Decline Curve Analysis in Unconventional Gas

Reservoirs with Organic Material and Adsorbed Gas

SPE Exploration and Development of
Unconventional Reservoirs Conference
Castellanos-Pez, Francisco, Arevalo-Villagran, Jorge A.,
Martnez-Romero, Nstor, Pumar-Martnez, Francisco, and
Gallardo-Ferrera Erick, UNAM.
Neuqun, Argentina
10-12 June 2014

Contents

Introduction
Background
Development
Field results
Conclusions
Recommendations

Introduction
The Arps and Fetkovich methods for decline curve analysis are commonly used tools to
evaluate reservoir declination and reserves.

Decline curve analysis in unconventional gas reservoirs (UGR) with organic material
content (OMC) and adsorbed gas provides results obtained from actual data to assess
production behavior and volumes to be produced from unconventional shale and coalbed
methane gas reservoirs.

Geographical location
In Mexico, La Casita and Eagle Ford have been identified as important hydrocarbon river
basins of Pimienta Shale, in which it is estimated that there are potential reserves of 681
tcf, which is 22% of the reserves in America and 11% worldwide.

Geological Period

Resources (MMMMscf)

Upper Cretaceous

507

Middle Cretaceous

Lower Cretaceous

166

Total

681

1Information obtained from the EIA

Contents

Introduction
Background
Development
Field results
Conclusions
Recommendations

Background
The most commonly-used method to determine conventional reserves is decline curve
analysis. Arps and Fetkovich determined that the tendency may be exponential, hyperbolic
or harmonic.
Arps Function :
Fetkovich Function:
1
=

where:
qi is the initial rate, Di is the initial
declination and b is the declination

=
=

exponent:
b = 0 declination is exponential.

1 +

b = 1 declination is harmonic.
1

0 < b < 1, declination is hyperbolic.

There are several modifications to the methods in order to apply them to unconventional
formations, taking into account the following:
1) A sharp decline rate at short production times.
2) Gas adsorption and desorption effects in organic matter.
3) High water production volumes at the beginning of well production.

Background
The behavior of unconventional reservoirs differs
from conventional ones, especially during early
production stages when the water from the
completion stage is being produced.
Because they contain organic matter and
adsorbed gas, it is important to know the type of
gas adsorption isotherm as well as the pressure,
since the OGIP varies and the gas desorption
modifies the declination behavior.

Background
Taking into consideration formation pressure and Langmuir pressure and volume, the
Langmuir model was applied to determine the quantity of adsorbed gas in the organic
material and to evaluate how the desorbed gas modified the production decline curve.

In order to obtain estimates of the gas volumes to be produced from the well, actual
production data were adjusted using the Arps and Fetkovich methods,

Background
Models and equations
Arps

= ;
=

1+

Power Law

Exponential
1

Several models have been developed to fit

the diverse behaviors that may occur in
unconventional gas reservoirs.

Hyperbolic
1

Declination Function: D(t)

1
=
1

Hyperbolic Function: b(t)
=
Valk

1
+

1 2

Jones and Arps

1
=
100 1

Contents

Introduction
Background
Development
Field results
Conclusions
Recommendations

Development
The first well is located in the Eagle Ford formation in the U.S. The other two are in the southern
portion of the formation, located in Mexico.
For the well analysis, the production pressure data were smoothed using as the outset of
declination the maximum production, beside converting the produced water to its gas equivalent so
the total production corresponds to the total pressure drop in the formation.
Later, the models declinations were adjusted through regressions, and last, there were made
predictions to 15 years and new adjustments incorporating desorbed gas, considering an instant
desorption, and the hole released gas production.
Isotherm for Eagle Ford

General Data from the Eagle Ford Formation

Depth:

2,500 - 14,000 ft

Thickness:
Pressure Gradient:
TOC:
Gas Saturation:
Permeability:

50 - 300 ft
0.4 - 0.8 psi/ft
2 - 9%
83 85%
1 - 800 nd

Contents

Introduction
Background
Development
Field results
Conclusions
Recommendations

Field results
Well A

Well A produces dry gas and is located in the Eagle Ford shale formation in southern
Texas. It was completed with a 4,000 ft. horizontal geometry and a ten-stage
stimulation treatment consisting of 20 transversal lateral fractures, generating a 169
MMft3 Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV).

Data analysis:
g =
MN2 =
MCO2 =
MH2S =
T=

0.596
0
0
0
207 F

VL =

75 scf/ton

pL =
656 psia
pi =
5100 psia
Vai = 66.4523975 scf/ton
Gai =
4.14E+07 scf/ton

pc desor =

3500 psia
3
r =
1.3 gr/cm
SRV =
16900000 ft
mroca = 622599.1534 Ton

Field results
Well A

Well Declination Match

qg Prediction to 15 years

Field results
Well A

Well A Fetkovich Match

Match t = tD =
Match q= qDd =
b=
qi =
Di =
Gp =

1.2
192
0.81
5.208 MMscf
0.012000 das-1
1.59 Bcf

Modelo Gp (Bscf)
Arps Exp
0.85
Arps Hip
2.79
PLE
1.27
Fun Hip
1.39
Valk
1.27
Jones
1.27

Field results
Well B

Shale well B was drilled and completed with a horizontal geometry in Eagle Fords upper
Cretaceous formation, with a vertical depth of 8,300 ft and a horizontal path of 13,356 ft.
During its completion, 17 fractures were made with 856 ft in length, 459 ft in height, and an
average width of 0.8 in.

Pressure-production history of Shale B well.

General data from Shale B well.

Well radius, ft

0.375

Lateral length, ft

1837

Thickness, ft

492

Depth, TVD, ft

2530

Hydrocarbon porosity (%)

(hc = ef (1-Sw))
Reservoir pressure, psia

6.0

Temperature, R

667

Gas compressibility, 10-4 psia-1

Gas viscosity, cp

1.3
0.0239

5,100

Number of effective fractures

8
Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV) 445
(MMft3)

Desorption data
VL =
PL =
T=

60 scf/ton
250
207 F

r =
SRV =

2.8 gr/cm3
446 MMft3

mr = 35280000 Ton

Field results
Well B

Well Declination Adjustement

qg Prediction to 15 years

Field results
Well B

Well B Fetkovich Match

Match t =
Match q=

tD =
qDd =
b=

0
0
0.66

qi =
Di =

4.484 MMscf
0.007500 das-1

Gp =

1.54 Bcf

Modelo
Arps Exp
Arps Hip
PLE
Fun Hip
Valk
Jones

Gp (Bscf)
0.74
1.55
1.08
1.11
1.08
1.08

Field results
Well C

Shale well C was drilled and completed with a horizontal geometry in Eagle Fords upper
Cretaceous formation, with a vertical depth of 5397 ft and a horizontal path of 11,270 ft.
During its completion, 16 fractures were made with 528 ft in length, 380 ft in height, and an
average width of 0.82 in.
Pressure-production history of Shale B well.

General data from Shale B well.

Well radius, ft

0.375

Lateral length, ft

11,270

Thickness, ft

215

Hydrocarbon porosity (%)

(hc = ef (1-Sw))
Reservoir pressure, psia

6.0

Temperature, R

632

Gas compressibility,

10-4

psia-1

Number of effective fractures

3294
2.6
16

Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV) 671

(MMft3)

Desorption data
VL =
PL =
T=
=

60 scf/ton
250
207 F
0.06

r =
SRV =

2.8 gr/cm3
446 MMft3

mr = 35280000 Ton

Field results
Well C

Well Declination Adjustement

qg Prediction to 15 years

Field results
Well B

Well C Fetkovich Match

Case 1
Match t =
Match q=

Case 2
tD =
qDd =
b=

0.21
490
0.061

Match t =
Match q=

tD =
qDd =
b=

0.21
490
1.00

qi =
Di =

2.041 MMscf
0.002100 das -1

qi =
Di =

2.041 MMscf
0.002100 das -1

Gp =

1.03 Bcf

Gp =

5.17 Bcf

Modelo
Arps Exp
Arps Hip
PLE
Fun Hip
Valk
Jones

Gp (Bscf)
1.07
5.59
1.30
1.56
1.13
2.65

Field results
Well B

Desorption case

For match of de curve producton we

use the Arps and Jones Models.
Arps Hip

1 +

Jones Arps

1
=
100 1

Field results
Well B

Arps Hip Model

Arps Hip Model

1 +

Match parameters
Aprs Hiperbolic Model

qi [Mscf/d] =
Di [1/d] =
b=

Free gas
Desorption gas
3359
4139
0.0085
0.0078
0.9711
0.8834

Field results
Well B

Jones Model

Jones Model

1
=
100 1

Match parameters
Arps - Jones Model

Free gas Desorption gas

qg [Mscf/d] =
3708
4691
Do [ 1/dm]=
2.6931
2.7394
m=
1.5977
1.5977

General results
Model Gpf (Bscf) Gpt (Bscf) Gp (%)
Arps Exp
0.730
0.891
18
Arps Hip
1.550
1.756
12
PLE
1.078
1.238
13
Fun Hip
0.740
0.885
16
Valk
1.080
1.239
13
Jones
1.080
1.250
14

Contents

Introduction
Background
Development
Field results
Conclusions
Recommendations

Conclusions
1. The best models for estimation of rate and EUR to recover are those of Jones-Arps,
PLE and Valk. However this may change according to the decline of each well.
2. Is a necessary condition that the wells produce in pseudosteady state regime, since
otherwise errors in calculations and predictions will be high.
3. It was confirmed that the gas adsorbed on the Eagle Ford Formation in Mexico is
between 15% - 20%, so it is important to consider when calculating the EUR. In
addition to reducing the desorbed gas production decline.
4. When considering the effects of adsorbed gas combining the Langmuir model with the
declinations methods, even more accurate well production behavior results were
obtained, which lead to more optimistic estimates of the gas volumes to be produced.

Contents

Introduction
Background
Development
Field results
Conclusions
Recommendations

Recommendations
1. Properly characterize the gas and training to obtain correct values of the
Langmuir isotherm and the desorption pressure.
2. To properly determine the decline of the well and the EUR is advisable to
compare the results of the analytical models with Matter of Balance and
Numerical Simulation.
3. In cases in which the adsorption of gas in the formation is present, to improve
the fit of the declination and production forecasts, is necessary considering the
time for desorption of gas, and its recovery factor.
4. Because the Eagle Ford formation no high levels of gas adsorbed, it is
recommended to optimize the costs of drilling and completion of wells.

Decline Curve Analysis in Unconventional Gas

Reservoirs with Organic Material and Adsorbed Gas
SPE Exploration and Development of Unconventional
Reservoirs Conference