SPE 166198

Estimating Proved Reserves in Tight/Shale Wells Using the Modified SEPD

Method
Shaoyong Yu, ConocoPhillips Canada; W. John Lee, University of Houston; Dominic J. Miocevic, ConocoPhillips
Canada; Dong Li, University of Houston; Seth Harris, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013.

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

Due to their simplicity, empirical production forecasting methods have been used by the petroleum industry for decades.
Since 2008, a number of empirical methods have been introduced to the petroleum industry, specifically for wells located in
tight/shale reservoirs. However, most of these new methods are not reliable for forecasting remaining reserves, although they
may appear to be very good for forecasting EUR in wells in which a high percentage of the EUR has already been produced.

The Stretched Exponential Production Decline (SEPD) Method was introduced in 2010. Our results from analysis of both
synthetic and actual field data by using SEPD have indicated that this method will most likely underestimate EUR in
reservoirs with permeability ranging from 0.1mD to 0.0001mD. A modified SEPD (YM-SEPD) Method has therefore been
developed to eliminate the SEPD Method’s shortcoming by employing a new specialized plot to find all related parameters.
This newly developed method is very easy to use and, most importantly, it will yield a much more reliable production and
remaining reserve prediction for tight horizontal wells. With longer production histories, remaining reserves can be
forecasted even more accurately and with a high confidence level.

Hundreds of horizontal wells including oil wells from various formations (Cadomin, Montney, Notikewin, Cardium, Barnett
Shale, Muskwa, etc.), hydraulically fractured in various ways, have been analyzed using the modified SEPD (YM-SEPD)
method. Results indicate that reliable EURs and production profiles can be predicted readily for wells having only two to
three years of production history. For wells having less than two years of production history, the modified SEPD (YM-
SEPD) Method can also yield reasonable production forecasts when coupled with Duong’s empirical method.

This paper presents the application of the modified SEPD (YM-SEPD) Method to a number of actual and synthetic oil and
gas wells to estimate their proved reserves, including horizontal wells producing dry, wet and retrograde gas as well as tight
oil. These examples have had production histories with either observed or non-observed boundary-dominated flow (BDF).
The examples also illustrate how the modified SEPD (YM-SEPD) method is capable of estimating proven reserves with high
confidence.

Introduction

As a general rule in North America, operators of oil and gas wells are required by law to perform an annual reserves updates
on their wells, both newly drilled and existing wells. For operators whose securities are listed on U.S. Exchanges, the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has clearly stated that proved developed producing reserves (PDP) are “those
quantities of oil and gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to
be economically producible, from a given date forward…that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the
estimate.” As such, initial reserve bookings tend to be conservative in relation to the projected range of uncertainty.
However, uncertainty typically diminishes with more data (time) becoming available. As a result, additional PDP reserves
can be booked. In other words, we should expect that the estimation of EUR will increase over time, especially during early
stages of production life.
2 SPE 166198

In recent years, the estimation of EUR for horizontal wells with multi-stage fractures in tight/shale reservoirs has been a real
challenge facing reservoir engineers, mainly due to complexities in both reservoir and near-well flow regimes. In industry
today, the most common methods to estimate EURs are analytical (Bello, and Wattenbager, 2008, 2009, 2010; Anderson, et
al, 2010), numerical (Cipolla, et al, 2009), or empirical (Arps, 1945; Ilk, et al, 2009). All three approaches have their
advantages and disadvantages. Empirical methods, due to their simplicity, remain the most widely used approach in industry.
Therefore, a few methods (Valko, 2009; Duong, 2010) have been developed and recommended by experts for wells in
tight/shale reservoirs (Lee, 2012a, Lee, 2012b). Unfortunately, most of these new methods are not proved to be reliable for
estimating remaining reserves using only data from a well’s early production history (Yu, 2013). They appear to be most
suitable for forecasting EUR in wells from which a high percentage of the EUR has already been produced (Yu, 2013).

This paper presents the application of a new methodology: a modified SEPD (YM-SEPD) Method to estimate proved
reserves using data from early well history. The method is applicable to horizontal wells producing dry, wet or retrograde
gas as well as tight oil. The method has been tried on a number of wells having production histories with or without
boundary-dominated flow (BDF). These examples also illustrate how the modified SEPD (YM-SEPD) Method is capable of
estimating proven reserves that strictly following the definition of PDP from the SEC perspective.

The Modified Stretched Exponential Production Decline Model (YM-SEPD)

To predict production profiles and EURs of tight/shale wells, Valko et al. (Valko, 2009; Valko, et al., 2010) proposed the
Stretched Exponential Production Decline (SEPD) method as follows:

Gas or oil rate:   t n 

q  q0  Exp     (1)
    

q   1   1  t  n  
Cumulative production: Gp  0       ,     (2)
n   n   n  n   

Recovery potential (Rp): 1

Gp  1 1  q 
Rp  1         , Ln  (3)
EUR   n   n  q0 
q 0  1 
where, EUR   is defined as the cumulative production when the production rate approaches 0. The parameters
n  n 
in Eq. (1) can be found by forcing the intercept be 1.0 in the linear plot of Rp vs. Gp.

Later, Yu (Yu, 2013) has found that the SEPD could seriously underestimate future production and EURs for wells with short
production histories in reservoirs having permeability ranging from 0.0001 to 0.1 md. However, in examining a large number
of synthetic examples, Yu et. al. (Yu, 2013) found that if we exclude much or all of the first year’s production history and
then include the remaining first two to three years of production history to estimate the parameters in Eq. (1), we are able to
generate a production profile that usually matches the full production history of a well. However, if the full first year
production history is also included in the match, the EUR will be likely underestimated.

In addition, Yu et al. developed a specialized plot based on Eq. (4)

 q 
ln  0     n t n (4)
 qt 
to find the parameters “n” and “τ” in Eq. (1) from analysis of available production data. This plot is quite simple to apply, and
its use results in estimates of parameters that prove to be much more reliable for forecasting than parameters estimated from
application of Eqs. (1) through (3). Most importantly, this specialized plot has revealed the essence of YM-SEPD method that
production data should fall on this straight line if they are really following the Stretched Exponential Production Decline. In
other words, production data that are deviated from the straight line should not be included in the SEPD analysis. In Eq. (4),
we use the same q0 value as defined in Valko’s SEPD, which represents the maximum producing rate of the well.

Yu et al. has also found (Yu, et al, 2013) that a set of “n” & “τ” values will allow us to generate a production decline profile
that fits reasonably well to the decline behavior (“Hockey-Stick” profile) of a typical horizontal well with a multistage
SPE 166198 3

fracturing completion. This explains why the YM-SEPD approach can produce a very reliable production forecast and EUR
for those horizontal wells.

We have found in practice that, by including more data from the later part of the production history in the specialized plot,
the error in EUR decreased substantially. For most wells with reservoir permeability ranging from 0.001 to 0.1 md, using 2
to 3 years of production history leads to reasonable predictions of EURs. Using even longer production histories, remaining
reserves can be forecasted accurately with a much higher confidence level. On the other hand, including more early data from
the first year production history in the specialized plot will generate conservative EURs. We further validated this finding by
analyzing actual field examples and using the Flowing Material Balance (FMB) approach for wells with pressure data.
For wells with less than two years of production history, Yu et al. combined the YM-SEPD method with Duong’s method to
forecast a reasonably reliable and conservative production profile and EUR. Duong’s Method, which is more accurate for
early data than other empirical methods (but which overestimates EUR when used for long-term forecasts), was used to
estimate rates from the end of history up to about three years producing time for reservoirs with permeability ranging from
0.001 to 0.1md. We call this period of history as “Pseudo-rate” history.

Validation with Examples

We validated YM-SEPD method for estimating proved reserves by analyzing both synthetic and actual production data.
Synthetic data examples were generated using a commercial reservoir simulator. Actual production histories are from wells
located in various Western Canadian Basin (WCB) pools. These actual wells have either reached BDF or been producing for
many years and have reached their economic limit rates, and are almost certainly in BDF.

During validation, we use only the first three to four years of production history of the wells as the basis for determining
model parameters. This will increase the chances that the wells were still in transient or transition flow regimes for much of
these early times.

Dry Gas Well

A Cadomin dry gas well located in WCB. The formation is composed mostly of a conglomerate and sand system with
permeabity ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 md. Other reservoir and well parameters are listed in Table 1. Fig. 1 shows the well’s
production history and bottom-hole pressure (calculated with wellhead pressure). The well was completed with multi-stage
open-hole fracturing and has produced for more than six years to date.

Table 1 - Parameters of Dry Gas Well Example

Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 2821.5 psia

o
Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 181.4 F
Permeability (k ) = ~ 0.05 mD
Porosity (Phi ) = ~ 6%
Water Saturation (S wi ) = 30%
Net Pay (h ) = 32.8 ft
Gas Gravity (γ g ) = 0.621
Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 2330 ft

Fig. 1- Production and Pressure History of

Example Dry Gas Well
Using available bottom-hole pressure history, we constructed a diagnostic plot (Anderson, et al., 2010) as shown in Fig. 2.
Note that the well was in linear flow at early times and later reached BDF with negative unit slope. Therefore, we can apply
the flowing material balance (FMB) to find the OGIP in contact with the well, as shown in Fig. 3.
About 2200 MMscf OGIP has been contacted and the EUR is estimated to be 1850 MMscf at an economic limit rate of
25Mscf/D.

Figure 4 shows the dry gas well’s YM-SEPD specialized plot on which it clearly indicates a straight line after 300 days. By
matching only the first 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, or 4-year production history, respectively, YM-SEPD gave us different EURs,
as shown in Table 2.
4 SPE 166198

Fig. 2 - Diagnostic Plot of Flow Regimes for Fig. 3 - FMB for Example Dry Gas Well
Example Dry Gas Well

From Table 2, the predicted EURs are far closer to the actual
values when more production history data are included. With
about three years of production history, the YM-SEPD
method was able to predict EURs with less than 10% error,
even though more than 50% of the EUR remained.

As shown in Table 2, analyzing only the first year

production history generated an error of 58%. However,
coupling with an additional two years “pseudo” history rate
(Yu, et al, 2013) generated using Duong’s method (totally 3
years history) had reduced the error by almost half (~30.6%
less). Further, if two years production data were available,
the error in the EUR prediction can be reduced to about 10%
in this example after adding 2-years “pseudo” history rate
from Duong’s method (totally 4 years history), with well’s
flow regime still being transient/transition and almost 60% Fig. 4: YM-SEPD Specialized Plot for Example
of the EUR remaining. Dry Gas Well

Table 2 - YM-SEPD Results for Example Dry Gas Well

Data Available YM-SEPD
% of EUR
Used Forecast % to EUR
Remaining n τ
(years) (MSTB)
~1 69.0% 0.7498 163.430 778.0 -57.9%
~1+Pseudo Rate* 69.0% 0.3737 71.114 1284.3 -30.6%
~2 58.7% 0.3585 74.913 1467.2 -20.7%
~2+Pseudo Rate* 58.7% 0.3109 49.805 1646.3 -11.0%
~3 52.3% 0.3262 63.190 1672.0 -9.6%
~4 46.9% 0.3212 60.522 1683.5 -9.0%
All Data 33.7% 0.3189 66.533 1827.8 -1.2%
* Using available production data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline
Method

Wet Gas Well

A horizontal well has been producing wet gas from a naturally fractured limestone formation in WCB with a condensate
yield of ~5 bbls/MMscf. The production history is from a public database. Reservoir parameters from an adjacent vertical
well are listed in Table 3. The reservoir permeability is from a pressure transient analysis (PTA) of the nearby vertical well.
The gravity of the condensate is about 60 oAPI. The well was initially completed with three stages of acid squeezing and
SPE 166198 5

since then, has been producing for almost 10 years. It reached its
Table 3 - Parameters for Example Wet Gas Well
economic limit flow rate of 100 Mscf/D and recently production
has dropped due to liquid loading. The cumulative gas production Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 2625 psia
is about 1300 MMscf. Fig. 5 shows its production history. o
Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 176 F
Fig. 6 shows the YM-SEPD specialized plot which clearly Permeability (k ) = ~ 0.5 mD
indicates a straight line after 200 days. Assuming only 1-year, 2- Porosity (Phi ) = ~ 6.5%
year, 3-year and 4-year production histories are available, we can Water Saturation (S wi ) = 20%
predict EURs for each case using YM-SEPD as summarized in
Table 4. Net Pay (h ) = 52.5 ft
Gas Gravity (γ g ) = 0.716
As in the previous example, as more history data is included in the Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 3610 ft
analysis, the error in predicted EUR is reduced. In this example,
using the first three years of history, YM-SEPD accurately predicts the well’s EUR even though more than 35% of the EUR
remains in the reservoir.

Liquid Loading

Fig. 5 - Production History of an Example Wet Fig. 6 - YM-SEPD specialized Plot of an

Gas Well Example Wet Gas Well

Table 4 - YM-SEPD Results for Example Wet Gas Well

Data Available
Y M- SE PD
% of EUR % to
Used Forecast
Remaining n τ EUR
(years) (MMscf)
~1 65.4% 0.7796 314.2925 724.4 -44.3%
*
~1+Pseudo Rate 65.4% 0.5666 322.5365 1009.6 -22.3%
~2 49.2% 0.5447 373.6308 1198.5 -7.8%
~3 35.8% 0.5369 407.2065 1304.9 0.4%
~4 25.8% 0.5384 415.8765 1315.9 1.2%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline
Method

When the well had only one year history, YM-SEPD predicted its EUR very conservatively. However, coupling with
Duong’s method to generate another two years “pseudo” production history had reduced the error by about half.

Retrograde Gas Well

We used both synthetic and actual data to analyze our retrograde gas well case. We generated the synthetic production history
using a commercial compositional reservoir simulator. Our actual example well is also from a public database, and is
producing from a WCB formation. We found that both its gas and condensate production histories could be analyzed using
YM-SEPD.
6 SPE 166198

Synthetic Gas Well

We generated a synthetic production profile, shown in Fig. 7, for a gas well producing from a retrograde gas reservoir similar
to a typical Eagle Ford condensate-rich gas reservoir (Orangi, et al, 2011). Reservoir, reservoir fluid and well properties are
listed in Table 5. Fig. 8 is the phase diagram for the reservoir fluid, with dew-point pressure being 3968 psia at reservoir
temperature. In Fig. 7, we see that gas production dropped due to the formation of a condensate bank near the wellbore. At a
gas economic limit rate of 30 Mscf/D and oil rate of 2 STB/D, the cumulative gas and oil production are 2360 MMscf and
163 MSTB, respectively.

Table 5 - Parameters for Synthetic Data Generation of Retrograde Gas Well

Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 7000 psia Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 6265 ft
o
Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 350 F No. of Satge = 10
Permeability (k ) = 0.01 mD Fracture Conductivity (F CD ) = 17
Porosity (Phi ) = 6% Fracture Half-Length (xf ) = 250 ft
Water Saturation (S wi ) = 35% Flowing Pressure (p wf ) = 800 psia
o
Net Pay (h ) = 50 ft Oil Gravity (γ o ) = 47.6 API
Drainage Area (A ) = 160 acres CGR = 151 Bbls/MMscf

Fig. 7- Synthetic Production History for Fig. 8 - PVT Envelope for Example Retrograde
Example Retrograde Gas Well Gas Well

Using YM-SEPD to analyze both the gas and oil production histories, as shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, we observe that both
oil and gas specialized plots show a straight line after less than 100 days production to the end of production. In the
simulation, BDF developed at about 2200 days. This again indicates that YM-SEPD forecasts remain accurate even when
BDF develops later in a well’s history (Yu, et al, 2013).

Fig. 9 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Gas Fig. 10 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Oil
Production for Retrograde Gas Well Example Production for Retrograde Gas Well Example
SPE 166198 7

Using the same analysis procedure as in examples above, and using 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year production histories,
EURs were predicted for both oil and gas with YM-SEPD. Results are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.

The tables show that, when we include more production history in analysis, the predicted EUR is much closer to the true
value. Using less than 3 years production history alone allows us to predict EURs with less than 5% error.

Table 6 - YM-SEPD Results of Gas Production for the Retrograde Gas Well
YM-SEPD
Data Available Used % of EUR
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MMscf)
~1 58.4% 0.3597 40.5932 1937.2 -17.82%
*
~1+Pseudo Rate 58.4% 0.3389 37.1220 2139.9 -9.23%
~2 44.5% 0.3326 36.7409 2248.4 -4.62%
~3 35.5% 0.3333 38.1076 2297.2 -2.56%
~4 28.8% 0.3296 37.3614 2345.2 -0.52%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method

Table 7 - YM-SEPD Results of Oil Production for the Retrograde Gas Well
YM-SEPD
Available Data Used % of EUR
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MSTB)
~ 1 44.8% 0.3135 10.9145 140.0 -13.82%
*
~ 1+Pseudo Rate 44.8% 0.2930 8.7699 152.3 -6.27%
~2 32.3% 0.2928 9.1317 154.0 -5.22%
~3 24.5% 0.2857 8.4880 159.2 -2.03%
~4 19.1% 0.2836 8.2744 160.7 -1.11%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method

Actual Retrograde Gas Well

This example is from a naturally fractured limestone reservoir in WCB. The well has about 610 meters of horizontal
wellbore. Unfortunately, no PVT data are available. However, the production profile suggests that the well is producing from
a retrograde gas reservoir. Core data from nearby vertical wells indicate an average kair of about 1 md. Therefore, the
reservoir in-situ permeability is almost certainly less than 0.1 md. Other parameters are listed in Table 8. The well has been
producing for almost 10 years, as shown in Fig. 11, with a recent decrease in production due to liquid loading.

Table 8 - Parameters of an Actual

Retrograde Gas Well
Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 1815 psia
o
Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 140 F
Permeability (k ) = < 0.1 mD
Porosity (Phi ) = ~ 6.3%
Water Saturation (S wi ) = 12%
Net Pay (h ) = 59.1 ft
o
Oil Gravity (γ o ) = 56.17 API
Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 2014 ft

Fig. 11 - Production History of an Actual Retrograde Gas

Well
8 SPE 166198

The production history on the YM-SEPD specialized plot, as shown in Figs.12 and 13, indicates that both gas and oil
histories follow straight lines after 100 to 200 days. Again, this indicates that YM-SEPD can be applied to the retrograde gas
wells for both oil and gas production and EUR forecasting.

Fig. 12 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Gas Fig. 13 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Oil
Production for Retrograde Gas Well Example Production for Retrograde Gas Well Example
Assuming well’s economic limit rates to be the rates prior to the liquid loading, the rates are: gas rate = 50 Mscf/D and oil
rate = 3 STB/D. From the actual data, we can determine the ultimate cumulative oil and gas production volumes are 515
MMscf and 74 MSTB. Based on these data, errors in forecasted EURs using early year production histories alone can be
calculated. Tables 9 and 10 summarize the results. The same conclusions can be drawn as from previous examples: Using the
first 2 to 3 years production data allows us to predict EURs correctly (in this example, < 5% error for both oil and gas). If
only the first year data were available, adding another 2 or 3 years “pseudo” production data generated using Duong’s model
to the analysis allows us to predict reasonable EURs (error reduced from almost 50% to < 25% for gas, and from 33% to <5%
for oil).

Table 9 - YM-SEPD Results for Gas Production for an Actual

Retrograde Gas Well
YM-SEPD
Data Available Used % of EUR
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MSTB)
~1 70.8% 0.7404 328.537 263.6 -48.8%
~1+Pseudo Rate* 70.8% 0.4398 244.814 392.1 -23.9%
~2 55.8% 0.4894 331.598 405.5 -21.3%
~3 42.3% 0.4152 318.081 507.0 -1.5%
~4 33.9% 0.4194 325.114 505.8 -1.8%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline
Method

Table 10 - YM-SEPD Results for Oil Production for an Actual

Retrograde Gas Well
YM-SEPD
Data Available Used % of EUR
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MSTB)
~1 61.4% 0.5468 150.350 49.2 -33.5%
~1+Pseudo Rate* 61.4% 0.3932 117.079 73.3 -0.9%
~2 45.7% 0.4383 128.828 63.2 -14.5%
~3 34.4% 0.3912 115.495 73.6 -0.5%
~4 26.3% 0.3918 117.716 75.0 1.4%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline
Method
SPE 166198 9

Volatile Oil Well

In volatile oil well analysis, we also use both synthetic and practical data to validate the YM-SEPD. Synthetic production
history was generated using a commercial compositional reservoir simulator. An actual well example uses data from a public
database; the well is producing from a WCB tight formation.

Synthetic Well
We generated synthetic production profiles for both oil and gas, as shown in Fig. 14, based on parameters listed in Table 11.
Reservoir fluid properties are similar to a typical Eagle Ford volatile oil reservoir (Orangi, et al, 2011). The phase envelope
is shown in Fig. 15, with bubble-point pressure being 5100 psia at reservoir temperature. For a gas economic limit rate of 70
Mscf/D and oil 3.5 STB/D, the cumulative gas and oil production were found to be 2025 MMscf and 252 MSTB.
Table 11 - Parameters for Synthetic Data Generation of a Volatile Oil Well
Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 7000 psia Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 6265 ft
o
Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 285 F No. of Satge = 10
Permeability (k ) = 0.01 mD Fracture Conductivity (F CD ) = 17
Porosity (Phi ) = 6% Fracture Half-Length (xf ) = 250 ft
Water Saturation (S wi ) = 35% Flowing Pressure (p wf ) = 800 psia
o
Net Pay (h ) = 50 ft Oil Gravity (γ o ) = 41.3 API
Drainage Area (A ) = 320 acres GOR = 2100 Scf/STB

Fig. 14 - Synthetic Production History for an Fig. 15 - Phase Diagram for Example Volatile Oil
Example Volatile Oil Well Well

Figure 16 and Figure 17 show YM-SEPD’s specialized plots of both oil and gas production for the example. It can be
observed that they all behave a straight line after less than 100 days.

Fig. 16 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Oil Fig. 17 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Gas
Production for Example Volatile Oil Well Production for Example Volatile Oil Well
10 SPE 166198

Tables 12 and 13 show the error in EUR prediction using only early year production data. We see that YM-SEPD predicts
reasonably accurate EURs for both oil and gas in this volatile oil well. As more historical data were included in the analysis,
predicted values of EUR were much closer to the true values. For this specific case, the oil-phase prediction is much better
than gas-phase prediction and the error is less than 10%. For the gas-phase prediction, after including four years of
production data, the error is reduced to <5% with more than 70% of the EUR remaining.
Table 12 - YM-SEPD Results of Oil Production for a Volatile Oil Well

Data Available Used % of EUR

YM-SEPD
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MSTB)
~ 1 67.4% 0.2746 14.7145 231.4 -8.00%
*
~ 1+Pseudo Rate 67.4% 0.2698 14.3713 243.0 -3.38%
~2 54.8% 0.2749 15.1851 236.3 -6.06%
~3 41.1% 0.2722 14.5133 237.5 -5.56%
~4 46.3% 0.2751 15.0739 233.7 -7.06%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method

Table 13 - YM-SEPD Results of Gas Production for a Volatile Oil Well

YM-SEPD
Data Available Used % of EUR
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MMscf)
~1 87.4% 0.3129 52.9520 669.7 -66.93%
*
~1+Pseudo Rate 87.4% 0.2415 30.0057 1012.7 -49.99%
~2 80.8% 0.2221 27.6524 1361.2 -32.78%
~3 75.3% 0.2096 24.2914 1600.5 -20.96%
~4 70.4% 0.1919 18.1092 1946.0 -3.900%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method

Actual Well
We selected an oil well producing from a WCB tight sandstone formation as our actual well example. Reservoir and well
parameters are listed in Table 14. The well is offset by another four horizontal wells that are ~250 m away and have almost
the same on-stream date. The well has been producing for more than two years, as shown in Fig. 18, and is believed to be in
BDF. No PTA data are available. However, the core data from two nearby vertical wells showed that the maximum air
permeability is about 0.6 md. Therefore, we believe that the in-situ permeability of this sandstone reservoir is much less than
0.1md. The well was initially completed with 11 stages of multi-stage fracturing.
YM-SEPD specialized plots of both oil and gas production for the example are shown in Figs. 19 and 20. Straight lines
appear after less than 100 days, which indicates that YM-SEPD is applicable to predict their EURs. After having validated

Table 14 - Parameters of an Actual Volatile

Oil Well
Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 2390 psia
o
Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 140 F
Permeability (k ) = < 0.1 mD
Porosity (Phi ) = ~ 11%
Water Saturation (S wi ) = 30%
Net Pay (h ) = 39.4 ft
o
Oil Gravity (γ o ) = 55 API
Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 3674.5 ft
Initial GOR = ~ 2000 Scf/STB

Fig. 18 - Production History for Example Volatile

Oil Well
SPE 166198 11

the flow be in BDF using YM-SEPD (Yu, et al, 2013), the final EURs of both gas and oil are ~215 MMscf and ~60.5 MSTB,
with the gas economic limit rate being ~25 Mscf/D and the oil rate being ~2.5 STB/D.
Results of EURs prediction using YM-SEPD are shown in Tables 15 and 16. Reasonable EURs were obtained using only the
first 2 to 3 year’s production data (the error in both gas and oil predictions are less than 5%). With more data included in the
analysis, YM-SEPD will predict closer values to the true EURs.

Fig. 19 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Oil Production Fig. 20 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot of Gas
for Example Volatile Oil Well Production for Example Volatile Oil Well

Table 15 - YM-SEPD Forecasts of Oil Production for a Volatile Oil Well

YM-SEPD
Data Available Used % of EUR
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MSTB)
~ 1 33.4% 0.4945 37.9071 50.1 -17.19%
*
~ 1+Pseudo Rate 33.4% 0.3796 20.3192 57.6 -4.81%
~2 19.6% 0.4411 30.8939 53.4 -11.68%
~ ALL 16.7% 0.3674 19.0442 57.5 -4.92%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method

Table 16 - YM-SEPD Forecasts of Gas Production for a Volatile Oil Well

Data Available
% of EUR
Y M- SE PD
Used Forecast % to EUR
Remaining n τ
(years) (MSTB)
~ 1 59.2% 0.7839 227.549 127.5 -40.69%
*
~ 1+Pseudo Rate 59.2% 0.4376 173.246 203.3 -5.46%
~ 2 40.7% 0.4528 195.228 207.4 -3.54%
~ All 35.8% 0.4432 192.821 212.6 -1.13%

* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method

Black Oil Well

In contrast to volatile oil wells, black oil well have much lower GORs and lower oil gravities, which commonly cause
“noisy” gas production profiles. In other words, black oil wells usually will not have “clean” gas production decline profiles.
Therefore, in this section, we will validate only the application of YM-SEPD to oil phase production and EUR predictions.
We will validate YM-SEPD by analyzing both synthetic and actual example wells.
12 SPE 166198

Synthetic Well
Fig. 21 shows a well’s oil production profile which was generated using commercial reservoir simulator and the input
parameters listed in Table 17. These parameters are generally similar to a Cardium oil reservoir, sandstone formation, in the
WCB. The well is producing from an unsaturated reservoir with bubble point pressure of 2000 psia. The well produced 146.8
MSTB in more than 30 years.

Table 17 - Parameters for Forecast of Synthetic Data for a Black Oil Well
Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 2450 psia No. of Satge = 7
o
Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 90 F Fracture Conductivity (F CD ) = 7
Permeability (k ) = 0.05 mD Fracture Half-Length (xf ) = 250 ft
Porosity (Phi ) = 10% Flowing Pressure (p wf ) = 600 psia
o
Water Saturation (S wi ) = 20% Oil Gravity (γ o ) = 35 API
Net Pay (h ) = 30 ft Initial GOR (R si ) = 400 Scf/STB
Drainage Area (A ) = 100 acres Bubble Point (p b ) = 2000 psia
Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 3937.0 ft Oil Volume Factor (B o ) = 1.17 rb/Stb

Fig. 22 shows the YM-SEPD specialized plot, which indicates a straight line after less than 100 days of production.
Therefore, we can predict EUR by applying YM-SEPD. Table 18 shows EUR predictions for different amounts of historical
production data. Using the production history for the first three years, when the well is still in the transient/transition flow
regime, YM-SEPD predicts a EUR with error less than 10%. With additional history, the prediction is much closer to the true
value. When only the first year of history is available, YM-SEPD also predicts a reasonably correct EUR by coupling with
Duong’s method to generate an additional two years of “pseudo” production data. The error is significantly reduced from
almost 20% to less than 5% in this example.

Fig. 21 - Synthetic Production History for an Fig. 22 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot for Example
Example Black Oil Well Black Oil Well

Table 18 - YM-SEPD Results of a Synthetic Black Oil Well

Data Available Used % of EUR

YM-SEPD
Forecast % to EUR
(years) Remaining n τ
(MSTB)
~ 1 83.3% 0.2849 66.3206 118.7 -19.13%
*
~ 1+Pseudo Rate 83.3% 0.2647 58.8200 141.7 -3.49%
~2 74.1% 0.2838 65.7093 119.3 -18.71%
~3 61.5% 0.2697 60.3105 134.7 -8.25%
~4 66.6% 0.2705 60.6607 133.7 -8.90%
* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method
SPE 166198 13

Actual Cardium Oil Well

An oil well from the tight Cardium formation in WCB has Table 19 - Parameters of a Black Oil Well Example
reservoir and fluid parameters summarized in Table 19. There
Reservoir Pressure (p i )= 2420 psia
is no PTA data available for this well in the public database. o
However, core data from two nearby vertical wells shows that Reservoir Temperature (T r ) = 90 F
this sandstone formation is naturally fractured with maximum Permeability (k ) = < 0.1 mD
air permeability of the fracture 3~6md and air permeability of Porosity (Phi ) = ~ 10%
matrix 0.4md. The well is offset by another two horizontal Water Saturation (S wi ) = 15%
wells about 700 m away that have been producing from the
Net Pay (h ) = 25 ~ 33 ft
same formation and that began producing one year later. The
well has been producing for more than three years, and has Horizontal Wellbore (L ) = 3805.8 ft
o
reached BDF. The well was initially completed with nine stages Oil Gravity (γ o ) = 35.2 API
of fracturing. Fig. 23 shows its oil production profile. Oil Volume Factor (B o ) = 1.178 rb/Stb
Assuming its economic limit oil rate to be 1.0 STB/D, the EUR Initial GOR (R si ) = 430 Scf/STB
for this well is ~ 21.3 MSTB.

Fig. 23 - Production History for Example Black Oil Fig. 24 - YM-SEPD Specialized Plot for Example
Well Black Oil Well

A straight line, starting at about 100 days as shown in Fig.24, can be observed on the YM-SEPD specialized plot. The errors
in EUR predictions are listed in Table 20. Again, with two to three years’ production history included in analysis, the error is
close to 10%. The error decreases as more historical data are included. If we couple the first year production history with two
additional years of “pseudo” rates from Duong’s model, the error is significantly reduced from ~ 46% to ~ 10%.

Table 20 - YM-SEPD Results of for a Black Oil Well Example

Data Available
% of EUR
Y M- SE PD
Used Forecast % to EUR
Remaining n τ
(years) (MSTB)
~ 1 60.5% 0.7554 179.8365 11.4 -46.40%
*
~ 1+Pseudo Rate 60.5% 0.4283 129.8447 19.1 -10.49%
~ 2 43.7% 0.5526 183.0253 16.4 -23.15%
~ 3 32.3% 0.4923 175.7240 18.8 -11.72%
~ ALL 29.6% 0.4401 150.4046 20.3 -4.68%

* Using 1st year data plus pseudo rate generated by Duong's Rate Decline Method

Conclusions
After examining a significant number of horizontal wells, including wells from a number of WCB formations such as
Cadomin, Montney, Notikwin, Falher, Glauc, Muskwa, Cardium and Dunvegan, we drew the following conclusions:
14 SPE 166198

1. The YM-SEPD method is applicable for production forecasts and EUR estimation in dry gas, wet gas, retrograde
gas, volatile and black oil wells, as long as their production profiles have a typical “Hockey-Stick” profile – the
characteristic of most horizontal wells with multi-stages fracturing in extremely tight reservoirs.

2. EUR predictions using the YM-SEPD method will be closer to the true values as more production history becomes
available. Less production history data generate conservative EURs. Errors decrease with time, which is consistent
with SEC guidelines for proved reserves.

3. The YM-SEPD Method can predict reasonable EURs for wells having 2 to 3 or more years of production history
regardless of the percentage of EUR remaining and regardless of whether BDF has been or will encountered in the
future.

4. For wells having only one to two years of production history, coupling with Duong’s method to generate another
one to two years of “pseudo” history can significantly reduce the prediction error. However, the YM-SEPD method
is preferred for predictions beyond three years if Duong’s method can produce more years “pseudo” production
forecasts before the BDF is achieved.

5. Data from the early months of production, for both simulated and actual well histories, are not fit well by the SEPD
model, and these data should not be included in parameter determination. If they are included, forecasts with YM-
SEPD will be conservative. We can identify these early points that should not be included in the analysis by
checking if or not they fall on the straight line on the YM-SEPD specialized plot.

Acknowledgments
We thank the management of ConocoPhillips for their time to review and permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
EUR = Expected Ultimate Recovery, MMscf or MSTB
Gp = Cumulative Gas Production, MMscf
n = Parameter in SEPD equation, dimensionless
q0 = Initial Gas or Oil Rate, Mscf/D or STB/D
qg = Gas Rate, Mscf/D
qo = Oil Rate, STB/D
q(t) = Gas or Oil Rate, Mscf/D or STB/D
t = Time, days
Rp = Recovery Potential, defined by SEPD method
τ = Parameter in SEPD equation, dimensionless
Γ = Gamma Function

References
Arps J.J. 1945. Analysis of Decline Curves. Trans. AIME: 160, 228-247
Anderson, D.M., Nobakht, M., Moghadam, S. and Matter, L.: “Analysis of Production Data from Fractured Shale Gas Wells,
” paper SPE 131787 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 23-25
February 2010
Bello, R.O. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Rate Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE
114591 presented at the CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
16-19 June 2008
Bello, R.O. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Modeling and Analysis of Shale Gas Production with a Skin Effect,” paper PETSOC-
2009-082 prepared for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC) 2009, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 16‐18 June 2009
Bello, R.O. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Multi-Stage Hydraulically Fractured Shale Gas Rate Transient Analysis,” paper SPE
126754 presented at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 14-17 February 2010
SPE 166198 15

Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P. and Mayerhofer, M.J.: “Reservoir Modeling and Production Evaluation in Shale-Gas Reservoirs,”
paper IPTC 13185 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 7-9 December 2009
Duong, Anh N.: “An Unconventional Rate Decline Approach for Tight and Fracture-Dominated Gas Wells,” paper SPE
137748, presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 19–21 October 2010
Ilk, D., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A.: “Decline Curve Analysis for HP/HT Gas Wells: Theory and Applications”
paper SPE 125031 presented at the 2009 Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4-7
October 2009
Lee, W.J. 2012a:“Estimating Reserves in Unconventional Resources,” a SPE Webinar presentation on Jan. 26, 2012
Lee, W.J. 2012b:“Estimating Reserves in Unconventional Resources,” a SPE Webinar presentation on Feb. 23, 2012
Orangi, A., et al.: “Unconventional Shale Oil and Gas-Condensate Reservoir Production, Impact of Rock, Fluid and
Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 140536 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition
held in The Woddland, Texas, USA, 24-26 Jan., 2011
Valko, P.P: “Assigning Value to Stimulation in The Barnett Shale-A simultaneous Analysis of 7000 Plus Production
Hystories and Well Completion Records,” paper SPE 119369 presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference held in the Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19-21 Jan., 2009
Valko, P.P. and Lee, W.J.:“A Better Way to Forecast Production from Unconventional Gas Wells,” paper SPE 134231,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19-22 September 2010.
Yu, S. and Miocevic, D. J.: “An Improved Method to Obtain Reliable Production and EUR Prediction for Wells with Short
Production History in Tight/Shale Reservoirs,” paper prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resource Technology
Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 12-14 August 2013
Yu, S.: “Best Practice of Using Empirical Methods for Production Forecast and EUR Estimation in Tight/Shale Gas
Reservoirs” paper SPE 167118 prepared for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference – Canada held in
Calgary, Alberta, 5-7 November 2013.