SPE

SPE 14237
Case Study of a Low-Permeability Volatile Oil Field Using
Individual-Well Advanced Decline Curve Analysis
by M.J. Fetkovich,Phillips Petroleum Co.; M.E. Vienot,Phillips Petroleum Co. Europe-Africa;
and R.D. Johnson and B.A. Bowman, Phillips Oil Co.
.CPE.

.Marnha..
....,.

Copyright 1985, .%xiety of PetroletFrnEngineers

This paper waa prepsred for presentation at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibitionof the Society of Petroleum Engineera held in Las
Vegaa, NV September 22-25, 1985.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of informationcontained in an abstract aubmiwedby the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(a).Tha material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any positionof the Society of Petroleum Engineera, ita officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Commitfaes of the Sodety of Petroleum Engineers. Permiaaicmto copy is
restrictedto an abetract of not more than 300 words. Illustration may notbe copied. The abatract shouldcontain mnapicuoua acknowledgmentof where
and by whom the paper ia presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Sox 833836, Richardson, TX 750S34S36. Telex, 730389 SPEDAL,
Am.7. .*T
AD> I KIW

This paper presents a detailed case history study

of a low permeability volatile oil field located
in Campbell County, Wyoming. The field was analyzed on an individual well basis using advanced
decline curve analysis for 40 individual well completions. Well permeabilities, skins and original
oil in place are calculated for each well from ratetime analysis using constant wellbore pressure type
curve analysis techniques.
Original oil in place values calculated from ratetime analysis for individual wells are used with
recoverable reserve projections from the decline
analysis to obtain fractional recoveries for each
well. Gas-oil ratios versus fractional recovery
curves are also made for each well using historical
cumulative production and the calculated oil in
place values. Ultimate fractional recovery numbers
and GOR vs fractional recovery curves, plotted for
each well, are shown to suggest different rock types
and reservoir fluids. Multi-well decllne curve
analysis shows the validity of the varfables s
(skin), k, OOIP, ultimate fractional recovery and
GOR vs fractional recovery evaluated from each
wells type curve evaluation. These variables must
all give consistent and reasonable numbers when
compared with each other. A single well analysis
can easily give results that are not recognized as
being invalid unless compared with other wells in
the field.
The study also illustrates flowing and pumping well
backpressure changes in a wells decline, the method
of handling such changes, and their effect on ultimate recoverable reserves predictions. Conventional
decline curve analysis can not handle backpressure
chant-m.
haeaii.n
of
~~~
.-nq.+o..+n+
+k.+
A..*
---+--Ibriat.
WIIaI.
Lurlbrui>
*v,=bI91111,
,.-,.=------=
the decline in the past will also continue in the
future.
References and 111ustratlons at end of paper.

rMTnnnlm*TTn.t
111 I Kuuub

lull

In solution gas drive reservoirs, decline curve

analysis of rate-time data for predicting future
-production and determining recoverable reserves for
a fairly large number of wells is conwnonlydone
using the Arpsl empirical equations and a computerized statistical approach to arrive at answers
fairly quickly. For wells in high permeability
reservoirs producing essentially wide-open$ wfthout
future backpressure changes and without future
stimulation treatments, the results obtained should
be reasonably good providing the limits of thedecline exponent b of between O and 1.0 are honored.
At the other extreme in analyzing rate-time data
for predicting future production and recoverable
reserves, a reservoir simulation study could be
undertaken. However, this approach could take as
much as a year to accomplish and normally would not
be considered acceptable, particularly for timeconstrained property acquisition or sales situations
where few of the detailed reservoir parameters
necessary for a simulation study are available.
Many of the newer oil and gas fields being discovered and produced are in the low permeability classification, where transient behavior can last for
years, and therefore are not amenable to analysis
using the Arps equation alone. Also, a model study
of such low permeability reservoirs would require a
very fine grid system to correctly simulate and
match the early transient rate-time decline data.
An approach to the problem of analyzing low petmeability wells and total field rate-time decline has
been given in papersz 3 q 5 6 that illustrate
methods of handling both the transient and depletion
#.ah414A.-..
stages Of atQ-tjme decline. K!l?
~t?rmcautl
Ibles,
skins from stimulation treatments and original oil
in place or original gas-in-place can be calculated
for each well from rate-time data using constant
wellbore pressure type curve analysis techniques.

CASE STUDY OF A LOW PERMEABILITY VOLATILE OIL FIELD

rn
llrn
@llDllE
ANhl
vCTC
iNDIViWAIL-klELL ADVA LIJLJLL
lIIL
bUnVL
,_lllAL1.lAti
L lNC

CDFb
4,

USi?K

1A927
.T*-,

Figure 1 is a plat showing the well locations, their

relationship to the Channel Sand and Bar Sand and
the three wells from which PVT samples were taken.
Figure 2 is a type log for a School Creek Field
Muddy formation completion.

With a field case study of the School Creek Field in

Campbell County, Wyoming, a low permeability volatile oil field, we will present a stepwise procedure
for doing a total field study using individual well
advanced decline curve analysis techniques. Original oil in place values calculated from rate-time
analysis for individual wells are used with recoverable reserve projections from the decline analysis
to obtain fractional recoveries for each well.
Gas-o~l ratio versus fractional recovery curves are
also made for each well using historical cumulative
production and the calculated oil in place values.
Ultimate fractional recovery values and GOR versus
fractional recovery curves, plotted for each well,
are shown to suggest different rock types and reservoir fluids. Multi-well decline curve analysis
shows the validity of the variables s (skin), k,
OOIP, ultimate fractional recovery and GOR versus
fractional recovery evaluated from each wells type
curve match point.-These variables must all give
consistent and reasonable numbers when compared with
each other. A single well analysis can often give
results that are not recognized as being invalid
unless compared with several other wells in the
field. The study also includes and illustrates
backpressure changes in a
flowing and pumping well
wells decline, the method of handling such changes
and their effect on ultimate recoverable reserves
predictions. Conventional decline curve analysis
approaches do not consider backpressure changes and
their effect on projected recoverable reserves.

The School Creek Field was discovered in 1980 when

the Matheson E-1 well was drilled to 10,000 feet and
completed in the Muddy formation. The initial reservoir pressure was approximately 3700 - 3600 psi.
Basic fluid properties are given from three different PVT studies in Table 2 and Figure 3. Two quite
different fluid samples were obtained in the Channel
Sand: the Federal EE-1 sample with a bubble point
pressure of 3400 psi, GOR of 1557 SCF/BBL and the
Matheson E-1 sample with a bubble point pressure of
2705 psi, GOR of 736 SCF/8BL. Based on reported
initial producing gas-oil ratios, the Federal EE-1
sample was used to represent wells in the southern
portion of the field while the Matheson E-1 sample
was used for wells in the northern portion of the
field. The Federal J-1 sample was only usedl~~ represent the five Bar Sand well completions.
bubble point pressure was 2838 psi with a gas-oil
ratio of 1189 SCF/BBL.

School Creek Field - Wyoming

b>O

-.

Basic Decline Analysis Equations

The Arpsl empirical decline equations that can be
used for analysis and forecasting future production
when depletion is clearly indicated are, for

qi

q(t) =

. . . . . . . . . . ..o... (lj

The School Creek Field is located on the eastern

flank of the south central portion of the Powder
River Basin in Campbell and Converse Counties,
Wyoming. Following deposition of the underlying
Skull Creek Shale, the lower Cretaceous sea receded
from the area of the Powder River Basin. Subsequently, a wide-spread drainage system developed and
carved its pattern into the Skull Creek Shale. As
the lower Cretaceous sea transgressed east, Muddy
deltaic sediments buried the previously deposited
channel sediments as the sea continued to inundate
the basin. Continuous basin fill by deposition of
;
+k-.,fi-l..i-h,.
Ck.la ,m.ae,,7+aA
the
~W,~~~
Gil= UVCI
IJITIY
IW.IWIJ
.I,,-,C
C=UtbCU
,,,
b,,

where the limits of b are between O and 1.

reservoir sands being ideally sandwiched between

two marine hydrocarbon source shales.

For type curve aiialys

s

In the School Creek Area, a north-south paleodrainage pattern was developed upon the underlying Skull
Creek Shale and controlled the distribution of the
productive tidal channel and point-bar sands of the
lower Muddy formation. Younger upper Muddy marine
facies units were then deposited as the Cretaceous
sea transgressed east resulting in some well develQPQd Productive rnarjneoffshore b?!Se!l(!s
field area.
ithin

tk

[1 + b~it]l/b
and for b = O (exponential)

_l!I-

q(t) .

qDd =

q(t)

qi

. . . . . . . . . . ...0..(3)

and
tod = Djt

. ..0............(4)

~p~fi 1,-.-1-
+,,IY-,WJ
t,J@

In the School Creek Field, the Lower Muddy channel

sands have 35 well completions with an average of 11
net feet of pay per well and an average porosity and
water saturation of 13.6% and 39%, respectively.
Upper Wddy bar sands have 5 well completions with
an average of 12 net feet of pay per well and an
average porosity and water saturation of 22% and
14%, respectively. Production has also been established in secondary objectives, which include the
Sussex, Turner, and Dakota formations. These wells
--are iiOtincluded iiithis Study.

.............0..(2)

eDit

-,,..a

L,

.C

1=+,.h;m

,WZkb,,,,ty,

+hc.

L,,C

,n.+.h

,,,(11.b,,

a+

~~e

rate-time data yields b, t - tDd$ and q(t) - qDd.

From these values qi and Di are evaluated and can
then be used in the predictive equatiorrs1 or 2
above to forecast future production and to obtain
ultimate recoverable reserves.
As given in reference 3, we can also evaluate the
productivity factor from q(t) - qod match point, the
same match point as would be used with the above
~
equations.

M. J. FETKOVICH

~E 14237

M. E. VIENOT, I

kn
<[n

D. JOHNSON, and B. A. BOWMAN

Note that~~
r.aec.,,a
~lC23UlC,
~K,

cellation of the viscos! ty terms in equation 10.

(;)-:j

;:::

.:

For cases where pwf < pb and~R > pb, as is the case
for most of the School Creek Field wells in this
study, the productivity factor is evaluated from

...(.,

where rw is the effective wellbore radius incorporating the skin term, r = rw e-s. The skin term
can also include the eY feet of a shape factor CA.
See reference 7. If re/rw can be defined from a
natch of early transient data, we could then evaluate k and s of the well.

kh

in

To evaluate pore volume3, Vp, from the match point,

we have

=m reZh$ .

(Met)F(TR - pwf)

-~

Pb)
+(pb2
1
pwf2)

q(t)

t~

and

which gives the pore volume at the start of the decline analysis.

rwY

p x5.615

2j

q(t)

tDd

q~

..

Vn =

( Llct)T [(m(TR)-m(pwf)l

....(7)

and oil in place at the start of the declineanalysis is

Vp (1 - Sw)

..(8)
OIP

R
Using
fined
cient
would

...................(13)

nh$

@R)
- (pwf)

-11

a simple, practical engineering m(p)oil defrom inflow performance relationships, suffifor decli~e curve analysis, (see Appendix), we
have for pR~pb
(bubble point pressure)

..........00.......(14)
R

Finally, the original oil in place is determined

from
~~!p = ~~p + !$
P

flK\
.......*............4-.

q(t)

141.2 (2FR)(LIdP-

kh

Dd

(12)
ql)d

To calculate a drainage radius from the pore volume,

we have

qDd

1
and

q(t)

..

(et)(TR - pb)+(pb2 - pwf2)

P
1
1
R L

re =
141.2

q(t)

Equat~ons 11 and 12 reduce to a simple APZ form

when pR < pb (see for example equation A-9 in the
Appendix~.

In the above equations, (m) is normally evaluated at average pressure (FR + pwf)/2 while_(uct)
is evaluated at reservoir shut-in pressure p .
R
In terms of an oil pseudo pressure, m(p)oi , equations 5 and 6 can be written as

in(E)
/

.~

...(6)

qod

kh

(11)

qDd

2pb

(B)E

t
..

~R -

rw

q(t)

141.2 (P6)1
.-..

.()]f

is now evaluated at reservoir shut-in

S.ahi,.h
+ha
SIlm.,e
,..
se iel..#..\
(Z>
la
\p*
j,
WIIILI1
Lllclt
al
tuna
Lall-

. ..(9)

where Np is the cumulative production to the start

of the decline analysis.
Changes in Backpressure

2FR (6)F

t
R

and Vp =
(Ct)F

(TR* - Pwf*)

q(t)

. ..(lO)

Dd

qDd

Since many of the wells in the School Creek Field

were evaluated under flowing conditions with more
than one change in backpressure occurring, we have
extended the single backpressure change superposition equation given in reference 20 Expressed in
terms of m(p)oil, for simplicity, we have

. .

CASE STUDY OF A LOW PERMEABILITY VOLATILE OIL FIELD

USING INDIVIDUAL-WELLADVA ED DECLINE CURVE ANALYSIS

}
kh

(71
~
cm{p/

.
~-l
111i..\~wt
]J
1

.m

q(t) =

SPE 14237

(tD~)

qDd

1
In 3
-
2]
[() t-w

141.2

If

nd when~R

< pb the expression reduces to the

Siiiiilarly
when p f > pb the Ap form
is obtained. The Ap form wou d be appropriate for
use with decline exponent values of b = O and AP2
~orm for b values greater than zero. For A(P2),
PRSPbt
the first backpressure change relationship
becomes

A(p 9 ) fOrM.

m(pwf2)- m(pwf3)

m(pwfl)-m(Pwf2)
qDd(tD@odl)
+

+
m(FR)- m(pwfl)

m(~R)-m(p~l)

m(Pwfn-l)-m(Pwfn)
q~(t~

- tDd2)

+ ... +

-1

qf)d(todtDdn ~)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(16)

(Ptil)

......(17)

Aq2 = q3 = ql

(pwf3)

. . ..00.(18)

m (TR) - m (pwfl)

Note that the ql/[m (TR) - m (pwfl)] is the initial

productivity index in BOPD/psi or BOPD/psi2, whichever is appropriate, times a Ap or A(p2) term for
successive flowing pressure changes.
For the more general expression used in this study
for pressure above and below the bubble point pressure-

Aql

qz s

and

For Ap, pwf > pb, the first backpressure change

relationship becomes

Aql
= 2 =

(Pwfl - Pwf2)

. . . ..(23)

(FR - Pwf)

Successive rate changes would be handled as shown in

the previously given equations.

m (FP) - m (Pwfl)
..
.

m (pwf2)
and

1
-m
1

m (pwf2)

ql

...(22)

(~R2 - Pwf12)

The rate change Aq for any backpressure change is

a constant fraction of the initial rate at the same
initial transient tfme period, as the rate change
retraces the original q~ - t~ curve. The same
value of the decline exponent b is used for all rate
change superposition calculations.

Aql = q2 =

- Pwf22)

m(FR)-(pwfl)

(PM12

Aql= qz =

AI

One should note that if (n) were correctly evaluated from m(p)oil using the inflow performance relationship discussed in the Appendix, all the decline
cline curve analysis could be done directly in
pressure terms i.e.

(IF)

FR - Pwf

...............(24)
m (FR) - m (pwf)

A detailed example illustrating two backpressure

changes is given for the Federal A-1 well, Figures 9
and 10 and Tables 9 and 9A. The example is carried
out using the type curve match point and the basfc
Arps form of the decline equation. The procedure is
quite simple using the concept of superposition
given by equation 16.

(19)

[Pti$::l

A convenient equation8 that can be used for calculating the total Aq as a result of n pressure
Ap case,
changes is,~a

P~2* Pq2

Aq2 =q?J=

ZPb

1
J

......(20)

TR-

P~n

= P@l

Pwfl
[Aql + Aq2 +...+ Aqn]

ql

..,.,

(25)
I

M. J. FETKOVICH, M. E. VIENOT,

SPE 14237

. D. JOHNSON, and B. A. BOWMAN

for lll(p)~il

/
Pwfn=

Wel1

D-1
BA-1
K-3

(2~R Pb-Pb2-Pwf12)(Aq1 + Aq z +... Aqn)

Pwf12-

The Aq values are all specifically defined at a

common point in time with respect to the initial
rate ql; 1 day or 1 month, for example. A one month
time period is used in this study. The Federal A-1
example illustrates this point. (See Figure 9).
One can also back calculate intermediate flowing
pressures and rate changes Aq while performance
matching knowing the initial flowing pressure and
rate, and the final flowing pressure. This also
will be discussed with the Federal A-1 example.
METHOD OF DECLINE ANALYSIS
Log-Log Data Plots
The first step in approaching the rate-time log-log
analysis in the study of the School Creek Field was
to make a log-log plot of all the rate-time data
for each well. We next ex~ned
each wells plot to
find when it actually started on decline. The ratetime data was then reinitialized at the point of
decline to t = O and a new log-log plot for each
well was prepared. We have thus eliminated the
constant rate or excess capacity time period which
actually represents the constant rate solution instead of the constant wellbore Dressure solution.
For log-log type curve analysis: we cant-do-deciine
analysis until the well is actually on decline.
Based on the assumption that each well was draining
its 160 acre spacing and that all wells had been
equally stimulated - i.e. re/rw would then be the
same for each well, a School Creek Field Type Curve
we~~ls
~q-lnn
was constructed by ~v~rl~vino* . ..= @ach
----curve, with the axis all kept parallel, until a-=
single curve was obtained. Figure 5 represents this
attempt to obtain a total field type curve using
data from 19 wells that exhibited a clear decline in
their data. Wote the apparent long transient
period demonstrated by wells D-1, RA-1, and K-3. If
this field type curve were valid, we would have a
simple and quick method of preparing an oil production forecast and of determining ultimate recoverable reserves for these wells and the remaining
completions. I&would take the reinitialized loglog plot for each well, find the best match on the
. .
4.L.-..
*LJ.*.
J---field +..l..a
,.,----...A4..-,..
- 1I 4Irle
k~pe
QUI
v=,
aIIU
ur aw
a
brrr-u brws udcd
sown
the depletion stem of b = 0.30. Future rates
would
be read directly from the real time plot. Ultimate
recovery would then be a summation of forecasted
rates plus the cumulative production to the start of
decline, plus any additional production as a result
of placing the well on pump, where applicable.
Iv

Aa+.s-.lms
Ucbcrllllllc

0.017
0.040
0.024

-7.6
-8.2
-8.0

ql
......(26)

Ta

k-red

46

1 I

+h,.

LIIC

.-,..-.-..+
appaf

CIIL

LI

. . ...-4--arl>lerlb

----

>Lem

. ..-

was

-.-I

real

wells D-1, BA-1, and K-3 were all evaluated for k

and skin (s) from a log-log type curve match on the
cnl!!tinn
/FimIr.nc
~ A~
c@stant w~~~h~r~ nraccllr~
w,
-,-,,,
{, ,Yul=The evaluation of the match-points
of reference 3)0 ---
lead to unreasonable values of permeability and,
more specifically skins for all three wells, None
of the wells were massively hydraulically fractured.

It was therefore concluded that the data for these

three wells was not really transient and should be
placed in the early depletion period of the total
field type curve. Figure 6 is our final School
Creek Field Type Curve that does not exhibit a long
transient stem. The field type curve is primarily a
depletion type curve with a b = 0.30. (We will
later discuss the b = 0.30 selected for this study.)
Blind matching of log-log data to a type curve and
extrapolation can sometimes lead to erroneous production forecasts. An evaluation of the match
points to obtain reservoir variables for all wells
being studied should give consistent and reasonable
numbers when compared with each other thus confirming the validity of the forecast and the ultimate
reserves numbers developed. The elimination of the
apparent transient stem in this case is a good example of such a checking procedure. The composite
type curve, Figure 4 of reference 2, was used for
all match point evaluations performed in this study.
Basic Well and Reservoir Data
Table 1 lists basic individual well information and
the match points obtained from a log-log type curve
evaluation for 40 well completions. Three of the
wells are commingled. The table lists first production, the start of decline analysis and the cumulative production to the start of the decline analysis.
Initially, virtually all wells came on flowing with
several on curtailed or restricted production before
starting on decline. Many wells, because of early
high gas-oil-ratios and gas disposition problems,
were shut in for as much as a year before being
returned to production. This accounts for the
difference in time of as much as one year between
with
first ~fndll~ti~n
and start of .rlnel+na
~. ---. . . .!!-,
, o, li++la
, , , =
cumulative production for some wells during this
interval.
Reservoir shut-in pressures, TR, were generally
assumed to be close to the original pressure of
approximately 3600 psi except in a few cases where
bottomhole pressure surveys were available to indicate otherwise. Flowing pressures were estimated
from general pressure surveys conducted on 10 wells
in late 1982 and early 1983. Fluid levels shot on
pumping wells indicated a minimum bottomhole flowing
pressure of approximately 100 psi.
Porosity, thickness and water saturation for each
well were furnished by a log analyst. Figure 4 is a
permeability-porosity plot developed from 43 plug
samples taken on four wells in the field. The core
porosities, in general, are significantly less than
the average values determined from log analysis.
This will be discussed further under calculated re
..-7
.,-vamue>.
The final four columns of the table list the match
nninte
r.,,-..

nhtstnad
--=,,,=-

frm

~~e

Ifi-I,w.
IVS-IUy

+..-,.
I,ypc

-.,---LUI ve

.-.I...:aflalysl>

for each of the well completions in terms of t - tDd

and q(t) - q~ obtained using the composite type
curve (Figure 4 of r~f~r~n~~ ~) and a ~ecline ~xPonent b = 0.30.

CASE STUDY OF A LOW PERMEABILITY VOLATILE OIL FIELO

USING INDIVIDUAL-WELL ADVA ED DECLINE CURVE ANALYSIS

PVT Data
PVT properties required for evaluation of reservoir
variables from the type curve match points are presented in Table 2 and also Figure 3. These are U,
B and~t, all evaluated at reservoir shut-in- pressure, pR. The total compressibility term, et, was
calcula ed usng a water compressibility, Cw, of
3 ~ ,O-liP5,-{ and pore volume compressibility, Cf,
obtained from Hall s13 correlation. The product
(~) was mechanically evaluated at the average
pressure (pR + p~)/2.
Initially only two PVT samples were avaflable for
this study, the Federal EE-1 bottomhole sample to
represent Channel Sand completions and the Federal
J-1 bottomhole sample to represent Bar Sand completions. The Matheson E-1 PVT surface recombined
sample became available only after our inftial
studies were virtually complete. This sample, because of the vastly different gas-oil-ratio (763
SCF/B versus 1557 SCF/B for the Federal EE-1 well)
and because of being a surface recombined sample,
had been labeled an unrepresentative sample.
Inspection of initial GORS plotted for each well
and a gas-oil-ratio versus fractional recovery
curve, based on original oil in place developed from
the match point evaluations, clearly suggested that
the Matheson E-1 sample was valid. The final summary of the evaluation of reservofr variables from
type curve analysis was made using the Federal EE-1
PVT data for all wells south of and including wells
LL-1, H-1 and R-3. See Figure 1 and Tables 3 and 4.
For weiis to the north of these wells we used the
PVT data from the Matheson E-1 well sample.
Because the study had been vfrtually completed when
the Matheson E-1 sample results became available, we
have Included the results of all channel sand wells
evaluated usfng both fluid samples. Basfc patterns
of evaluation results remained essentially the same
between the northern and southern wells, i.e.,
higher percentage recoveries for the sc!!!thern
wells
than the northern wells since their actual rate-time
performance was based on the real fluid present, not
what we selected to use for the ffnal evaluation
summary. The more undersaturated a well was, the
less recovery would be obtained as compared wfth a
well with a fluid saturated at its fnitfal shut-in
pressure, all else being equal. Tables 5, 6, 7, and
8 summarize the~esults of the match point evaluatiOtIS based on (pR - pwf)/(~)
and m(p)oil
evaluation.
Calculated Results From Decline Curve Analysis
The final results of the type curve evaluation fn
terms of calculated reservoir varfables are presented in Tables 3 and 4; the wells have been
arranged on the basis of PVT areas. ~ m(P)oil
evaluatioflwas used for all results gfven in Table
3 and a (pR - pwf)/(ZK)
evaluation for all
values fn Table 4.
Pore Volume (Vn)
The pore volume calculations are based on equatfons
6 and 12, where

SPE 14237

, .

[Y8)

Vp=

.*

tDd

(llct)_ (FR - Pwfl)

PR

q(t)

..

...(6)

qDd

and

(t3)F
P

.~.

(ct)F

(TR-Pwf)+(Pb*-Pq2)

R
[

2p
b

tDd

q(t)

(12)

qDd

Equation 6 would most certainly apply to reservoirs

where the single phase liquid solution is applicable, i.e., where the decline curve exponent b = O.
The introduction of the (~) term evaluated at
~R + Pwf)/2 with the Ap form is simply an attempt
to account for solution-gas drfve or two phase flow
behavfor. A rigorously derived (~) from m(p)
concepts, as discussed previously, would be the
approach to make equation 6 and 12 equivalent.
For solutfon gas drive reservoirs, reference 2
demonstrates that the A(p2) form of IPR (ofl well
backpressure curve with n = 1.0) used with a nonlinear~R versus Np material balance relationship
produces a decline exponent b = 0.33. Levine and
Prats~,fn thefr simulation study of a solution
gas drive reservoir producing under a constant wellbore pressure condition, presented a log qD - log tD
type curve. (See their Ffgure 11. ) The depletfon
stem of thefr type curve basically ffts a decline
exponent b s 0.33. Figure 7 illustrates one of
several wells in the School Creek Field that exhibited rate-tfme data fn a sufficient stage of
declfne to help us establish a single declfne expon-II-M.ma~y~j~
~fi~
~~~ ~~~ Anel+na
tl
ent
-..
-h -.
..M
.=.-n
,81.= GUI v=
all
rate predictions were based on matchfng and forecasting on b = 0.30 for all wells. All forecasts
for this study were done~
graphical nrntoc+:nn~.-u-..,.
Figure 8 fs a plot of percent recovery versus
bottomhole flowing pressure for the Federal A-1
well. Usfng equations 6 and 12, the bottomhole
flowing pressure was varied between 1600 psi to 100
psi and the pore volume Vp and OOIP calculated.
Ultfmate recovery was fixed at 36,000 60 for both
Ap/(fi)
and Alll(p)ojl cases to arrive at a percent
recovery. Note the lack of sensftfvfty in percentage recovery for the Alll(p)ojl case with the variation of bottomhole flowing pressure. Sfnce the
Am(p)oil case is effectively a difference in pressures squared effect, we do not see a propO@ional
increase in rate with drawdown as in the (UB) case
even though (~) was evaluated at each flowingpressure. Thfs is virtually fdentical with the
effect found for gas wells. The precfse determination of flowing pressure, p~, may not then greatly
affect our final results.
Oil

in

Place

Oil in place
equatfon 14

fs calculated directly from Vp using

M. J. FETKOVICH, M. E. VIENOT, R. O. JOHNSON, and B. A. BOWMAN

SPE 14237

Vp (1-SW)
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(14)

OIP =
(B)T
R

where (m) is evaluated at average pressure

(PR + Pwf)/2
and

The calculated oil in place is at the start of

decline which, when added to the cumul~
production up to the start of the decline analysis, yields
the original oil in place, OOIP, equation 15. The
original oil in place is later used to calculate
fractional oil recoveries, Table 10, and GOR versus
fractional recovery, in an attempt to help identify
or confirm different fluid properties used in the
field analysis and also to possibly identify different rock types.

141.2 (Pf3)5

..........,-. . . . . . ..(11)
,

Calculated Drainage Radius (rP)

A calculated drainage radius is determined from Vp
with equation 13

Vp X 5.615

re =

II

................(13)
nh$

The calculated value of re is not only a function of

pore volume Vp determined from the type curve analysis match point but also of porosity $ and thickness h. In this type of reservoir, with indicated
thin dirty sands and possible limited areal
extent, the value of average h used as determined
from the logs may be too high. This would result
in a calculated re value in some cases much less
than re = 1490 feet for 160 acres. Also, very few
of the core sample plugs obtained from wells in the
field (see Figure 4) appear to approach the average
porosity values reported from the log analysis
listed on Table 1. If one were to build a simulation model of the School Creek Field, outlined in
Figure 1, based on the log derived values of +, h,
and 160 acre spacing for each well, we would have
to cut the pore volume to match the type curve
analysis derived reservoir variables, specifically
oil in place, that have already been history matched
to the rate-time decline data.
To come up with calculated values of re approaching
on average the 160 acre field spacing, the $h product would have to be decreased. Otherwise, the
rather tenuous conclusion that many wells are not
draining the existing spacing could lead to a consideration of infill drilling.
Productivity Factor (P.F.)
The productivity factors for each well are calculated from equations 5 and 11,

Since there is a lack of early time transient rate

data to sufficiently define an re/rw stem, unique
values of permeability and skin cannot be calculated
for each well. We know that all completions were
initially stimulated. The core data indicates an
arithmetic average permeability of 0.650 md and a
geometric average of 0.195 md, with a range of 0.2
md to 7 md. We also had one buildup test conducted
on the KK-1 well where the final flowing pressure
prior to shut-in was above the bubble point pressure.
The analysis yielded a value of k = 2.5 md and s =
-3.4.
A range of values of skin from O to -4 was selected
to evaluate permeabilities for each well. When we
fix rw on the basis of skin, rw = r e-s, and
having previously calculated re from !he pore volume
calculation we can then calculate kh and k from equations 5 and 11.
The ranges of values of k listed on tables 3 and 4
for various values of skin are surprisingly narrow
within a given table and even between the two methods of calculation used. It should be pointed out
that the values of permeability and skin calculated
from the decline curve analysis are those at the
start of the decline analysis.

If a good correlation from the core derived $ - k

plot had been obtained and if log derived average
porosities were considered reasonably reliable, we
could have used it to determine k and then its corresponding skin from the tables for each well.
Based solely on the KK-1 build-up analysis results
and the fact that all wells were stimulated, one
could also select the -3 skin columns on Table 3 or
4 to arrive at specific values of permeability at
the start of decline for each well. There are no
unreasonable values of permeabilities listed on
either table. Nearly all lie within the range of
the core permeabilities shown on Figure 4. Values
of permeabilities in the 10s or 100s md on any well
would, of course, be suspect.
Example of Effect of Backpressure Change on Recovery
and Decline
The equations to calculate the change in producing
rates with backpressure changes have been given
previously as equations 16 - 26. The Federal A-1

CASE STUDY OF A LOW PERMEABILITY VOLATILE OIL FIELD

FIl llFCi TNF
... CIIRVF
. . . . . ANAIYSIS
.. ...
USING INDIVIDIJAL-WELLADVA --------

SPE 14237

Q----

well produced against three different flowing pressures that resulted in two rate changes. Figure 9
is a log-log plot of the rate-time data with the
solid line through the points calculated from the
type curve match points used with the Arps hyperbolic decline equation. Only the first and last
flowing pressures of 1400 psi and 100 psi, respectively, were known. Equation 26, solved in terms
of Aq total with pwf3 = 100 psi yielded a total
Aq = 747 BOPM. A trial and error calculation was
then made varying Aql until a best fit of both
rate changes was obtained. This resulted in a pwf2
= 1069 psi.
Tables 9 and 9-A illustrate in detail the method of
developing a forecast with two backpressure changes
using the m(p)oi~ approach. Note specifically that
since the rate-time decline is undergoing depletion,
the Arps equation is used for all the calculations.
One does not have to deal with the reservoir variables, kh, s, re/rw, obtained from the match evaluations. This, however, would not be the case for a
transient situation. Theoretically, the rates for
the first few months should be calculated at the
mid-point of the time intervai, i.e., 0.5, 1.5,
2.5, to represent average monthly production rates.
For simplicity of presentation of the superposition
example, the rates have been evaluated at full month
time intervals.
Table 9-A column 2 lists the rates for the initial
f~owingpressure, pwfl, calculated
from ~rps equa- ----tion wlttlb = 0.3, qi = 4545.5 t+lJtJM
ana LJi= O.ZiZ
me-l. The rate change as a result of a choke change
to pwfz = 1069 psi is listed in column 3. It is
simply a constant fraction of the initial decline
rates. The second backpressure change, when the
well was placed on pump to pwf3 = 100 psi, is
treated similarly. For superposition, columns 3
and 4 are retabulated at a time 1 month past the
actual time of the pressure change. Total rate is
then the sums of columns 2,5,and 6. Adding the
cumulative production to the start of decline
analysis (2633 go), we have
Nn Ultimate, BO

No backpressure change
First backpressure change
Second backpressure change

Ah(p)njl

A(p)

30,347
32,667
35,858

30,347
34,668
47,226

The Ap numbers in the above table were generated

for comparison by recalculating Aql and Aq2 on
the basis of a Ap superposition using equation 23.
From this approach, a procedure using actual production data (and its projected rates for a known
initial flowing pressure) could be developed to
determine the effect of a backpressure change on
uitimate recovery, as foiiows.
Determine Np at pwfl to t = T, where T = total time
of rate-time forecast,
TAql

then

ANP1 =

ql

~ (a

tl.

T-t@
and

ANP2 =

2
q actual

ql

L
t=l

q actual

where q actual may also be actual production plus

that projected for the initial flowing pressure,
Pwfl
Ultimate Recoverable = Np + ANpl + ANP
2
Similarly, actual early time production rates instead of calculated values can be used to generate
the rate-time superposition as illustrated in Table
9-A. This in essence would have the effect of including a downtime if any early time rate variations
were due to downtime.
Figure 10 illustrates one more point about backpressure changes with regard to the decline exponent.
As has been previously pointed out in references 2
and 3, the sum of two forecasts, both having the
same vaiue of deciine exponent b, will rarely
result in a total forecast having the same decline
exponent. In general, the total forecast decline
exponent will be larger. Reinitializing the ratetime data after the second backpressure change
which also has b = 0.3 resulted in a decline
exponent b = 0.40.
Finaiiy, uniess aii weiis are piaced on pump at the
same time, a backpressure change can cause a wells
drainage radius to increase with respect to offset
wells. The given superposition example implicitly
assumes that re remains constant.
Commingled Wells
There are three wells in the School Creek Field
where Bar Sand production and Channel Sand production are presently commingled. Figures 11 and 12
-. LL. P. ,
. ,,.
~or tne teaeral K-1 weii illustrate the method of
analysis used to evaluate these wells. A difference
curve was developed between the forecast rates of
the Channel Sand production only and the connningled
production which came on production later. Separate
forecasts were then made and added together.
Surmnaryof School Creek Field OOIP and Ultimate
Recoverv
Table 10 summarizes the results of the calculated
original oil in place and ultimate recovery forecast
for each well based on anm(p)oil and a AP/(ti)
evaluation. The superposition of rates as a result
of backpressure changes using equations 19 and 23
have also been included where appropriate.
Channel Sand completion results are divided into the
northern and southern areas of the field based on
the two PVT samples discussed previously. Both
evaluation methods indicate a much lower percentage
recovery for wells in the northern portion of the
fiald
dC u.,,~,
r~ndPad -
. . . . . . .,

pwf

pwf3

Aq2

With
,.,

wane
=,
ta

+.
,,,

th~
=~,ith~m~
!.am= aubtac,

,,

~er~fefi-

Wells in the southern portion have percentage recoveries near twice those of wells to the north. This
would be consistent solely on the basis of the
differences in bubble point pressures between the

M. J. FETKOVICH, M. E. VIENOT\

3PE14237

two fluid samples. Values of percentage recoveries

are always lower for the m(p)oil evaluation method.
With regard to the additional recoverable reserves
that could possibly be obtained by placing all wells
on pump to a final bottomhole flowing pressure of
100 psi, the following table summarizes those results. (Nearly half of the wells were initially at
or near 100 psi bottomhole flowing pressure at the
start of decline.)
Reserves
for
Initial
Flowing
Pressure
STB
Northern
Wel1s

223,900

Increase of
m(o}..+l
R&&~~&
to pwf
of 100 psi
%
STB Increase

15,594

7%

Increase of
hoi(ZJ
-r,\l-w,
Reserves
to pwf
of 100 psi
%
STB
Increase

51,361

. D. JOHNSON, and B. A. BOWMAN

CONCLUSIONS
Original oil in place values can be calculated from
rate-time analysis for individual wells and can
also be used with reserves projections developed
from the decline analysis to obtain fractional
recoveries for each well in a field. These fractional recovery numbers should be reasonable,
considering the fluid type and the permeability of
the reservoir.
Each wells evaluation of the r~s~rv~ir Variab~eS
k, s (skin), OOIP and fractional recovery, obtained
from individual well rate-time decline analysis,
should give consistent and reasonable numbers when
compared with other wells in the field. A single
well analysis can give results that are not recognized as being invalid unless compared with other
wells in the field.

23%

Southern
Wel1s

312,105

19,220

6%

67,605

22%

Total
Field

819,484

68,354

8%

230,346

28%

If, in fact the inflow performance relationship

based on Ap~ applies, the percentage increase as
a result of placing all wells on pump to a final
flowing pressure of 100 psi would be approximately
8% or 68,000 BO. If the inflow performance relationship were to follows Ap (PI) behavior, the
anticipated increase in reserves would be 28% or
230,000 BO. Perhaps the real increase in reserves
due to lowering the final bottomhole flowing pressure lies somewhere between these two limits.
Individual Well Gas-Oil-Ratio Performance
Figures 13 thru 16 reflect gas-oil-ratio performance
of individual wells in the field based on expressing
f,GI,,
.t-+tl.
+
+ame
m+
a..h
I.m.11
~c~,da~
~~~ Pa?-#la.
, -.=,J
,,,
l.=,,,,=
,
cat.,,
c,
, Is
cumulative production divided by the OOIP calculated
from the m(p)oil evaluation. Either method of calculating OOIP should show similar trends. Gas and
oil rates are metered separately for each well and
are not based on allocation from tests.
Figures 13 and 14 are on an expanded gas-oil-ratio
scale in an attempt to help identify rock types fn
each area of the field. If one assumes the fluids
are the same for each area, three different rock
types and/or initial water saturations are possibly
indicated in the southern portion of the field.

Failure to consider a future lowering of a wells

flowing bottomhole pressure from that causing a
wells initial rate-time decline can result in
underestimating ultimate recoverable reserves.
A method of treating future backpressure changes
based on the superposition principle and an oil
Nell inflow performance relationship is easily
applied to decline curve analysis. An oil well
inflow performance relationship can be utilized
Over an entire production forecast, not only at
an instant in time.
NOMENCLATURE
b=
8
Cf
-Ct
Cw
Di
~.
h
k
kro
!(p)oil
n

=
.
=
=

nat!lral
,,..,

.
=
=
=
.

oh :
OOIP

M=
PR

Pwf
Figures 15 and 16, prepared on a scale where the
entire gas-oil-ratio performance of each well can
be shown clearly, indicate two different fluids,
based mainly on the wells peak gas-oil-ratio alone
which is not a function of the method of calculating
an OOIP number. Note that the gas-oil-ratio has
turned over on several wells. The peak gas-oilratios for the northern wells is generally much
lower than those of the southern wells. These gasoil-ratio curves could be used in developing a gas
forecast to go with the oil rate forecast developed
from the decline curve analysis.

J: !
re
rw
rw

=
.
.
=
=
=
=

s: =
t =
tod =
T=
~
$=

reciproca of decline curve exponent

fo~:;;:n
volume factor,
res vol/surface vol
effective rock compressibil ty, psi-l
total compressibility, psi- 1
water compressibility, p i-l
initial decline rate, t- !

lrmarithm
,~,
, ,,,,,

haca
==

9
G., 71Q9Q
SCU

thickness, ft
effective permeability, md
relative permeability to oil, fraction
oil pseudo pressure, psi/cp
exponent of backpressure curve
cumulative oil production, STB
oil in place at start of decline
analysis, STB
original oil in place, STB
bubble point pressure, psia
reservoir shut-in pressure, at start
of decline, psia
bottomhole flowing pressure, psia
decline curve dimensionless rate
surface rate of flow at time t
external boundary radius, ft
wellbore radius, ft
effective wellbore radius, ft
skin factor, dimensionless
water saturation
time, mo.
decline curve dimensionless time
total time of forecast, m
reservoir pore volume, ft!!
viscosity, Cp
porosity, fraction of bulk volume

CASE STUDY OF A LOW PERMEABILITY VOLATILE OIL FIELD

USING INDIVIDUAL-WELL AOVANCED DECLINE CURVE ANALYSIS

SPE 142:

S1 METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

acre
bbl
bbl/D
Cp
ft
ft3/D
md
psi

We wish to thank Phillips Petroleum Company for

permission to publish this paper. We also wish to
thank U. G. Kiesow, M. D. Bradley, and S. D. Dunstal
for their timely assistance in parts of this study.
REFERENCES

1.

Arps, J. J.: Analysis of Decline Curves,

TRANS, AIME (1945) 160, 228-247.

2.

Fetkovich, M. J.: Decline Curve Analysis

Using Type Curves, J. Pet. Tech (June 1980)
1065-1077.

x 4.046873
1.589873
X 1.589873
x 1.0*
X 3.048*
X 2.831685
x 9.869233
x 6.894757
X

E+I)3= M2

E-01 = m3
E-01 = m3/D
E-03
E-01
E-02
E-04
E-03

=
=
=
=
=

Pa*3
m
M3/D
pm2
MPa

*conversion factor is exact

3.

40

5.

6.

7.

APPENDIX
Oil Pseudo Pressure, m(p)oil For Decline Curve
Analvsis

Fetkovich, M. J. , Vienot, M. E.,

Bradley, M. D., and Kiesow, U. G.: Decline
Curve Analysis Using Type Curves: Case
Histories, paper SPE 13169 presented at the
59th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE of AIME,
Houston, Texas, September 1984.

Reference 10) introduced the concept of a pseudopressure m(p) for oil well drawdown tests similar to
that now commonly used for gas wells. It was presented along with a general inflow performance
relationship developed from multi-point test data of
some 40 oil well tests.

Carter, R. D.: Characteristic Behavior of

Finite Radial and Linear Gas Flow Systems Constant Terminal Pressure Case, SPE/DOE 9887
presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability
Symposium, Denver, CO, May 27-29, 1981.

A general inflow performance equation for decline

analysis that treats flow both above and below the
bubble point pressure for an undersaturated oil well
assuming no non-Darcy flow component is

Carter, R, D.: Type Curves for Finite Radial

and Linear Gas-Flow Systems: Constant Terminal
Pressure Case, SPE 12917 presented at the 1984
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, WY,
May 1984.

qo= J*

Da Prat, Giovanni, Cinco-Ley, Heber and

Ramey, H. J., Jr.:
Decline Curve Analysis
Using Type Curves for Two-Porosity Systems,
Sot. Pet. Eng. J (June 1981) 354-362.

. . . . . . ..(A-l)

141.2 i~~~

-II

F*(A
()

Fetkovich, M. J. and Vienot, M. E.: Shape

Factor, CA, Expressed as a Skin, SCA, J. Pet.
and

8.

Bradley, M. D.:

9.

Levine, J. S. and Prats, M.: The Calculated

Performance of Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs,
Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1961) 145-152.

J* = J*

a2
l@o)_
;
PR s p.

Personal communication.

........(A-3)

Assuming (UOBO) is a constant value above the

bubble point pressure equal to (BOB )b (the basis
for the constant PI assumption for ?1OW above the
bubble point pressure, pb) then (See also Appendix
of reference 10)

Fetkovich, M. J.: The Isochronal Testing of

Oil Wells, paper SPE 4529 presented at the
48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev.,
Sept. 30 - October 3, 1973. (SPE Reprint
Series No. 14,265.)

1
%2 =

11.

(pb2 - pwf2)

where J* =

Tech. (February 1985) 321-322.

10.

(FR - pb) + J

Vogel, J. V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution Gas Drive Wells, J. Pet.
Tech. (Jan. 1968), 83.

12.

Whitson, C. H.: Reservoir Well Performance

and Predicting Deliverability, Unsolicited
paper SPE 12518, U. of Trondheim.

13.

Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. F., Jr.:

Petroleum Reservoir En ineerin
Inc. knglewood cliff*iJrfii:ce

...............(A-4)
pb(l@o)
P
b

or l/@.
to go through a zero intercept on drawiown, we are really looking at a (kro)
/ (B0130),
Pwf
i pseudo (poB ). This then would reproduce field
iata 10 -log !PR curves with n = 1.DO and also
Iogelsi!1 Figure 7, a computer generated IPR.
{Figure 17 in this paper.)

&!&l
a

.,.
------- .. . ..

..-

... . ....-

M. J. FklKUVICH, M. t. VltNUl,

PE 14237
Thus

._

P
b

(TR-

J*

.,-.,

,.,.--.,

WINXJN,

ana

r!

D.

H.

ma,

,.,

,,

UUWIIMII

= -:(;);[+:)
R

b
. . ...**....

Substituting equation (A-5) into (A-1) we obtain the

final form of the single phase and two phase IPR
equation

q~

u.

. . . . . . . . . (A-5)
2p

2Pb(l@%)

K.

Vogel form 12 : Ill(p) oil

Jir

J* (@o)p

(Pbz - Pwf2)

Pb)
+

2pk
u

..0.....(A-6)

or in terms of reservoir variables, with kro = 1

at start of decline analysis

kh

1 =).
141.2 in ~
-
2
[()] rw

pR

2pb

The Vogel form would be extremely cumbersome if

entered into the constant wellbore pressure s lutions as an m(p)oil expression whereas the AP?
form results in a simple expression identical in
form to the low pressure gas well backpressure
equation. Oil well IPR curves, just as gas well
backpressure curves are most applicable to the
-...--+.-+
,.61
IIuul
kfi--~--..,eve
cnlii++nn
rnnfi$tinnc
GullaLallti
w=,
c pt Gaaul
= ou~uv~,s
.-, . . . . . ..~.a.
.A
comparison of the AP2 form of IPR and Vogels IPR
equation (both these forms assume a non-Darcy flow
component of zero) can be seen in figure 17. The
results shown on Vogels figure 7 are the only complete set of curves given in his paper with which
we could make a comparison of the two methods when
using the same match point. Vogels points of match
A thru H were used to develop the comparison. Note
from the figure 17 comparison that the Ap2 form
of the equation better fits his computer calculated
IPR over the entire range of depletion than his own
R equation. At very low
dimensionless form of the
flowing pressures approaching O flowing pressure, a
region we seldom deal with, the Ap2 form is slightly
less than the simulation run result but still closer
than using Vogels dimensionless equation.

(~R-pb)+(pb2-pwf2)

qo =

. (A-n)

............(7)7)

or in terms of Ill(p)oil

Reference 2 illustrates that when the Ap~ form of

the IPR equation is combined with a non-linear p
versus N relationship for solution gas drive reservoirs, t Ee expected decline curve exponent b =
0.333. This is practically the same value as that
found and used in this study.

For the case of~

we have from equation (A-7)

SP
Rb

kh

141.2

in

q. =
~

(l@30)_

[()] w

(~R2-pwf2,

2~

.......(A-9)

With pR < p we can compare the Vogel and the AP2

inflow r=la!?
lonship in terms of m(p)oi~. We have

fOfM : m(p)oil = ~

P2

k ro

1
Ap2

()
\ @/~
R

..(A-1O)

S25P30L CREEK FIELD,

c#P6ELL
- CON2ERSE CO., UfEU1lffi
flA21c
RCSERVOIR OATA NKI 02CLIIIE CmV2 WATCH PWf~

TA8LE I

Oate (m
F4rst
Pmductf cdl

Ml 1

H
D-z
m-1
[E-1
F-1
FF-1
6-1
so-1
62-2
H-l
;:
JJ-1
K-1
K-1
K-4
KK-I
KK-2
LL-1
LL-;
Q-1
K-1
R-2
R-3
n-3
R-4

T-i
1-3
7-4
T-5
A-1
8-1
6-1
D-1
E-1

Ford
Fold
F7ath
Math
Math

(8)

(8)

(B)

(B)

6-81
6-81
1-83
6-S2
5-82
10-83
4-82
6-62
6-22
6-82
10-81
%81
5-s2
8-82
5-22
3-83
5-63
8-82
8-92
8-82
8-62
11-81
1-83
6-82
9-82
7-62
5-83
4-82
4-22
S-83
3-22
5-m
5-W
7-82
2-83
6-82
9-82
10-80
5-23
7-81

Pore

Mel 1
&l

1104447
1144663
29481
35358
272785
315066
14e-5687
EL13336
I1109D
~;o

c-1

Ford
Ford
Mth
Math
FWh

D-2
F-1
6-1
JJ-1
K-1
K-4
o-1
R-1
R-2
A-1
8-1
8-1
o-1
E-1

%6626
320361
617476
2m739
2550551

Do-1
EE-1
FF-I
z:
H-1
1-1
CK-1
KK-2
LL-1
o-1
n-s
R-4
s-1
T-1
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5

,~;

::?

WJl .

RB

;i

l:)

239366
436564
91066
791422
4613%
734543
621613
696523
19s445
72349
U349477
2463%6
376D30
1202959
E135575
55937
67929
107785
145800
1136370
614936
1343s0
585130
9s0145

r0

Oecliin
mlysfs

UCI1
12-62
6-81
3-93

2633
6226

.137
.13s
.161
.103
.134
.1OD
.145
.16D
.120
.125
.165
.158
.240
.149
.134
.240
.150
.130
.140
.132
.170
.148
.14D
.123
.120
.1$3
.2DD
.132
.134
.210
.142
.156
.153
.13a
.134
.143
.1$2
.160
.143
,1s2

7821
13839
6-83
764;
11-63

9-82
6-82
10-81
9-62
5-63
2-63
6-82
3-83
12-82
5-63
7-83
5-.93
6-83
4-02
6-E33
8-83
8-83
12-82
5-83
5-83
5-.92
3-83
6-83
8-83
7-83
5-83
4-83
7-22
2-83
10-81
5-02
12-81

3?2
11-83
10-81

525927
467301
10629
7216
111137
15%62
6D6811
246261
37785
36793
295.97
393443
15246,9
212427
99399
1041061

:
3839
1761
4287
501

9-83

74;

12-82
7-83
3-83

R:
1468
3327
21473
689
1635
1169
6643

6-83
6-83
3-83

1223;
24533
231 9;
8146
1383
7693
245
1871
.919
10776

7-83
4-83
11-53
lD-80
3-82
12-82

St @
cult,
OIP
S76

32H00L
07

786;

CREEK FIELO

- ctic*
ATED DECL171E cuAvE
(0).,,
EVAL!JA710N
Pm-1. taccor

Calcul
atcd ~
mw
~

f&

52n5m

1265
944
216
240
552
539
236i3
P48
377
467
328
698
471
993
722
1369

473427
10429
7216
111436
163949

m7312
253721
38575
38628
30632
397314
152%7
229203
99399
1D48901

721
697
335
1535
626
997
815
1365

1*I

s-o

- 1
2

7.8542
2.0367
0.1297
0.1050
0.8261
1.1995
2.6253
3.7269
0.4511
0.368D
0.2081
4.9183
0.8227

rw,

= .328
k+d
6.77
1.03
0.11
0.10
0.57
0.64
6.29
2.79
$x

::%
8.5120

0:13
2.43
0.33
1.29
0.98
4.17
1.73
1.64
0.68
2.79
0.39
D.98
3.18
5.02
0.12
0.D1
2.60
3.12
0.86
1.82
0.45
0.15
0.22
0.23
0.48
1.7.9
4.25
1.43
;:;;

:&
414267
776m5
118124
Wo61
89640
2m17
2601s3
34466
49879

92310
142234
45148
253605
1457W
231%1
342154
187379
73541
26130
435740
783552
130371
3D4674
112833
34163
38201
42158
50124

::
1073
2D68
712
1137
369
205
315
316
420

1.9285
2.7416
1.0641
1.7561
0.7718
1.0406
6.0.964
2.5211
0.7114
0.0126
3.7613
2.5496
1.19+36
2.9606
1 .3s07
0.2&42
n.2745
0.49%
0.7923

599185
W5555
63548
309774
463072

66Q946
325555
66675
309774
465072

725
957
637
59D
563

4 .2D95
2.2628
0.8064
1.6814
4.5877

64482
136395
373D6
249923
1457D6
231%1
336311
183736

SC1030i 2REEK FIELD,

Federal

. VP)

9-61
10-81
1-22
2-83
3-ss3
10-63
1~-~

TMLF.

T18LE 2

.70
.64
.52
:2
.30
.70
.6D
:%
.6D
.70
.85
.75
.60
.90
.40
.50
.70
.65
.70
.75
.50
.6D
,60
.60
.XT
.6o
.70
.85
. 7s
.20
.75
.s.5
.65
.60
.70
.52
.70
.64

0.212
0.0s9
0.156
0.334
0.313
0.21D
0.510
0.100
0.130
0.098
0.083
0.29D
0.146
0.115
D.07$
0.185
0.210
0.229
0.190
0.079
0.250
0.178
0.144
0.130
0.092
0.063
0.115
0.118
0.115
0.203
0.220
0.270
D.20D
0.239
O.m
0.165
0.018
:.;}3

1030
llk30
10
lCQD
lDOO
10
100
lm
IDm
lGW
1~
low
loDLl
Irm
lDIM
1000
10S4
IDOD
100
10
lDD
1003
100
1233
100
lfXll
10D
1L13
lDDO
100D
100
]m
lDO
IDO
lDD
1C430
l@J
1iY3

0.220
0.680
0.110
0.ss0
0.432
0.076
0.086
0.270
0.430
0.914
0.670
0.19D
0.2Q5
0.13D
0.580
0. 7B
0. i 17
0.527
0.098
0.550
0.092
0.231
0.310
0.380
0.670
0.2.95
0.067
0.070
0.264
0.2W
0.069
0.25D
0.22J3
0.201
0.028
0.33D
0,170
0.131

0:111

I&

::74

A-1
c-l
D-2
00-1
EE-1
F-1
FF-1
G.]
G&1
6G-2
74-1
1-1
J-1 (B)
JJ-1
K-1
K-1 (B)
F.-4
m-l
KK-2
LL-1
L:::
(B]
0-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-3
k-4
s-1
S-1
T-1
T-2
T-3
r-d
i-5
A-1
9-1
B-1
0-1
E-1

Ford
F. rd
15Mh
7Sath
75ith

.W-

S.-2
. 2.424
k-red
5.02
0.76
0.07
0.07
0.41
0.45
4.79
2.03
!3 .21
0.29
0.09
1.78
0.23
0.95
0.71
3.11

4.15
0.62

1.01
0.95
0.36
1.74
0.23
0.59

$:
0.18
0.19
0.41

1.25
1.18
0.47
2.09
0.28
0.72
2.31
3.75
0.08
0.01
1.91
2.36
0.62
1.35
0.31
o.lD
0.15
0.16
o.3a

::;
1.22
0.67
1.56

1.29
3.11
1.02
0.56
1.30

!%4
:::
0.49
0.54
:::
0.25
0.35
0.11
2.10
0.28
1.12
0.24
3.64
1.49
1.41
0.34
2.44
0.36
n .85
2.75
4.38
0.10
0.01
2.25
2.74
0.74
1.59

S--4
,W, - 17.90
k -d
3.28
0.48
0.04
0.06
0.24
13.27
3.29
1.27
0.11
0.17
0.05
1.12
::;

27.4
24.6
22.1
24.5
21.6
15.9
21.4
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
?7.5

0.46
0.46
0.46
0.43
0.44
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.43

0.180
0.150

1.73
1.411

0.420
0.378

28.9
24. $

0.155
0.155
0.150
D.150

1.88
1.89
1.9D
1.90

0.447
0.351
0.420
0.420

0.134
0.150
0.1s
0.150
0.150

;::
1.9D
1.90
1.90

0.1s3
0.13D

;:Z

CP,$iji

0.44
0.46

1.48
1.47

0 .6%
0.658

16.2
14.5

24.5
21.6
27.5
26.0

0.45
0.45
0.46
0.46

1.47
1.89
1.47
1.47

0.712
0 .63S
D.6%
0 .6%

14.3
13.3
20.8
15.2

0.355
0.42D
0.43D
0.420
0.378

28,9
21.7
24.6
24.6
24.5

0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46

1.47
1.47
1.47
1.41
1.47

D .640
0.696
D.6%
0 .6%
0.668

16.2
13.2
14.7
14.7
14.3

0.374
0.378

24.3
27.4

0.46
0.46

1.47
1.47

0.655
0.658

14.5
15.5

0.391
0.391
0.420
0.382
0.420
0.36?
0.420
0.437
0.410
0.382

28.9
30.4
29.0
23.2
26.D
24.5
27.4
22.1
27.4
24.4

0.45
0.45
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.86

1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47

0.670
0.670
0.696
0.672
0.696
0.647
0.696
0.712
0.626
0.6?2

16.3
16.7
16.o
13.9
15.3
14.4
15.4
13.1
15.6
14.2

1.47
1.47
1.41

Bar Sand PVT Data

Fed ral J-1
( Pb .
@p
P
@&
&
&;B
.p,~;B
_

(0)
0.180
O.lKI
0.150
0.18!3
0.150
D.130
0.154
0.154
0.150
0.130

1.70
1.72
1.72
1.9D
1.72
;::
lea
1 .9D
1.93

VO1.

start
.ar
Owl f..
orP
S78

Calcl
f$t

430417
314767
7414
4765
98725
119D26
468945
16%21
25643
25933
20642
320212
101128
153722
71811
8213D67

1141
R37

:::
0 .D6
.01
1.57
1.98
0.50
1.11
0.24
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.26

7.2453
1158DD
3m98
227066
121415
185425
266322
177D69
5909$
21199
414557
9am38
119287
5%
29553
28606
S6$87
40117

63o
620
301
1451
626
891
711
1601
229
279
1D45
19D9
677
1077
326
186
317
289
375

1.04
2.55
0.82
0.45
1.05

0.79
1.98
0.62
0.34
0.79

J-1
K-1
LL-2
R-3
S-1

1060205
511535
126393
436739
787611

522163
270813
56189
257686
393m5

675
872
560
538
610

318341
1m809
142946
71.911
812207

atd

mrp
*

1831D6
246668
73%5
7077C43
3e4481
38718D
637459
655552
156235
57674
995812
2142759
326993
1369126
16913D
46W6
5+3964
90675
116550

427784
302541
7414
4765
98436
114739
4613444
17,1161
24966
p&

53]
up
x 10-:t:Si-l

0.20

1.70

0.355

25.9

0.20

1.70

0.368

26.9

0.20

1.70

D.368

22.5

D.20

1.70

0.368

26.9

0.20

1.70

o.36a

25.9

T~DECL1llE
C(RWE MIALYS !S RESULTS
Ud. EVNUATILW

Lm-1
EE-1
FF-1
a-1
26-2
77-1
1-1
KK-1
KK-2
LL-1
0-1
R-3
R-4
s-l
7-1
7-2
T-3
t-4
T-5
(6)
(6)
[6)
(B)
(8)

&R,j-l
x ,0P

;::
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.48

0.77
D.72
0.26
1.39
0.17
0.46
1.44
2.49
0.D6
.01
1.23
1.60
0.38
0 .8T
0.17
0.05
O.ov
0.08
0.19

0;44
2.D6

PVT [Ph . 2705]

.9P

15.7
14.5
13.2
15.0
13.4
11.6
15.6
14.2
14.7
14.7
14.1
15.5

;;
B-1
D-1
E-1

Ford
Ford
Itnth
Math
Math

RII;%8

E-l
@

W3511m

0.647
0.6%
0.677
0.707
0.682
0.6%
0.677
0.638
0.658
0.68?
D.696
0.702

898366
755925
2D959
23350
241168
226619
114768V
394865
73S64
5952D
47709
779935
211699
4D4097
16DSD4
1989906

::%
0.32
0.36
4.06
1.65
D.16
0.23
0.07
1.45
0.18
0.78
0.57
2.57

D.366
D .420
0.40D
0.431
0.405
0.4.3U
0.41317
0.366
0.37.s
0.405
0.420
0.425

ii

A-1
c-l
0-2
F-1
6-1
J+]
K-1
K-4
Q-1
R-1
R-2

,O~?St-l

CO,,

(B)

Pore
kkll

cjii&

1.90
1.9D
1 .9D
1.70
1.70
1.9D
1.70
1.90
1.9D
1.90
1.9D
1.?0

TML[

S--3
rw - -&3

Pw--(ph

- COWERSE

sand PvT Data

Hat h m
P
FA

0.150
0.1S3
0.150
D.224
0.200
0.154
0.180
0.1342
0.150
0.15D
0.150
O.m

A71AIYS Is RESULTS

S.-1
FwO . ..99,?
k-rid

R$B

M-l

CNQBELL

Channel
. 340+3]

~
1+-

~
2

S.O
F = .328
w &ti
__b!L.._

,,0

s~-1
. .892

S.-2
rWB ;-:424

S.-3
. . . ;-gss

~,

S.-4
. 17.90
k-d

::
519
457
2091
685
306
379
266
606
38s
903
613
1209

6.3885
1.3583
0.0922
0.1215
0.7317
0.8621
2.0267
2.4783
0.2979
D.2431
0.1379
3.9593
0.5433
0.7889
0.4917
6,6410

5.43
0.66
O.on
0.07
0.!43
0.45
4.78
1.77
0.19
D.27
0.09
1.93
0.21
0.82
0.69
3.20

4.72
0.57
0.D6
0.05
0.43
0.38
4.20
1.52
0.16
0.22
0.07
1.66
0.18
0.71
0.59
2.79

4.01
0.48
0.05
0.04
0.36
0.31
3.62
1.28
D.13
0.18
0.06
1.413
0.15
0.60
0.50
2.37

3.30
0.39
6.24
0.03
0.28
0.25
3.05
1.03
0.10
0.14
0 .M
1.14
0.11
0.48
0.40
1.96

2.59
0.30
0.02
D.02
0.21
0.18
2.47
0.78
0.07
0.10
0 .0s
D.87
0.08
D.37
0.30
1.54

1,4752
2.1772
0.8641
1.5704
0.6432
0.8319
4.7225
2.3797
0.5687
O.OID1
3.569+3
4.1245
1 .7J79D
4.4526
1.1444
0.3158
0.2787
0.4203
0.6334

1.30
1.28
0.55
2.48
0.32
0.77
2.43
4.72
0.09
0.01
2.46
4.81
0.77
2.82
0.37
0.12
D.2z
0.19
0.38

1.12
1.10
0.46
2.17
0.2.9
0.67

0.93
0.92
0.37
1.85
0.23
0.56
1.75
3.53
0.06
.01
1..s1
3.64
0.55
2.08
D.25
0.08
0.15
D.13

0.75
0.73
0.29
1.54
0.19
0.46
1.41
2.93
0.05
.01
1.48
3.05
0.45
1.71
0.19
0.06
0.12
0.10

0.56
0.55
0.20
1.22
0.14
D.35
1.08
2.34
0.03
.01
1.16
2.46
0.34
1.33
0.14
0.04
0.08
0.07

3.6561
2.3648
0.672@
1.3987
3.8847

1.53
3.49
1.17
D.64
1.52

1.32
3.03

0.26
1.10
2.56

0.15
0.67

:::
1.30

::8
1.09

0.20
0.89
2.07
0.67
0.36
0.87

:::
::H
2.13
4.22
0.64
2.45
0.31
0.10
0.19
0.16
0.32

::8
0.27
D.65

T#6L[

Pore
:8

Mel 1
A-1
c-l
0-2
::;
F-1
FF-1
G-1
R-1
GG-2
H-1
r-l
J-1 (B]
JJ-1
K-l
K-1 (B)
K-4
KK-1
IX-2
LL-1
LL-: (7J)

Ford
Ford
Math
Mdth
ndth

o-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-4
s-1
3-1
T-1
T-2
T-3
1-4
r-5
A-1
B-1
8-1
D-1
E-1

V.31.

(B)

(B)

9659D6
1031482
26689
239354
436544
39437
91D84
237031
791422
461396
734543
821613
1198370
23Z6DD
1338189
W!
694523
195445
72149
154333
lDW;
S2352
659+9
2463%6
585130
374090
1302969
930145
205575
55937
67939
1D778S
145824
362420
27S450
552404
181095
2278011

3CW13L CREEK FIELD

mm
07t FEDEIML

Start
of
kcl ine
OIP
376

Prti.

CRICUI
atcd~

mlP
~_

35586o
325733
7359
34482
128395
6227
375133
74852
249923
145704
231961
338311
599185
103838
4.225E6
325555
169646
183736
72DD6
24682
63548
414267
27187
2602+
20842
778095
309774
118134
4843041
465072
8%40
26D17
26818
34466
49873
272343
101481
152815
66719
719372

. CfiCaATED
DECLINE CURVE
AHUY**S
RESWTS
EE.I (CHANNEL SAfiD) m
m(p).,,
EVALUATION

3564913
3319589
73589
9231D
142234
6227
45148
75141
253505
14s704
231961
34.215D
6Gi3946
1DS125
423067
325555
177106
187379
73541
26150
6687!5
4357413
278715
27641
22D1 )1
7835313
2D9774
1303711
5D457il
46507i!
)12835
34161
282DI
4215tl
5012%
274214
1D18WI
163591
667191
727232

Fact..

,mrL;
r.

}-t

1
3

rw,

S.o
;-~28

r.

$.-1
;-$92

W,

1183

3.34
0.51
0.05
1.73
1.64
0.05
0.68
D.28
2.79
0.39
0.98
3.18
1.78
0.34
3.lD
4.25
1.44
5.02
0.12
0.01
1.43
2.60
0.15
0.21
0.D7
3.12
0.78
0.86
1.82
1.81
0.45
D.15
0.22
0.23
0.48
1.19
0.16
0.68
0.49
2.07

z
721
697
253
335
515
1535
%
815
725
463
2258
967
lifi
256
313
637
ID73
363
447
314
2068
590
712
1137
663
334
205
315
316
420
848
436
939
673
1294

2.91
D.44
0 .0s
1.49
1.41
0.04

S.-2
. 2.424
k-d
2.47
0.37
D.04
1.25
1.18
0.03
0.47
0.2D
2.D9
0.28
D.72
2.31
1.29
0.24
2.36
3.11
1.04
3.75
0.D8
D.01
1.DZ
1.91
O.lD
0.14
0.05
2.36
0.56
0.62
1.35
1.30
D.31
0.10
0.15
D.16
0.34
0.87
D.11
0.50
0.35
1.54

::H
2.44
0.34
0.85
2.75
1.54
0.29
2.73
3.68
1.24
4.38
0.10
D.01
1.22
2.25
0.12
0.17
0.D6
2.74
0.67
0.74
1.59
1.56
::fi
0.18
0.19
D.41
1.D3
D.14
0.59
0.42
1..91

S.-3
rw ;-:588

2.D4
0.31
0.03
1.D1
0.95
D.D3
0.36
D.16
1.74
0.23
D.59
1.88
:::
1.99
2.55
D.85
3.12
0.24
.00
0.83
1.57
0.08
D.11
0.03
1.98
D .45
D.50
1.11
1.D5
D.24
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.26
0.71
0.09
D.41
0.29
1.27

r.
_

5 .-4
- 17.90

l=

3.60
ID. 24
10.02
,0.77
ID.72
ID.02
IO. 26
10.12
1.39
10.17
ID.46
1.44
10.79
lD.14
1.61
1.98
ID.65
,2.49
10.04
.00
lD.62
1.23
10.06
lD.08
ID. 02
I..sa
(). 34
(1. 38
17.87
(0.79
(1.17
11.05
17.08
(1.D8
11.19
(0.54
13.D6
10.32
().22
1[.01

Pore
Mel 1

!ll
1104447
Il::u;

o-2
20-1
EE-3
F-1
FF- 1
6-1
GG-1
6s-2
H-3
1-1
.3-1 (8)
.3J-l
K-1
K-1 (8)
K-4
KK-1
KK-2
LL-1
U-;
(6)
o-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-3
t-4
s-3
S-1
7-1
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
Ford
F.ar.J
Nath
Math
Math

::
8-3
g:;

vol.

(8)

(8)

318987
536453
353sa
317453
272285
861264
503362
824839
1189435
1198370
313464
1485687
614938
603332
974655
169D18
80723
154330
1243778
111093
3D143
72243
2775676
585130
409477
151U57
930345
264622
73903
81065
120935
162D61
966636
32W561
617476
2D8739
2530551

or
start
Decli,w
OIP
3T8

Mel 1

625927
4672o1
10429
139319
18$666
7216
55934
113337
353993
2Q6454
34D751
562571
599163
15%62
2&w1
325555
246261
257865
60485
35694
63568
6343&1
37786
26793
29487
1132929
309774
167133
721170
465072
33s313
40263
41380
46969
7166D
396443
152U2
218427
99393
3041041

E
528560
473427
10429
137147
202503
7216
63572
313426
357575
206454
340751
356410
6DD946
163949
607312
325555
253721
261424
R202D
37162
66875
656D53
38475
3n42a
2Q656
113$372
309714
179370
745703
466D72
158306
48409
42743
56641
719Q3
397314
152%7
229203
29393
1048301

atd

,&
__
1265
994
216
832
;:
3m
552
1207
717
11D53
%0
725
539
2.38D
w 7
l~g
:331
(537
3 ][69
:377
1167
32.9
21174
W3
],45
12!26
C*3
4102
2!36
w
348
4143
::
9193
1;5

Factor
kh
~T
in +o-~

D-2
ml
EE-1
F-l
FF-I
G-1
GG-1
GG-2
H-1
1-1
J-1 (B)
JJ-1
K-1
K-1 (8)
K-4
KK-1
KK-2
LL-1
L~:;
(B)
o-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-3
8-4
3-1
s-1
T-1
T-2
T-3
r-4
T-5
&l
B-l
8-1
D-1
E-1

Ford
Ford
Hath
16ath
Math

(B)

(B)

892%8
824552
22683
183104
346666
31525
73965
231125
707713CI
324481
587180
637459
1040805
187219
1196626
511535
420253
655552
156235
57674
12838D
995812
82586
65831
52758
2203310
485739
338993
1165131
787611
1691 5D
46D26
68966
9D675
116550
797412
2?0189
418718
153946
2018793

rw,

s-o
. .328
~~
6.77
1.D3
D.13
3.10
2.91
0.10
1.28
0.57
:::

::%
1.78
0.64
6.29
4.25
2.79
12.61
0.23
0.02
1.43
5.35
0.30
0.41
0.13
6.33
D.78
3.72
3.73
1.81
::
0.45
0.42
0.97
2.43
0.33
1.29
::U

,W:

: :j92
k -md

w
0.D3
2.68
2.51
D .09
1.09
D .49
::%
1.72
4.96
1.54
:.:
3:68
2.41
11.05
D.19
0.01
1.22
4.65
D.25
0.35
0.13
5.57
0.67
1.49
3.23
1.56
0.71
0.24
0.34
D.36
0.22
2.10
0.28
1.12
0.84
3.64

~
328988
264385
6208
64625
1D1961
4978
30456
72987
223484
121415
185425
262483
5206D2
81164
377882
270813
13406D
173426
57550
19731
52862
393D84
21733
2D789
16661
695782
257686
107050
429259
393eJ35
73757
214D7
27223
28995
39872
251814
81122
115816
56717
637513

rwO .2;;24
k-red
5.D2
D.76
D .07
2.26
2.11
D.07
0.89
0.41
4.25
0.57
1.46
4.20
1.29
0.45
4.79
3.11
2.03
9.50
0.15
0.01
1.02
w
0.29
0.09
4.81
0.56
1.25
2.75
1.30
0.58
0.19
0.31
0.29
0.68
1.78
0.23
0.95
0.71
3.31

,Wm .6j82
k-rid
4.15
0.62
D .06
1.83
1.71
D,05
D .69
0.32
3.54
D.46
1.2D
3.43
w
:::
1.65
7.95
0.12
0.01
0.82
3.26
0.16
0.?3
O.D7
4.D4
0.45
1.01
2.2?
1.05
0.46
D.14
D.24
D.23
0.34
1.45
0.18
0.7.9
0.57
2.57

,=-4
.Ws . 17.90
k-Id
3.28
0.48
0.IL!4
1.41
1.31
0 .1s4
0.!5D
0.?4
2.1!3
0.:35
D .*34
2.(57
0.;19
0.$!7
3.i!9
1.98
1 .1!7
6 .41D
D.(18
D .03
D.ti2
2.56
0.1,1
0.17
0.015
3.28
0.3U
0.17
1.19
0.79
0.313
0.10
0.17
0.16
0.39
1.12
0.13
D.63
D.44
2.04

POP, Vol .
Mel 1

{B

A-1

c-1
0-2

DO-1
EE-1
F-1
FF-1
G-1
GG-1
GG-2
H-1
1-1
J-1
JJ-1
K-1
K-1
K-4
KK-1
KK-2
LL-1
LL-2
o-1
0-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-4
s-1
S-1
7-1
T-2
T-3
7-4
T-5
Ford
Ford
FFdth
I!dth
Math

A-1

8-1
8-1
D-1
E-1

(8)

(B)

(B)

( B]l

(8]1

898346
755925
20959
228179
427729
?3350
87951
241168
669523
351874
551330
868886
1D408D5
226419
1147688
511535
394845
679465
11162D
53310
12838Q
1D44348
73364
59530
47709
2142759
486739
324438
1169126
787611
205561
57427
67547
106495
1D7026
779935
211699
4D4097
15J38134
1989306

3CHGi3L CREEK FIELD - cUcuL47ED

DECLINE
071 FEDERAL EF. I Pvr (CHANNEL SAND) km

Prcd.

Cal

all
ated -kl.

031P
S73

fzt

331621
266611
6208
72453
115W3
4978
387398
73276
227D66
121415
185425
266322
522163
85451
378383
270813
141520
177D69
59095
21199
56189
414557
22422
22424
17830
701225
257686
119287
453792
393805
96952
29553
28606
36687
40117
253685
81441
126592
56717
645373

1138
843
189
63D
620
226
301
508
1451
626
891
717
675
415
2135
872
7D7
15D1
229
279
580
1045
324
399
28o
1936
538
677
1075
610
326
186
317
289
375
815
390
817
620
1218

CWE
AINALYSM
(TR - p,, f)tu~<

RE3ULTS
EVALUMTIDM

Factor

In :,-

12

s-o
r. k:m;328

5 . -:1
r. k:tiU92

S.-2
r,,, . 2.424
k-d

3.6139
0.8197
D.0545
1.4752
2.1712
0.0733
D.8641
0.3945
1.5704
D.6432
0.8319
&.7225
3.6561
0.52D2
1.1643
2.3648
I .5559
2.3797
0.5687
0.0101
0.6708
3.569D
0.1798
0.1467
0.0832
2.3694
1,3987
1 .079G
2.5579
3.8847
1.144*
0.3158
0.2787
D.4203
0.6334
2.2459
0.3279
0.4842
D.2939
3.7751

3.07
0.40
0.05
1.3D
1.28
0.04
0.55
D.27
.?.48
0.3?
0.77
2.43
1.53
D.27
2.75
3.49
1.12
4.72
0.09
0.01
1.17
2.46
0.12
0.16
0.D5
2.77
0.54
0.77
1.62
1.52
0.37
0.12
0.22
0.19
0.38
1.10
0.13
0.51
n.41
1.82

2.67
D.35
D.D6
1.12
I.1O
0.03
0.46
0.23
2.17
0.28
0.67
2.09
1.32
0.23
2.42
3.02
0.96
4.12
0.D8
0.01
1.DD
2.13
O.lD
D.14
0.04
2.43
0.55
0.66
1.41
1.30
0.31
0.10
0.19
0.16
0.32
0.95
0.11
0.44
0.36
1.59

S.-3
PW- . 6.588
k-md

2.27
0.29
0.D3
0.93
0.92
0.D3
0.37
0.19
1.85
0.23
0.56
1.75
I.lD
0.19
2.D9
2.55
0.81
3.53
0.06
.OD
0.84
1.81
0.08
0.11
0.04
2.09
0.46
0.55
I.lq
1.09
0,25
0.08
0.15
0.13
0.26
0.80
0.D9
D.37
0.30
1.35

,.-4
,W, - 17.90
k-d

1.87
0.24
0.02
D.75
D.73
D.02
0.29
0.15
1.54
0.19
0.46
1.41
0.89
0.15
1.76
2.07
D.65
2.93
0.05
.00
0.61
1.48
0.06
0.09
0.03
1.75
0.36
0,45
0.98
0.87
0.19
0.D6
0.12
0.10
0.20
0.65
0.07
0.30
0.24
1.11

1.47
0.18
0.01
D.56
0.55
0.01
0.?0
0.11
1.22
0.14
0.35
1.D8
0.67
0.11
1.42
1.60
0.49
2.34
0.03
.00
0.50
1.16
0.D4
0.06
0.D2
1.42
0.27
0.34
D.77
0.7,5
0.14
0.04
0.D8
0.07
0.15
0.50
D.05
0.23
0.18
0.88

3CHGf3L cREEK FIELD - CALCULATED E2FCL1NE CI,RW ANAL v313 RESULTS

8A3ED ON MATHEsON E-1 PVT (cHANNEL SANO) AND (~~ - pwf)tu~
EV6LUATION

TA31LE 8

Prod.
Calcul

mrp

start
of
Oecljme
OIP

PoPe Vol .

3CHDDL CREEK FIELD - CNCULflTEO OECLINE cWE

ANALY313 RESULTS
86SED OIH MA770ESON E-1 PVT (CHA!WL
SAND) AND .( P) O,,
EVMUATION

8AsEn

TA2LE 6

Start
of
Oeclt,e
DIP
ST8
427784
308541
7414
92505
144503
4765
41882
98436
273275
143622
225L333
410959
5204D2
114739
468644
270813
361161
179753
53152
23572
52862
532831
2495*
?4298
19473
874595
257686
132424
556727
393805
104878
31253
34463
39845
47324
318341
lL3D2J29
142946
71811
812207

calculated
GQIP
318

43D417
314767
7414
10D333
158342
4765
49524
98725
276857
143622
225033
414798
522163
119026
468945
270813
168621
183396
54687
25040
56189
554304
25643
25933
20642
88DD38
257686
144661
581260
3938D5
123Q73
39399
35846
47537
47569
32D212
101128
153722
71811
82DD67

f:t
1141
8D7
182
703
689
194
329
519
1412
599
864
837
675
457
2091
872
685
1528
193
268
1:%
38+
379
Ikt
:;
1077
610
359
2D8
314
313
360
8D6
382
903
613
1209

Prod.
~

Factor
*=0

1 .IIk:d328
12,-7
6.3885
1.3583
0 .D922
2.4199
3.6663
0.1215
1.4626
0.7317
2.7337
1.D831
1.3786
7.8005
3.6561
D.8621
2.0267
2.3648
2.4783
4.3254
0.9425
0.0168
0.67D8
6.4343
0.2979
0.2431
D.1379
4.1245
1.3987
1.8896
4.4526
3.8867
1.96D9
0.5412
0.4618
0.7395
1.M96
3.9593
0.5433
0.7989
0.4917
6.6410

5.43
D.66
0.08
2.17
2.18
0.07
0,94
D.50
4.3D
D.54
1.27
4.09
1.53
0.45
4.78
3.49
1.77
8.59
D.15
0.01
1.17
4.44
0.19
D.27
0.09
4.R1
0.24
1.34
2.82
1.52
0.64
0.21
0.37
0.34
0.62
1.?3
0.21
0.82
D.69
3.20

%=-l
rw . .892
k-red

4.72
D.57
0.06
1.67
1.38
D.05
0.79
0.43
3.75
0.46
1.10
3.54
1.32
D.38
4.2cI
3.02
1.52
7.51
0.32
0.01
::fi
0.16
0.22
0.07
4.22
0.55
1.35
2.45
1.30
0.54
0.18
0.31
0.28
0.52
1.66
0.18
0.71
0.59
2.79

rw,
._

%=-z
. 2.424
Ik-md
,4. D1
0.48
[1 .05
11.56
11.57
0.D4
0.65
0.36
3.21
[1. 39
cl. 93
2.98
1.10
01.31
31.62
?.55
1.28
6.43
01.lD
DI.01
01.84
3.27
0.13
D.18
D.06
3.64
D.46
0.97
2.08
1.09
0.44
0.14
0.25
0.23
0.43
1.40
D.15
D.60
(3.50
2.37

c.

S.
-3,..4
;.~58.9
3.3D
0.39
O.M
1.26
1.27
0.03
0.50
0.28
2.66
0.31
D.75
2.42
D .69
0.25
3 .D5
2.07
1.03
5.35
0.07
0.D1
0.67
2.69
O.lD
0.14
0.24
3,05
D.36
D.78
1.71
0.87
:::
0.19
0.18
D.33
1.14
0.11
0.48
0.40
1.96

r,

;-~.90

2.59
0.3o
0.D2
D.96
0.96
0.D2
0.35
0.21
2.11
0.23
0.58
1.86
0.67
0.18
2.47
1.60
D.78
4.27
0.05
.00
0.5D
2.lD
0.07
0.10
0.03
2.46
0.27
D.59
1.33
D.65
D .25
D.07
0.14
D,12
D.24
0.R7
0.08
0.37
0.30
1.54

TMLE
EXWLE

OF EFFECT

FR _ 3500 PSi ; Pb .2705

144tch Pdnt.
q(t)

. .... . .

,Pam

OF BACKPAESSORE
CHANGE
FEOERAl
A-1

ON DECLINE

EXMPLE

OF EFFECT

CM - 0.212

1000
BOPN
=
0.220

4645.5

0.212

o,.

BOP?;

[I

0.212

:
4
5
6

4545.5 60PU

backpressure

chmge

1400

pSi a to

1069

pSt#

@ t

@ t

1 ma . 3701 BOPN (See

Figure

[41

@t.17mo

q Total

[21+[51+r61

x [27

BOPU

776
687
61D

;:
ql

@t.12m0

Colmn

BOP14

BOPN

9)

64
;:
16
17
18
19
20

%
43B
395
357
324
295

si
59
60
61

zi
25
?4

41
37
33
30
27
25

;
46
42
3a
35

31s
258
215
181
15s
1s1
113
96
85

434
358
296
250

5.41. q
(FR

Pb)+(Pb2

3500.

P~12)

2705)+(27052

14002)

2pb

2(2705)

Second S+ckpres sure chang? 1069 psla

to

100

P2;:21
3

pst a @ t

10692
H

.tq . q
[ (TR

Ph)+(F~

Pti~2)l

2P,]

-3701

~35C0~

Cum (BO):

16 months

2705)+(27052.

14002j2(2705)

&

A-1
c-I
o-2
F-1

36475
3642B

o-i
R-1
k?
A-1
0-1
B-1
o-1
E-1

Incl

tic

F1 cuing

Reserves

Recovery

Fortcast
STR

Factor
Percent

33719
26692
1032
648
6343
11122
.,. ..
.,.5.
3357
3926
2043
27536

528560
473427
10429
7216
111425
163949
... .
.. ...7.,

Jt;
K.&

3Y3fl
152%7
229203
99399
1M8901

2:Z
5662
64832

92S10
142234
45148
253EQ5
145704
231%1
342160
1B7379
73541
26150
435740
130371
112835
34163
28201
421%
50124

14182
23130
9430
28527
13280
22243
57236
19mo
13769
3472
44069
21311
28751
7925
7352
9431
6165

3,191

ANO ULTIMATE RECOVERY

Pressure

mlp
STS

EE-1
FF-1
60-1
6&2
n-l
1-1
KK-I
KK-2
LL-1
0-1
R-4
T-1
T-2
T-3
;:

Reserves
Forecast
576

......

53769
5999s
12373
10%71
B1207
. . .. ..

(B+C)
%
[B)
66875
( B+C) 1093312
(WC)
969646
~
s

Grand

Total
S

9621391

Total

Percent

Recovery

Factor

Reserves

Percent

Forecast
S76

10.3
1::;
17.8
9.4
10.2

1?:3
5.7
6.B
8.6
8.7
10.4
6.7
6.9

i~.~
13.1
15.4
10.0
11.0
1!::
7.9

s!:
5.7

20.8
22.3
26.0
15.1
11.8
12.0
24.2
17.5
23.3
16.4
14.6
19.2
31.2
28.2
25.7
27.3
15.4
T

:::
16.7
10.2
lB.7
13.3
10.6
16.3
25.5
23.2
26.1
22.4
12.3
8.9
1:::
10.0
+

2W36
25692
10s2
4E:
10B85
Z1ZB7.
3357
3966
2063
240%
2!?%
5662
60117

l-w
15.4
16.3
20.9
11.3

-,

627830

9..2

Reserves

Total

R~y

6.4
5.6

J-i (3;

Initial
PWfl

Changes

Totals

00-1

K-1
LL-2
R-3
3-1
Sub T@#)

2,320

10

OF SCHOOLCREEKFIELO 00IP

OOIP

kkl
1

Sub Total

3,25o

434 op

Can

Sub

2.344

TMLE
SWIARY

Ford
Ford
Nath
Nath
N6th

27,714

(PAA)

i
7
6
6
6

- IO@

.,.,*.,
.,.,..,

522163
739756
66189
113?724
975065
mlUtn
-. W>,
816S493
~

Total

70643
737B0
13421
134702
102313
.7,.0,,
1049630
ml

13%7
22091
9295
26719
13131
22243
54423
1501B
13769
3472
S9046
20205
~229
77B2
7352
919B
6165

13.5
10.0
23.9
11.8
10.5

12.9

819464

SPE

ROPN

S701
3050
2540
2135
lB1l
1548
1332
1154
mo6
RBl
776
1000
368
759
668
591

1811
1548
1332
1154
lo&

1:
11

11 wnths

(1
4s4

3701

[31

column

3701
3050
254D
21S5

Fi Mt

BOPH

no-l

bc+tllfb
c1+ 0.0636t]3-333

x [2]

{}
-

lMO

s
.

AND RECOYEi7r

,77
,,,

Mz

313

ql
q(t)

CHANGE ON OECL INE

A-1

r3]
w
~

OF BACKPRESSURE
FEDERAl

PSi

b = 0.30:

. 1000 BOW; qo,j . 0.220

t = 1 m;

,-

RECOVERY

14237

::
72o
630

..---Riww

19

MUOOY FORMATION
TYPE LOG

OJ

WHw
i~ :
( \,4

II

Mm

-1-

lRNaawsNE
OMR!IC! DAR

JJ 1

2i---E-E

c<

..-,,

%%7

- CHANNELBAND)PVT SAMPLE
BAR .&m

----

NJ

PVT 3JMPLE

\
\

#
I

T3

?2

.
RI

&

:El

/1

801

;5

i
I

:K2

C~MPB~LL-CO.

-1
i?Kl I
I

CONVERSE CO.

31GQ2 %Gl
/

/1
Ii

-L
E-l,
PCOCRRLJ-1. ~
IuTliUOII C-1. ~
T-alrF

>

~~1

I /

b. l-SChOOI

I
36
- CHANNEL SAND)PVT SAMPLE

Crnkliekl

wdlhuIlonnwp,

Bole.

lm.
le.

1clw9aL1am.1%7uw.*
lba-lmn-tmsuf/.*
t-l
)aOn-~/otb

E=EE!R5
1

H---t+*-t-i
!

----------7
K I
?
~

1 .s

:~:
1.0

A
T

u-

.0

0.1

1 .s

i
:

,
1
!.
v

.
1

moo

Pnu9umE.

I
C,
PRNMILIT7.

Mmolrnc
Rarm:c

O.O1O

WmnOl

Avana

O.aom
O.\*

:
1

10

12

j,-

Pm0cx7Y-x

mm

spE

14737

.
l o-t
-,

~+,

K-3

E-<
A Oe- t

O B-1

B-1

O
*
x
0

R-4
K-4
H-1
OQ-2
Q-*
4 A-2
O A-1

T-6
c-1
0-1
J-1
0 DD-I
v

*
Y

%
-1-

a.

,,

1*

:,03-.

,
d.

b+

b= O.300

.301

TIME
I*. ~1.m

b=O

SdmdCmkfidd
10g40gtype

CM..

T I ME
FIs. 8Flnal

&h<ml

Cr~kfleldl

lW1mtywcuwe.

10,00(

14
FEDERAL O-1

13

MATCH POINT

12

q~OOOBOpM ;qDd=0.231
t-l mo ; tDd=0.178

11

b-O.30

-- .---

PERMEABIUTY
~

4=

b=O.30

MONTH
ONE
APRIL 1982
\

FEDERAL A1

10(

200

10

=J

400
600 =
WOO 1200
1400
BOTl?WIHOLE FLOWN(; PRESSURE P9A

Fig.
858.81tlvlly
FIE. 7-

OaelbM

xpomm

b. 0.30

ntabllslmd

from

rato.tl..

din..

01 cmlc.1.ted

percent

recovery

md

parrneablllty

t. MWWIOI.

flowing

1600

pr.wure

FEDERAL

FEDERAL A-1

A-1

MATCH POINT
l(t)4000 BOPM ; ql)d- 0.220
t-t mo ; t13d-0.212
b-O.30

1001o

t+

[{
q lOTAL (@t-l mo)-747 BOPM
c~Aq *(@t-l mo)-434 BCIPM

z
$

\
\\

\\

I$

ORIGINIAL FIT OBTAINIED BEFORE

BACK PRESSURE ICHANGES
b=O.30

_.

REINITIIALI ED AFTER SECOND

BACK PRESSIJRE CHANGE AT
t=16 MONTHS
b=O.40

100

1010

30

lFl~.SExamph

TIME, MONTHS
cd effect of badQreuure

30

II
100
TIME. MONTHS

changes on resoveq.

10000

FEDERAL K-1
CHANNEL SAND
MATCH POINT

q .1000 BOPM;

qod - 0.5810

t -1 mo; tDd= 0.134

CHANNEL SAND
PRODUCTION O~LY

&
.

MONTH ONE
JUNE 1982

10(

0
Fh.

11-Rafe-tim.

dalk

for a well commlnghd

vdlh amthu r.wvdr.

1(

1000

.,
:
[ .x

(el%m) Ollva-llo/sv9

k--

(91s/43s)

>
L
d
z
0

WJdW b

Oliw

llo/svo

200000-

200000-

SCHOOL CREEK FIELD

NORTHERN WELLS

SCHOC)L
1811000-

160000-

160000-

140[)00-

FIELD

WELLS

140000-

g
$

CREEK

SOL2THERN

180000-

~
,20(,00.

u
e

,20000

8
K!

o
~

J\

100000-

;
q

80000-

2
0

60000-

400100

40000-

200100

20000r

00

20
REcovEw;A&

m. 1S-lndivldudl

well

Wak

GOR

PUWKI,IIC,,

22

24

26

0-

28

) ~
/

&z5_

10
12
14 N
RECOVERY FACTOR (%!

d
bmml

m(~)

OOIP,

calcuhtul

Fb. ~a-ltibw..l

well wk=nprb-~,

OPREOICTEO FLOWRATE BASEDON

9nnntX

q.
zQ

&z)lo

.J4R2.

OR
qo
q. MAX

>

~>>~mRAIGHT-LINE

\ \\

.
!

%,

#\ ,
20

40

SO

80

100

A;\
120

1S0

tio

-x,

200

22o

PRODUCING RATS BOPD

Fig. 17-COmpwlum

cd Inflow

puionnmce

~R

AI,\ ,

~\
140

[()]

EXTRAPOLATION

\
\,

,_&2

equml.as.

\ -,

240

280

2S0

-\\
300

320

-onm(p)cabmld

:!0 22
OOIP.

24

26

28