Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Volume 50, Number 5, May 2011, pp. 48-58

SPE-137414-PA

Analyzing Production Data From Tight Oil Wells

View full textPDF ( 1,570 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/137414-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/137414-PA

Citation

  • Kabir, C.S., Rasdi, F., and Igboalisi, B. 2011. Analyzing Production Data From Tight Oil Wells. J Can Pet Technol  50 (5): 48-58. SPE-137414-PA. doi: 10.2118/137414-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 6.9 Unconventional Hydrocarbon Recovery
  • 6.7.1 Estimates of Resource in Place
  • 6.7.3 Deterministic Methods

Keywords

  • production data analysis, unconventional oil reservoirs, understanding production behaviour

Summary

Performance prediction of wells producing from tight (microdarcy) formations is a daunting task. Complexities of geology (the presence/absence of naturally occurring fractures and contribution from different lithological layers), completion and fracture geometry complexities (multiple transverse or longitudinal fractures in long horizontal boreholes), and two-phase flow are impediments to simple performance forecasting.

We demonstrate the use of various analytical and numerical tools to learn about both short- and long-term reservoir behaviours. These tools include (a) traditional decline-curve analysis (Arps 1945), (b) Valko's stretched-exponential (SE) method (Valko 2009), (c) the Ilk et al. (2008, 2010) power-law exponential (PLE) method, (d) rate-transient-analysis (RTA) and transient-PI analyses to ascertain the stimulated-reservoir volume (SRV), and (e) numerical-simulation studies to gain insights into observed flow regimes.

The benefits of collective use of analytical modelling tools in history matching and forecasting both short- and long-term production performance of tight oil reservoirs are demonstrated with the use of real and simulated data. Diagnosing natural fractures, quantifying stimulated-reservoir volume, and assessing reliability of future performance predictions all became feasible by using an ensemble of analytical tools.

View full textPDF ( 1,570 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 3 November 2010
  • Meeting paper published: 20 October 2010
  • Revised manuscript received: 29 December 2010
  • Manuscript approved: 30 December 2010
  • Published online: 27 April 2011
  • Version of record: 2 May 2011