URTeC: 1922914

Reserves Estimation in Unconventional Reservoirs Using ProductionDecline Model

Tariq Ali*, James Sheng, and Marshall Watson, Texas Tech University
Copyright 2014, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2014-1922914
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 25-27 August 2014.
The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract
Erroneous reserve estimates associated with improper application of Arps relations has led to the development of
alternative rate-time models based on empirical considerations. These models can equally provide good fits for only
limited duration production data, but they yield significantly different 30-year- estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)
estimates.
In our previous work, we extensively demonstrated the reliability of cumulative-production model to analyze the
production performance of fractured dominated tight and shale reservoirs.
A number of field and simulation examples are used to generate 30-year-EUR estimates using different rate-time
models as well as production-Decline model. As to quantify the uncertainty associated with the aggregating 30-year
EUR forecasts, we use the approach of Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) methodology.
The results show that some of rate-time models overestimate EUR with more than 150% compared with cumulative
production-Decline model which yields exact estimates in most of the cases. The results also show that the
Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation provides a robust methodology for quantifying the uncertainty of the
EUR estimates.
Introduction
Reserves estimation in unconventional reservoirs has become a topic of increased interest as more of these resources
are being developed especially in the United States. The use of conventional reserves estimation relations (i.e. Arps'
1945) is only applicable for boundary dominated flow. Rushing et al (2007) showed and we also show in this work
that the analysis of production data (early rate-time data) before the onset of boundary dominated flow for
unconventional gas reservoirs will often lead to significant overestimation of reserves. This issue is problematic for
oil and gas operators producing from these unconventional gas reservoirs as they rely on accurate reserves estimates
for field development and business planning.
To avoid this drawback, Ilk et al (2008) presented the power-law exponential rate decline relation based on the
inverse of the loss-ratio (D-parameter) behavior of the time-rate data. Valko (2009) introduced the stretched
exponential decline model to describe observed decline behavior of a database of rate data obtained from
unconventional reservoirs. The stretched exponential model is similar to the power-law exponential model in
matching the early time data, but it lacks the boundary conditions necessary to match log-time boundary conditions.
Duong (2010) proposed a time-rate relation based on a long-term linear flow exhibited in hydraulically fractured
shale, and tight wells. He showed that a log-log plot of rate divided by cumulative production versus time yields a
straight line trend. He also indicated that the slope and intercept of the straight line are characteristics of the
reservoir.

URTeC: 1922914

Clark et al. (2011) introduced a new time-rate model by matching a type of logistic growth model to production data
of oil and gas wells. The logistic growth model is capable of modeling long transient behaviors of unconventional
reservoirs, and boundary conditions. Vanorsdale (2013) concluded that Duong and Power-Law models may
overestimate recovery as a result of changing the flow regime during the first ten years of the life of the wells. He
also concluded that continuous changing of flow regime may result in overestimation of recovery.
The purpose of this work is to propose the "Production-Decline Model" as a coherent approach to reserves
estimation, and to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method by applying the approach to numerically
simulated and field data sets from unconventional gas reservoirs. The paper also demonstrates that the proposed
uncertainty assessment protocol using statistical model averaging concepts (GLUE) is a robust methodology to
quantify the uncertainty of EUR estimates.
Review of Decline Curve Analysis Models
The following is a brief summary of the three reserve estimation techniques detailing their assumptions, basic theory
and implementation.
Arps Models
Decline curve analysis is the most commonly used method of estimating ultimate recoverable reserves and future
performance. The decline curve analysis technique is based on the assumptions that past performance trends can be
characterized mathematically and used to predict future performance. Decline curve analysis is based on the
fundamental assumptions; that past operating conditions will remain unchanged, a well is produced at or near
capacity, the wells drainage remains constant, and is produced at a constant bottom hole pressure.
In most cases, tight/ shale wells are producing at capacity and approach a constant bottom hole pressure, if produced
at a constant line pressure. However, it can be challenging to determine when a tight/ shale gas well has defined its
drainage area.
Hyperbolic Model

q (t )

qi
[1 bDi t ]1/ b

(1)

Exponential Model

q (t ) qi Exp ( Dit )

(1a)

Where q is the time varying production rate, qi is the initial production rate parameter, b is the hyperbolic decline
exponent parameter b<1, and Di is the initial decline rate parameter. Integration of Eq. (1) leads to an expression for
cumulative production Gp:

G p (t )

qi
[1 (1 bDi t )1(1/ b ) ]
(1 b) Di

(2)

Lee and Sidle (2010) concluded that the analysis of production data from tight/ shale gas wells using Eq. (1)
typically results in a value of greater than unity for the decline exponent parameter, b. This leads to the physically
unrealistic result that cumulative production becomes unbounded as time increases, as can be seen from the
following:

URTeC: 1922914

qi

G p ,max Lim
[1 (1 bDi t )1(1/ b ) ]
t
(1 b) Di

(3)

Fetkovich et.al (1987) argued that such anomalous behavior (b>1) arises when fitting data from the transient flow
period to a model that is only appropriate during boundary dominated flow. Blasingame and Rushing (2005)
observed that as more production data become available the b value that start out being greater than unity tends to
decrease with time. The use of the Arps model, however, continues to remain popular for reserves estimation. A
heuristic approach is to keep the long term reserve estimate finite, with b value >1, limit the forecasted producing
life with some minimum value for the decline rate.
Duong Model
Multiple-staged hydraulic fractured horizontal wells (MFHW) became a preferred method of development in tight/
shale gas reservoirs, and an early production characteristic of these reservoirs is a linear flow time. For finite
conductivity fractures, the flow will be bilinear which represents on a log-log p rate time plot with a negative quarter
slope. Whereas for infinite conductivity fractures, flow will be linear and characterized by a negative half-slope line
on the same plot. Duong (2011) has shown that a log-log plot of cumulative production vs. time will yield a straight
line with a unity slope regardless of fracture types.

q
at m
Gp

(4)

Where a is the intercept constant and m is the negative slope parameter. Duong (2011) derived expressions for
production rate and cumulative production as given below:

q q1t m exp(
Gp

a 1m
t 1
1 m

q1
a 1m
exp(
t 1
a
1 m

(5)

(6)

Vanorsdale (2013) indicated that when the flow regime changes during the life of the well, Duongs model may
overestimate recovery for the first ten years. Also, indicated that Duong model may provide conservative recovery
estimate in vertical, non-hydraulically fractured classic shale wells.
Production-Decline Model
Ali et.al (2014) has shown that if a well produces at a constant flowing pressure, a log-log plot of cumulative gas
production versus production time yields a straight line with slope equal to unity. However, analysis of field data
from several shale gas horizontal wells has shown that the relationship between these variables is better described
using the following empirical form:

G p ct bt

(7)

Where c is the intercept constant and n is the slope parameter. Ali et.al (2014) derived expressions for production
rate that satisfy Eq. (7) as given below:

q cbt bt

n1

(1 n ln(t ))

(8)

The proposed models were verified by a large number of well production data in tight and shale reservoirs. These
models are also validated by numerically simulated cases.

URTeC: 1922914

Uncertainty Assessment Using Model Averaging

Previous studies of decline curve analysis using multiple models have shown that these models can equally provide
good fits for only limited duration production data, but they yield significantly different 30-year- estimated ultimate
recovery (EUR) estimates (Valko, 2010). If multiple models are to be used for generating reserves estimates; it is
not clear how the results from such models can be aggregated. Therefore, this study proposes an approach to
aggregating estimated ultimate recovery forecast from multiple plausible models based on related work on model
averaging. First, different models are used to fit the data, then a weight is to be assigned to each model based on
some goodness-of-fit statistics, and weighted mean and standard deviation of the desired performance measure (i.e.,
30-year EUR) are calculated.
GLUE was originally proposed for dealing with model non-uniqueness in hydrologic modeling. It is based on the
concept of equifinality which can be defined as the possibility of obtaining the same final state from a variety of
initial states (Beven and Binley, 1992). In other words, a single set of observed data may be matched by multiple
parameter sets that can produce similar model predictions. The GLUE framework equally accepts many likely
parameter combinations (realizations) as a starting point. The output corresponding to each realization is compared
against actual observations. Only those realizations that satisfy some acceptable level of performance (e.g.
maximum sum-of-squared-weighted-residuals) are retained for further analysis. A likelihood for each model is
then computed as a function of the difference between observations and model predictions. The weights for each
model are estimated by normalizing the likelihoods.
The flexibility with respect to the choice of the likelihood measure is one of the important features of GLUE
methodology. The most popular likelihood measure in the GLUE methodology is given by:

2
L j 2o

e, j

(9)

Where Lj is the likelihood for model j,

e2, j

is the variance of the errors (residuals) for model j,

o2 is the variance of

the observations, and N is a shape factor such that values of N >>1 tend to give higher weights to models with better
agreement with the data, and values of N<<1 tend to make all models equally likely. A simpler version of Eq. (11)
can be defined using the root-mean-square-error (RMSE):

1
Lj

RMSE

(10)

Normalizing the likelihoods, so that their sum is equal to one, gives the GLUE weight for each model:

wj

pr L
j

j 1

prj / RMSE

prj L j
j

pr /RMSE

(11)

j 1

Where Lj is the likelihood functions, Prj is the prior weight given to each model (i.e., 1/n if all are assumed to be
equally likely prior to weighting), and n is the total number of models being considered. From these weights, the
aggregated 30-year EUR can be computed as following:
n

G p ,30 w j G p ,30
j 1

and the standard deviation can be computed from

(12)

URTeC: 1922914

w G

SD G p ,30

j 1

P , 30

(avg) G p ,30

(13)

Examples
Two examples are presented from unconventional tight, and shale gas reservoirs to provide a comparative
assessment of various decline curve analysis models and to quantify the uncertainty associated with 30-year EUR
estimates. These examples will be first analyzed using the four decline curve analysis models described earlier, viz.,
Arps Exponential and Hyperbolic models, Duong model and Ali model to estimate the 30-year EUR. Next, we
compute likelihood or weighting factor for each model using the GLUE methodology. These weights will then be
used to aggregate the individual model forecasts.
Example 1
We simulated case of a horizontal well with four transverse fractures using the LS-LR-DK method, Rubin (2010).
We modeled not only the fluid flow in hydraulic fractures, and SRV, but also the contribution from fracture network
outside SRV. The fractures are simulated having infinite conductivity fractures operating under constant flowing
pressure bottom hole pressure condition. Our specific goal is to validate our new models by estimate the reserve and
compare the results with the simulator output.
Arps Models: For the Hyperbolic model, the first step is to fit the ratio of observed production rate, q, and
cumulative production, Gp, to the model (i.e., ratio of q/Gp from Eq. 1 and 2) to estimate the decline exponent, b, and
the initial decline rate, Di, using regression line. The resulting best fit parameters are b = 2.11 and Di = 0.01156 1/d.
In the next step, the initial production rate, qi, is calculated by fitting the observed Gp data to Eq. 2. The resulting
best fit parameter is qi = 16681 MSCF/d. Fig. 1 compares the observed production rate, q, with that obtained using
the best fit parameters in Eq. 1, the agreement is very good excepting at the end of the data record. The 30-year
production rate, q30, is estimated to be 785 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (30-year EUR), Gp,30, is
estimated to be 13.97 BSCF.
Duong Model: The first step is to fit the ratio of observed production rate, q, and cumulative Production, Gp, to the
empirical model as in Eq. 4 to estimate the intercept constant, a, and the slope parameter, m. The corresponding best
fit parameters are a = 1.259 1/d and m = 1.083. In the next step, the theoretical rate at day 1, q1, is calculated by
performing a linear regression of the observed production rate, q, against the time function f (a,t). The resulting best
fit parameter is q1 = 6224 MSCF/d. Fig. 3 compares the observed production rate, q, with that obtained using the
best fit parameters in Eq. 5, the agreement is very good excepting at the end of the data record. Fig. 4 compares the
cumulative production, Gp, with that obtained using the best fit parameters in Eq. 6, showing no agreement. The 30year production rate, q30, is estimated to be 887.5 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (30-year EUR),
Gp,30, is estimated to be 16.844 BSCF.
Ali Model: the first step is to fit the observed cumulative gas production to the empirical model as in Eq.7 to
estimate the intercept constant, c. the corresponding best fit parameter for c =12.58 1/d, and slope is a function in
time m= 0.878 t-0.017. Fig.5 compares the observed production rate with that obtained using the best fit parameters in
Eq.8; the agreement is excellent. Fig.6 compares the observed cumulative production with that obtained using the
best fit parameters in Eq.7, showing again an excellent agreement. The 30-year production rate, q30, is estimated to
be 721.6 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (30-year EUR), Gp,30, is estimated to be 14.457 BSCF.
Aggregation of Results: As has been discussed previously, the models honor the trend of the data very well
excepting at the end of the data record. The 30-year forecasts show that the Duong model and Hyperbolic model
both yield the most optimistic projection, whereas Exponential model yields the most pessimistic projection as
shown in Fig.7. These trends are aloe reinforced in the overlay for the cumulative production shown in Fig. 8. We
calculate the RMSE corresponding to the Gp fit for each of the models, and the likelihood (model weight) calculated
using the GLUE approach, viz., Eq. 11. The Ali model has the lowest RMSE, and hence, the highest weight at
48.12%. The weights for the other models are 39.4% for exponential model, 14.5% for the Duong model and 1.2%
for the Hyperbolic model. Using Eq. 12, the weighted mean for 30-year EUR estimates can then be calculated as

URTeC: 1922914

13.15 BSCF with a weighted standard deviation of 10.49 BSCF, i.e., a coefficient of variation of 79.78%. The actual
30 year EUR was 15.54 BSCF.
Example 2
We analyzed the six-year- daily production data obtained from a hydraulically fractured Horizontal well completed
in a tight gas reservoir. Some of data has to be deleted in order to be used for analysis. We identify a smooth
decline throughout the life of this well. Visual inspection of the rate data suggests that full boundary dominated flow
regime has not been established yet, but the flow regime is no long linear flow.
Arps Models: We start with fitting the ratio of observed production rate, q, and cumulative production, Gp, to the
model (i.e., ratio of q/Gp from Eq. 1 and 2) to estimate the decline exponent, b, and the initial decline rate, Di, using
linear regression. The resulting best fit parameters are b = 1.34 and Di = 0.003458 1/d. The next step, the initial
production rate, qi, is calculated by fitting the observed Gp data to Eq. 2, with an excellent agreement. The resulting
best fit parameter is qi = 10962 MSCF/d. Fig. 9 compares the observed production rate, q, with that obtained using
the best fit parameters in Eq. 1, the agreement is very good throughout the data record. Fig. 10 compares the
cumulative production, Gp, with that obtained using the best fit parameters in Eq. 2, showing a good agreement at
the very beginning of the data. The 30-year production rate, q30, is estimated to be 511.7 MSCF/d, and the 30-year
cumulative production (30-year EUR), Gp,30, is estimated to be 3.83 BSCF.
Duong Model: for Duong model, the first step is to fit the ratio of observed production rate, q, and cumulative
Production, Gp, to the empirical model as in Eq. 4 to estimate the intercept constant, a, and the slope parameter, m .
The corresponding best fit parameters are a = 1.346 1/d and m = 1.157. In the next step, the theoretical rate at day 1,
q1, is calculated by performing a linear regression of the observed production rate, q, against the time function f (a,t).
The resulting best fit parameter is q1 = 10962 MSCF/d. Fig. 11compares the observed production rate, q, with that
obtained using the best fit parameters in Eq. 5, the agreement is very good especially at the end of the data. Fig. 12
compares the cumulative production, Gp, with that obtained using the best fit parameters in Eq. 6, showing no
agreement. The 30-year production rate, q30, is estimated to be 168 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production
(30-year EUR), Gp,30, is estimated to be 5.889 BSCF.
Ali Model: the first step is to fit the observed cumulative gas production to the empirical model as in Eq.7 to
estimate the intercept constant, c. the corresponding best fit parameter for c =31.4 1/d, and slope is a function in
time m= 0.64 t-0.026. Fig.5 compares the observed production rate with that obtained using the best fit parameters in
Eq.8; the agreement is excellent. Fig.6 compares the observed cumulative production with that obtained using the
best fit parameters in Eq.7, showing an excellent agreement. The 30-year production rate, q30, is estimated to be
269.23 MSCF/d, and the 30-year cumulative production (30-year EUR), Gp,30, is estimated to be 4.341 BSCF.
Aggregation of Results: Fig. 13 shows an overlay of 30-year production rate forecasts from each of these 4 models.
The models match the trend of the data very well excepting at the end of the data record. The 30-year forecasts show
that the Duong model and Hyperbolic model both yield the most optimistic projection, followed by Alis model
whereas Exponential model yields the most pessimistic projection. These trends are aloe reinforced in the overlay
for the cumulative production shown in Fig. 14. We calculate the RMSE corresponding to the Gp fit for each of the
models, and the likelihood was calculated using the GLUE approach, viz., Eq. 11. The Ali model has the lowest
RMSE, and hence, the highest weight at 94.5%. The weights for the other models are 5.3% for exponential model,
0.098% for the Duong model and 0.01095% for the hyperbolic model. Using Eq. 12, the weighted mean for 30-year
EUR estimates can then be calculated as 4.19 BSCF with a weighted standard deviation of 0.387 BSCF, i.e., a
coefficient of variation of 9.23%.
Conclusion
1.
2.
3.

Alis Model is a simple and easy to use for production rate forecasting
Two case studies are presented to demonstrate that Alis Model is a robust model to estimate reserve
compared to other empirical models.
GLUE methodology was used as an approach to uncertainty assessment of reserves estimates via
aggregation of model results. RMSE statistic is used to assign likelihoods or weighting factors to the
different model under consideration.

URTeC: 1922914
4.

Alis model results provided the most likelihood (the highest weight and lowest RMSE) almost 95%
compared to other aggregated model.

Nomenclature

N
q
qi
t
w

o
e

= Intercept constant defined in Duong Model, 1/d

= Arps hyperbolic decline exponent , dimensionless
= Intercept constant defined in Ali Model
= Initial Decline , 1/d
= Original gas-in-place, SCF
= Cumulative gas production, SCF
= Cumulative gas production at 30 years, SCF
= Likelihood , dimensionless
= Slope defined in Duong Model, Dimensionless
= Slope defined in Ali Model, Dimensionless
= Glue shape parameter, Dimensionless
= Production Rate, SCF/ d
= Initial production rate in Hyperbolic Model SCF/d
= Time, d
= Model weight based on GLUE approach dimensionless
= Variance of Observed Values in GLUE approach, SCF2
= Variance of error in GLUE approach, SCF2

References
Arps, J.J. 1945. Analysis of Decline Curves. Published in Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 160 (1945): 228-247.
Clark, A.J. 2011. Decline Curve Analysis in Unconventional Resource Plays Using Logistic Growth Models, M.S.
Thesis, the University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Beven, K.J. and Binley, A. 1992 the future of Distribution Models: Model Calibration and Uncertainty Prediction.
Hydrological Processes, 6:278-289.
Clark, A.J., Lake, L.W. and Patzek, T.W.2011. Production Forecasting with Logistic Growth Models. Paper SPE
144790 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA,
Duong, A. 2010. An Unconventional Rate Decline Approach for Tight and Fracture-Dominated Gas Wells. Paper
CSUG/SPE 137748 presented at the 2010 Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October.
Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D. and Kiesow, U.G. 1987. Decline Curve Analysis using Type Curves:
Case Histories.SPEFE 2(4):636-657.
Ilk, D., Rushing, J. A. and Blasingame, T.A. 2008. Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands
Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps Decline Curves. Paper SPE
116731 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 21-24
September.
Lee, W.J. and Sidle, R.E. 2010. Gas Reserves Estimation in Resource Plays. Paper SPE 130102 presented at the
2010 SPE Unconventional Reservoir Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 12-25 February.
Mattar, L., Gault, B., Morad, K., Clarkson, C.R., Freeman, C.M., Ilk, D.and Blasingame, T.M. 2008. Production
Analysis and Forecasting of Shale Gas Reservoirs: Case History-Based Approach. Paper SPE 119897 presented
at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 16-18 November.
Neuman, S.P. 2003.Maximum Likelihood Bayesian Averaging Techniques for Quantifying Conceptual Model
Uncertainty. Ground Water 48 (5): 291-305.
Pratikno, H., Reese, D., and Maguire, M. 2013. Production Analysis in the Barnett Shale- Field Example for
Reservoir Characterization Using Public Data. Paper SPE 166176 presented at the 2013 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LO, USA, 30 September-2 October.

URTeC: 1922914

Mishra, S. 2012. A New Approach to Reserves Estimation in Shale Gas Reservoirs Using Multiple Decline Curve
Analysis Models. Paper SPE 161092 presented at the 2012 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KT,
USA, 3-5 October.
Ali, T.A., Sheng, J.J and Soliman, M. Y. 2014. New Production-Decline Models for Fractured Tight and Shale
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 169537 presented at the 2014 SPE Western North America and Rocky Mountain joint
Region Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 1618 April 2014.
Valko, P.P.2009.Assigning value to stimulation in the Barnett Shale-A simultaneous analysis of 7000 plus
Production histories and well completion records. Paper SPE 119639 presented at the 2009 SPE hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, the Woodlands, TX, USA, 19-21 January.
Vanorsdale, C., 2013. Production Decline Analysis Lessons from Classic Shale Gas Wells. Paper SPE 166205
Presented at the 2013 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30
September 2 October.
Arps Models Forecast for Production rate
8000

q ,MSCF/ d

Raw Data
Hyperbolic Model
Exponential Model

4000

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
t, Day

5000

Figure 1: Example 1: Hyperbolic and Exponential Models fit to gas production rate

6000

7000

8000

URTeC: 1922914

Hyperbolic and Exponential Models Forecast for Cumulative Production

20000

16000

Gp, MMSCF

12000

8000

Raw Data
Hyperbolic Model
Exponential Model

4000

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
t, Day

5000

6000

7000

8000

Figure 2: Example 1: Hyperbolic and Exponential Models fit to cumulative gas production

Duong Model Application Forecast for Production rate

8000

q ,MSCF/ d

Raw Data
Duong

4000

0
0

1000

2000

3000

Figure 3: Example 1: Dunong Model fit to gas production rate

4000
t, Day

5000

6000

7000

8000

URTeC: 1922914

10

Duong Model Forecast for Cumulative Production

16000

Gp, MMSCF

12000

8000

4000
Raw Data
Duong

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
t, Day

5000

6000

7000

8000

Figure 4: Example 1: Dunong Model fit to cumulative gas production

Ali's Model Forecast for Production rate

16000

Raw Data
Ali Model

q ,MSCF/ d

12000

8000

4000

0
0

1000

2000

Figure 5: Example 1: Ali Model fit to gas production rate

3000

4000
t, Day

5000

6000

7000

8000

URTeC: 1922914

11

Ali's Model Forecast for cumulative Production

12000

10000

Gp, MMSCF

8000
6000
4000
Raw Data
Model2

2000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
t, Day

5000

6000

7000

8000

7000

8000

Figure 6: Example 1: Ali Model fit to cumulative gas production

Models Agragation for Production rate

14000
12000

Raw Data
Duong
Hyperbolic Model
Exponential Model
Ali Model

q ,MSCF/ d

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

Figure 7: Example 1: Comparison of forecast for gas production rate

4000
t, Day

5000

6000

URTeC: 1922914

12

Models Aggregations for cumulative production

20000

Gp, MMSCF

16000

12000

8000
Raw Data
Duong
Hyperbolic Model
Exponential Model
Ali Model

4000

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
t, Day

5000

6000

7000

8000

Figure 8: Example 1: Comparison of forecast for cumulative gas production

Exponential and Hyperbolic Models Forecast for Production rate

12000

Exponential Model
Hyperbolic Model
Raw Data

10000

Gp, MMSCF

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0

500

1000

1500

t, Day
Figure 9: Example 2 Exponential and Hyperbolic fit to gas production rate data

2000

2500

URTeC: 1922914

13

Exponential and Hyperbolic Models Forecast for Cumulative production

Exponential Model
Hyperbolic Model
Raw Data

Gp, MMSCF

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

500

1000

t, Day

1500

2000

2500

Figure 10: Example 2Exponential and Hyperbolic fit to cumulative gas production data

Duong Model Forecast for Production rate

14000
12000

Duong Model

Raw Data

Gp, MMSCF

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

500

1000

Figure 11: Example 2: Duong Model fit to gas production rate data

t, Day

1500

2000

2500

URTeC: 1922914

14

Duong Model forecast for Cumulative production

Duong Model
Raw Data

Gp, MMSCF

0
0

500

1000

t, Day

1500

2000

2500

Figure 12: Example 2: Duong Model fit to cumulative gas production data

Ali Model Forecast for Production rate

20000

Raw Data

16000

Gp, MMSCF

Ali Model

12000

8000

4000

0
0

500

1000

Figure 13: Example 2: Ali Model fit to gas production arte data

t, Day

1500

2000

2500

URTeC: 1922914

15

Ali Model Forecast for Cumulative Production

Raw Data

Gp, MMSCF

Ali Model

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000

2500

t, Day
Figure 14: Example 2: Ali Model fit to cumulative gas production data

Models Aggregation for Production rate Forecast

20000

Exponential Model
Duong Model
Hyperbolic Model
Raw Data
Ali Model

Gp, MMSCF

16000

12000

8000

4000

0
0

500

1000

1500
t, Day

Figure 15: Example 2: Comparison of forecast for gas production rate

URTeC: 1922914

16

Models Aggregations for Cumulative Production Forecast

8
Exponential Model
Duong Model
Hyperbolic Model
Raw Data
Ali Model

Gp, MMSCF

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

500

1000

t, Day

Figure 16: Example 2: Comparison of forecast for cumulative gas production

1500

2000

2500