SPE-172423-MS

A Simple Approach to Determining Original Gas-in-Place Using Production

Data
S. Mohammed, University of Mines and Technology

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 05– 07 August 2014.

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
A simple approach is presented that utilizes production data to determine original gas-in-place (OGIP). In
particular, we propose a “modified” Agarwal-Gardner rate/cumulative decline type curves that yield an
anchor point of unity, instead of . The advantage of this unit anchor point is that, the normalized
pseudopressure drop ratio, which is a plotting function on the abscissa, need not be modified; hence,
providing a simpler approach than the traditional methods.
The computation of pseudopressure drop ratio (or pseudocumulative function) requires a prior knowl-
edge of average reservoir pressure history, or indirectly, OGIP. Consequently, various methods have been
proposed in the literature to solve OGIP. This paper utilizes an approximate gas flowing material balance
equation, which was previously presented by this author, to make an initial estimate or provide a “true
window” for OGIP. This approximate plot yields two negative slopes during boundary-dominated flow
regime – early-time pseudosteady state and late-time pseudosteady state lines. The early-time pseudoste-
ady state line is shown to yield a reasonable initial estimate of OGIP while the late-time pseudosteady state
line yields an optimistic result.
The proposed approach is applicable to general variable pressure and/or variable rate case for single-
and multi-well systems during boundary-dominated flow regime. The method is validated with two
simulated data; and then, applied to two field data – one from a single-well system and the other from a
multi-well system.

Introduction
The traditional methods for determining OGIP from production data may be categorized into two. The
first involves methods that use type curves (Palacio and Blasingame, 1993; Callard and Shenewerk, 1995),
and, the second methods do not use type curves matching technique (Blasingame and Lee, 1988; Agarwal
et al 1999; Mattar and Anderson, 2003; 2005).
Agarwal et al (1999) developed rate/cumulative decline type curves to determine OGIP. The key
finding was that a cartesian plot of the reciprocal of dimensionless flowing pressure, , versus

dimensionless cumulative production based on drainage area, QDA, becomes linear during boundary-
2 SPE-172423-MS

Figure 1—Agarwal-Gardner rate/cumulative decline type curves (Agarwal et al 1999)

dominated flow regime and converges at a single value of (0.159) on the abscissa. This single value
on the abscissa has been referred to as an anchor point. Fig. 1 shows Agarwal-Gardner (Agarwal et al
1999) rate/cumulative decline type curves.
Eqs. 1 and 2 are definitions of the plotting functions utilized by Agarwal et al (1999):
(1)

(2)

where pseudopressure drop functions are:

(2a)

(2b)

and pseudopressure function is (Al-Hussainy et al 1966):

(2c)

Mattar and Anderson (2003) proposed a new version of Agarwal-Gardner rate/cumulative decline type
curves. This is the so-called flowing material balance (FMB), and, is given as:
(3)

where
(3a)

material balance pseudotime is (Palacio and Blasingame 1993):

SPE-172423-MS 3

(3b)

and:
(3c)

Based on Eq. 3, a plot of , against Qpn on linear coordinates yields a straight line during the

boundary-dominated flow regime with OGIP on the abscissa.

The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative rate/cumulative decline type curves to that of
Agarwal et al (1999). It is demonstrated that the proposed rate/cumulative decline type curves yield an
anchor point of unity as opposed to Agarwal et al (1999) type curves, which yield . This, as will be
shown later, is because the plotting function on the abscissa is based on the traditional dimensionless
decline cumulative function instead of dimensionless cumulative based on drainage area; thus, modifi-
cation of the plotting function on the abscissa is avoided.

Proposed Rate/Cumulative Decline Type Curves

Recently, Mohammed and Enty (2013) presented a theoretical justification for the application of
pseudocumulative function, Gpn, in the gas FMB equation as:
(4)

where normalized pseudopressure drop is:

(4a)

normalized pseudopressure functions are (Meunier et al 1987; and Palacio and Blasingame 1993):
(4b)

(4c)

pseudosteady state (pss) constant is:

(4d)

and pseudocumulative function, Gpn, is (Callard and Schenewerk 1995):

(4e)
4 SPE-172423-MS

Figure 2—Rate/cumulative decline type curves on a linear graph

Eq. 4 can be expressed in dimensionless form as:

(5)

For a circular reservoir, Eq. 5 becomes:

(6)

where, in both Eqs. 5 and 6, the following dimensionless variables apply:

(6a)

and
(6b)

Fig. 2 is a rate/cumulative decline type curves for a well in a circular bounded reservoir for various
dimensionless drainage radii, . The early curved portions of fig. 2 are based on the well-known
transient state flow equation while the negative-slope straight line portions are based on Eq. 6. Notice in
fig. 2 that, during boundary-dominated flow, the data points for all values converge at a single value
of unity on the abscissa. Thus, the distinguish feature between figs. 1 and 2 lies in the anchor points (i.e.,
x-intercept). It should be noted that while fig. 1 utilizes dimensionless cumulative production based on
drainage area, QDA, fig. 2 utilizes dimensionless decline cumulative function, QDd. To put the reader on
a clear as to these plotting functions and their corresponding x-intercepts (i.e., anchor points), we present
the theoretical basis of figs. 1 and 2 for the corresponding liquid case in Appendix A.
Table 1 compares the proposed rate/cumulative decline type curves and that of Agarwal et al (1999).
Fig. 3 is the corresponding log-log graph of fig. 2. It should be noted from Eq. 5 that the anchor point
(i.e., the unit value on the x-intercept) will be attained regardless of the reservoir geometry.
SPE-172423-MS 5

Table 1—A Comparison of the Proposed Approach and Agarwal-Gardner Rate/Cumulative Decline Plot.
Rate/Pressure
schedule; and fluid x-intercept
Author(s) phase y-axis x-axis (Anchor point)

Mohammed (this work) General (rigorous); QDd 1

single phase (liquid or
gas)
Agarwal et al (1999) General (rigorous);
single phase (liquid or QDA
gas)

Figure 3—Rate/cumulative decline type curves on a log-log graph

Proposed Analysis
Fig. 2 is a type curve, which implies that the plotting functions are dimensionless. This seems to suggest
that production data have to be expressed in dimensionless variables in order to yield the anchor point,
and hence OGIP. In such a case, a prior knowledge of reservoir parameters (see Eqs. 6a and 6b) are
required to express the production data in dimensionless variables. This, obviously, will be a complicated
approach. We propose plotting functions that do not require a prior knowledge of reservoir parameters,
and yet yield the same anchor point as fig. 2 to determine OGIP: we present the approach below.
During boundary-dominated flow, Eq. 7 is valid (Mohammed and Enty 2013):
(7)

where
(7a)

Other form of Eq. 7, in terms of material balance pseudotime, has previously been reported by Palacio
and Blasingame (1993) and Agarwal et al (1999).
Now, when we substitute Eq. 7 into Eq. 4, we have:
(8)

Eq. 8 is the basis of this paper; and, it is strictly applicable during boundary-dominated flow regime.
We refer to the term, , on the right hand side (RHS) of Eq. 8 as the normalized pseudopressure
6 SPE-172423-MS

drop ratio, which, clearly, is a dimensionless variable. From Eq. 8, a plot of normalized rate, ,

against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio, , on a linear co-ordinate will yield a straight line

of negative slope during boundary-dominated flow regime and converge at a single value of unity on the
abscissa. Thus, Eq. 8 honours fig. 2.
Unlike the Agarwal-Gardner’s approach, the proposed approach does not require that the normalized
pseudopressure drop ratio, , be modified or multiplied by any constant to yield the anchor point.

We thus, find Eq. 8 to be simpler than the traditional approaches.

Similar to Agarwal-Gardner rate/cumulative decline type curves, the proposed approach is sensitive to
the OGIP value used. Thus, optimistic and pessimistic OGIP undershoots and overshoots the anchor point
respectively. The reader should recognize this because of the relationship between OGIP and as
given by Eq. 7.

Validation and Application

We will validate Eqs. 8 using two published simulated data – variable pressure/variable rate and constant
pressure/variable rate cases. We will, subsequently, apply the proposed approach to two field data: one
from a single-well system and the other from a two-well system.
We will later present an approximate graphical method to aid the analyst make an initial estimate of
OGIP that will converge rapidly. Technically, this approximate method should be the first step in order
to evaluate , but we intend to show that later so as not to deviate from our objective.

Simulated Cases
Case 1: Variable pressure/variable rate case (Rodgers et al 1983, case 1)
Reservoir properties and production data in table 2 were taken from Rodgers et al (1983) and Callard and
Shenewerk (1995). The numerical simulated variable pressure/variable rate data was generated for a gas
well in a square bounded reservoir. As reported by the authors, the correct OGIP from the simulator was
4.855 Bcf.
As a way of validation of Eq. 8, we compute using the correct OGIP (i.e., 4.855 Bcf); and,
assume other OGIP values (i.e., 4.0 and 5.5 Bcf) to ascertain the sensitivity of Eq. 8. Fig. 4 shows a linear
plot involving normalized rate versus normalized pseudopressure drop ratio based on Eq. 8. The
immediate observation is that the correct OGIP value yields an anchor point of unity as expected. The
y-intercept yields a pss constant of 1.56 Mscf/D/psia. Thus, the behaviour depicted by fig. 4 validates Eq.
8. The sensitivity of the proposed approach is apparent in fig. 4: the overestimated and underestimated
OGIP undershoots and overshoots the anchor point respectively.
Case 2: Constant pressure/variable rate case (Carter 1985, example 1)
The data for this case was taken from Carter (1985). The numerical simulated constant pressure/variable
rate data was generated for a fractured gas well in a bounded reservoir. The correct OGIP from the
simulator, as reported by Carter (1985), was 3.087 Bscf.
Fig. 5 shows a linear plot involving normalized rate and normalized pseudopressure drop ratio. It is
observed that during boundary-dominated flow, the correct OGIP value yields an anchor point of unity
while the incorrect value deviates from the anchor point. Also note that the y-intercept yields pss constant
of 0.5 Mscf/D/psia. This, again, validates Eq. 8.
SPE-172423-MS 7

Table 2—Reservoir and production data for case 1 (simulated case)

G 4.855 Bcf
Permeability 0.3 md
Height 80 ft
Temperature 636°R
Gas gravity 0.7
Gas saturation 75%
Pi 2500 psia
Porosity 10%
ba,pss 201,359 psia2/cp/Mcf/D
A 4,840,000 ft2
Rwa 2.8346 ft
CA 30.8822; well in the centre of square

m(P),
time, yrs qg, Mcf/D GP, MMcf Pwf, psia psia2/cp

0 0 0 2500 4.77E⫹08
1 1000 365 1604 2.11E⫹08
2 1000 730 1361 1.54E⫹08
3 800 1022 1352 1.52E⫹08
4 800 1314 1153 1.12E⫹08
5 600 1533 1216 1.24E⫹08
6 600 1752 1071 9.80E⫹07
7 400 1898 1197 1.20E⫹08
8 400 2044 1107 1.03E⫹08

Field Cases
Case 3: (West Virginia Gas Well data) – Low Permeability fractured gas well
This field data was first analyzed by Fetkovich et al (1987), who used decline curves with ordinary time.
Fraim and Wattenbarger (1987) later analyzed this data with normalized time. This field data has been
used extensively in the literature, and will therefore provide a means to compare our result with other
investigators. Fig. 6 shows the production history.
Fig. 7 shows a linear plot involving normalized rate and normalized pseudopressure drop ratio based
on Eq. 8. During boundary-dominated flow, it is observed that an anchor point of unity is attained with
OGIP value of 2.78 Bscf. Table 3 compares our result with that of other investigators.
Case 4: Multi-well field case (Dakota Gas field data, New Mexico)
This field data is from a two-well system obtained from Dakota field, New Mexico. Reservoir and fluid
properties of Wells A and B are given in tables 4 and 5 respectively. Figs. 8 and 9 show the production
history for Wells A and B respectively. During the last two months of production, Well B was shut in
while Well A was still on production (see dates of last production in tables 4 and 5).
The purposes of this example are two-folds: 1) to illustrate that the computation of should

reflect the field cumulative, while should still reflect a single well production data. 2) to show

that knowledge of adjacent wells production rates is not necessary; all that is required to determine OGIP
from a multi-well system is a single-well production data and the total cumulative production (NOT total
production rate) of the field.
Figs. 10 and 11 illustrate plots of normalized rate against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio for
Wells A and B respectively. The computation of in fig. 10 was based on the cumulative

production of only Well A while that of fig. 11 was based on the cumulative production of only Well B.
8 SPE-172423-MS

Figure 4 —A linear plot of normalized rate against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio for case 1 (Eq. 8)

Figure 5—A linear plot of normalized rate against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio for case 2 (Eq. 8)

Figure 6 —Production history for West Virginia gas well (Fraim and Wattenbarger, 1987)

Clearly, neither fig. 10 nor fig. 11 yields the anchor point. This is attributed to the fact that the computation
of did not reflect the entire reservoir volume, but only the drainage volume of the single well

involved.
Fig. 12 illustrates a plot of normalized rate against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio for Well A.
In this case, however, the computation of was based on the entire field cumulative production
SPE-172423-MS 9

Figure 7—A linear plot of normalized rate against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio for case 3 (Eq. 8).

Table 3—Comparison of results for Case 3.

Ahmed and
Fetkovich et al Fraim and Blasingame and Ansah et al Mckinney Ye and Ayala
Parameter (1987) Wattenbarger (1987) Lee (1988) (1996) (2005) (2013) This work

G, Bscf 3.36 3.30 2.63 2.85 2.73 2.76 2.78

Table 4 —(Well A): Reservoir and fluid properties for case 4(Dakota Table 5—(Well B): Reservoir and fluid properties for case 4(Dakota
Gas field data, New Mexico) Gas field data, New Mexico)
Required: Required:
Initial Reservoir Pressure, pi 1625 Psi Initial Reservoir Pressure, pi 1625 Psi
Flowing BHP, pwf 550 Psi Flowing BHP, pwf 550 Psi
Producing Thickness, h 60 Ft Producing Thickness, h 152 Ft
Porosity, ф 8.5 % Porosity, ф 8.5 %
Initial Water Saturation, Swi 40 % Initial Water Saturation, Swi 40 %
Wellbore Radius, rw 0.33 Ft Wellbore Radius, rw 0.33 Ft
Reservoir Temperature, T 107 °F Reservoir Temperature, T 107 °F
Specific Gravity, γg 0.6 Specific Gravity, γg 0.74
Water Compressibility, cw 0.000006 1/psi Water Compressibility, cw 0.000006 1/psi
Rock Compressibility, cf 0.000003 1/psi Rock Compressibility, cf 0.000003 1/psi
Current Cumulative Prod., Gp 550464 Mscf Current Cumulative Prod., Gp 722325 Mscf
Calculated: Calculated:
Initial z-Factor, zi 0.8000 Initial z-Factor, zi 0.8000
Initial FVF, Bgi 1.4440 rb/Mscf Initial FVF, Bgi 1.4440 rb/Mscf
Initial Viscosity, ␮gi 0.0162 Cp Initial Viscosity, ␮gi 0.0162 Cp
Initial Total Compressibility, cti 3.70E-04 1/psi Initial Total Compressibility, cti 3.70E-04 1/psi
Optional: Optional:
Date of First Prod., M/D/Y 5/1/1971 Date of First Prod., M/D/Y 6/1/1971
Date of Last Prod., M/D/Y 5/1/1999 Date of Last Prod., M/D/Y 3/1/1999

while the normalized rate, , still reflects the production data of only Well A. As expected, fig. 12

yields an anchor point of unity during boundary-dominated flow. It should be noted that the gas flow rate
of Well B was not utilized. Thus, knowledge of adjacent well production rate is not necessary; only a single
well that has produced to the boundary-dominated flow regime and the cumulative production of the field
are required.
10 SPE-172423-MS

Figure 8 —Production history of Well A, Dakota field, New Mexico

Figure 9 —Production history of Well B, Dakota field, New Mexico

Figure 10 —A linear plot of normalized rate against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio for well A in a two-well system. reflects the
cumulative production of only well A.

Fig. 13 for Well B was treated as in the case of fig. 12. Thus, the gas flow rate of Well A was not
utilized. Fig. 13 also yields the anchor point. This shows that production data from one active well in a
multi-well system coupled with the field cumulative are sufficient to yield OGIP. Herchen and Lemke
(2007) made a similar observation.
It should be noted that OGIP of 1.9 Bscf was used to compute for all of the four figures (i.e.,
figs. 10 through 13).
SPE-172423-MS 11

Figure 11—A linear plot of normalized rate against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio for Well B in a two-well system. reflects the
cumulative production of only well B.

Figure 12—A linear plot of normalized rate of Well A against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio in a two-well system. reflects the total
cumulative production of wells A and B.

Figure 13—A linear plot of normalized rate of well B against normalized pseudopressure drop ratio in a two-well system. reflects the total
cumulative production of wells A and B.

Approximate Method for Determining Initial Estimate of OGIP

The computation of in Eq. 8 requires an initial estimate of OGIP. Agarwal et al (1999) suggested

that the cumulative gas production could provide a lower-bound estimate for OGIP, whereas a volumetric
12 SPE-172423-MS

Table 6 —A Comparison of approximate and rigorous methods for determining OGIP.

Rate and Pressure Linearization
scenario y-axis x-axis (pss flow regime) x-intercept

General (approximate, Eq. 9) Partial (two straight lines 1. Early straight line extrapolates to G.
are observed) 2. Late straight line overestimates G

General (rigorous, Eq. 8) (Almost) complete 1

(one straight line)

Figure 14 —An approximate FMB plot applied to case 2 (see Eq. 9). An aid to make make an initial estimate of OGIP

estimate obtained from petrophysical data could provide an upper-bound estimate. A value in between the
two would suffice as an initial estimate.
Recently, Mohammed and Enty (2013) demonstrated with both simulated and field data that when
actual cumulative is used instead of pseudo cumulative, two negative slopes may be obtained during
boundary-dominated flow regime. The governing approximate gas flow equation utilized by the authors
is given by:
(9)

The authors showed that when is plotted versus on a linear coordinate, an

early-time pseudosteady state (pss) line may be present, while late-time pss line appears later. Extrapo-
lation of the early-time pss line to the x-intercept will suffice as an initial estimate of OGIP. This initial
estimate will permit the computation of required in the normalized pseudopressure drop ratio

term. Table 6 compares the approximate (Eq. 9) and the rigorous (Eq. 8) methods of analyses.

Applications
We first apply this approximate method (i.e., Eq. 9) to case 2, data from Carter (1985) shown previously.
From fig. 14, it is observed that both early time and late pss lines are present during the boundary-
dominated flow regime. The early time pss line, when extrapolated to the x-axis, yields OGIP of 3.1 Bscf,
SPE-172423-MS 13

Figure 15—An approximate FMB plot applied to case 3. An aid to make an initial estimate of OGIP

Figure 16 —An approximate FMB plot applied to case 4 (see Eq. 9). An aid to make an initial estimate of OGIP

which compares very well with the simulated OGIP of 3.087 Bscf reported by Carter (1985). The accuracy
of this early time pss data is due to the fact that the data within this period are not affected by the variations
in viscosity-compressibility product. Thus, the early time pss line will suffice as an initial estimate of
OGIP. As opposed to the early time pss data, the late time pss data have been affected by the variations
in viscosity-compressibility product, and hence yields an erroneous result of 5.7 Bscf.
Fig. 15 also illustrates the concept applied to case 3, West Virginia gas well. It is observed that both
early time and late pss lines are present during the boundary-dominated flow. The early time pss line,
when extrapolated to the x-axis, yields OGIP of 2.78 Bscf, which is the same as the rigorous plot (see fig.
7).
Fig. 16 illustrates the concept applied to case 4, Dakota multi-well field, New Mexico. It is observed
that both early time and late pss lines are present during the boundary-dominated flow regime. The early
time pss line, when extrapolated to the x-axis, yields OGIP of 1.9 Bscf, which yields accurate value (see
figs. 12 and 13). Note in fig. 16 that the field cumulative production, (Gp)field, is used while the rate and
pseudopressure drop still reflect the production data of Well A alone. Similar approach was applied to
Well B as shown in fig. 17. The same result is obtained. Thus, regardless of the active well used, the same
result will be obtained. Recall that figs. 12 and 13 for the rigorous case depicted a similar behaviour.
We now apply this concept to case 1 to show that the early time pss line may not always be present.
The reason is simple: if the data points are recorded only during the late time pss flow regime. Thus, if
all (or almost all) the pss data points are affected by the viscosity– compressibility variations. Fig. 18
illustrates this behaviour. It is observed that both the transient and the early time pss line are absent. The
14 SPE-172423-MS

Figure 17—An approximate FMB plot applied to case 4 (see Eq. 9). An aid to make an initial estimate of OGIP

Figure 18 —An approximate FMB plot applied to case 1 (see Eq. 9). An aid to make an initial estimate of OGIP.

author is of the view that the entire data were recorded during the late time pss flow regime. This is
substantiated by the earlier work of Callard and Schenewerk (1995), who observed that all the data points
on the rate/cumulative decline type curves were concave to the origin. It can be seen from fig. 18 that the
late time pss line yields an OGIP of 6.9 Bcf, which is optimistic (the true value is 4.855 Bcf).
Nevertheless, the analyst is guided to use an initial OGIP value which is lesser than 6.9 Bcf, and of course,
greater than the last cumulative production data point (2.044 Bcf in this case, see table 2). Thus, the
analyst has a “true window” within which to make an initial guess of OGIP.

Summary and Conclusion

Summary
The Agarwal-Gardner rate/cumulative decline type curves yield an anchor point of provided the
dimensionless cumulative function is expressed in terms of drainage area, QDA. If, however, dimension-
less decline cumulative function, QDd, is used, an anchor point of 1 is attained. The latter permits the direct
utilization of normalized pseudopressure ratio to yield the anchor; and hence, provides a simpler approach
than the former.
The proposed approach utilizes normalized pseudopressure in the gas flow equations. It can, however,
easily be shown that when pseudopressure is used, the same anchor point of unity will be obtained (only
the y-intercept will change). Thus, the Engineer is at liberty to use either pseudopressure or normalized
SPE-172423-MS 15

pseudopressure. What matters most, as shown in this paper, is that the appropriate plotting function on the
abscissa is used.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this work, the following conclusions are warranted:
1. The use of normalized rate and normalized pseudopressure drop ratio circumvents the utilization
of reservoir parameters to determine OGIP. Thus, the attainment of the anchor point, and hence
the correct OGIP, is possible if the plotting functions proposed in this work are utilized.
2. An approximate gas flowing material balance plot, which was previously presented by Mohammed
and Enty (2013), has been applied to the proposed analysis to aid the analyst make an initial
estimate of OGIP. This approach can aid methods such as gas decline curve analysis, which require
computation of pseudovariables evaluated at the average reservoir pressure.
3. We have successfully applied our approach to both simulated and field data; and good results were
obtained. It has been illustrated with field data that a multi-well system requires the utilization of

field cumulative to compute instead of a single-well cumulative. The rate, qg, and
normalized pseudopressure drop, ⌬m(P)n, for a multi-well system still require a single-well
production data.
4. The flow equations utilized in this paper are applicable to general variable pressure and/or variable
rate scenario for both single- and multi-well systems, all reservoir geometries, but are strictly valid
during boundary-dominated flow.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the University of Mines and Technology (UMaT), Tarkwa, Ghana, for the
financial support and the permission to use its facilities. The assistance of L. Obeng, UMaT, is greatly
appreciated.

Nomenclature
A ⫽Drainage area, ft2
ba,pss ⫽pseudosteady state constant, psia/scf/D
Bgi ⫽Gas formation volume factor at initial pressure, RB/Mscf
Bg ⫽Gas formation volume factor, RB/Mscf
CA ⫽ Shape factor, dimensionless
Cgi ⫽Gas compressibility at initial pressure, psi-1
⫽ Gas compressibility evaluated at average reservoir pressure, psi-1
Ct ⫽Total compressibility, psi-1
Cti ⫽Total gas compressibility evaluated at initial reservoir pressure, psi-1
OGIP or G ⫽ Originall-gas-in-place, scf
Gp ⫽Actual cumulative gas production, scf
Gpn ⫽Pseudo cumulative, scf
h ⫽Reservoir thickness, ft
Kg ⫽Gas permeability, md
m(P) ⫽Real gas pseudopressure, psia2/cp
m(P)n ⫽Normalized real gas pseudopressure, psia
Np ⫽(Actual) cumulative oil production, STB
⫽ Average reservoir pressure, psia
Pi ⫽Initial reservoir pressure, psia
Pwf ⫽Bottom-hole flowing pressure, psia
16 SPE-172423-MS

PwD ⫽Dimensionless bottom-hole flowing pressure, dimensionless

qg ⫽Gas flow rate, scf/D
qo ⫽Oil flow rate, STB/D
QDA ⫽Dimensionless cumulative based on drainage area, dimensionless
QDd ⫽Dimensionless decline cumulative function, dimensionless
re ⫽Drainage radius, ft
rwa ⫽Effective wellbore radius, ft
⫽ Dimensionless drainage radius, dimensionless
Sgi ⫽ Gas saturation evaluated at initial reservoir pressure, dimensionless
t ⫽Production time, days
⫽ (Variable rate/variable pressure) Dimensionless time based on drainage area, dimen-
sionless
⫽ Material balance pseudotime, days
T ⫽ Reservoir temperature, 0R
⫽ Gas compressibility factor evaluated at the average reservoir pressure
zi ⫽ Gas compressibility factor evaluated at initial reservoir pressure
Ø ⫽Porosity, fraction
␮gi ⫽Gas viscosity evaluated at initial reservoir pressure, cp
␮o ⫽Oil viscosity evaluated, cp
⫽ Gas viscosity evaluated at average reservoir pressure, cp
␥ ⫽ Euler’s constant, 0.5772. . .

Reference
Agarwal, R. G. David C. G. Stanley W. Kleinsteiber et alet al. 1999. Analyzing Well Production Data
Using Combined-Type-Curves and Decline-Curve Analysis Concepts. Paper SPE 57916 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans. 27–30 September.
Al-Hussainy R., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Crawford P.B. 1966. The Flow of Real Gases through Porous
Media. JPT. Trans, AIME, 237. 624 –636. May
Al-Hussainy R. and Ramey, H.J. Jr. 1966 Application of Real Gas Flow to Well Testing and
Deliverability Forecasting. JPT. Trans, AIME, 237. 637–642. May.
Blasingame, T.A., and Lee W.J. 1988. The Variable-Rate Reservoir Limits Testing of Gas Wells.
Paper SPE 17708 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, TX. 13–15 June.
Callard J.G. and Schenewerk P.A. 1995. Reservoir Performance History Matching Using Rate/
Cumulative Type-Curves. Paper SPE 30793 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held at Dallas, U.S.A., 22–25 October.
Carter, R.D. 1985. Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear Gas Flow Systems: Constant Terminal
Pressure Case. SPEJ. October, 719 –728.
Doublet, L. E., Pande, P. K., McCollum, T. J. and Blasingame T. A. 1994. Decline Curve Analysis
Using Type curves – Analysis of Oil Well Production Data Using Material Blance Time: Application to
Field Cases. Paper SPE 28688 presented at the Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Veracruz, Mexico.
10 –13 October.
Fetkovich, M.J. 1980. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type curves. SPE 4629, June.
Fetkovich, M.J. Vienot M.E. Bradley M.D. et alet al. 1987. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type curves
– Case Histories. SPE Form. Eval. 2 (4): 637–656. SPE 13169-PA, December.
Fraim, M.L. and Wattenbarger, R.A. 1987. Gas Reservoir Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves
With Real Gas Pseudopressure and Normalized Time. SPE, December.
Herchen, L. L. and Lemke C. P. 2007. Determination of Original Gas in Place Using Modern
Production Decline Analysis – Case Studies in Interference, Multiple Well Pools and Geo-Pressured
SPE-172423-MS 17

Reservoirs. paper SPE presented at the Petroleum Society’s 8th Canadian International Petroleum
Conference (58th Annual Technical Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 12–14 June.
Johnson, N.L., Currie, S.M., Ilk D. and Blasingame, T.A. 2009. A Simple Methodology for Direct
Estimation of Gas-in-Place and Reserves Using Rate-Time Data. paper SPE 123298 presented at the
Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver Colorado U.S.A. 14 –16 April.
Keating, J.F., Chen, H.Y. and Wattenbarger R.A. 1994. Original Gas in Place and Decline Curves
from Early Stabilized Rate-time Data. paper SPE 27666 presented at the Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas. 16 –18 March.
Mattar, L. and Anderson D.M. 2003. A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced
Analysis of Production Data. Paper SPE 84472 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver Colorado, U.S.A. 5– 8 October.
Mattar, L. and Anderson, D. 2005. Dynamic Material Balance (Oil or Gas-in-Place without shut-ins).
Paper SPE presented at the 6th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
June, 7–9.
Mattar, L. and McNeil, R. 1998. The Flowing Gas Material Balance. Journal of JCPT. Vol. 37 #2.
Menuier, D.F., Kabir, C.S. and Wittman, M.J. 1987. Gas Well Test Analysis: Use of Normalized
Pseudovariables SPEFE. 629 –636. December.
Mohammed, S. and Enty, G. S. 2013. Analysis of Gas Production Data Using Flowing Material
Balance Method. paper SPE 167504 presented at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and
Exhibition, Lagos. 30-July–1-August.
Palacio, J.C. and Blasingame T.A. 1993. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type curves-Analysis of Gas
Well Production Data. SPE paper 25909 presented at the 1993 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional and Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 26 –28 April.
Rodgers, J.S. Boykin, R.S. and Coble L.E. 1983. Nonstatic Pressure History Analysis for Gas
Reservoirs. SPEJ. April. 209 –18
Ye, P. and Ayala, H.L.F. 2013. Straightline Analysis of Flow Rate vs. Cumulative-Production Data for
the Explicit Determination of Gas Reserves. JCPT. July, 296 –305.
18 SPE-172423-MS

APPENDIX A:
JUSTIFICATION OF THE ANCHOR POINTS ATTAINED BY QDA AND QDd

We present a theoretical basis using the well-known liquid flow equation to show that the utilization of QDA and QDd yields
anchor points of and 1 respectively. We utlize the liquid flow equation case simply because Engineers are familiar with
the liquid solution.
Palacio and Blasingame (1993) showed that for general variable pressure/variable rate case, the governing equation during
boundary-dominated flow for liquid case is given by:
(A-1)

where dimensionless wellbore pressure drop is:

(A-2)

pressure drop:
(A-3)

and dimensionless time based on drainage area is:

(A-4)

Now, dimensionless cumulative based on drainage area is related to dimensionless time based on drainage area as (Agarwal
1999):
(A-5)

When Eq. A-5 is substituted into Eq. A-1, and the result is rearranged, we have:
(A-6)

For a circular reservoir, Eq. A-6 becomes:

(A-7)

To my knowledge, Eq. A-7 (or A-6) was first pointed out by Agarwal et al (1999) who showed that a cartesian plot of the
reciprocal of dimensionless flowing pressure, , versus dimensionless cumulative production based on drainage area,

QDA, becomes linear during boundary-dominated flow regime for all values and converges at a single value of on
the abscissa. This on the abscissa is referred to as an anchor point.
SPE-172423-MS 19

Next, we show that instead of QDA, if QDd is used, and then we retain the plotting function on the ordinate (i.e., ),

an anchor point of 1 will be attained.

For general variable pressure/variable rate case, the governing equation during boundary-dominated flow for liquid case is
given by (Palacio and Blasingame 1993; Doublet et al 1994; Callard and Schenewerk 1995):
(A-8)

where dimensionless decline rate is:

(A-9)

or:
(A-10)

and dimensionless decline cumulative is:

(A-11)

Eq A-8 can be expressed as:

(A-12)

For a circular reservoir, Eq. A-12 becomes:

(A-13)

Eq. A-13 shows that a cartesian plot of the reciprocal of dimensionless flowing pressure, , versus dimensionless

decline cumulative production, QDd, becomes linear during boundary-dominated flow regime for all values and

converges at a single value of unity on the abscissa. Thus, fig. 2 in the main text is applicable to both single-phase liquid and
single-phase gas flow. Eq. A-13 is the “liquid” basis of the rate/cumulative decline type curves proposed in this paper (i.e., fig.
2 in the main text).