ESTIMATING EUR

Trisha MacDonald
ESTIMATING EUR

EUR (expected ultimate recoverable) can be determined by

many different methods.

Generally, evaluation engineers will use:

– Decline Analysis
– RF estimates and PIIP (Petroleum Initially-in-Place)
• RF from abandonment conditions, analogy, drive mechanisms
• PIIP from material balance and volumetric analysis
– Simulation models
– Single well model forecasts (from PTA or FMB analysis)
– Stochastic models (not discussed here)
KEY FACTORS

• To properly assess which method should be primary method

of determining EUR, the engineer and geologist need to
assess/review
– Confidence in PIIP models, and data used to determine
• Contacts
• Boundaries/Reservoir container size
• Pressure data
• Uniqueness of models
– Confidence in EUR models, and production data used to
determine them
– Maturity of reservoir
– Assess and understand operating conditions of the reservoir,
especially pressure impacts
– Review development plans
CONFIDENCE IN PIIP MODELS
MATERIAL BALANCE ANALYSIS

Think about %

Understand uncertainty in PIIP models depletion as

compared to RF % to

from material balance techniques.

date. If there’s a big
difference review
your drive
mechanism!

With more pressure data, we have a

better understanding of:
• Future recovery
• Potential upside recovery from
compression/enhanced recovery
• Drive mechanism
CONFIDENCE IN PIIP MODELS
GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

How big is the reservoir?

Where has the development been concentrated to
date?
Do I have any new wells that occur in previously
unmapped regions?
What’s my uncertainty in PIIP? In EUR for these
regions?

Confidence in areas of new

development, with limited well
control?
CONFIDENCE IN EUR MODELS
RF ESTIMATES
• RF can be estimated by:
– Model (simulation, PTA, FMB) forecasts
– Abandonment conditions
• RF = 1- Bgi/Bg
– Drive mechanisms
– Analogy

• RF’s from models generally represent at best 3P level of confidence!

– This is for a mature reservoir with significant production, pressure and fluid data.
– Models are only as good as input data
– Uncertainty in input data  uncertainty in model forecasts

• RF estimates at abandonment conditions generally valid as long as PVT and

abandonment conditions are well known. When a reservoir is mature, comparing with
decline analysis will provide greater confidence in these estimates

• High uncertainty is associated with RF determined by drive mechanisms and analogy.

CONFIDENCE IN EUR MODELS
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS

Assessing the uncertainty for

decline analysis:

•need to review production

behavior
•determine if we are seeing
boundary dominated flow
(BDF) or transient flow for the
wells.

BDF: Higher confidence

Transient: Lower confidence
CONFIDENCE IN EUR MODELS
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS
Transient flow:
Generally decline analysis is uncertain if in
transient flow period.

BUT! An established decline can lend to

increasing confidence in EURs.
More confidence can be gained through the
use of type curves and analogy.
Confirm EUR with other methods.

Ensure to assess the behavior of the wells at the field level, and look for impacts from neighbor wells.
Note: BDF can be evidence of no-flow boundaries as a result of interference, as well as reservoir limits
CONFIDENCE IN EUR MODELS
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS

• Wells that are difficult to decline

• Flow period is difficult to determine

• Other fluids are impacting our analysis

• Appears to have operational

constraints/effects impacting behavior

• Using PIIP x RF may assist us in determining

our EUR
MATURITY

• Assessing Maturity
– Reviewing the historical production for the subject reservoir
can give clues about the maturity
– Review the field development to date
– Review the field configuration (location of wells) in the
geological model
– Think about the differences in the following reservoir
scenarios:
• Prospect/new discovery
• Reservoir with abundant amounts of production
• Reservoir with limited production history
• Wells with no clear decline trend
 IMMATURE RESERVOIR

• Recognize that reservoirs with limited

production and pressure history will have
similar limitations for engineering
assessment of PIIP.
– Wells likely in transient flow
• Decline analysis is uncertain
– Limited production and pressure history dP =
• 10%?
Less confidence in PIIP

• At this point, we may not yet fully

understand:
– Future performance expected
– Size of the reservoir
– Drive mechanism and impacts on
recovery

• Use analogy to help confirm

recovery
 MATURE RESERVOIRS

• Clearly established BDF is indicative of a mature

well.
• If this is occurring in most wells for the reservoir, it
can indicate a mature reservoir.
• In this case, decline analysis yields as much
confidence, but also confirms boundary flow.
• We would use PIIP x RF as a check to our total
pool EURs from decline analysis
FUTURE RECOVERY – OPERATIONAL
IMPACTS
• Using PIIP x RF to assess EUR :
– Waterflooding, gas injection  EOR (enchanced oil recovery), EGR (enhanced gas
recovery)
– Compression
– Infill or extension drilling
– Choked wells

• Examples such as these make it difficult to determine EUR from decline, using type
wells for several reasons, including:
– We may not yet see the interference between wells
– We could be over-predicting EURs from decline analysis
• No apparent decline (watch for operator decreasing FBHP (flowing bottom hole pressure)
• Choked wells

– Our reservoir may be well connected and we are already “seeing” the PIIP from material
balance techniques.
• Declining wells in transient flow without comparing to PIIP x RF could lead to overestimating
EUR for the reservoir.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

• Uncertainty in decline analysis due to

operating conditions, makes it difficult
to assess future performance from
decline analysis.
– Chokes
– Back pressure/line constraints
– Enhanced recovery methods
– Compression
– New wells

• Using PIIP x RF can help us estimate

EUR

• Advanced production analysis

techniques and models may help
(FMB). However, these well models
will also be limited by the short
production history.
ESTIMATING EUR – THE BASICS

• Review your production and reservoir history

– Determine maturity of development and production data
• Ie. New discovery
• Long production life
• Pressure in decline

• Characterize your reservoir

– Drive mechanism
– Main products

• Review current and future operating conditions

– Specifically pressure data
– Development plan

• Estimate PIIP using one or more methods:

– Volumetrics
– Material Balance techniques
ESTIMATING EUR – THE BASICS

• Estimate your EURs

– For the reservoir
• PIIP x RF
• Determine your recovery factor via abandonment conditions as detailed by the
operator
• Compare your recovery factor to ranges that correspond to your reservoir drive
mechanism
• Detail key uncertainties in EUR and PIIP

– For each well

• Decline analysis
– New well
– Mature well
– Transitioning well
• EURs for each producing and non-producing well by decline analysis
• Identify boundary dominated flow or transient
• Determine confidence in estimating EUR by decline analysis
COMPARING EUR FROM MULTIPLE
METHODS
• Compile your PIIP and EUR results into a table (note!! Use a rounded RF to determine
EUR)
• Determine which method is your most reliable
• Compare the total EUR as determined by each method.
• Complete column detailing confidence level (quantitative or qualitative) and key notes
regarding development (Complete? New locations?) and future operational plans
(enhanced recovery, compression etc., reducing line pressure)

PIIP EUR Confidence Level Notes

1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P
Volumetrics

Material
Balance
FMB

PTA

Decline
Analysis
COMPARING INDIVIDUAL WELL EUR
ESTIMATES TO FIELD LEVEL ESTIMATES

• For conventional reservoirs, we typically estimate that the wells within the reservoir will
be in good communication with each other
– They will influence their neighbor’s behavior
– Recovery should be determined for the entire field
• Especially true in immature reservoirs, where there is insufficient production to give confidence in
decline analysis and rate transient methods

• Determining individual well EUR:

– Often we use the term “prorating” the reserves calculated at the reservoir level (ie. calculated
using volumetrics, material balance techniques) to the individual wells based on rate.
– Comparing to decline analysis will add confidence in analysis

• Honoring the EUR calculated at the reservoir level using PIIP x RF will lend to higher
confidence for immature reservoirs.

• If no applicable field level analysis, use your decline analysis

– Eventually, with maturity, decline analysis becomes a better estimate of final recovery….but
until that point, it is uncertain.
PRORATING RESERVES FROM FIELD LEVEL
ESTIMATES IN PIIP

• Complete this table

Summary of GIIP, RF and EUR from MB, Volumetrics and RF
  1P 2P 3P
GIIP      
RF      
EUR      

Cumulative Production   MMCF

Remaining   MMCF

• For each producing well, fill in the following table (choose your reserves
category - include development locations if future development
planned):
qi (current Reserves
rate from EUR based on % of total Remaining EUR (Reserves +
  decline) Gp (MMcf) (Decline) DCA rate based on RF Cumulative Production)
-
Well 1           -
-
Well 2           -
-
Well 3           -
-
Well 4           -
-
Well 5           -
-
Well 6           -
total              
EXAMPLE - STEPS

• Fill in the tables as a result of

your PIIP and decline analysis

• Include your current rates, total

production and EUR for each well
in reservoir

• Be sure to include non-producing

wells in both tables

• Calculate your remaining (or

input from valnav/reserves
software)

Recall, Remaining reserves or “Reserves” = EUR – cumulative production to date

EXAMPLE - STEPS

• Calculate each well’s % of total rate by dividing it’s current

rate by the total rate from the reservoir
EXAMPLE - STEPS

• Determine the remaining

reserves for each well from
PIIP x RF method
• To do this, we multiply the
remaining x the % of total
– Use the remaining EUR
as determined from
PIIP x RF
– Multiply by the % of
total
EXAMPLE - STEPS

• Calculate the EURs for each well as determined from the RF x PIIP
method
• Calculate the difference between the two methods for each well
• Ensure the total EUR from the prorating is equal to the EUR as
determined by RF x PIIP.
FINAL ANALYSIS

• Review the difference between the EUR from decline analysis and that
calculated by prorating EUR (from PIIP x RF)

• If the difference is small in magnitude (volume and %) then analysis is

good! If the difference is large (>20%), review individual wells for
potential changes to remaining recovery.