Rate-Transient Analysis in Multifractured Horizontal Wells of Tight Oil Reservoir

PO189992 DOI: 10.
2118/189992-PA Date: 7-June-18 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 22
Rate-Transient Analysis in Multifractured

Horizontal Wells of Tight Oil Reservoir
Li Haitao, Luo Hongwen, and Zhang Jianfeng, Southwest Petroleum University;
and Wang Junchao, Xinjiang Oilfield Company of Petrochina
Summary
Multifractured horizontal wells (MFHWs) have become the most commonly used technology for developing unconventional oil and
gas reservoirs. Because unconventional reservoirs are currently the focus of exploration and exploitation around the world, a growing
number of researchers and scholars are concentrating on production-performance evaluation of unconventional MFHWs to obtain the
stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) or hydraulic-fracture properties, which are usually obtained from expensive reservoir tests or pro-
duction logs. Rate-transient-analysis (RTA) techniques that use continuous-production and flowing-pressure data have proved to be
convenient and applicable approaches to estimate the reservoir parameters and hydraulic-fracture properties. Although many cases or
work flows of RTA have been previously studied, most of those works were performed for shale-gas or conventional reservoirs. Few
studies on RTA have been conducted for MFHWs completed in tight oil reservoirs, particularly for actual field cases in which the usu-
ally scattered production data significantly increase the difficulty in analyzing the production performance.
In this research, the authors focus on using convenient and economical methods (RTA techniques) to obtain the SRV parameters
and hydraulic-fracture properties that characterize the fracturing-treatment effectiveness of an actual MFHW in a tight oil reservoir,
which many engineers and technical personnel expect to achieve. A comprehensive work flow [including production-data filtering,
flow-regime diagnosis, straight-line analysis, type-curve matching (TCM), analytical-model analysis (AMA), numerical-model analysis
(NMA), and uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis] has been developed to perform a production-performance analysis of an MFHW
completed in a tight oil reservoir. In particular, two approaches for calculating the permeability of SRV (kSRV) and effective half-length
of hydraulic fracture (Xf) have been introduced. Moreover, the dual permeability parameters, the storativity ratio, and the interporosity
coefficient (x and k, respectively), have been derived to enter into the AMA model to improve the accuracy of history matching. With
the combination of AMA and NMA, the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of an actual MFHW completed in a tight oil reservoir can
be predicted. Considering the uncertainty and nonuniqueness of the original reservoir parameters or nature of the adopted methods, a
probabilistic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation has been performed to address the uncertainty of the analysis results. In addition, a
simplified application of the developed method has been introduced. To demonstrate the feasibility and practicability of the developed
work flow, two field cases from an actual tight oil reservoir have been analyzed. The consistent analysis results for field cases validate
the developed work flow and proposed methods.
Introduction
Currently, multistage fracturing of horizontal wells has been widely used to efficiently develop low-permeability formations (Hashemi
and Gringarten 2005; Lee et al. 2003; Xie et al. 2015). However, use of a convenient method to estimate the SRV parameters,
hydraulic-fracture properties, or forecast future production performance for MFHWs is a concern. By studying the production and flow
characteristics using RTA techniques, we can obtain useful estimations of the effective drainage area that effectively contributes to pro-
duction (Mohan et al. 2013). Anderson et al. (2013) proposed a work flow that is different from empirical techniques, encouraging the
use of acquired information (flowing pressures, porosity, and pressure/volume/temperature) to obtain the best estimation of original oil
in place (OOIP) and EUR. Filtering erroneous pressure and production points is important to calculating the bottomhole pressure (BHP)
(Pinillos and Rong 2015). The expectation that low-quality/low-frequency data can yield highly accurate results is simply unrealistic
(Mishra 2014). Thus, it is essential to filter useless production data before the RTA is performed, particularly for field cases in which
the scattered rate data have a significant effect on flow-regime identification. Because SRV created by multistage-fracturing stimulation
adds to the complexity of the tight media, the difficulty of flow-regime identification is increased. Log-log diagnostic pressure vs. pres-
sure-derivative plot, square-root-of-time plot, and log-log rate vs. time plot can be used together with RTA (Kurtoglu et al. 2013).
The flow-regime sequence for MFHWs in shale-gas reservoirs has been discussed by several authors (Cheng 2011; Song and Ehlig-
Economides 2011). In previous studies, five potential flow regimes for fractured horizontal wells in shale-gas reservoirs were character-
ized and relevant models associated with specific flow regimes were developed to directly calculate the reservoir parameters and
fracture properties (Clarkson and Beierle 2010; Clarkson 2013a, 2013b). Theoretically, all five flow regimes can be observed in a flow-
regime-diagnosis plot (usually a log-log diagnostic plot), and then, the reservoir parameters and fracture properties can be easily esti-
mated using the mathematical models developed in previous studies. However, the early-time pressure-transient behavior of MFHWs is
practically dominated by well storage. An analysis of the transient performance of this flow regime is not generally very useful in pro-
duction-performance analyses for the determination of well-completion effectiveness and reservoir properties (Poe et al. 2012). Further-
more, fracture storage is usually too short to be observed with typical production data or masked by cleanup effects (Clarkson 2013a).
Using analysis and lessons from previous research, it has been found that the five separate flow regimes usually can be observed in
stimulated cases—two stimulated cases studied by Clarkson and Beierle (2010) and three stimulated cases studied by Clarkson and
Pedersen (2010). However, in field cases (Clarkson and Beierle 2010; Poe et al. 2012; Clarkson 2013a, 2013b), the observed flow
regimes are only linear and boundary-dominated flows. Usually, in field cases, the scattered production data and cleanup period may
mask the early-flow regime (i.e., bilinear flow) and some intermediate-flow regimes (i.e., early radial). In this study, two useful methods
are introduced to calculate the permeability of SRV (kSRV) and effective half-length of hydraulic fracture (Xf) when those intermediate-
flow regimes, from which the fracture parameters can be directly estimated, are not observed in a straight-line analysis. Although many
studies have been conducted on TCM analysis for MFHWs completed in both conventional and unconventional (shale gas, coalbed
Copyright V
C 2018 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 30 March 2016. Revised manuscript received for review 13 July 2017. Paper (SPE 189992) peer approved 15 December 2017.
2018 SPE Production & Operations 1
ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

PO189992 DOI: 10.2118/189992-PA Date: 7-June-18 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 22
methane) reservoirs (Chen and Rajagopal 1997; El-Banbi and Wattenbarger 1998; Ozkan et al. 2011; Clarkson 2013a, 2013b), there are
few relevant studies conducted for MFHWs in tight oil reservoirs. A TCM approach is applied to estimate the fracture performance in
this research. This application of TCM was found to be difficult compared with the use of the flow-regime identification (Joo and Ki
2015) in the previously discussed case studies or work flows.
An AMA technique is used to validate the SRV and hydraulic-fracture interpretations derived from straight-line analysis or TCM anal-
ysis. The AMA technique proves to be a more-efficient method to obtain available solutions than commercial numerical simulators (Joo
and Ki 2015). A horizontal multifractured SRV model, which is used to determine single-well parameters, and a horizontal multifractured
enhanced-fracture-region model (Stalgorova and Babadagli 2012) are analyzed to provide history matching with all production history
and a forecast with a factual basis (Santacruz et al. 2015). The authors demonstrate in this study that the AMA approach is a convenient
way of obtaining the EUR and evaluating the production performance on a solid basis of historical production-data match. In particular,
dual-permeability/porosity-medium characteristics (x and k) are taken into consideration in this study. The standard RTA-derived results
should be entered into an RTA numerical model for history matching as well (Tang and Liang 2015). As a relatively independent part of
RTA techniques, NMA is performed to simulate the production performance of an actual MFHW. At the same time, a good history match
can provide verification of original inputs derived from straight-line analysis and TCM. EUR can be estimated using production-perform-
ance prediction. Finally, a key point in this study is the uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis associated with the derived results from
different RTA techniques. As noted by Pour et al. (2015), probabilistic analysis is particularly important in early time when the wells are
still in the transient period. This also helps to address the nonuniqueness of analytical models (Anderson et al. 2012). From the uncertainty
and nonuniqueness analysis, modified reservoir parameters and hydraulic-fracture properties, which are more coincident with actual situa-
tions, can be obtained. As a result of applying the probabilistic analysis, P90, P50, and P10 OOIP and EUR have been obtained with their
associated forecasts for the MFHW, which provide a theoretical support for further stimulation treatment.
The main purpose of this study is to use convenient and economical RTA techniques to determine SRV parameters (kSRV, OOIPSRV)
and hydraulic-fracture properties (Xf, FCD) for a field MFHW completed in a tight oil reservoir, which is more difficult to analyze
because of the scattered production data. A comprehensive RTA work flow is developed to accomplish the production-performance
analysis. The significance of this study is that two approaches for kSRV and Xf calculations have been discussed and that dual-permeabil-
ity/porosity parameters (x and k) are brought into AMA to obtain a better history match of production performance. Moreover, we
have validated the consistency of the results from different sections in this study. It is worth mentioning that the uncertainty and non-
uniqueness analysis using the Monte Carlo simulation can increase the accuracy of the derived SRV parameters and hydraulic-fracture
properties, which is validated by a better history matching of production data in AMA and NMA.
Proposed Work Flow

In this developed work flow, seven sections are included: production-data filtering, flow-regime diagnosis, straight-line analysis, TCM,
AMA, reservoir simulation (NMA), and uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis. All the sections are accomplished with the help of a
trial version of the IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016). The comprehensive RTA work flow and relationships among the individual pro-
cedures are shown in Fig. 1.
To illustrate each procedure of the developed work flow in detail and make it easier to understand, an actual field MFHW (Well 1)
completed in an actual tight oil reservoir has been analyzed to demonstrate the main function and feasibility of this study. The data set
of Well 1 has been used to help explain how to operate each step when performing RTA for field MFHW. The basic reservoir proper-
ties, hydraulic-fracturing data, well trajectory, and completion data for Well 1 are given in Tables 1 through 3. To instruct the simpli-
fied application of the proposed work flow and further validate the developed method in this study, another post-fractured horizontal
well (Well 2) completed in the same tight oil reservoir has been analyzed as well.
Production-Data Filtering. The production-data filtering performed in this study plays the same role as quality checking (Santacruz
et al. 2015) or production-data quality checking (Joo and Ki 2015). During the very early time (cleanup period of fracturing liquid), the
water-production data and flowing pressure of an MFHW decline sharply. Poe et al. (2012) declared that a careful selection of the very
early time production data should be performed because these data are heavily distorted by fracturing-fluid production. The rates and
pressures should be correlated, and uncorrelated data, or anomalous data, should be filtered out of the analysis. Effects of operational
upsets, such as liquid loading, should be identified and filtered out if necessary (Clarkson 2013a). Before the production-performance
analysis, the production data from when the well was pumped off have been filtered out in some previous works (Clarkson and Pedersen
2010; Clarkson 2013b).
In field cases, except for early production data (cleanup period), it is unavoidable that some abnormal rates or noise points (Clarkson
and Pedersen 2010; Clarkson 2013a), which are affected by operational upsets, shut-ins, or maintenance checks, may deviate from the
main production-data trend. These data points may induce errors in the straight-line analysis and TCM. To ensure the accuracy of quan-
tifying the reservoir parameters and fracture properties, production-data filtering has been performed ahead of RTA.
Well 1 is an MFHW completed in a tight oil reservoir. There is approximately 1 year (324 days, including cleanup period) of pro-
duction data available for RTA. The BHP is calculated from tubing pressure with a combination of oil/water-production rate (there was
no gas in this tight reservoir). Oil-production and water-production data for the target well indicate that there is a significant cleanup pe-
riod of approximately 50 days (Fig. 2). Water-production rates and flowing pressures are declining rapidly during this period. In fact, in
the process of production, it is inevitable that scattered production-data points (noise points) exist, which obviously deviate from the
main declining trend line. These noise points may be caused by shut ins, pump inspections, or some manual operations. They may
potentially lead to deviations in analytical results. Thus, it would be helpful to filter out these noise points first. Fig. 2 shows a compari-
son between the original measured-data plot (left) and the filtered-data plot (right), in which the hollow points (including noise points
marked in red circles) will be neglected in the subsequent straight-line analysis and TCM.
Flow-Regime Diagnosis. As for MFHWs in tight oil reservoirs, two dominant flow regimes—namely transient-linear-flow regime, which
could last for several months, years, or even decades, and boundary-dominated flow—are widely agreed on in the oil industry. According
to previous research on RTA work flow (Clarkson and Beierle 2010) or case studies (Anderson et al. 2013; Clarkson and Williams-Kovacs
2013) for tight reservoir or shale gas, flow-regime identification is performed to determine the appropriate model (corresponding to a spe-
cific flow regime) to be used for reservoir-parameter estimation. A number of theories and analytical methods have been set up to capture
flow-regime changes. In this subsection, log-log normalized oil rate vs. time plot is used to identify the flow regime. This plot has proved
to be useful for flow-regime identification with noisy production data (Clarkson 2013a; Pinillos and Rong 2015).
2 2018 SPE Production & Operations

Identify
Flow-Regime
Boundary- Telf
Diagnosis
Dominated Flow
kSRV, Xf total
FCD, etc.
Square-Root-
mCRL
of-Time Plot OOIPSRV, Xf ,
Production- Straight-Line
Data kSRV, etc.
Filtering Analysis
Flowing-Material- kSRV, Xf total
OOIPSRV
Balance (FMB) FCD, etc.
kSRV Verify
Wattenbarger- Xf total ,
TCM OOIPSRV, etc. Verify
Basic Data Type Curve
Preparation
Verify
Original Inputs
OOIPSRV, Xf ,
Actual Inputs
kSRV, EUR
Production-
History OOIPSRV,
AMA Performance
Matching EUR
Forecast
ω, λ Actual Inputs
Production-
History OOIPSRV,
NMA Matching Performance
EUR
Forecast
Uncertainty P10, P50, P90 Modified SRV

OOIPSRV,
Analysis Performance and Fracture
Simulation EUR
Parameters
Fig. 1—Comprehensive RTA work flow.
Pi (MPa) 41.953 ξ 1.372
Depth (m) 3057 Soi 67
T (°C) 88.4 Swi 33
Le (m) 1298 Sgi 0
rw (mm) ρo (kg/m )
3
89 890
ρw (kg/m )
3
nf 17 1000
km (md) Bo (m /m )
3 3
0.01 1
H (m) Bw (m /m )
3 3
36.8 1
(%) 9.94 μo (mPa·s) 80
ct (MPa )
–1
0.00046 μw (mPa·s) 0.3
Table 1—Basic reservoir properties for Well 1.
MD (m) TVD (m) Deviation Angle (°)

2685 2685 0
3030.85 2964.46 36.1
3044.58 2970.6 63.4
3241.45 3022.59 74.7
4543.32 3092.09 86.9
Table 2—Well trajectory for Well 1.

Casing
Top (m) Bottom (m) Inner Diameter (mm)
0 3241.4 166.1
Tubing
Bottom (m) Inner Diameter (mm) Outer Diameter (mm)
4520 99.6 114.3
Openhole Horizontal Section
Top (m) Bottom (m)
3241.4 4540
Table 3—Completion data for Well 1.
Well 1
22
Oil rate
Pressure
20 42 000
18
40 000
16
Pressure (kPa)
38 000
Oil Rate (m3/d)
14
12 36 000
10 34 000
8
32 000
6
30 000
4
2 28 000
0
August September October November December January February March April May June July
2014 2015
Fig. 2—Production-data (oil rate and BHP) filtering for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
Log-Log Normalized Rate vs. Time Plot. The log-log normalized rate vs. time plot (Fig. 3) suggests that there are two obvious flow
regimes: linear flow indicated by the half-slope straight line (blue line) and boundary-dominated flow characterized by a unit-slope line
(orange line). There is an obvious change in the trend of production data, which is divided into two sections by the green vertical dotted
line that indicates the transformation of the flow regime. From Fig. 3, it is evident that the blue line overlaps the production data fairly
well during the linear-flow period. However, the subsequent production data cannot be overlapped fairly well because the data during
this period are more scattered. The dispersion of production data in this period may be induced by fracture interference (Poe et al. 2012;
Clarkson 2013a, 2013b). In this diagnosis plot (Fig. 3), real time is used. To obtain a smooth diagnosis plot and a more-distinct flow-
regime identification, a material-balance time plot (defined as Eq. 1) is used to perform further flow-regime identification, which is
supported by a previous study (Clarkson 2013b). The log-log normalized rate vs. material-balance-time plot (Fig. 4) shows that the pro-
duction data in two major flow regimes (linear flow and boundary-dominated flow) are perfectly overlapped by a characteristic straight
line and demonstrates that the linear flow is followed by the boundary-dominated flow. The green dotted line indicates the boundary of
the flow regime, which denotes the end of linear flow, and the corresponding time (Telf) is very useful for the calculation of reservoir
parameters in the subsequent Straight-Line Analysis subsection.
Q
tc ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
q
Straight-Line Analysis. Production data are analyzed to obtain the reservoir parameters and fracture properties using linear-flow
plot and square-root-of-time plot (Clarkson and Beierle 2010; Anderson et al. 2013; Clarkson 2013a, 2013b). The main objective of
straight-line analysis is to determine the effective fracture half-length (Xf) and matrix permeability of SRV (kSRV), which quantita-
tively and intuitively characterize the fracturing treatment effectiveness. To obtain Xf from the linear-flow analysis or matrix
pffiffiffi surface
area contacted by the hydraulic fractures (Acm), kSRV must be determined first because the bulk linear-flow parameter (Acm k) can be
easily obtained using the fit of the characteristic straight line. As noted by Clarkson and Beierle (2010), kSRV can be calculated using
the mathematical formulas corresponding to the elliptical or pseudoradial flow for shale-gas MFHW. However, there is no radial or
elliptical flow period observed in this field case (similar to many other field cases in previous studies mentioned) to perform the per-
meability calculation directly. In this subsection, two applicable methods [derived from the square-root-of-time plot and flowing ma-
terial-balance (FMB) plot] for kSRV and Xf estimation are introduced. The Acm, drainage area (ASRV), and OOIPSRV can be determined
as well.

Well 1 Log-Log Normalized Rate vs. Time

–1
3×10
Normalized oil rate
–1
10
Normalized Oil Rate [(m3/d)/kPa]

3
–2
10
Date: 2015/02/03 00:00:00 YYYY/MM/DD HH:mm:ss

3 pwf: 29438.7 kPa
qo: 6.6 m3/d
–3
10
–4
10
–5
10
1 2 3 4 5
1.0 2 3 456 10 2 3 456 10 2 3 456 10 2 3 456 10 2 3 4 5 6 10
Time (days)
Fig. 3—Log-log normalized rate vs. time plot for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016). Identification of flow regime for
MFHW completed in tight oil reservoir; linear flow appears as one-half slope (blue line) and boundary-dominated flow appears as
unit slope (orange line). Real time is used in this plot.
–1 Well 1 Log-Log Normalized Rate vs. Time

5×10
Normalized oil rate
–1
10
3
–2
10
pwf: 29438.7 kPa
3 q o: 6.6 m3/d
–3
10
3
–4
10
3
–5
10
3
–6
10
–7
3×10 1 2 3 4
1.0 2 3 456 10 2 3 456 10 2 3 456 10 2 3 4 5 6 10 2 3 4 8
Oil Material-Balance Time (days)
MFHW completed in tight oil reservoir; linear flow appears as one-half slope (blue line) and boundary-dominated flow appears as
unit slope (orange line). Material-balance time is used in this plot.
Square-Root-of-Time Plot. On the square-root-of-time plot (normalized pressure vs. square root of time), a best-fit straight line that
indicates the transient-linear-flow regime is observed (Fig. 5). Once a continuous linear flow pffiffiffi is exhibited, the significance of this plot is
that the slope (mCRL) of the straight line can be used to determine the bulk parameter Acm k defined by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
19:927Bo l
Acm kSRV ¼ 4 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
mCRL /ct
As previously defined, Acm refers to the contacted matrix surface area to flow and kSRV is the effective matrix permeability of the
SRV. Fig. 6 shows the sketch map of the SRV for an MFHW. In this case, it is assumed that the well is being produced through multiple
fractures (nf ¼ number of fractures). Then, a linear flow toward each fracture can be observed. As stated in Luo et al. (2017) and other
studies (Clarkson and Beierle 2010; Clarkson 2013a), there are two sides for an individual hydraulic fracture. The total matrix surface
area contacted by a hydraulic fracture (Acm) is defined as
Acm ¼ 4 nf Xf h: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ

Well 1 Square-Root-of-Time Plot
Normalized Pressure [kPa/(m3/d)]

Normalized pressure
5000 Telf
4000
pwf: 29438.7 kPa
q o: 6.6 m3/d
3000
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Square Root of Time (d½)
Fig. 5—Square-root-of-time plot for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016). The red line indicates the transient linear flow
and the arrow indicates the end of linear flow (Telf). Real time is used in this plot.
2xf
Fig. 6—Sketch map of SRV, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
The permeability and fracture half-length is

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 19:927Bo rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
l
Xf kSRV ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
mCRL hnf /ct
Except for the slope of the square-root-of-time plot (mCRL ), all the parameters in the right-hand
pffiffiffi side of Eq. 4 are known. Meanwhile,
the mCRL can be obtained directly from the square-root-of-time plot (Fig. 5), and then, Xf k can be easily obtained. Once kSRV is deter-
mined, Xf is also obtained.
Considering the characteristics of linear-flow regimes, the slope of the square-root-of-time plot (mCRL ) and the end time of linear
flow (Telf) can be derived from the diagnosis plots. Once these two parameters are determined, kSRV and Xf could be calculated from
Eqs. 5 and 6 (Chu et al. 2012; Ye et al. 2013), respectively. It is evident that in these two equations (Eqs. 5 and 6), except for Telf and
mCRL, the rest of the parameters are known basic reservoir properties. Because Telf and mCRL can be directly distinguished from Figs. 4
and 5, respectively, it is convenient to determine those two important post-fracture reservoir parameters for MFHW using production
data. The calculated results for this field case are shown in Table 4.
Telf (days) mCRL [MPa/(m /d)/d ]

3 0.5
Xf (m) kSRV (md)
4 3
FCD OOIPSRV (10 m )
156 0.125 39.24 0.132 105.6 22.42
Table 4—Analysis results of square-root-of-time plot for Well 1.
Subsequently, the OOIPSRV can be estimated according to the volume of SRV depending on Xf. The calculation results are presented
in Table 4.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4:972Bo Telf
Xf ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
Le h/ct mCRL
79:014/lo ct d 2
kSRV ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
Telf
Using the estimated Xf and kSRV, the dimensionless fracture conductivity (FCD) can be obtained as well. It is well known that frac-
ture-flow capacity is defined as the product of fracture permeability (kf) and fracture width (wf). Because kf is usually not known or diffi-
cult to determine, it is difficult to directly estimate the fracture-flow capacity. Essentially, FCD is the ratio of fracture-flow capacity
(kfwf) and the product of formation permeability and fracture half-length (kXf). Because k and Xf are much easier to obtain, FCD
becomes a more-common direct measure of the fracture conductivity. From Eq. 7, FCD can be calculated using the flow-regime-identifi-
cation and straight-line-analysis results (the values of Telf and mCRL).


141:2Bl h h p
FCD ¼ 0 1þ ln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
b ðpi pwfÞkSRV hn Xf 2rw 2
FMB Plot. The FMB plot couples the normalized rate and normalized oil cumulative production (Mattar and Anderson 2005;
q 2qtc ppi
Clarkson 2013a, 2013b), which are defined as and , respectively.
ppi pwf ðlct ZÞðppi pwf Þ
Unlike the previous two plots (square-root-of-time plots), the top priority of the FMB plot analysis is to obtain the OOIPSRV, which
is a dynamic value and viewed as the oil volume in SRV only. As noted by Clarkson and Beierle (2010), once the boundary-dominated-
flow regime is observed, the FMB analysis can be used to directly capture OOIPSRV. If there is no observed boundary-dominated flow,
the value of this OOIPSRV might be smaller than the total volume of crude oil in the enhanced flow region (SRV), and we can obtain
the drainage area of the SRV (ASRV) by assuming that the effective fracture height is the same as the thickness of the net pay (Anderson
et al. 2010).
In this field case, the flow-regime-diagnosis plot (Fig. 4) indicates an obvious boundary-dominated flow. From the FMB plot
(Fig. 7), we can observe that the current OOIPSRV of the target MFHW is approximately 23.87104 m3. The openhole-stage fracturing
technique was adopted to stimulate this actual MFHW. Microseismic surveillance data (Table 5) demonstrate that there is only a single
fracture in each stage. Then, the fracture half-spacing is assumed to be one-half spacing between fracturing stages; as documented by
Clarkson (2013a), the fracture half-spacing was assumed to be one-half spacing between perforation clusters. For this completion type,
there is another relationship (Eq. 7) between OOIPSRV (derived from the FMB plot) and fracture parameters:
Soi
OOIPSRV ¼ 2 Xf Le h/ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
Boi
Well 1 FMB
0.0024
Decline FMB
0.0022
0.0020
Oil Normalized Rate [(m3/d)/kPa]
0.0018
0.0016
0.0014
0.0012
0.0010
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
Original oil-in-place
0.0002
0.0000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
3 3
Normalized Oil Cumulative Production (10 m )
Fig. 7—FMB plot for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
With the combination of OOIPSRV estimation, Xp ffiffiffi the actual MFHW can be derived. Subsequently, kSRV is estimated from Eq. 4
f of
using the square-root-of-time plot analysis, and Acm k is easily obtained. The estimated kSRV and Xf are given in Table 6. As noted by
Clarkson (2013a), linear-flow plots are used to derive the total fracture half-length (Xftotal) or contacted matrix surface area (Acm). In
this case, there is less scatter in the linear-flow plot using superposition time. Lian et al. (2011) also recommend the use of material-bal-
ance time into the square-root-of-time plot analysis.
To reduce the scatter of production data for this field case and improve the estimation accuracy of the reservoir parameters and frac-
ture properties, a square-root-of-material-balance-time plot (Fig. 8) is used to calculate the permeability and fracture half-length. The
calculation results of the two types of square-root-of-time plots are given in Table 6. The calculated Xf from the square-root-of-time
plot and square-root-of-material-balance-time plot are 39.3 and 39 m, respectively, which indicates a good agreement. In the following
RTA techniques, the average value (Xf ¼ 39.2 m, kSRV ¼ 0.133 md) pffiffiof
ffi the estimate from the square-root-of-time plot and FMB analysis
is taken as the original input parameter. Using the estimated Acm k, the calculation results of kSRV and FCD from the two square-root-
of-time plots shown in Figs. 5 and 8 are fairly close. Although the derived values of Telf from the two plots are different, the two values
refer to the same date in practice because the material-balance time is used in Fig. 8, in which the corresponding date of Telf is 3 Febru-
ary 2015 (coincident with Fig. 5). From the start date of production, 31 August 2014, the linear flow lasted for 156 days; thus, Telf is
obtained as 156 days.
In fact, only the total fracture half-length (Xftotal) can be calculated from the straight-line analysis (Clarkson 2013a, 2013b). Thus,
the derived Xf for an individual fracture is the average of Xftotal divided by nf. The differences and heterogeneities among hydraulic frac-
tures for an actual MFHW cannot be obtained. However, the focus of this research is not to identify the distinctions or nonuniformity of
developed hydraulic fractures. The authors focus on determining the properties of SRV and OOIPSRV to accomplish the estimation of
EUR. It is enough to accomplish this research objective even if only the equivalent SRV and Xftotal can be accurately estimated. Then,
the equivalent SRV can be established in the subsequent AMA and NMA to perform the EUR estimation and the production-perform-
ance forecast.

Injected Fracturing- Injected

Fracturing Fluid Fracturing
LFO (m) WFO (mm) HFO (m)
3 3
Stage Fluid (m ) Efficiency Sand (m ) ω λ
1 430 4.1 49 720 0.57 9.1 0.002291 0.000305
2 478 4.2 46 790 0.57 49.2 0.002416 0.00034
3 436 4.3 44 735 0.58 58.2 0.002638 0.000405
4 412 4.1 47 761 0.58 62 0.002726 0.000433
5 508 3.9 45 763 0.60 56.9 0.002376 0.000329
6 480 4.1 42 707 0.61 57.9 0.002542 0.000376
7 424 4.2 43 648 0.59 47.8 0.00248 0.000358
8 394 4.3 48 712 0.55 57.8 0.002439 0.000346
9 410 4.1 52 765 0.54 57.5 0.002278 0.000302
10 426 4.2 47 694 0.56 56.7 0.002276 0.000301
11 374 4.3 48.5 688 0.57 57.7 0.002559 0.000381
12 402 4.1 45.2 697 0.57 57.9 0.002604 0.000395
13 422 4.2 49 710 0.56 58 0.002252 0.000295
14 442 4.1 47 818 0.56 54.6 0.002628 0.000402
15 410 4.1 49.5 617 0.58 48.8 0.002049 0.000244
16 382 4.1 52.6 616 0.58 57.9 0.002069 0.000249
17 370 4.2 53.8 610 0.59 57.7 0.002101 0.000257
Average 423.5 4.1 48 709 0.57 0.57 0.0023962 0.000336
Table 5—Hydraulic-fracturing information and network parameters for Well 1 (dependent on microseismic surveillance data).
4 3
ASRV (hectares) Xf (m) kSRV (md) Acm (10 m )
4 2
Plot OOIPSRV (10 m ) FCD Telf (days)
Real time Fig. 5 23.87 10 39.3 0.132 9.22 100.9 156
Material-balance time Fig. 8 23.87 10 39 0.137 9.76 100.7 196
Table 6—Results of straight-line analysis for Well 1.
Well 1 Material-Balance-Time Plot

10 000
Normalized pressure
Telf
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000 Date: 2015/02/03 00:00:00 YYYY/MM/DD HH:mm:ss

pwf: 29438.7 kPa
qo: 6.6 m3/d
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Oil Material-Balance Square Root of Time (d½)
Fig. 8—Square-root-of-time plot for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016). The straight line indicates the transient linear
flow and the arrow indicates the end of linear flow (Telf). Material-balance time is used in this plot.
TCM. TCM analysis is one of the efficient shortcuts to estimate the reservoir parameters (Xf, OOIPSRV, and so forth) and fracture
properties. Most of the previous studies applying TCM (such as Fetkovich-type curve, Balsingame-type curve, or normalized-pressure-
integral-type curve) on conventional wells are aimed at identifying the flow regimes (Mishra 2014; Joo and Ki 2015). The application
of the TCM method on the characterization of reservoir and fracture properties mainly has been brought into the production-perform-
ance analysis of shale-gas reservoir or coalbed methane. Few studies have applied TCM on RTA of MFHW completed in a tight oil res-
ervoir. Although Clarkson (2013b) makes extensive use of the linear-flow (closed boundaries) solution of El-Banbi and Wattenbarger

(1998) in tight oil production analysis, more details were provided in Wattenbarger et al. (1998) and Clarkson and Beierle (2010), in
which Wattenbarger-type curves are applied to shale/tight gas reservoirs. In this subsection, the authors demonstrate the application of
the Wattenbarger-type curve on the production-performance analysis of an MFHW completed in a tight oil reservoir, and more details
are discussed.
Assuming that a hydraulically fractured well is in the center of a rectangular reservoir and the fracture extends to the boundaries of
the reservoir (Fig. 9), El-Banbi and Wattenbarger (1998) present their type curves to analyze the production data of gas in an MFHW.
The normalized rate (Eq. 8) is plotted against the material-balance time (Eq. 1) on a log-log scale with the same size as the type curves.
Xf = Xe
2Ye
Yw = Ye
2Xe
Fig. 9—Geometry of total fracture length used in Wattenbarger-type curve analysis.
The normalized rate is

q q
¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
Dp pi pwf
As defined by El-Banbi and Wattenbarger (1998), the dimensionless rate is
141:2Bl q
qD ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
kSRV h Dp
Ye 141:2Bl q Ye
qD ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ
Xe kSRV h Dp Xe
kSRV Ye
is calculated as
Xe 23
q
kSRV Ye 141:2Bl 6
6 Dp 7
7
¼ 4 Ye 5 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ
Xe h
qD
Xe match
q Ye
In Eq. 12, and qD are directly obtained from each of the raw data and type-curve plots, respectively, at a selected match point.
Dp Xe
The definition of dimensionless time dependent on reservoir width (refer to the IHS 2016) is
0:00633kSRV tc
tDye ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
/lct Ye2
Ye
Then, pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi is calculated as
kSRV
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Ye 0:00633 tc
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð14Þ
kSRV /lct tDye match
kSRV Ye
Substituting Eq. 14 for yields
Xe

2 3
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi
0:00633 141:2Bl 6 6 Dp 7
7 tc
kSRV Xe ¼ 4 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ
/lct h Ye 5 tDye match
qD
Xe match
kSRV has already been derived from the straight-line analysis (Table 6); therefore, Xe can be determined from Eq. 14 using the fit of pro-
duction data on the type curve. Xe refers to the total fracture half-length of the MFHW (Clarkson and Pedersen 2010).
In addition, the effective drainage area (ASRV) and OOIPSRV can be estimated from Eqs. 16 and 17, respectively, depending on the
calculated results of Xe and Ye.
2 3
q sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Ye 0:00633 141:2B 6 Dp 7 tc
ASRV ¼ 4Xe Ye ¼ 4 kSRV Xe pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 4 46 7 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð16Þ
kSRV /ct h Ye 5 tDye match
qD
Xe match
2 3
q

4Xe Ye h/Soi 4 0:00633 141:2Soi 6 Dp 7 tc
OOIPSRV ¼ ¼ 6 4 Ye 5
7 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð17Þ
B ct tDye match
qD
Xe match
By applying the TCM analysis to this field case, a good fit of raw data (Fig. 10) has been obtained (input kSRV is derived from the
straight-line analysis). From the results of the TCM analysis (Table 7), the total fracture half-length is 665.3 m and the average half-
length per fracture is 39.14 m, which demonstrates good consistency with the results from the straight-line analysis (Xf ¼ 39.2 m). The
estimated OOIPSRV tallies with the calculation results from the square-root-of-time plot and the FMB plot. Conversely, this has verified
the accuracy of the derived kSRV from the straight-line analysis.
Well 1 Wattenbarger-Type Curve Analysis

1
3×10
1
10
5
3
Normalized Rate
1.0
5
3
2
–1
10
5
–2
3×10
–4 –3 –2 –1 1 2 3
4 · 10 7 10 2 3 4 5 7 10 2 3 4 5 7 10 2 3 4 5 7 1.0 2 3 4 56 10 2 3 4 5 7 10 2 3 4 5 7 10
Material-Balance Time (days)
Fig. 10—Wattenbarger-type curve match for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
kSRV (md) Xftotal (m) Ye (m) Xf (m) ASRV (hectares)

4 3
nf OOIPSRV (10 m )
0.13 665.3 36.3 17 39.14 9.8 23.72
Table 7—Results of TCM analysis for Well 1.
AMA. AMA has been used to validate the interpretations provided by previous RTA techniques and perform a reliable forecast for a
single MFHW (Clarkson and Beierle 2010; Liang et al. 2011; Clarkson 2013a, 2013b).
In this study, AMA is used as a process of history matching for the pressure and rate-transient data taken from a horizontal multi-
fracture-enhanced fracture-region model (Stalgorova and Mattar 2012). The derivation of such a model is not presented in this study,
and more details are provided by Stalgorova and Mattar (2012). The model is a rectangular reservoir model consisting of a noncontri-
buting horizontal well and transverse fractures (Fig. 11). This model assumes that all fractures are uniformly spaced with identical half-
fracture length. This also caused limitations to the IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016) such that only the wellbore model with equal
fractures can be provided in AMA. However, this has no effect on the estimation of the SRV properties and EUR in this study, because
the equivalent SRV has been established in the AMA model to simulate the production data and pressure data. This model has an
enhanced-permeability region around each fracture, and the distance from the fracture to the permeability boundary (Xi) can be speci-
fied to achieve a good production-data history matching. It is noteworthy that the total drainage area of the inner zone (Fig. 11) needs to

correspond with the ASRV derived from the previous RTA analysis to ensure that the established SRV reflects the actual SRV for this
MFHW field. With the original-input SRV parameters derived from the straight-line analysis and TCM analysis, a good history match
can provide not only a verification of the reservoir-input parameters and fracture properties derived from the straight-line analysis and
OOIPSRV from FMB analysis, but it can also be applied in performing the production prediction and EUR estimation.
Xe
Outer zone
Xf
Ye
Xi Inner zone
Fig. 11—Schematic of analytical model for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
Because of the ultralow permeability of the tight oil reservoir, enormous differences between the SRV area (inner zone, area in
dashed frame in Fig. 11) and nonstimulated area (outer zone, original matrix material) exist. In this study, two dual-permeability-
medium parameters (storativity ratio and interporosity-flow coefficient) have been used to characterize the differences between the
inner zone and outer zone.
The storativity ratio (x) is defined as the ratio of elastic storage ability of a fracture system and the total storage ability of the pay
zone. It indicates the relative size of the elastic storage ability of a fracture system and matrix system (Lian et al. 2011). The resource
exchanged between fractures and matrix blocks can be characterized by the interporosity-flow coefficient (k), which indicates the ease
or difficulty of fluid-medium flow into the fracture from the matrix. Assuming that the porosity of natural fractures is 100%, the system
compressibility of the secondary fracturing networks is homogeneous, and x and k are defined as (Warren and Root 1963; Wang 2015)
ð/ct Þf Rf
x¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð18Þ
ð/ct Þmþf Rf þ /m
6
10 Rf rw
k ¼ km : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð19Þ
kf ;in
In conventional natural-fractured reservoirs, x and k can be obtained from pressure-buildup testing; however, this is not feasible in
tight reservoirs because it requires a very long time to accomplish the pressure-buildup testing. Thus, the natural-fracture properties are
usually estimated using hydraulic-fracturing data. The original length, width, and height (LFO, WFO, and HFO, respectively) of artificial
fractures are determined from microseismic interpretation. The affected length of microseismic events is usually considered as the orig-
inal length of artificial fractures for calculating x and k (Wang 2015). Because the peak of artificial fractures may not be effectively
supported by proppants, the original fracture length might be much longer than the actual supported fracture length (Xf derived from
straight-line analysis). Similarly, the obtained height of microseismic events (HFO) might be larger than the thickness of the pay zone
(h). The original width of artificial fractures (WFO) may be slightly wider than the estimated fracture width according to the size of the
proppant and the injected amount of sand.
The total volumes of the original SRV and hydraulic fractures are defined as
VSRV ¼ Le LFo HFo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð20Þ
VF ¼ nf LFo HFo WFo : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð21Þ
Depending on the volume (Vl) and efficiency of fracturing fluid, the volume of the secondary-fracture network can be calculated:
Vf ¼ Vl g VF : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð22Þ
The volume factor of natural fracture is

Vf
Rf ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð23Þ
VSRV
The average permeability of SRV is determined from the straight-line analysis, and then the inherent permeability of SRV can
be derived:
kSRV
kf ;in ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð24Þ
Rf
Using Eqs. 18 through 24, the x and k of this field case have been calculated and the results are listed in Table 5. The average values
of the estimated x and k are used to perform AMA to accomplish the history matching and EUR estimation.
As mentioned previously, the target MFHW has 17 stages (single fracture per stage). The enhanced-fracture-region model with 17
hydraulic fractures is set up (Fig. 11). Besides the calculated x and k, the derived reservoir parameters and fracture properties from the
straight-line and FMB analyses have been used as input parameters for this analysis model. As shown in Fig. 12, a good history match
has been obtained for this field case, which validates the accuracy of the calculated SRV parameters and fracture properties. The reli-
ability of conductivity in the fractured and porous media is checked by history matching. As noted by Chu et al. (2012), the estimation
of the original matrix permeability (k2) can be performed according to AMA. From Table 8, the estimated original-matrix permeability

is 0.01 md, which is in agreement with reservoir observations. The good match of raw data also demonstrates that the calculated x and
k accurately characterize the storage ability of the fracture system and flowability of the oil resource from the matrix to the fracture sys-
tem. Assuming that the drawdown trend is maintained from the previous production period, the production performance of the target
MFHW in 5 years has been forecasted, and the estimated EUR is 0.453104 m3 (Table 8).
History Match
Well 1
Pressure 55 000
60
Synthetic pressure
Oil rate 50 000
50 Synthetic oil rate
Synthetic reservoir pressure,
Calculated Rate (m3/d) 45 000
P is calculated
40 Synthetic reservoir pressure,
Pressure (kPa)
Q is calculated 40 000
30 35 000
20 30 000
25 000
10
20 000
0
September October November December January February March April May June July
2014 2015
Fig. 12—AMA-model history matching of production data for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
OOIPSRV EUR
Xf (m) k1 (md) Xi (m) k2 (md)
4 3
ASRV (hectares) (10 m )
4 3
FCD λ ω (10 m )
39 105.6 0.13 38.1 0.000336 0.0023962 0.01 23.43 10.1 0.4530
Table 8—Input parameters and results from AMA for Well 1.
NMA. As a relatively independent part of RTA techniques, NMA can be performed with fewer simplified assumptions than AMA. The
multiphase behavior (including effects of relative permeability and mass transfer between phases) and changes of rock and fluid proper-
ties with pressure can be incorporated rigorously (Leung et al. 2013). The advantage of the numerical approach is that the reservoir het-
erogeneity can be adequately taken into account. An established numerical model or commercial numerical-simulation software has
already been applied to analyze the production performance and forecast the dynamic rate or EUR of unconventional-shale-gas wells
(Clarkson and Pederson 2010; Clarkson 2013a). A numerical model dependent on the RTA type-curve analysis has been executed to
match the data (Tang and Liang 2015). Compared with the AMA technique, the level of detail and time required to define a numerical
model is higher than its equivalent analytical model. The AMA technique neglects the dependence of fluid properties on pressure by
assuming averaged properties (Mohan et al. 2013). To obtain accurate characteristics of SRV, further validate the derived reservoir and
fracture parameters from the previous RTA analysis, and enhance the long-term production-performance forecasting of the target
MFHW completed in the tight oil reservoir, this field case is numerically simulated, as described in this subsection, using the IHS
Harmony software (IHS 2016).
The established wellbore model is a horizontal well with 17 fractures in a rectangular reservoir. This horizontal well is in the center
of the reservoir and extends across the entire reservoir. An equivalent SRV of this model for the actual MFHW is developed with the
assumption that the permeability in the x-direction is equal to the permeability in the y-direction (kx/ky ¼ 1), and the permeability in the
z-direction is 0.1 times that in the x-direction (kz/kx ¼ 0.1). All fractures are assumed to be identical and homogeneously spaced along
the horizontal well (Zhou et al. 2013). Similarly, the total drainage area of the enhanced zone is equal to the calculated ASRV from the
straight-line analysis and TCM. The reservoir length is defined as the effective horizontal-well length and the well spacing is considered
as the effective width of the reservoir.
The derived reservoir parameters are used to simulate the target MFHW and as input parameters for the simulated field case. It is
certain that a good history match of production cannot be obtained using the original inputs. Thus, modification of the parameters (k1,
Xf, Xi) needs to be performed to achieve a good history match of the production data (including sandface pressure and rate data). The
actual input parameters are presented in Table 9. A good history match of the actual data with the predicted-production performance
given by the established numerical model is finally obtained. From Fig. 13, it is evident that there is a 2-month period in which the
water rate (dark blue dotted line) is significantly higher than that in the later production period. As mentioned in Tang et al. (2015), this
phenomenon widely exists in fractured horizontal wells and it is referred to as the flowback period of the fracturing fluid (cleanup pe-
riod). During this brief time, an irregular change of the downhole pressure appears, which leads to a deviation between the simulated
rate and actual production rate within the very early time of production history. However, beyond the cleanup period, the history match
is excellent, which indicates the accuracy of the established numerical model and input parameters. Using this good history matching,
the forecast of production performance and estimation of EUR in 5 years are performed (Fig. 14). The results of the NMA forecast and
SRV are given in Table 9.
It has been found that the current oil volume in SRV (OOIPSRV) is approximately 24.13104 m3, whereas the EUR in 5 years is
only 0.456104 m3 (close to the obtained EUR from AMA). It is worth noting that the areas between adjacent fractures have been
stimulated sufficiently, which has been verified by the fact that the derived Xi (34 m) is fairly close to the half-fracture spacing (38.1 m).
However, the derived Xf is approximately 45 m, which is far less than the well spacing (150 m). It demonstrates that the developed SRV
is not enough in the direction of the fracture ( y-direction) for this field case. Considering that the contribution to production is almost
all from the SRV or effective drainage formation, the small Xf might be the direct cause of the low yield for this MFHW field.

Input Parameters for Simulation

Pi (MPa) 41.953 h 36.8
Le (m) 1298 φ (%) 9.94
Xf (m) 45 Soi 67
FCD 105.6 Swi 33
nf 17 Sgi 0
k1 (md) ct (MPa )
–1
0.135 0.00046
k2 (md) 0.015 xe (m) 1298
Xi 34 ye (m) 300
Yi 45
Estimation of OOIPSRV and EUR
ASRV (hectares) 10.4
4 3
OOIPSRV (10 m ) 24.13
4 3
EUR (10 m ) 0.4556
Table 9—Input parameters and results of NMA for Well 1.
History Match
Well 1
55 000
28 70 History oil rate
Match calculated oil rate 50 000
24 History water rate
60
Match calculated water rate 45 000
History pressure
Water Rate (m3/d)
20 50
Pressure (kPa)
Match calculated sandface pressure 40 000
Oil Rate (m3/d)
Match calculated average resorvoir pressure - Rate-based

16 40 35 000
30 000
12 30
25 000
8 20
20 000
4 10
15 000
0 0
2014 2015
Fig. 13—NMA history matching for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
EUR Forecast
Well 1
30 50 000
80 Forecast 1 oil rate
28 Forecast 1 water rate
26 Forecast 1 pressure 45 000
70
Forecast 1 pR
Calculated Water Rate (m3/d)
24
Calculated Oil Rate (m3/d)
22 History oil rate 40 000

60
History water rate
20 History pressure
Pressure (kPa)
35 000
18 50 Match oil rate
16 Match water rate
30 000
40 Match pressure
14
Match pR rate-based
12 25 000
30
10
20 000
8
20
6 15 000
4 10
2 10 000
0 0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Fig. 14—NMA forecast in 5 years for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
Therefore, to improve the production in future fracturing treatment for this tight oil reservoir, measures should be adopted to develop
longer fractures. On the condition of the same fracturing scale (SRV is certain), an improvement on the length of the effective SRV
should be given first priority to increase the effective drainage area of an individual MFHW in a tight oil reservoir. In fact, from the
hydraulic-fracturing information (Table 5), the length of original microseismic events (LFO) is very optimistic. Meanwhile, the effective

fracture length (2Xf) is far less than LFO. It demonstrates that the developed hydraulic fractures are not effectively and sufficiently
propped up by the injected proppants. Therefore, improving the effectively supported hydraulic-fracture length may potentially increase
the production of this MFHW.
Uncertainty and Nonuniqueness Analysis. In general, uncertainty and nonuniqueness of RTA for this actual MFHW come from two
aspects. First, the original input-reservoir parameters (km, h, Pi) derived from the reservoir testing might be the average values of the
entire reservoir area. Then, the nature of the AMA or NMA methods may cause uncertainty or nonuniqueness because there could be
multiple combinations of the interpreted parameters, which can equally match the performance history of wells (Anderson et al. 2013).
A nonuniqueness analysis (probabilistic analysis) of the evaluation results of reservoir parameters and reserve volume is convenient
because it allows the investigation of various possible solutions. Probabilistic analysis is an approach that measures the effect of the
uncertainties on input variables and determines a range of possible outcomes, as opposed to a single deterministic solution.
Probabilistic analysis is an effective method to diminish the uncertainty and nonuniqueness (caused by the uncertainty or potential
error of reservoir/fracturing-parameter statistics for a particular MFHW) of evaluating results of EUR and OOIP. A probabilistic analy-
sis (dependent on Monte Carlo simulation) of the original reservoir parameters (Pi, Soi, h, and /) and fracturing parameters (Xf, k1, x,
and k) has been performed. A forecast of the production performance, estimation of EUR in 5 years, and OOIP estimation dependent on
the probabilistic analysis has been obtained.
As a result of the uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis, several curves (P10, P50, and P90) indicating different degrees of uncer-
tainty for the calculation results are given on charts of rate vs. time (Fig. 15) and rate vs. cumulative rate (Fig. 16). P10, P50, and P90
curves refer to low, medium, and high values of evaluation results, respectively. Certainly, similar calculations are performed for other
curves (P1, P25, P75, and so forth), which are not shown as explicit lines but shaded between those three lines. Probabilistic forecasts
of rate performance and cumulative rate are shown in Figs. 15 and 16. The P90 value is often considered as a conservative estimation
of the reserve and the P10 estimation is viewed as the most optimistic prediction. On the other hand, P50 values represent the middle-
case performance for the simulation of the field case. It means that using the P50 estimation of EUR (Fig. 17) and OOIP (Fig. 18) to
validate the previously forecasted EUR results (from AMA and NMA) appears to be reasonable.
Rate vs. Time

22
Oil-production history
20 Oil P90
Oil P50
18 Oil P10
16
14
12
10
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Fig. 15—Probabilistic forecasts of production performance for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
22
Oil-production history
20 Oil P90
Oil P50
18 Oil P10
16
14
12
10
0
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20 3.60 4.00 4.40 4.80 5.2
Cumulative Calculated Oil Production (103 m3)
Fig. 16—Probabilistic forecasts of cumulative rate for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).

Summary of Statistics P10: 4.962x103 m3

Mean: 40568x103 m3 P50: 4.585x103 m3
Standard Deviation: 0.321x103 m3 P90: 4.122x103 m3
Ultimate Recoverable Oil (103 m3)

22 16
20 14
Frequency (134 data points)

18 13
16 11
Probability (%)
14 10
12 8
10 7
8 5
6 4
4 2
2 1
0 0
4.449
4.590
4.731
4.871
5.012
5.153
5.293
3.746
3.887
4.027
4.168
4.309
Fig. 17—Probabilistic distributions of EUR in 5 years for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
Summary of Statistics P10: 1101.39x103 m3

Mean: 972.83x10 m 3 3 P50: 966.98x103 m3
Standard Deviation: 108.16x103 m3 P90: 838.48x103 m3
OOIP (103 m3)

27 20
24 17
Frequency (134 data points)
21 15
Probability (%)
18 13
15 11
12 8
9 6
6 4
3 2
0 0
681.42
735.00
788.58
842.16
895.75
949.33
1002.91
1056.49
1110.08
1163.66
1217.24
1270.82
Fig. 18—Probabilistic distribution of OOIP for Well 1, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
From Fig. 17, the P50 estimation of EUR for this MFHW field is 4.585103 m3, which is fairly close to the EUR prediction from
AMA and NMA. The probabilistic analysis of the net pay thickness provides a potential distribution of OOIP, which ranges from
838.48103 m3 to 1101.39103 m3 (Fig. 18). In fact, during the process of uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis of the reservoir pa-
rameters and fracturing data, more-accurate parameters are obtained (Table 10). The OOIPSRV is 24.85104 m3, which is determined
from the modified reservoir and fracture parameters. Using these modified parameters as input parameters for AMA and NMA (men-
tioned previously), a better history match of production data for both methods has been achieved (Figs. 19 and 20, respectively). It indi-
cates that the modified parameters from the probabilistic analysis characterize the properties of reservoir formation, hydraulic fracture,
or natural fracture more realistically. The uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis improves the accuracy of the reservoir-parameter and
fracture-property estimation from the production-performance analysis. It provides a correction resource to AMA and NMA, particu-
larly when large differences between those two methods exist.
Pi (MPa) So (%) H (m) φ (%) Xf (m) k1 (md) k2 (md) FCD ω λ

42 67 36 10.2 40 0.132 0.012 102 0.0025 0.00035
Table 10—Modified parameters from probabilistic analysis.
A Simplified Application of the Proposed Work Flow

From the complete analysis of field case 1 (Well 1), there is no doubt that the developed work flow, which is used to perform RTA for
an MFHW in a tight oil reservoir, is a comprehensive method to obtain accurate hydraulic-fracture parameters and reservoir properties.
To improve the accuracy of the calculated results (Xf, kSRV, FCD) and predict the EUR for the analyzed MFHW, AMA, NMA, and
uncertainty and nonuniqueness, analysis must be performed using the original input parameters derived from the straight-line analysis
and TCM. Sometimes, field staff members may need to approximately estimate the hydraulic-fracture and SRV parameters. Then, they
do not need to perform all the analysis in this work flow when the developed methods are used. To make this work flow simple and

quick for field staff members, a simplified application of the developed method is worth promoting as well. However, in this simplified
application, the accuracy of the derived results may be less than those from comprehensive analysis (including the entire procedure of
the developed work flow), and the EUR cannot be estimated either.
History Match
Well 1
Pressure
50
Synthetic pressure 55 000
45 Oil rate
Synthetic oil rate 50 000
P is calculated 45 000
Pressure (kPa)
Calculated Rate (m3/d)
Q is calculated 40 000
30
25 35 000
20 30 000
15
25 000
10
20 000
5
15 000
0
September October November December January February March April May June July
2014 2015
Fig. 19—AMA history matching of production data for Well 1 using modified parameters, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
History Match
Well 1
55 000
28 70 History oil rate
26 65 Match calculated oil rate
50 000
History water rate
24 60
Match calculated water rate
22 55 45 000
History pressure
20 50 Match calculated sandface pressure
40 000
Water Rate (m3/d)
Pressure (kPa)
Match calculated average reservoir pressure - Rate-based
Oil Rate (m3/d)
18 45
16 40 35 000
14 35
30 000
12 30
10 25 25 000
8 20
6 15 20 000
4 10 15 000
2 5
0 0
2014 2015
Fig. 20—NMA history matching of production data for Well 1 using modified parameters, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
To introduce the simplified application and further validate the developed method in this study, a new post-fractured horizontal well
(Well 2) completed in this tight oil reservoir has been analyzed.
Production-Data Filtering. As previously performed in Well 1, production-data filtering needs to be done first. Noise points for this
field case (Well 2) will be neglected in the subsequent straight-line analysis and TCM (Fig. 21).
Flow-Regime Diagnosis. From the analysis of Field Case 1, the flow regime can be more clearly observed in the log-log normalized
rate than in the material-balance-time plot (Fig. 4). In this simplified application, only the log-log normalized rate vs. material-balance-
time plot is used to accomplish the flow-regime diagnosis for Well 2 (Fig. 22). The linear flow and boundary-dominated flow for Well
2 have been observed, and the end time of linear flow (Telf) has been determined as well.
Straight-Line Analysis. As stated in the comprehensive analysis of Well 1, comparison with the square-root-of-time plot helps to
reduce the scatter of production data for field cases when the square-root-of-material-balance-time plot is used to perform the straight-
line analysis.
Thus, only the square-root-of-material-balance-time plot is adopted here. From Fig. 23 (or Fig. 22), the date of Telf is found to be 1
July 2014. From the start date of production (1 January 2014), the linear flow lasted for 182 days; thus, Telf is determined as 182 days.
Subsequently, kSRV can be estimated from Eq. 6. To obtain OOIPSRV directly, the FMB plot is a suitable choice. From Fig. 24, the
derived OOIPSRV is 13.09 104 m3. With the combination of OOIPSRV estimation, Xf for this field case can be estimated according to
Eq. 8. More results from the straight-line analysis are given in Table 11.

Well 2
6.00 Oil rate 34 000
5.50 Pressure
5.00 33 500
Calender Oil Rate (m3/d)

4.50
33 000
4.00
3.50 32 500
Pressure (kPa)
3.00
32 000
2.50
2.00
31 500
1.50
1.00 31 000
0.50
30 500
0.00
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
2014
Fig. 21—Production-data filtering for Well 2, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
Well 2 Log-Log Normalized Rate vs. Time

–2
3×10
Normalized oil rate
–2
10
3 pwf: 30900.8 kPa
qo: 2.2 m3/d

–3
10
3
–4
10
3
–5
10
3
–6
10
3
–7
10
–8
2×10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.0 2 3 4 6 10 2 3 4 6 10 2 3 4 6 10 2 3 4 6 10 2 3 4 6 10 2 3 4 6 10 2 3 4 6 10
Oil Material-Balance Time (days)
MFHW completed in tight oil reservoir. Linear flow appears as one-half slope (blue line) and boundary-dominated flow appears as
unit slope (orange line). Material-balance time is used in this plot.
TCM. As an efficient shortcut to estimate OOIPSRV, TCM can provide a quick reference to the results of OOIPSRV estimation from the
straight-line analysis. According to the previous detailed presentation of the TCM method, Xf can be estimated using the input of kSRV
from the straight-line analysis (Fig. 25). The results are given in Table 12.
The calculated results from Tables 11 and 12 are basically the same, which validate the feasibility of this developed method. The
significance of this simplified application is to provide a quick and simple method of obtaining the approximate hydraulic-fracture and
SRV parameters. Additional technique details (including EUR, productivity forecast, and uncertainty analysis) can be studied and
more-accurate results can be obtained for Well 2, as long as the entire comprehensive analysis following the proposed work flow (as
performed for Well 1) is accomplished (not all detailed in this subsection).
It is a fact that a comprehensive production-performance analysis for additional potential post-fractured horizontal wells (in addition
to Wells 1 and 2) can be accomplished using the developed methods in this study. From the results of the comprehensive analysis for
Well 1, the proposed methods are applicable for RTA of MFHWs completed in tight oil reservoirs. In this subsection, the consistency
of the calculated results of fracture parameters and SRV properties for Well 2 provides a validation of the developed methods in this
study from another aspect.
Discussion
The developed SRV and effective Xf are important references to fracturing-treatment effectiveness for post-fractured horizontal tight oil
wells. In this study, an RTA work flow for an actual MFHW field in a tight oil reservoir has been developed to obtain the SRV and
hydraulic-fracture properties, which are the focus of concern for fracturing engineers and field technicians. It is important to establish a

set of convenient and economical methods to solve this problem for field practice. To demonstrate the feasibility and practicability of
our developed method, two field cases from an actual tight oil reservoir have been analyzed to elaborate the analysis procedure.
Well 2 Material-Balance-Time Plot

40 000
Normalized pressure
Telf
35 000
30 000
25 000
20 000
pwf: 30900.8 kPa
qo: 2.2 m3/d
15 000
10 000
5000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Square Root of Time (d½)
Fig. 23—Square-root-of-time plot for Well 2, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016). The straight line indicates the transient linear
flow and the arrow indicates the end of linear flow (Telf). Material-balance time is used in this plot.
Well 2 FMB
0.0012
Decline FMB
0.0011
0.0010
Oil Normalized Rate [(m3/d)/kPa]
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
Original oil-in-place
0.0001
0.0000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Normalized Oil Cumulative Production (103 m3)
Fig. 24—FMB plot for Well 2, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
Telf (days)
4 3
OOIPSRV (10 m ) Xf (m) kSRV (md) FCD
182 13.09 25.2 0.102 126.5
Table 11—Results of straight-line analysis for Well 2.
Using the production-data filtering, the transient-linear-flow regime and boundary-dominated-flow regime are observed on the log-
log normalized rate vs. time plot for the two field cases. The SRV parameters and hydraulic-fracture properties (Xf and kSRV) have been
successfully calculated from the straight-line analysis using the flow-regime diagnosis. The derived total fracture half length (Xftotal)
from TCM is in agreement with the straight-line-analysis results, which improves the confidence of the estimated actual SRV parame-
ters and hydraulic-fracture properties. Using the calculated Xf and kSRV as original inputs, a good history match of production data in
AMA and NMA has been achieved with little modifications of the input variables. The EUR for an actual MFHW has been obtained
from AMA and NMA on the premise of a good history match of production performance. Note that slight differences in the obtained

characteristic parameters from the respective RTA techniques may exist. As observed from the comprehensive analysis results for Well
1 (Fig. 26), the obtained Xf from NMA (45 m) is slightly larger than the estimated Xf from AMA (39 m). The straight-line analysis and
TCM provide original calculation results dependent on the production-data analysis. A good history match of production data has veri-
fied the feasibility of the developed equivalent SRV for this MFHW. To reconcile the results derived from different RTA techniques,
uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis was conducted to reduce the analysis error. The probabilistic analysis results of the modified
SRV parameters and hydraulic-fracture properties (Table 10) are closer to the real situation. A better history match of production data
in both AMA and NMA (Figs. 19 and 20) using the modified inputs from the probabilistic analysis has demonstrated the consistency of
the analysis results. The final estimation of EUR is 0.4585 104 m3 and that of OOIPSRV is 24.85 104 m3. From Tables 11 and 12, it
has been found that the analysis results for Well 2 are basically the same as the simplified application of the proposed method. It is dem-
onstrated that this simplified application can provide a quick and simple method of obtaining the approximate hydraulic-fracture and
SRV parameters for field staff members. The consistency of the calculated results of fracture parameters and SRV properties for Well 2
provides a validation of the developed methods in this study from another aspect.
Well 2 Wattenbarger-Type Curve Analysis

2
10
2
1
10
4
Normalized Rate
1.0
2
–1
10
4
2
–2
10
–4 –3 –2 –1 1 1
4×10 6 7 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 2 4×10
Material-Balance Time (days)
Fig. 25—Wattenbarger-type curve match for Well 2, from IHS Harmony software (IHS 2016).
kSRV (md) Xftotal (m) Ye (m) Xf (m)

4 3
nf OOIPSRV (10 m )
0.102 420.1 73.6 17 24.71 14.17
Table 12—Results of TCM analysis for Well 2.
45
AMA
39 NMA
increase
23.43 24.13
0.13 0.135 0.453 0.4556

4 3 4 3
Xf (m) kSRV (md) OOIPSRV (10 m ) EUR (10 m )
Fig. 26—Comparison of comprehensive analysis results from AMA and NMA for Well 1.
The main purpose of this research is to use convenient and economical RTA techniques to perform production-performance analysis,
determine the important SRV or hydraulic-fracture parameters (kSRV, Xf, OOIPSRV), and predict EUR for an individual MFHW field
completed in a tight oil reservoir. The evaluation results for field cases using the developed work flow have verified its applicability and
feasibility. Because of the limitations of RTA, the hydraulic fractures can only be equivalently modeled. Meanwhile, studying the dif-
ferences between artificial fractures is not the focus of this work. For the improvement of this type of research, studies on interferences

and differences among fractures, more-elaborate numerical simulation for MFHWs (such as Eclipse or Computer Modelling Group sim-
ulators), or creating more-accurate semianalytical models to analyze complex-hydraulic-fracture networks developed in tight oil reser-
voirs [Zhou et al. (2012) proposed a model for a shale-gas well] could be proposed in the future.
Conclusions
Using the derived results from RTA for this actual MFHW completed in a tight oil reservoir with the developed work flow, we may
safely draw the following conclusions:
1. RTA proves to be a convenient and economical method of obtaining the SRV and hydraulic-fracture properties for field MFHWs in
tight oil reservoirs. The kSRV, Xf, OOIPSRV, and EUR of this field example have been obtained using RTA techniques. The consis-
tency of the estimated results from different RTA techniques demonstrates the feasibility and practicability of the developed work
flow for field-case analysis. In addition, a simplified application of the proposed comprehensive method has been introduced.
2. Because production data of field cases are usually scattered and cleanup of fracturing fluid in very early time or noise points in the
production process distort the production data, production-data filtering and use of material-balance time can effectively decrease
the errors for flow-regime diagnosis and straight-line analysis.
3. Similar to the field case studies in previous research, only two flow regimes (transient linear flow and boundary-dominated flow)
have been observed for field cases. Two approaches, which are introduced to calculate kSRV and Xf for MFHWs in tight oil reservoirs,
have been successfully applied to the analysis of two field cases that demonstrated the availability and applicability of the
introduced methods.
4. Dual-permeability-medium parameters characterizing the differences between SRV (inner zone) and nonstimulated formation (outer
zone) are brought into AMA, and a good history match of production data validates the accuracy of the calculated x and k.
5. NMA can be used not only in performing the estimation of EUR depending on a good history match of production data, but also in
determining the possible reasons of low yield for an individual MFHW. It has been found that the reason for low yield for Field Case
1 may be that the developed hydraulic fractures are not effectively and sufficiently propped up by the injected proppants. Thus,
improving the effectively supported hydraulic-fracture length may potentially increase the production of this target MFHW.
6. Uncertainty and nonuniqueness analysis (depending on Monte Carlo simulation) helps to reconcile the results when differences
between particular parameters derived from different RTA techniques exist. By entering the modified SRV and hydraulic-fracture
properties from the probabilistic analysis in AMA and NMA, a better history match of production performance for those two RTA
techniques has been obtained, which demonstrates the accuracy of the modified SRV and hydraulic-fracture properties.
Nomenclature
Apcmffiffiffi ¼ contacted matrix surface area, 104 m2
Acm k ¼ bulk linear-flow parameter from specialized plot, m2 md0.5
ASRV ¼ drainage area of SRV, m2
b0 ¼ intercept on square-root-of-time plot
B ¼ volume factor
Bo ¼ oil volume factor, m3/m3
Boi ¼ original oil volume factor, m3/m3
ct ¼ total compressibility, MPa–1
d ¼ fracture spacing, m
FCD ¼ dimensionless conductivity
h ¼ thickness of pay zone, m
HFO ¼ original height of artificial fractures, m
kf ¼ fracture permeability, md
kftotal ¼ total fracture permeability, md
kf,in ¼ inherent permeability of SRV, md
km ¼ original reservoir matrix permeability, md
kSRV ¼ permeability of SRV, md
kx ¼ reservoir permeability in x-direction, md
ky ¼ reservoir permeability in y-direction, md
kz ¼ reservoir permeability in z-direction, md
k1 ¼ permeability of SRV, md
k2 ¼ original reservoir matrix permeability, md
Le ¼ effective length of horizontal-well section, m
LFO ¼ original length of artificial fractures, m
mCRL ¼ slope of diagnosis straight line on square-root-of-time plot, MPa/(m3/d)/d0.5
nf ¼ number of hydraulic fractures
OOIP ¼ original oil in place, 104 m3
OOIPSRV ¼ current oil in SRV, 104 m3
pi ¼ initial reservoir pressure, MPa
ppi ¼ initial reservoir pressure, MPa
pwf ¼ BHP, MPa
q ¼ rate, m3/d
qD ¼ dimensionless rate
Q ¼ cumulative rate, m3
rw ¼ wellbore radius, m
Rf ¼ volume factor
Soi ¼ original oil saturation, %
tc ¼ material-balance time
tDye ¼ dimensionless time
Telf ¼ end time of transient linear flow, days

VF ¼ volume of artificial fractures, m3

Vl ¼ volume of injected fracturing fluid, m3
VSRV ¼ original SRV, m3
WFO ¼ original width of artificial fractures, m
wf ¼ fracture width, m
xe ¼ reservoir length, m
Xe ¼ total fracture half-length, m
Xf ¼ effective fracture half-length, m
Xi ¼ fracture to the permeability boundary, m
ye ¼ reservoir width, m
Ye ¼ one-half of SRV width, m
Z ¼ Z-factor
Dp ¼ production drawdown, MPa
g ¼ efficiency of injected fracturing fluid, %
k ¼ interporosity coefficient
l ¼ oil viscosity, mPas
n ¼ formation-pressure coefficient
/ ¼ porosity, %
øm ¼ fracture porosity, %
x ¼ storativity ratio
Subscripts
f¼ fracture
in ¼ inner zone
m¼ matrix
match ¼ obtained by matching the production data
o¼ outer zone
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Major Project of China (2016ZX05021-005-009HZ). The authors would like to thank State
Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University for the technical support.
References
Anderson, D. M., Liang, P., and Mangha, V. O. 2012. Probabilistic Forecasting of Unconventional Resources Using Rate Transient Analysis: Case Stud-
ies. Presented at the SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 5–7 June. SPE-155737-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/155737-MS.
Anderson, D. M., Nobakht, M., Moghadam, S. et al. 2010. Analysis of Production Data From Fractured Shale Gas Wells. Presented at the SPE Uncon-
ventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 23–25 February. SPE-131787-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/131787-MS.
Anderson, D. M., Turco, F., Virues, C. J. J. et al. 2013. Application of Rate Transient Analysis Workflow in Unconventional Reservoirs: Horn River
Shale Gas Case Study. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition-Asia Pacific, Brisbane, Australia, 11–13 Novem-
ber. SPE-167042-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167042-MS.
Chen, C.-C. and Rajagopal, R. 1997. A Multiply-Fractured Horizontal Well in a Rectangular Drainage Region. SPE J. 2 (4): 455–465. SPE-37072-PA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/37072-PA.
Cheng, Y. 2011. Pressure Transient Characteristics of Hydraulically Fractured Horizontal Shale Gas Wells. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meet-
ing, Columbus, Ohio, 17–19 August. SPE-149311-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/149311-MS.
Chu, L., Ye, P., Harmawan, I. S. et al. 2012. Characterizing and Simulating the Non-Stationariness and Non-Linearity in Unconventional Oil Reservoirs:
Bakken Application. Presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 30 October–1 November. SPE-161137-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/161137-MS.
Clarkson, C. R. 2013a. Production Data Analysis of Unconventional Gas Wells: Review of Theory and Best Practices. Int. J. Coal Geol. 109–110 (1
April): 101–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.01.002.
Clarkson, C. R. 2013b. Production Data Analysis of Unconventional Gas Wells: Work Flow. Int. J. Coal Geol. 109–110 (1 April): 147–157. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.11.016.
Clarkson, C. R. and Beierle, J. J. 2010. Integration of Microseismic and Other Post-Fracture Surveillance With Production Analysis: A Tight Gas Study. Pre-
sented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 23–25 February. SPE-131786-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/131786-MS.
Clarkson, C. R. and Pedersen, P. K. 2010. Tight Oil Production Analysis: Adaptation of Existing Rate-Transient Analysis Techniques. Presented at the
Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 19–21 October. SPE-137352-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
137352-MS.
Clarkson, C. R and Williams-Kovacs, J. D. 2013. A New Method for Modeling Multi-Phase Flowback of Multi-Fractured Horizontal Tight Oil Wells to
Determine Hydraulic Fracture Properties. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–2 Octo-
El-Banbi, A. H. and Wattenbarger, R. A. 1998. Analysis of Linear Flow in Gas Well Production. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Presented at SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, 15–18 March. SPE-39972-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/39972-MS.
Hashemi, A. and Gringarten, A. C. 2005. Comparison of Well Productivity Between Vertical, Horizontal, and Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Gas-
Condensate Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, 13–16 June. SPE-94178-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/94178-MS.
IHS. 2016. Harmony Manual, Trial Version. London: IHS.
Joo, H. and Ki, S. 2015. Rate Transient Analysis in Hydraulic Fractured Tight Gas Reservoir. Presented at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Con-
ference and Exhibition, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20–22 October. SPE-176489-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/176489-MS.

Kurtoglu, B., Rasdi, F., Salman, A. et al. 2013. Evaluating Long Term Flow Regimes in Unconventional Oil Reservoirs With Diverse Completion Tech-
nology. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 5–7 November. SPE-167145-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167145-MS.
Lee, J., Rollins, J. B., and Spivey, J. P. 2003. Pressure Transient Testing, Vol. 9. Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Leung, J., Yue, M., and Dehghanpour, H. 2013. Integration of Numerical Simulations for Uncertainty Analysis of Transient Flow Responses in Heteroge-
neous Tight Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Canada, Calgary, 5–7 November. SPE-167174-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/167174-MS.
Lian, P., Cheng, L., Li, L. et al. 2011. The Variation Law of Storativity Ratio and Interporosity Transfer Coefficient in Fractured Reservoirs. Eng. Mech.
28 (9): 240–243.
Liang, P., Mattar, L., and Moghadam, S. 2011. Analyzing Variable Rate/Pressure Data in Transient Linear Flow in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs. Pre-
sented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 15–17 November. SPE-149472-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/149472-MS.
Luo, H. W., Li, H. T., Zhang, J. F. et al. 2017. Production Performance Analysis of Fractured Horizontal Well in Tight Oil Reservoir. J. Petrol. Explor.
Prod. Technol. 8 (1): 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0339-x.
Mattar, L. and Anderson, D. 2005. Dynamic Material Balance (Oil or Gas-In-Place Without Shut-Ins). Presented at the Canadian International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, 7–9 June. PETSOC-2005-113. https://doi.org/10.2118/2005-113.
Mishra, S. 2014. Exploring the Diagnostic Capability of RTA Type Curves. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amster-
dam, 27–29 October. SPE-173481-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/173481-STU.
Mohan, K., Scott, K. D., Monson, G. D. et al. 2013. A Systematic Approach to Understanding Well Performance in Unconventional Reservoirs: A Wolf-
camp Case Study. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, 12–14 August. URTEC-1579514-MS. https://
doi.org/10.1190/URTEC2013-051.
Ozkan, E., Brown, M. L., Raghavan, R. et al. 2011. Comparison of Fractured-Horizontal-Well Performance in Tight Sand and Shale Reservoirs. SPE
Res Eval & Eng 14 (2): 248–259. SPE-121290-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/121290-PA.
Pinillos, C. and Rong, Y. C. 2015. Integration of Pressure Transient Analysis in Reservoir Characterization: A Case Study. Presented at the SPE/
IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20–22 October. SPE-176202-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
176202-MS.
Poe, B. D., Vacca, H., Benjamin, A. et al. 2012. Production Decline Analysis of Horizontal Well Intersecting Multiple Transverse Vertical Hydraulic
Fractures in Low-Permeability Shale Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 Octo-
Pour, F. N., Sayed, N. E., and Eddy, J. 2015. Performance Analysis of the Canadian Deep Basin Unconventional Wells. Presented at the SPE Unconven-
tional Resources Conference, Calgary, 20–22 October. SPE-175977-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/175977-MS.
Santacruz, C., Esquivel, R., Smith, J. et al. 2015. Integration of RTA Based Reservoir Surveillance and Analytical Flow Simulation to Forecast Produc-
tion in the Haynesville Shale. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 20–22 July. URTEC-
2153918-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2015-2153918.
Song, B. and Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 2011. Rate-Normalized Pressure Analysis for Determination of Shale Gas Well Performance. Presented at the
North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 14–16 June. SPE-144031-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
144031-MS.
Stalgorova, E. and Babadagli, T. 2012. Field-Scale Modeling of Tracer Injection in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using the Random-Walk Particle-
Tracking Simulation. SPE J. 17 (2): 580–590. SPE-144547-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/144547-PA.
Stalgorova, E. and Mattar, L. 2012. Practical Analytical Model to Simulate Production of Horizontal Wells with Branch Fractures. Presented at the SPE
Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 30 October–1 November. SPE-162515-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/162515-MS.
Tang, Y. and Liang, B. 2015. Reservoir Surveillance Pilot Study for Midland Basin Tight Oil Spacing Optimization. Presented at the SPE Liquids-Rich
Basins Conference, Midland, Texas, 2–3 September. SPE-175533-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/175533-MS.
Wang, J. C. 2015. Volumetric Source Model of Binary System and Its Application. Master’s thesis, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, China
(June 2015).
Warren, J. E. and Root, P. J. 1963.The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE J. 3 (3): 245–255. SPE-426-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/426-PA.
Wattenbarger, R. A., El-Banbi, A. H., Villegas, M. E. et al. 1998. Production Analysis of Linear Flow Into Fractured Tight Gas Wells. Presented at the
SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, 5–8 April. SPE-39931-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/39931-MS.
Xie, W., Li, X., Zhang, L. et al. 2015. Production Decline Analysis for Two-Phase Flow in Multifractured Horizontal Well in Shale Gas Reservoirs.
Journal of Chemistry Vol. 2015, Article ID 212103, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/212103.
Ye, P., Chu, L., Harmawan, I. S. et al. 2013. Beyond Linear Analysis in an Unconventional Oil Reservoir. Presented at the Unconventional Resources
Conference-USA, The Woodlands, Texas, 10–12 April. SPE-164543-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/164543-MS.
Zhou, W., Banerjee, R., Poe, B. D. et al. 2012. Semi-Analytical Production Simulation of Complex Hydraulic Fracture Networks. Presented at the SPE
International Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition, Doha, 14–16 May. SPE-157367-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/157367-MS.
Zhou, W., Gupta, S., Banerjee, R. et al. 2013. Production Forecasting and Analysis for Unconventional Resources. Presented at the International Petro-
leum Technology Conference, Beijing, 26–28 March 2013. SPE-17176-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-17176-MS.
Li Haitao is the director of the Oil Recovery Institute at Southwest Petroleum University, China. He is a professor and a doctoral
tutor. Li’s current interests include well completion, perforations, distributed temperature sensor, water injection, unconventional
reservoir, and well-performance evaluation. Li has authored or coauthored more than 70 technical papers and holds more than
10 patents. He holds a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from Southwest Petroleum University.
Luo Hongwen is a PhD degree student at Southwest Petroleum University. He holds a bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineer-
ing from Chongqing University of Science and Technology, China.
Zhang Jianfeng is a master’s degree student at Southwest Petroleum University. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical en-
gineering from Southwest Petroleum University.
Wang Junchao is pursuing a post-doctoral degree at Xinjiang Oilfield Company of Petrochina. He holds a bachelor’s degree in
mathematics from Xihua University, China, and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from Southwest Petroleum University.

Rate-Transient Analysis in Multifractured Horizontal Wells of Tight Oil Reservoir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Rate-Transient Analysis in Multifractured Horizontal Wells of Tight Oil Reservoir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rate-Transient Analysis in Multifractured Horizontal Wells of Tight Oil Reservoir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PO189992 DOI: 10.

2118/189992-PA Date: 7-June-18 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 22

Rate-Transient Analysis in Multifractured

2018 SPE Production & Operations 1

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Proposed Work Flow

2 2018 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Uncertainty P10, P50, P90 Modified SRV

Fig. 1—Comprehensive RTA work flow.

Pi (MPa) 41.953 ξ 1.372

Depth (m) 3057 Soi 67

T (°C) 88.4 Swi 33

Le (m) 1298 Sgi 0

(%) 9.94 μo (mPa·s) 80

Table 1—Basic reservoir properties for Well 1.

MD (m) TVD (m) Deviation Angle (°)

Table 2—Well trajectory for Well 1.

2018 SPE Production & Operations 3

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Table 3—Completion data for Well 1.

4 2018 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Well 1 Log-Log Normalized Rate vs. Time

Normalized Oil Rate [(m3/d)/kPa]

Date: 2015/02/03 00:00:00 YYYY/MM/DD HH:mm:ss

–1 Well 1 Log-Log Normalized Rate vs. Time

2018 SPE Production & Operations 5

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Well 1 Square-Root-of-Time Plot

Normalized Pressure [kPa/(m3/d)]

The permeability and fracture half-length is

Telf (days) mCRL [MPa/(m /d)/d ]

Table 4—Analysis results of square-root-of-time plot for Well 1.

6 2018 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

2018 SPE Production & Operations 7

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Injected Fracturing- Injected

Table 6—Results of straight-line analysis for Well 1.

Well 1 Material-Balance-Time Plot

4000 Date: 2015/02/03 00:00:00 YYYY/MM/DD HH:mm:ss

8 2018 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Fig. 9—Geometry of total fracture length used in Wattenbarger-type curve analysis.

The normalized rate is

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Well 1 Wattenbarger-Type Curve Analysis

kSRV (md) Xftotal (m) Ye (m) Xf (m) ASRV (hectares)

Table 7—Results of TCM analysis for Well 1.

10 2018 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

VSRV ¼ Le LFo HFo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð20Þ

VF ¼ nf LFo HFo WFo : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð21Þ

The volume factor of natural fracture is

2018 SPE Production & Operations 11

ID: jaganm Time: 15:28 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/180009/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##180009

Table 8—Input parameters and results from AMA for Well 1.