Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPE 36736
Analysis of Commingled Tight Gas Reservoirs
Ahmed H, E1-Banbi, and Robert A. Wattenbarger,
Abstract
This paper presents a method to match the production data of
commingled tight gas reservoirs. A simple computer program
is used to history match production data, estimate the
individual OGIP and productivity of each layer, and forecast
the total performance of the well. The method was vcriticd
against both simulation and actual field data
The method is based on a layered model that couples the
material balance equation for gas reservoirs wit h the
stabilized gas flow equation for each layer in the commingled
system. The analysis is done through history-matching the
total well production data using an optimization routine to
help determine the two
parameters (OGIP and flow
coefficient) of each layer that best match the production
history, The method showed excellent results for cases that
are predominantly in the stabilized flow period.
This method can be used to analyze commingled tight gas
reservoirs and predict their performance, It can be also used
to obtain the OGIP value for each layer and assess the relative
importance of each layer in the commingled system.
Background
Commingled
Reservoirs.
Commingled
reservoirs
are
reservoirs connected only through the wellbore. These
reservoirs
do not exhibit
crossflow
within
reservoir
boundaries. Each layer in the commingled system can be
defined by its OGIP and its flow coetlicient, Jg, if stabilized
flow is reached. If these parameters are different for each
layer, the layers performance will be also different. Fig. 1
shows typical production performance
for a two-layer
commingled system producing against constant bottom hole
flowing pressure, p.f The data for this figure were obtained
from simulation of a two-layer reservoir where the two layers
have equal OGIP and differ only in their productivity.
Introduction
[tis a common problem in gas reservoir engineering that
volumetric methods are not adequate for estimating gas
reserves. Also, build-up tests may be impractical in tight (low
permeability) reservoirs because of the long time required for
the pressure to stabilize. Consequently, material balance
(M. B.) methods cannot be used to predict resewoir
performance. The problem is even more complicated in multiIayer no-crossflow reservoirs, where little information is
available.
545
ez=~
qg
=Jg
..(1.
[m(;)
-m(pwf)]
...........
(/) di
o
and, m(p) is the real gas pseudo-pressure
rn(p)=2j~dp
~ozp
.. .. . .. .
defined by Eq. 4.
.. . . .. . . .. ... (4)
qr(t)
= ~qg,
(t) .................................................(5)
j=l
el=
IN
Data - Model
N x,=,
Data
.. .....
1I
Data
.. .. .. .. ............. (7)
Results
A gas reservoir simulator] 3 was used to generate production
data for hypothetical cases. Two- and three-layer cases were
simulated. The layers were termed a, b, and c. The basic
reservoir and fluid properties data used in simulation are
given in Table 1. These layers have the same properties and
differ only in their permeability.
The two-layer case was constructed by adding layers b and
c performances. The three-layer case was constructed by
adding the performance of layers a, b, and c. The computer
program developed in this work was used to estimate the
parameters of each layer for both the two- and three-layer
cases, Other combinations were tried] 4 but the space does not
allow to show them all. We assumed that we only knew three
years of production history and ran the Layered Stabilized
Flow program to forecast for twenty years. Our model foreeast
and the simulation were in a very good agreement. F@s. 3
and 4 show the model and the simulation resutts for both the
two- and three-layer cases respectively. Parameter fitting in
the Layered Stabilized Flow Model was done on only
production data for production period from month 13 to
month 36 which is known to be past transient data or
stabilized flow data. The effect of transient data on the
analysis is kther
investigated in another section. Tables 2
and 3 show the comparison between the parameters we
obtained from the Layered Stabilized Flow Model and the
simulation for both cases. The flow coefficient, Jg, was
calculated from simulation data using Eq. 8.
(2)
Gp = ~qg
Data - Model
..,,
.............................
.,,
J(
N
~
;=(:), (+)
SPE 36736
kh
J, =
1
1424 T ~ln
[
2.458A
CAr~
.......
1
(8)
+.s+Dqg
(6)
546
SPE 36736
Field Applications
To check the Layered Stabilized Flow Model developed in
this work, we used a field case described in Ref 11. The field
produced for more than twenty years against almost constant
PW}1. The reservoir was described as being a two-layer
commingled gas reservoir with no crossflow]. A shale barrier
averaging 50 ft. in thickness was identified and correlated in
the field 1, Core data indicated a permeability ratio between
the two layers in the range of 10/1 to 20/1. The initial
reservoir pressure and average temperature were reported as
428 psia and 80 F respectively) 1. Gas specific gravity was
0.7[ 1. The total field production as well as the individual field
analysis] 1 showed that a b value of 0.9 represents the average
decline parameter of hyperbolic equations,
~=
2.715 x10-fl
kkfp~c
. . .
. (9)
~ P, (PM ) ~w~c
and ~ can be empirically estimated from Eq. 10,
~=
1.88X
](jk-@-o
. .
. ..
(lo)
q=q.
547
SPE 36736
Discussion
Probably, the most famous method attempted to effectively
analyze commingled gas resemoirs from limited data is
decline curves, However, decline curve analysis is strictly
empirical for multi-layer reservoirs. The Layered Stabilized
Flow Model presented here is based on sound fundamental
basis, This model is also considered a very good personal
computer (PC) application as far as computer storage and
speed are concerned. It may be also adapted for spread-sheet
applications. More importantly, this model not only presents
an easy method for modeling commingled gas reservoirs but
also effectively analyzes them if it is coupled with an
optimization routine.,
As this work shows, the Layered Stabilized Flow Model
gives very reliable answers for commingled systems if the
model assumptions are satisfied. However, if the model is
used to analyze transient data, it gives conservative estimates
of OGIP and consequently conservative prediction. The same
result was obtained when a one-layer model is used to model
Conclusions
The work presented in this paper is based on matching
production data for stabilized gas flow, It considers wells
producing against constant pwf and ignores non-darcy flow.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this paper:
1. Production data from commingled gas reservoirs ean be
analyzed by Layered Stabilized Flow Models with the use of
an optimization routine.
2. OGIP is under-estimated if transient data are included.
3. Total OGIP for the commingled system is underestimated if a fewer number of layer model is used in the
analysis.
4, Effect of non-darcy flow on the analysis using the
548
SPE 36736
Acknowledgment
Wc thank Mike Fetkovich of Phillips Petroleum Company for
vahrable discussions on decline curve analysis. We also thank
Phillips Petroleum Company and Frank Verla of Dwights
Data Base for providing field data, This work was done
within the Reservoir Modeling Consortium at Texas A&M
University.
References
1
160,22847.
Nomenclature
A.
reservoir drainage area, L2, ftz
b= Arps decline exponent
CA = shape factor
D= non-darcy flow coetlicicnt, t/L3, (Mscf/D)]
D, = initial decline factor, l/t, day
q = normalized error measure given by Eq. 6
~2 = normalized error measure given by Eq. 7
G= original gas in place, L3, MMscf
Gp = cumulative gas produced, L3, MMscf
h= formation thickness, L, ft
Jg = real gas flow coefficient, L4t2/m, Mscf.cp/D/psi2
k= permeability, L2, md
mfi) = real gas pseudo-pressure at average reservoir
pressure, m/Lt3, psi*/cp
m(pw~ = pseudo-pressure at bottom hole flowing pressure,
rn/Lt3, psi2/cp
rdayer = number of layers in a commingled system
N= number of rate-time data points
OGIP = original gas in place, L3, MMscf
~= pressure, m/Lt2, psia
p, = initial reservoir pressure, rr3/Lt2,psia
p.. - pressure at standard conditions, rn/Lt2, psia
pwf = bottom hole flowing pressure, rn/Lt2, psia
jj= material-balance average reservoir pressure, rn/Lt2,
psia
qz = gas production rate, L3/t, Msef/D
qT = total flow rate in a commingled system, LJA,
Mscf/D
rw = wellbore radius, L, fl
~= skin factor
t= time, t, days
T.
reservoir temperature, T, R
T.c = temperature at standard conditions, T, R
~= real gas correction factor
P non-darcy flow parameter given by Eq. 10
+= porosity
~z . gas viscosity, fit,
cp
t?
10
11
12
13
14
Subscripts
i = initial
549
porosity,fraction
initialpressure, psia
BHFP, psia
temperature, F
gaa gravily, fraction
formationcompressibility,ps[
permeabilky, md
number of gridblock
OGIP, MMecf
;
50
0.1
2500
500
150
0.6
3,E-08
1.0
25
2913.77
0.1
2500
!x41
150
0,6
3,E-06
0.1
25
2913.77
layer b
layer c
J~
(Mscf.cp/D/psiz)
OGIP
(MMscf_)
AJJ@l
2913.4
2913.4
J*
(Mscf.cp/D/psi2)
U
7S87E416
7S67E-07
!@x!!21
7.392E-06
7.652E-O7
OGIP
(MMscf)
OGIP
(MMscf)
m
2913.4
2913.4
2913.4
3096.5
2935.8
2827.6
J.
(Mscf .c~/D/psi2)
m
7.639E-05
7.477E-06
7.654E-07
J.
(Mscf.c@psi2)
7.567E-05
7.587E-06
7S87E-07
Table 4-input Parameters for Layered Stabilized Flow Model for Wells E and H
Well E
Well H
number of Layers
p,, psia ~, psia
gas specific gravity,fraction
reservoir
temperature
F
2
394.6
42,5
0.7
80
2
428
42.8
0.7
80
1
2
I
t
Table 6-Hv~erbolic
Well
E
E
H
H
Malchincr Period
(Mon~hs)
1-48
13-48
1-48
13-46
(Mscf,c$/D/psi2)
0.0169
0.00154
(MMSC9
990
1100
(Mscf.c$/D/psi2)
0.0296
0,00148
550
al
(Ms;f/D)
290.2
279.6
701.7
663.7
D/
(1/Day)
O.m
0.00076
0.00178
0.00174
1O(IO
low k layer
.-___ .
-..
(
IQO
10
.,,
,,
,,,
,,
high klayer
100
10
Time (Months)
Fig. l-Typical simulation results for
u
Calculate
Gas
Pro erties
1
Estimate
All
Layers
One-Layer
Model
Better
Estimate
yes
I
Prediction
~ ~ ~ .
10000
100
10
100
1000
Time (Months)
Fig. 3-Matching total rate for a hypothetical two-layer case (matching period 13-36 months).
100000
1Oouo
1000
100
1
100
10
1000
Time (Months)
Fig. 4-Matching total rate for a hypothetical three-fayer case (matching period 13-36 months).
10GQ
,,<
,,
,,
,,,
,,,
,.
--i
..
Iw
!&____
,*,,,,,
,.
.4ctual
102
10
10YI
Time (Months)
Fig. 6-Effect of transient data on the Stabilized Flow Model results.
Actual
Matching Period
. .
Model
:.!
,.
,,,
,,.
,,
.,,
,,
lm
10
lCOI
Time (Montha)
m....:.
. .. .
100C4
Actual
-%-w
100(
10[
,..
,,
.
1[
10
100
1000
Time (Months)
Fig. 7-Matching two-layer hypothetical case with a one-layer Stabilized Flow Model (matching period 1340
months).
1000
Matching Period
1.
400
4W
Actual
Hyperbolic
Layered
Decline
Stabilized
I
1
I
1
50
100
150
Fit, b=O.t339
Flow Model
I
200
254
300
350
Time (months)
Fig. 8-Well E; comparison
method.
between the Layered Stabilized Flow Model prediction and decline cunre
1000
atching Period
100
10
.Actual
~
Hyperbolic Decline Fit, b=l.012
Layered Stabilized Flow Model
1
o
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
420
Time (Months)
Fig. 9-Well H; comparison between the Layered Stabilized Flow Model prediction and decline curve
method.