SPE 138882

A Practical Approach for Production Data Analysis of Multilayer

Commingled Tight Gas Wells
T. Ali, SPE, and Y. Cheng, SPE, West Virginia University, and D.A. McVay, SPE, and W.J. Lee, SPE, Texas
A&M University

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, 12–14 October 2010.

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

Abstract
This paper proposes and validates a robust methodology to estimate fracture properties (half-length and conductivity),
formation permeability, and, where possible, drainage area of individual layers in hydraulically fractured vertical gas wells
producing commingled from multiple layers. Estimation of these fracture and individual layer properties is required to
evaluate fracture treatment effectiveness and forecast future production for these wells.

To achieve our objectives, we applied an analytical elliptical flow solution to analyze production data from hydraulically
fractured vertical tight gas wells producing from multilayer reservoirs. We were able to estimate the fracture half-length,
formation permeability, and minimum drainage area of each layer. This study considered variations in completion details,
initial reservoir pressures, reservoir temperatures, and other reservoir parameters in layers producing simultaneously.

The technology we developed includes the following components used in our analysis: flow rate allocation using
available production logging test data, deconvolution to convert variable-rate pressure data into constant-rate pressure
responses, identification of the elliptical flow regime, and analysis of elliptical flow data. We developed and present a new
technique to identify the elliptical flow regime. We validated our method with synthetic data generated with a reservoir
simulator.

Introduction
Tight gas reservoirs have low permeabilities and porosities, and are considered unconventional sources of natural gas because
they require hydraulic fracture treatments to produce commercial volumes and rates of gas. Most tight gas wells are drilled in
multilayer reservoirs and completed with multiple fracture treatments.

Reservoir and fracture parameters such as formation permeability, fracture half-length, fracture conductivity and
minimum drainage area of each layer are required to evaluate the fracture treatment efficiency, optimize future hydraulic
fracturing stimulation design, and forecast well flow behavior and performance. Typically, production data analysis
techniques are used to estimate these properties for a hydraulically fractured well, but without production information for
individual layers, these estimates have to be lumped into single-layer properties.

For commingled production from multiple layers, different flow regimes coexist in different layers because of variations
in formation permeability and fracture half-length, which complicates the flow behavior of the well-reservoir system. As a
result, it is very difficult to reliably estimate properties of individual layers using either conventional analytic or history
matching techniques with limited PLT data. Unfortunately, it is the general case that only a few PLTs are available.

When production logging test (PLT) data are available, production rate/pressure data can be analyzed to provide property
estimates for individual layers. Existing analysis techniques include analytic approaches based on allocated rates (Larkin et
al. 2005) and history matching methods (Spivey 2006). With analytic approaches, a conventional rate-transient technique is
often used. Spivey pioneered coupling of wellbore and single-layer reservoir models to implement automatic history
matching of total well production history and the PLT rates. However, nonuniqueness of the solution is inherent with
2 SPE 138882

automatic history matching. Moreover, to obtain reasonable estimates of properties, at least three PLTs are required (Spivey
2006).

In this study, we extended the elliptical flow analysis technique (Cheng et al. 2009) to multilayer commingled vertical
tight gas wells and developed a practical technique to improve production data analysis by integration of elliptical flow
analysis, deconvolution (Cheng et al. 2005), and allocated production data with PLTs. Our method can provide reasonably
accurate estimates of formation permeability and fracture half-length for individual layers, even when less information is
available such as fewer PLTs and shorter production history data. As a consequence, the cost for PLT tests can be reduced
while reliable post-fracturing evaluation with production data can be achieved at a much earlier time. An additional
advantage is that there is no a radical nonunique issue in our proposed methodology since our method is based on the
analytical solutions.

Work Flow

The analysis method presented in this paper consists of four essential steps, including flow rate allocation using data from at
least two available production logging tests, deconvolution using the Fast-Fourier Transform, identification of the elliptical
flow regime, and analysis of elliptical flow data.

Flow Rate Allocation.

We calculate the rate profile for each individual layer using the following method. When two PLTs are available,
historical production time is divided into three time periods. The first period is from the beginning of production to the first
PLT test. Assuming a constant fraction of total rate from each layer determined from the first PLT during this period, the rate
profile for each layer can be calculated. The second period is from the first PLT test to the second PLT test. In this period two
rate fractions are available, from which the rate fraction and rate profile for each layer can be calculated using linear
interpolation at a particular time. The third period is from the second PLT test to the end of production. Assuming a constant
fraction of production from each layer determined from the second during this period, the rate profile for each layer is
calculated.

If more PLT tests are available, the calculation procedure is similar. For the time periods from the beginning of
production to the first PLT test and from the last PLT test to the end of production, constant fractions of total production are
used for each layer. For the time periods between PLT tests and, linear interpolation is used to determine the set of rate
fractions and rate profiles for each layer.

These approximate rate profiles for each producing layer are used to determine the bottom-hole pressure of each layer
with pressure traverse method, PLT tests provide bottom-hole pressures at the test time and can therefore be used to select an
appropriate pressure traverse method.

Deconvolution.

The estimated flow rates and bottom-hole pressures for each layer are then deconvolved to obtain the constant-rate
pressure responses that can be used in elliptical flow analysis.

The deconvolution technique based on Fast-Fourier Transform developed by Cheng et al. (2005) was used in this study.
This technique can suppress noisy data and reveal the early time behavior of a reservoir system masked by wellbore-storage
effects. When the pressure and flow rate data are deconvolved, the constant-rate pressure response can be used to identify
flow regimes and to estimate formation permeability and fracture half-length.

Flow Regime Identification.

For a hydraulically fractured vertical well, there are five distinct flow patterns around a hydraulically fractured well:
fracture linear, bilinear, Formation linear, elliptical and, pseudoradial flow (Cinco-Ley and Samaniego, 1981). Bilinear flow
occurs in wells with low conductivity fractures and can therefore be used to characterize these finite conductivity fractures.
Bilinear flow can be identified from a log-log plot of pseudopressure and pseudopressure derivative versus time, in which
these plots exhibit straight lines with quarter slopes. When the bilinear flow regime appears, we use a finite-conductivity
fracture flow model for analysis. In the absence of the bilinear flow regime, we assume that the appropriate flow model is the
infinite-conductivity fracture model. In this flow regime, the pressure and derivative plots exhibit a half-slope on a log-log
plot.
SPE 138882 3

Elliptical flow is a dominant flow pattern in terms of flow geometry during the transient flow period (Prats 1961). This
flow regime appears between the end of formation linear (or bilinear) flow and the start of pseudoradial flow. We identify the
flow regimes using the following procedure:
1. Plot pseudopressure and pseudopressure derivative versus time on a log-log plot. The slopes of the pseudopressure
derivative curve are mainly used to identify flow regimes.
2. Identify bilinear flow when a quarter-slope straight line appears.
3. Identify formation linear flow when a half-slope straight line appears.
4. Identify the start of elliptical flow at the end of formation linear flow, or, if formation linear flow is not present, at
the end of bilinear flow. For infinite-conductivity fractures, the starting point of elliptical flow is identified by a
slope less than one- half and larger than one-quarter on the log-log plot. The ending point of this flow regime can be
detected when the slope becomes more than one-half or approaches zero.
Also, the minimum drainage area of each layers can be estimated with elliptical flow (using the procedure outlined
below) when pressure transients do not reach the boundaries of individual layers.

Analysis of Elliptical Flow Data.

Infinite-Conductivity Fracture.
Cheng et al. (2009) proposed the following iterative approach to estimate hydraulic fracture properties and formation
permeability using elliptical flow data from tight gas wells. The procedure used the Hale and Evers (1981) approximate
solutions for a well with an infinite-conductivity fracture. In this study we analyze each layer individually with the following
steps. Eq. 1, models pressure transient behavior during elliptical flow (Hale and Evers 1981), and Eq. 2, define the
dimensionless pressure for a gas well.
⎛ A+ B⎞
PD = ln⎜ ⎟ ……………………………………………….. (1)
⎜ x ⎟
⎝ f ⎠
kh
PD = Δp p ………………………………….... (2)
1422 q g (T + 460 )

1. Assume values of formation permeability (k) and fracture half-length (xf)

2. Calculate the semi–axes, A and B, of the elliptical drainage area from the following equations.
0.5
⎛ kt ⎞
B = 0.02634 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ …………………………………... (3)
⎝ ϕμ ct ⎠

A = B 2 + x 2f …………………………………………...... (4)

3. Plot ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) and identify a straight line.

4. Estimate formation permeability based on the slope (m) of the straight line and fracture half-length based on the
intercept (i) from the following equations.
1422 q g (T + 460 )
k= ……………………………….…... (5)
mh
⎡ ikh ⎤ …………………..………….. (6)
x f = exp ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ − 1422 q g (T + 460 ) ⎥⎦

5. Go back to step 2 and update estimates of A and B with the updated values of k and xf . Repeat until convergence is
obtained.
6. Calculate drainage area, at the last time point. This will be the minimum drainage area when the stabilized flow
regime is not reached.

Drainage Area = π AB ………………………………… (7)

4 SPE 138882

Finite-Conductivity Fracture.
A fracture is considered to be finite conductivity when dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD, is less than 300. For a
finite-conductivity vertical fracture, an additional pressure drop occurs in the fracture and may not be negligible in the total
pressure loss from reservoir to wellbore. To consider the effect of the additional pressure drop, the following equations are
used to perform the pressure transient analysis on a finite-conductivity fracture (Cheng et al. 2009, Meyer and Jacot, 2005).
kfw
C fD = ………………………………………………….…. (8)
kx f
xf π
R= = + 1 ……………………………………………. (9)
x fe 2C fD

⎡ ( A + B)⎤ ⎡ R × B + ( R × B )2 + x 2 ⎤
p D = ln ⎢ ⎥ = ln ⎢ f
⎥ ………..…….... (10)
⎣⎢ x fe ⎦⎥ ⎢ x f
⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ( A′ + B ′) ⎤
p D = ln ⎢ ⎥ ……………………………………...…….... (11)
⎣⎢ x f ⎦⎥

1. Assume initial values of formation permeability (k), fracture half length (xf), and fracture conductivity (CfD).
2. Calculate A ' and B’ (ft) from the following equations.

B ′ = R × B ………………………………………………… (12)
A′ = B′ 2 + x 2f …………………………………………… (13)

3. Plot ∆pp vs. ln(A  + B΄) and define a straight line.

4. Estimate formation permeability based on the slope (m) of the straight line using Eq. 5, and fracture half -length
based on the intercept (i), using Eq. 6.

5. Go back to step 2 and update estimates of A  and B΄ with the updated values of k and xf. Repeat until convergence is
obtained for k and xf.

6. Plot ∆pp versus the fourth root of time, t1/4, identify straight line goes through the origin (that characterizes bilinear
flow) and calculate the slope of the straight line (mb).

7. Estimate fracture conductivity from the slope (mb) and the converged value of k from Step 5, using the following
equation.

⎡ 443.2q g (T + 460 ) ⎤
2 0.5
⎛ 1 ⎞ ………….…....… (14)
wk f = ⎢ ⎥ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎣ hmb ⎦ ⎝ ϕμ ct k ⎠

8. Update CfD (Eq. 8) and R (Eq. 9) and Step 2. Repeat until convergence is obtained for wkf.

Note that the procedure contains two iteration loops, an outer loop for wkf and an inner loop for k and xf.

9. Calculate drainage area, at the last time point.

Drainage Area = π A′B′ …………………………………… (15)

Validation

To validate the proposed procedure, we used a commercial reservoir simulator to generate two synthetic examples. One is
two-layer case and the other is five-layer case. For both examples, we assumed that we know only the total production rate
and the bottom-hole pressure for the first 512 days, and have two PLTs available at 60 and 180 days, respectively. Excepting
these two time points, we treated the true rate profiles for each layer as unknown. The allocated rate profiles were estimated
using the two PLTs.
SPE 138882 5

Case 1—Two-Layer.
In the first synthetic case, gas was produced from two commingled layers. Table 1 shows the reservoir and fluid
properties for each layer. The fractures in each layer have infinite conductivity.

Table 1— Two-Layer Case Data (Case 1)

Layer Data First Layer Second Layer
Pi(psia) 3007 3000
φ 0.04 0.084
h(ft) 80 30
μ(cp) 0.0214 0.0214
cg(1/psia) 0.0002907 0.0002891
o
T( F) 150 150
k(md) 0.01 0.1
xf(ft) 300 100

The flow rates for the first and the second layer were allocated using assumed production logging data at two times (60
and 180 days). Fig. 1 shows the actual and allocated flow rates for each layer. The allocated flow rates were used in
deconvolution to obtain the constant-rate pseudopressure responses. Elliptical flow analysis was performed assuming initial
estimates of 150 ft for fracture half-length and 0.01 for formation permeability.
In the first layer, elliptical flow starts at about 3100 hours (129 days/4.3 months) and ends at about 9100 hours (379
days/12.6 months) (Fig. 2). The estimates of formation permeability and fracture half-length at the final iteration are close to
the true values of 0.01 md and 300 ft. Fig. 3 shows the linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at the converged values of k and
xf .
In the second layer, elliptical flow starts at about 200 hours (8 days) and ends at about 1200 hours (50 days) (Fig. 4). The
estimate of permeability is close to the true value of 0.01 md. However, the estimated fracture half-length is not in good
agreement with the true value. This is because the allocated rate profile is inconsistent with the overall trend of the actual
production rate profile and a crossover of the rate profiles between layers was not captured (Fig. 1). Fig. 5 shows the linear
relationship of ∆pp vs. ln (A+B) at the converged values of k and xf. Table 2 shows the estimates of formation permeability
and fracture half-length at the final iteration for the two layers.
Table 2— Analysis Results for Two-Layer, Case 1
Layer 1 Layer 2
Estimated True Estimated True
k(md) 0.01353 0.01 0.08819 0.1
xf (ft) 264.77 300 172.98 100
Drainage area (acres) >27.16 160 >11.22 25

Case 2— Five-Layer.
The second synthetic case is for a vertical tight gas well that produces commingled from five different layers. Each
individual layer was hydraulically fractured. Table 3 shows the reservoir parameters and fluid properties for each layer. In
this case, the layers had infinite conductivity fractures.
Table 3—Five-Layer Case Data (Case 2)
Layer Data First Layer Second Layer Third Layer Fourth Layer Fifth Layer
pi(psia) 3006 3021 3035 3048 3058
Φ 0.043 0.035 0.0798 0.0613 0.0332
h(ft) 54 75 43 54 28
μ(cp) 0.0203 0.0204 0.0204 0.0205 0.0205
ct(1/psi) 0.0002986 0.0002963 0.0002942 0.0002922 0.0002907
o
T( F) 150 150 150 150 150
k(md) 0.007 0.00288 0.022 0.011 0.001
xf(ft) 145 55 195 315 205
6 SPE 138882

The production data were generated by assuming constant bottom-hole pressure of 500 psia. The flow rate for each layer
was allocated using assumed PLTs’ data at two time points (60 and 180 days). Fig. 6 shows the flow rates for each layer. The
constant-rate pseudopressure response was obtained by applying deconvolution. From the deconvolved pseudopressure
response, the elliptical flow regime was identified and the elliptical flow analysis was performed assuming initial estimates of
150 ft for fracture half-length and 0.01 for formation permeability.

The elliptical flow regime was identified from the diagnostic plot of pseudopressure derivative by applying the procedure
outlined above (Section Flow Regime Identification). For the first layer, elliptical flow starts at about 450 hours (18 days)
and ends at about 1200 hours (50 days) (Fig. 7). The estimates of formation permeability and fracture half-length at the final
iteration are very close to the true values of 0.007 md and 145 ft. Since flow did not reach pseudosteady state in this layer, we
could estimate only a minimum drainage area of 2.38 acres.

In the second layer, elliptical flow starts at about 350 hours (14 days) and ends at about 3800 hours (158days/5 months)
(Fig. 9). The estimated permeability is reasonably close to the true value of 0.00288 md while the estimated fracture half-
length is relatively higher than the true value. The cause of the discrepancy is a relatively larger discrepancy between the
allocated rate profile and the true profile for layer 2 (Fig. 6).

In the third layer, elliptical flow starts at about 350 hours (14 days) and ends at about 3800 hours (145days/ 4.8 months)
(Fig. 11). The estimates of formation permeability and fracture half-length are close to the true values of 0.022 md and 195 ft.

In the fourth layer, elliptical flow starts at about 450 hours (14 days) and ends at about 3500 hours (158 days/5 months)
(Fig. 13). The estimates of formation permeability and fracture half-length are close to the true values of 0.011 md and 315 ft.

In the fifth layer, elliptical flow starts at about 450 hours (14 days) and ends at about 6400 hours (266 days/8.8 months)
(Fig. 15). The estimates of formation permeability and fracture half-length are very close to the true values of 0.001 md and
205 ft. Table 2 shows the estimates of formation permeability and fracture half-length at the final iteration for the five layers,
and Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Fig. 14, and Fig. 16 show the linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at the converged values of k
and xf for the five layers.

Table 1— Analysis Results for Five-Layer, Case 2

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5
Estimated True Estimated True Estimated True Estimated True Estimated True
k(md) 0.00774 0.007 0.00197 0.00288 0.01905 0.022 0.01224 0.011 0.0011 0.001
xf (ft) 143.356 145 93.701 55 233.705 195 281.297 315 188.499 205
Drainage area (acres) >2.38 5.2 >2.06 10.5 >9.32 21 >8.19 16 >2.72 31

The two synthetic cases presented above indicate that the proposed method can provide reliable estimate of formation
permeability for individual layers, while the estimated fracture half-length is more sensitive to the accuracy of rate profiles
from each layer. Further research is needed to improve the reliability of the estimated fracture half-length.

Analysis of Finite Conductivity Fractures.

Although not shown in the paper, the proposed approach is applicable to layers with finite conductivity fractures. Results are
comparable to those provided above for infinite-conductivity fractures, and, in addition, we are able to estimate fracture
conductivity with comparable accuracy.

Conclusions

This study has shown that the elliptical flow analysis approach developed by Cheng et.al (2009) can be applied to a vertical
well with multi-stage fracturing treatment in multilayer reservoir. We conclude the following on the basis of the results
presented.
1. Flow rate allocation and deconvolution are very important steps for elliptical flow analysis in multilayer reservoir.
2. Fracture half-length, formation permeability and minimum drainage area can be estimated for each individual layer
in a multilayer reservoir using the elliptical flow approach.
3. The methodology was validated using two-layer and five-layer synthetic cases, and generally reliable estimations
were obtained.
4. The analysis of the synthetic cases shows that the approach to identify the elliptical flow regime is effective.
SPE 138882 7

Nomenclature
A = major semi-axis of an ellipse for infinite-conductivity, ft
A΄ = major semi-axis of an ellipse for finite-conductivity, ft
B = minor semi-axis of an ellipse for infinite-conductivity, ft
B΄ = minor semi-axis of an ellipse for finite-conductivity, ft
CfD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
ct = total compressibility, psia-1
h = formation thickness, ft
i = y-axis intercept of straight line for elliptical flow
k = permeability, md
kf = fracture permeability, md
m = slope of straight line on elliptical flow plot
mb = slope of straight line on bilinear flow plot
pD = dimensionless pseudopressure
Pi = initial reservoir pseudopressure, psi2/cp
qg = flow rate, Mscf/D
R = ratio of the actual fracture half-length to the equivalent fracture half-length
t = time, hrs
T = formation Temperature, oF
w = hydraulic fracture width, ft
xf = hydraulic fracture half-length, ft
xfe = equivalent hydraulic fracture half-length, ft
∆pp = pseudopressure change, psi2/cp
μ = gas viscosity, cp
φ = porosity, %

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the financial support provided by Shell Exploration & Production Company for this work.

References

Cheng, Y., Lee, W. J., and McVay, D. A. 2009. A New Approach for Reliable Estimation of Hydraulic Fracture Properties Using Elliptical
Flow Data in Tight Gas Wells. SPEREE, 12 (2), 254-262.

Cheng, Y., Lee, W. J., and McVay, D. A. 2005. Application of Fast Fourier Transforms to Deconvolution of Multirate Well Test Data.
Paper SPE 96032 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, Texas.

Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego, F. V. 1981. Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells . Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1749-
1766.

Hale, B. W., and Evers, J. F. 1981. Elliptical Flow Equations for Vertically Fractured Gas Wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2489-
2497.

Larkin, S.D. 2005. Analysis of Completion and Stimulation Techniques in a South Texas Field Utilizing Comprehensive Reservoir
Evaluation. Paper SPE 93996 presented at SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 16-19 April.

Meyer, B.R. and Jacot, R.H. 2005. Pseudosteady-State Analysis of Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures. Paper SPE 95941 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12 October.

Prats, M. 1961. Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior-Incompressible Fluid Case. SPEJ 1 (2), 105-118.

Spivey, J. P. 2006. Estimating Layer Properties for Wells in Multilayer Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs by Automatic History-Matching
Production and Production Log Data. Paper SPE 100509 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium. Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
8 SPE 138882

Fig.1— Actual and allocated flow rates for two-layerSyntheticCase 1.

Fig. 2— Elliptical flow range, layer 1, case 1. Fig. 3—Linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at
convergence, layer 1, case 1.

Fig. 4— Elliptical flow range, layer 2, case 1.

Fig. 5—Linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at
convergence, layer 2, case 1.
SPE 138882 9

10000
True rates
Allocated rates
PLTs

1000

Gas rate, Mscf/D

Layer 3
Layer 4
100
Layer 1
Layer 2

Layer 5
10
1 10 100 1000
Production time, days

Fig. 6— Actual and allocated flow rates for five-layer Synthetic Case 2.

Fig. 8—Linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at convergence,

layer 1, case 2.
Fig. 7— Elliptical flow range, layer 1 case 2.

Fig. 10—Linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at

convergence, layer 2, case 2.
Fig. 9— Elliptical flow range, layer 2, case 2.
10 SPE 138882

Fig. 11— Elliptical flow range, layer 3, case 2. Fig. 12—Linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at
convergence, layer 3, case 2.

Fig. 13— Elliptical flow range, layer 4, case 2. Fig. 14—Linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at
convergence, layer 4, case 2.

Fig. 15— Elliptical flow range, layer 5, case 2. Fig. 16—Linear relationship of ∆pp vs. ln(A+B) at
convergence, layer 5, case 2.