ComboCurve Proximity vs. Traditional DCA Forecast: A Comprehensive Comparison Study
ComboCurve’s proximity workflow generates a forecast with a much lower error compared to the traditional DCA.
This study was conducted to comprehensively compare the performance of traditional decline curve analysis (DCA) against ComboCurve’s proximity forecasting feature. This paper includes the results of a blind test performed by 10 reservoir engineers (the engineers’ years of experience range from 1 year to 19 years) comparing the accuracy and reliability of both methods. Traditional DCA and proximity forecasts were all compared against historical production data.
The presented analysis was based on the forecast results for 10 wells, by 10 engineers, for seven different blind test scenarios (1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 60 historical data points), using two different forecast methods (traditional DCA and proximity). Therefore, 10x10x7 (700) forecast blind tests using both forecast methods were generated and further analyzed giving this study a high degree of statistical significance. We present detailed results for the first three blind tests later in this paper. The trends seen in the first three blind tests were also observed for the rest of the blind tests.
Download WhitepaperFill out the form below to download the Comprehensive Comparison Study.
See how your team can go from forecast to economics in minutes with energy’s fastest analysis engine.
Related Posts
Precise Analytics, Comprehensive Reservoir Studies: 7 Reasons Reservoir Teams Need ComboCurve
Complex reservoir systems require complex data solutions. Whether you’re producing forecasts, generating complex scenarios for reservoir planning, or collaborating with other teams to optimize reservoir development you’re managing massive datasets. Most reservoir engineers spend hours each day navigating between platforms to make accurate, trustworthy asset recommendations, and traditional workflows slow down decision-making and innovation.
