Question

Read and make notes on reservoir performance analysis and

forecasting.
Reservoir performance, analysis and prediction are integrated within project
planning. Project management and multi disciplinary team approach. The
nature of the problem determines project objectives, the amount of data and
time required. Classical reservoir engineering methods such as material
balance or decline curve analysis as well as reservoir simulation modeling
are employed. A combination of techniques can be employed to provide
greater confidence in the results. An example of such a technique is material
balance supported by analog field performance data or reservoir simulation
supported by decline curve analysis.
Performance analysis and production forecasting can be done for fields at all
stages of development, ranging from exploration through appraisal, early
production and very mature fields.

Full field reservoir simulation model

Decline curve and analytical model forecasting

Decline curve forecasting is suitable where there are well established
production decline trends like in mature fields. The objective must be to
predict production under the existing operational conditions.
It uses empirical decline models that have little fundamental justifications.
These models include
I.
II.
III.

Exponential decline (constant fractional decline)

Harmonic decline, and
Hyperbolic decline.

While the hyperbolic decline model is more general, the other two models
are degenerations of the hyperbolic decline model.
These three models are related through the following relative decline rate
equation (Arps, 1945):

(1)

Where b and d are empirical constants that are determined based on

production data. When d = 0, Equation (1) degenerates to an exponential
decline model, and when d = 1, Equation (1) yields a harmonic decline
model. When 0<d<1, Equation (1) derives a hyperbolic decline model. The
decline models are applicable to both oil and gas wells.

Exponential Decline
The relative decline rate and production rate decline equations for the
exponential decline model can be derived from volumetric reservoir model.
Cumulative production expression is obtained by integrating the production
rate decline equation. It should be noted that, in the exponential decline, the
wells production data plots as a straight line on a semilog paper

Harmonic Decline
When d = 1, Equation (1) yields the differential equation for a harmonic
decline model:

This can be integrated as;

Where

qo

is the production rate at t = 0.

Expression for the cumulative production is obtained by integration:

This gives;

Combining Equations gives

Below is a summary of the models used in harmonic decline.

Hyperbolic Decline
When 0 < d < 1, integration of Equation (1) gives:

This becomes;

Expression for the cumulative production is obtained by integration:

The table below summarizes the equations used in hyperbolic decline

analysis:

Material balance
It is a common forecasting method for depletion drive in oil and gas
reservoirs. It assumes that the reservoir is tank like which may be
inappropriate for low permeability or compartmentalized reservoirs. Material
balance models may however how ever be used where there is little
reservoir data and reservoir uncertainties are large.
A general material balance equation that can be applied to all reservoir
types. Although it is a tank model equation, it can provide great insight for
the practicing reservoir engineer.
It is written from start of production to any time (t) as follows:
Expansion of oil in the oil zone + Expansion of gas in the gas zone +
Expansion of connate water in the oil and gas zones + Water influx + Water
injected + Gas injected = Oil produced + Gas produced + Water produced.
Mathematically, the expression is written as:

Where;
N = initial oil in place, STB
Np = cumulative oil produced, STB
G = initial gas in place, SCF
GI = cumulative gas injected into reservoir, SCF
Gp = cumulative gas produced, SCF
We = water influx into reservoir, bbl
WI = cumulative water injected into reservoir, STB
Wp = cumulative water produced, STB
Bti = initial two-phase formation volume factor, bbl/STB = Boi
Boi = initial oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Bgi = initial gas formation volume factor, bbl/SCF
Bt = two-phase formation volume factor, bbl/STB = Bo + (Rsoi - Rso) Bg
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Bg = gas formation volume factor, bbl/SCF
Bw = water formation volume factor, bbl/STB
BIg = injected gas formation volume factor, bbl/SCF
BIw = injected water formation volume factor, bbl/STB

Rsoi = initial solution gas-oil ratio, SCF/STB

Rso = solution gas-oil ratio, SCF/STB
Rp = cumulative produced gas-oil ratio, SCF/STB
Cf = formation compressibility, psia-117
Cw = water isothermal compressibility, psia-1
Swi = initial water saturation
pt = reservoir pressure drop, psia = pi - p(t)
p(t) = current reservoir pressure, psia

Baker Hughess Reservoir Development Services (RDS) models can easily be

extended to integrated production modeling by including the surface flow
line and production facilities and this is appropriate for the short term
production forecasting and optimization. It also has expertise in production
analysis and forecasting with analytical transient flow models. This type of
model is most suitable for depletion drive where the well drainage area
remains constant over time.

Reservoir simulation modeling

Reservoir simulation modeling is the main stay of reservoir performance
analysis and production forecasting in the petroleum industry. This is the only
forecasting technique which really accounts for complexities in the reservoir
description such as heterogeneity, structure and faulting together with multi
phase flow, well geometry and detailed well and production scheduling.
Reservoir simulation studies are most successful where they are closely
integrated.
Simulation studies are tailored to the project objectives and the quantity and
quality of available data. The model is kept as simple as possible. Complexity
is added when project requirements need to be met. This means that time
and money are not wasted as well as factors which do not impact the
reservoir management processes. For example, in the appraisal or pre-

development situation may be more appropriate to investigate multiple

geological scenarios with a simple geological model.
For mature fields with a large amount of well data and production history, a
detailed model is more suitable, for example to resolve infill drilling targets.
History matching is a significant issue for producing fields, especially mature
fields.
The most important issue is to understand the ranges of uncertainty and
what parameter changes are realistic. These could be reservoir description
parameters. However there are errors associated with measured production
and pressure data.
To say that reservoir performance forecasting is not an exact science would
be an understatement. Even with all the significant advances occurring
across a wide spectrum of related areas, questions still remain regarding the
reliability of reservoir predictions. The discussion here pursues the following
questions:
I.
II.

What are realistic accuracy expectations in performance forecasts?

Are our conventional thought processes in modeling inherently illstructured to produce rapid forecasts?

By their very nature, EOR processes introduce additional levels of complexity

to forecasting. This discussion relates mainly to conventional reservoir
systems.
Both internal and external reservoir factors contribute to forecast
uncertainties. When model forecasts diverge from actual performance,
distinctions among primary causes are sometimes lost. For example,
accurate models may produce apparently poor forecasts when presumed
field management strategies and facility outlays are not actually
implemented as a result of external factors.
When model forecasts duplicate actual performance, this can also be
misinterpreted as model validation. In fact, the duplication could simply
reflect compensating errors among the internal and external factors. The
point here is that accurate forecasts do not mean accurate models. (The
hypothetical corollary also appears noteworthy: poor forecasts do not
necessarily equate to poor reservoir models.) The nature of the oil industry
limits predictability of external factors, such as exact field operating
practices. At best, multiple forecasts need to be developed for a range of

external factors. Of the four uncertainty causes in Fig. 1, data quality and
mathematical solutions are becoming less pronounced, and reservoir
characterization and scale-up present the primary obstacles to improving
performance forecasts. The lack of determinism in both external and internal
factors suggests only the obvious: all reservoir performance forecasts carry a
band of uncertainty.