Skip to content

Recovery Factor Analysis

1. Theory

Recovery Factor Analysis forecasts future fluid rates by extending the straight-line trend obtained from the multiphase flowing material balance (FMB) analysis. The forecast assumes that future production behavior continues to honor the established FMB trend.

The calculation is performed on time-step basis. At each forecast step, the method solves a quadratic equation for the predicted gas rate (). The predicted oil and water rates are then calculated using the forecasted instantaneous oil-gas ratio () and water-gas ratio (). Once the phase rates are known, cumulative oil, gas, and water production can be updated, and recovery factors can be calculated from the corresponding original hydrocarbons in place.

1.1. Requirements

Recovery Factor Analysis requires a completed multiphase FMB analysis. The following inputs are required:

  1. Contacted pore volume () and multiphase productivity index () from the multiphase FMB analysis.
  2. A forecast of flowing bottomhole pressure () versus time.
  3. A forecast of instantaneous flowing oil-gas ratio () versus .
  4. A forecast of instantaneous flowing water-gas ratio () versus .

The flowing and trends are generated from the multiphase FMB analysis and extrapolated over the forecast pressure range.

1.2. Quadratic Equation Derivation

The derivation starts from the cumulative producing oil-gas ratio () and water-gas ratio () at day (t+1),

Please note that uppercase and represent cumulative producing ratios, while lowercase and represent instantaneous flowing ratios.

As described in the multiphase FMB section, cumulative producing ratios can also be expressed in terms of component concentrations,

where the component concentrations of oil (), gas (), and water () are defined as:

Subscripts , , and represent oil, gas, and water properties; while subscript is for initial condition. Definitions and units for all variables can be seen in the Nomenclature.

Combining these two definitions results in:

Total saturation is denoted by:

Combining the production-based ratio definitions with the component-concentration definitions allows oil and water saturation to be written as functions of the unknown gas rate () by rearranging Eq. \eqref{Cum-OGR-Combined} and Eq. \eqref{Cum-WGR-Combined}.

where the constants are:

After expressing and as functions of . These expressions are then substituted into the mixture-density equation.

Subscript indicates standard condition. Substituting and in Eq. \eqref{Mixture-Density} with Eqs. \eqref{Oil-Saturation} and \eqref{Water-Saturation} in terms of yields:

where,

Next, recall the multiphase FMB equation at day :

is the mass material balance time,

The mass flow rate is calculated as:

The total cumulative produced mass, , is the sum of the cumulative produced oil, gas, and water masses:

Multiplying both sides of Eq. \eqref{Multiphase-FMB} by the mass flow rate (), gives:

Define as:

Replacing with Eq. \eqref{Beta}, with Eq. \eqref{Cumulative-Mass-Produced-Total}, and with Eq. \eqref{Total-Mass-Production}, then Eq. \eqref{Multiphase-FMB-2} can be rewritten as

Rearranging Eq. \eqref{Multiphase-FMB-3} in terms of forms a quadratic equation:

where the quadratic constants are expressed as:

The gas rate, , is obtained by solving the quadratic equation and selecting the positive, physically meaningful root.

1.3. Recovery Factor Calculation

After solving the quadratic equation for , the oil and water rates can be calculated using the forecasted instantaneous producing ratios:

where and are the instantaneous oil-gas and water-gas ratios at the forecasted pressure for day .

Once the fluid rates are calculated, cumulative oil, gas, and water production can be updated for the next time step:

The recovery factors are then calculated by dividing the cumulative production by the corresponding hydrocarbons in place:

2. Workflow

  1. Extrapolate vs. time from the last day of historical production to the desired forecast end date.
    rf_bhp_forecast
  2. Extrapolate flowing vs. and flowing vs. . Make sure the extrapolated ratio curves cover the full forecasted range from Step 1. These extrapolated curves are used as the predicted ratio data.
    rf_point
  3. At the start of the forecast, , , and are the cumulative oil, gas, and water production at the last historical time step.
  4. For every forecast time step, calculate the following properties:
    • and by interpolating the predicted ratio curves at the forecasted .
    • Fluid properties, including , , , , and , by interpolating the BOT data at the forecasted .
  5. Calculate the fluid rates for every forecast time step:
    • Calculate the saturation constants using Eqs. \eqref{Ao} to \eqref{Cd}.
    • Calculate the mixture-density constants using Eqs. \eqref{alpha-g} to \eqref{E}.
    • Calculate the quadratic-equation constants using Eqs. \eqref{A} to \eqref{alpha-d}.
    • Solve Eq. \eqref{Quadratic-Equation} by selecting the positive, physically meaningful root.
    • Calculate and using Eqs. \eqref{Oil-Rate} and \eqref{Water-Rate}, respectively.
  6. Calculate cumulative production, , , and , using Eqs. \eqref{Oil-Cumulative}, \eqref{Gas-Cumulative}, and \eqref{Water-Cumulative}.
  7. Calculate the oil and gas recovery factors using Eqs. \eqref{Oil-RF} and \eqref{Gas-RF}.

2.1. How should and be forecasted versus pressure?

and curves are generated from the EoS based on the PVT initialization. , or solution oil-gas ratio, represents the minimum amount of oil expected to be recovered at the surface from gas production. It provides a lower bound for the expected oil-gas ratio when the oil phase becomes less mobile and gas remains the dominant flowing phase.

, or the reciprocal of the solution gas-oil ratio, represents the maximum amount of oil that must be recovered to produce a unit volume of gas from solution. This provides an upper bound for the ratio forecast.

The forecasted ratio should remain within these physical bounds.

Above saturation pressure, data are typically close to the trend. The forecast should follow the historical data and then extrapolate reasonably to lower pressures, down to the abandonment pressure. typically decreases as pressure declines.

2.2. Reducing uncertainty in ratio forecasting - use analogs!

If yield or is primarily controlled by flowing bottomhole pressure, the result may not vary significantly with the analog type, such as parent, edge, or fully bounded wells. In this case, the selected analog should have a similar producing history and sufficient production duration.

If yield or is primarily controlled by average reservoir pressure, separate the analog wells by well type and select the trend that best matches the well being forecasted. Parent wells may show lower and flatter behavior, while edge wells and fully bounded wells may show sharper increasing trends. The forecast should be bounded by the analog behavior, where fully bounded tight infill wells may represent the sharpest increase in , and parent wells may represent a lower bound for both magnitude and rate of change.

Finally, always use cumulative versus cumulative oil as a sanity check. A reasonable forecast should transition smoothly from the historical trend and generally show a realistic increasing trend without sudden jumps or discontinuities.

Impact of these forecasts on recovery factors

Oil EUR and oil recovery factor are usually most sensitive to the forecast. Gas EUR and gas recovery factor may be slightly more sensitive to the constructed forecast. In practice, the largest uncertainty is often associated with the oil-gas ratio forecast, which has the highest impact on calculated oil recovery.

3. Obtaining EURs from Recovery Factor Analysis

3.1. How can FMB methods be used to calculate EUR?

The FMB method estimates the contacted pore volume and the corresponding contacted hydrocarbons in place, such as or . To calculate EUR, the contacted hydrocarbons in place must be multiplied by the estimated recovery factor.

For example:

3.2. How do we estimate a recovery factor?

The multiphase FMB method used in whitson+ does not require relative permeability inputs. Therefore, for forecasting purposes, whitson+ uses a recovery-factor workflow that also does not require relative permeability data. Instead, the producing ratios are forecasted directly. Although producing ratios are influenced by PVT behavior and relative permeability, forecasting the ratios directly allows recovery factor and EUR to be estimated without explicitly defining relative permeability curves.

pr

3.3. Comparison of methods for calculating recovery factors

Recovery factors calculated from FMB Recovery Factor Analysis, numerical modeling, or simple material balance should be consistent when the producing-ratio forecast and abandonment pressure are consistent. In other words, if the producing at the end of history, the forecasted producing-ratio trend, and the abandonment pressure are the same, the calculated recovery factor should also be the same.

For unconventional reservoirs dominated by expansion-drive behavior, MFMB and numerical-model recovery factors should be consistent when the forecasted producing ratios and abandonment pressure are the same.

MFMB vs Numerical Model recovery factors

In MFMB, producing ratios are forecasted directly and then used with material-balance equations to calculate recovery factors and EUR. This is the opposite direction of a numerical simulation, where the model predicts producing ratios over time, which are then used to calculate recovery factors and EUR.

3.4. How to validate if the ratio forecast makes sense?

Plot cumulative versus cumulative oil. Check whether the forecasted points transition smoothly from the historical cumulative trend. If the forecast continues without sudden breaks, jumps, or unrealistic declines, the ratio forecast is likely reasonable. If a sudden discontinuity appears between the historical and forecasted points, the ratio forecast should be adjusted so that it aligns smoothly with the historical cumulative trend.

gor-oil

In cases where DCA EUR and MFMB EUR diverge, the vs pressure curve can be modified to achieve alignment, thereby adjusting the recovery factor for oil.

cgr

4. Relevant videos

4.1. New Multiphase Flowing Material Balance Method

4.2. How to interpret the multiphase FMB plot?

4.3. Linking Multiphase Flowing Material Balance method to Recovery Factor Calculations

Nomenclature

Variable Definition Units
Gas formation volume factor RB/Mscf
Oil formation volume factor RB/STB
Water formation volume factor RB/STB
Multiphase productivity index RB/day
Gas in place Mscf
Cumulative produced gas Mscf
Mass flow rate lbm/d
Cumulative mass of surface-produced gas lbm
Cumulative mass of surface-produced oil lbm
Total cumulative produced mass lbm
Cumulative mass of surface-produced water lbm
Mass material balance time day
Cumulative produced oil STB
Cumulative producing oil-gas ratio STB/Mscf
Instantaneous producing oil-gas ratio STB/Mscf
Oil in place STB
Pressure psia
Flowing bottomhole pressure psia
Gas production rate Mscf/d
Oil production rate STB/d
Water production rate STB/d
Solution gas-oil ratio Mscf/STB
Solution oil-gas ratio STB/Mscf
Gas recovery factor -
Oil recovery factor -
Gas saturation -
Oil saturation -
Water saturation -
Time day
Contacted reservoir pore volume RB
Cumulative producing water-gas ratio STB/Mscf
Instantaneous producing water-gas ratio STB/Mscf
Cumulative produced water STB
Mixture density lbm/RB
Density lbm/ft³
Oil density at standard conditions lbm/ft³
Gas density at standard conditions lbm/ft³
Water density at standard conditions lbm/ft³
Component concentration of gas Mscf/RB
Component concentration of oil STB/RB
Component concentration of water STB/RB