SPE 114591

Rate Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs

Rasheed O. Bello and Robert A. Wattenbarger, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 16–19 June 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Shale gas reservoirs have been observed to exhibit a half slope on a log-log plot of rate against time. This indicates transient
linear behavior and is believed to be caused by drainage from matrix surfaces into the adjoining fractures.
A standard test case for the slab matrix transient dual porosity model is presented in this paper. It is shown in this
paper that various shape factor formulations can be used in the transient dual porosity model provided that corresponding
appropriate changes are made in the solution parameters and the interporosity flow parameter. It is also shown in this paper
that different matrix geometry exhibit the same transient linear response when the area-volume ratios are similar.
This paper also presents a procedure incorporating a rectangular geometry dual porosity model to analyze the
transient linear flow regime obtained in naturally fractured shale gas reservoirs. This procedure allows the use of different
matrix geometries.

Introduction
Naturally fractured reservoirs such as shale and coalbed have been traditionally modeled using the dual porosity concept
proposed by Warren and Root.1 The dual porosity model consists of matrix blocks, which provide storage of the hydrocarbon,
separated by fractures which provide permeability. Different matrix geometries - slab, cylinder, sphere - have generally been
utilized with the slab being the most widely used. The cylinder and sphere geometry are used as approximations to the two-
dimensional (columns) and three-dimensional (cubes) cases. Initial applications of the dual porosity model were limited to
solving problems related to constant rate pressure-transient analysis.1-9
Ozkan et al.10 present analysis of flow regimes associated with flow of a well at constant pressure in a closed
cylindrical reservoir. The slab matrix model similar to deSwaan5 and Kazemi2 is used in their paper. Unsteady matrix-fracture
transfer is inherent in the model. Five flow regimes are presented in Ozkan et al.10. Flow regimes 1, 2 and 3 were previously
described described in Serra et al.7 Two new regimes are presented in Ozkan et al.10 Flow regime 4 reflects unsteady linear
flow in the matrix system and occurs when the outer boundary influences the well response and the matrix boundary has no
influence. Flow Regime 5 occurs when the response is affected by all the boundaries.
Most of the problems previously considered were for the incompressible fluid case. Some authors11-16 have also
considered the gas case. Gatens et al.14 analyzed production data from about 898 Devonian shale wells in four areas. They
present three methods of analyzing production data - type curves, analytical model and empirical equations. The empirical
equation correlates cumulative production data at a certain time with cumulative production at other times. This avoids the
need to determine reservoir properties. Reasonable matches with actual data were presented. The analytical model is used
along with an automatic history matching algorithm and a model selection procedure to determine statistically the best fit
with actual data.
Watson et al.15 also present an analytical model for naturally fractured reservoirs with history matching and model
selection. They incorporate the use of a normalized time in the analytical model to account for changing gas properties with
pressure. Spivey and Semmelbeck16 present a method for predicting production from dewatered coal and fractured gas shale
reservoirs. Their method incorporates the slab matrix transient radial model, adjusted time, adjusted pressure and a total
compressibility term accounting for desorption.
Shale gas production data from a sample well is plotted against time on a log-log plot as shown in Fig. 1. A half-
slope is obtained on the plot. This indicates a transient linear regime analogous to Regime 4 described in Ozkan et al.10 The
transient linear behavior shown in Fig. 1 occurs for a duration of almost two log cycles.
 this becauese the dualporosity consists of matrix low K and fractures of
heigh K
2 SPE 114591

Wattenbarger17 identified different causes for linear transient flow including hydraulic fracture draining a square geometry,
high permeability layers draining adjacent tight layers and early-time constant pressure drainage from different geometry. A
possible cause for the transient linear regime identified in Fig. 1 is the drainage from the matrix blocks into high permeability
surrounding fractures. These high permeability fractures thus have negligible pressure drop and transient linear flow occurs.
This description is consistent with the dual porosity concept for shale gas reservoirs.
Mayerhofer et al.18 present a model for hydraulically fractured shale gas reservoirs. Their model represents the
hydraulic fracture as an interconnected network of fractures. Their paper indicates that drainage does not occur far beyond the
stimulated region because of the low matrix permeability. This observation was also stated by Carlson and Mercer.13
The transient linear behavior shown in Fig. 1 has been observed in several shale gas wells and is the only flow
regime available for analysis in numerous cases. This paper intends to investigate wells which exhibit only the transient
linear behavior. A study of the analytical dual porosity models will be conducted and a method consistent with theory for rate
transient analysis for these shale reservoirs will be presented. It is anticipated that the method developed will provide an
indication of parameters related to the completion. The effects of desorption and diffusion will be assumed negligible in this
paper.

10,000

1,000
Gas Rate (Mscf/d)

100

10
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Time (days)

Fig. 1 - Log-log plot of field production rate as a function of time. Line drawn on plot indicates half slope.

1. Development of Transient Dual Porosity Model Test Case

In this section, a test case will be presented as a method of checking our transient dual porosity program for our purposes.
Our transient dual porosity program incorporates the Laplace space solutions and will be utilized for most of this paper. This
test will be done for the slab matrix case. The transient dual porosity model will be compared with the analytical one-
dimensional slab matrix drainage model20 and simulation using the same data set. The results from this section can serve as a
test case for new transient dual porosity programs. Data used for this comparison is shown in Table 1.

Transient dual porosity model

A circular geometry reservoir, radial flow representation of dual porosity (slab matrix) with a vertical well is shown in Fig. 2
and is used in this section. Drainage area, Acm as used in this paper represents the sum of all the matrix surfaces exposed to
the fractures. Thus, for the model represented in Fig. 2,
each………….……………..
slab has two faces
(1).(h/l) represent number of slabs
Acm = 2 π (re2 − rw2 ) = 2⎜ ⎟(π )(100 2 − 0.25 2 ) = 6.28 x10 5 ft 2
h ⎛ 100 ⎞
L ⎝ 10 ⎠
The well known equations in the literature for the matrix (slab) and fracture systems (constant rate, bounded circular
reservoir) are presented in Appendix A. Mathematical details are presented in Bello.19
The interporosity flow parameter λ is computed from
k .. ....……..……………(2)
λ = σ m r2
kf
w
upper surface
this model can be used to represent
horizontal well with multiple hudralluic
shape factor fractures

lower surface
exposed to frac
SPE 114591 3

Table 1. Gas Case Dataset

rw 0.25 ft
re 100 ft
h 100 ft
φ(f+m) 0.15
cti 304.02x10-6 psi-1
L 10 ft
kf 10,000 md
km 0.001 md
Τ 660 oR (200oF)
γ 0.8
pi 3,000 psi
pwf 2,800 psi
Corresponding Values
reD 400
m(pi) 5.902x108 psi2/cp
m(pwf) 5.28x108 psi2/cp
Βgi 0.00531 rcf/scf
μι 0.0224 cp
σ (slab case) 0.12 ft-2
λ(slab case) 7.5x10-10
ω 10-3
Αcm 6.28x105 ft2
ΟGIP 8.87x107 scf

well

slab matrix
fractures

using laplace transformation to

solve the partial differential
Fig. 2 – Circular geometry, radial flow dual porosity model (slab matrix). equation of the fluid flow

As illustrated in Bello19, the Warren and Root shape factor, σ =12/L2, is inherent in the derivations of the equations for the
matrix and fracture systems presented in Appendix A. Our transient dual porosity program uses the Laplace space solution
presented for the slab matrix case in Appendix A and utilizes the Stehfest inversion algorithm. We can thus compute the
interporosity flow parameter, λ as 7.5x10-10 using the data from Table 1.The storativity ratio, ω is 10-3. Our transient dual
porosity program was then run with these values of λ and ω and reD=100.
A flow regime map for ranges of λ and ω in which the transient linear regime for the slab matrix is observed is
shown in Fig. 3. The points were obtained from several runs of the transient dual porosity model (slab matrix) for reD = 100.
 4 SPE 114591

The criteria used to distinguish transient linear from no transient linear were at a one-half slope on a log-log plot and
a straight line on a square root of time plot. It can be observed in Fig. 3 that above certain values of λ and ω, the transient
linear regime is no longer existent.

1.E+01

1.E-01
no linear flow regime
linear flow regime
1.E-03
lambda

1.E-05

1.E-07

1.E-09

1.E-11
1.E-07 1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01
Omega

Fig. 3 – Flow regime map of dual porosity parameters (λ and ω) for transient linear flow (slab matrix, circular geometry,
radial flow), reD=100. Logarithmic scale is used only for clarity and has no theoretical significance. A transition region can be
observed between linear and no linear flow regimes

One-dimensional slab drainage

This model represents transient drainage from one side of a slab. An illustration is shown in Fig. 4.The solution20 is given in
Appendix B. The drainage area, Acm, is 6.28x105 ft2 as previously calculated. The length of the slab is selected as half of the
fracture spacing (10/2 = 5 ft).

5ft
matrix half
Acm = 6.28 *105 ft2 matrix
frac Acm

this shape must be vertivally oriented

Fig. 4 - One-dimensional drainage from slab.

Simulation model
The simulation model consists of a 101 x 1 grid system. The grid sizes are Δx=0.05 ft and Δy = 100 ft. The length of the grid
is selected as half of the fracture spacing (10/2 = 5 ft). The well is located in the first grid which is assigned a very small
porosity (0.000001) and very high permeability (10,000 md). The high permeability ensures negligible pressure drop in the
first grid. The dimensions were selected so as to ensure that the drainage area of the first grid is Acm which is 6.28x105 ft2.
The accuracy of the boundary-dominated flow regime (Regime 5) was found to be dependent on the value of the maximum
timestep change. The smallest permissible maximum timestep change should be used.

The three models – transient dual porosity, one-dimensional transient drainage and simulation - are compared on a log-log
plot of rate against time in Fig. 5. An additional plot for the early-time case represented by the following equation is also
shown in Fig. 5. This is used only as an additional check for the transient linear regime. This is given by
1 .. .. ....……..……….…(3)
= 2π πt DAc
qDL
The dimensionless parameters, qDL and tDAc in Eq. 3 are computed using matris properties. It can be observed from Fig. 5 that
the three models exhibit the same response both in the transient linear regime (Regime 4) and the boundary-dominated flow
regime (Regime 5). The transient dual porosity model is thus adequate for our purposes. These results also indicate that the
transient linear regime is a result of the fractures draining the slab matrix surfaces.
SPE 114591 5

1,000,000

100,000

10,000
rate (Mscf/d)

1,000 Transient dual porosity

Linear drainage (series)
Linear drainage (simulation)
100
Early analytical

10

1
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02
time (days)

Fig. 5 - Log-log plot of rate against time. Comparison of transient dual porosity model (slab matrix, circular geometry, radial
flow, λ=10-7, ω=10-3) with other methods. The transient dual porosity model is similar to the other methods in the transient
linear regime. This validates the transient dual porosity model and supports the theory that matrix drainage is responsible for
the transient linear regime.

2. Determination of Drainage Area (Acm)

The specialized plot of [m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg against t is shown in Fig. 6. This plot will be used to determine Acm using
methods similar to those developed by El-Banbi20 and Arevalo-Villagran et al.21 The working equation22 developed from Eq.
3 for this case is given by
1262T .. ......……..……….…(4)
k m Acm = f CP
(φμct ) f +m m~CPL
where fCP is used to account for drawdown sensitivity
f CP = 1 − 0.0852 DD − 0.0857 DD2
m( pi ) − m( pwf )
DD =
m( pi )

~
m CPL
is the slope determined from the linear portion of Fig. 6. It will be assumed in this paper that (φμct ) f + m (the total system
- matrix and fractures) is approximately the same as (φμct )m for the matrix only. The parameter (φμct )m is computed using
values at initial reservoir pressure. It can be observed from Fig. 6 that the transient linear portion of the three models -
transient dual porosity, one-dimensional transient drainage and simulation - are similar. The drainage area, Acm computed
from Fig. 6 using Eq. 4 has been verified to be close to the expected value of 6.28*105 ft2 computed in Eq. 1.

60,000

50,000

Transient dual porosity

40,000
Linear drainage (series)
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg

Linear drainage (simulation)

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

time0.5(day0.5)

Fig. 6 – Specialized plot of [m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg against t . Comparison of transient dual porosity model (slab matrix, circular
geometry, radial flow, λ=10-7, ω=10-3) with other methods. The transient dual porosity model is similar to the other methods
in the transient linear regime.
6 SPE 114591

3. Effect of Shape Factors

The equations in Appendix A for the transient dual porosity model have the Warren and Root shape factor inherent in its
derivation. It has been shown19 that this formulation with the Warren and Root shape factor ends up in f(s) given in Eq. A.3.
A different shape factor formulation would change the equation form and f(s) given in Eq. A.3. In this section, the effect of
using other shape factor formulations (for the slab case) on the results was tested and compared with the base case (Warren
and Root).
Warren and Root: 12 ; Kazemi: 4 ; Zimmerman: π
2

L2 L2 L2
For a particular run, the desired shape factor formulation is selected, λ is computed, the corresponding f(s) is derived and
then programmed in the transient dual porosity model. The interporosity flow parameter, λ is computed as 7.5x10-10 (Warren
and root), 2.5x10-10 (Kazemi) and 6.17x10-10 (Zimmerman) using the parameters in Table 1 and L=10 ft. The derived f(s)
formulations are given below.
Warren and Root:
f ( s) = ω +
λ
(1 − ω ) tanh 3(1 − ω )s …..…....……..……….…(5)
3s λ
Kazemi:
f ( s) = ω +
λ
(1 − ω ) tanh (1 − ω )s .……....……..……….…(6)
s λ
Zimmerman:
4 λ
(1 − ω ) tanh π (1 − ω )s
2
f ( s) = ω + .……....……..……….…(7)
π s
2
4 λ
The results from the runs are compared in Fig. 7. It can be observed from Fig. 7 that the different shape factor formulations –
Warren and Root, Kazemi and Zimmerman - result in the same transient linear response. It can thus be concluded that any
shape factor formulation can be utilized as long as the appropriate f(s) formulation is used along with the appropriate λ
equation and calculations. More importantly, programs that have the Warren and Root formulation correctly programmed can
be utilized. This conclusion has also been verified for the cylinder and sphere geometries.19

100,000

10,000
rate (Mscf/day)

1,000

Linear drainage (series)

Warren&Root
100
Kazemi
Zimmerman

10

1
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01
time (days)
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02
important result
Fig.7 - Effect of shape factors on transient linear response (slab matrix case; ω=10-3; W&R : λ=7.5x10-10; Kazemi :λ=2.5x10-
; Zimmerman :λ=6.17x10-10). The shape factors result in the same transient linear response once the corresponding f(s)
10

changes are made.

4. Effect of Area-Volume Ratio

In this section, the different geometry (slab, cylinder and sphere) will be compared in relation to their transient dual porosity
response. Several runs were conducted but two of them (Case 2 and 4) are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The Warren and Root
shape factors were used for the three matrix geometries. Slab : 12/L2, Cylinder : 32/D2, Sphere : 60/D2
Area/volume ratio for these geometries are given by
 area/volume ratio can be computed
SPE 114591 simply by dividing area open to the flow7

over the volume

Slab (One-dimensional) 2 in the slab matrix half spacing is used
L1
Cylinder/Column (Two-dimensional) 4 or 4
D L2
Sphere/Cube (Three-dimensional) 6 or 6
D L3
It is noticed that for the two-dimensional and three-dimensional cases, the area-volume ratios are the same assuming the
fracture spacings D and L are equivalent. This allows us to use the transient dual porosity models with the cylinder and
sphere as good approximations for two-dimensional and three-dimensional cases.

Case 2
The data is shown in Table 2. Dimensions for the slab, cylinder and sphere were arbitrarily selected as 10, 60 and 50 ft
respectively. The Area/volume ratios are then computed as 0.2, 0.0667, 0.12 respectively. λ is computed for each geometry
and then run in the transient dual porosity model. The results are presented in Figs. 8 and 9. It can be observed that the
transient linear responses are different for all the geometries.

Table 2. Case 2 Data

ω 10-3
km 0.001 md
kf 10,000 md
rw 0.25 ft
L 10 ft
Dc 60 ft
Ds 50 ft
reD 50

1.E+00

1.E-02 SLAB
CYLINDER
SPHERE

1.E-04
qD

1.E-06

1.E-08

1.E-10

1.E-12
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10 1.E+12
tD

Fig. 8 - qD vs tD -Effect of matrix geometry on transient response. Case 2 -Different Area-volume ratios. (ω=10-3; slab :
λ=7.5x10-10; L=10 ft; cylinder:λ=5.56x10-11, D=60 ft; sphere :λ=1.5x10-10, D=50 ft). The three geometries result in different,
parallel transient linear responses
8 SPE 114591

35,000

30,000

25,000

SLAB
CYLINDER
20,000 SPHERE
1/qD

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
0.5
tD

Fig. 9– 1/qD vs tD0.5 - Effect of matrix geometry on transient response. Case 2 -Different Area-volume ratios. (ω=10-3; slab :
λ=7.5x10-10; L=10 ft; cylinder:λ=5.56x10-11, D=60 ft; sphere :λ=1.5x10-10, D=50 ft). The three geometries result in different
transient linear responses.

Case 4
The data is shown in Table 3. Dimensions for the slab, cylinder and sphere were selected as 10, 20 and 30 ft respectively to
ensure similar area/volume ratios of 0.2. The parameter, λ is computed for each geometry and then run in the transient dual
porosity model. The results are presented in Figs. 10 and 11. It can be observed that the transient linear responses are similar
for all the geometries.

Table 3. Case 4 Data

ω 10-3
km 0.001 md
kf 10,000 md
rw 0.25 ft
L 10 ft
Dc 20 ft
Ds 30 ft
reD 400

1.E+01

SLAB
CYLINDER
1.E-01 SPHERE

1.E-03
qD

1.E-05

1.E-07

1.E-09

1.E-11
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10 1.E+12
tD

Fig. 10 - qD vs tD-Effect of matrix geometry on transient response. Case 4 - Area-volume ratio is 0.2 for all geometries.
(ω=10-3; slab : λ=7.5x10-10; L=10 ft; cylinder:λ=5x10-10, D=20 ft; sphere :λ=4.17x10-10, D=30 ft). The three geometries result
in similar transient linear responses.
SPE 114591 9

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

SLAB
1/qD

2,000 CYLINDER
SPHERE

1,500

1,000

500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
0.5
tD

Fig. 11 - 1/qD vs tD0.5. Effect of matrix geometry on transient response. Case 4 - Area-volume ratio is 0.2 for all geometries.
(ω=10-3; slab : λ=7.5x10-10; L=10 ft; cylinder:λ=5x10-10, D=20 ft; sphere :λ=4.17x10-10, D=30 ft). The three geometries result
in similar transient linear responses.

The results from these cases illustrate the importance of the area-volume ratio in obtaining similar transient response from
any geometry. This significant result ensures that we can develop a method for analysis of the transient linear regime for
geometry that incorporates the area-volume ratio. It can be concluded that for the same reservoir, the fracture spacings for
the one, two and three-dimensional matrix geometries have to be in the ratio of 1:2:3 in order to achieve the same transient
linear response. These results and conclusions have also been verified19 using the other shape factor formulations-
Zimmerman and Kazemi.

5. Rectangular Geometry
A rectangular geometry reservoir representation of the transient dual porosity model with slab matrix elements is shown in
Fig. 12. The cross-sectional area, Ac is given by Ac=2xeh. The equations for the model20 are presented in Appendix A-3 and
details are presented in Bello19. It has also been verified19 for the rectangular geometry that various shape factor formulations
can be utilized in the Laplace space solutions provided that the appropriate f(s) and calculations are utilized. The effect of
area-volume ratio is illustrated in Fig. 13. The transient linear response is the same for all geometries similar to the result
previously obtained for the circular geometry case. It should be noted that the same solutions are also valid if the fractures
are horizontal for a rectangular geometry.

The model presented in Fig. 12 assumes that there is a horizontal well of length xe and the effectively stimulated reservoir has
the same length xe. It also assumes that there is no vertical variation in pressure in the fracture system throughout the
stimulated reservoir.

ye

xe
h

Fig. 12 - Rectangular geometry dual porosity model (slab matrix, linear flow). ye is the length of the reservoir. L is the
fracture spacing. Cross-sectional area is given by Ac=2xeh. [The same equations apply if the fractures are horizontal.]
10 SPE 114591

1.E+00

1.E-02
SLAB
CYLINDER
SPHERE
qD

1.E-04

1.E-06

1.E-08
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06
tD

Fig. 13 – Rectangular geometry -Effect of matrix geometry on transient response. Area-volume ratio is 0.2 for all geometries.
(ω=10-3; slab : λ=1.2x10-5; L=10 ft; cylinder:λ=8x10-6, D=20 ft; sphere :λ=6.667x10-6, D=30 ft, Ac = 1000 ft2). The three
geometries result in similar transient linear responses.

The equation for the transient linear regime for the rectangular geometry dual porosity model is given by
1 3 1 3ω
= 2π πt DAc for y De < .……....……..……….…(8)
q DL λ y De λ

This equation is analogous to the radial flow case equation given for Regime 4 in Ozkan et al.10

The interporosity flow parameter is given by

12 k
λ = 2 m Ac for the slab matrix case (with the Warren and Root shape factor) …………………………(9)
L kf
As previously shown, the area-volume ratio (slab matrix) is given by
Acm 2 …………………………(10)
=
Vbm L
Where Vbm = Ac y e for this case.
Thus, A = L A …………………………(11)
c cm
2 ye

Substituting Eqs. 9 and 11 in Eq. 8 yields

1262T .……....……..……….…(12)
k m Acm = f CP Matrix transient linear into
(φμct ) f + m m~CPL
fractures
which is similar to Eq. 4 (without the correction factor fCP) previously presented.

As was previously shown in Section 6, the area- volume ratios have to be the same for the one-, two- and three-dimensional
cases to yield the same transient linear response. This implies that for a particular reservoir

Acm 2 Acm 4 Acm 6 ………………………….(13)

= ; = ; =
Vbm L1 Vbm L2 Vbm L3

L1, L2, L3 which are the fracture spacings for the one-,two-, and three-dimensional matrix geometries respectively, will be
different. The ratios of L1,L2,L3 will be 2:4:6 or 1:2:3 as previously shown.
SPE 114591 11

6. Field Data Analysis Procedure

Results from the previously described sections are combined to develop a practical method of analyzing field data. The
following procedure for determining the fracture spacing is presented.
1. Obtain field production rate data.
2. Check for half slope on log-log plot of rate against time indicating the transient linear flow regime. Also check for a
straight line on a plot of [m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg against t
3. Determine k m Acm from Eq. 4
4. If matrix permeability is known, determine Acm from k m Acm
5. If Ac and ye are known (Ac may be estimated from product of well length and net pay, ye from well spacing);
Assuming one-dimensional slab matrix determine fracture spacing, from L1 = 2 ye Ac …….(14)
Acm
Assuming two-dimensional matrix geometry determine fracture spacing from L2 = 4 ye Ac ……….(15)
Acm

Assuming three-dimensional matrix geometry determine fracture spacing from L3 = 6 ye Ac ……….(16)

Acm

7. Example Calculation
In this section, the field analysis procedure is demonstrated with synthetic data generated using the transient dual porosity
model (rectangular geometry, slab matrix blocks) analytical solutions. Data used for this illustration is given in Table 4.
Calculated parameters are also shown in Table 4.

Problem formulation
Since we know the data in Table 4, we can calculate certain values for our synthetic case..
The cross-sectional area is computed from Ac = 2 xe h = 2(2000)(200) = 8 x105 ft 2

The matrix drainage area is computed from Eq. 11 as Acm = 2 ye Ac = 2(500) (8 x105 ) = 1.6 x107 ft 2
L 50 the method of
12 k 12 ⎛ 10 −5 ⎞
obtaining the
The interporosity flow parameter is computed as λ = m
A = ⎜ ⎟(8 x105 ) = 3.84 * 10 − 4
L2 k f
c
(50)2 ⎜⎝ 100 ⎟⎠ synthetic data

The analytical solutions given by Eq. C-3 is run with λ = 3.84x10-4, ω =10-3 and yDe=ye /√Ac = 0.559. The equations for
dimensionless pressure and time given by Eq. C-4 are then used to convert to rate and time values used to plot Figs. 14.
1 k f Ac [m( pi ) − m( p wf ) ] kft
= p wDL = ; t DAc =
q DL 1422 q g T (φμct ) f +m Ac
The correction factor fCP and DD given in Eq. 4 are not needed in this synthetic case since we are working with the liquid-
acting analytical solutions. Thus, we will use fCP = 1 in our computations. However, these factors must be used when
analyzing actual field data because of the non-linearity of the gas equations.22

Application of field procedure

The data indicates a half-slope as shown in Fig. 14. The next step is to make a plot of [m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg against t as shown in
Fig. 15 using the synthetic data generated in Fig. 14. As previously stated, we will be assume that (φμct ) f + m (the total system
- matrix and fractures) is approximately the same as (φμct )m for the matrix only. The parameter (φμct )m is also computed
using properties at initial reservoir pressure of the gas equations.

~
The slope, m CPL
is determined from Fig. 15 as 16,250 psi2/cp/Mscf/day
And, k A = f 1262T 1262 (660)
= (1) = 5.07 x10 4 md 0.5 ft 2
m cm CP
(φμct ) f +m m~CPL −6
(0.15)(0.0224 )(304.02 *10 ) (16,250)
12 SPE 114591

If we can estimate the matrix permeability (km=10-5 md for this synthetic case) then we can calculate
5.07 x104
Acm = = 1.6 x107 ft 2
−5
10
This computed Acm value is the same as the previously computed value.
Assuming one-dimensional (slab) matrix geometry;
The fracture spacing is determined from Eq. 14 as L1 = 2 ye Ac = 2(500) (8 x105 ) = 50 ft
Acm 1.6 x107
This fracture spacing value is similar to the expected value.

The calculations for our synthetic case were done for our slab matrix block case since this was used to generate the data. If
we did not know that this was a slab matrix geometry case and assumed that it was a two-dimensional (column) case, then we
can calculate the fracture spacing from Eq. 15 as L2 = 4 ye Ac = 4(500 ) (8 x10 5 ) = 100 ft
Acm 1.6 x10 7

If we assume that it was a three-dimensional (cube) matrix geometry, then we can similarly calculate the fracture spacing
from Eq. 16 as L3 = 6 ye Ac = 6(500) (8 x105 ) = 150 ft
7
Acm (1.6 x10 )

Discussion

This paper presents a mathematical model for horizontal shale gas wells with multi-stage hydraulic fracture treatments. The
length of the model, xe, may be taken to be the length of the perforated interval. The half-width of the model, ye, is taken to
be the distance effectively stimulated on either side of the well. The mathematical description of this model is the linear dual
porosity model (Appendix C).

It has been shown that the matrix drainage area, Acm and (effective) fracture spacings (L1, L2, and L3) can be calculated using
our procedure, if km can be estimated. However, there is no way to determine whether the slab, column, or cube case actually
applies to a particular well. But it has been shown that the values of (L1, L2, and L3) are in the ratios 1:2:3.

In addition to production rate, these calculated values may be useful in determining the effectiveness of the hydraulic fracture
treatments. Smaller fracture spacings result in higher gas rates and recovery factors as shown by Mayerhofer et al.18 These
calculated values may be used to compare the effectiveness of the fractured systems of different wells.

It should be remembered that (φμct ) should be calculated at initial pressure for all equations, as is always done for the gas
equations.

100,000

10,000
rate (Mscf/day)

1,000

100

10

1
0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
time (days)

Fig. 14 – Log-log plot of rate against time (synthetic case). Data was generated using the transient dual porosity model
(rectangular geometry, linear flow, slab matrix).
SPE 114591 13

100,000

80,000
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

time0.5

Fig. 15 – Specialized plot [m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg against t (synthetic case). Data was generated using the transient dual porosity
model (rectangular geometry, linear flow, slab matrix).
.
Table 4. Example Calculation Dataset
xe 2000 ft
ye 500 ft
h 200 ft
L 50 ft
φ(m+f) 0.15
cti 304.02x10-6 psi-1
kf 100 md
km 10-5 md
pi 3000 psi
pwf 500 psi
Τ 660 oR (200oF)
γ 0.8
Βgi 0.00531 rcf/scf
μι 0.0224 cp
Corresponding Values
yDe 0.559
m(pi) 5.902x108 psi2/cp
m(pwf) 2x107 psi2/cp
σ (slab case) 0.0012 ft-2
λ (slab case) 3.84x10-4
ω 10-3
Αcm 1.6x107 ft2
Αc 8x105 ft2
14 SPE 114591

8. Conclusions

This paper presents a mathematical model for horizontal shale gas wells with multi-stage hydraulic fracture treatments. The
length of the model, xe, may be taken to be the length of the perforated interval. The half-width of the model, ye, is taken to
be the distance effectively stimulated on either side of the well. The mathematical description of this model is the linear dual
porosity model (Appendix C).

1. It has been shown that the matrix drainage area, Acm and (effective) fracture spacings L1, L2, and L3 can be calculated
using our procedure, if km can be estimated.
2. There is no apparent way to determine whether the slab, column, or cube case actually applies to a particular well.
3. Various shape factor formulations can be used in the transient dual porosity model as long as the corresponding f(s)
formulation is used in the Laplace space solution. Since the Warren and Root shape factor formulation is the most
widely used, it can be used accurately.
4. It has been shown that values of L1, L2, and L3 will yield the same transient linear response if they are in the ratios
1:2:3.
5. The linear flow equation is analogous to the radial flow equation presented by Ozkan et al.10

Nomenclature
Acm = total matrix surface area draining into fracture system, ft2
Ac = cross-sectional area to flow, ft2
Bgi = formation volume factor at initial reservoir pressure, rcf/scf
cti = total compressibility at initial reservoir pressure, psi-1
D = diameter, fracture spacing, ft
fCP = slope correction factor, dimensionless
h = reservoir thickness, ft
Io(x) = modified Bessel function of first kind, zero order
I1(x) = modified Bessel function of first kind, first order
kf = fracture permeability, md
km = matrix permeability, md
Ko(x) = modified Bessel function of second order, zero order
K1(x) = modified Bessel function of second kind, first order
l =half of fracture spacing, ft
L = general fracture spacing, ft
L1=fracture spacing (one-dimensional, slab), ft
L2=fracture spacing (two-dimensional, column), ft
L3=fracture spacing (three-dimensional, cube), ft
m(p) = pseudopressure (gas), psi2/cp
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi
pwf = wellbore flowing pressure, psi
pD = dimensionless pressure (transient dual porosity model)
pDL = dimensionless pressure (rectangular geometry)
pDm = dimensionless pressure in the matrix
pDf = dimensionless pressure in the fracture
pwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure
qD = dimensionless rate (transient dual porosity model)
qDL = dimensionless rate (rectangular geometry)
qg = gas rate, Mscf/day
rD = dimensionless coordinate, radial direction
re = radius of reservoir, ft
rw = wellbore radius , ft
s = Laplace space variable with respect to tD
t = time, days
tD = dimensionless time coordinate
tDAc =dimensionless time coordinate (rectangular geometry)
T = absolute temperature, oR
Vbm = total matrix bulk volume, ft3
xe = drainage area length (rectangular geometry), ft
ye = drainage area half-width (rectangular geometry), ft
yDe = dimensionless reservoir length (rectangular geometry)
zD = dimensionless coordinate, z-direction
SPE 114591 15

Greek symbols
γ = specific gravity
λ = dimensionless interporosity parameter
μ = viscosity, cp
ω = dimensionless storativity ratio
φ = porosity
σ = shape factor, ft-2

Subscript
i =initial
f =fracture
m =matrix
f+m =total system (fracture+matrix)

References

1. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.: “The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” paper SPE 426 presented at the 1962
Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Los Angeles, 7 – 10 October.
2. Kazemi, H.: “Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Uniform Fracture Distribution,”
paper SPE 2156A presented at the 1968 43rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston,TX, 29 Sept – 2 Oct.
3. Kazemi, H., Seth, M.S. and Thomas,G.W.: “The Interpretation of Interference Tests in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs with Uniform Fracture Distribution,” paper SPE 2156B presented at the 1968 43rd Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston,TX, 29 Sept – 2 Oct.
4. Odeh, A.S.: “Unsteady-State Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J., (March 1964) 60-66.
5. deSwaan, A.: “Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir Properties by Well Testing,” ,"
paper SPE 5346 presented at the 1975 SPE-AIME 45th Annual California Regional Meeting, Ventura, 2-4 April.
6. Najurieta, H.L.: “A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” JPT (July 1980)
1241.
7. Serra, K., Reynolds, A.C. and Raghavan, R.: “New Pressure Transient Analysis Methods for Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs,” paper SPE 10780 presented at the 1982 SPE California Regional Meeting, San Francisco, 24-26 March.
8. Chen, C-C., Serra, K., Reynolds, A.C. and Raghavan, R.: “Pressure Transient Analysis Methods for Bounded
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” SPEJ (June 1985).
9. Streltsova, T.D.: “Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir,” paper SPE 10782 presented at the
1982 California Regional Meeting, San Francisco, 24-26 March.
10. Ozkan, E., Ohaeri, U. and Raghavan, R.: “Unsteady Flow to a Well Produced at a Constant Pressure in a Fractured
Reservoir,” SPE Formation Evaluation (June 1987)186-200.
11. Kucuk, F., and Sawyer, W.K.: “Modeling of Devonian Shale Gas Reservoir Performance,” Proceedings of Third
Eastern Gas Shales Symposium, Morgantown, WV, (1979) 1-3 October.
12. Kucuk, F., and Sawyer, W.K.: “Transient Flow in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs and Its Application to Devonian
Gas Shales,” paper SPE 9397 presented at the 1980 Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX, 21-24 September.
13. Carlson,E.S. and Mercer, J.C.: "Devonian Shale Gas Production: Mechanisms and Simple Models," paper SPE
19311 presented at the 1989 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WV, 24-27 Oct.
14. Gatens III, J.M., Lee, W.J., Lane, H.S., Watson, A.T., Stanley, D.K. and Lancaster, D.E.: “Analysis of Eastern
Devonian Gas Shales Production Data,” paper SPE 17059 presented at the 1987 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 21-23 October.
15. Watson, A.T., Gatens III, J.M., Lee, W.J. and Rahim, Z.: “An Analytical Model for History Matching Naturally
Fractured Reservoir Production Data,” paper SPE 18856 presented at the 1989 Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, 13-14 March.
16. Spivey, J.P. and Semmelbeck, M.E.: “Forecasting Long-Term Gas Production of Dewatered Coal Seams and
Fractured Gas Shales,” paper SPE 29580 presented at the 1995 Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, 20 -22 March.
17. Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Some Reservoir Performance Aspects of Unconventional Gas Production,” Private Conference
Presentation, 2007.
18. Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.P., Youngblood, J.E. and Heinze, J.R.: “Integration of Microseismic Fracture Mapping
Results with Numerical Fracture Network Production Modeling in the Barnett Shale,” paper SPE 102103 presented
at the 2006 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September.
16 SPE 114591

19. Bello, R.O.: “Rate Transient Analysis in Shale Gas Reservoirs with Transient Linear Behavior,” PhD Dissertation,
Texas A&M University, 2008.
20. El-Banbi, A.H.: “Analysis of Tight Gas Wells,” PhD Dissertation, Texas A &M University, May 1998.
21. Arevalo-Villagran, J.A., Wattenbarger, R.A., Samaniego-Verduzco,F. And Pham,T.T.: “Production Analysis of
Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Reservoirs:Case Histories,” paper SPE 71516 presented at the 2001 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September-3 October.
22. Ibrahim,M. and Wattenbarger,R.A.: “Rate Dependence of Transient Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells,” Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology (October 2006) 45, No.10.
23. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaegar, J.C.: “Conduction of Heat in Solids,” 2nd ed., 1959.

APPENDIX A – The Transient dual porosity model (slab matrix, constant rate, bounded circular reservoir)
Matrix
∂ 2 p Dm 3 ∂p
= (1 − ω ) Dm
………….…………….. (A.1)
∂z D2 λ ∂t D
Initial condition: p Dm (rD ,0 ) = 0
Inner boundary: ∂p Dm
=0
∂z D z D =0

Outer boundary: p Dm = p Df
z D =1

Fracture
∂ 2 p Df 1 ∂p Df ∂p Df λ ∂p Dm ………….…………….. (A.2)
+ =ω −
∂rD2 rD ∂rD ∂t D 3 ∂z D x D =1

Initial condition: p Df (rD ,0 ) = 0

Inner boundary: ∂p Df
rD = −1
∂rD rD =1

Outer boundary: ∂p Df (r , t ) = 0
eD D
∂rD
The solution in Laplace space is given by

( ) ( ) (
K1 reD sf ( s ) I o rD sf ( s ) + I1 reD sf ( s ) K o rD sf ( s ) ) ( ) ....……..…………… (A.3)
pDf =
[(
sf ( s) sf ( s ) I1 reD sf ( s ) K1 ) ( ) ( )(
sf ( s ) − K1 reD sf ( s ) I1 sf ( s ) )]
where λ (1 − ω ) 3(1 − ω )s
f (s) = ω + tanh
3s λ λ
Dimensionless variables are given for gas by
pwD =
[
k f h m( pi ) − m( pwf ) ]
1424q gT
0.00633k f t
tD =
[(φc )
t m ]
+ (φct ) f μrw2
r , z
rD = zD =
rw L
2
pDf (rD = 1) is evaluated from Eq. A-12 and the relation given in Eq. A-13 is used to evaluate the constant pressure case.

1 ………………………………. (A.4)
qD =
s p wD
2

Eq. A-13 can then be inverted to obtain the solutions as a function of time using suitable numerical inversion algorithms such
as Stehfest’s inversion algorithm.
SPE 114591 17

APPENDIX B – The One dimensional transient slab drainage model

The solution20 for a slab drainage into a constant fracture pressure is given by
⎛ L ⎞
π ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟
………………......……..……….…(B-1)
⎜ Acm ⎟⎟
1
= ⎝ ⎠
q DL ∞ ⎡ ⎤
− n 2π 2 Acm
∑ exp⎢⎢ 4 L
t ⎥
( )
2 DAc ⎥
n odd ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦
where 1
=
[
km Acm m( pi ) − m( pwf ) ]
qDL 1424qgT
0.00633k m t
t DAc =
(φct )m μAcm

APPENDIX C – The Transient dual porosity model (slab matrix, constant rate, bounded rectangular reservoir)
The diffusivity equations20 for the matrix and fracture along with the boundary conditions are stated below:

Matrix
∂ 2 p DLm 3 ∂p
= (1 − ω ) Dm ……………………………….(C-1)
∂z D2 λ ∂t DAc

Initial condition: p DLm (z D ,0 ) = 0

inner boundary: ∂p DLm
=0
∂z D z D =0

outer boundary: p DLm z D =1

= p DLf

Fractures

∂ 2 p DLf ∂p DLf λ ∂p DLm …………………………….(C-2)

=ω −
∂y D2 ∂t DAc 3 ∂z D z D =1

Initial condition: p DLf ( y D ,0 ) = 0

Inner boundary: ∂p DLf = −2π

∂y D y D =0

Outer boundary: ∂pDf ( yDe , t DAc ) = 0

∂y D

Solution in Laplace space is given by

p wDL =
2π (
1 + exp − 2 sf (s ) y De ) ……… …. …………………(C-3)
(
s sf (s ) 1 − exp − 2 sf (s ) y De )
Dimensionless variables are given for gas by
p wDL =
kf [
Ac m( pi ) − m( p wf ) ] ….………………………….(C-4)
1424 q g T
kft
t DAc =
(φc t ) f + m μAc
L
y De =
Ac

z
zD =
L
2
12 k m
λ= Ac is the Warren and Root interporosity flow parameter for the slab case
L2 k f