Abstract
The most widely used production decline forecasting tools are numerical reservoir simulation, material balance estimates and advanced methods of production decline analysis. Besides, these existing production decline evaluation techniques for unconventional reserves estimations have underlying limitations and assumptions incorporated into their formulation which can result into under- and overestimation. This further raises the debate about which decline curve analysis (DCA) is better than the other for unconventional reservoirs predictions. Currently, data-driven artificial neural network (ANN) has emerged as a new paradigm capable of mapping complex functional relationships. In this present study, ANN technology was used to calibrate tight gas carbonate field historical declining trends which exhibit high early peak production rate and quick decline. Hereafter, making reliable predictions posed as a challenge for the complex target field and hard computing protocols. Therefore, this research applied and tested the capability of backpropagation artificial neural network (BPANN), radial basis function neural network (RBNN) and generalized regression neural network (GRNN) as DCA techniques for predicting the historical production decline trends of an ultra-low porosity and permeability tight gas reservoir. The optimum trained ANN DCA models developed were validated with another surrounding well’s dataset, producing acceptable results in agreement with the actual field data. The GRNN DCA model’s testing performance was poor, and its smoothing parameter was optimized with particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm which gave satisfactory results comparable to standalone BPANN and RBFNN DCA models. Furthermore, the optimum ANN DCA models’ generalization strength across the entire field dataset revealed that the developed models’ predictions were robust as compared to the data-driven Arps hyperbolic and power law exponential DCA models. This was evident from the statistical performance criteria employed which indicated that BPANN, RBFNN and PSO-GRNN DCA models are plausible better fit models for matching the target field’s historical decline performances. Also, a novel non-Darcy flow horizontal well productivity evaluation model for the target field was developed based on stress sensitivity coefficient (SSC) of permeability, tortuosity factor, Klinkenberg effect, near-wellbore turbulence effect and threshold pressure gradient (TPG) for validating the ANN DCA models predictions. The productivity model was validated with published horizontal well model with closely matched results. For inflow performances, the horizontal well model with turbulence minimizes negative effects on non-Darcy flow rates than without turbulence. Additionally, pressure drawdown influences the tight gas well productivity such that the lower the pressure drawdown, the smaller the tight gas well productivity. The operating points of the tight gas well were determined through inflow performance relation and tubing performance relation at different SSC and TPG for \( 3{\raise0.5ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 1$} \kern-0.1em/\kern-0.15em \lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 2$}} \) in tubing size. In another case, synthetic unconventional simulation data with long production history were used for future forecast of 5, 24 and 70 months of production rate and cumulative production which gave pretty close results for all the DCA models, unlike the real field datasets, where the empirical rate-time models under and overestimate. In all, these ANN DCA models and the horizontal well productivity model derived will serve as new computational tools for complementing existing DCA techniques for better understanding of unconventional reservoirs’ production decline performance.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abraham, A. (2005). Artificial neural networks. In P. H. Sydenham & R. Thorn (Eds.), Handbook of measuring system design. Hoboken: Wiley. ISBN 0-470-02143-8.
Ahmed, T. (2006). Reservoir engineering handbook (pp. 1235–1335). Houston: Gulf Professional Publishing.
Alam, M. N., Das, B., & Pant, V. (2015). A comparative study of metaheuristic optimization approaches for directional overcurrent relays coordination. Electric Power Systems Research, 128, 39–52.
Ali, T. A., & Sheng, J. J. (2015). Evaluation of the effect of stress-dependent permeability on production performance in shale gas reservoirs. In SPE eastern regional meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Anderson, D. M., Liang, P., & Okouma Mangha, V. (2012). Probabilistic forecasting of unconventional resources using rate transient analysis: Case studies. In SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Arps, J. J. (1945). Analysis of decline curves. Transactions of the AIME, 160(01), 228–247.
Bailey, W. (1982). Optimized hyperbolic decline curve analysis of gas wells. Oil Gas J.;(United States), 80(7).
Bansal, Y., Ertekin, T., Karpyn, Z., Ayala, L. F., Nejad, A., Suleen, F. et al. (2013). Forecasting well performance in a discontinuous tight oil reservoir using artificial neural networks. In SPE unconventional resources conference-USA. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Bauer, M. (1995). General regression neural network-a neural network for technical. Masters Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
Bishop, C. M. (1995). Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press.
Blasingame, T. A., McCray, T. L., & Lee, W. J. (1991). Decline curve analysis for variable pressure drop/variable flowrate systems. In SPE gas technology symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Brantson, E. T., Ju, B., Omisore, B. O., Wu, D., Aphu, E. S., & Liu, N. (2018). Development of machine learning predictive models for history matching tight gas carbonate reservoir production profiles. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2140/aaca44.
Buchsteiner, H., Warpinski, N. R., & Economides, M. J. (1993). Stress-induced permeability reduction in fissured reservoirs. In SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Camacho, R., & Raghavan, R. (1989). Boundary-dominated flow in solution gas-drive reservoirs. In Low permeability reservoirs symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Can, B., & Kabir, S. (2012). Probabilistic production forecasting for unconventional reservoirs with stretched exponential production decline model. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 15(01), 41–50.
Can, B., & Kabir, C. S. (2014). Simple tools for forecasting waterflood performance. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 120, 111–118.
Celikoglu, H. B. (2006). Application of radial basis function and generalized regression neural networks in non-linear utility function specification for travel mode choice modelling. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 44(7–8), 640–658.
Chiroma, H., Khan, A., Abubakar, A. I., Saadi, Y., Hamza, M. F., Shuib, L., et al. (2016). A new approach for forecasting OPEC petroleum consumption based on neural network train by using flower pollination algorithm. Applied Soft Computing, 48, 50–58.
Clark, A. J., Lake, L. W., & Patzek, T. W. (2011). Production forecasting with logistic growth models. In SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Clarkson, C. R., & Pedersen, P. K. (2010). Tight oil production analysis: adaptation of existing rate-transient analysis techniques. In Canadian unconventional resources and international petroleum conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Cutler, W. W. (1924). Estimation of underground oil reserves by oil-well production curves. Bull. USBM, (Vol. 225, p. 228).
Doublet, L. E., & Blasingame, T. A. (1995). Decline curve analysis using type curves: Water influx. In Waterflood cases, paper SPE30774 presented at the 1995 annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, Tex (Vol. 32).
Duong, A. N. (2010). An unconventional rate decline approach for tight and fracture-dominated gas wells. In Canadian unconventional resources and international petroleum conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Eberhart, R., & Kennedy, J. (1995). A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, 1995. MHS’95, (pp. 39–43). IEEE.
Elmabrouk, S. K., Zekri, A. Y., & Shirif, E. E. (2010). Prediction of bubblepoint pressure and bubblepoint oil formation volume factor in the absence of PVT analysis. In SPE Latin American and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Ertekin, T. (2007). Neuro-simulation analysis of pressure maintenance operations in gas condensate reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 58(1–2), 207–226.
Fanchi, J. R., Cooksey, M. J., Lehman, K. M., Smith, A., Fanchi, A. C., & Fanchi, C. J. (2013). Probabilistic decline curve analysis of Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville, and Woodford gas shales. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 109, 308–311.
Farasat, A., Shokrollahi, A., Arabloo, M., Gharagheizi, F., & Mohammadi, A. H. (2013). Toward an intelligent approach for determination of saturation pressure of crude oil. Fuel Processing Technology, 115, 201–214.
Fernández-Redondo, M., Torres-Sospedra, J., & Hernández-Espinosa, C. (2006). Gradient descent and radial basis functions. In International conference on intelligent computing (pp. 391–396). Springer, Berlin.
Fetkovich, M. J. (1980). Decline curve analysis using type curves. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 32(06), 1–065.
Fetkovich, M. J., Ebbs, D. J., Jr., & Voelker, J. J. (1994). Multiwell, multilayer model to evaluate infill-drilling potential in the Oklahoma Hugoton Field. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 9(03), 162–168.
Forchheimer, P. H. (1901). Wasserbewegung durch boden. zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure, 45, 1781–1788.
Fulford, D. S., Bowie, B., Berry, M. E., Bowen, B., & Turk, D. W. (2016). Machine learning as a reliable technology for evaluating time/rate performance of unconventional wells. SPE Economics & Management, 8(01), 23–39.
Furui, K., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2003). A rigorous formation damage skin factor and reservoir inflow model for a horizontal well. SPEPF, 18(3), 151–157.
Gentry, R. W. (1972). Decline-curve analysis. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24(01), 38–41.
Gentry, R. W., & McCray, A. W. (1978). The effect of reservoir and fluid properties on production decline curves. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 30(09), 1–327.
Gharbi, R., Karkoub, M., & ElKamel, A. (1995). An artificial neural network for the prediction of immiscible flood performance. Energy & Fuels, 9(5), 894–900.
Gurney, K. (2005). An introduction to neural networks. London: Taylor & Francis.
Hagan, M. T., & Menhaj, M. B. (1994). Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5(6), 989–993.
Haykin, S. (2007). Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc.
Hecht-Nielsen, R. (1989). Neurocomputer applications. In Neural computers (pp. 445–453). Springer, Berlin.
Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1989). Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Networks, 2(5), 359–366.
Hunt, G. (2012). How the US shale boom will change the world. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/How-the-US-Shale-Boom-Will-Change-the-World.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2018.
Ilk, D., Rushing, J. A., & Blasingame, T. A. (2008). Estimating reserves using the Arps hyperbolic rate-time relation—Theory, practice and pitfalls. Paper, 1101, 2008–2108.
Jones, F. O., & Owens, W. W. (1980). A laboratory study of low permeability as sands. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 32, 1631–1640. https://doi.org/10.2118/7551-PA.
Joshi, S. D. (1991). Horizontal well technology (pp. 377–329). PennWell Books.
Kabir, S., Rasdi, F., & Igboalisi, B. (2011). Analyzing production data from tight oil wells. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 50(05), 48–58.
Kalantari-Dhaghi, A., Mohaghegh, S., & Esmaili, S. (2015). Data-driven proxy at hydraulic fracture cluster level: a technique for efficient CO2-enhanced gas recovery and storage assessment in shale reservoir. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 27(2), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.06.039.
Kamari, A., Mohammadi, A. H., Lee, M., & Bahadori, A. (2017). Decline curve-based models for predicting natural gas well performance. Petroleum, 3(2), 242–248.
Khanamiri, H. H. (2010). A non-iterative method of decline curve analysis. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 73(1), 59–66.
Klinkenberg, L. J. (1941). The permeability of porous media to liquids and gases. New York: Drilling and Production Practice.
Konate, A. A., Pan, H., Khan, N., & Yang, J. H. (2015). Generalized regression and feed-forward back propagation neural networks in modelling porosity from geophysical well logs. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 5(2), 157–166.
Kulga, B., Artunb, E., & Ertekin, T. (2017). Development of a data-driven forecasting tool for hydraulically fractured, horizontal wells in tight-gas sands. Computers & Geosciences, 103(2017), 99–110.
Lee, W. J., & Sidle, R. (2010). Gas-reserves estimation in resource plays. SPE Economics & Management, 2(02), 86–91.
Li, K., & Horne R. N. (2003). A decline curve analysis model based on fluid flow mechanisms. In SPE western regional/AAPG Pacific section joint meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Liu, X., Civan, F., & Evans, R. D. (1995). Correlation of the non-Darcy flow coefficient. JCPT, 34(10), 50–54.
Luo, H., Li, H., Zhang, J., Wang, J., Wang, K., Xia, T., et al. (2017). Production performance analysis of fractured horizontal well in tight oil reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 146, 1–19.
Ma, Z., Leung, J. Y., Zanon, S., & Dzurman, P. (2015). Practical implementation of knowledge-based approaches for steam-assisted gravity drainage production analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(21), 7326–7343.
MATLAB version R. (2016). Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc.
Mattar, L., & Anderson, D. M. (2003). A systematic and comprehensive methodology for advanced analysis of production data. In SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5(4), 115–133.
Michie, D., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Taylor, C. C. (1994). Machine learning, neural and statistical classification. New York: Ellis Horwood.
Mohaghegh, S. D. (2006). Quantifying uncertainties associated with reservoir simulation studies using a surrogate reservoir model. In SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Mohaghegh, S. D., Hutchins, L. A., & Sisk, C. (2008). Building the foundation for Prudhoe Bay oil production optimisation using neural networks. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, 1(1–2), 65–80.
Mohaghegh, S. D., Maher, J., Alabboodi, M. J., Javadi, F., & Keystone, M. (2017). Shale analytics. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48753-3_7.
Mohaghegh, S., Platon, V., & Ameri, S. (2001). Intelligent systems application in candidate selection and treatment of gas storage wells. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 31(2–4), 125–133.
Nobakht, M., & Clarkson, C. R. (2012). A new analytical method for analyzing linear flow in tight/shale gas reservoirs: constant-flowing-pressure boundary condition. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 15(03), 370–384.
Ogunyomi, B. A., Dong, S., La, N., Lake, L. W., & Kabir, C. S. (2018). An approach to modeling production decline in unconventional reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 8(3), 871–886.
Ramgulam, A. (2006). Utilization of artificial neural networks in the optimization of history matching. Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Reynaldi, A., Lukas, S., & Margaretha, H. (2012). Backpropagation and Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for training finite element neural network. In 2012 Sixth UKSim/AMSS European symposium on computer modeling and simulation (EMS), (pp. 89–94). IEEE.
Robertson, S. (1988). Generalized hyperbolic equation. SPE-18731-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://www.onepetro.org/general/SPE-18731-MS. Accessed 25 Sep 2018.
Rushing, J. A., Newsham, K. E., Perego, A. D., Comisky, J. T., & Blasingame, T. A. (2007). Beyond decline curves: life-cycle reserves appraisal using an integrated work-flow process for tight gas sands. In SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Satter, A., Iqbal, G. M., & Buchwalter, J. L. (2008). Practical enhanced reservoir engineering: assisted with simulation software. Houston: Pennwell Books.
Sheng, X. C., Wang, S. H., Wen, K. D., & Chen, L. (2004). Tectonics and sedimentology of Shizhu palaeohigh in western Hubei eastern Chongqing area. Marine Origin Petroleum Geology, 9(2), 43–52. (in Chinese).
Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. (1998). A modified particle swarm optimizer. In The 1998 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation proceedings, 1998. IEEE world congress on computational intelligence, (pp. 69–73). IEEE.
Song, H., Cao, Y., Yu, M., Wang, Y., Killough, J. E., & Leung, J. (2015). Impact of permeability heterogeneity on production characteristics in water-bearing tight gas reservoirs with threshold pressure gradient. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 22, 172–181.
Specht, D. F. (1991). A general regression neural network. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 2(6), 568–576.
Sun, H. D. (2015). Advanced production decline analysis and application (pp. 1–4). Beijing: CNKI.
Talebi, R., Ghiasi, M. M., Talebi, H., Mohammadyian, M., Zendehboudi, S., Arabloo, M., et al. (2014). Application of soft computing approaches for modeling saturation pressure of reservoir oils. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 20, 8–15.
Tatar, A., Shokrollahi, A., Mesbah, M., Rashid, S., Arabloo, M., & Bahadori, A. (2013). Implementing radial basis function networks for modeling CO2-reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 15, 82–92.
Trigueros, D. E. G., Módenes, A. N., Ravagnani, M. A., & Espinoza-Quiñones, F. R. (2012). Reuse water network synthesis by modified PSO approach. Chemical Engineering Journal, 183, 198–211.
Valkó, P. P., & Lee, W. J. (2010). A better way to forecast production from unconventional gas wells. In SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Wachtmeister, H., Lund, L., Aleklett, K., & Höök, M. (2017). Production decline curves of tight oil wells in eagle ford shale. Natural Resources Research, 26(3), 365–377.
Wan, Y. Q., Yin, W. J., & Chen, M. J. (2005). Application effect analysis of reservoir reconstruction technology on Jiannan gasfield. Science Technology and Engineering, 29(15), 121–123.
White, H. (1992). Artificial neural networks: Approximation and learning theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Wu, D., Ju, B., & Brantson, E. T. (2016). Investigation of productivity decline in tight gas wells due to formation damage and non-Darcy effect: Laboratory, mathematical modeling and application. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 34, 779–791.
Xinfeng, N., Hongde, C., Jingchun, T., & Dongxiao, W. (2007). Sedimentary framework of Changxing-Feixianguan formations and its control on reservoiring in northeastern Sichuan basin. Oil and Gas Geology, 4, 006.
Yang, X. S., Deb, S., & Fong, S. (2011). Accelerated particle swarm optimization and support vector machine for business optimization and applications. In International conference on networked digital technologies (pp. 53–66). Springer, Berlin.
Yoon, H., Jun, S. C., Hyun, Y., Bae, G. O., & Lee, K. K. (2011). A comparative study of artificial neural networks and support vector machines for predicting groundwater levels in a coastal aquifer. Journal of Hydrology, 396(1–2), 128–138.
Yu, H., Xie, T., Paszczynski, S., & Wilamowski, B. M. (2011). Advantages of radial basis function networks for dynamic system design. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 58(12), 5438–5450.
Zhang, J. R., Zhang, J., Lok, T. M., & Lyu, M. R. (2007). A hybrid particle swarm optimization-back-propagation algorithm for feedforward neural network training. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 185(2), 1026–1037.
Ziggah, Y. Y., Youjian, H., Yu, X., & Basommi, L. P. (2016). Capability of artificial neural network for forward conversion of geodetic coordinates (ϕ, λ, h) (ϕ, λ, h) to Cartesian coordinates (X, Y, Z). Mathematical Geosciences, 48(6), 687–721.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for National Science and Technology Major Projects (2016ZX05011-002) and the Central Universities (2652015142). The kind effort from Mr. Akpari Evans Wilson is duly appreciated for his assistance in carrying out this research work. We are also grateful to Dr. Dan Wu for providing resources for this research work to be realized. Lastly, we would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief for their comments and suggestions that were helpful in improving the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Appendices
Appendix 1: Horizontal Well Performance Model for the Tight Gas Carbonate Field
A horizontal well performance model was derived by considering a box-shaped rectangular reservoir based on SSC of permeability, near-wellbore turbulence effect, tortuosity factor, Klinkenberg effect and TPG. The factors mentioned above have not been comprehensively unified and studied for horizontal wells with ultra-low porosity and permeability formations. In Figure 23 (hydraulically fractured horizontal well), the following assumptions were made to derive a tractable mathematical model of the physical system:
-
1.
A radial flow regime into a centered horizontal wellbore with a closed outer boundary.
-
2.
The reservoir has a uniform thickness with initial reservoir pressure equal everywhere.
-
3.
Single phase gas fluid flow under isothermal and non-Darcy flow condition.
-
4.
Negligible gravity, capillary force and wellbore storage effects.
Forchheimer (1901) modified Darcy’s law to account for near-wellbore turbulence effects as:
where p is the gas reservoir pressure, \( \lambda \) is the threshold pressure gradient, \( \mu_{\text{g}} \) is the gas viscosity, r is the radial distance, \( k_{\text{g}} \) is the permeability of gas under stress condition with slippage effects, \( \upsilon \) is the gas velocity, \( \rho_{\text{g}} \) is the density of the gas, \( \beta_{\text{g}} \) is the turbulence coefficient.
The term \( \beta_{\text{g}} \) in Eq. 39 accounts for additional wellbore turbulence pressure drop due to high gas velocities in the near-wellbore region especially in high permeability gas well reservoirs. Turbulence can also reduce the net effect on gas production.
In Eq. 39, the gas seepage velocity (superficial velocity) obtained during radial flow pattern in a horizontal well is given as:
where q is the total gas flow rate into the horizontal wellbore, Lp is the horizontal well producing length (horizontal wellbore length), Bg = gas formation volume factor, \( p_{\text{sc}} \) is the standard atmospheric pressure, Z is the gas deviation factor, \( Z_{\text{sc}} \) is the gas deviation factor at standard condition, \( T_{\text{sc}} \) is the reservoir temperature at standard condition, T is the reservoir temperature, and A is the drainage area.
The gas density and non-Darcy flow coefficient with tortuosity effect (Liu et al. 1995) in porous media are expressed, respectively, as:
where \( \gamma_{g} \) is the relative density of a natural gas, R is the gas constant, \( \varphi \) is the gas reservoir porosity \( \tau \) is the tortuosity factor and Mair is the molecular mass of air (Mair = 28.97).
By taking gas slippage effect into account with formation permeability not constant and depends on pressure, then the actual gas permeability is given by Klinkenberg (1941) expressed as nonlinear relationship between absolute permeability and pore pressure as:
where kg is the apparent gas permeability, ki is the rock permeability, p is the reservoir pressure, and bk is the Klinkenberg slippage factor (empirical parameter).
The empirical relationship for Klinkenberg slippage factor by Jones and Owen (1980) for tight gas plays is given as:
The obtained mathematical relations from Eqs. 40, 41, 42 and 43 are substituted into Eq. 39, which yields:
Assuming external pressure (pe) at the outer boundary at re in Figure 24 is equal to the initial reservoir pressure (pi), since it takes long time for pseudosteady state to be established in ultra-low porosity and permeability tight gas reservoir. Hence, integrating both sides of Eq. 45:
where pwf is the bottomhole well flowing pressure, pi is the initial reservoir pressure, re is the horizontal well drainage radius, and rw is the horizontal wellbore radius.
For horizontal wells, Joshi (1991) introduced the concept of effective wellbore radius (\(r^{\prime}_{\text{w}} \)) expressed as:
For an isotropic reservoir, \( k_{h} = k_{v} = k \); but, for anisotropic reservoir, the effective wellbore radius is given as:
where Lp is the length of the horizontal well (major axis), h is the reservoir formation thickness (minor axis), anisotropic permeability factor \( \beta = \sqrt {{\raise0.7ex\hbox{${k_{\text{h}} }$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{k_{\text{h}} } {k_{\text{v}} }}}\right.\kern-0pt} \!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${k_{\text{v}} }$}}} \), effective permeability of the formation \( k = \sqrt {k_{\text{h}} k_{\text{v}} } \), kh is the average horizontal permeability, and kv is the vertical permeability, reh is the radius of drainage area of a horizontal well \( \left( {r_{eh} = \sqrt {\frac{A \times 43560}{\pi }} } \right) \), and A is the drainage area.
The a in Eqs. 47 and 48 is the half major axis of the elliptical drainage area given as:
The effective wellbore radius (\(r^{\prime}_{\text{w}} \)) is introduced into Eq. 46 which is rewritten as:
The relationship between SSC of permeability and effective stress is given as:
where (pi − p) is the effective stress, \( k_{i} \) is the original rock permeability of gas, \( \alpha_{k} \) is the stress sensitivity coefficient of permeability (permeability modulus), p is the reservoir pressure.
Introducing Eq. 51, which accounts for the permeability change during the tight gas reservoir production, into Eq. 50 will yield:
Dividing Eq. 52 by the original rock permeability of gas (ki) produces:
Integration on Eq. 53 results into:
Since gas deviation factor and gas viscosity are strong functions of pressure, they were removed from the integral to simplify the final form of the horizontal well deliverability equation. Thus the average reservoir pressure (\( \overline{p} \)) of the gas well used to estimate gas deviation factor and average gas viscosity is specified as:
However, Eq. 55 will only be valid for applications where pressure is less than 2000 psi. The approximation method is called the pressure squared method. If pressure is greater than 3000 psi, then the gas properties are evaluated at an average pressure known as the pressure approximation method:
Similarly, the m(p) (real gas pseudopressure) solution method (exact solution) is designated as:
From Eq. 54, bar symbol is introduced over gas deviation factor (Z) and gas viscosity \( \left( {\mu_{g} } \right) \) to represent average values evaluated at an average pressure. Therefore, Eq. 54 is recast as:
To convert Eq. 58 into practical SI unit systems, it is rewritten in Eq. 59 as the deliverability equation for the tight gas carbonate horizontal well productivity model in Figure 23.
where \( \overline{p} \) average reservoir pressure, T is the reservoir temperature, \( \overline{\mu }_{g} \) is the average viscosity of gas, \( \overline{Z} \) is the average deviation factor.
Skin factor is a dimensionless pressure drop due to near-wellbore damage or stimulation, perforation and partial penetration effects. A positive skin value indicates damage in the near-wellbore region while a negative skin value indicates improved conditions around the wellbore. Introducing skin factor into Eq. 59 results in:
whenever F in Eq. 60 is \( {\raise0.7ex\hbox{$3$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {3 4}}\right.\kern-0pt} \!\lower0.7ex\hbox{$4$}} \), then pseudosteady-state flow condition is attained, while if F is \( {\raise0.7ex\hbox{$1$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 2}}\right.\kern-0pt} \!\lower0.7ex\hbox{$2$}} \), then, steady-state condition exists. Also, skin factor (s) in Eq. 60 can be given by \( s = s_{\text{m}} + s_{p} \) where sm is the mechanical skin and sp is the skin resulting from partial penetration. However, if the horizontal well fully penetrates the reservoir system, then sp= 0. The skin factor for radial convergence effect is read as:
where kf is the fracture permeability and wf is the fracture width.
Putting the following standard condition values of Tsc = 293 K, R = 0.008314 MPa m3/kmol. K and \( p_{sc} \) = 0.101325 MPa into Eq. 60 yields:
Therefore, Eq. 62 is recast into quadratic equation form known as binomial deliverability equation as:
The B (pressure loss induced by viscosity) in Eq. 63 represents laminar coefficient, while A represents turbulence coefficient. The Aq in Eq. 63 represents pressure loss induced by inertia. The sum of the two terms forms the total pressure drop of inflow. In addition, whenever the fluid flow velocity is very low, then the flow is considered linear and Aq can be negligible in Eq. 63. However, with increment in flow velocity or multiphase flow, Aq (inertia resistance) in Eq. 63 should be taken into an account.
The solution to Eq. 63 is solved using the quadratic formula as:
where \( A = \frac{{6.463 \times 10^{ - 4} \gamma_{\text{g}} \tau T\bar{Z}}}{{L_{p}^{2} \varphi k_{i} }}\left( {\frac{1}{{r^{\prime}_{w} }} - \frac{1}{{r_{e} }}} \right), \)\( B = \frac{{6.343T\bar{\mu }_{\text{g}} \bar{Z}}}{{L_{p} k_{i} }}\ln \left( {\frac{{r_{e} }}{{r^{\prime}_{w} }} - F + s} \right), \)
The absolute open flow potential (AOF) is the rate at which a well would deliver against zero sandface back pressure. Thus, \( p_{wf} = 0\;{\text{MPa}} \) (maximum pressure drawdown). Hence, taking AOF as the maximum rate of the well in Eq. 24 gives the quadratic equation form in Eq. 65 as:
where \( A = \frac{{6.463 \times 10^{ - 4} \gamma_{\text{g}} \tau T\bar{Z}}}{{L_{p}^{2} \varphi k_{i} }}\left( {\frac{1}{{r^{\prime}_{w} }} - \frac{1}{{r_{e} }}} \right), \)\( B = \frac{{6.343T\bar{\mu }_{\text{g}} \bar{Z}}}{{L_{p} k_{i} }}\ln \left( {\frac{{r_{e} }}{{r^{\prime}_{w} }} - F + s} \right), \) and
Also, it is very important to represent the degree of TPG and SSC of permeability influence on the tight gas carbonate horizontal well productivity. Hence, production decline rate (Dgr) was introduced to estimate production decline for the tight gas carbonate reservoir with reference to an ideal situation (AOF) expressed as:
where Dgr is the production decline rate, qAOF is the tight gas well yield of productivity under an ideal condition of maximum rate, q is the tight gas horizontal well productivity considering influential parameters (SSC of permeability, near-wellbore turbulence effect, tortuosity factor, Klinkenberg effect and TPG).
Then, putting quadratic formulae of Eqs. 64 and 65 into Eq. 66 produces Eq. 67 as the tight gas carbonate horizontal well productivity reduction rate model for the influential parameters on the tight gas well productivity after eliminating like terms and simplifying:
Finally, for a hydraulic fractured gas well with radial flow as shown in Figure 23, the fold of increase in well productivity is written as:
where J and Jo are the productivity of fractured and non-fractured gas well, respectively.
Appendix 2: Turbulence Effects on Horizontal Well Performance
Figure 25 demonstrates the effect of IPR for horizontal well with or without turbulence by solving Eq. 62 explicitly for various values of pwf. From Figure 25, it can be seen that horizontal wells have the capability of minimizing turbulence effects.
Appendix 3: Units Conversion Factors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brantson, E.T., Ju, B., Ziggah, Y.Y. et al. Forecasting of Horizontal Gas Well Production Decline in Unconventional Reservoirs using Productivity, Soft Computing and Swarm Intelligence Models. Nat Resour Res 28, 717–756 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-018-9415-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-018-9415-2