Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.

pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
SPE 166147

Theory and Application of Pressure and Rate Transient Analysis in

Unconventional Reservoirs
Mehmet A. Torcuk, SPE, Colorado School of Mines, Basak Kurtoglu, SPE, Marathon Oil Company, Perapon
Fakcharoenphol, SPE, and Hossein Kazemi, SPE, Colorado School of Mines

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013.

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 necessar ily 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 prohi bited. 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
Pressure and rate transient analyses are reliable methods to estimate effective formation permeability of unconventional
reservoirs. The results of such analyses are used to validate or fine-tune the numerical simulation models both for the primary
and enhanced oil and gas recovery methods.

Pressure-rate transient test applications in unconventional reservoirs are somewhat different from similar tests in
conventional reservoirs because of the extremely tight nature of target formations and the use of horizontal wells as an
integral part of well completion and reservoir stimulation. Accordingly, this paper presents theory, mathematical formulation,
and application of the numerical and analytical well testing solutions to characterize unconventional reservoirs. The
mathematical models pertain to the single-porosity and dual-porosity concepts. In the latter we focused on the issues
surrounding the unsteady state (USS) and pseudo steady state (PSS) flow. The models studied in this paper were a 1-D
analytical model and a hybrid 3-D numerical model that combines the USS and PSS dual-porosity formulations; a trilinear
analytical model and a MINC (Multiple Interacting Continua) numerical model. The 3-D numerical model was compared
with the trilinear analytical and MINC numerical models.

In unconventional reservoirs the dual-porosity environment emanates from the auxiliary effect of multi-stage hydraulic
fracturing for which the unsteady-state mathematical solutions are more appropriate. The benefits of such solutions are
supported by field results, which we will present and discuss. Furthermore, the results of pressure-transient and rate-transient
analyses of two oil wells in an unconventional reservoir were presented.

Introduction
The differences in pressure- and rate-transient tests in conventional and unconventional reservoirs arise from the differences
in pore size and permeability, well geometry, and completion techniques. The average pore-size diameter in a conventional
reservoir is in the range of 2 to 20  m (2,000 to 20,000 nm) while it is 0.002 to 0.5  m (2 to 500 nm) in unconventional
reservoirs. Similarly, the matrix permeability is greater than 0.1 md in conventional reservoirs, while in unconventional
reservoirs the typical matrix permeabilities vary from 50 to 500 nd.

Well-testing is used for determining the flow capacity and formation deliverability of unconventional reservoirs. The notable
methods are: mini-DST, pressure-transient test (PTT) and rate transient test (RTT). Each of these tests responds to the flow
characteristics of unconventional reservoirs at different scales of measurement. For instance, mini-DST tool reflects the very
early time (up to a few hours) behavior of the target formation while minimizing the wellbore storage effects. Mini-DST also
has the capability of characterizing the deliverability of different zones in a given wellbore. On the other hand, pressure
transient tests provide the mid-time (e.g., up to several hundred hours) responses of the well-reservoir system. Rate-transient
tests reflect the long-term behavior of formations to include the effectiveness of stimulation technique, drainage volume
boundaries, and the volume of hydrocarbon in place.

Horizontal wells are used in unconventional oil and gas reservoirs to increase production rate by contacting a greater
reservoir volume. Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing provides even a greater improvement in oil or gas production from
2 SPE 166147

unconventional reservoirs. In the last decade, the pressure and rate transient responses of such hydraulically fractured wells
have been modeled using several analytical solutions with varying degree of complexity.

In principal, it is believed that multi-stage hydraulic fracturing figuratively creates a pulverized rock or dual-porosity
environment. In the petroleum literature, there are two common dual-porosity formulations: the pseudo steady state (PSS)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
(Barenblatt et al. 1960 and Warren-Root 1963) and the unsteady state (USS) formulations (Kazemi, 1969; de Swaan-O, 1976;
Serra et al., 1983). In this paper, we use both the PSS and USS formulations to solve matrix flow equations, numerically and
analytically. Our presentation is given in the following order: First, we present 1-D analytical solutions for PSS and USS
dual-porosity models. Then, we present a new 3-D numerical model to simulate the pressure and flowrate transient responses
of multi-stage stimulated wells. The numerical model results are compared with a trilinear analytical model (Ozkan et al.,
2009) and a numerical MINC approach (Wu and Pruess, 1988). The theoretical developments are complimented by field
examples to show their applications in unconventional reservoirs.

Mathematical Formulation
The diffusivity equation for single phase, slightly compressible flow in a dual-porosity medium is:

 k f ,eff  p f
    p f      ct  f [1]
   t

Where:

p f  pi  pwf [2]

In Eq. 1,  , is a source term representing the fluid transfer rate per unit rock volume between natural fractures and matrix.
For pseudo-steady state model, it is (Warren and Root, 1963):

p 
km
 PSS   0.006328   pf [3]
 m

Similarly,

 p  pm 
km
 PSS   0.006328  [4]
 f

The unsteady state transfer function is (de Swaan-O, 1976; Torcuk et al., 2013):

1 p f ( x, t )
t
qu , m  t    d
Vm 0
 USS  [5]


qu , m is the flowrate caused by a unit pressure drop at the matrix surface. For a spherical matrix block it is (Carslaw and
Jaeger, 1959):

km 2   m l 2 2t  
qu , m (t )  0.006328 Am  exp   [6]
 rm  l 1  rm2  

Dual-porosity models
In this section, we present the analytical solutions for PSS and USS dual-porosity formulations for 1-D linear systems. The
solutions were obtained using the Laplace transformation. For the 1-D flow, the dimensionless diffusivity equation is:
 2 pDf
 g  s  pDf  0 [7]
xD2

Where for the pseudo steady state model, the g  s  function is given by:
SPE 166147 3

s 1     
g  s   sf  s   s [8]
s 1     

We define the dimensionless variables by:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
k f ,eff h
pDf  tD    p f  t  [9]
141.2qB 

x
xD  [10]
W

and

k f ,eff
tD  0.006328 t [11]
 ct  f  m W 2

Note that W is the width (or characteristic length) of the linear system perpendicular to the global flow direction. The
pressure solution at the wellbore (or at the fracture face) intersected by a single axial vertical fracture is:

2
pDf  s   [12]
s g s

The conventional definitions of dimensionless dual-porosity variables are:

km
  W2 [13]
k f ,eff

and

 ct  f
 [14]
 ct  f  m

Several earlier analytical solutions for the pressure and flow rate in a multiply-fractured horizontal well (Ozkan et al., 2009)
are based on the unsteady-state dual-porosity formulation presented by Serra et al. (1983). Serra et al. defined storativity and
flow capacity ratios differently, given by the following equations for the slab matrix.

km hm
  W2 [15]
k f ,int h f

and

 ct m,int
 [16]
 ct  f ,int

The  and  are related to the conventional  and  . The g  s  function in Serra et al. derivation for the slab matrix
block is:

   3 s  
g  s   sf  s   s 1  tanh    [17]
 3s    
4 SPE 166147

In this paper, we present a new formulation for the USS transfer function with using the conventional dual-porosity
parameters. Our derivation for the dimensionless transfer function is similar to the de Swaan-O (1976) USS transfer function
derivation. Our g  s  function for the slab matrix block in the USS dual-porosity model is: (for derivation, see Appendix A):

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
 2  1     1    s 
g  s   s   tanh  [18]
  s 2  
  

It should be noted that the definitions of flow capacity and storativity ratios in above equation are given in Eq. 13 and 14,
respectively.

Example 1 caters to three 1-D, dual-porosity, analytical formulations. The input data used in Example 1 are given in Table
1. For the three formulations, we used the Laplace domain solution given by Eq. 12 to generate the 1-D results.

TABLE 1 – DATA FOR EXAMPLE 1

μ (cp) 2x10-2 km (md) 1x10-6 kf,int (Serra et al.) (md) 3200

B (RB/STB) 1 hm (ft) 10 kf,eff = kf,bulk (md) 1.6x10-1

h (ft) 20 φm 5x10-2 hf (Serra et al.) (ft) 1x10-3

W (ft) 5000 ct,m (1/psi) 1.5x10-4 nf (Serra et al.) 2

q (STB/D) 89 ct,f (1/psi) 5x10-4 nm (Serra et al.) 2

-2 -5
σ (1/ft ) 2
9.87 x10 φf 3.6x10

Figure 1: Example 1: Comparison of three 1-D, dual-porosity, analytical formulations.

Discretization of transfer functions

Here, we present the discretization of PSS and USS transfer functions for the numerical solution. The PSS and USS transfer
functions can be dicretizated as:

pm p n 1  p n
 PSS USS  m ctm   m ctm i m,i n m,i [19]
t t

Where the PSS transfer function is:

SPE 166147 5

 km 
 PSS   0.006328     p f ,i  pm,i 
n 1 n 1
[20]
  i

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
Combining Eqs. 19 and 20, and solving for pmn ,i1 ; we get:

  ct m,i    k  
   0.006328   m  
 t n  n    i  n 1
pmn ,i1   pm,i    p f ,i [21]
 0.006328   km  
 ct m,i   0.006328   km  
 ct m,i 
   
   i t n     i t n 

The discretizated PSS transfer function becomes:

  km  
 0.006328      
   i    ct m,i 
   
2 k 
2
  t n  n
 PSS
n 1
   0.006328    m    p f ,i  
n 1
 pm ,i [22]
   i    0.006328    km  
 ct m,i 
    
  km   ct m ,i     i t n 
  0.006328       t n 
  i 

The discretization of USS transfer functions is not as straightforward as the discretization of the PSS transfer function.
Because the transfer function in the USS formulation involves a convolution integral, the numerical evaluation of this
transfer function is very sensitive to the time step size. The convolution integral in Eq. 5 is approximated by a summation as
shown:

p t   p t  q t 
n 1
 t j 1 
1
 USS
n 1
 f
j
f
j 1
u ,m
n 1
[23]
Vm j 1

n  1 represents the current time level while n is the previous time level. For an example, for n  2 and n  1  3 , the
explicit expansion of Eq. 23 becomes:

  p f  t1   p f  t 0   qu , m  t 3  t 0   p  t1  q  t 3  
    f u,m

1  1    1 
 (t )    p f  t   p f  t   qu , m  t  t      p f  t   p f  t   qu , m  t  t  
1
3
 2 1
 3 2 1
 3
[24]
Vm   Vm  
  p f  t 3   p f  t 2   qu , m  t 3  t 2     p f  t 3   p f  t 2   qu , m  t 3  t 2 
       

It should be noted that, in Eq. 24, t 3 is the third time level in the expansion of Eq. 23 for n=2. When n is large, the number of
terms in the summation becomes large which causes large computing times. Also, for large n, one encounters computational
instabilities. To make the computation stable and decrease the computation time, we used a hybrid numerical approach which
combines the USS and PSS solutions. The procedure involves using USS solution for any matrix block until it reaches PSS
at which time the transfer functions are switched accordingly. Figure 1 is a comparison of PSS and USS for three 1-D, dual-
porosity, analytical models of Example 1. When pressure transients in a matrix reach the pseudo steady state, then, the PSS
and USS dual-porosity models produce identical results.

The switching criterion from USS to PSS for each matrix block is the pseudo-steady state time given by the following
equation:

rm2m  ctm
tPSS  [25]
 0.2245
2
km
6 SPE 166147

Using Eq. 25, the pseudo-steady state time, tPSS , for the input data given in Table 1 is 0.456 day (or 11 hours). The
numerical hybrid model for the 1-D case is as follows:

Di p nfi11  Ei p nfi1  Fi p nfi11  Ri [26]

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
Where the definitions of Di , Ei , Fi , and Ri terms are given in Appendix B. The Ei and Ri have different functional forms
depending on the magnitude of the transient time as compared to the pseudo-steady state time. For instance, the Ei term will
have the following definition until reaching the pseudo-steady state time, tPSS for constant rate production:

 V  f ctf  1  
Ei    Di  Fi  i
 Vi  p f  t n 1  qu , m  t n 1  t n    [27]
 t n Vm  

And, after reaching tPSS , Ei will be:

  k2 

V  f ctf    0.006328   2 m2 
2

  k   
Ei    Di  Fi  i
 Vi   0.006328   m    [28]
t n  i km  ct m,i
n
      
 
0.006328
 t  
 

We used the data presented in Table 1 to test the hybrid numerical algorithm in 1-D. The results are shown in Fig. 2. As can
be seen, the hybrid numerical approach captures the dual-porosity transient behavior.

Figure 2: Example 1. Comparison of 1-D dual-porosity analytical with a hybrid 1-D numerical model.

3-D Numerical Model

In the previous section, we presented the discretization of the USS transfer function and the 1-D hybrid numerical model,
which accounts for the transient and pseudo-steady state dual porosity formulations. In this section, we present a 3-D
numerical algorithm to simulate the pressure and flowrate responses of fractured horizontal wells. An idealized schematic of
multi-stage fractured horizontal well is presented in Fig. 3a. For simplicity, we focused on simulation of a single hydraulic
fracture, illustrated in Fig. 3b.

The 3-D numerical model uses a Cartesian grid system which is logarithmically distributed from the wellbore and hydraulic
fracture as shown in Fig. 3b. In Fig. 3b, y f represents the hydraulic fracture half-length, and Lx , Ly , and h are the
dimensions of the study area.
SPE 166147 7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
Figure 3: (a) An idealized schematic of multi-stage fractured horizontal well
(b) The study area and grid refinement

As mentioned before, multi-stage hydraulic fracturing creates a rubblized rock environment in the vicinity of the hydraulic
fractures which is also known as stimulated reservoir volume (SRV). Accordingly, we developed our numerical model to
account for the broken rocks which creates a dual-porosity environment. For the reservoir volume beyond the hydraulic
fracture length, we assume single-porosity and no microfractures.

The 3-D finite difference form of Eq. 1 is:


 Bi , j , k p fi , j ,k 1  Ci , j , k p fi , j 1,k  Di , j , k p fi1, j ,k  Ei , j , k p fi , j ,k 
n 1 n 1 n 1 n 1

 n 1 n 1 n 1   Ri , j , k [29]
 Fi , j , k p fi1, j ,k  Gi , j , k p fi , j1,k  H i , j , k p fi , j ,k 1
 


The definitions of Bi , j , k , Ci , j , k , etc are given in Appendix B. We treat the hydraulic fractures as a high permeability vertical
layer with porosity, HF .

To verify the validity of the hybrid 3-D numerical model we constructed Example 2, 3, and 4. Example 2 was used to
compare the hybrid 3-D numerical results with the results of a 3-D numerical PSS model. Similarly, Example 3 was used to
compare results with the results of the trilinear analytical model, and Example 4 was used to compare results with the results
of the MINC numerical model. The data used in the first comparison example, Example 2, are given in Table 2. In Example
2a, we set wellbore storage to zero. The flow hierarchy in this example is assumed to be from matrix blocks to micro/natural
fractures to hydraulic fracture and to wellbore. The fluid transfer from microfractures to directly wellbore is ignored; the
effect of wellbore connection to microfractures is investigated in a different example.

TABLE 2 – DATA FOR EXAMPLE 2

μo (cp) 4.5x10-1 km (md) 1x10-5 kf,eff (md) 2.5x10-1

B (RB/STB) 1 rm (ft) 1 kHF (md) 1x106

h (ft) 167 φm 5x10-2 φHF 3.8x10-1

L (ft) 10000 ct,m (1/psi) 1x10-6 nf 5

q (STB/D) 50 ct,f (1/psi) 1x10-6 yf (ft) 647

-4
σ (1/ft )2
9.87 φf 4x10 CWBS (bbl/psi) 1x10-3

Figure 4 presents the pressure and pressure derivative responses of the 3-D numerical hybrid USS and numerical PSS
models. To generate the logarithmic derivatives for this and other examples, we used Bourdet et al. (1989) three-point
numerical derivative formula:
8 SPE 166147

d p  t j 
pj   a j p j 1  b j p j  c j p j 1 [30]
d ln  t 

Where the coefficients a j , b j , and c j in Eq. 30 are:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
ln  t j 1 t j 
aj   [31]
ln  t j 1 t j 1  ln  t j t j 1 

ln  t j 1t j 1 t 2j 
bj  [32]
ln  t j 1 t j  ln  t j t j 1 

ln  t j 1 
cj  [33]
ln  t j 1 t j 1  ln  t j 1 t j 

Both the numerical hybrid USS and numerical PSS 3-D models indicate early time radial flow; however, the dual porosity
V-shape response in the PSS model masks the intermediate time flow regimes. Similarly, identical late- time linear and
boundary dominated flow regimes are present in these models. Finally, four different flow regimes are present in the
derivative response of the numerical hybrid model: early-time radial flow, intermediate-time bilinear flow, linear flow and
boundary dominated flow.

Figure 4: Example 2a. Pressure and pressure derivative for the 3-D numerical hybrid USS
and numerical 3-D PSS models using zero wellbore storage coefficient.

Example 2b was set up to compare the 3-D numerical PSS and 3-D numerical hybrid USS pressure transient responses for
the same data given in Table 2 but, the example includes non-zero wellbore storage coefficient which masks the early time
radial flow. Thus, it is very unlikely to see the early time fracture radial flow in the field data.
SPE 166147 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
Figure 5: Example 2b with non-zero wellbore storage coefficient,
but with the same models and same data as in Fig. 4.

Example 3, Fig. 6, compares the 3-D numerical hybrid model results with the results of the trilinear analytical model. We
compare these two models using spherical matrix blocks, no wellbore storage, and no peforations between the wellbore and
the reservoir microfracture-matrix pore space.

In a previously published trilinear model by Ozkan et al. (2009), Serra et al.'s USS dual-porosity parameters were used.
However, in our paper, we used the conventional dual-porosity parameters in the same trilinear model. The dimensionless
wellbore pressure drop for the trilinear model is given by (Ozkan et al. 2009):


pwD  [34]
CFD s  F tanh  F 
where

2 F s
F   [35]
CFD  FD

with

  w 
 F   o tanh   o  yeD  D   [36]
  2 

and

o
o   g s [37]
CRD yeD

In Eq. 37, we used a different g  s  function than the one used by Ozkan et al. Our g  s  function is given as Eq. 38 for
which we used the Warren-Root's definition of the storativity ratio and interporosity flow parameter. Appendix C provides
the definitions of the dimensionless parameters used in our trilinear model, while the derivation of the trilinear model is given
in the paper by Ozkan et al. (2009).

The g  s  for a spherical matrix block is (Appendix A):

10 SPE 166147

 3  1     1   3  
g ( s)  s   coth   s  [38]
  s     2 s 

Here, the definitions of  and  are presented in Eq. 13 and 14, respectively. Figure 6 compares the pressure and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
derivative responses for the numerical hybrid and trilinear models. In this example, the reservoir is limited to the stimulated
reservoir volume, thus, no un-stimulated outer reservoir region exists. The properties of the model considered in this example
are given in Table 3.

TABLE 3 – DATA FOR EXAMPLE 3

μo (cp) 4.5x10-1 km (md) 1x10-5 kf,eff (md) 2.5x10-1

B (RB/STB) 1 rm (ft) 1 kHF (md) 1x106

h (ft) 167 φm 5x10-2 φHF 3.8x10-1

L (ft) 10000 ct,m (1/psi) 1x10-6 nf 5

-6
q (STB/D) 50 ct,f (1/psi) 1x10 yf (ft) 647

σ (1/ft2) 9.87 φf 4x10-4 CWBS (bbl/psi) 1x10-3

The trilinear model couples linear flows in three different region including early-time flow from hydraulic fracture to the
wellbore. Because it assumes the flow from hydraulic fractures to the wellbore occurs in linear regime, the trilinear model
pressure transient data don't reflect the early-time radial flow. However, as discussed in the previous example, the early-time
flow regime is mostly not obtainable from the field tests due to the wellbore storage effects. Beside the early-time response,
both the trilinear and hybrid numerical models generate the same transient pressure results.

Figure 6: Example 3. Comparison of the 3-D numerical hybrid model results

with the results of the trilinear analytical model.

In the Example 4, we compare the numerical hybrid model with the MINC model. MINC is widely used for fully numerical
pressure transient models for unconventional tight reservoirs to capture the transient flow in the matrix. MINC models use
the PSS dual-porosity formulation and divide tight matrix block into different number of sub-grids to capture the transient
flow.

In this example, we consider three grid refinements for the MINC model: 5, 20 and 40. Table 4 presents the data used in the
simulations. The 5 grid refinement MINC model is presented with the red color in Fig. 7, while the 20 and 40 sub-grid cases
presented with the blue and green colors, respectively.
SPE 166147 11

As shown in Fig. 7, the first MINC case presents similar responses to the PSS model. It is far away from capturing the
transient flow in the matrix for the data given in Table 4. The second MINC case, which divides the matrix blocks into 20
sub-grids, captures more than half of the transient regime. Although it is still not a perfect match, the final case with 40
MINC reflects the intermediate-time transient flow, well. However, the 40-MINC case requires much more computation time
than the numerical hybrid model. The numerical hybrid model of this paper generates better results than the MINC model

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
with a less computation time.

TABLE 4 – DATA FOR EXAMPLE 4

μo (cp) 1.8x10-2 km (md) 1x10-6 kf,eff (md) 1.6x10-1

B (RB/STB) 1 hm (ft) 10 kHF (md) 1x106

h (ft) 40 φm 5x10-2 φHF 3.8x10-1

L (ft) 5000 ct,m (1/psi) 1x10-6 nf 5

q (STB/D) 1781 ct,f (1/psi) 1x10-6 yf (ft) 500

-1 -5
σ (1/ft )2
1.2x10 φf 3.6x10 CWBS (bbl/psi) 0

Figure 7: Example 4 to compare the 3-D numerical hybrid model

results with the results of the MINC numerical model.

Field Examples
Here, we will now consider two field examples (Field Examples 1 and 2) to demonstrate the application of the pressure and
rate transient tests in unconventional reservoirs. Our first example is a 9043-ft stimulated horizontal well in the Three Forks
formation with 15-stage swell-packer completion in Bailey field, North Dakota. The well has been producing almost for
three years. Figure 8 shows the well oil rate and cumulative oil production plot while Fig. 9 plots the normalized pressure
and pressure derivative profiles and the numerical hybrid model match on a log-log scale. In the log-log diagnostic plot, in
order to transform a long-term variable flowing pressure test into a constant rate equivalent, equivalent time, , the ratio of
the cumulative production to the flow rate, , is used (Blasingame et al., 1991). And, the pressure is normalized by rate
and multiplied by a reference rate to maintain a pressure unit of psi. Lastly, noise in daily production of well data is smoothed
by working with a normalized pressure and pressure derivative integral.

The well exhibits long-transient flow, indicated by half-slope on rate normalized pressure and pressure derivative. This
behavior can be explained not only with the continuous linear flow from the stimulated area to the wellbore though fractures
but also with the contribution of far-field matrix permeability to the long-term production. This represents a typical well flow
regime characteristic for a fractured horizontal well in Bakken.
12 SPE 166147

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
(a) (b)
Figure 8: Field Example 1. Long term production data and from a horizontal well in the Bakken in Bailey field

A satisfactory match between field data and the numerical hybrid model is maintaned with a fracture half length of 516 ft and
an effective fracture pemeability of 0.02 md. The other match parameters are presented in Table 5.

Figure 9: Field Example 1. Log-log normalized pressure and pressure derivative profile

TABLE 5 – DATA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 1 AND MODEL MATCH PARAMETERS

μo (cp) 5.8x10-1 km (md) 1x10-5 kf,eff (md) 2x10-2

B (RB/STB) 1.61 rm (ft) 1 kHF (md) 1x106

h (ft) 39 φm 4.7x10-2 φHF 3.8x10-1

L (ft) 9043 ct,m (1/psi) 1x10-6 nf 15

σ (1/ft2) 9.87 ct,f (1/psi) 1.64x10-5 yf (ft) 516

-3
φf 5.8x10
SPE 166147 13

The cartesian plot of rate normalized pressure ( p qo ) vs. square-root of superposition time te1 2   yields a straight line for
the linear flow regime period. We also estimated the effective fracture permeability of the inner reservoir by using the linear
flow closed form solution. The linear flow equation can be written in the following form:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
12
pi  pwf , n 8.128 24 Bo o  1  n q j  q j 1
qn
 
k f ,eff hn f y f   ct  f  m o

  qn
tn  tn 1 [39]
 j 1

And the effective permeability is:

  8.128 Bo o  
2
 24
k f ,eff     [40]
 m hn y   ct   
 linear f f   f m o 

Where y f is the fracture half-length for a single transverse hydraulic fracture in a multi-stage completion, in feet and n f is
the total number of hydraulic fracture stages. This equation is applicable to open-hole, multi-stage completion because flow
is dominated by well flowing perpendicular to the hydraulic fracture. Long-lasting linear flow regime is observed (Fig. 9)
which is aligned with the flow regime characteristics seen on the log-log diagnostic plot. The fluid properties are estimated
from the PVT analysis and given in Table 5 together with reservoir and well properties. From the linear flow analysis, the
effective permeability was estimated as 0.02 md. This calculated permeability represents the enhanced stimulated reservoir
volume permeability which is orders of magnitude higher than the core matrix permeability.

Field Example 2 is a pressure build-up example from a 8978-ft stimulated horizontal well in the Middle Bakken formation
with single-stage open hole completion in Murphy Creek field, North Dakota. After five months of production from the
hydraulic fracture treatment, the well was shut in for ten days as a pressure buildup test. Figure 10 shows the well pressure
and rate history. The log-log pressure and pressure derivative responses and the numerical hybrid model match are given in
Fig. 11. As seen in log-log plot, there is not a significant wellbore storage effect. The pressure transient response was
dominated by linear flow regime. Typical V-shape feature seen in dual-porosity reservoirs is not oberved in the field data. We
used the core measured value for the matrix permeability: 10-5 md. Table 6 shows the data used in the hybrid numerical
model and the analysis results.

Figure 10: Field Example 2. Flow rate and pressure profile from a horizontal well
in the Bakken in Murphy Creek field, North Dakota

The numerical model match is satisfied with an effective fracture permeability of 0.33 md and a fracture half length of 500 ft.
The effective permeability is also estimated using the closed-form solutions. The linear flow is characterized by half slope
straight lines on a log-log plot of pressure and pressure derivative vs. time. The same pressure data should yield a straight line
on the Cartesian plot of vs. . Eq. 39 is modified to apply superposition time for pressure buildup analysis, governing
14 SPE 166147

the following equation:

12
8.128 qo Bo o  
pws 
k f ,eff hn f y f   ct 
1
 
  t p  t  t  [41]
 f m o 

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
Figure 11: Field Example 2. Pressure, pressure derivative plot and model match

TABLE 6 – DATA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 2 AND MODEL MATCH PARAMETERS

μo (cp) 4.8x10-1 km (md) 1x10-5 kf,eff (md) 3.3x10-1

B (RB/STB) 1.36 rm (ft) 1 kHF (md) 5x105

h (ft) 48 φm 4.1x10-2 φHF 3.8x10-1

L (ft) 8978 ct,m (1/psi) 1x10-6 nf 1

qo,avg (STB/D) 107 ct,f (1/psi) 1.64x10-5 yf (ft) 500

-3
σ (1/ft )2
9.87 φf 5.8x10

The slope of pws vs t1 2 plot is used to estimate the effective permeability from linear flow period. Because our numerical
model considers both sides of the hydraulic fracture, we used hydraulic fracture full length our estimation:

2
  8.128 q B    1 
k f ,eff  o o o
   [42]
 mlinear h  2 y f     ct  o 
   f m 

Using the linear flow plot, and well, reservoir and fluid properties summarized in Table 6, the effective permeability is
calculated as 0.33 md.

Conclusions
In this paper, we have presented numerical and analytical pressure and rate transient solutions for multi-stage hydraulically
fractured horizontal wells in unconventional reservoirs. The models used were a hybrid 3-D numerical model that combines
the USS and PSS dual-porosity formulations and an analytical trilinear model. The 3-D numerical model was compared with
the analytical trilinear and numerical MINC models. Our trilinear model is basically the same as the model developed by
Ozkan et al., with the exception that we used the Warren-Root's definition of the storativity ratio and interporosity flow
SPE 166147 15

parameter. In addition to theoretical development, two field data from an unconventional oil reservoir were analyzed to show
the application of the models. The specific conclusions of this study are summarized below:
1. The hybrid 3-D numerical model presented in this paper accurately simulates pressure and flow rate transient
responses of multi-stage hydraulic fractures emanated from horizontal wells of unconventional reservoirs.
Although the numerical model was developed for the single-phase, Darcy flow; it can be extended to include

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
the non-Darcy flow and adsorption/desorption effects.
2. The trilinear analytical model formulated in this paper and the hybrid 3-D numerical model produced almost
identical results for the pressure transient responses of transversely fractured horizontal wells in
unconventional reservoirs.
3. The MINC formulation did not compare well with the afore-mentioned models because, the MINC model
requires very fine grids within the matrix to capture the transient flow in the tight matrix of unconventional
reservoirs.
4. Based on the results of this paper and the field observations, we conclude that it is unlikely to see the classical
V-shape characteristics of the PSS dual-porosity model in the derivative plot of well tests in unconventional
tight reservoirs.

Acknowledgements
This research has been conducted in the Marathon Center of Excellence for Reservoir Studies (MCERS) at Colorado School
of Mines. The authors acknowledge the support received from Marathon Oil Company, the Unconventional Natural Gas and
Oil Institute (UNGI), and Saudi ARAMCO.

Nomenclature
Am : surface area of matrix block, (ft2)
B : formation volume factor, (RB/STB or RCF/SCF)
ct, m : total matrix compressibility, (1/psi)
ct, f : total fracture compressibility, (1/psi)
h : formation thickness, (ft)
kf, eff : effective fracture permeability (fracture porosity x fracture permeability), (md)
km : matrix permeability, (md)
L : horizontal well length, (ft)
Lz : thickness of a slab matrix block, (ft)
Lx,y,z : dimensions of a rectangular parallelepiped matrix block, (ft)
mlinear : slope of linear flow, (psi/hr1/2)
µ : oil viscosity, (cp)
φm : matrix porosity,
φf : fracture porosity,
q : oil production rate, (ft3/D for Eq. 16 through 19, BBL/D for Eq. 30 through 52)
qu,m : flowrate caused by a unitary pressure loss at the matrix surface, (ft3psi-1D-1)
qˆu , m : flowrate caused by a unitary pressure loss at the matrix surface by unit rock volume, (psi-1D-1)
pDf : dimensionless pressure drop in the fracture
pi : initial reservoir pressure, (psi)
p mo : matrix initial pressure, (psi)
pm : matrix pressure at any time t, (psi)
pwf : well flowing pressure, (psi)
r : Spherical r-coordinate, (ft)
rm : radius of spherical matrix block, (ft)
Vm : matrix control volume, (ft3)
s : The Laplace transform variable
t : time, (day for Eq. 1 through 21 and Eq. 40 through 52, hour for Eq. 30 through 39)
x : Cartesian x-coordinate perpendicular to the horizontal well, (ft)
xD : dimensionless distance to the production well in Cartesian x-coordinate
σ : shape factor, (1/ft2)
ω : storativity ratio of fracture to the total system
λ : interporosity flow parameter (This paper)
16 SPE 166147

 : interporosity flow parameter (Serra et al.)

τ : unsteady state transfer function, T-1 (1/D)
ηm : matrix diffusivity coefficient, (ft2/day)
∆p' : pressure logarithmic derivative, (psi)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
∆pm : unitary step pressure change in a matrix block, (psi)
∆pf : pressure change in fracture, (psi)
∆pwf : well flowing pressure change, (psi)
∆pws : well static pressure change, (psi)

References
Al-Ajimi, N. M., Kazemi, H., Ozkan, E. 2008. Estimation of storativity ratio in a layered reservoir with crossflow. SPE
Reservoir Evolution & Engineering (April 2008), 267-279.
Al-Kobaisi, M., Ozkan, E., and Kazemi, H. 2006. A Hybrid Numerical/Analytical Model of a Finite-Conductivity Vertical
Fracture Intercepted by a Horizontal Well. SPE Res Eval & Eng 24 (10): 345-355.
Alharthy, N., Kobaisi, M. A., Torcuk, M. A., Kazemi, H., Graves, R. 2012. Physics and modeling of gas flow in shale
reservoirs. Paper SPE 161893 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 11 – 14 November 2012.
Barenblatt, G. I., Zeltov, Y. P., and Kochina, I. 1960. Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in
fissured rocks. PMM (Journal of Soviet Applied Mathematics and Mechanics), 24(5): 1286-1303.
Blasingame, T.A., McCray, T.L., and Lee, W.J. 1991. Decline Curve Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate
Systems. Paper SPE 21513 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 22-24 January
1991.
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M. 1989. Use of Pressure Derivative in Well Test Interpretation. SPE Form Eval 4
(2): 293-302; Trans., AIME, 287.
Brown, M., Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R., and Kazemi, H. 2011. Practical Solutions for Pressure-Transient Responses of
Fractured Horizontal Wells in Unconventional Shale Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 24 (10): 663-676.
Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. 1959. Conduction of heat in solids. 2nd ed., Oxford U. Press, New York.
de Swaan-O, A. 1976. Analytic solutions for determining naturally fractured reservoir properties by well testing. SPE Journal
(June 1976) 117-122; Trans., AIME 261.
Du, K. and Stewart, G., 1992. Transient pressure response of horizontal wells in layered and naturally fractured reservoirs
with dual porosity behavior. Paper SPE 24682 presented at 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Higher Transcendental Functions, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1953) Vol. II.
Kazemi, H. 1969. Pressure transient analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs with uniform fracture distribution. SPE Journal,
9(4):451-462.
Kazemi, H., Gilman, J. R., Elsharkawy, A. M. 1992. Analytical and numerical solution of oil recovery from fractured
reservoirs with empirical transfer functions. SPE Reservoir Engineering (May 1992), 219-227.
Kurtoglu, B., Torcuk, M. A., Kazemi, H. 2012a. Pressure transient analyses of short and long duration well tests in
unconventional reservoirs. Paper SPE 162473 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October-1 November 2012.
Najurieta, H. L., 1980. A theory for pressure transient analysis in naturally fractured reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, (July 1980) 1241-50.
Ozkan, E., Brown, M.L., Raghavan, R.S., and Kazemi, H. 2009. Comparison of Fractured Horizontal-Well in Conventional
and Unconventional Reservoirs. Paper SPE 121290 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, San Jose,
California, USA, 24-26 March.
Pruess, K. and Narasimhan, T. H. 1985. A practical method for modeling fluid and heat flow in fractured porous media. Soc.
Pet. Eng. J., 25, 14-26, 1985.
Serra, K. V., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R. 1983. New Pressure Transient Analysis Method for Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs. J Pet Technol 35 (12): 2271-2283.
Stehfest, H., 1970. Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Communications of the ACM, D-5 13, No. 1, pg: 47-49.
Tables of Integral Transforms, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1954) Vol. I.
Torcuk, M. A., Kurtoglu, B., Alharthy, N., Kazemi, H., 2013. Analytical and numerical solutions for multiple-matrix in
fractured reservoirs application to conventional and unconventional reservoirs. Paper SPE 164528 presented at the
Unconventional Resources Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 10-13 April 2013.
van Everdingen, A. and Hurst, W. 1949. The application of the Laplace transformation to flow problems in reservoirs. Trans.,
AIME, 186:305-324.
Warren, J. E. and Root, P. J. 1963. The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE Journal, 3(3):245-255.
Wu, Y., and Pruess, K. 1988. A Multiple-Porosity Method for Simulation of Naturally Fractured Petroleum Reservoirs. SPE
Res Eng 3 (1): 327-336.
SPE 166147 17

Appendix A: Derivation of Dimensionless Transfer Function

We will start with the flow rate from matrix surface to the fracture to derive the g(s) function. The flow rate from the matrix
into the fracture caused by a unitary pressure loss at the matrix surface is:

km pm
qu , m ( x, t )   0.006328

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
Am [A1]
 z z  Lz / 2

The pressure change in the shape of infinite slab matrix blocks, when initial pressure is pmo and the surface pressure pm is
suddenly decreased by 1 unit of pressure (unitary step pressure change) at the matrix surface, is given below (Carslaw and
Jaeger, 1959, p 233):

 4    1    2n  12  2t    2n  1  z 
n

pm  z, t ; x   1     exp  m  cos   [A2]

   n  0 2n  1  Lz2
  Lz 
 

Where Lz is the thickness of the infinite slab matrix block. The derivative of pressure change at the matrix boundary is:

 pm 
    2n  12  2t    2n  1  

4
 z    
1
n
exp  m

 sin 
 
 [A3]
  z  Lz /2
2
Lz n 0  L z 
2 

The dimensionless time is defined as:

 0.006328 k f ,eff t
tD  [A4]
 ct    ct   W 2
 f m

Upon substitution of Eq. A4 into Eq. A3, we get:

   c    c   
 t f t m  k W 2 

m
 2n  12  2tD    2n  1  
 pm 

 ct m k f ,eff

4
 z    1n exp   sin   [A5]
  z  Lz /2 Lz n 0  2
Lz   2 
 
 
 

The theta function of order one, θ1, is given by (Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol. II, p. 355):


1  v, q   2q1 4   1
n 0
n
q   sin  2n  1  v 
n n 1
[A6]

For v  1 2 , it becomes:


  2n  1   1
q1 4   1
n 0
n
q   sin 
n n 1

 2
  1 1 2, q 
 2
[A7]

If we call:
18 SPE 166147

    c    c   
t m  k W
2
 t f m
 2 tD 
  t m
 c k 
q  exp  
f , eff

 Lz 2 
2
 
 

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
 
 
[A8]

Then, Eq. A5 in terms of theta function of order one is:

    c    c   
  t f t m  k W 2 2 
 
m
 tD 
 pm 

        c  k f ,eff

2 14 n  n 1 n 2 n 1 2
 z   2q  1 q sin  
  1 1 2, exp 
t m  [A9]
  z  Lz /2  Lz   
2
Lz n 0  2  Lz 
   2 
    
  

The Laplace transform of Eq. A9 is (Tables of Integral Transforms, Vol. I, p. 224):

 
   
 pm  Lz  
 tanh  2 s1 2 
 z  [A10]
  z  Lz /2  2 km  ct  f  m  2 k  ct  f  m 
W 2
s  m
W 2

L2z k f ,eff  ct m  L2z k f ,eff
  ct m 


By using the dimensionless dual-porosity parameters, Eq. A10 is written in the following format:

 pm   1    1  
 z   tanh  s [A11]
  z  Lz /2 Lz s 2  
Eq. A1 can be written in the Laplace domain as:

km   1    1   
qu , m ( x, s)  0.006328 Am  tanh  s  [A12]
  Lz  s 2   

After substituting Eq. A12 in the transfer function equation in the Laplace domain and rearranging, the dimensionless
diffusivity equation in the Laplace domain becomes:

 2 pDf  2  1      1   
 s   tanh  s   pDf [A13]
x 2
D   s 2   

Where the g  s  function for the slab matrix block is:

 2  1      1   
g  s   sf  s   s   tanh  s  [A14]
  s 2   

Appendix B: Formulation of Numerical Algorithm

Here we present the coefficients for the hybrid numerical algorithm. The finite difference form of the diffusivity equation,
Eq. 1, in 3-D space is:
SPE 166147 19

 Bi , j , k p nfi, j1,k 1  Ci , j , k p nfi, j11,k  Di , j , k p nfi1,1j ,k  Ei , j , k p nfi, j1,k 

 n 1 n 1 n 1   Ri , j , k [B1]
 Fi , j , k p fi1, j ,k  Gi , j , k p fi , j1,k  H i , j , k p fi , j ,k 1 

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022
where

 xy i , j ,k k f ,eff , z
Bi , j , k   0.006328
i , j ,k  1
2
[B2]
zi , j , k  1 
2

 xz i , j ,k k f ,eff , y
Ci , j , k   0.006328
i , j  1 ,k
2
[B3]
yi , j  1 ,k

2

 yz i , j ,k k f ,eff , x
Di , j , k   0.006328
i  1 , j ,k
2
[B4]
xi  1 , j ,k

2

 yz i , j ,k k f ,eff , x
Fi , j , k   0.006328
i  1 , j ,k
2
[B5]
xi  1 , j ,k

2

 xz i , j ,k k f ,eff , y
Gi , j , k   0.006328
i , j  1 ,k
2
[B6]
yi , j  1 ,k

2

 xy i , j ,k k f ,eff , z
H i , j , k   0.006328
i , j ,k  1
2
[B7]
zi , j , k  1 
2

The Ei , j , k and Ri , j , k have different functional forms depending on the magnitude of the transient time as compared to the
pseudo-steady state time. Until the pseudo-steady state time is reached, the Ei , j , k will be:

 Bi , j , k  Ci , j , k  Di , j , k  Fi , j , k  Gi , j , k  H i , j , k 
 
EiUSS    V  f ctf i , j , k 1   [B8]
 Vi , j , k  p f  t n 1  qu , m  t n 1  t n   
, j ,k

t n
Vm  i , j , k 


And, after reaching tPSS , Ei , j , k will be:


 Bi , j , k  Ci , j , k  Di , j , k  Fi , j ,k  Gi , j ,k  H i , j ,k 
V  f ctf i, j ,k 

 t n 
 
  2 k2  
EiPSS     0.006328   2 m2   [B9]
  i , j , k
, j ,k
  km  
Vi , j , k   0.006328      
 ct m,i
n
  i , j , k  km  
   0.006328     
    i , j , k t 

Similarly, the right hand side term, Ri , j , k for the USS model is:
20 SPE 166147

 V  f ctf  
 i, j ,k
p nfi , j ,k  qi , j , k 
 t n 
 
RiUSS
, j ,k 

  n

 1    p f  t   p f  t   qu , m  t  t 
j j 1 n 1

j 1  
 
[B10]

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/13ATCE/2-13ATCE/D021S014R007/1532544/spe-166147-ms.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 24 September 2022

 i, j ,k  V 
V j 1
 
f   u ,m t n1  t n 
  m  p t n q   
    

And, after tPSS is reached, Ri , j , k is:

 k    ct m 
0.006328 Vi  m   
 ct  f Vi n   i  t  n
RiPSS  p fi  q fi  pm [B11]
t     i
, j ,k

n
 k 
 0.006328  m  
ct m ,i

   i t 
 

Appendix C: Dimensionless Variables Used in the Trilinear Model

We use the following definitions for the dimensionless pressure and time, respectively:

k f ,eff h
pD 
141.2qB
 p f [C1]

and

I
tD  t [C2]
y 2f

where the inner dual-porosity reservoir diffusivity is:

k f ,eff
I  0.0002637 [C3]
 ct  f  m 

The hydraulic fracture and the outer reservoir diffusivities are:

kHF
HF  0.0002637 [C4]
 ct HF 
and

km
O  0.0002637 [C5]
 ct m 
Finally, the dimensionless fracture and reservoir conductivities are given by:

k HF wHF
CFD  [C6]
k f ,eff y f

and

k f ,eff y f
CRD  [C7]
km xe