Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SPE 21272
Estimating Gas Desorption Parameters From Devonian Shale
Well Test Data
H.S. Lane, Texas A&M U.; D.E, Lancaster, S.A, Holditch &Assocs. inc.; and A.T. Watson,
Texas A&M U.
SPE Members
was
prepsred for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held Irr Columbus, Ohio, CICtObW31-November 2, 19S0.
kIis paper wee selected for preeenlafion by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an sbetrac: aubmifted by the author(s), Contente of the pqMr,
IS presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(e). The material, as presented, doee not necessarily reflect
my positionof the society of Petroleum Engineere, ite offlcare, or mambers. Papera presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
)f PetroleumEngineers. Perm@ion to copy ie restrictedto an sbatractof not more than 200 wor@. Iliuefrafionsmay notbe mpied. The abstractshouldcontainconspicuousacknowtedgmenf
~fwhere and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publication Manager, SPE, P.O. Sox S3333S, Richardson, TX 75083-3S3S U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
has been reported that the total gas production for a well
producing from a formation containing adsorbed gas can be
an order of magnitude higher than that for a well producing
from a conventional formation of similar properties.12 It is
thus very desirable to properly account for adsorbed gas
when modeling Devonian shale reservoirs.
INTRODUCTION
The Devonian shales of the eastern United States are
considered a major potential source of do
tic natural gas,
contsinin an estimated 1860 to 2580 scf of gaa.l *2 It is
believed t% at natural gas is stored iJ
e Devonirm shales
as both conventional {free gas and a- adsorbed gas, or
as that is physically attached to the surface of the shales
t y Van der Waals-type forces. The existence of adsorbed
gss in the Devonian shales is usually sasociated with the
presence of kerogen,3 a coal-like orgmic material, as well
as with certain clay minerals such as illite4 which may be
major constituents of the shale,
In a previous study, the authors investigated the feasibility of characterizing gas desorption in the Devonian
shales from an analysis of production data.lO~l113 While
it was determined that quantitative estimates for gas desorption parameters could be obtained from a production
data history match (and that the presence of gaa desorption
could be detected statlsticrdly under certain condhions),
the uncertainty associated with these parameter estimates
was judged to be unsatisfactory. In this paper, the feasibllity of detecting and estimating gas desorption parameters
from an analysis of Devonian shale well-test data is examined. Objective, statistically-based techniques are used for
estimating gas desorption parameters, evaluating the accuracy of the resulting parameter estimates, and determining whether the presence of gas desorption can be detected
from measured well-test pressure data. Both drawdown
and buildup tests are investigated, and a deso tion specific well-test design is proposed. The results in3 cate that
it is possible to characterize gas desorption from a well test
with r~onable
accuracy.
BACKGROUND
It has been noted that significant quantities of Devonian shale gas may exist as adsorbed gaa.6-g The amount
of gas stored in the adsorbed state is a function of the free
,.
ESTIMATING
gas equilibrium pressure. Under theassumption ofisothermal conditions, this functional relationship can usually be
modeled by the Langmuir isotherm:
blp
Varf, =
1 + bzp
en=
**97*
DESORPTION
(1)
Pmuncter
Estimation
(4)
where the vector IZn,contains a set. of measured well-test
data and ~, contains corresponding values from a numerical reservoir simulator. The weighting matrix, W, is specified so that maximum likelihood estimates are obtained for
the unknown parameters, P. For well-test pressure data,
measurement errors are assumed to be independent and
identically distributed so that W can be set equal to the
identity matrix. Eq. 4 is minimized subject to a set of constraints (upper and lower bounds) that are impc.sed on the
estimated parameter. Details of the constrained mininlizattifi procedure are reported elsewhere. *416
(2)
It is well known that multiple local minima are often encountered when solving nonlinear least-squares minimization problems. This means that, depending upon the
.
initial estimates for the parameters ~ supplied by the user,
the minimization of Eq. 4 may terminate at a local minimum rather than at the desired global minimum, giving rise
to potentially large errors in the resulting parameter estimates. To overcome thk problem, a multistart approach is
employed whereby the minimization algorithm is initiated
from several carefully selected starting points (sets of initial
parameter estimates). Details of this multistart procedure
are given in Ref. 15.
where dvad,/dp,
the slope of the isotherm, can be readily
determined from Eq. 1. Note that Eq. 3 assumes radial gas
flow and homogeneous reservoir properties.
Bumb and McI<ee12 derived an approximate solution
to a form of Eq. 3 in order to examine gas-well testing in the
presence of desorption, They evaluated the pressure dependent pro erties (including dV=~,/dp) at an average pressure
so that t! e equation could be linearized and solved analytically. Their results indicated that in the presence of gas
desorption, semilog plots of pseudopressure vs. pseudotime
were similar in shape to those for systems without adsorbed
gas, While they did not attempt to determine (estimate)
the desorption isotherm from well-test data, they concluded
that desorption could not be detected from a single-well
production test. They further concluded that the effect of
desorption would show up as an increased effective compressibility, which is equivalent to a negative skin factor for
a production well. Bumb and McKees study considered
only pressure drawdown tests for infinite-acting systems.
Parameter Accuracies
R(servoir parameter estimates obtained from a history
match of well-test data will contain various levels of estimation error or uncertainty. These parameter errors will
depend on the level of measurement noise present in the
data, the sensitivity of the numerical reservoir model to
small changes in the estimated parameter values, the degree
of correlation that exists among the estimated parameters,
and the number and range of the available data. Two methods are used to analyze these parameter errors: a linearized
covariance analysis and a Monte Carlo analysis.
In this study, the method of nonlinear parameter estimation (or automatic history matching) is used to analyze
well-test data in order to detect and estimate gas desorption. A numerical reservoir simulator is employed so that
nonlinear, pressure-dependent gas properties can be properly accounted for. This approach allows for a much more
rigorous (and accurate) analysis of well-test data, since the
parameter estimation process does not rely on a subjective
(i.e., visual) analysis of the data but is instead based on
sound statistical principles. To our knowledge, the estimation of gas desorption parameters from well-test data has
not previously been addressed.
rcl
n.a.
,ZLLIL
LANL,
V.L.
WIiLSUN
Depending on the structure of the hierarchy of candidate modelst however, it may not always bc possible to
determine a single most appropriate model for describing
a set of well-test data. This situation may arise if one or
more pairs of candidate models are non-nested. For example, in Fig. 2 the 1P,D2 and lP,S models are both nested
with the most complete reservoir model ( 1P,D2,S , but they
are not nested with each other. That is, neit Ler model
contains the other since the each have unknown parameters that the other does not { the lP,S model includes skin
while the 1P,D2 model includes the desorption parameters).
Thus, the F-test cannot be used to directly compare these
two non-nested models. It is therefore possible that all the
other candidate reservoir models in the hierarchy could be
discarded on the basis of repeated F-tests? leaving these
two non-nested models as remaining candidates. If this
case were to arise, then additional independent information would be required to select the more appropriate of
the two models, so we would say that the effects of gas desorption could not be differentiated from skin effects on the
basis of the history match.
Model Selection
When analyzing a set of well-test data, an engineer will
typically have several different candidate reservoir models
at his disposal, all of which may be consistent with the
information available about the reservoir. While each candidate model will have a different set of unknown reservoir
parameters (which must be estimated from the data), the
most appropriate model for describing the data may not
be readily apparent. Choosing an appropriate model, however, is a very important task since an inappropriate selection may lead to parameter estimates that provide a poor
representation of the actual reservoir system.
RESULTS
Hypothetical pressure data were analyzed to determine
if gas desorption could be detected and/or estimated accurately from a well-test. Both drawdown and buildup tests
were analyzed, and based on the results of those analyses a
desorption-specific well-test design was proposed. The results from a simulated desorption-specific test suggest that
it is possible to characterize gas desorption from a well test
with reasonable accuracy, even in the presence of wellbore
storage and skin effects.
For each well-test scenario considered, a numerical gasreservoir simulato~ was used to simulate pressure data
that included the effects of gas desorption (as well as other
effects such as wellbore storage and skin). Random, normal deviates were then added to the simulated data to obtain measured well-test data. These measured data were
then history matched with the various candidate reservoir
models shown in Fig. 2. Parameter accuracies were then
evaluated and F-tests were erformed to determine if gas
desorption could be detecte J and/or estimated accurately
from the well-test analysis,
Note that the hierarchy in Fig. 2 does not contain parameters representing wellbore storage or boundary effects.
While these additional parameters can be easily included
in the hierarch , their effects are usually obvious from a visual analysis o ? well-test data and so statistically testing for
their presence is usually not required. On the other hand,
the effects of desorption and skin ma not be obvious from
the data, so those parameters are inc 1uded in the hierarchy
in order to determine if they can be detected statistically
from the history matches.
The base parameter values used in simulating the welltest data are iisted in Table 1. For each scenario considered
(e.g., drawdown or buildup, finite- or infinite-acting, with
or without skin and wellbore storage), four different sets
of desorption parameters were used and four sets of welltest data were simulated so that the effects of varying the
desorption isotherm could be examined. The desorption
isotherms corresponding to these four parameter sets are
shown in Fig. 3. Note that the adsorbed gas content at the
initial reservoir pressure (accountin for a proximately 70%
of the total gas in place) is identlc
~for t~efour isotherms;
11s
.
ESTIMATING
GAS DESORPTION
.WQf)M
... .. lM?VIWJTAN
--.
v..
. .
PARAMETERS
-----
---
..
-..
12nm
OEu
Qlf)?n
LLL,
within about 570 of the true forecsst (these results are not
shown here).
only the shape of the isotherm is varied. While all four sets
of resulting well-test data were analyzed for each scenario
considered, we present only detailed results for Case 3, the
intermediate desorption isotherm.
Drawdown Tests
We first simulated an ideal, constant-rate (q=60 Mcfd ,
finite-acting drawdown test which contained neither weli bore storage nor skin effects. Fig. 4 shows that several
thousand hours of data were required for the effects of the
closed outer boundary to be apparent for all four of the
isotherms studied. Random errors were added to these
simulated data and the resulting measured data were hlstory matched using the candidate reservoir models shown
in Fi .2 (with an additional unknown parameter representing tf e drainage radks, r~). Selected history matches for
Case 3 are shown in Fig. 5 and the corresponding parameter estimates are listed in Table 2. For convenience, we will
use the notation fror ~ Fig. 2 when referring to the various
candidate reservoir n Iodels.
A visual snalysis of Fig. 5 suggests that only the simplest reservoir model in the hierarchy (1P) was inadequate
for describing the measured data. The remaining candidate
models all provided essentially identical fits of the data, as is
indicated by their similar residual performance index values
(see column ~ -~Table 2). Using these residual values, the
model selection procedure suggests that either the lP,D1
or the lP,S model are appropriate for describing the datty
as discussed previously, however, the F-test cannot be used
to compare these two models directly since they are nonnested. This indicates that the effects of gas desorption
cannot be dkitinguished from skin effects when analyzing
these drawdown data, even though a skin factor was not
used in simulating the data.
Of particular interest in Table 2 are the desorption
psrameter estimates obtained for the 1P,D2 model (i.e., the
model used to simulate the data as well as for the model
chosen by the F-test (lP,D1). J ote that when the 1P,D2
model is used to match the data, significant errors arise
in both desorption parameter estimates (bl and b2). The
desorption isotherm defined by these parameter values is
plotted in Fig. 6, along with the linear isotherm estimated
from the lP,D1 model. Wile neither estimated isotherm
appears to provide a good approximation to the true but
presumed unknown) isotherm, we note that the shape o 1 the
estimated isotherms are similar to the true shape at high
pressures. This is shown more clearly in Fig. 7, in which
the estimated isotherm slopes are plotted as functions of
pressure.
Ideal infinite-acting drawdown tests were also examined by analyzing only the first 500 hours of data from the
finite-acting case. .Par~eter uncertah+ties for the infiniteacting case, including estimates for the Isotherm slope, were
only slightly larger than those for the finiteactin~ case,
while the model selection procedure produced identical resuits (i.e., the effects of skin and desorption could not be
differentiated). Production forecasts based on the hhtory
matchln results, however, indicate that while the 1P,D2
and 1P,8 1 models again do a reasonable job of accurately
forecasting 35-year production behavior (for twsumed values of pW~ and re ), the lP,S model provides a forecast that
underpredicts the true production by about 30% (see Fi .$)
despite an estimated skin factor that is within 1% o f the
estimate for the finite-acting lP,S case. These results confirm that it was the presence of boundary effects in the
data that enabled the lP,S model to provide an accurate
forecast for the finite-acting case, llmthermore, the forecasts in Fig. 8 suggest that for the infinite-acting case, it
may be very important to acquire additional independent
information in order to help differentiate between skin and
desorption effects.
116
SPE
M.K
-----
21272
I.Attll?.
-.-,->
1).l?.
----
i.AtJ17ASTER.
A-T------
MATSON
distin shed from skin effects for the ideal buildup case,
provi r ed skin is zero.
Table 5 indicates that the desorption parameter estimates for the chosen model (1P,D2) are much closer to the
true values than they were for the ideal drawdown case (see
Table 2). The slope of the desorption isotherm defined by
these parameter estimates is plotted in Fig, 12. Note that
the estimated 1P,D2 isotherm does a very good job of approximating the true isotherm slope over a wide range of
pressures. Table 6, which lists the results of the parameter
error analyses for the ideal buildup case, indicates that (9
times out of 10 the estimated isotherm slope will be within
about +570 oft L e true slope, while the estimated desorption
parameters will be within +30 to 40% of the true vrdues.
Both of these uncertainties are significantly smaller than
those arising from the ideal drawdown analysis.
When wellbore storage effects were added to the
buildup data, the model selection procedure chose the
lP,D1 rmd lP,S models as the most appropriate for describin~ the data, indicating
thattheeffects
of desorption could
no longer be dktinguished from skin effects (even though
the skin factor was zero). The accuracy of the desorption
parameter estimates (as well as the corresponding isotherm
slope) also decreased significantly for the true model (see
Table 7). This suggests that significant information about
gas desorption may be represented in the early-time buildup
data - information that is masked by the presence of wellbore storage effects. Thus, it appears that it may be important to take measures towards minimizing wellbore st~rage,
such as by using a bottomhole shutin tool, when des~gning
buildup tests for characterizing gas desorption.
Buildup Tests
Buildup data were simulated and analyzed for the scenarios presented in the previous section. In each case, the
well was shut in and tested for 500 hours after having been
produced at.a constant rate of q=60 Mcfd for 40,000 hours.
Note that since a numerical simulator was used to history
match the buildup data, it wss also necessary to simulate the (finite-acting) drawdown period preceding the test.
Thus, unlike for a classical (type-curve or semilog) analysis,
an estimate for the drainage radius could be obtained from
a history match of the measured. buildup data.
8
/
with pressure data being continuously measured throughout the entire test. The well was produced at a very high
flowrate (9=120 Mcfd) so that a significant pressure drawdown could be achieved over a short period of time. An
infinite-acting drawdown was considered to be adequate
since the previous drawdown analyses indicated that the
presence of boundary effects in the data did not significantly
improve the accuracy of the resulting parameter estimates.
O--
.* *.*
When simulating pressure data for the case with wellbore storage and skin, it was assumed that a downhole
shutin !.001would be used to limit the wellbore volume so
that wehbore storage effects would not seriously affect the
buildup portion of the test. A wellbore volume of VWb=5.O
bbl was thus used (along with the other parameter values
,listed in Table 1 in simulating the data. The results of
the history mate i es for this case (not shown) were similar to the ideal case in that the model selection procedure
again detected the presence of the nonlinear desorption
isotherm. (In fact, the res:dual performance index value
for the 1P,D2,S [true] model was two orders of magnitude
smaller than those for the lP,D1 ,S and lP,S models. ) The
results of the error analysis, shown in Table 9, indicate
that in the presence of wellbore storage and skin, the uncertainty in the desorption parameter estimates was +20
to 30% while the uncertainty in the isotherm slope was
in the + 107o range. These results are again a significant
improvement (of an order of magnitude or more) over the
previous results presented for the drawdown and buldup
cases. Thus, it appears that with the suggested well-test
design, the presence of gas desorption can be detected and
the gas desorption parameters (or, more specifically, the resulting slope of the desorption isotherm) can be estimated
with reasonable accuracy from a history match, even when
the effects of desor tion are partially masked by wellbore
storage and skin e$.ects.
NOMENCLATURE
Langmuir desorption parameter, scf/ft3/psia
Langmuir desorption parameter, psia-*
gas formation volume factor, ft3/scf
gas compressibility, psia- *
least-squares objective function, psiaz
permeability, md
P = pressure, psia
re = drainage radius, ft
=
wellbore radius, ft
~w
s = skin factor
t = time, hours
amount of gas adsorbed, scf/ft3
l~s
VWb = wellbore volume bbl
W = weighting matri;
Y. = measured datum
Y= = simulated datum
6 = reservoir parameter estimated from data
79 = gas gravity (air=l.0)
P = density, lb/ft3
P = viscosity, cp
~ = porosity, fraction
Subscripts and Superscripts
SUMMARY
Drawdown and buildup tests were analyzed in order
to determine whether gas desorption could be detected
and/or estimated accurately from measured well-test pressure data. The drawdown analyses suggest that the desorption parameters could not be estimated accurately from a
history match and that the effects of gas desorption could
not be distinguished from skin effects. In the absence of
any skin effects, the slope of the desorption isotherm (which
controls the rate of gas desorption) could bc estimated to
within a few percent near the imtial reservoir pressure.
With anon-zero skin factor, however, estimates for the desorption arameters and the isotherm slope could be in error
by 100#0 or more. This may !ead to significant errors in production forecasts when boundary effects are not present in
the history matched data.
bl
b2
B~
(+
J
k
=
=
=
=
=
=
i
Sc
T
Wf
Ws
+
=
=
=
=
=
=
initial
standard conditions
transpose operator
wellbore flowing
wellbore shutin
vector
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This reserwh was carried out as part of a project sponsored by the Gas Research Institute under Contract No.
5086213-1446, Reservoir Engineering and Ikatment Design Technology,
I
..-
11s
,,
..----.-
U.GY.
-Xla,
.!2.
I.ru,
u,
Lun,
Wnbavm
REFERENCES
1. Unconventional Gas $ourcew Volume IZI, Devonian
Shale, National Petroleum Council , Washington, DC
(1980).
2. Zlelinski, R,E. and McIver, R. D.: Resource and Exploration Assessment of the Oil and Gas Potential in
the Devonian Shales of the Appalachian Basim Mound
Facility Report to the US. Department of Energy,
DOE Contract No. DP-0053-1125 (June 1982).
3. Seeder, D.J.: Porosity and Permeability of Eastern
Devonian Gas Shale: SPE Form. Eval. (Mar. 1988)
116.24.
Academic
m.z.
Kuuskraa,
V. A., Wicks, D. E., Sawyer, W. K., ad Esposito, P.R.: Technically Recoverable Devonian Shale
Gas in Ohio? Lewin and Associates, Inc. Report to
the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/MC/19239-1525
(July 1983).
llW
SPE 21272
Table 2- History Matching Results For Irlcal, Finite-Acting Drawdown Test (Case 3)
Parsmcter Estimates
s
Model
trnr
665.0
0.700
o,~130
120.0
0.030
Formation Pornsity, #
(scf/f;~/psia)
(Ps::- )
1000.
2.000E -2
3.870E 3
109s.
1001.
1007.
9.W6E-2
1.428E 2
1.161E-2
z.590E.3
1.6XE 3
(id)
(2)
.1000
(ps;a2)
.
1P,D2,S
1P,D2
1P,D1 ,S
15X)
16.27
.1001
.1OO1
.1000
lP,D1
lP,S
1P
16.27
.Iooo
1007.
16.51
.1000
.1046
1315.
15.60
838.0
,09q53
0.0
1.655E -3
-.2640
1269.
0.100
1000.
Table 3 Error Analysis Rrwdts Frrr ldmd,
Finite-Acting Drawdown Teat (Caw. 3)
bl @f/ft3/psia)
case1
case2
c-3
S.6E-3
Caad
8. OE-2
8.OE-3
2.OE..!?
Parnmctcr
& (psia-}
case 1
c= 2
(-he 3
cm
nOtuaed f0rrdlc2w2s
Parnnmtcr Errnrs:
9070 Confidcncc Lknits
Monte Carlo
Covariance
Arm&siY
A;$~;
Parametm Errvrx
90% Confidmcc Limits
0.0
Mnntc Carlo
Analysis
Pnramctm
.
%)
Cowrriallcr
Analysis
(+%)
_
6.5E4
[.1300, .Iooo]
.1393
[- .3500, .3000]
.7000
3.&E-3
2.OE-2
r,
[ .6600, .8000]
1-84.40, 400.0]
[--84.30,178.1]
.!)621
421.7
296.4
r,
[37.06, 31.30]
[ 99.50, 268.4]
[ 33.28, 2848.]
I 5.810, 2.000]
2165.
22300.
23030.
30.00
-2.00
b,
b,
at:
p=217 psia
p=300 psia
dV.~./dp
p=400 psia
p=500 psia
b,
b
v.~
s
1-58.75, 57.52]
1.47.85, 35.67]
1-34.40, 20.13]
1-19.60,10.34]
dv.a.}dp
122.56,
13.60]
4..584
1084.
al;
P=362 psia
j 100.0, 341.7]
p=4Ul psia
J-100.0, 345,0]
I -100.0, 351.5)
p=600 psia
[-6.330,3.621]
p=500 psia
p=665 psia
[-4.037,5s85]
P=GOOPhl
[- 100.0, 356.7]
p=665 psia
[ 100.0, 361.9]
impossd constraint
impnscd constraint
spE 21272
Parameter Errors
90% Confidence Limits
Monte Cz.rlo
yn~$??
Arzal~is
[i%)
Parameter E6timate2
Model
(Pia)
true
IP,D2,S
1P,D2
12.85
12.92
24.31
24.31
26.13
797.9
lP,D1,S
lP,D1
lP,S
1P
(;:)
(scf/f~J/psia)
.1000
1000.
2.000E-2
3.870&3
.09848
.09951
1153.
9S2.1
822.1
1.338E-2
1.617E-2
5.186B3
3.050E-3
(~d)
.09562
.09562
.09507
.09969
3.945E-3
3.945&3
822.1
1347.
1264.
(J:-
Parameter
-.2350
h,
0.0
at:
p=270 psia
di<d,/dp
Tnble S
.6095
1.718
47.06
39.76
[- 30.21, 48.60]
[-25.31, 38.00]
h
-.5214
[-.4900, .5000]
[-1,570, 1.400]
r<
p=300 psia
p=400 psia
[-5.639, 4.508]
[+.757, 3.20S]
[4.423, 4.653]
P 500 psia
p =55Spsia
[-6.767, 6.135]
[-7.906, 7.124]
Parameter E2timatcs
Pruameter
[-.9200, .6000]
[4.720, 3.700]
[-53.41, 400.0]
r,
b,
b,
Vmb
dvad./dp
Parameter Errors
!)0% Confidence Ltmits
~owui ante
Monte Carlo
.hmlysis
Ancdysis
(+%)
(%)
[-54.17, 204.2]
3G3.6
[-.8300, 1.000]
2.S29
at
p=217 psia
p=300 psia
p=400 psia
p=500 psia
p=558 psia
2.s96
1?.s3
424.5
Model
_
(ps;az)
true
1P,D2.S
1P,D2
IP,D1,S
lP,D1
lP,S
8.425
8.50S
434.3
434.3
bi
(scf/ft /psirr)
.1000
2.000 E-2
3.8iOE-3
.1000
.1000
.09665
2,250E_~
4.341L3
4.031)2-3
.09665
.09627
549.4
(n!d)
2.129E-2
(p.!:+
-.010s9
2.S63E-3
2.S63E-3
0.0
-.4061
11.51]
8.830]
16.90]
21.31]
imposad constraint
Parameter
Parameter Errom
90% Confidence Limits
Monte Carlo
Covariance
Am&~is
A;&n&is
. .
k
[-.2500, .2000]
b,
v=~
[-13.24, 31,80]
[-15.65, 33.20]
[-2.520, 2.500]
[-1.550, 1.600]
&ad./dp
at,
P=253 psia
[-7.465, 7.782]
p=300 psia
[-7.536,
[-10.34,
[-13.10,
[-15.46,
[-16.50,
p :400 psia
p /500 psia
p .600 psia
P=657 psia
121
8.925]
11.27]
13.05]
14,44]
15.11]
.,
.2s01
28.05
41.94
3.475
3.670
sPE 21272
12
o
0
SAMPLE I
SAMPLE 2
LANGMUIR ISOTHERM
II
ToTAL
NUMBER OF
INDEPENDENT
PARAMETERS
0 /
0
1P, s
1P, D2
ADSORBED
lP
800
400
1200
1600
::s
PRESSURE, psia
.
.
SINGLE
POROSITY
LINEAR DESORPTION
ISOTHERM
LANGMUIR
DESORPTION
ISOTHERM
SKIN
Fig.
4.0 m
~
\
:.
0
w
z 3.0
600
2 - 111.,..,1>?
of candidate
,...,.1,
models,
HIGHLY NONLINEAR
0
a
u
5
:
0
.5
a
INTERMEDIATE
2.0
400 -
z
NEARLY LINEAR
~
200 -
1.0
Case
Case
------Case
-.Case4
I
2
3
.i
200
400
PRESSURE,
600
800
TIME, haurs
psio
tosimulate
Fig.
data.
122
finite-ac
effects).
clng
drawdown case
(with
n.
=21272
4.0
TRUE
IP,
D2
-----IP,
DI
3.0
600
500
400
a\
2.0
0
.G
a
~
Lo
Measured
o
300
-------
~-
1P
IP,02 - IP,DI - IP,S
..
~-
--
~. #-
*H
-e
\
I
200
,Q-1
,0-2
100
10
102
,.3
,04
\]
0I
105
200
TIME, hours
400
PRESSURE,
600
psia
0.020
TRUE
1P, D2
1P, DI
-----
.TRUE
---JP,D2
. IP, S
\
\\
400
200
- IP, DI
---------------------0
O*
200
PRESSURE,
Pip,.
400
600
10
15
20
25
30
35
TIME, years
pskf
I
5
Fig.
8 - Production
forecas:s
bescd on parameter estimates
ideal,
infinite-act
inn drawdown (C8$e 3).
deter.xned
from
spE 21272
1200
TRUE
IP, D2, S
----IP,
DI, S
.-1PS
/,
,0-
800
/
,/
Case
Case
-------Case
.Case
550
2
3
4
/
45C
/
350
400
.e -- 0
250
,/
0
150
---
0
0
15
10
20
30
25
35
102
IO-3
Fig.
[OQ
10-
TIME, years
lot
lo~
TIME, hours
9 - Production
forecasts
based on parameter estimates
determined
froa
in finite-acttns
drawdobm with uellbore
storage and skin effects
(Case 3).
Fig.
ideal
buildup
case
(with
n. wellbore
stcwa~e
TRUE
IP,
D2
------1P,
DI
550
=
z
~x
o Measured
---1P,
D2
.1P, DI
. .. .... . Ip,s
/flB
\
\
\
g- O.o1o
~
W
*S
/
350
T
:
#.R
450
0!015
F
o
Q 0.005
.@gq
,,2P
250
/
150 ,o~
o~
o
200
TIME, hours
Fis.
11 - Selecttd
history
matches
for
ideal
400
600
PRESSURE, psla
buildup
(Case
3).
Fig.
12 - T...
far
and
ideal
stimated
butldup
desorption
3).
(tiSO
isotherm
81OW
or