Reconciling Empirical Methods for Reliable EUR and Production Profile Forecasts of Horizontal Wells in Tight/Shale Reservoirs
- Shaoyong Yu (Optimization Petroleum Technologies Inc.) | Zhixiang Jiang (Optimization Petroleum Technologies Inc.) | W. John Lee (Texas A&M University)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, 13-14 March, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2018. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.3.2 Multiphase Flow, 5.7 Reserves Evaluation, 5.6.3 Pressure Transient Analysis, 5.3 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, 5.7.2 Recovery Factors, 5 Reservoir Desciption & Dynamics, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling, 5.5.8 History Matching, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation
- Shale Reservoirs, Horizontal Wells in Tight, Empirical Methods, EUR Reconcile
- 12 in the last 30 days
- 378 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 9.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Confidently establishing single well and/or aggregated production profiles, particularly estimated ultimate recovery (EUR), is both an important and challenging process in unconventional reservoirs. Numerous papers have proposed forecasting techniques, but four fundamental approaches dominate:
Empirical decline curve analysis (DCA), such as multisegment Arps, the modified stretched exponential production decline (YM-SEPD) model, Duong's method, and power-law methods.
Rate-transient analysis (RTA), which can include corrections for special dynamic mechanisms (e.g., stress-sensitivity, multiphase flow, adsorption/desorption).
Numerical simulation for history-matching and forward modeling.
Volumetrically determining in-place resources based on geological data and then applying a recovery factor deemed suitable for the reservoir system and depletion scheme.
Each of these approaches can be implemented using either probabilistic or single-point estimates. Seidle et al. (2016) recently outlined recommended methodologies to accurately forecast time-series volumes and ultimate recovery in unconventional systems. A key recommendation in Seidle et al. (2016) is that the multiple approaches listed previously should be reconciled to establish confidence in forecasts and ultimate recovery estimates. However, Seidle et al. (2016) does not detail the means to achieve this goal. This paper establishes a methodology/workflow to reconcile the different types of empirical DCA methods, which should serve as a starting point for the ultimate goal of reconciling the four fundamental approaches listed.
This paper compares and contrasts the DCA methods applied to various field cases in prominent Canadian [Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB)] and US unconventional (oil and gas) plays (Bakken, Barnett, Cadomin, Eagle Ford, and Niobrara). Data sets are selectively chosen based on data quality and history length to increase confidence in the appraisal of the DCA approach. Hindcasting is applied to validate the results and conclusions.
From analysis of a number of wells in different types of reservoirs, a new workflow (methodology) is proposed and validated with hindcasting that allows practically and accurately reconciling EURs based on various empirical methods.
This manuscript is the first paper to discuss systematic reconciliation of EURs from varying approaches for horizontal wells in tight/shale reservoirs.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||15|
Ali, T.A. and Sheng, J.J 2015. Production Decline Models: A Comparison Study. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, 13–15 October. SPE-177300-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/177300-MS.
Clarkson, C.R. 2013. Production data analysis of unconventional gas wells: Review of theory and best practices. International Journal of Coal Geology 109–110: 104–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.01.002
Duong, A.N. 2011. An Unconventional Rate Decline Approach for Tight and Fracture-Dominated Gas Wells. SPE Reservoir Eval & Eng 14 (3): 377–387. SPE-137748-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/137748-PA.
Dutta, R., Meyet, M., Burns, C.. 2014. Comparison of Empirical and Analytical Methods for Production Forecasting in Unconventional Reservoirs: Lessons from North America. Presented at the SPE/EADE European Unconventional Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 25–27 February. SPE-167734-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167734-MS.
Fetkovich, M.J. 1980. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves. J Pet Technol 32 (6): 1065–1077. SPE-4629-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/4629-PA.
Joshi, K. and Lee, W.J. 2013. Comparison of Various Deterministic Forecasting Techniques in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 4–6 February. SPE-163870-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/163870-MS.
Long, D.R. and Davis, M.J. 1988. A New Approach to the Hyperbolic Curve. J Pet Technol 40 (7): 909–912. SPE-16237-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/16237-MS.
Seidle, J.P. and O'Conner, L.S. 2016. Estimation of Unconventional Well Recoveries and Economics from Transient Flow Data. Presented at the SPE/IAEE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 17–18 May. SPE-179983-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179983-MS.
Valkó, P.P. 2009. Assigning value to stimulation in the Barnett Shale: a simultaneous analysis of 7000-plus production histories and well completion records. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19–21 January. SPE-119369-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/119369-MS.
Yu, S. 2013. Best Practice of Using Empirical Methods for Production Forecast and EUR Estimation in Tight/Shale Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 5–7 November. SPE-167118-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167118-MS.
Yu, S., Lee, W.J., Miocevic, D.J.. 2013. Estimating Proved Reserves in Tight/Shale Wells Using the Modified SEPD Method. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October. SPE-166198-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/166198-MS.