commingled reservoirs do not exhibit crossflow
within the reservoir owing to no vertical connectivity. Crossflow if any will occur through the wellbore.
Other assumptions and observations for use of the technique are summarized in the following sentences:
Each layer has its individual GIIP and is connected to wellbore through hydraulic fracs. We ignore the
impact of retrograde condensation on relative permeability and hence, productivity.
Analysing an individual layer will be impractical, thus analysis is performed on well basis. On well basis,
time required to reach the BDF will be extended due to presence of layers with lower permeability but
6 SPE-185376-MS

still will be considerably lower than individual analysis of layers. Once boundary dominated flow (BDF) is
reached, single layer analytical technique is valid for multilayer analytical analysis. Early time production
is mostly representative of contribution from the higher permeability layers while the later period will
be representative of contribution from all layers. In transient flow, effective drainage area will keep on
increasing, but once pressure transient has reached the boundaries and BDF is achieved, drainage area
estimation can be done reasonably. Drainage area, as determined through this technique, however, may not
be the optimal economic spacing for wells (downspacing might be preferred).

Data Preparation

Net Pay. To identify net pay available in well, a petrophysical database built with basic wireline logs,
processed NMR logs, dipole sonics, image logs, and gas shows were used. The porosity-permeability
transform has been updated through limited permeability estimates from diagnostic fracture injection tests
(DFIT).
To identify the connected net pay by the hydraulic fracturing of zones, the thickness between fracture top
and bottom were taken from post hydraulic fracture pressure-match data and non-pay sections identified
from log were subtracted. If temperature logs post-fracturing are available, confidence over these parameters
will be increased. The sum of the net pay within all fracs is calculated to identify total connected net pay
in the well.
Further, production logs were used to identify non-contributing zones. In the following example for Raag
X, all zones were producing and there was no significant change in relative contribution from zones.
In those cases where a zone was not producing gas, even if identified as "net", the net pay associated with
that frac height was removed from the total connected net pay estimate. Integration of petrophysics data,
production log data, post-fracture temperature log (if available) is important to eliminate the over prediction
of net producing interval.
BHP. Wellhead data like THP is generally available to engineers, but for performing RTA we need
bottomhole pressures, thus THP is converted to flowing BHP using appropriate correlations, in our case
"Cullender and Smith (modified gas gravity)" was used; This correlation is applicable for water and
condensate associated with gas. It also takes into account the friction factor and appropriate pressure gradient
accounting for liquid presence. The calculated BHP was calibrated with available historical flowing BHP
data points which were measured while doing production logging.
Surface Rates. High frequency surface data is acquired from all wells in real time basis, thus providing
us access to production rates and wellhead parameters. For transient data analysis, daily rates were used.
The monthly rate would mask the effects of transient flow and estimating values of k, xf and Fc would
be difficult.
Reservoir Fluid. RDG is a gas condensate reservoir. The bottomhole samples have been acquired and
analysed in lab for the PVT properties. Condensate yield with pressures has been validated through surface
well tests. The gas condensate PVT properties have been incorported in the model.

Pressure Transient Analysis

In tight gas reservoirs, pressure transients move slowly and thus to reach IARF it takes a long time. It
may not always be possible to shut-in the well for a long time. Although near well bore effects can still be
captured by the pressure transient travelling outwards which has not reached IARF. Matches from log-log
plot of gas potential vs time gives information regarding fracture parameters like xf and Fc. Obtained frac
parameters like xf and Fc can be used to validate or update data matches from a Blasingame type curve.
SPE-185376-MS 7

Rate Transient Analysis

Flow Regimes - Transient Flow vs Boundary dominated flow. Transient flow occurs while a pressure
pulse is moving out into the infinite acting reservoir but before pressure pulse reaches the reservoir boundary.
This is unique for every well and contains the information about k, xf, Fc. Following flow regimes occur
during the transient flow,
1. Bilinear fracture flow - occurs in hydraulically fractured wells when the conductivity of the fracture
is finite. In this flow regime, two types of linear flow occur: one from the matrix to the fracture, and
one from the fracture to the wellbore (this has slope of 1/4 in the pressure derivative on the log-log
diagnostic plot as shown in Figure 6)
2. Linear fracture flow - occurs in hydraulically fractured wells when the conductivity of the fracture
is infinite. In this situation, the permeability of the fracture is so high that the pressure throughout
the fracture is constant (this has slope of 1/2 in the pressure derivative on the log-log diagnostic plot
as shown in Figure 6)

Figure 6—Flow regimes in hydraulically fractured wells

Boundary dominated flow is a late time flow behaviour and is typically dominated by long term
production data. This occurs after pressure transient has reached all of the boundaries. The uniformity of
pressure decline will be governed by the flow rate. If the flow rate is constant then pressure will decline
uniformly throughout the reservoir in Pseudo Steady State (PSS) (this has slope of unity as shown in
Figure-6). If flow rate is not constant then pressure decline will be non-uniform throughout the reservoir.
This provides information about drainage area and connected pore volume i.e. GIIP.
RTA has been carried out using Blasingame5 and Log-log rate-normalised analysis which is described
in detail below.
Blasingame Type curve. Traditional decline curves like Arps6 and Fetkovich7,8,9 do not take into account
variations in flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP) during transient flow regime. In addition, these methods
do not account for changing PVT properties with reservoir pressure which change for gas condensate
reservoirs.
Blasingame analysis is used to analyse transient data when both rate and flowing bottomhole pressure
are changing. These type curves are available for different number of well models: - In our case "vertical
well with finite conductivity hydraulic fracture" model was used- this assumes a circular outer boundary.
Normalized rate, rate integral, and rate integral-derivative are plotted vs. material balance pseudo-time using
daily production data. This is plotted on a log-log scale as shown in Figure 7. The data plot is then moved
8 SPE-185376-MS

over the type curve plot to achieve a best fit. If the data plot falls over the hyperbolic stem of the type curve
(which has slope -1) it indicates, well is flowing in BDF.

Figure 7—Blasingame type curve plot

In Blasingame type curves when rate and pressure decline monotonically, BDF with declining rates and
pressures appears like PSS depletion at constant rate. Here, pressure-drop normalized flow rate is plotted
versus material balance pseudo-time. Material balance pseudo-time is used instead of actual producing time,
as this causes exponential declines in boundary-dominated data to follow harmonic decline trend. Also,
with the use of material balance pseudo-time, data can be analyzed even when rates and FBHP both are
changing. These account for varying bottomhole pressures by using superposition-time function.
In Blasingame type curves, in addition to pressure-drop normalized flow rate function, normalized rate
integral, and normalized rate integral-derivative can also be plotted against material balance pseudo-time.
These additional curves help to either reduce noise in the data or to amplify the reservoir signal embedded
in the production data.
Input data required is production data, BHP, net pay, compressibility and following parameters like k,
xf, Fc, Re, GIIP can be estimated.
Log-log rate-normalised pressures plot. Rate-normalised pressures and rate-normalised pressures
derivative are potted vs. material balance pseudo-time using daily production data. Early time region will
give information about xf, Fc and k. If the late time region data has reached slope of +1 (as shown in Figure
8), it indicates well is flowing in BDF.
Fundamentally, Blasingame and log-log plot are based on the same equations, difference is that log-log
plot uses rate-normalised pressures rather than pressure-normalised rates. On log-log scale the BDF will
exhibit a unit slope line. To minimise noise in data while preserving the signature of flow regime, normalised
pressure integral and derivative of the integral of normalized pressure is used.
SPE-185376-MS 9

Figure 8—Log-log rate-normalised pressures plot

History Matching. History matching is done using xf, Fc and k as input parameters identified from
Blasingame, log-log and PBU match. Matching is performed on surface rates, flowing bottomhole pressures
and cumulative recovered.
Reasonable estimations of Pi would result in a declining pavg plot which would come closer to the shut in
bottomhole pressures. If wells are left shut in for a long time, these pavg will match bottomhole pressure. Once
matching is done parameters like – xf, Fc, k, Re, Pi and GIIP can be ascertained within reasonable ranges.

Flowing Material Balance

FMB was introduced by Mattar and McNeil (1998), which does not need shut in data. It utilizes flowing
bottom-hole pressures and constant production rates to estimate the Pi and GIIP. It is useful technique since
this uses bottom hole flowing pressure which is normally available and not average Pr which requires well
to be shut in. Further research by Mattar and Anderson (2005) on dynamic material balance extended the
use of the previous technique to variable production rates. This was done replacing time by material balance
time (Blasingame and Lee, 1986: Palacio and Blasingame, 1993).
Diagnostic plots, like Blasingame type curve, are utilized to ascertain if well is in BDF and draining
from a fixed area. Only after confirmation should p/z method be used otherwise the GIIP predictions will
be underestimated.
FMB uses the concept of boundary-dominated flow or pseudo-steady state flow, as well as flowing
pressures and rates to calculate GIIP. When material balance equation is solved with Darcy’s law, a PSS
equation is generated which is independent of pavg. Constant rate solution to PSS equation is for harmonic
decline and constant pressure solution is for exponential decline.
FMB also takes into account the difference between reservoir p/z and flowing p/z. This is not constant
and it is dependent on flow rates. As shown below in Figure 9 (a), when normalised pressure (ΔP/q – y
axis) is plotted vs material balance pseudo time (Q/q – x axis) the y intercept is bpss. bpss is inverse of the
pseudo-steady-state productivity index. It represents pressure loss due to steady state inflow of gas and is
assumed to be constant over time. The straight line portion of this plot represents BDF.
10 SPE-185376-MS

Figure 9—a) and b): Flowing material balance plots

In p/z vs Gp method, straight line is extrapolated on pavg/z trend to predict GIIP as shown in Figure
9 (b), for retrograde condensate reservoirs z factor must be two phase z factor. z factor can be predicted
from composition with EOS or be measured in lab. This is particularly important for retrograde condensate
reservoirs because the yield of condensate declines with declining reservoir pressures.
Once PSS flow is confirmed from Blasingame or log-log rate-normalised pressures plot, GIIP and Pi can
be ascertained and validated. This will allow to further reduce the ranges of GIIP prediction.

Forecast
Prediction is done using fracture and reservoir parameters found by above discussed analysis an anticipated
future operating constraints. This gives us production profiles for the remaining life of the well and EUR.

Section - 4: Application / Example

Above described stepwise procedure in Section 3 has been applied for Raag X as shown below. Raag X
well had a cumulative gas production of 3 bcf.

Surface Rates and BHP. Daily surface rates and THP was taken for past 3 years post QA/QC as shown in
Figure 10. THP was converted to BHP using "Cullender and Smith (modified gas gravity)" calibrated with
available historical BHP data points which were measured while doing production logging.

Figure 10—Surface rates and BHP for Raag X

Net Pay. It was identified that all zones are contributing through time lapse production logs as shown in
Figure 11 a) and b), thus frac top and frac bottom were taken from post-fracture pressure-match data and
non-pay sections identified from petrophysics logs were subtracted. The sum of identified net pay within the
frac is the total connected net pay in the well. No post fracture temperature logs were available to validate
the fracture height.
SPE-185376-MS 11

Figure 11—a) Petrophysics log of Raag X; b) Time-lapse production log

Pressure Transient Analysis. Matches from log-log plot of gas potential vs time, superposition time plot
and history plot (as shown in Figure 12) provided information regarding fracture parameters like xf and Fc
(as shown in Table 1). No IARF was seen thus k estimations are not reliable in this PBU.

Figure 12—(a) log-log plot; (b) - superposition time plot; (c) - history plot

Table 1—Compiled results comparison

Fc
Method Half length (ft) Connected gas kh (mD.ft) Re (ft) Connected GIIP (bscf)
(md-ft)

PTA 170 163 No radial flow seen - -

FMB Plot - - - - 15

Blasingame Plot 141 150 42.7 601 13.5

Log Log Analysis /

135 150 44.3 653 16
Production History Match

Blasingame Type curve. Using "vertical well with finite conductivity hydraulic fracture" model,
normalized rate, rate integral, and rate integral-derivative are plotted vs. material balance pseudo-time using
daily production data (Figure 13). It was seen that well was flowing in BDF since data falls on hyperbolic
stem of Blasingame type curve. The results are shown below in (Table 1)
12 SPE-185376-MS

Figure 13—Blasingame curve match for Raag X

Log-log rate-normalised pressures plot. Using "vertical well with finite conductivity hydraulic fracture"
model. Rate-normalised pressures and rate-normalised pressures derivative are potted vs. material balance
pseudo-time using daily production data (Figure 14). Consistent with interpretation from the Blasingame
curve, this plot also indicated that well was flowing in BDF (late time data falling on slope +1). The results
are shown below in (Table 1)

Figure 14—Log-log rate-normalised pressures match for Raag X

History Matching
Using PTA results, log-log rate-normalized pressures plot and Blasingame plot. History match was
performed for matching pwf, gas rates and cumulative production (as shown in Figure 15). It was observed
that the Fc and Xf estimates were generally lower than estimations from the vendor provided post frac
pressure match data. It was seen that in long term shut-in durations the values of pavg are very close to
bottomhole pressures, these provide increased confidence on Pi estimations. Output – high confidence Fc,
kh, xf, Pi, Re, STGIIP. The results are shown below
SPE-185376-MS 13

Figure 15—History match for Raag X

FMB. Since BDF flow was already confirmed from Blasingame and log-log rate-normalised pressures
plot, Pi and GIIP estimations were made and found to be within reasonable ranges as estimated by above
analysis (Figure 16). The results are shown below in Table 1.

Figure 16—P/z vs q plot for Raag X

Below is the compilation of results from all the analysis.

The application of the workflow presented in section 3 has provided a reservoir characterization within a
reasonable range of flow capacity, and provided a fracture characterization in terms of Fc and xf. It is worth
noting that uncertainty in the connected GIIP has been narrowed to a 10% range. This is achievable only
because of the new workflow’s improved characterization of reservoir, fracture and drainage parameters.
The above analysis yields the following
 kh - ~43 md-ft
Xf - ~140 ft
Fc - ~ 150 md-ft
Drainage area - ~30 acre
Connected GIIP - ~15 bcf
14 SPE-185376-MS

Forecast
Based on future constraints, reservoir parameters and frac parameters obtained from the above analysis,
forward rate prediction was performed to estimate EUR (as shown in Figure 17).

Figure 17—Forecast for Raag X

Development planning and field production forecasting. RDG has 30 wells drilled in development area as
shown in Figure 18 and suitably lengthy production data is available on 10 wells. The workflow described
in Section - 3 has been applied on historical performance of appraisal wells and allowed us to categorize
wells in 3 categories – "Good", "medium "and "poor".

Figure 18—RDG drilled wells location map

SPE-185376-MS 15

The categorization was done based on statistical distribution of fracture parameters, reservoir parameters
and drainage area. The statistically derived average properties of type wells are shown in Table 2:

Table 2—Type curve reservoir and frac parameters

Drainage Percentage
TYPE WELL kh (md-ft) Xf (ft) Fc (md-ft) GIIP (BSCF)
Area (Acre) of wells

Poor 15 165 200 30 6 40

Medium 40 165 200 45 12 35

Good 57 165 200 60 20 25

The selected 3 type profiles are shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19—Type curves production profiles

Assuming well performance is not affected by neighboring wells (a common assumption for tight
reservoirs), the effects of interference were neglected.
The good well drainage area has been used for development spacing and total number of wells were
identified. The type well production forecast has been applied to total number of wells based on project
schedules.
Based on future wells online schedule full field prediction were done and compared with reservoir
simulation model predictions as shown in Figure 20. The estimated field cumulative recovery was found
to be within 10% difference of the simulation results. Below is comparison of analytic model vs dynamic
model prediction.
16 SPE-185376-MS

Figure 20—Full field production forecast

Conclusions
1. The proposed integrated workflow clearly demonstrates the superiority of step wise data integration /
analysis procedure
2. Tight gas well reservoir and fracture characterization can be achieved using PTA
3. Petrophysics robustness is possible with integration of PLT, net reservoir, kh data
4. Performance-based high confidence GIIP and history matched model are possible using PTA, RTA
and petrophysical data integration
5. RTA history matched models are useful in production forecasting and predicting EUR
6. Field level production forecast through type well approach provides performance based high
confidence field EUR
7. Type well drainage area can be estimated
8. Reservoir, PTA, RTA and production performance data provide an understanding on drainage spacing
and unique combination for modelling and predicting high confidence EUR

Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge the management of Cairn India Limited and ONGC for their support in the
course of this work and allowing us to publish and present this paper. We would also like to acknowledge
the significant contributions from the entire team of geoscientists and petroleum engineers engaged with
the development of Raageshwari Gas Field Development.
SPE-185376-MS 17

Nomenclature
b = Arps decline curve constant
bpss = Arps decline curve constant at pseudo steady state
Fc = fracture conductivy (md-ft)
GIIP = gas initially in place (bscf)
Gp = gas produced (bscf)
h = reservoir pay thickness (ft)
hf = fracture height (ft)
k = effective permeability to gas (md)
pwf = bottomhole pressure (psia)
pavg = average reservoir pressure (psia)
Pi = initial reservoir pressure
qg = gas flow rate (mmscfd)
t = time (hrs)
xf = fracture half length
z = gas compressibility factor
Φ = porosity (fraction)

References
1. Saurav, S., Gupta, A. K., Shankar, P., and Verma, S. K. 2015. Volcanic Tight Gas Condensate
Reservoirs: An Integrated Approach to Performance Analysis in Raageshwari Deep Gas Field,
India. Society of Petroleum Engineers.Paper SPE 176254 presented at SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Bali, Indonesia, 20-22 Oct
2. Stuart A. Cox, Ronal P. Stoltz, Allen S. Wilson, Robert P. Sutton, SPE.2003. Reserve Analysis
for Multilayer Tight Gas Reservoirs, presented at SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section
joint meeting, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
3. Agarwal, R. G., Gardner, D. C., Kleinsteiber, S. W., and Fussell, D. D.1991.Analyzing Well
Production Data Using Combined-Type-Curve and Decline-Curve Analysis Concepts". Society of
Petroleum Engineers, SPEREE Oct 1991
4. Gardner, D.C., Hager, C.J. and Agarwal, R.G. Incorporating Rate-Time Superposition Into
Decline Type Curve Analysis. SPE 6247 presented at the 2000 Rocky Mountain Regional
meeting/Low permeability Reservoirs Symposium and exhibition, Denver. 12-15 March.
5. Palacio, J. C., and Blasingame, T. A. Decline-Curve Analysis With Type Curves - Analysis of
Gas Well Production Data.Paper SPE 25909 presented at Rocky mountain regional meeting/Low
permeability Reservoirs Symposium and exhibition, Denver. 12-15 March
6. Arps, J.J Analysis of decline Curves. Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 228–47.
7. Fetkovich, M.J. Decline Curve Anaysis Using Type Curves. JPT (June 1980) 1065–77.
8. Fetkovich, Michael J., Bradley, Mark D., Works, Adonna M.; Thrasher, Thomas S.1988.
Depletion Performance of Layered Reservoirs Without Crossflow. SPE-18266 presented at SPE
Technical Conference and Exhibition Meeting, Houston, Texas.
9. Fetkovich, M.J., Fetkovich, E.J., and Fetkovich, M.D. 1996. "Useful Concepts for Decline
CurveForecasting, Reserve Estimation, and Analysis". SPERE 11 (1):13-22. SPE-28628-PA.