(Blasingame) Pres SPEE Annual Meeting

2011 SPEE 48th Annual Meeting
Amelia Island Plantation, Florida — 4-7 June 2011
Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Unconventional Reservoirs
Tom BLASINGAME
Department of Petroleum Engineering
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3116 (USA)
+1.979.845.2292
t-blasingame@tamu.edu
Slide — 1/29
Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Unconventional Reservoirs
Tom Blasingame — Texas A&M University (06 June 2011)

Overview
Tom BLASINGAME
Slide — 2/29
+1.979.845.2292 — t-blasingame@tamu.edu
Overview:
●Brief Biography
●Orientation
●EUR 101:
■ Schematic production plot.
●Perspectives on Production Analysis:
■ Historical aspects.
■ Modern methods.
●Closing Perspectives:
■ Where we are.
■ Big questions.
■ Personal perspectives.
●Reality Check:
■ Nelson — pore/molecule size chart.
■ Loucks — et al shale pore space.
●Questions/Discussions
Slide — 3/29

Brief Biography — Tom Blasingame
Tom BLASINGAME
Slide — 4/29
Short Bio: Blasingame
Slide — 5/29

Orientation
Tom BLASINGAME
Slide — 6/29
Orientation: Reservoir Engineering Aspects of UR
●Where we want to be: (or so we think)
■ Fit for purpose stimulation (... oil/gas/condensate/geology)
■ More effective reservoir monitoring (... this is important!)
■ Early EUR (... prediction/correlation)
■ Well Spacing (... geology + PVT + modeling)
●How do we get there…
■ Better understanding of flowback/dewatering (... optimization)
■ Pressure-dependent properties… (... k, FcD, desorption?)
■ Understanding of the pore-scale (... what flows when/how)
■ Petrophysics (... conventional petrophysics not adequate)
■ PVT (... oil/gas/condensate/water — HP/HT)
●Facts of life…
■ Analogs (... need to understand uncertainty (very high))
■ EUR (... minimum of 6-9 months for high confidence)
■ IP (... may be uncorrelated with EUR)
■ Early Productivity (... poor wells don't get better)
■ Time-Rate Analysis (... not representative? (chaotic operations))
Slide — 7/29

EUR 101
Tom BLASINGAME
Slide — 8/29
EUR 101: Schematic Production Performance Plot
= Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR)

[The area under the hybrid (hyperbolic-
exponential rate curves]
Logarithm of Rate
"Switch Point"
from Hyperbolic
to Exponential Economic Limit (in rate — qlimit)
Hyperbolic Rate
Exponential Rate
(qlimit)
Economic Limit (in time — tlimit)
Production Time (tlimit)
●Discussion: Schematic Production Performance Plot

■ The schematic represents the most common approach to EUR.
Slide — 9/29
■ Used CAREFULLY, this may be valid, but more methods needed.

Perspectives on
Production Analysis
Tom BLASINGAME
Slide — 10/29
Arps Relations: Base Relations
Loss Ratio: Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 228-247.
Analysis of Decline Curves
1 qg J.J. Arps
≡− → q g = q gi exp[− Di t ]
D dqg /dt
Loss Ratio Derivative: Question(s):
● How were the Arps' rate relations derived?
The BASIS for the Arps' relations — i.e.,
d ⎡ qg ⎤ q gi the behavior of the D- and b- parameters,
b≡− ⎢ ⎥ → qg = is derived from OBSERVATIONS. These
dt ⎢⎣ dqg /dt ⎥⎦ (1 + bDi t ) (1 / b) are empirical results.
Case Rate-Time Relation Cumulative-Time Relation

qgi
Exponential: (b=0) qg = qgi exp[− Di t ] Gp = [1 − exp[− Di t ]]
Di
qgi qgi
Hyperbolic: (0<b<1) q g = Gp = [1 − (1 + bDi t )1− (1 / b ) ]
(1 + bDi t ) (1 / b ) (1 − b ) Di
qgi qgi
Harmonic: (b=1) qg = Gp = ln(1 + Di t )
Slide — 11/29
(1 + Di t ) Di
Arps' Relations: EUR Plots
Question(s):
● Graphical extrapolations of EUR? Family of "EUR SPE 98042 (2005)
plots" derived from the Arps' exponential and A Production-Based Method for Direct
hyperbolic relations. Hyperbolic "EUR plot" Estimation of Gas-in-Place and Reserves
requires a modular computing environment (e.g., a T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. and
spreadsheet), as multiple variables are established J.A. Rushing, Anadarko Petroleum.
simultaneously.
Case Plotting Function

Exponential: (b=0)
⎡ q gi ⎤
q g = q gi − Di Gp ⎢G ≡ ⎥ q g versus Gp
⎢⎣ D i ⎥⎦
Hyperbolic: (0<b<1)
1
⎡ Gp ⎤ (1−b) ⎡ q gi ⎤ ⎡ Gp ⎤
q g = q gi ⎢1 − ⎥ ⎢G ≡ ⎥ log( q g ) versus log ⎢1 − ⎥
⎣ G ⎦ ⎣ (1 − b) Di ⎦ ⎢⎣ G ⎥⎦
Harmonic: (b=1)
⎡ D ⎤
q g = q gi exp ⎢− i Gp ⎥ log( q g ) versus Gp
Slide — 12/29
⎢⎣ q gi ⎥⎦
Arps' Hyperbolic: Blasingame-Rushing EUR Plot
Question(s): SPE 98042 (2005)
● Is there a distinctly unique mechanism for A Production-Based Method for Direct
establishing the validity of the hyperbolic Estimation of Gas-in-Place and Reserves
relation? Yes, the "hyperbolic" decline "type T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. and
curve" plot yields straight-line trends. J.A. Rushing, Anadarko Petroleum.
Hyperbolic Decline: (0<b<1) Exponential Decline: (b=0)

1
⎡ Gp ⎤ (1−b) ⎡ q gi ⎤ ⎡ q gi ⎤
q g = q gi ⎢1 − ⎥ ⎢G ≡ ⎥ q g = q gi − Di Gp ⎢G ≡ ⎥
⎣ G ⎦ ⎣ (1 − b) Di ⎦ ⎢⎣ Di ⎥⎦
Slide — 13/29
a. "Hyperbolic Plot:" (log-log format) — b. "Hyperbolic Plot:" (Cartesian format) —
Provides a straight-line for ALL cases. Provides a straight-line ONLY for b=0 case.

Decline Type Curve Analysis: Fetkovich-Carter Type Curve
Question(s): SPEJ (October 1985) 719-728.
● Can we perform time-rate analysis using a reservoir model? Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear
Yes, the Fetkovich decline curve (1970's) provides a direct Gas Flow Systems: Constant Terminal
reservoir solution (for pwf=constant). Pressure Case
R.D. Carter, Amoco Production
JPT (June 1980) 1065-1077.
Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves
M.J. Fetkovich, Phillips Petroleum
Transient Stems: (left)

z Numerical or analytical
model (pwf = constant).
z q(t) is concave up.
Depletion Stems: (right)
z q(t) is concave down.
Variables for the Carter Decline Type Curve
t Dd =
0.00633 kt 1 z b=0: pwf = con.
φμ gi cti rw 2 1 ⎡ ⎡ r ⎤ 2
⎢ e
⎤⎡ ⎡
⎢ ⎥ − 1⎥⎥ ⎢ln ⎢
2 ⎢ ⎣ rw ⎦ r
re ⎤ 1 ⎤
⎥− ⎥
2 ⎦⎥
z b=1: qo = con. (qo/Δp).
⎣
q(t )
⎢
⎦ ⎣ ⎣ wa ⎦
z b>1: transient flow or
rwa = rwe − s
q Dd =
kh ( pi − p wf ) external drive energy.
⎡ ⎡ r ⎤ 1⎤
141.2 μ gi B gi ⎢ln ⎢ e ⎥ − ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎣ rwa ⎦ 2 ⎦⎥
z λ: numerical gas flow
solutions (λ =f(pwf/(pi)).
Reservoir Properties:
z k — y-axis match.
a. Original format Fetkovich-Carter type curve — most important
z G — x&y-axis matches.
Slide — 14/29
observation is that 0<b<1. For cases where b>1; either transient
flow OR external energy is being added to the reservoir system. z s — reD match.
Pseudosteady-State Analysis: Flowing Material Balance Plot
Question(s):
● What is the "Flowing Material Balance" plot? In JCPT (June 1997), 52-55.
simple terms, pwf(t) data are "converted" to pavg(t)
data using the pseudosteady-state flow equation, The 'Flowing' Gas Material Balance
then plotted as a straight-line extrapolation function L. Mattar and R. McNeil, Fekete Assoc.
and "solved" for gas-in-place.
"Flowing Material Balance" Plot:

Theory:
● Palacio and Blasingame [1993]
● Mattar and McNeil [1997]
● Agarwal et al [1999]
Advantages:
● Straightforward and intuitive.
● Shut-in pressures NOT required.
● Direct estimation of contacted
gas-in-place.
Limitations:
● Boundary-dominated flow regime
a. The "Flowing Material Balance" (Normalized Rate-Cumula- must exist.
tive Function Plot) formulation is derived using the solution
for the diffusivity equation during boundary-dominated flow
regime. This formulation provides a direct estimate of the
Slide — 15/29
contacted gas-in-place using time, flowing wellbore pres-
sure, and flowrate data.

Time-Rate-Pressure Analysis: Material Balance Time
● Can the well-reservoir model be inferred Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves —
from such data? Yes. Analysis of Gas Well Production Data
● Is diagnosis sufficient? No, we must also J.C. Palacio and T. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
be able to model/history match data with
a model (complete process).
Transient Boundary-Dominated
qgi Flow Flow
qg = ? ⎡ Δm( p) ⎤ ⎡ Gp ⎤
(1/4)
⎡ Δm( p) ⎤ ⎡ Gp ⎤
(1)
(1 + bDi t ) (1 / b )
⎢ ⎥ ≈ m̂ g , pss ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ≈ m̂ g , pss ⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ q g ⎦⎥ trans ⎣⎢ q g ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ q g ⎦⎥ bdf ⎣⎢ q g ⎦⎥
a. Raw (daily) rate and pressure data — bottomhole b. "Transformed" data shows fractured well
Slide — 16/29
pressures are calculated, note the effect of liquid response at early times, very strong evidence
loading. of closed system at late times.

Modern Decline Analysis: Power-Law Exponential Rate
● Can we use time-rate analysis as a diag- Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands —
nostic? Yes, use D(t) and b(t) functions. Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve
● Differentiation of q(t) data? Intuition is Estimates Using Arps' Decline Curves
against it — but it is possible with some D.Ilk, Texas A&M U., J. Rushing and D. Perego, Anadarko
careful editing and robust differentiation. Petroleum and T. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
PLE Rate Relation:

q(t ) ≡ qî exp[−D∞t − Dˆ it n ]
Decline Function: D(t)
1 dq
D(t ) ≡ −
q dt
≈ D∞ + nDˆ it −(1−n)
Hyperbolic Function: b(t)
d ⎡ 1 ⎤
b(t ) ≡ ⎢ ⎥
dt ⎣ D(t ) ⎦
nDˆ (1 − n)
● Points: ≈ i t −n
■
[nDˆ i + D∞ t (1−n) ]2
Slide — 17/29
b(t) and D(t) are evaluated continuously.
■ D(t) trend indicates "power-law" behavior.
Modern Decline Analysis: Stretched Exponential Relation
● When was the "stretched exponential" Assigning Value to Stimulation in the Barnett
model first cited in the Petroleum Shale: A Simultaneous Analysis of 7000 Plus
literature? Jones (1942) and Arps (1945). Production Histories and Well Completion Records
● Is there a physical representation of the P. Valkó, Texas A&M U.
SE model? Yes, a sum of exponentials.
●Non-Petroleum Literature:
■ Kohlrausch (1854).
■ Phillips (1996).
■ Kisslinger (1993).
q(t ) = qˆ i exp[− Dˆ i t n ] ■ Decays in random, disordered,
chaotic, heterogeneous systems.
∑
Valkó (2009)
q (t ) = q i exp[−a i t ]
i =1 q(t) = qî exp[− (t /τ )n ]
Jones (1942) and Arps (1945)
⎡ − D t m−1 ⎤
q(t ) = qo exp ⎢ o ⎥
⎢⎣100 (m − 1) ⎥⎦
Slide — 18/29
Modern Decline Analysis: Continuous EUR
● How to estimate EUR "continuously"? Continuous Estimation of Ultimate Recovery
Use "segments" of the time-rate history
to evaluate EUR regularly in time. S. Currie, D. Ilk, and T. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
q g (t ) ≡ qgi /[(1 + bDi t ) (1 / b) ] [hyperbolic]
q g (t ) ≡ qˆ gi exp[− D∞ t − Dˆ i t n ] [PLE]
q g (t ) ≡ q gi − Di Gp [G ≡ q gi /Di ] [qg(t) vs. Gp(t)]

c. CEUR governing equations.
a. Continuous EUR (CEUR) process plots.
Slide — 19/29
b. CEUR hyperbolic, PLE, and q-Gp summary plots. d. CEUR master summary plot (all results).

Modern Production Analysis: Integration of Results
SPE 140556 (2011)
Integration of Production Analysis and Rate-time
Analysis via Parametric Correlations — Theoretical
Considerations and Practical Applications
D. Ilk, DeGolyer and MacNaughton, J.A. Rushing,
Apache, and T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
ˆ c qˆ d Horizontal well with multiple vertical fractures:

k = a nb Di i
"Shale Gas Field C"
a. Correlation plot — kcal versus kmeas.
Power-Law Exponential Relations:

ˆ
EUR= αˆ nβ 1 dq
"Shale Gas Field C" D(t ) ≡ − ≈ D∞ + nDˆ i t −(1− n)
q dt
q (t ) = qî exp[ − D∞ t − Dˆ i t n ]
Slide — 20/29
b. Correlation plot — EURcal versus EURmeas.


Closing Perspectives
Tom BLASINGAME
Slide — 21/29
Where We Are: Reservoir Engineering Aspects of UR
●What we REALLY know…
■ Tight gas is relatively easy (... vertical wells, HP/HT, PVT)
■ Gas shales are technically viable as a resource (… economics?)
■ Horizontal multi-fractured wells (… (now) taken for granted)
●What we THINK know…
■ The fracture geometry is (... planar? complex? who cares?)
■ The phase behavior (… can be extremely complex)
■ The ptf to pwf conversion(s) (... early-time heavy water load?)
●What we may NEVER know…
■ Distribution of natural fractures (... impossible?)
■ Transport of gas/liquids in shales (... via organic matter?)
●What we SHOULD KNOW in the near future…
■ Duration of data required for EUR (... more is always better)
■ Better understanding of phase behavior (... not "conventional")
■ Optimal well spacing/orientation/placement (... do this early!)
Slide — 22/29
Big Questions: Reservoir Engineering Aspects of UR
●Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR)?
■ Early EUR? (... can this be meaningful?)
■ EUR = f(t)? (... how do we incorporate this?)
■ Well Spacing? (... is this really the holy grail?)
●QUANTIFYING reservoir properties?
■ Pressure Transient Analysis (... ultra-low k ... issues?)
■ Production Analysis (... ptf may not be sufficient)
■ Petrophysical analysis (... theory ≠ application)
●Liquids-Rich Systems?
■ Fluid-Flow Mechanisms (... what is really flowing where?)
■ PVT (... near-critical fluids are not trivial)
■ Improved Recovery (... we all know this is coming)
■ Fit-for-Purpose Stimulation (... higher FcD, more complexity)
■ Artificial Lift (... fact of life)
■ Recovery (... low to extremely low primary recovery?)
Slide — 23/29
Personal Perspectives: Reservoir Engineering Aspects of UR
●Never-Ending Arguments…
■ SRV (... what is it, really?)
■ Desorption (... significance? timing? relevance?)
■ Stimulation Fluids (... where does it go? does it matter?)
■ Microseismic (... crystal ball, roulette wheel, or roadmap?)
■ Pressure-Dependent Whatever (... so what?)
■ Natural Fractures (... if/when/why/what?)
■ Dual Porosity/Dual Permeability (... what about the physics?)
■ Well Placement/Effect of Layering (... when does it matter?)
●Things that SHOULD help…
■ Production Logs (... but just a snapshot in time)
■ Optimal Proppant Design/Placement (... obvious, but)
■ Stimulation Stages/Perforation Clusters (... geology + logs)
●Things that DEFINITELY WOULD help…
■ Measured pwf (... yes, this is my favorite song)
■ Downhole Fluid Sampling (... sooner or later)
■ Horizontal Core
Slide — 24/29
(... why not?)
Last Words: Reservoir Engineering Aspects of UR
●EUR:
■ Time-Rate Analyses (... may not be sufficient)
■ Time-Rate-Pressure Analyses (... requires reservoir model)
■ Constraints (... e.g., 15 years seems reasonable)
●Reservoir Modeling: (i.e., simulators)
■ Present (... conventional models with modifications)
■ Near-Future (... fundamental flow kinetics, complex geometries)
■ Distant-Future (... pore-scale phenomena, nano-scale PVT, ?)
●Reservoir Engineering Tools:
■ Material Balance Methods (... not applicable at reservoir-scale)
■ Pressure Transient Tests (... surprisingly good in cases [need k])
■ Production Analysis (... very good in cases [need good ptf data])
■ Reservoir Fluids (... very complex, near-critical liquids)
■ EOR (... not sure where to start — CO2, lean gas, ???)
■ Ad-hoc Tools (... e.g., Linear flow analysis — lack resolution)
Slide — 25/29

Reality Check
Tom BLASINGAME
Slide — 26/29
Reality Check: Nelson Pore/Molecule Size Chart
Question(s): AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, no. 3 (March 2009)
● How small are pores in shale gas? Note Pore-throat Sizes In Sandstones, Tight
that the size of the pores is on the order of Sandstones, and Shales
5-10 times the size of the fluid molecule.
P.H. Nelson, USGS
Slide — 27/29
Reality Check: Shale Pore Space (Barnett Example)
Question(s): J. Sedimentary Research, v. 79/12 (2009)
● Where is/are the gas/liquid stored? There Morphology, Genesis, and Distribution of
is porosity, often in the organic materials. Nanometer-scale Pores in Siliceous Mudstones of
● Why is the phase behavior of many the Mississippian Barnett Shale
shales "near critical"? Nanopores? Loucks, R.G., R.M. Reed, S.C. Ruppel, and D.M. Jarvie
Slide — 28/29

End of Presentation
Tom BLASINGAME
+1.979.845.2292
Slide — 29/29
t-blasingame@tamu.edu

(Blasingame) Pres SPEE Annual Meeting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Blasingame) Pres SPEE Annual Meeting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 SPEE 48th Annual Meeting

Amelia Island Plantation, Florida — 4-7 June 2011

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

= Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR)

Production Time (tlimit)

●Discussion: Schematic Production Performance Plot

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Case Rate-Time Relation Cumulative-Time Relation

Case Plotting Function

Hyperbolic Decline: (0<b<1) Exponential Decline: (b=0)

2011 SPEE 48th Annual Meeting

Transient Stems: (left)

"Flowing Material Balance" Plot:

2011 SPEE 48th Annual Meeting

2011 SPEE 48th Annual Meeting

PLE Rate Relation:

q g (t ) ≡ qgi /[(1 + bDi t ) (1 / b) ] [hyperbolic]

q g (t ) ≡ q gi − Di Gp [G ≡ q gi /Di ] [qg(t) vs. Gp(t)]

a. Continuous EUR (CEUR) process plots.

2011 SPEE 48th Annual Meeting

ˆ c qˆ d Horizontal well with multiple vertical fractures:

a. Correlation plot — kcal versus kmeas.

Power-Law Exponential Relations:

2011 SPEE 48th Annual Meeting

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

You might also like