Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 13 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A method to match and forecast production rates for
commingled gas wells has been developed. In this paper, the
method previously developed by El-Banbi and
Wattenbarger
1,2
, was improved and extended to allow
modeling of recompletions and different initial pressures in
the layers. This new method is based on a layered model that
couples the material balance gas equation with the real gas
boundary dominated flow equation for each layer of the multi-
layer-commingled system.
A spreadsheet-based computer program was developed
and used to analyze the production history of commingled
wells. The program calculates the individual original gas in
place, OGIP, productivity index, J
g
, and production rates for
each layer. It also forecast the production rates of individual
layers and the total well. Bottom-hole flowing pressure, p
wf
,
total gas rate history, gas properties, and initial reservoir
pressure for each layer are required.
The parameters OGIP and J
g
for each layer are determined
by history-matching the total gas rate using a nonlinear
optimization procedure. This new method gives excellent
results for cases dominated by stabilized flow, with occasional
shut-ins and substantial p
wf
variations. The method calculates
back-flow between layers during shut-in periods. Although
this method is based on using stabilized flow in history-
calibration data, validation against numerical simulation
shows that the method can tolerate many transient flow
periods caused by variations in producing conditions. Several
wells were used in testing this method. Five Mexican wells are
included in this paper.
Introduction
In commingled gas reservoirs or multi-layer no crossflow gas
reservoirs, volumetric methods may not be accurate for
evaluating reserves. Similarly, material balance equation,
MBE, may not be applied to predict the performance of this
type of reservoirs because scarity of data. In the same way,
tight gas reservoir build-up tests may be infeasible as a result
of the long time needed for the pressure to stabilize.
Decline curve analysis looks to be very useful method
for performing prediction and evaluating original gas in place,
OGIP, and reserves. Arps
3
explained that decline curve
analysis began as a rate forecasting technique by extrapolating
the production trend. He presented empirical expressions to
evaluate rate behavior versus time. Garb et al.
4
developed
techniques to solve the single-layer gas reservoirs problems
for production at variable bottom-hole flowing pressure, p
wf
.
Later, Fetkovitch
5
developed a type-curve matching procedure
for decline curve analysis. He integrated analytical solutions
for oil transient flow with practical decline equations
developed by Arps
3
. Rodgers et al.
6
proposed methods to
evaluate single-layer gas reservoirs considering variable p
wf
.
Carter
7
generated other type curves dealing with the change of
gas properties with pressure. Studying gas wells, Fraim and
Wattenbarger
8
established a normalized pseudo-time function
to force the gas reservoir data to match the liquid solution for
constant p
wf
. Fetkovich et al.
9
analyzed commingled gas
reservoirs using type-curves matching. Cheng and Poston
10
tried to develop methods to help in the matching process for
one-layer radial gas reservoirs. Aminian et al.
11
developed
other sets of decline curves in multi-gas wells. Blasingame et
al.
12
and Palacio and Blasingame
13
developed additional
pseudo-time approaches that account for variation in p
wf
. They
used curve-types techniques to help in matching one-layer
radial reservoirs. Guardia and Hackney
14
, Keating et al.
15
, and
West and Cochrane
16
developed various approximations of
coupling the MBE with the gas flow equation for single-layer
reservoirs.
El-Banbi and Wattenbarger
1
coupled the stabilized flow
equation with the gas MBE to study multi-layer gas reservoirs.
Later, they
2
included the variation in p
wf
and non-Darcy flow.
The present paper improves and extends the method used
by El-Banbi and Wattenbarger
1,2
to allow modeling of
SPE 58985
Production Analysis of Commingled Gas Reservoirs - Case Histories
Jorge A. Arevalo-Villagran, PEMEX and Texas A&M University, and Robert A. Wattenbarger, SPE, Texas A&M
University, and Ahmed H. El-Banbi, SPE, Schlumberger Holditch-Reservoir Technologies
2 J.A. AREVALO-VILLAGRAN, R.A. WATTENBARGER, A.H. EL-BANBI SPE 58985
recompletions and different initial pressures in analyzing
production data in commingled gas reservoirs.
The Commingled Gas Flow Model
Commingled Gas Reservoirs. Commingled gas reservoirs are
layered reservoirs linked only through the wellbore. These
reservoirs do not experience crossflow within reservoir
boundaries. Each layer in the commingled system can be
defined by its OGIP and its gas flow coefficient or
productivity index, J
g
, if stabilized flow is reached
1,2
. If these
parameters are different for each layer, the layers behavior
will be also different.
Single Layer Reservoirs. The single-layer model couples the
flow equation

with the MBE for volumetric gas reservoirs. The
flow expression is the analytical solution for flow in gas
reservoirs producing against constant p
wf
17.
The MBE for
volumetric gas reservoir is described by

,
_

,
_

G
G
z
p
z
p
p
i
i
1 . (1)
For high-pressure reservoirs we can use the material
balance equation suggested by Ramagost and Farshad
18
. The
J
g
for a gas well (assumed constant with time) defines the
relationship between the production rate and the well
pseudopressure drawdown, (m ( p )-m (p
wf
)).
[ ] ) ( ) ( /
wf g g
p m p m q J .. (2)
Where m (p) is the real gas pseudo-pressure
17
defined by
dp
z
p
p m
p
p
o
2 ) (

(3)
Since J
g
in Eq. 2 is a function of gas rate (non-Darcy
flow), q
g
, a more practical arrangement is expressed as
19

2
) ( ) (
g g wf
bq aq p m p m + ..(4)
Eq. 4 is the stabilized flow equation and is a function of a
and b flow parameters. The a parameter takes into account
darcy effects and the b parameter is function of non-darcy
flow or inertial effects. The equations that relate these
parameters to reservoir and gas properties are shown in Ref.
19. We confirmed that non-Darcy parameter, b, can be ignored
for most of the field cases we analyzed (permeability between
0.1 and 10 md). Consequently, b parameter in Eq. 4 can be
approximated to zero and Eq. 4 reduces to Eq. 2 where
1
]
1

+

s
r C
A
T
h k
a
J
w A
g
g
2
458 . 2
ln
2
1
2 . 141
1
(5)
In addition to Eqs. 1 and 2, the relation between the gas
flow rate and cumulative gas production is given by

t
g p
dt q G
0
(t) . (6)
The MBE (Eq. 1) is used to relate p to time, t, and thus
relating production rate, q
g
to t. J
g
(Eq. 2) is a function of
average reservoir pressure, p . If the OGIP and the flow
coefficient (a or J
g
) are known for each layer, Eqs. 1, 2, and 6
can be solved simultaneously to find a solution. The present
method is based on the same assumption (coupling the J
g
equation with the MBE) for commingled gas wells. The
method does not require shutting the well in. Alternatively, it
estimates the J
g
from production rate-time data.
Multi-Layer reservoirs. The approach of the commingled
system is based on calculating the individual layer behavior
and adding up the commingled performance. After solving
each layers commingled gas flow model for q
g
for every time
step, the total q
g
of the system can be evaluated by integrating
the q
g
of each layer at the corresponding time using the
following expression.
( ) t q t q
Nlayer
i
i g Tg

1

) ( . (7)
This expression requires that OGIP and J
g
(the flow
coefficient) be known for each layer in the commingled
system. It also requires that the p
wf
be known at each period of
time.
Calibration period of commingled reservoirs. The study of
the commingled system is performed by guessing values for
OGIP and J
g
(or a parameter) for each layer. Then the q
g
for a
specified calibration period can be calculated for the
commingled well. A multi-variable nonlinear optimization
procedure is applied to minimize the error between the actual
q
g
data and the calculated q
g
for this specified calibration
period in the commingled model. The best values of OGIP,
and J
g
(or a parameter) for each layer are determined when
either of the following objective functions (Eqs. 8 or 9) is
minimized.

N
j g
g g
q Actual
q Model q Actual
N
error
1
1
1
.... (8)

,
_

N
j g
g g
q Actual
q Model q Actual
N
error
1
2
1
... (9)
Where N is the number of total calibration data points in the
history period. These data points do not have to be contiguous.
This means that the calibration period may have
SPE 58985 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS - CASE HISTORIES 3
discontinuities in data allowing for excluding poor quality data
points and data points affected by transient flow periods.
Commingled Gas Flow Model conjectures. The following
are assumed in the flow model: 1. Gas rate that is coming from
each layer of the commingled system is dominantly stabilized
flow, 2. p
wf
is known for each layer, and 3. The effect of non-
Darcy flow is ignored.
Commingled Gas Flow Model essentials. The commingled
gas flow model needs initial reservoir pressure for each layer,
p
i
, reservoir temperature, T, and gas data (gas specific gravity,

g
, and concentration of H
2
S, CO
2
and N
2
in gas composition).
The gas properties are calculated into the commingled
program from available correlations
19-22
.
Total gas production rate and p
wf
must be input data
through the history and calibration periods. When p
wf
is not
known, it can be estimated from surface from readily available
correlations
23
. We also need to specify an initial guess for
OGIP per layer.
Case histories
To verify the commingled gas flow model improved in this
work, we used several field examples. We display applications
of the commingled flow model in matching and forecasting
actual field examples. We make a selection of five wells from
Mexico, which are producing in distinct gas reservoirs and
fields. Four well cases are examples of recompletion in new
layers. One well case is an example of a two-layer model.
Producing surface rate measurements, q
g
, were available on
daily basis. Producing p
wf
, was periodically available and
sometimes evaluated from wellhead flowing pressure on
monthly basis
23
.
In all examples selected we used part of the history for
calibration and the rest of known production history for
checking the commingled gas model forecast. Good
agreement between the model results and the actual
production was obtained in all five cases. Later, the
parameters evaluated in the production history matched, OGIP
and J
g
, were used to forecast both the total gas rate and gas
production from each layer for all wells studied.
Field example A. This case illustrates the application of the
commingled gas model on two different reservoirs opened to
exploitation at different times. Fig. 1 shows the schematic
completion for well A. This well had produced dry gas for
almost 20 years from the Deposito reservoir (layer 1). After 20
years a recompletion was made in the Encanto reservoir (layer
2). Table 1 gives reservoir and fluid information for each layer
in well A. Surface q
g
measurements were available on daily
basis. Bottom-hole flowing pressures, p
wf
, were periodically
available. Now, the well is producing through the same tubing
with gas produced from both formations. The total G
p
,
including both reservoirs after 30 years is 10,121 MMscf.
Layer 1. The comparison between the model q
g
and the
actual performance of layer 1 is shown in Fig. 2. We used 19
years of production and p
wf
data to calibrate the commingled
gas model using the one layer option. During the first year of
production the maximum production q
g
of 1,589 Mscf/D was
reached. Later, the q
g
was slightly declining to less than 500
Mscf/D after 19 years of exploitation. The p
wf
periodically
fluctuated due changes in operation conditions.
The well started producing at p
wf
of 5,423 psia and the
pressure dropped to 1,256 psia in 19 years after producing
3,892 MMscf of gas. The parameters estimated by the model
(OGIP and J
g
) are given in Table 2.
Commingled production. For the commingled
production system (layers 1 and 2) we used 11 years of
production and pressure data to calibrate the commingled gas
model with the two-layer option. The real G
p
, and OGIP and
average pressure evaluated in layer 1 by the model in the first
19 years were used as data for layer 1 in the two-layer model
alternative.
The comparison between the total q
g
calculated and the
actual behavior of the two-layer system is given in Fig. 3. We
can see that total q
g
was continuously declining, and the
maximum q
g
of 3,377 Mscf/D was reached by the two-layer
system during the first 10 months of production (year 20.4).
The p
wf
was changing during the period of production due to
several changes in surface conditions. Production q
g
for layer
1 is declined from 2,696 Mscf/D in the year 20.4 to less than
500 Mscf/D after eleven years of production. During this
period of time the q
g
in layer 2 is slightly declining from 680
Mscf/D to less than 400 Mscf/D. Later, we used only p
wf
data
with the two-layer model parameters calculated from the
calibration period to forecast q
g
.
The parameters evaluated by the two-layer model are
shown in Table 2. Fig. 4 shows the history match and
forecasting q
g
for well A including both layer 1 and the
commingled system.
Field example B. This example shows the application of the
model on two reservoirs opened to production at the same
time. This well produced a moderate permeability gas
reservoir. Fig. 5 displays the schematic completion for well B.
The well has produced wet gas for 2.2 years from both
Guzmantla Pelagica and San Felipe Breccia reservoirs.
Table 1 displays reservoir information and fluid
information for the opened intervals in both layers. p
wf
was
occasionally available. q
g
was available on daily basis.
The comparison between the actual q
g
performance, and
the evaluated q
g
with the commingled model during the
history and forecast periods is shown in Fig. 6. Production q
g
was constant around 7,500 Mscf/D during the first year of
exploitation. Later, a change in the operation conditions in the
surface gave a variation of production q
g
between 5,000 to
4,000 Mscf/D during the following year. As a consequence of
this change, the p
wf
was altered from 1,600 to 1,900 psia after
producing 4,351 MMscf of gas.
We used 2.2 years of production and pressure data to
calibrate the commingled gas flow model with the two-layer
option. We did not use the first 3 months data in the
calibration period to decrease transient flow effect. After that,
4 J.A. AREVALO-VILLAGRAN, R.A. WATTENBARGER, A.H. EL-BANBI SPE 58985
we used the model parameters calculated from the calibration
period to estimate the forecast of the production q
g
for the
following 3 years using a constant p
wf
of 1,900 psia.
The G
p
for each layer as well as the parameters estimated
by the commingled gas model (OGIP and J
g
) are given in
Table 2. In general, we can see in Fig. 6 that q
g
from layer 1
represents almost 80% of the total q
g
in the well. However, in
the forecast period of 3 years and using the p
wf
established we
can see that layer 1 is going to decline continuously while
layer 2 tends to maintain its q
g
almost constant around 500
Mscf/D.
Field example C. This example illustrate the purpose of the
commingled model on three opened intervals or layers, which
are producing in the same reservoir. This reservoir is
characterized by its low permeability and intermediate
porosity.
Table 1 exposes reservoir information and gas specific
gravity for this well. The comparison between the actual q
g
behavior and the estimated q
g
with the gas model during the
history and forecast steps is shown in Fig. 7. The well has
produced dry gas for 8 years in La Laja reservoir in the
opened interval called layer 1. After 8-year of exploitation a
recompletion job was made in the same reservoir including
two upper intervals called layers 2 and 3. The producing p
wf
measurements were sparse. We evaluated the corresponding
p
wf
from the surface pressure data using Cullender and Smith
23
method.
Actually this well is exploited through the three opened
intervals in the same formation. Total q
g
is obtained using
single tubing. After 10-year of production the total G
p
obtained
from the opened intervals is 13,315 MMscf.
Layer 1. For the first layer we used the first 8 years of
production and p
wf
data to calibrate the gas model in one layer
step. We did not use the first 8 months data into calibration
period to reduce transient flow effect. In Fig. 7 we can see that
layer 1 reached its maximum production of 2,700 Mscf/D in
the first year to decline at 600 Mscf/D after 8 years of
exploitation. Table 2 discloses the real G
p
and the parameters
evaluated for layer 1.
Total system. The real G
p
, and OGIP and pressure
calculated by the model in the calibration of the first layer
were used as data for layer 1 in the three-layer model option.
For the commingled production system (layers 1, 2 and 3)
we used 2 years of production and pressure data to calibrate
the model with the three-layer option.
The G
p
, OGIP, and J
g
for each layer calculated from the
calibration period are given in Table 2. We can see in Fig. 8
that layers 2 and 3 declined from 6,500 and 14,000 Mscf/D in
the year 8.3 to less than 4,000 and 8,000 Mscf/D in the year
10, respectively. During this period of time the q
g
in layer 1
was slightly declining from 500 to less than 400 Mscf/D.
Later, we then used the three-layer model to forecast the q
g
in
each layer for more than 10 years using the parameters
calculated from the calibration period and 1,000 psia of p
wf
data (Fig. 7).
Field example D. This case gives the value of the
commingled gas model on two different reservoirs with
several producing intervals opened at different times. This
well is a moderate rate well producing a large reservoir. The
well was described as being a two-commingled reservoir with
no crossflow between Guzmantla Pelagica and San Felipe
Breccia reservoirs.
Fig. 9 shows the schematic completion for well D. The
well has produced wet gas for 5.1 years in the Guzmantla
Pelagica reservoir in the lowest opened interval called layer 1.
After 5.1 years of production two recompletions jobs were
made in the well. One recompletion was in the same reservoir
consisting in two more opened intervals. In the commingled
model we assumed these intervals to be layer 2 (the upper
layer in Guzmantla Pelagica reservoir). The other
recompletion was made in the upper reservoir (San Felipe
Breccia) including two opened intervals. These opened
intervals were assumed to be layer 3 in the gas model. Table 1
gives reservoir and fluid information for each pseudo-layer
assumed.
Total production and surface pressure data were available
for 8.2 years. Surface rate measurements were available on
monthly basis. All p
wf
measurements were evaluated from
wellhead flowing pressure measurements
23
. Actually well D is
producing through the same tubing with gas produced from
both reservoirs with the five opened intervals. After 8.2 years
of production the cumulative gas production for the well is
given as 7,768 MMscf.
Single layer. The comparison between the calculated q
g
using the model and the actual performance of the well D is
shown in Fig. 10. Layer 1 had a cumulative gas production of
2,981 MMscf during the first 5.1 years of production. Gas
production was almost constant around 2,000 Mscf/D but the
p
wf
was slightly declining. Unfortunately, the pressure data
were not accurate in the first 7 months. However, we did not
use this 7 months to calibrate the model due the behavior of
transient flow.
The data we input into our commingled gas program was
the monthly production in daily basis and p
wf
for 5.1 years and
the reservoir and fluid data shown in Table 1 for layer 1 in
well D. The parameters calculated by the model are given in
Table 2.
Commingled production. The commingled system is
formed for 3 pseudo-layer. Two of them are producing gas
from Guzmantla Pelagica reservoir and the other one is
producing from San Felipe Breccia reservoir. All these layers
were opened in the same date with exception of the first layer,
which was opened 5.1 years before.
The comparison between the total production calculated
by the model and the actual performance of the three-layer
system is given in Fig. 11. For the layered system we used 3
years of q
g
and p
wf
data. The OGIP, average pressure and G
p
estimated by the model in the first 5.1 years for opened
interval 1 of Guzmantla Pelagica reservoir were used as data
for both layers 1 and 2 in the three-layer model option.
In Fig. 11 we can see that the maximum q
g
of 7,200
Mscf/D was reached by the three-layer system during the first
SPE 58985 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS - CASE HISTORIES 5
9 months of production (year 5.9). Later, total q
g
was
continuously declining to reach a value of 3,100 Mscf/D after
2.5 years of commingled production. Some data from 5.2 year
to 6.9 years were not used in the calibration period in order to
minimize the effect of transient flow. We can see that
Guzmantla reservoir (layers 1 and 2) is producing almost 75 %
of total rate and remain production, 25 %, is given by San
Felipe Breccia reservoir (layer 3). The production q
g
for layer
2 declined from 3,800 Mscf/D in the 5.8 year to 1,900 Mscf/D
after 2.5 years of exploitation. During this time the q
g
from
layer 1 was slightly greater than production obtained from
layer 3. However, the q
g
in both layers 1 and 3 was almost
constant around 1,000 Mscf/D. Later, we then used only
constant p
wf
data of 1,620 psia with the three-layer model
parameters calculated from calibration period to estimate
future production up to 10 years for each layer.
The parameters evaluated by the three-layer are presented
in Table 2. Fig. 12 displays the history and forecasting
pressure production for well D including both single layer and
commingled production.
Field Example E. This real case illustrates the use of the
commingled gas model on two reservoirs. Table 1 discloses
reservoir and gas specif gravity for each layer.
This well has produced wet gas for 8.3 years in the
Guzmantla in the opened interval described in Table 1 (Fig.
13). After 8.3 years of exploitation a recompletion job was
made in both Guzmantla Pelagica and San Felipe Breccia
reservoirs where two more intervals were opened respectively.
Surface q
g
measures were available on daily basis. Several
p
wf
measurements were not accessible. We evaluated
corresponding p
wf
from surface pressure measurements. In
fact, the well is producing through a single tubing with gas
produced from three opened intervals in both reservoirs. The
total G
p
after 10.5 years of exploitation is 14,250 MMscf
(Table 2).
Layer 1. The comparison between actual q
g
and the
calculated with the model is shown in Fig. 13.
We used 8.3 years of production and p
wf
data to calibrate
the model in one-layer option. We did not use the first 8
months of history data to calibrate the model due the behavior
of transient flow. The real G
p
, and OGIP and J
g
parameters
estimated for layer 1 are given in Table 2. p
wf
was periodically
fluctuated due changes in operation conditions in the surface.
The well started producing at p
wf
of 3,200 psia and the p
wf
dropped to 1,800 psia in 8.3 years. In the same period of time,
the q
g
was changing to reach the maximum of 6,200 Mscf/D
after 4.5-year of exploitation. After 8.3 years of production q
g
declined to 2,300 MMscf/D.
Commingled production. For the commingled production
(layers 1, 2, and 3) we used 2.2 years of history data to
calibrate the model in three-layer option. The real G
p
, OGIP,
and average pressure evaluated in layer 1 by the model in the
first 8.3 years were used as data for layers 1 and 2 in the three-
layer model.
Fig. 14 illustrates the comparison between the actual q
g
and total q
g
calculated with the three-layer system. The
maximum production of 4,500 Mscf/D was reached by the
three-layer system in the first year of production (year 9.4).
The p
wf
was changing from 1,600 to 1,100 psia through this
period of time. Later, we then used only p
wf
of 1,200 psia as
data with the three-layer model parameters calculated from
calibration period (Table 2) to estimate the forecast of q
g
for
each layer. Fig. 15 gives the history and forecast q
g
for well E.
Discussion
Decline curve is the most recognized method tried to
effectively analysis multi-layer gas reservoirs from little field
data
2
. On the other hand, for commingled gas reservoirs
decline curve analysis is absolutely empirical. In the same
way, the use of conventional decline curve method would not
permit for analyzing production data for gas wells producing
at variable p
wf
with constant q
g
production because the q
g
is not
declining. As a consequence, the commingled gas flow model
improved and extended from Ref. 2, permits us to analyze,
calibrate, and evaluate production data to predict the
performance of this kind of wells. Additionally, the method
allows modeling of recompletions and different initial
pressures in commingled gas reservoirs.
Computer program. The gas flow model presents an easy
technique for modeling commingled gas wells and it is based
on established fundamental basis taking into account real gas
properties and the variation in p
wf
.
The improved model was programmed in Visual Basic
code for Excel. This allows the use of Excel capabilities in
nonlinear optimization and plotting. The model was
programmed in a sense to permit selection of non-consecutive
calibration points. This feature allows eliminating poor quality
data points and production data affected by transient flow.
Results. This study shows that the model gives good results if
stabilized flow dominates in the commingled system.
Consequently, the model is recommended to study low to
moderate permeability (between 0.1 and 10 md) reservoirs. In
intensely tight reservoirs (less than 0.01 md of permeability)
the results calculated by the model may not be reliable
because the transient flow might disturb the pressure and
production data. However, if the commingled model is applied
to analyze transient flow data, it may give conservative
estimates of reservoir performance in the history and forecast
periods.
To validate and calibrate the commingled gas flow model
results we should use well logs and geological information to
assist in knowing the layered reservoir and qualitatively judge
the relative behavior of each layer
1
. In this work, we confirm
that non-Darcy parameter, b, could be ignored for most of the
field cases we studied. The parameter b is expected to be
significant for fractured gas wells and for high permeability
reservoirs that are produced at very high rates
24
.
The commingled gas flow model calculates the OGIP, J
g
,
reserves, and behavior by individual layer. As a consequence,
with this information we can describe the specific layers and
evaluate the relative productivity of the layer in the total
6 J.A. AREVALO-VILLAGRAN, R.A. WATTENBARGER, A.H. EL-BANBI SPE 58985
performance. Additionally, the J
g
or a parameter can be used
to find any parameter in Eq. 5 (e.g., reservoir conductivity,
k
g
h, and skin factor, s) if other parameters are known. This
information can be used to design either stimulation or
fracturing treatments.
Limitations. The commingled gas flow model has the
following limitations.
1. When the quality of production and pressure data are not
precise enough the two-parameter (OGIP and J
g
) non-linear
optimization procedure may converge to incorrect outcomes or
local minima. In the same manner, if the commingled system
consist of more than 4 layers, the results may not be unique.
2. In gas reservoirs that are exploited predominantly under
transient flow effects the results would be not accurate. In this
case other techniques can be used to analyze this kind of data.
After studying several cases in this work, we verify that a
permeability range of 0.1 to 10 md is a suitable range for the
application of this model. For gas reservoirs which have
permeability less than 0.01 md (extremely tight reservoirs) the
transient effects may be so long and they can not have enough
stabilized flow to calibrate our model. On the other hand, for
gas reservoirs above 20 md (high permeability) non-Darcy
flow may be important and the use of the J
g
equation without
the inclusion of non-Darcy flow term, b, may give inaccurate
results.
Conclusions
The work presented in this paper is based on calibrating or
matching production data for stabilized gas flow theory. It
considers commingled wells producing against variable p
wf
and ignores non-darcy flow. The following conclusions can be
drawn from this study.
1. An improved method to estimate OGIP, J
g
, and reserves for
each layer of a commingled gas system was developed. It
allows modeling of recompletions and different initial
pressures in the layers.
2. The method forecasts the total production of layered gas
wells and calculates individual layer contributions.
Applications of the method were shown by five Mexican gas
wells.
3. Production data from commingled gas wells can be
analyzed by commingled gas flow model with the use of a
nonlinear optimization procedure.
4. Commingled gas flow models can be used to analyze gas
wells if stabilized flow conditions dominate.
5. OGIP and J
g
for each layer are determined by history-
matching. The calibration period used for history-calibration
period does not have to be adjacent.
6. History-matching selective intervals of non-consecutive
calibration points rather than the entire production history
allows identifying and eliminating poor quality data points and
production data affected by transient flow effects.
7. The Commingled Gas Flow Model can allow many
transient flow periods originated by fluctuations in operation
conditions.
8. OGIP is under-estimated if transient data are included.
Total OGIP for the commingled system is under-estimated if a
fewer number of layer models is used in the analysis.
9. The model is easy to use and it can be used as a spreadsheet
application.
10. Effect of non-Darcy flow on the analysis using the
Commingled Gas Flow Model for gas reservoirs between 0.1
and 10 md of formation permeability can be depreciated.
11. Case histories or examples may take place where solutions
corresponding to local minima are evaluated by the
optimization procedure.
Nomenclature
A = reservoir drainage area, L
2
, ft
2
a = stabilized deliverability coefficient, (psia
2
-
cp)/(Mscf/D)
BHFP = bottom-hole flowing pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
b = stabilized deliverability coefficient, (psia
2
-
cp)/(Mscf/D)
2
C
A
= shape factor
CO
2
= carbon dioxide, fraction
error
1
= normalized error measure given by Eq. 8
error
2
= normalized error measure given by Eq. 9
G = original gas in place, L
3
, MMscf
G
p
= cumulative gas produced, L
3
, MMscf
h = formation thickness, L, ft
H
2
S = hydrogen sulfide, fraction
J
g
= real gas flow coefficient, L
4
t
2
/m, cp-Mscfd/psia
2
k = permeability, L
2
, md
KB = Kelly bushing height, L, ft
m(p) = real gas pseudo-pressure at average reservoir
pressure, m/Lt
3
, psia
2
/cp
m(p
wf
) = pseudo-pressure at bottom hole flowing pressure,
m/Lt
3
, psia
2
/cp
MBE = material balance equation
Nlayer = number of layers in a commingled reservoir
N = number of gas rate data points used in calibration
N
2
= nitrogen, fraction
OGIP = original gas in place, L
3
, MMscf
p = pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
i
= initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
o
= base pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
sc
= pressure at standard conditions, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
wf
= bottom hole flowing pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p = material-balance average reservoir pressure, m/Lt
2
,
psia
q
g
= gas production rate, L
3
/t, Mscf/D
q
Tg
= total flow rate in a commingled system, L
3
/t,
Mscf/D
r
w
= wellbore radius, L, ft
s = skin factor
t = time, t, days
T = reservoir temperature, T,
o
R
T
sc
= temperature at standard conditions, T,
o
R
z = real gas compressibility factor
= porosity
SPE 58985 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS - CASE HISTORIES 7

g
= specific gravity of gas

g
= gas viscosity, m/Lt, cp
Subscripts
g = gas
i = initial
i = layer index
j = time period index
Acknowledgment
We thank the management of PEMEX Exploracion-
Produccion for funding this study and providing field data.
This work was done within the Reservoir Modeling
Consortium at Texas A&M University. Special appreciation is
due to Angel Meza-Rios and Activo Veracruz of PEMEX,
Bryan Maggard and Dr. Wael Helmy of Texas A&M
University for their invaluable help in this work.
References
1. El-Banbi, Ahmed H. and Wattenbarger, Robert A.:
Analysis of Commingled Tight Gas Reservoirs, paper
SPE 36736 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 6-9 Oct., 1996.
2. El-Banbi, Ahmed H. and Wattenbarger, Robert A.:
Analysis of Commingled Gas Reservoirs With Variable
Bottom-Hole Flowing Pressure and Non-Darcy Flow,
paper SPE 38866 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 5-8 Oct.,
1997.
3. Arps, J. J.: "Analysis of Decline Curves," Trans., AIME
(1945) 160, 228-47.
4. Garb, F.A., Rodgers, J.S, and Prasad, R.K.: Find Gas In-
Place from Shut-In or Flowing Pressures, Oil & Gas J.
(July 1973) 58-64.
5. Fetkovich, M. J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type
Curves," JPT (June 1980) 1065-77.
6. Rodgers, J.S., Boykin, R.S., and Coble, L.E.: Nonstatic
Pressure History Analyses for Gas Reservoirs, SPEJ
(Apr. 1983) 209-18.
7. Carter, R.D.: Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear
Gas-Flow Systems: Constant-Terminal-Pressure Case,
SPEJ (Oct. 1985) 719-28.
8. Fraim, M. L. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: "Gas Reservoir
Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves With Real
Gas Pseudopressures and Normalized Time," SPEFE
(Dec. 1987) 671-82; Trans, AIME, 290.
9. Fetkovich, M. J., Bradley, M. D., Works, A. M., and
Thrasher, T. S.: "Depletion Performance of Layered
Reservoirs Without Crossflow," SPEFE (Sep. 1990)
310-318.
10. Chen, H. Y. and Poston, S. W.: "Application of a
Pseudotime Function To Permit Better Decline-Curve
Analysis," SPEFE (Sept. 1989) 441-48.
11. Aminian, K., Ameri, S., Srark, J. J., and Yost II, A. B.:
"Gas-Well Production Decline in Multiwell Reservoirs,"
JPT (Dec. 1990) 1573-79.
12. Blasingame, T.A., McCray, T.L., and Lee, W.J.:
Decline Curve Analysis for Variable Pressure
Drop/Variable Flowrate Systems, paper SPE 21513
presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Houston, TX, Jan. 23-24, 1991.
13. Palacio, J. C. and Blasingame, T. A.: "Decline-Curve
Analysis Using Type Curves-Analysis of Gas Well
Production Data," paper SPE 25909 presented at the
Joint Rocky Mountain Regional and Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, Apr. 26-28, 1993.
14. Guardia, M. A. and Hackney, R. M.: "A Practical
Approach to Original Gas-In-Place Estimation:
Development of the South Wilburton Field," paper SPE
22925 presented at the 66
th
Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 6-9, 1991.
15. Keating, J. F., Chen, H. Y., Wattenbarger, R. A.:
"Original Gas in Place and Decline Curves From Early
Stabilized Rate-Time Data," paper SPE 27666 presented
at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery,
Midland, TX, 16-18 March, 1994.
16. West, S. L., and Cochrane, P. J. R.: "Reserves
Determination Using Type-Curve Matching and EMB
Methods in the Medicine Hat Shallow Gas Field,"
SPERE (May 1995) 82-87.
17. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., and Crawford, P. B.:
"The Flow of Real Gas Through Porous Media," JPT
(May 1966) 624-36.
18. Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F.: P/Z Abnormally
Pressured Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 10125 presented
at the 56th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX. Oct. 5-7, 1981.
19. Lee, W. J., and Wattenbarger, R. A.: Gas Reservoir
Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 5, (1996).
20. Sutton, R.P.: Compressibility Factors for High-
Molecular-Weight Reservoir Gases, paper SPE 14265
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Meeting and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
21. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H.: Calculation of
Z Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State,
J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1975) 34-36.
22. Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E.: The
Viscosity of Natural Gases. JPT (Aug. 1966) 997-1000;
Trans., AIME, 237.
23. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: Practical Solution of
Gas-Flow Equations or Wells and Pipelines with Large
Temperature Gradients, Trans., AIME, (1956) 207.
24. Holditch, S.A. and Morse, R.A. : The Effects of Non-
Darcy Flow on the Behavior Of Hydraulically Fractured
Gas Wells, JPT (Oct. 1976) 1169-79
8 J.A. AREVALO-VILLAGRAN, R.A. WATTENBARGER, A.H. EL-BANBI SPE 58985
Table 1 - Reservoir and fluid information.
Well Reservoir Layer Opened pi T k

g
intervals(s)
(ft subsea) (psia) (
o
F) (fraction) (md)
A Deposito 1 9,371-9,404 5,463 230 0.07 0.80 0.57
Encanto 2 9,263-9,273 5,156 230 0.04 0.70 0.57
B Guzmantla Pelagica 1 7,707-7,740 2,500 194 0.07 0.70 0.77
S. Felipe Breccia 2 7,232-7,297 2,400 194 0.05 0.10 0.73

C La Laja 1 9,602-9,737 5,463 194 0.05 0.10 0.57
La Laja 2 9,514-9,553 2,543 194 0.06 0.20 0.57
La Laja 3 9,350-9,488 2,543 194 0.70 0.40 0.57
D Guzmantla Pelagica 1 7,849-7,889 4,000 194 0.07 0.70 0.77
Guzmantla Pelagica 2 7,570-7,741 2,543 194 0.07 0.70 0.77
S. Felipe Breccia 3 7,220-7,275 2,630 194 0.05 0.10 0.73
E Guzmantla 1 7,733-7,874 3,523 210 0.07 0.70 0.74
Guzmantla 2 7,661-7,727 2,000 210 0.07 0.70 0.74
S. Felipe Breccia 3 7,494-7,553 1,950 210 0.05 0.10 0.73
Table 2 - Actual Gp and parameters evaluated.
Wel l Reservoir Layer Opened Gp OGIP Jg
interval(s)
(ft subsea) (MMscf) (MMscf) (cp-Mscfd/psia
2
)
A Deposito 1 9,371-9,404 7,856 9,800 8.08E-07
Mendez 2 9,263-9,273 2,265 4,372 5.39E-07
B Guzmantla pelagica 1 7,707-7,740 3,867 31,733 3.13E-05
S. Felipe Breccia 2 7,232-7,297 484 13,095 3.75E-06
C La Laja 1 9,602-9,737 4,618 9,889 2.28E-06
La Laja 2 9,514-9,553 3,072 6,182 4.97E-06
La Laja 3 9,350-9,488 5,625 13,992 9.46E-06
D Guzmantla Pelagica 1 7,849-7,889 4,309 11,064 3.17E-06
Guzmantla Pelagica 2 7,570-7,741 2,293 16,495 1.09E-05
S. Felipe Breccia 3 7,220-7,275 1,166 9,745 4.39E-06
E Guzmantla 1 7,733-7,874 12,643 23,061 1.64E-05
Guzmantla 2 7,661-7,727 316 4,352 2.64E-06
S. Felipe Breccia 3 7,494-7,553 1,291 5,845 1.34E-05
Casing, 13-3/8"
1,136 ft
9,835 ft
Fig. 1 - Schematic Completion for Well A.
Casing, 9-5/8 7,196 ft
Casing 6-5/8
11,523 ft
9,615 ft
9,397 - 9,430 ft
Packer 6-5/8, 9,345 ft
"

Packer 6-5/8, 9,152 ft

9,289 - 9,299 ft
La Laja reservoir (11,496 ft)
Tubing, 2-7/8, 9,351 ft
Deposito reservoir (9,407 ft)
.
Encanto reservoir (7,708 ft)
KB = 26 ft
Fig. 2 - History Match and Calculated Gas Rates for Well A. Layer 1 parameters are determined.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates
Calibration rates
Actual BHFP
Estimated BHFP
Calculated rates
Actual rates
Actual BHFP
Calibration rates
Estimated BHFP
Fig. 3 - History Match and Calculated Gas Rates for Well A. Layer 2 parameters are detemined.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
ia
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calibration rates
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Actual BHFP
Estimated BHFP
Actual BHFP
Actual rates
Calculated
total rates
Layer 2
Layer 1
Calibration rates
Estimated BHFP
SPE 58985 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS - CASE HISTORIES 9
Fig. 4 - History and Forecast Gas Rates for Well A.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
BHFP for forecasting
Forecast History
Calculated
Total rates
Actual rates
Layer 2
Layer 1
BHFP
Calculated
total rates
Actual rates
Two Layers One Layer
Layer 1
Casing, 6-5/8
Fig. 5 Schematic Completion for Well B.
490 ft
Casing, 9-5/8" 3,606 ft
Packer, 6-5/8, 7,538 ft
9,620 9,656 ft
9,860 ft
8,577 ft (sand plug)
10,168 ft
S. Felipe Breccia reservoir
( 7,659 ft )
Guzmantla P. reservoir ( 8,036 ft )
KB = 427 ft
S. Felipe reservoir ( 7,052 ft )
Orizaba reservoir ( 9,548 ft )
9,574 9,594 ft
8,134 8,167 ft
7,659 - 7,724 ft
9,692 9,735 ft
Casing, 13-3/8"
Fig. 6 - History and Forecast Gas Rates for Well B.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Actual BHFP
Estimated BHFP
BHFP for forecasting
Forecast History
Calculated
total Rates
Layer 1 Layer 2
Actual rates
Actual BHFP
Estimated BHFP
BHFP for forecasting
Fig. 7 - History and Forecast Gas Rates for Well C.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Calculated rates, Layer 3
Actual BHFP
Estimated BHFP
BHFP for forecasting
BHFP for forecasting
Calculated
total Rates
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Actual rates
Calculated
rates
Forecast History
Three Layers One Layer
Estimated BHFP
Actual BHFP
Fig. 8 - History and Forecast Gas Rates for Well C. Parameter for Layers 2 and 3 are evaluated.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0
Time (years)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Calculated rates, Layer 3
Calibration rates
Actual BHFP
Estimated BHFP
Calculated
total Rates
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Calibration rates
Actual rates
Estimated BHFP
Actual BHFP
Fig. 9 Schematic Completion for Well D.
Casing, 13-3/8"
S.Felipe Breccia reservoir ( 7,416 ft )
494ft
3,611 ft
Packer, 6-5/8, 7,295 ft
Casing, 6-5/8"
9,862 9,929 ft
Orizaba reservoir ( 9,299 ft )
Casing, 9-5/8"
10,010 ft Casing, 4-"
9,578 9,610 ft
9,460 9,525 ft
9,391 9,430 ft
8,134 ft
8,062 - 8,102 ft
8,528 ft
7,433 7,488 ft
7,783 7,954 ft
Guzmantla P. reservoir ( 7,610 ft )
KB = 213 ft
K
10 J.A. AREVALO-VILLAGRAN, R.A. WATTENBARGER, A.H. EL-BANBI SPE 58985
Fig. 10 - History Match and Calculated rates for Well D. Layer 1 parameters are determined.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calibration rates
Actual BHFP
Calibration
rates
Layer 1
Calculated rates
Actual rates
Actual BHFP
Fig. 11 - History Match and Calculated rates for Well D. Parameters for Layers 2 and 3 are
determined.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Calculated rates, Layer 3
Calibration rates
Actual BHFP
Estimated BHFP
Calibration
rates
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 1
Calculated
total rates
Actual rates
Estimated BHFP
Actual BHFP
Fig. 12 - History and Forecast Gas Rates for Well D.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Calculated rates, Layer 3
BHFP for forecasting
BHFP for forecasting
Forecast History
Calculated
total rates
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 1
Three Layers One Layer
Calculated
total rates
Actual rates
Fig. 13 - History Match and Calculated Gas Rates for Well E. Layer 1 parameters are estimated.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
ia
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates
Calibration rates
Actual BHP
Estimated BHFP
Estimated BHFP
Actual rates
Calculated rates
Calibration
rates
Actual BHFP
Fig. 14 - History Match and Calculated Gas Rates for Well E. Parameters for Layers 2 and 3 are
estimated.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
8.4 8.9 9.4 9.9 10.4
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calibration rates
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Calculated rates, Layer 3
Estimated BHFP
Estimated BHFP
Calibration rates
Actual rates
Layer 3
Layer 2
Calculated
total rates
Layer 1
Fig. 15 - History and Forecast Gas Rates for Well E.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (years)
G
a
s

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
B
H
F
P

(
p
s
i
a
)
Actual rates
Calculated rates, total
Calculated rates, Layer 1
Calculated rates, Layer 2
Calculated rates, Layer 3
BHFP for forecasting
Forecast
Actual rates
Calculated
total rates
Layer 1
Layer 3
Layer 2
BHFP
One Layer Three Layers
History
Layer 1
Calculated
total rates