E %eiely of Petroleum Enginwrs
SPE 36736
Analysis of Commingled Tight Gas Reservoirs
Ahmed H, E1-Banbi, and Robert A. Wattenbarger, SPE, Texas A&M University
Copyright 199S, -Iety of Petroleum Engineers, Inc
Th(s pa~r W.S prepared for presentation at the 1~ SPE Annual Techmcal Conference and
Exh!btion held m Oenver, Cdomdo, U S A S-9 October 19S6
Th[s paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Prcgfam Commttee followng rewew of
mformatlon contained m an abstract submifti by the author(s) Contents of the paper as
presented have not been revmwed by the Scwefy of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
corredon by the author(s) The ms’tenal, as pfesented, does not necessary reflect any
Posrt!on of Me Sc.aefy of Petroleum Engfnaers #tsofhcers, or members Papers presented at
SPE meettngs are subject to pubhcatmn rewaw’ by Ed+tortal CommMees of the Soc!efy of
Petroleum Engmews Permlssmn to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more man 300
words Illustrations may ncd ba wpIed The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknol’.vdament of where and by whom the paper was presented Wr!te Ltbraoan, SPE, P O
WY .9338M, Rtchardwn, 7X 752S3.3S3S, U S A fax 01-214.952.9435
Abstract
This paper presents a method to match the production data of
commingled tight gas reservoirs. A simple computer program
is used to history match production data, estimate the
individual OGIP and productivity of each layer, and forecast
the total performance of the well. The method was vcriticd
against both simulation and actual field data
The method is based on a layered model that couples the
material balance equation for gas reservoirs wit h the
stabilized gas flow equation for each layer in the commingled
system. The analysis is done through history-matching the
total well production data using an optimization routine to
help determine the two parameters (OGIP and flow
coefficient) of each layer that best match the production
history, The method showed excellent results for cases that
are predominantly in the stabilized flow period.
This method can be used to analyze commingled tight gas
reservoirs and predict their performance, It can be also used
to obtain the OGIP value for each layer and assess the relative
importance of each layer in the commingled system.
Introduction
[tis a common problem in gas reservoir engineering that
volumetric methods are not adequate for estimating gas
reserves. Also, build-up tests may be impractical in tight (low
permeability) reservoirs because of the long time required for
the pressure to stabilize. Consequently, material balance
(M. B.) methods cannot be used to predict resewoir
performance. The problem is even more complicated in multi-
Iayer no-crossflow reservoirs, where little information is
available.
545
In these situations, decline curve analysis seems to be the
most practical tool for reserve estimation and performance
prediction, Decline curve analysis started as early as 19451
with empirical equations that give the rate performance as a
function of time. Fetkovitch2 showed that some of the
empirical decline equations can be based on both the material
balance equation (M. B.) and the deliverability equation for
gas reservoirs, Later investigators3”S tried to develop
techniques to aid in the matching process for one-layer radial
reservoirs. 0thers6)7 developed other sets of decline curves,
Different approaches of combining M.B equation with the gas
flow equation for single-layer reservoirs were presentedg”]o by
different authors.
The current paper describes a method which is sometimes
more accurate in matching and forecasting production data, It
also gives estimates of OGIP and flow coefficients, Jg, for
each layer in commingled reservoirs.
Background
Commingled Reservoirs. Commingled reservoirs are
reservoirs connected only through the wellbore. These
reservoirs do not exhibit crossflow within reservoir
boundaries. Each layer in the commingled system can be
defined by its OGIP and its flow coetlicient, Jg, if stabilized
flow is reached. If these parameters are different for each
layer, the layers’ performance will be also different. Fig. 1
shows typical production performance for a two-layer
commingled system producing against constant bottom hole
flowing pressure, p.f The data for this figure were obtained
from simulation of a two-layer reservoir where the two layers
have equal OGIP and differ only in their productivity.
Decline Curve Analysis Limitations. For multi-layer
reservoirs, investigators2’11 have observed that the hyperbolic
decline exponent, b, can reach values above the limiting value
for single layer reservoirs (IXI.5). However, matching the
rate-time data for these high values of b is strictly empirical
and only based on fitting the hyperbolic decline equation to
the production data.
Also, matching the data is often ditllcult if the history of
production data is not large enough or if transient data
prevail. In addition to that, conventional decline curve
2 AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERTA. WATTENBARGER SPE 36736

analysis assumes that Pwj changes are insignificant.

Moreover, the production data do not often follow a unique
curve for the entire life of the reservoir which not only makes
the matching process difflcuh but also results in unreliable
ez=~
J(~
N
1–I
Data - Model
Data )
2
.. .. .. .. ............. (7)

prediction. These error measures can be treated as objective fimctions

for a multi-variable optimization routine, The optimization
routine is used to minimize the error between the data and the
Stabilized Flow Model Description model forecast (Eqs. 6 or 7) by guessing OGIP and Jg for each
Single-Layer Stabilized Flow Model, The single-layer layer. The schematic flow chart for the program developed to
stabilized flow model combines the material balance equation do this task is shown in Fig. 2,
for gas resemoirs (Eq. 1) with the gas flow equation (Eq. 2).
The flow equation is the analytical solution for flow in gas Layered Stabilized Flow Model Assumptions. The model
12
reservoirs producing against constant pwj . that is used here assumes that p.j is known for each layer, It
also assumes that the production is predominantly stabilized
;=(:), (+) ..,,
............................. ..(1.
flow for all layers. The effect of non-darcy flow is ignored.

Results
qg =Jg [m(;)
-m(pwf)]
........... .,, (2) A gas reservoir simulator] 3 was used to generate production
data for hypothetical cases. Two- and three-layer cases were
In addition to these two equations, the relation between simulated. The layers were termed a, b, and c. The basic
the gas flow rate and cumulative gas production is given by reservoir and fluid properties data used in simulation are
Eq. 3. given in Table 1. These layers have the same properties and
differ only in their permeability.
The two-layer case was constructed by adding layers b and
Gp = ~qg (/) di . ...... ...... . .. .. ........ . .. . .... .. ... (3) c performances. The three-layer case was constructed by
o adding the performance of layers a, b, and c. The computer
and, m(p) is the real gas pseudo-pressure defined by Eq. 4. program developed in this work was used to estimate the
parameters of each layer for both the two- and three-layer
cases, Other combinations were tried] 4 but the space does not
rn(p)=2j~dp .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . . .. ... (4) allow to show them all. We assumed that we only knew three
~ozp
years of production history and ran the Layered Stabilized
Flow program to forecast for twenty years. Our model foreeast
Eqs. 1, 2, and 3 can be solved together if the OGIP and and the simulation were in a very good agreement. F@s. 3
the flow coefficient, Jg, are known for the layer. and 4 show the model and the simulation resutts for both the
two- and three-layer cases respectively. Parameter fitting in
Layered Stabilized Flow Model. The performance from the Layered Stabilized Flow Model was done on only
single-layer stabilized flow models can be added for all the production data for production period from month 13 to
layers in the commingled system using Eq. 5. month 36 which is known to be past transient data or
stabilized flow data. The effect of transient data on the
nlayw
analysis is kther investigated in another section. Tables 2
qr(t) = ~qg, (t) .................................................(5)
j=l
and 3 show the comparison between the parameters we
obtained from the Layered Stabilized Flow Model and the
This requires that both OGIP and Jg be known for each simulation for both cases. The flow coefficient, Jg, was
layer in the commingled system. The analysis of the calculated from simulation data using Eq. 8.
commingled system is carried out by assuming values for
OGIP and Jg for each layer and calculating the total J, =
kh
....... (8)

1
performance (rate versus time) for the entire commingled 1 2.458A
system, The error in the model performance can then be 1424 T ~ln +.s+Dqg
[ CAr~
quantified by either Eqs. 6 or 7 for a particular period of the
known production data.
Effect of Transient Flow, The data for layer c was simulated
el=— IN Data - Model
.. ..... (6) to study the effect of having some transient rate-time data in
N x,=, Data the history match data. This effect is worth studying because

546
SPE 36736 ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED TIGHT GAS RESERVOIRS
rate data in tight reservoirs are expected to have long
transients. Several periods of production data were used in the
history matching with the Layered Stabilized Flow Model
program. Fig. 5 shows the rate predicted using the Layered
Stabilized Flow Model when the first 12 months of data were
used in the matching. It also shows the rate behavior when
the first 24 months of data were history-matched. In both
runs, it is evident from the figure that the rate is under-
predicted for the rest of the reservoir life.
If these transient data were not included, i,c. we
selectively analyze the data starting at a later time (month 13
for this particular case), the model would estimate a much
better answer as it did for the cases presented previously.
Effect of Non-Darcy Flow. Since the Layered Stabilized
Flow Model assumes that non-darcy flow is neglected, this
section is dedicated to illustrate the effect of non-darcy flow
on the model answers. The reservoir simulator was used to
simulate a one-layer case (layer c) taking into account the
non-darcy flow. The non-darcy flow coefilcient is calculated
from Eq. 9,
~= 2.715 x10-”fl kkfp~c
. . .
~ P, (PM ) ~w~c
and ~ can be empirically estimated from Eq. 10,
~= 1.88X ](j’”k-’’’@-o” . . . ..
The rate-time data obtained from the simulation were then
matched with the Layered Stabilized Flow Model. The model
results were very close to the simulation results. The match
between the simulation rate and the predicted rate is shown in
Fig, 6. The high quality of the match suggests that non-darcy
flow effkcts in tight gas reservoirs are not significant and
therefore we ignored them in this analysis. Non-darcy flow,
however, may be important in high permeability reservoirs
and therefore should not be ignored.
Matching Commingled Reservoirs With One-Layer
Stabilized Flow Model. This part attempts to show how the
Layered Stabilized Flow Model behaves when it is used to
history-match commingled resewoirs with One-Layer
Stabilized Flow models. A two-layer case composed of layers
b and c was chosen to illustrate this concept. The Layered
Stabilized Flow Model was run on the two-layer rate-time
data assuming the system is only one-layer reservoir. It was
found that the one-layer Stabilized Flow Model under-
estimates the production from the two-layer reservoir no
matter which matching interval is chosen for the analysis.
Fig, 7 shows the model results compared with the simulation
results for a particular analysis interval of 13 to 60 months of
production,
3
It was also found that matching any commingled reservoir
with a fewer number of layers stabilized flow model results in
under-estimation of the total OGIP in the commingled
system’ 4. This was seen when attempting to match thredayer
commingled systems with either one- or two-layer stabilized
flow model’ 4,
Field Applications
To check the Layered Stabilized Flow Model developed in
this work, we used a field case described in Ref 11. The field
produced for more than twenty years against almost constant
PW}1. The reservoir was described as being a two-layer
commingled gas reservoir with no crossflow’]. A shale barrier
averaging 50 ft. in thickness was identified and correlated in
the field’ 1, Core data indicated a permeability ratio between
the two layers in the range of 10/1 to 20/1. The initial
reservoir pressure and average temperature were reported as
428 psia and 80 “F respectively) 1. Gas specific gravity was
0.7[ 1. The total field production as well as the individual field
analysis] 1 showed that a b value of 0.9 represents the average
decline parameter of hyperbolic equations,
. (9) Well E. The first well studied was well E. We assumed that
we had only monthly production data for the first four years.
The only data we input into our Layered Stabilized Flow
program is the monthly production data for four years and the
reservoir and fluid data shown in Table 4 for well E,
(lo) The Layered Stabilized Flow Model calculated the
parameters OGIP and J~ for each of two layers by matching
production rate-time data for months 13 to month 48. The
parameters estimated from the model are shown in Table 5
for the two layers. Months 1 through 12 were not used in this
match in order to reduce the effect of transient flow. These
parameters were then used to forecast future rates up to 34
years. The comparison between the Layered Stabilized Flow
Model forecast and the actual field data is shown in Fig. 8,
A hyperbolic decline curve forecast was also matched to
the same data: first for months 1 through 48, then for months
13 through 48. (The parameters of Eq. 11 were determined
by minimizing the Eq. 6 error, the same as with our model).
q=q. (l+ bD.f).''b ............................................... ,.(11)
Table 6 shows the hyperbolic decline curve parameters
for both fits. Fig. 8 shows the production rate forecast of the
hyperbolic decline curve for the match of months 13 through
48,
Well H. Another case is well H from Ref. 11. The procedure
was exactly [he same as with well E. Again, we assumed we
knew only production data for the first four years in addition
547
4 AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERTA, WATTENBARGER
to the reservoir and fluid data in Table 4 for well H,
The Layered Stabilized Flow Model was used again to
calculate the parameters OGIPand J~ for each of two layers
by matching production rate-time data for months 13 to
month 48, The parameters estimated from the model are
shown in Table 5 for the two layers. These parameters were
then used to forecast future rates up to 31 years, The
comparison between the Layered Stabilized Flow Model
forecast and the actual well data is shown in Fig. 9.
Following the same procedure as with well E, a hyperbolic
decline curve forecast was also matched to the same data and
Table 6 shows the hyperbolic decline curve parameters for
two fits (month 1 through 48 and month 13 through 48). Fig.
9 shows the production rate forecast of the hyperbolic decline
curve for the match of months 13 through 48.
Figs, 8 and 9 both show that the ‘forecast” of the Layered
Stabilized Flow Model is lower than the decline curve
forecast and is much closer to the well’s actual production
rates,
Hyperbolic Equation Fitting. It was found that using the
entire production data for four years or just the data from
month 13 through 48 for these wells in the non-linear
regression tit did not modify the three matching parameters
(q,, D,, and b) significantly and almost the same predicted
rate was obtained. These parameters are given in Table 6 for
the two matching periods. It is understood, of course, that the
hyperbolic tit would improve as more production history is
available. However, the advantage of using the Layered
Stabilized Flow Model is that a better forecast can be obtained
from the early stabilized flow data in addition to an estimate
for the vahres of OGIP in each layer,
Discussion
Probably, the most famous method attempted to effectively
analyze commingled gas resemoirs from limited data is
decline curves, However, decline curve analysis is strictly
empirical for multi-layer reservoirs. The Layered Stabilized
Flow Model presented here is based on sound fundamental
basis, This model is also considered a very good personal
computer (PC) application as far as computer storage and
speed are concerned. It may be also adapted for spread-sheet
applications. More importantly, this model not only presents
an easy method for modeling commingled gas reservoirs but
also effectively analyzes them if it is coupled with an
optimization routine.,
As this work shows, the Layered Stabilized Flow Model
gives very reliable answers for commingled systems if the
model assumptions are satisfied. However, if the model is
used to analyze transient data, it gives conservative estimates
of OGIP and consequently conservative prediction. The same
result was obtained when a one-layer model is used to model
548
SPE 36736
multi-layer systems. These results suggest that we should
analyze different periods of the rate-time data and check the
model results. If the model results do not signflcantly change
with the production data period we choose, this means that
transient effects are avoided in the data we match. Also, well
logs and geological studies do aid in understanding the
commingled reservoir and qualitatively assess the relative
productivity of the layers. This may give very important
information to check the Layered Stabilized Flow Model
results,
The main limitations of this model in matching field data
is that of the limitations of the optimization routine used in
the analysis, The optimization routine may converge to a
wrong answer (local minimum) especially if the rate-time
data used in the analysis are not good enough. It is also
expected that if the commingled system consists of many
layers, the answers may not be unique especially if the rate is
not measured accurately, Therefore, the engineer has to
always check the layered model results against his knowledge
of the geology of the reservoir and the log response.
Another limitation may be seen in the analysis of the gas
reservoirs which produce predominantly under transient flow
conditions. As was shown in the paper, the Stabilized Flow
Model prediction tends to under-estimate the performance for
those reservoirs. From the analysis of many simulated cases
in this work, we propose that a permeability range of 0.1 to
10 md. is a suitable range for the application of this method.
For those reservoirs which have permeability less than 0,1
md, the transient flow period may be so long and we may not
have enough stabilized flow production to match. On the
other hand; for those reservoir above 10 md, non-darcy flow
may be important and the use of the flow equation @q. 2)
without the inclusion of non-darcy flow term may give
inaccurate results. The inclusion of non-darcy flow will
change the problem from a two-parameter optimization for
each layer to a three-parameter optimization for each layer,
This will of course increase the diffkulty of the problem
especially if we try to match the production of a commingled
resewoir with many layers.
Conclusions
The work presented in this paper is based on matching
production data for stabilized gas flow, It considers wells
producing against constant pwf and ignores non-darcy flow.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this paper:
1. Production data from commingled gas reservoirs ean be
analyzed by Layered Stabilized Flow Models with the use of
an optimization routine.
2. OGIP is under-estimated if transient data are included.
3. Total OGIP for the commingled system is under-
estimated if a fewer number of layer model is used in the
analysis.
4, Effect of non-darcy flow on the analysis using the
SPE 36736 ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED TIGHT GAS RESERVOIRS 5

Layered Stabilized Flow Models for tight gas reservoirs can
be ignored.
5, History-matching selective intervals of rate-time data
rather than the entire production history helps in identifying
the end of the transient effects and/or commingled behavior.
6. Formation permeability range of 0.1 to 10 md M
suitable for the application of Layered Stabilized Flow
analysis technique.
Acknowledgment
Wc thank Mike Fetkovich of Phillips Petroleum Company for
vahrable discussions on decline curve analysis. We also thank
Phillips Petroleum Company and Frank Verla of Dwights
Data Base for providing field data, This work was done
within the Reservoir Modeling Consortium at Texas A&M
University.

References
1 Arps, J, J.: “Analysis of Decline Curves,” Tmns., AIME ( 1945)
Nomenclature 160,22847.
A. reservoir drainage area, L2, ftz 2 F’etkovich, M. J.: “Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,”
JPT (June 1980) 1065-77.
b= Arps’ decline exponent
3 lralm, M. L. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: “Gas Reservoir Decline-
CA = shape factor
Curve Analysis Using Type Curves With Real Gas
D= non-darcy flow coetlicicnt, t/L3, (Mscf/D)”]
Pseudopressures and Normalized Time,” .SPEFE (Dec. 1987)
D, = initial decline factor, l/t, day”’ 671-82, Tmns, AIME, 290.
q = normalized error measure given by Eq. 6
4 I’alacio, J, C, and Blasingame, T, A.: “Decline-Curve Analysis
~2 = normalized error measure given by Eq. 7 [Jsing Type Curves--Analysis of Gas Well Production Data,”
G= original gas in place, L3, MMscf paper SPE 25909 presented at the 1993 Joint Rocky Mountain
Gp = cumulative gas produced, L3, MMscf Regional and Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
h= formation thickness, L, ft Denver, CO., April 26-28, 1993.
Jg = real gas flow coefficient, L4t2/m, Mscf.cp/D/psi2 5 Chen, IL Y. and Poston, S. W.: “Application of a Pseudotime
k= permeability, L2, md L’unction To Permit Better Decline-Curve Analysis,” SPEFE
(Sept. 1989) 44148.
mfi) = real gas pseudo-pressure at average reservoir
6 Carter, R D.: “Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear Gas-
pressure, m/Lt3, psi*/cp
Flow Systems: Constant-Terminal-Pressure Case} SPEJ (Get,
m(pw~ = pseudo-pressure at bottom hole flowing pressure, 1985)71928
rn/Lt3, psi2/cp 7 Ammian, K , Ameri, S., Srark, J. J., and Yost II, A, B.: “Gas-
rdayer = number of layers in a commingled system Well Production Decline in Multiwell Reservoirs,” JPT (Dec.
N= number of rate-time data points 1990) 1573-79.
OGIP = original gas in place, L3, MMscf t? Guardia, M. A. and Hackney, R. M. “A Practical Approach to
~= pressure, m/Lt2, psia original Gas-Jn-Place Estimation: Development of the South
p, = initial reservoir pressure, rr3/Lt2,psia W ilbuton Field,” paper SPE 22925 presented at the 66ti
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
p.. - pressure at standard conditions, rn/Lt2, psia
Texas, (oct. 6-9,1 991).
pwf = bottom hole flowing pressure, rn/Lt2, psia
jj= material-balance average reservoir pressure, rn/Lt2, 9 Kcatmg, J. F., Chen, IL Y., Wattenbarger, R. A.: “Griginal Gas
in Place and Decline Curves From Early Stabilized Rate-Time
psia Data,” paper SPE 27666 (March 1994).
qz = gas production rate, L3/t, Msef/D
10 West, S, L , and Cochrane, P. J. R. : “Reserves Determination
qT = total flow rate in a commingled system, LJA, (Jsing Type Curve Matching and Extended Material Balance
Mscf/D Methods in the Medicine Hat Shallow Gas Field,” paper SPE
rw = wellbore radius, L, fl 28609 presented at the 69th. Annual Technical Conference and
~= skin factor Exlubition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New
t= time, t, days odeans, LA, Sep. 25-28 ( 1994).
T. 11 l’ctkovich, M. J., Bradley, M. D,, Works, A. M., and Thrasher,
reservoir temperature, T, “R
‘1. S.: “Depletion Performance of Layered Reservoirs Without
T.c = temperature at standard conditions, T, ‘R Crossflow,” paper SPE 18266(1988).
~= real gas correction factor
12 AI-I Iussainy, R., Rarney, H. J., and Crawford, P. B. : “The
P “ non-darcy flow parameter given by Eq. 10 Flow of Real Gas Through Porous Media,” .TPT (May 1966)
+= porosity 624-36.
~z . gas viscosity, fit, cp 13 Lee, W. J., and Wattenbarger, R. A.: Gas Reservoir
Engtnem-ing, SPE Textbook Series, to be published in 1996.

Subscripts 14 E1-Banbi, Ahmed : “Layered Pseudo-Steady-State Models for

“right Commingled Gas Reservoirs,” MS ‘flresis, Texas A&M
i = initial
{Jnivmslty, College Station, Texas, (May 1995).

549
 Table 1: Resetvoir and Fluid Data for Simulated Cases
case a b
area, acres 80 80 ;
thickness, ft. 50 50 50
porosity,fraction 01 0.1 0.1
initialpressure, psia 2500 2500 2500
BHFP, psia 500 500 !x41
temperature, “F 150 150 150
gaa gravily, fraction 0.6 0.6 0,6
formationcompressibility,ps[’ 3.E-06 3,E-08 3,E-06
permeabilky, md 10 1.0 0.1
number of gridblock 25 25 25
OGIP, MMecf 2913.77 2913.77 2913.77

Table 2: Matching Parameters for a Two-Layer Case

OGIP OGIP J~ J*
(MMscf) (MMscf_) (Mscf.cp/D/psiz) (Mscf.cp/D/psi2)
_ AJJ@l !@x!!21 U
layer b 2903.4 2913.4 7.392E-06 7S87E416
layer c 2931.3 2913.4 7’.652E-O7 7S67E-07

I I
Table 3: Matching Parameters for a Three-Layer Case
OGIP
(MMscf)
I OGIP
(MMscf)
I J.
(Mscf .c~/D/psi2)
I J.
(Mscf.c@psi2)
m m
layer a 3096.5 2913.4 7.639E-05 7.567E-05
layer b 2935.8 2913.4 7.477E-06 7.587E-06
layer c 2827.6 2913.4 7.654E-07 7S87E-07

Table 4-input Parameters for Layered Stabilized Flow Model for Wells E and H
Well E Well H
number of Layers 2 I 2
p,, psia - 394.6 428
~, psia 42,5 42.8
gas specific gravity,fraction 0.7 0.7
reservoir temperature “F 80 80

Table 5-Layered Stabilized Flow Model Results for Wells E and H

Layer WellE WellH
OGIP OGIP
(MMscf_) (Mscf,c$/D/psi2) (MMSC9 (Mscf.c$/D/psi2)
1 690 0.0169 990 0.0296
2 230 0.00154 1100 0,00148

I Table 6-Hv~erbolic Fit Parameters for Wells E and H

t Well I Malchincr Period I b I al D/
(Mon~hs) (Ms;f/D) (1/Day)
E 1-48 1.223 290.2 O.m
E 13-48 0.839 279.6 0.00076
H 1-48 0.980 701.7 0.00178
H 13-46 1.012 663.7 0.00174

550
1O(IO

low k layer
—.-———___ —.
—-..
(

IQO
.,, ,,

L
,,,
,,
high klayer ~ ~ ~ .’

10
1 10 100

Time (Months)

Fig. l-Typical simulation results for a two-layer hypothetical reservoir.

u Calculate
Gas
Pro erties
1

Estimate

All One-Layer Better

Layers Model Estimate

yes
Prediction
I I
Fig. 2-Schematic flow chart of the Layered Stabilized Flow Program.
 10000

100
1 10 100 1000

Time (Months)
Fig. 3-Matching total rate for a hypothetical two-layer case (matching period 13-36 months).

100000

I I

1Oouo

1000

I
‘1

100
1 10 100 1000
Time (Months)
Fig. 4-Matching total rate for a hypothetical three-fayer case (matching period 13-36 months).
 10GQ ,, ,,<
,,, ,,
,. ,,,

--i
●

Iw ..
,.
!&____
,*,,,,,
●
w“
● ’”

.4ctual
● Matching Per-id: 1-12 Months
● Matching Period: 1-24 Monttw

1 10 102 10YI
Time (Months)

Fig. 6-Effect of transient data on the Stabilized Flow Model results.

Matching Period n ‘Actual

● Model
:-

.!

. .——— ——
,,,
,,.
,.
,,
.,,
,,

1 10 lm lCOI

Time (Montha)

Fig. 6-Effect of nondarcy flow on the Stabilized Flow Model results for a tight layer (matching period 13-
24 months).
 m....:.
100C4 . .. .

‘Actual

-%-w
100(

10[

,..
,,
.

1[
1 10 100 1000

Time (Months)

Fig. 7-Matching two-layer hypothetical case with a one-layer Stabilized Flow Model (matching period 1340
months).

1000

Matching Period

%
I I I I I
I ●☛
.

+
t

1-
●

I . Actual
Hyperbolic Decline Fit, b=O.t339
— Layered Stabilized Flow Model
I I I I I
1 1 1 1 r

o 50 100 150 200 254 300 350 400 4W

Time (months)
Fig. 8-Well E; comparison between the Layered Stabilized Flow Model prediction and decline cunre
method.
 1000

atching Period

100
●

● 4
10

p .-
● Actual ~
Hyperbolic Decline Fit, b=l.012
— Layered Stabilized Flow Model
1
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 420

Time (Months)

Fig. 9-Well H; comparison between the Layered Stabilized Flow Model prediction and decline curve
method.