SPE 62883

A New Approach to Gas Material Balance in Tight Gas Reservoirs

Thomas W. Engler, SPE, New Mexico Tech

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 14 October 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
Gas material balance in conventional, volumetric reservoirs is
described by a linear relationship between pressure/z-factor
(p/z) and cumulative production. Unfortunately, tight gas
reservoirs do not exhibit this type of behavior, but instead
develop a nonlinear trend, which is not amenable to
conventional analysis. The nonlinearity is a function of two
items: the testing method (time) and the reservoir
characteristics. For these type of reservoirs the testing time is
insufficient to reach average reservoir pressure and from a
practical viewpoint, it is not possible to shutin for extended
periods of time. Therefore, a method has been developed to
use key intersection points and slopes from a tight gas material
balance plot to better understand the reservoir behavior.
This work begins by explaining the nature of the nonlinear
trend in terms of flow regimes. The primary objective is to
improve the estimate of gas-in-place and recovery in a tight
gas reservoir. Typically, gas-in-place is underestimated using
conventional techniques. It is demonstrated that by using the
appropriate slope with the initial pressure an improved
(increased) estimate of gas-in-place is achieved. Furthermore,
it is possible to distinguish the effect of infill wells and
subsequently determine the incremental recovery. Included
are field examples from the San Juan Basin and southeast New
Mexico, which demonstrate the technique.
Introduction
The widely known gas material balance equation for a simple,
volumetric reservoir, is given by;
p pi
=
z
z
i

1 p ,. .(1)

Consequently, a common tool in reservoir analysis of gas

wells is to plot p/z vs. the cumulative gas production (Gp). If a
constant slope develops it is possible to ascertain the recovery
and gas-in-place. Equation (1) is constrained by isothermal
temperature conditions, no phase changes, no water influx,
and no compressibility effects; i.e., water and formation
compressibility, respectively.
Ikoku1 provides details of
reservoirs with water influx and compressibility effects.
Unfortunately, in low permeability gas reservoirs this
behavior is not exhibited, but instead, a nonlinear trend
prevails as shown in Fig. 1. This trend has been recognized by
past authors 2-4 and has been discarded as unuseable. It is the
objective of this work to use this data to obtain information
pertaining to the reservoir.
The nonlinear trend is a function both of the pressure
measurement technique and the reservoir characteristics.
Typical shut in periods are not of sufficient duration to
achieve a representative average reservoir pressure. This
concept can be reinforced by examining the criteria for
reaching pseudosteady state flow.

t pss = 3790

i cti A
k

t DApss ,.(2)

Assuming a well located in the center of the drainage area

and substituting typical reservoir and gas properties for a tight
gas formation ( = 11%, k = 0.1 md, gi = 0.012 cp., cti =
0.001 psi-1), results in a time to reach pseudosteady state of 2
years for an 80 acre drainage area and 16 years for a 640 acre
drainage area. Subsequently, a single buildup pressure
measurement after seven days of shut in will not achieve such
a boundary condition.
Approach
To analyze low-permeability reservoirs the following
constraints are applied: (1) no water influx, (2) constant
reservoir temperature, (3) no rock compressibility effects, and
(4) only single phase dry gas; i.e., no phase changes occur in
the reservoir. Many reservoirs exhibit these constraints such
as the Dakota and Mesaverde of the San Juan Basin, or the
Pecos Slope Abo of southeast New Mexico to name a few.
Furthermore, to simplify the analysis the bottomhole
flowing pressure will be assumed to be constant over the life
of the well. A reasonable assumption for dry gas wells
controlled by surface line pressure. The Pwf of the examples

THOMAS W. ENGLER

discussed later meet this criteria; however, if the pressure

varies significantly then superposition is recommended.
Referring to Figure 1, three trends are exhibited on the p/z
plots for low permeability reservoirs. During the early time
period a rapid decrease in pressure occurs. If this trend is
extrapolated to p/z = 0, the gas-in-place (G) will be seriously
underestimated. The behavior has been previously explained
as the response to transient flow profile3; however, additional
analysis did not confirm this hypothesis. An alternative
solution is the rapid depletion of a stimulated well in a
reservoir consisting of a natural fracture network; in simple
terms, the flush production associated with such a condition.
Coupled with this behavior is the inability of the pressure
measurement technique to capture reservoir pressure within
the testing time. Subsequently, as the drainage radius is
expanding the testing pressure deviates more and more from
the average reservoir pressure.
The intermediate period exhibits uniform slope over an
extended period of time, even though, the magnitude of the
pressure measurement observed is significantly below the
average reservoir pressure. During this period, the test time is
too short to capture the average pressure response; however,
consistency of the data suggests that a similar region is being
repeatedly investigated by the pressure test. For example,
notice in Figure 2 the difference in pws and pr is approximately
constant for an extended period of time. Several researchers2,5
have presented methods to correct measured data to average
reservoir pressure by pressure buildup techniques.
The constant slope provides an opportunity to estimate the
hydrocarbon-pore volume, Vhc. Defining the slope (m) as;

m=

(p / z)
, ..(3)
G
p

and substituting into the gas material balance equation, results

in an expression to determine Vhc.

TP
1
Vhc = sc * , .(4)
Tsc m
From volumetrics,

Vhc = 43560Ah(1 S w ) ,(5)

thus providing a method to determine the drainage area.
Furthermore, from the observation of a constant slope,
three scenarios can be developed to determine the gas-in-place
as illustrated in Figure 3. The problem is defining the
relationship between the determined slope and the actual slope
if one could measure the actual reservoir pressure. Case A
exhibits two parallel trends of constant slope; i.e., m1 = m2.
Gas-in-place can readily be obtained from,

p
G= i
z
i

1
* ,(6)
m

SPE 62883

The difference in gas-in-place between the two lines is due

to the initial reservoir pressure difference; and not the
hydrocarbon pore volume, which is the same for both lines.
To have equal slopes suggests the radius of investigation
of the pressure test is expanding at the same rate as the radius
of drainage of the reservoir. That is, ri constant* re over an
extended period of time. The magnitude of gas-in-place will
be overestimated by this method and therefore provides an
upper bound to the well.
In case B the slopes are different, but the intersection
point occurs at the same gas-in-place. Subsequently, the
hydrocarbon pore volume is corrected to reflect the difference
in reservoir pressures. Estimation of G is obtained by,

1 pi
p
G= *
=
z int m1 zi

1
*
,(7)
m
2

where the (p/z)int is the intercept value from the identified

pressure trend. To solve for the correct Vhc requires the
substitution of m2 into Eq. (4). For this behavior to occur
means the investigative volume seen during subsequent
pressure tests is approaching the average drainage volume of
the well. In other words, ri 0.472re. This is as expected for
depleted reservoirs where the pressure gradient is
approximately uniform throughout the reservoir.
The third and final scenario (Case C) exhibits both a
different slope and intercept between the measured pressure
trend and the actual reservoir behavior. Unfortunately, the
measured data does not reflect the actual reservoir behavior.
The best is to estimate a range for gas-in-place using Case A
as the upper bound and case B as the lower bound
A final stage of the life of the well occurs when depletion
has been significant (see Fig. 1). At this time the measured
pressure curve flattens and becomes constant; converging to
the actual average reservoir pressure. In many cases the gasin-place was estimated by extending a straight line from the
initial p/z point through this late time point. Experience has
shown this method typically underestimates gas-in-place, due
to the late time measured pressure slightly underpredicting the
actual reservoir pressure. Also, as Fetkovich, et.al.4 correctly
point out, a rise in pressure can be a rebound effect due to a
decrease in withdrawal from the reservoir.
Applications
Pictured Cliffs. The first example well produces from the
Pictured Cliffs sandstone in the San Juan Basin of northwest
New Mexico. Picture Cliffs is a low permeability, sandstone to
shaly sandstone gas reservoir found at a depth of
approximately 3200 feet and developed on 160 acre spacing. 6
The example well (No.114) was initially completed in 1958
and included a hydraulic fracture treatment to be
commercially productive. Other well and reservoir data are
listed in Table 1. The long history of production and pressure
data along with a pressure buildup test, make this well an
excellent candidate for investigation.

SPE 62883

A NEW APPROACH TO GAS MATERIAL BALANCE IN TIGHT GAS RESERVOIRS

Figure 4 is the p/z vs cumulative production plot for this

well. In the San Juan Basin, pressure data is recorded over a
7-day shut in period and reported annually until 1974 and
every other year until 1990. The primary purpose of
collecting this information was for deliverability testing and
proration. Notice the typical tight gas well response of a rapid
decrease in pressure within the first year. This behavior does
not correspond to the end of the transient period, which occurs
8 to 10 years later according to decline curve analysis. The
majority of time and hence cumulative production exhibits
case B behavior; i.e., constant p/z decline. Applying Eq. (7)
this trend results in an estimate of 660 mmscf of gas-in-place.
Also shown on Figure 4 is an extrapolation between the
initial p/z and the anomalous increase in p/z found in the latest
data points; resulting in 520 mmscf of gas-in-place.
Frequently this extrapolation is applied to tight gas wells to
estimate gas-in-place and recovery. The validity of the last
points is pivotal to this method being successful or not. These
pressure points were acquired during a time of extended cycles
of shutin and production due to external constraints. The
resulting bottomhole flowing pressure is increased which
subsequently translates into an increase in recorded shutin
bottomhole pressure. This is the same conclusion as drawn by
Fetkovich, et al.4 in 1987. Unless this pressure data is
obtained very late in the life of the well it is likely this method
will underestimate gas-in-place and reserves.
Cumulative production (as of mid 1999) for this well is
480 mmscf; therefore 73% of the gas-in-place has been
recovered. A rate cumulative plot (Figure 5) also provides a
linear trend, which when extrapolated results in gas-in-place
of 700 mmscf or 69% recovery. Both methods are within
reasonable agreement. Results are given in Table 2 for
comparison.
A key to tight gas development is the drainage area of
existing wells and the feasibility of infill drilling. Estimation
of drainage area was performed by both decline curve analysis
and the modified material balance method. Type curve
matching on a log-log scale as originally proposed by
Fetkovich7,8 and later expanded by Sunde9, identified both
transient and boundary dominant flow present in this well
(Figure 6). Drainage area was estimated to be 90 acres by the
decline curve method. The example well illustrates a case B
behavior, i.e., unique G but a variable slope (m). Using
Equation (7) to adjust the slope, the hydrocarbon pore volume
is calculated to be 7.544 mmrcf. Substitution of the known
gas and well properties results in a drainage area calculation of
70 acres.
To further investigate the tight gas, pressure behavior, a
single well, simulation model was developed for single-phase
flow. As a simplification, the reservoir properties were
assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic. The well was
bottomhole pressure constrained, initially at 250 psi and then
reduced to 150 psi ten years later. This change reflects the
actual pressures measured during the annual deliverability
tests. Figure 7 illustrates the excellent match between the
results from the simulator with the measured data for both gas
rate and shutin bottomhole pressure. The success of the model

verifies the linear trends seen on the gas material balance plots
and the slow pressure response of tight gas reservoirs.
Furthermore, to obtain this match the areal extent of the
simulation model was 86 acres, which is in agreement with the
previous methods.
The analysis suggest this well has drained 70 to 90 acres of
the dedicated 160-acre proration unit and has recovered
approximately 70% of the gas-in-place within that volume.
The paradox is the boundary-dominated flow exhibited by the
decline curve. The nearest well is approximately 1850 feet
away from the subject well, farther than the estimated
drainage area. Two explanations can be given. First, the
drainage calculations are based on isotropic conditions and
therefore a circular drainage pattern. However, if anisotropy
exists, then the two wells are sufficiently close enough to
provide interference. Investigation of production and
geological trends show a dominant northwest/southeast
direction, the exact direction of these two wells. Second, a
thinning of the reservoir net pay thickness over the areal
extent of this well would increase the drainage area. For
example if thickness is reduced by half then the drainage area
doubles to approximately 160 acres.
A second example producing from the Picture Cliffs
reservoir is Well No. 88 shown in Figure 8. Reservoir and
well properties are listed in Table 1. Again the behavior is
similar to the first example. Extrapolation of the pressure/z
trend results in an estimate of 988 mmscf of gas-in-place.
Cumulative production has been 705 mmscf, therefore
recovery has been 71%. If an extrapolation between the initial
point and the last set of test points is drawn the gas-in-place is
820 mmscf, or 86% recovery. From production decline
analysis the gas-in-place is estimated to be 920 mmscf (Fig.
9).
The slope of the line extending from the initial pressure/z
and intersecting the extrapolated gas-in-place is given by Eq.
(7);
1272
m =
* .6312 = 1.286 psi / mmscf
2 624
Substituting into Eq. (5) results in a calculated drainage
area for this well of 70 acres. In comparison, analysis of the
decline curve resulted in a drainage area of 77 acres for this
well.
The next example illustrates the usefulness of this method
for a pair of wells; the original well and a replacement well
664 ft apart. The original well produced 132 mmscf for 15
years, but was abandoned due to mechanical problems. The
replacement well was drilled 8 years later and has cumulative
production to date of 350 mmscf. Figure 10 is the p/z plot for
both wells combined. Several interesting features can be seen
on this figure. For the initial well, note the typical response of
high initial p/z followed by a period of declining slope. The
last three tests show a rapid decrease in pressure and
production, verifying the mechanical problems. For the
replacement well, note the initial pressure was almost identical
to the first well, 897 vs 876 psia, respectively; thus illustrating
the low permeability of the Picture Cliffs reservoir. Limited

THOMAS W. ENGLER

data for the remaining life of the replacement well make

analysis difficult, however the late time increase in p/z is
exhibited and is due to shutin periods as described previously.
An extrapolation of the pressure trend results in G = 783
mmscf. Total production for this proration unit is 480 mmscf,
or 61% of the gas-in-place. At the end of the initial well,
recovery would have been 17% of the gas-in-place. This low
recovery coupled with the estimate of gas-in-place provides
evidence to drill a replacement well. Drainage area is
estimated to be 78 acres and 104 acres by material balance and
decline curve analysis, respectively.
Dakota Sandstone. The Dakota is a prolific, gas-bearing
sandstone to shaly sandstone reservoir located in the San Juan
Basin. The subject well was completed in the Dakota in 1968
at a depth of approximately 7300 feet. Figure 11 illustrates
the pressure/z behavior with respect to cumulative production.
Unlike the Picture Cliffs examples, this well exhibits two
parallel straight lines as described by case A. Following the
guidelines presented for case A, the gas-in-place is given by
the straight line through the initial pressure point and is 3.951
Bcf. The cumulative production is 3.31 Bcf, therefore
recovery to date is 84%. From the slope the drainage area is
estimated to be 165 acres. A match of the production rate data
in Figure 12 results in significantly greater gas-in-place and
drainage area; 7.0 Bcf and 296 acres, respectively.
This well was part of a 15 well simulation study of the
Dakota reservoir.10 A reservoir pressure contour map at the
end of the simulation (current time) confirms the well has
drained approximately 160 acres. It was one of the first wells
drilled in the area and has cumulative production which is 3 to
10 times greater than the adjacent offset wells.
Pecos Slope Abo. The last example is from the Abo
sandstone formation, which is productive near Roswell in
southeastern New Mexico. This reservoir was one of the first
to be designated as tight gas and current spacing is 160 acres11.
For the subject well, input data is found in Table 1 and results
are summarized in Table 2.
Figure 13 is the gas material balance plot for the given
well. The pressure data was obtained from recording the
maximum surface pressure from periodic 24-hour buildup
tests. These pressures obviously do not reach average
reservoir pressure; however, they do delineate a trend as
classified by Case B. Gas-in-place is estimated to be 975
mmscf. Cumulative production has been 615 mmscf, or
recovery to date is 63% of the gas-in-place. An attempt to
confirm this analysis by decline type-curves was not possible
since the well did not reach pseudosteady state flow (see Fig.
14) during the wells 17-yr history.
Using Eq. (7) to estimate the slope (m2), the hydrocarbon
pore volume is calculated to be 9.162 mmrft3. Solving for
area in Eq. (5), results in 259 acres as the area of influence
from the material balance analysis.
This solution is
significantly greater than the 160 acres dedicated to the well.
If porosity or thickness increase away from the wellbore, like

SPE 62883

lenticular sands found in the Abo tend to do, then the

corresponding area would be reduced.
Conclusions
A method is proposed to evaluate historical shutin pressure
data for low permeability gas reservoirs. This data is typically
ignored due to the inadequate buildup time to measure a true
average reservoir pressure. However, it was shown that even
though the magnitude of the pressure measurements is in
error, the trend can be applied to obtain an improved estimate
of gas-in-place. Three cases were identified of tight gas
behavior and relationships developed with the desired
response.
Benefits of the method are improved estimates of gas-inplace; thereby enhancing the accuracy of forecasts and
reserves. Also obtained is an estimate of drainage area, which
is used to determine the availability of infill drilling prospects.
As shown in the first example, only one-half of the dedicated
acreage has been drained by this well; leaving the remaining
area available for future development.
This method is best applied when coupled with other
techniques; thereby verifying or adding new information to the
understanding of the reservoir. Decline curve analysis and
simulation were two additional tools used for comparision
with the proposed method. Unfortunately, decline curves have
a tendency to be erratic in tight gas reservoirs and are
therefore sometimes difficult to evaluate.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft2
cti = initial total compressibility, psi-1
h = reservoir thickness, ft
k = permeability, md.
G = gas-in-place, mmscf
Gp = cumulative gas production, mmscf
m = slope of p/z vs. Gp plot, psia/mmscf
p = pressure, psi
pr = average reservoir pressure, psi
pwf = wellbore flowing pressure, psi
pws = measured shutin bottomhole pressure, psi
re = reservoir radius, ft.
ri = investigative radius, ft
Sw = water saturation, dimensionless
z = gas compressibility factor or z-factor
T = temperature, F
t = time, hours
tDA = dimensionless time
Vhc = hydrocarbon pore volume, res. ft3
= porosity, dimensionless
Subscripts
i = initial
pss = pseudosteady state
sc = standard conditions

References
1. Ikoku, C.: Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering, Krieger
Publishing Co., Malabar, FL (1992)
2. Stewart,P.R.: Low-Permeability Gas Well Performance at
Constant Pressure, JPT, (Sept. 1970) 1149-1156.
3. Slider,H.C.: Worldwide Practical Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering Methods, Pennwell Publishing, Tulsa, OK (1983)
4. Fetkovich,M.J., Vienot,M.E., Bradley,M.D. and Kiesow, U.G. :
Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves-Case Histories,
SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 637-656.
5. Brons,F and Miller, W.C.:A Simple Method for Correcting
Spot Pressure Readings, (1961) Trans., AIME 222, 803-805.
6. Dutton,S.P.,Clift,S.J.,Hamilton,D.S.,Hamlin,H.S.,Hentz, T.F.,
Howard, W.E., Akhter,M.S., and Laubach,S.E.: Major Low
Permeability Sandstone Gas Reservoirs in the Continental
United States, GRI/BEG Report No. 211 (1993)
7. Fetkovich,M.J.:Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,
JPT (June 1980) 1065-77.
8. Fetkovich,M.J., Fetkovich,E.J. and Fetkovich,M.D.:Useful
Concepts for Decline Curve Forecasting, Reserve Estimation,
and Analysis, SPE 28628 (Sept. 1994) presented at the Annual
Technical Conference in New Orleans, LA.
9. Sunde,A., Chen, H., and Teufel,L.W.:Producing Characteristics and Drainage Volume of Dakota Reservoirs, San Juan
Basin, New Mexico, SPE 60288 (Mar 2000) presented at the
SPE
Rocky
Mountain/Low
Permeability
Reservoirs
Symposium.
10. Jaramillo, M.: Integrated Study of the Dakota Formation: East
Half of the Gas Project Area, San Juan Basin, New Mexico
M.S. Thesis, Petroleum Engineering (May 2000)
11. Bentz,L.M.:Pecos Slope Abo, Chaves County, New Mexico,
Roswell Geological Society (1988) 22-43.

, %
gi, cp
h, ft
cti, psi-1

No. 114
11
0.0112
40
8.8

No. 88
11
0.0118
67
9.6

No. 18
11
0.0114
73
12.8

Dakota
5
0.019
125
3.22

Abo
12.3
0.014
11
8.86

g
Tr , F
Sw, %
rw, ft.
Pi, psi

0.67
106
44
0.229
1131

0.67
103
44
0.229
1045

0.67
106
44
0.229
762

0.68
200
50
0.229
2856

0.675
98
40
0.333
1239

x 10-4

No.
88
988
71
70

No.
18R
783
61
78

Abo

G,mmscf
Recovery,%
A, acres

No.
114
660
73
70

Dakota

P/z
analysis

Acknowledgements
I like to thank New Mexico Tech for allowing me to publish
this paper. Also, I.H.S/Dwights for providing the production
database and Gemini Solutions, Inc for the reservoir simulator.

3.951
84
165

975
63
259

Rate
Analysis

A NEW APPROACH TO GAS MATERIAL BALANCE IN TIGHT GAS RESERVOIRS

G,mmscf
Recovery,%
A, acres

700
69
90

920
77
77

1110
43
104

7000
47
296

Table 2. Results and comparison of p/z analysis with rate time

analysis.

(p/z)i

m ?
2 =
m

(p/z)int

Tig
h
p/z

SPE 62883

Co
n

t ga

s re

spo

nse
Gp

ve

nti

on

al

re s
po

ns

Figure 1. P/z response for conventional gas reservoir and a tight

gas reservoir.

Pi

ri

Pwf

.472re

Table 1. Input well and reservoir properties

rw

re

Figure 2. Schematic of a partial buildup response in a tight gas

reservoir, indicating the difference in measured pws and average
reservoir pressure, pr.

THOMAS W. ENGLER

SPE 62883

P /Z vs. C umulative P ro ductio n

N o. 11 4

Case A
1600
1400

P/z

1200

P/Z, psia

1000
800
600

400
y = -0.8367x + 552.88
R 2 = 0.958

200
0
0

100

G 1 G 2

Gp

200

300

400

500

600

700

Cumulativ e Production, mmscf

Figure 4. Field example of tight gas response (Case B) on p/z plot

and estimation of gas-in-place.

Case B

N o. 114 - P icture C liffs

4500

1
m

Production R ate , mscf/mo

P/z

G 1= G 2

Gp

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500

bas ed on day s on

1000
500
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

C umulativ e Prod, mmscf

Case C
P/z

Figure 5. Extrapolation of Rate cumulative trend for gas-inplace.

Fetkovich Decline Curve

10

10000

2
1

G 1 G 2

0.1

m cf/m o

Gp

qDd

1000

100
annual average

0.0 1
10

0.0 01
0.0 001

0.0 01

0.0 1

1
1

Figure 3. Three possible relationships between the conventional

response and the tight gas response.

0.1
10

1
100

10

100

1000

tDd
cumulative time,months

Figure 6.. Rate time log-log type curve of Well No. 114.

1000

SPE 62883

A NEW APPROACH TO GAS MATERIAL BALANCE IN TIGHT GAS RESERVOIRS

1000

1200

N o. 18 and 18R

1000

1000

measured

900

100

800

10

400

y = -0.7 2 35 x + 56 6 .9
2
R = 0 .5 28 6

800
700

P/Z, psia

600

SIBHP, psi

production rate, mscf/mo

simulated

600
500
400
300

200

200
100

0
0

10

15

20

25

100

200

Figure 7. Comparison of simulation results with measured data

for Pictured Cliffs example.

400

500

600

700

800

Figure 10. Determination of gas-in-place for two wells in the same

proration unit, original well and a replacement well.

P /Z vs. C umula tive P ro d uc tio n

N o. 88

P/z vs. Cumulative Production

Dakota Example

1400

3500

1200

3000

1000

2500

800

p/z, psi

P/Z, psia

300

Cumulative production, mmscf

time, years

600
400

y = -0.8264x + 3264.6
2
R = 0.999

2000
1500
1000

y = -0.6312x + 623.98
2
R = 0.9173

200

500

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

500

1000

C umulativ e Production, mmscf

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Cumulative Production, mmscf

Figure 8. Second Pictured Cliffs example of tight gas response on

p/z curve.

Figure 11. Dakota field example exhibiting Case A tight gas

behavior.

N o. 8 8 - P ictured C liffs

Fetkovich Decline Curve

10

12000

8000
6000

mcf/mo

10000

qDd

P rodu ctio n rate , mcf/mo

100000

10000

0 .1

annual average

1000

4000
based on day on

0 .01

2000
100
1

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

C umu lativ e P ro duction, mmscf

Figure 9. Extrapolation of rate cumulative trend for the second

field example.

0 .001
0 .000 1

10

100

1000

cum ulative tim e, m o

0 .001

0 .01

0 .1

10

1 00

tDd

Figure 12. Rate time log-log type curve of Dakota Well

1 000

THOMAS W. ENGLER

P e co s S lo p e A b o W e ll
16 00
14 00

P/z, p s i

12 00
10 00
80 0
60 0
40 0

y = -0 .9 8 6 3 x + 9 6 1 .2 7
2

20 0

R = 0 .9 8 6 6

0
0

20 0

40 0

60 0

80 0

10 00

Cu m u lativ e p ro d u c tio n , m m s cf

Figure 13. Pecos slope Abo example of Case A tight gas behavior.

Fetkovich Decline Curve

100000

10
10000

0.1

mcf/mo

qDd

1
1000

100

Annual average

0.01

10

0.001
0.0001

0.001

10

0.01

100

0.1

time,months

1000

10

100

1000

tDd

Figure 14. Rate-time Log-log type curve of Pecos Slope Abo well.

SPE 62883