0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Comparison of Models Correlating Cumulative Oil Production and Water Cut

[+] Author and Article Information
Changhui Cheng

Yangtze University,
Jingzhou, Hubei 434023, China

Kewen Li

China University of Geosciences, Beijing,
Yangtze University,
Jingzhou, Hubei 434023, China
e-mail: likewen@cugb.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 9, 2013; final manuscript received December 15, 2013; published online March 4, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Hong-Quan (Holden) Zhang.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(3), 032901 (Mar 04, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: JERT-13-1111; doi: 10.1115/1.4026459 History: Received April 09, 2013; Revised December 15, 2013

There have been many models to estimate reserves and predict oil production performance using the relationship between water cut, fw, (or water-oil ratio, WOR) and cumulative oil production (Np) in the literature. However, it is difficult to choose the suitable models for specific reservoirs. On the other hand, consistency and accuracy are yet to be improved. In this study, several frequently used models for predicting cumulative oil production using water cut have been compared using production data from low permeability reservoirs. These models include the conventional model, the Ershaghi–Omoregie model, the Purvis model, the Arps model, the Bondar–Blasingame model, and the Warren model. All of the models were applied to production data, respectively, and then compared in one single figure, that is, fw versus Np, for one set of production data from both reservoirs and the core sample. To do so, it facilitated the comparison of different models. Otherwise, it may be difficult to make the comparison for all of the models because the models have different dependent variables. The analysis and discussion to the results have been conducted. The results have demonstrated that no model could fit all of the cases studied. Each model has the advantages and limitations. However, the Warren model is better than the other five models statistically. It fits most of the cases studied satisfactorily.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Reservoirs , Fittings , Water
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Fitting results of different models, well 2 in reservoir 2, (a) Fitting results of the Ershaghi–Omoregie model, (b) Fitting results of the Warren model, (c) Fitting results of the Purvis model, (d) Fitting results of the Arps model, (e) Fitting results of the conventional model, (f) Fitting results of the Bondar–Blasingame model, and (g) Comparison of fitting results of different models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Fitting results of different models, well 3 (a) Fitting results of the Ershaghi–Omoregie model, (b) Fitting results of the Warren model, (c) Fitting results of the Purvis model, (d) Fitting results of the Arps model, (e) Fitting results of the conventional model, (f) Fitting results of the Bondar–Blasingame model, and (g) Comparison of fitting results of different models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fitting results of different models, block 1, (a) Fitting results of the Ershaghi–Omoregie model, (b) Fitting results of the Warren model, (c) Fitting results of the Purvis model, (d) Fitting results of the Arps model, (e) Fitting results of the conventional model, (f) Fitting results of the Bondar–Blasingame model, and (g) Comparison of fitting results of different models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Fitting results of different models, well 1, (a) Fitting results of the Ershaghi-–Omoregie model, (b) Fitting results of the Warren model, (c) Fitting results of the Purvis model, (d) Fitting results of the Arps model, (e) Fitting results of the conventional model, (f) Fitting results of the Bondar-–Blasingame model, and (g) Comparison of fitting results of different models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fitting results of different models, core sample, (a) Fitting results of the Ershaghi–Omoregie model, (b) Fitting results of the Warren model, (c) Fitting results of the Purvis model, (d) Fitting results of the Arps model, (e) Fitting results of the conventional model, (f) Fitting results of the Bondar–Blasingame model, and (g) Comparison of fitting results of different models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The Relationship between 1/fw − ln(1/fw − 1) and fw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Fitting results of different models, reservoir 1, (a) Fitting results of the Ershaghi–Omoregie model, (b) Fitting results of the Warren model, (c) Fitting results of the Purvis model, (d) Fitting results of the Arps model, (e) Fitting results of the Conventional model, (f) Fitting results of the Bondar–Blasingame model, and (g) Comparison of fitting results of different models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Fitting results of different models, reservoir 2, (a) Fitting results of the Ershaghi–Omoregie model, (b) Fitting results of the Warren model, (c) Fitting results of the Purvis model, (d) Fitting results of the Arps model, (e) Fitting results of the conventional model, (f) Fitting results of the Bondar–Blasingame model, and (g) Comparison of fitting results of different models

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In