Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance PRACTICE Final Examination (Well "B") 05 May 2003 (08:00-10:00 a.m. RICH 302)

Similar documents
READ THIS PAGE COMPLETELY BEFORE STARTING

Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Coefficient: Skin Factor: Notes:

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Rate Transient Analysis COPYRIGHT. Introduction. This section will cover the following learning objectives:

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

National yams May Pet-B2, Nahiral Gas Engineering. 3 hours duration NOTES:

(Formation Evaluation and the Analysis of Reservoir Performance) Module for: Analysis of Reservoir Performance. Introduction

Evaluation and Forecasting Performance of Naturally Fractured Reservoir Using Production Data Inversion.

SPE Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

PET467E-Analysis of Well Pressure Tests 2008 Spring/İTÜ HW No. 5 Solutions

Pressure Transient Analysis COPYRIGHT. Introduction to Pressure Transient Analysis. This section will cover the following learning objectives:

The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe

Module for: Analysis of Reservoir Performance Introduction

Presentation of MSc s Thesis

Flow equations The basic equation, on which all flow equations are based, is Darcy s Law for radial flow is given by: p

Reservoir Flow Properties Fundamentals COPYRIGHT. Introduction

Optimization of Plunger Lift Performance in Stripper Gas Wells during the Period 05/15/2001 to 11/30/2002

Petroleum Engineering 324 Reservoir Performance. Objectives of Well Tests Review of Petrophysics Review of Fluid Properties 19 January 2007

(Page 2 of 7) Reservoir Petrophysics: Introduction to Geology (continued) Be familiar with Reservoir Petrophysics (continued)... Slides Reservoi

PRINT. 4. Be sure to write your name, section and version letter of the exam on the Scantron form.

Well Test Interpretation

A NEW SERIES OF RATE DECLINE RELATIONS BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS OF RATE-TIME DATA

Figure 1 - Gauges Overlay & Difference Plot

Coalbed Methane Properties

DIRECT ESTIMATION OF GAS RESERVES USING PRODUCTION DATA

Measure Twice Frac Once

Petroleum Engineering 324 Reservoir Performance. Objectives of Well Tests Review of Petrophysics Review of Fluid Properties 29 January 2007

SPE Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

A COUPLED PSEUDO-PRESSURE/DENSITY APPROACH TO DECLINE CURVE ANALYSIS OF NATURAL GAS RESERVOIRS

SPE Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Introduction to Well Stimulation

TRANSIENT AND PSEUDOSTEADY-STATE PRODUCTIVITY OF HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELL. A Thesis ARDHI HAKIM LUMBAN GAOL

Rate Transient Analysis Theory/Software Course

Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)

SPE Direct Estimation of Gas Reserves Using Production Data. I.M. Buba, Texas A&M U. T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.

Flow of Non-Newtonian Fluids within a Double Porosity Reservoir under Pseudosteady State Interporosity Transfer Conditions

National Exams May 2016

Petroleum Engineering 613 Natural Gas Engineering. Texas A&M University. Lecture 07: Wellbore Phenomena

Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear Gas-Flow Systems: Constant-Terminal-Pressure Case

Calculating Inflow Performance Relationships for Gas Wells

Oil and Gas Well Performance

Inflow Performance 1

Faculty of Science and Technology MASTER S THESIS

Propagation of Radius of Investigation from Producing Well

XYZ COMPANY LTD. Prepared For: JOHN DOE. XYZ et al Knopcik 100/ W5/06 PAS-TRG. Dinosaur Park Formation

The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe

Imperial College London

SPE Uncertainty in rock and fluid properties.

IMPROVING LONG-TERM PRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS USING ANALOGS TO PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Math 151, Fall 2018 Common Exam 1 Version A

AFTER CLOSURE ANALYSIS OF THE LINEAR FLOW REGIME IN A FRACTURE CALIBRATION TEST. A Thesis ZIWENJUE YE

WATER INFLUX. Hassan S. Naji, Professor,

Radius of Investigation for Reserve Estimation From Pressure Transient Well Tests

Recent Work in Well Performance Analysis for Tight Gas Sands and Gas Shales

MATH 152, Fall 2017 COMMON EXAM II - VERSION A

TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii. Volume I

Far East Journal of Applied Mathematics

Chapter Seven. For ideal gases, the ideal gas law provides a precise relationship between density and pressure:

GENERALIZED PSEUDOPRESSURE WELL TREATMENT

MATH 151, FALL 2017 COMMON EXAM I - VERSION A

Gas Rate Equation. q g C. q g C 1. where. 2πa 1 kh ln(r e /r w ) 0.75 s. T sc p sc T R C C( a 1. =1/(2π 141.2) for field units. =1 for pure SI units

Analysis of production and pressure data to characterize the performance of oil and gas reservoirs

Lynch 2017 Page 1 of 5. Math 150, Fall 2017 Exam 2 Form A Multiple Choice

A Physics-Based Data-Driven Model for History Matching, Prediction and Characterization of Unconventional Reservoirs*

PRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS OF NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS: A DENSITY-BASED APPROACH

Lynch 2017 Page 1 of 5. Math 150, Fall 2017 Exam 1 Form A Multiple Choice

MATH 151, FALL 2017 COMMON EXAM III - VERSION B

TAMU Spring Math 151, Spring 2019 Common Exam 1 Version A

WELL/RESERVOIR EVALUATION BY USING PRESSURE TRANSIENT AND MATERIAL BALANCE ANALYSIS OF A GAS WELL IN BANGLADESH. MD.

TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii. Volume I

MATH 152, Fall 2017 COMMON EXAM III - VERSION A

MATH 152, Fall 2017 COMMON EXAM III - VERSION B

Student s Printed Name:

SPE The direct application of this work is to predict the IPR for a given system directly from rock-fluid properties and fluid properties.

Lynch, October 2016 Page 1 of 5. Math 150, Fall 2016 Exam 2 Form A Multiple Choice Sections 3A-5A

MATH 151, SPRING 2018

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. A New Method For Production Data Analysis Using Superposition-Rate. Peter Yue Liang A THESIS

MATH 151, SPRING 2018

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Unconventional Reservoirs

MA 110 Algebra and Trigonometry for Calculus Spring 2017 Exam 1 Tuesday, 7 February Multiple Choice Answers EXAMPLE A B C D E.

Well Performance and Nodal TM Analysis Fundamentals COPYRIGHT. Session #1 Virtual Instructor Led

2. Standing's Method for Present IPR

Perspectives on the Interpretation of Flowback Data from Wells in Shale Reservoir Systems

Exam 4 SCORE. MA 114 Exam 4 Spring Section and/or TA:

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING 310 FIRST EXAM. September 19, 2001

Test 3 Version A. On my honor, I have neither given nor received inappropriate or unauthorized information at any time before or during this test.

Test 3 - Answer Key Version B

Production performance analysis of fractured horizontal well in tight oil reservoir

THEORETICAL RESERVOIR MODELS

SPE Well Test Analysis for Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow

MA 113 Calculus I Fall 2015 Exam 3 Tuesday, 17 November Multiple Choice Answers. Question

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

MATH 251 MATH 251: Multivariate Calculus MATH 251 FALL 2006 EXAM-II FALL 2006 EXAM-II EXAMINATION COVER PAGE Professor Moseley

MATH 151, FALL 2017 COMMON EXAM 2, VERSION B. LAST NAME (print) : FIRST NAME (print): INSTRUCTOR : SECTION NUMBER: DIRECTIONS THE AGGIE HONOR CODE

COMPARISON OF SINGLE, DOUBLE, AND TRIPLE LINEAR FLOW MODELS FOR SHALE GAS/OIL RESERVOIRS. A Thesis VARTIT TIVAYANONDA

Transcription:

Protocol: 1. The problems in this exam are to be worked completely and independently. 2. The exam is "CLOSED NOTES," students are limited to the following resources: You are permitted the use of 3 (three) standard 8.5"x11" pieces of paper to serve as your personal "resource pages" for this exam these pages can contain any notes, equations, plots, etc. that you may wish to utilize on the exam. You may use both sides of your "resource pages." You are also permitted the use of the "Practice Final Exam" distributed via e-mail. Your own calculator, pencil, straight-edge, etc. 3. Students are specifically forbidden to work together in any capacity. 4. Any and all questions should be directed to the instructor. 5. Exam duration will be 2 hours. General Rules: 1. You must show all work for credit no credit for unsupported work. 2. Be as neat and organized as possible no credit for illegible or incomplete work. 3. Carefully organize and attach all of your work (even work on scratch paper) when you reassemble the exam to turn in. You are to only write on the front portion of any particular page and you must number all pages in some logical order. Rules for Analysis Problems: 1. Graphical Analysis: a. Identify the model and provide appropriate analysis relations. b. Identify and label every pertinent feature clearly note all features on a particular plot (slopes, intercepts, trends, etc), and comment (in detail) as needed. c. Proceed with calculations you must show all details of your calculations. 2. Compare the results of your various analyses, making sure to note that some techniques should yield similar results (if applicable). 3. You are responsible for using the appropriate analysis relations (equations). If you use the wrong relation(s) for analysis, no credit will be given for your work. Rules for Theory/Development/Application Problems: 1. Identify all pertinent relations and assumptions before you begin your solution you are encouraged to provide a brief outline of the proposed solution before you start any work. 2. Proceed carefully in a logical and consistent manner through the solution, showing all pertinent details "magic steps" will be given no credit. 3. Carefully check the solution, if possible, by comparison of your result(s) to other similar solutions. For numerical results, you should attempt to check your values against other solutions (if avail-able/applicable) as a means of ensuring accuracy. Academic Honesty Statement: Aggie Code of Honor: Aggies do not lie, cheat, or steal, nor do they tolerate those who do. I have neither given nor received help on this exam. (your signature)

2 Description: Orientation Pressure Transient Data Analysis: This examination problem considers the analysis of pressure buildup test performed in a gas well that has been hydraulically fractured. The pseudopressure and pseudotime transformations are applied to the data functions you can simply analyze these well test data in the same manner as you would for data from an oil well test. The governing equations for these analyses are attached. Production Data Analysis: This examination problem also considers the analysis of the long-term production rate and pressure data (provided on a daily basis) for the same well as mentioned above. The pseudopressure and material balance pseudotime transformations are applied to the data functions so that you can perform decline type curve analysis of these data directly (i.e., by using the provided hand analysis plots). The governing equations for these analyses are attached. Required: (All relevant plots are provided) The following results are required: Pressure Transient Analysis Preliminary Log-log Analysis: Wellbore storage coefficient, C s. Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, C D or C Df. Formation permeability, k. Cartesian Analysis: Early Time Data Pressure drop at the start of the test, p pws ( t=0). Wellbore storage coefficient, C s. Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, C D or C Df. Semilog Analysis: ( t a (MDH) analysis is sufficient for this case) Formation permeability, k. Near well skin factor, s. Log-Log Type Curve Analysis: ( t a analysis is sufficient for this case) Dimensionless fracture conductivity, C fd. Formation permeability, k. Fracture half-length, x f. Wellbore storage coefficient, C s. Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, C D or C Df. Pseudoradial flow skin factor, s pr. Production Data Analysis Semilog Analysis: (Model: q g q gi exp(-d i t), Plot: log(q g ) versus t) Initial rate, q i. Decline constant, D i. Gas-in-place, G. Cartesian Analysis: (Model: q g q gi - D i G p, Plot: q g versus G p ) Initial rate, q i. Decline constant, D i. Gas-in-place, G. Log-Log Type Curve Analysis: (Fetkovich-McCray-style decline type curves) Dimensionless fracture conductivity, C fd (or F cd (old name)). Reservoir drainage area, A. Formation permeability, k. Fracture half-length, x f. Pseudoradial flow skin factor, s pr.

3 Governing Equations for Well Test Analysis Well Test Analysis Pseudopressure-Pseudotime Relations: Pseudopressure: µ p gizi p p = dp p pi p µ g z base Pseudotime: t t = gi c 1 µ ti d t a 0 µ g c t Well Test Analysis Early-Time Cartesian Analysis: (pseudopressure-pseudotime form) qg Bgi qg Bgi p pws = p pwf ( t = 0) + mwbs ta (or tae), where mwbs =, which yields Cs =. 24Cs 24mwbs C The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficients are, 0.894 s C C and 0.894 s D = C. 2 Df = 2 φhctirw φhctix f Well Test Analysis Semilog Analysis: (pseudopressure-pseudotime form) Horner: t p + ta qg Bgiµ gi qg Bgiµ gi ppws = p pi msl ln, where msl = 162.6, which gives k = 162.6. ta kh mslh and the skin factor, s, is given by: ( p pws ( t a = 1hr) p pwf ( t a = 0)) t p k s = 1.1513 log log + 3. 2275 m sl t p + 1 2 φµ gi c ti r w MDH: k qg Bgiµ gi ppws = p pwf ( ta = 0) + msl ln( ta) + m sl log 3.2275 0.8686s +, where m 162.6. 2 kh gi c ti r sl = φµ w where the formation permeability, k, and the skin factor, s, are given by: qg Bgiµ gi k = 162.6 and ( p pws ( t a = 1hr) p pwf ( t a = 0)) k s = 1.1513 mslh log + 3. 2275 m 2 sl φµ gi c ti r w Well Test Analysis Type Curve Analysis Relations: (pseudopressure-pseudotime form) "Bourdet -Gringarten" Type Curves: (Unfractured Vertical Well with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects) Family Parameter: C D e 2s Formation Permeability: q ' g Bgiµ gi [ p or ] 141.2 wd p k = wd MP h ' [ p p or p p ] MP Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Coefficient: "Economides" Type Curves: (Fractured Vertical Well with Wellbore Storage Effects) Family Parameter: C Df Formation Permeability: q ' g Bgiµ gi [ p or ] 141.2 wd p k = wd MP h ' [ p p or p p ] MP Fracture Half-Length: k [ t or ] 0.0002637 a tae MP 2 k 1 [ t or ] CD = 0.0002637 a t x ae MP 2 φµ [ td / CD] f = gictirw MP φµ gicti CDf [ tdxf / CDf ] MP Skin Factor: 1 [ C 2s ] = ln De s MP 2 CD

4 Governing Equations for Production Data Analysis Production Data Analysis Pseudopressure-Pseudotime Relations: Pseudopressure: µ p gizi p p = dp p pi p µ g z base Pseudotime: (base definition) t t = gi c 1 µ dt a ti 0 µ g ( p) c t ( p) Production Data Analysis Rate-Time and Rate Cumulative Analysis: q g q gi exp(-d i t) (plot of log(q g ) versus t) q g q gi - D i G p (plot of q g versus G p ) Material Balance Pseudotime: (variable-rate) µ c t gi ti q g ( t) t = dt a q g µ g ( p) c t ( p) 0 (These results are derived for the liquid case assumptions include a volumetric reservoir produced at a constant bottomhole pressure. These relations are "conservative" approximations for the gas case.) Production Data Analysis Type Curve Analysis Relations: (pseudopressure-material balance pseudotime form) (from Pratikno (2002), Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Fractured Wells) Type Curve Matching Procedure: 1. Assemble the production (gas MSCF/D) and bottomhole pressure (psia) versus time (in days). Compute the "material balance pseudotime" function given by: µ c t gi ti q g ( t) t = dt a q g µ g ( p) c t ( p) 0 2. Compute the pressure drop normalized rate and rate integral functions. The pseudopressure drop normalized rate function is given by: ( qg qg qg p p ) = = ( p pi pwf ) p p For gas, the pressure drop normalized rate integral function is given as: 1 t a ( qg p p ) i = ( qg p ) dτ t p a 0 For gas, the pressure drop normalized rate integral-derivative function is given by: ( qg p p ) id [( q p ) ] d[ ( q p ) ] d g p i = d ln ( ta ) = t a g dt a p i 3. The following data functions are plotted on a scaled log-log grid for type curve matching using the Fetkovich- McCray format type curve: a. ( qg p p ) versus t a b. ( q g p p ) i versus t a c. ( q g p p ) id versus t a

5 Governing Equations for Production Data Analysis Production Data Analysis Pseudopressure-Pseudotime Relations: (continued) 4. We now "force" match the depletion data trends onto the Arps b = 1 (harmonic) stems for each of the Fetkovich- McCray style type curves being used (i.e., q Dd, q Ddi, and q Ddid ). Once a "match" is obtained, we record the "time" and "rate" axis match points as well as the r ed transient flow stem. Recall that for this case, r ed = r e /x f. a. Rate-axis Match Point: Any ( q p) MP ( qdd ) MP pair b. Time-axis Match Point: Any ( t ) MP ( t Dd ) MP pair c r ed transient flow stem: look for the ( q p), ( q p) i, ( q p) id functions that best match the transient data stems. d. Lastly, we calculate the b Dpss value (using Eq. 4.5 below): b 2 Dpss = ln ( red ) 0.049298 + 0.43464 red a1 + a + 1+ b 1 2 u + a u + b 2 3 u u 2 2 + a + b 3 4 u u 3 3 + a + b where the following constants are defined: u = ln ( FcD ) a 1 = 0.93626800 b 1 = -0.38553900 a 2 = -1.00489000 b 2 = -0.06988650 a 3 = 0.31973300 b 3 = -0.04846530 a 4 = -0.04235320 b 4 = -0.00813558 a 5 = 0.00221799 (For the case of an unfractured well the b Dpss parameter is defined as: b Dpss = ln(r ed ) - 1/2) Estimation of Reservoir Properties: Using the "match point" results we can estimate the following reservoir properties: Original Gas-In-Place: 1 G = cgi ( t ) ( q ) MP g p a p MP ( t Dd ) MP ( qdd ) MP Reservoir Drainage Area: GBgi A = 5.6148 φtot h(1 S wirr ) "Effective" Drainage Radius: r e = A π Formation Permeability: (effective permeability to gas) k g Bgi µ = 141.2 h gi Fracture Half-Length: re x f = red b Dpss ( q g p p ) ( qdd ) MP MP 4 5 u u 4 4

6 Required Results Required Results: Pressure Transient Analysis (perform analyses as applicable) Preliminary Log-log Analysis: Wellbore storage coefficient, C s = RB/psi Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, C D or C Df = Formation permeability, k = md Cartesian Analysis: Early Time Data Pressure drop at the start of the test, p pws ( t=0) = psi Wellbore storage coefficient, C s = RB/psi Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, C D or C Df = Semilog Analysis: ( t a (MDH) analysis is sufficient for this case) Formation permeability, k = md Near well skin factor, s = Log-Log Type Curve Analysis: ( t a analysis is sufficient for this case) Dimensionless fracture conductivity, C fd = Formation permeability, k = md Fracture half-length, x f = ft Wellbore storage coefficient, C s = RB/psi Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, C D or C Df = Pseudoradial flow skin factor, s pr = Required Results: Production Data Analysis (perform analyses as applicable) Semilog Analysis: (Model: q g q gi exp(-d i t), Plot: ln(q g ) versus t) Initial rate, q i = MSCF/D Decline constant, D i = 1/D Gas-in-place, G = MSCF Cartesian Analysis: (Model: q g q gi - D i G p, Plot: q g versus G p ) Initial rate, q i = MSCF/D Decline constant, D i = 1/D Gas-in-place, G = MSCF Log-Log Type Curve Analysis: (Fetkovich-McCray-style decline type curves) Dimensionless fracture conductivity, C fd (or F cd (old name)) = Reservoir drainage area, A = acres Formation permeability, k = md Fracture half-length, x f = ft Pseudoradial flow skin factor, s pr =

"Cinco-Samaniego" Type Curve "Cinco-Samaniego" Type Curve: p wd and p wd ' vs. t Dxf Various C fd Values (NO WELLBORE STORAGE EFFECTS) (1"x1" format) 7

"Cinco-Samaniego" Skin Factor Correlation "Cinco-Samaniego" Skin Factor Correlation: (used to relate the fractured well case to the Pseudoradial flow skin factor) 8

Bourdet-Gringarten Type Curve (Unfractured Well) Bourdet-Gringarten Type Curve: p wd and p wd ' vs. t D /C D Various C D Values (Radial Flow Case Includes Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects) (1"x1" format) 9

"Economides" Type Curve (C fd =1, C Df =various) "Economides" Type Curve: p wd and p wd ' vs. t Dxf /C Df C fd =1 (Fractured Well Case Includes Wellbore Storage Effects) (1"x1" format) 10

"Economides" Type Curve (C fd =2, C Df =various) "Economides" Type Curve: p wd and p wd ' vs. t Dxf /C Df C fd =2 (Fractured Well Case Includes Wellbore Storage Effects) (1"x1" format) 11

"Economides" Type Curve (C fd =2, C Df =various) "Economides" Type Curve: p wd and p wd ' vs. t Dxf /C Df C fd =5 (Fractured Well Case Includes Wellbore Storage Effects) (1"x1" format) 12

"Economides" Type Curve (C fd =10, C Df =various) "Economides" Type Curve: p wd and p wd ' vs. t Dxf /C Df C fd =10 (Fractured Well Case Includes Wellbore Storage Effects) (1"x1" format) 13

"Economides" Type Curve (C fd =1x10-3, C Df =various) "Economides" Type Curve: p wd and p wd ' vs. t Dxf /C Df C fd =1x10 3 (Fractured Well Case Includes Wellbore Storage Effects) (1"x1" format) 14

Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve: Unfractured Well (Radial Flow System) Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve Unfractured Well (Radial Flow System) 15

Correlation Plot for the Pseudosteady-State Constant Fractured Wells (Various C fd (or F cd ) Cases Correlation Plot for the Pseudosteady-State Constant: Fractured Wells (Various C fd (or F cd ) Cases 16

Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve: Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 0.1 Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 0.1 17

Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve: Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 1 Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 1 18

Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve: Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 10 Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 10 19

Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve: Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 1x10 3 Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve Fractured Well Case C fd (or F cd ) = 1x10 3 20

21 Data Inventory: Well "B" Data Inventory Well "B" Reservoir properties: φ = 0.088 S wirr = 0.131 (fraction) h = 170 ft r w = 0.292 ft Gas properties: (at the initial reservoir pressure (p i ) of 9330 psia) γ g = 0.61 (air=1) CO 2 = 2.5 mole percent T= 300 deg F B gi = 0.5442 RB/MSCF µ gi = 0.0322 cp c t = c gi = 5.58x10-5 psia -1 Production parameters: p pwf ( t=0) = 228.48 psia q g = 900 MSCF/D (constant) t p = 14784 hr

Production Summary Plot: Production Summary Plot 22

Cartesian Plot: Early-Time Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data Cartesian Plot Early-Time Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data 23

Semilog Plot: "MDH" Plot Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data Semilog Plot "MDH" Plot Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data 24

Log-log Plot Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Pseudotime (1 inch x 1 inch) Log-log Plot: Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Pseudotime (1 inch x 1 inch) 25

Semilog Plot: Rate-Time Plot (Production Data Analysis) Semilog Plot Rate-Time Plot (Production Data Analysis) 26

Cartesian Plot: Rate-Cumulative Plot (Production Data Analysis) Cartesian Plot Rate-Cumulative Plot (Production Data Analysis) 27

Log-log Plot Pseudopressure Drop Normalized Rate Versus Material Balance Pseudotime (1 inch x 1 inch) Log-log Plot: Pseudopressure Drop Normalized Rate Versus Material Balance Pseudotime (1 inch x 1 inch) 28