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

Arps, J. J., 1956, “Estimation of Primary Oil Reserves,” Trans AIME, 207, pp. 182–191.
Ershaghi, I., and Omoregie, O., 1978, “A Method for Extrapolation of Cut vs. Recovery Curves,” J. Pet. Technol., 30, pp. 203–204.
Ershaghi, I., and Abdassah, D., 1984, “A Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data,” J. Pet. Technol., 36, pp. 664–670.
Purvis, R. A., 1985, “Analysis of Production-Performance Graphs,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 24(4), p. 44.
Warren, J. E., 1998, “A Simple Model for Predicting the Performance of a Complex Field,” Informal Presentation at SPEE Luncheon, Houston, TX, Jan. 7.
Chan, K. S., 1995, “Water Control Diagnostic Plots,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 22–25, Paper No. SPE 30775.
Bondar, V. V., and Blasingame, T. A., 2002, “Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Sept. 29–Oct. 2, Paper No. SPE77569.
Startzman, R. A., and Wu, C. H., 1984, “Discussion of Empirical Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes,” J. Pet. Technol., 36(12), pp. 2192–2194.
Warner, H. R., Jr., McGregor, D. S., Laieb, K., and Morsli, H., 2010, “Analysis of Gasfloods Using Semilog Graphs of Free-Gas Gas/Oil Ratio vs. Cumulative Oil Production,” J. Pet. Technol., 62(9), pp. 85–91.
Wang, L., Wang, X., Ding, X., Zhang, L., and Li, Ch., 2012, “Rate Decline Curves Analysis of a Vertical Fractured Well With Fracture Face Damage,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 134(3), p. 032803. [CrossRef]
Cheng, Y., Lee, W. J., and McVay, D. A., 2008, “Quantification of Uncertainty in Reserve Estimation From Decline Curve Analysis of Production Data for Unconventional Reservoirs,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 130(4), p. 043201. [CrossRef]
Luis, F., Ayala, H., and Peng, Y., 2013, “Density-Based Decline Performance Analysis of Natural Gas Reservoirs Using a Universal Type Curve,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 135(4), p. 042701. [CrossRef]
Lu, J., Ghedan, S., Zhu, T., and Tiab, D., 2011, “Non-Darcy Binomial Deliverability Equations for Partially Penetrating Vertical Gas Wells and Horizontal Gas Wells,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 133(4), p. 043101. [CrossRef]
Mattar, L., and Anderson, D. M., 2003, “A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced Analysis of Production Data,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 5–8, Denver, CO, Paper No. SPE 84472.
Lawal, K. A., Utin, E., and Langaas, K., 2007, “A Didactic Analysis of Water Cut Trend During Exponential Oil-Decline,” 31st Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, Aug. 6–8, Paper No. SPE 111920.
Lo, K. K., Warner, H. R., Jr., and Johnson, J. B., 1990, “A study of the Post—Breakthrough Characteristics of Waterfloods,” SPE California Regional Meeting, Apr. 4–6, Ventura, CA, Paper No. SPE 20064.
Sitorus, J., Sofyan, A., and Abdulfatah, M. Y., 2006, “Developing a Fractional Flow Curve From Historic Production to Predict Performance of New Horizontal Wells, Bekasap Field, Indonesia,” SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide, Sept. 11–13 Paper No. SPE 101144.
Arps, J. J., 1945, “Analysis of Decline Curves,” Trans AIME, 160(1), pp. 228–247.
Li, K., Ren, X., Li, L., and Fan, X., 2011, “A New Model for Predicting Water Cut in Oil Reservoirs,” SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, May 23–26, Paper No. SPE 143481.
Jones, S. C., and Roszelle, W. O., 1978, “Graphical Techniques for Determining Relative Permeability From Displacement Experiments,” J. Pet. Technol., 30, pp. 807–817.

Figures

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. 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. 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

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

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