SPE/DOE

0'

SPE/DOE 9839

Society
Petroleum Engineers

U.S. Department
of Energy

USE OF CONSTANT PRESSURE, FINITE CAPACITY TYPE

CURVES FOR PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF FRACTURED
WELLS IN LOW-PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS
by J.K. Thompson, ARGO Oil and Gas Company
Member SPE-AIME

COPYRIGHT 1981, Society of Petroleum Engi neers of AI M E

This paper was presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, May 2729, 1981. The material is
subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central
Expressway, Dallas, Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT
For low-permeability fractured reservoirs,
pseudosteady-state flow behavior may not occur for a
considerable amount of time, if at all. As is well
known, post-frac performance history in lowpermeability formations thus differs dramatically
from that expected in medium- to high-permeability
reservoirs after fracture treatment where
pseudosteady-state flow may occur soon after
treatment. Also, the presence of a finite flow
capacity fracture, as often results in lowpermeability reservoirs stimulated by large
treatments, will affect performance history.

This paper describes the general use of

previously published l constant-pressure finite
capacity type curves in predicting performance of
fractured wells in low-permeability 0.1 md) gas
reservoirs. Several well case histories are
presented illustrating the use of these "reciprocal
dimensionless rate" type curves in matching and
forecasting well performance in tight formations.
The effect of certain physical factors on
predictions are also briefly discussed.
The prediction method and case histories in
this paper represent the use of a relatively simple
but reliable technique for time-rating of tight
formation reserves. The method illustrates hand
calculations which are readily adaptable to basic
computer programming for use by individuals or
smaller companies who may not have access to more
sophisticated MHF simulators or for straightforward,
single-phase flow examples where the time and
expense of a MHF simulator may not be warranted.

Pressure behavior of wells with finiteconductivity fractures has been evaluated 1 - S .

Importantly, Agarwal, Carter, and Pollock 1 detailed
"reciprocal dimensionless rate" curves that are very
useful for early-time performance prediction of wells
in low-permeability reservoirs with finite
conductivity fractures. The generalized type curves
by Agarwal et a1. for constant-rate and constantpressure performance are based on dimensionless
variables which are widely applicable to different
field cases. This paper discusses the use of these
type curves for projecting gas rates in actual wells.

INTRODUCTION
In the past few years, advancements in
hydraulic fracturing techniques and improved natural
gas pricing have resulted in increased development
of low-permeability reservoirs in various areas.
While several factors determine the profitability of
each area, one of the most important variables for
proper economic evaluation of low-permeability
formations is an accurate forecast, or time-rating,
of recovery rates. Since exploitation of lowpermeability reservoirs has begun, it has been
realized that performance forecasts using the more
standard time-rating techniques often do not match
actual rate performance. More specificially,
observed producing rates in the field tend to
decline rapidly and non-linearly from immediate
post-fracture rates for a certain length of time
prior to stabilization at fairly constant, sometimes
low, rates. This behavior has a direct influence on
the overall economics and the optimization of
fracture treatment des ign in low'-permeabil ity
reservoirs.

Various physical factors which may directly

affect actual rate results in the field such as
incorrect permeability estimates, low fracture
propped height, presence of discontinuous sands, etc.
are briefly reviewed. Adjustments to these physical
parameters are often necessary before making
prediction calculations.

PREDICTING WELL PERFORMANCE

Flow Regimes
It is necessary to understand the nature of
flow in a fractured well before an understanding of
performance trends can be achieved. Figure 1
schematically illustrates the different flow periods
in a fractured well. Flow is essentially separated
into four regimes with (1) early time behavior
strongly affected by linear flow in the fracture and
production from the reservoir immediately adjacent

References and illustrations at end of paper.

111

USE OF CONSTANT PRESSURE, FINITE CAPACITY TYPE CURVES FOR

PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF FRACTURED WELLS IN LOW-PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS
SPE/OOE 9839
Pressure behavior in fractured wells, a key to
to it, (2) a transient, elliptical flow period when
rate performance, has been studied for several
flow from the reservoir to the fracture is
years. Much of the early work considered the effect
equally affected by both the reservoir and the
of infinite conductivity or uniform flux fractures
fracture, (3) a pseudo-radial flow period when flow
on well behavior. A uniform flux fracture is one of
is approaching the drainage radius, and (4) a latehigh, but not infinite, conductivity where pressure
time period when the boundary dominates pressure
along the fracture plane may vary, but flow rate
response and rates are governed by pseudosteady-state
into the fracture does not vary along its length.
behavior. The minimum time for a fractured well to
An infinite fracture implies there is essentially no
reach pseudosteady-state flow is given by the
pressure drop along the fracture plane. Wells with
following equations:
short- to medium-length, highly propped hydraulic
<p\l' Ct' A
fractures tend to exhibit infinite conductivity
> 1 1
(t)
............... (1)
t
behavior. Uniform flux behavior is often exhibited
pss 0.000264 k DA pss
in naturally fractured reservoirs. In lowpermeability reservoirs stimulated by large
For fractured wells, the minimum value of
treatments, the presence of a finite flow capacity
(tDA)pss is approximated as 0.12, although this value
fr acture may affect performance wi th an apprec i ab 1e
does vary6. Inserting the value of 0.12 into
pressure drop along the fracture plane.
equation (1) we obtain:
t pss >

455 <P\li Ct i A

' hours ............. (2)

Examining the above equation, it can be seen

that for low-permeability reservoirs, pseudosteadystate flow may not be reached for months or years.
The implication here is that for significantly long
periods, flow in low-permeability, fractured
reservoirs will be governed by transient behavior
where rate declines are not constant, but are
somewhat variable. Long-term forecasts based on
constant percentage production rate declines from
early productivity tests can be grossly in error and
subsequent economic analyses could be misleading.
Fracture Design Calculations
Many fracture design calculations used in
industry calculate an expected productivity
improvement factor, or J/Jo, for a given fracture
treatment design 7 It is important to realize that
the productivity improvement calculations are often
based on theoretical equations which assume
pseudosteady-state flow. For medium- to highpermeability reservoirs which quickly enter the
pseudosteady-state flow regime, the calculation of a
J/Jo factor will often allow the engineer to predict
the post-fracture production rate to be achieved
after treatment when a pre-frac rate is known or
estimated. However, as mentioned for lowpermeability reservoirs, the pseudosteady-state
post-fracture rate may not occur for a considerable
amount of time.
So, it is apparent that the use of a calculated
J/Jo value in low-permeability reservoirs may lead
to calculation of a conservative flow rate for the
first months or years of production. This is a
period where it is imperative that reliable methods
for forecasting production rates be achieved in
order to properly evaluate a project's present worth
economics.

More recently, pressure behavior of wells with

finite-capacity fractures has been evaluated 1-5.
In the Agarwal et. al. paper l , constant-pressure
performance of wells in low-permeability reservoirs
was examined using a MHF simulator. Using
dimensionless variables, they developed "reciprocal
dimensionless rate" curves which are applicable to a
wide range of tight gas sand properties. In
analyzing performance data (production rate vs.
time), they found that wells in low-permeability
reservoirs generally produce at a constant well
pressure, or t-.p, rather than at a constant rate.
That is, bottom-hole producing pressure is generally
kept at a minimum to maximize flow rates from the
tight reservoir. At abandonment rates, pressure at
the external radius in the low-permeability
reservoir may remain near original pressure since
pseudosteady-state flow is reached very late if at
all. This results in a performance history where
flow rates vary considerably with time. To predict
performance, a hydraulic fracture simulator was used
by Agarwal et al. to generate reciprocal
dimensionless rate, l/qD' curves for various
dimensionless fracture capacities, FeD (Figure 2).
A larger scale, gridded version of this type curve
has been presented by Agarwal, Carter, and Pollock 8
and is useful for reading particular values of l/qo
at various values of t oxf ' The variables used in
Figure 2 are defined as follows:
For all well s,
Dimensionless time, t oxf

0.000264 k~ ......... (3)

<p (\lCt) i xf

For an oi 1 we 11,
ReCiprocal dimensionless rate,

qo

kht-.p
141.2 q\lB

(4)

For a gas we 11 ,
Finite Fracture Capacity, Constant Pressure
Performance

Reciprocal dimensionless rate, 1

CfD

Early-Time Performance (t Dxf i 1.0)

kh6(p )
1424 q\lzT

(5)

For a gas we 11 and using real gas pseudo-pressures,

Reciprocal dimensionless rate,
qo
112

kht-.m(p)
1424qT

(6)

J. K. THOMPSON

SPE/OOE 9839
For all we 11 s ,

PwD

kfw
.
Oimensionless fracture capaclty, FCD = - - '" .(7)
kXf
The use of Figure 2 for performance prediction
of hydraulically fractured wells in low-permeability
reservoirs is relatively simple. To use this
method, one can simply calculate tOx at a given
time, and then read a corresponding t/qO from Figure
2 at the particular FCO for the well. Then, actual
rate, q, for a gas well, as an example, could be
solved as follows:
q

khll(p2)

1424 \lzT (l/qD)

.................... (8)

To more accurately predict performance, it is

essential that reliable estimates of fracture length,
fracture flow capacity, and formation permeability be
obtained. Before a well is fractured, estimates of
fracture length and dimensionless fracture capacity
can be estimated from design criteria. This
available data can then be used with Figure 2 to
obtain a performance prediction. Once a well is
hydraulically fractured, an estimate of FCD and xf
from a pressure transient test can be used for
properly time-rating future history.
It is stressed that performance predictions
using this method often will not match actual well
performance prior to treatment cleanup. The cleanup
period may last for some time and should be taken
into account if prior treatments in an area suggest
cleanup may significantly reduce early, actual
producing rates.
It is important to also realize that this
prediction method is restricted to single phase flow
with a constant effective formation permeability to
the producing phase.
Late-Time Performance

'f

> 1. 0)

Importantly, the constant-pressure type,curves

available to date for using this method are limited
to tOx values of 1.0 or less (Figure 2).
f

Reciprocal dimensionless rate data has not been

published for dimensionless times greater than 1.0
for finite capacity fractures. However, some
approximations can be made using constant-rate,
dimensionless pressure drop type curves for fractured
wells that have been previously published.
Agarwal et al. 1 also published constant-rate
type curves for finite capacity fractures (Figure
3). When the constant-rate curve (Figure 3) is
overlayed on the constant-pressure curve (Figure 2),
it is interesting to note that for many values of
tOx ' the ordinate value corresponding to a given
valte of FCD is approximately the same for either
the constant-pressure case (l/qo vs. tOx ) or the
constant-rate case (pwO vs. t OXf )' ThisfoVerlay is
illustrated as Figure 4. The dimensionless pressure
PwD for a gas well is defined as:
113

khll(p2)

1424

q~lZT

........................... (9)

Or, for a gas well using real gas pseudo-pressures:

PwO = khllm(p) ............................ (10)
1424 qT
and

These two equations compare with equations (5)

presented earlier for definition of l/qo'

(6)

Looking at the overlay of curves in Figure 4,

l/qD '" PwO at some ranges of values for t oxf and Feo.
If we assume that l/qD may be approximated by
values of PwO at late times, this enables us to
use other published constant-rate type curves for
l/qo approximations at values of t Dxf > 1.0. Cinco

et al. 3 published finite-conductivity constant-rate

type curves for t oxf values up to 1000. It was
illustrated in the Cinco paper, however, that for
tOx values greater than 1, finite fracture behavior
f
where FCD > 5 approaches uniform flux to infinite
conductivity behavior. A uniform flux type curve by
Gringarten, Ramey, and Raghavan 9 is shown as Figure
5, illustrating the variation of PwO at late times
as a function of fracture penetration ratio, xe/xf'
as boundary effects influence pressure drop.
Also shown on Figure'S by dashes is finite flow
capacity, constant-pressure l/qo data excerpted from
Figure 2 for t Dxf > 1.0 and FCO > S. At t Dxf of
1.0, note how the constant-pressure finite capacity
fracture data for l/qo converges near the constantrate uniform flux fracture value of PwO ' or that Pwo
l/qo
This assumption in l/qo values for FCD > S
allows an approximation of forecasted rates at
producing times where t Dxf < 1.0. The error in
using this approach is minimized by the fact that,
in actual practice, forecasted rates for t
> 1.0
Oxf
are at later times where production is following a
gentle exponential decrease or a shallow hyperbolic
decline.
LIMITATIONS OF PROJECTION METHOO
As mentioned, the use of the constant-pressure
type curves for gas rate projections is restricted to
single phase flow with a constant effective formation
permeability. Treatment cleanup effects are not
considered. A constant lip, Pe - Pwf ' ;s also
assumed. Reliable estimates for k,h,F CO ' and xf are
needed.
Use of the constant-pressure type curve data of

USE OF CONSTANT PRESSURE, FINITE CAPACITY TYPE CURVES FOR

PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF FRACTUREO WELLS IN LOW-PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS
Figure 2 is limited to tDxf

For values of tDx

Pw'D is made and the f
constant rate type curye (Figure 5) is used for
obtaining ordinate values at increasing tOx values.

> 1, an assumption that l/qD

SPE/DOE 9839

be corrected. Recent research by Jones and Owens

indicates in-situ gas permeability is from ten to
more than a thousand tlmes lower than routlne
laboratory measurements lO Core permeabllltles from
routine lab analyses can be easily corrected using
the Jones and Owens correlations for different
formations prior to making prediction calculations.

1.

IlI$

In practical application, some of the late time

calculations may be optimistic.

Propped Fracture Height

Cumulative gas recovery can be estimated by

summing successive average monthly rate estimates
but should always be checked with volumetric
calculations as this "quick-look" technique does not
include a material balance. If calculated
cumulative recovery from a projected rate history is
above volumetric estimates or actual performance of
offset, older wells, it is likely that too
optimistic values for k, h, xf or FCD were assumed.

Many low-permeability pay intervals produce

little if at all without being effectively fracture
treated and propped. It stands to reason that if a
particular section of tight interval is not propped
it will contribute a negligible amount of gas. If'
pr?pped fracture height, hf' is less than the pay
thlckness, h, then the propped fracture height, hf'
should be used in prediction calculations instead of
h, the total pay thickness.

PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING WELL PERFORMANCE

Several physical parameters may have an adverse
effect on actual well performance following a
fracture treatment and should be considered when
making prediction calculations. Of course, it is
essential that realistic estimates of fracture halflength, x , and dimensionless fracture capacity,
FCD' be u~ed in any prediction calculation. These
parameters can be estimated prior to a treatment
using design calculations. After treatment,
pressure transient testing can be used.
If actual well performance in an area still
tends to consistently fall below that predicted, one
of the following possible problems may be occurring:
(1) incorrect estimate of effective formation
permeability to ~he producing phase, (2) propped
fracture height considerably less than formation
thi ckness, (3) proppant crushi ng, (4) proppant
embedment, (5) other types of fracture damage, (6)
post-frac damage to the format i on, (7) i rregul ar
proppant settling, (8) geologically discontinuous
sands and/or (9) mechanical problems with the
completion or treatment itself. Of these problems,
three are particularly important to quantify before
making rate predictions. These are (1) a correct
estimate of formation permeability, (2) propped
fracture height, and (3) identification of the pay
intervals as geologically discontinuous sands. As
mentioned, reliable estimates of xf and FCD from
pressure transient analysis or fracture design
calculations are also extremely important.
Estimating Formation Permeability

Vertical fracture height can be estimated from

temperature surveys or radioactive tag surveys
following a fracture treatment although such surveys
may be very interpretive. Occasional temperature
surveys should be obtained to determine the
effectiveness of fracture treatments in each lowpermeability area. This will also more adequately
assess whether propped fracture height is
significantly less than pay thickness, thus
affecting the time-rating on which frac treatment
economics may be based.
Discontinuous Sands
Post-frac results in discontinuous, lensing
sands (as opposed to blanket-type deposition) can be
significantly less than predicted. However,
adjustments can be made to obtain more realistic
predictions in low-permeability discontinuous
reservoirs as evidenced in a recent study of the
Mesaverde and Fort Union Sands in the Piceance and
Green River Basins of the Rocky Mountains 11
Generally, the study found that for the case of the
Mesaverde and Fort Union, the use of a "pseudo-pay
thickness" in performance projections allows
simulation of actual performance. This method has
worked well in forecasting performance in these
reservoirs of Wyoming and Colorado where pseudo-pay
thickness is 25% of the measured wellbore pay.
This method may be applicable as a "first guess"
for forecasting performance of other lowpermeability, discontinuous reservoirs .and the
pseudo-pay thickness can be used in prediction
calcul at ions.
Experience in several other discontinuous lowpermeability sands have shown pseudo-pay thick~ess
often ranges from 15-40% of the measured wellbore
pay thickness. If predictions are being made for a
particular well where the pay intervals are
discontinuous and zones of porosity do not correlate
from well to well, a value of pseudo-pay thickness
equivalent to 15-40% of the value for h, measured
pay thickness, must be used to obtain reasonable rate
projections.

Perhaps the best way to obtain an accurate insitu formation permeability is by pressure transient
testing prior to the fracture treatment. This is
highly recommended.
Cores should be occasionally obtained in lowpermeability areas, particularly in early wells.
Measurements of air permeability, porosity, and
water saturations should be taken. The effective
permeability to oil or gas under overburden stress
should be measured.

CASE HISTORIES

If core data is used in estimating permeability

for performance predictions, air permeability
measurements made by routine analysis will need to
114

This performance prediction method using the

Agarwal et al. type curves has been used on several
actual wells. Forecasts have been compared to
short-term history, and results have been good in

J. K. THOMPSON
SPE/DOE 9839
those cases where estimates of k, xf' and FCD appear
reasonable from either fracture design calculations
or pressure transient surveys. Data for the four
wells listed in Table 1 was used to calculate rates
using equations (3) through (7) as applicable.
Ordinate values for l/qo were obtained from
Figure 2 for tDx ~ 1 and approximated from Figure 5
for tOx > 1. Frgures 6-9 illustrate the projected

flowing time, hours

dimensionless time to pseudosteady-state
flow
dimensionless time based on xf
time to pseudosteady-state flow, hours
reservoir temperature, oR
reservoir temperature, of
fracture width, in
fracture width, ft
distance from well to reservoir
boundary, ft
fracture half-length, ft
real gas deviation factor
viscosity, cp
viscosity-compressibility factor at
initial conditions, cp/psi
formation porosity, fraction

performance as compared to actual rates. Obviously,

these examples are some of the better match cases,
but they do illustrate the applicability of the
method. Table 2 lists the details of the
calculations for the example Well A.
The equations and type curve data can be
readily programmed for ease in computing different
cases. If calculated on a monthly basis, successive
monthly data can be summed to yield cumulative gas
recovery vs. time. As mentioned, these cumulative
recoveries should always be compared to
volumetrics.

Subscripts

CONCLUSIONS
The constant pressure, finite fracture capacity
type curves are useful in predicting rate performance
in tight gas formations. This illustrated prediction
method is relatively simple, and the equations and
type curve data can be programmed for easy use.
However, limitations do exist especially for latetime est imates where t oxf > 1. It is stressed that
calculated rates and corresponding cumulative
recoveries should be compared to volumetric recovery
estimates and/or offset, older well performance.
NOMENCLATURE

k
kf

kh
kfw
m(p)
l:I m(p)
p

Pe

drainage area of well, ft2

well spacing, acres
oil formation volume factor, RVB/STB
total system compressibility, psi- 1
dimensionless fracture capacity
formation thickness, ft
fracture height, ft
productivity index after fracturing,
BOPO/psi
productivity index before fracturing,
BOPO/psi
formation permeability, md
fracture permeability, md
formation flow capacity, md-ft
fracture flow capacity, md-ft
real gas pseudo pressure, psi 2/cp
difference in real gas pseudo pressures,
psi 2/cp
pressure, psi
pressure at the external drainage
boundary, psi
initial pressure, psi
dimensionless pressure
flowing bottomhole pressure, psi
pressure drop, psi
difference in squares of pressures, psi 2 ,
where l:I(p2) = Pe 2 - .Pwf 2
flow rate, STB/D or MCF/D
dimensionless flow rate
115

e
f

dimensionless variable
external boundary
fracture
initial

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my appreciation to Barbara Adams,
Justin King. Glenn Martin and Ray Rivero of ARCO Oil
and Gas for their comments and advice on the
suggested prediction method presented in this paper.
I also thank Kathy Mosley for typing the manuscript
and Barbara Grossman for the graphics art work.
REFERENCES
1.

Agarwal, R. G., Carter, R. D., and Pollock, C.

B.: IIEvaluation and Performance Prediction of
Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing,1I J. Pet. Tech.
(March 1979) 362-372.

2.

Sawyer, W. K., Locke, C. 0 . and Overbey. W.

K., Jr.: IISimulation of a Finite-Capacity
Vertical Fracture in a Gas Reservoir," paper
SPE 4593 presented at SPE 48th Annual Fall
Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept. 30-0ct. 3, 1973.

3.

Cinco, L. H., Samaniego, V. F., and Domingues.

A. N.: IITransient Pressure Behavior for a Well
With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture,1I
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug., 1978) 253-264.

4.

Lee, W. J., and Holditch, S.A.: IIFracture

Evaluation With Pressure Transient Testing in
Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Part 1:
Theoretical Background," paper SPE 7929
presented at 1979 SPE Symposium on LowPermeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, May 20-22,
1979.

5.

Holditch, S. A., and Lee, W. J.: "Fracture

Evaluation with Pressure Transient Testing in
Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Part II:
Field Examples,1I paper SPE 7930 presented at
1979 SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs, Denver, May 20-22, 1979.

USE OF CONSTANT PRESSURE, FINITE CAPACITY TYPE CURVES FOR

PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF FRACTURED WELLS IN LOW-PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS
6.

Earlougher, R. C.: Advances in Well Test

Analysis, SPE Monograph 5, SPE of AIME, Dallas,
1977, 154.

7.

Howard, G. C., and Fast, C. R.: Hydraulic

Fracturing, SPE Monograph 2, SPE of AIME,
Dallas, 1970, 149-176.

8.

Agarwal, R. G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock,

C.B.: "Type Curves for Evaluation and
Performance Predi ct i on of Low-Permeabil ity Gas
Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic
Fracturing," J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1979) 651-654.

9.

Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and

Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-State Pressure
Distributions Created by a Well With a Single
Infi ni te-Conduct i vi ty Vert i ca 1 Fr acture, II Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (Aug., 1974) 347-360; Trans.,
AIME, 257.

SPE/DOE 9839

10.

Jones, F.O., and Owens, W. W.: "A Laboratory

Study of Low Permeability Gas Sands," paper SPE
7551 presented at 1979 SPE Symposium on LowPermeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver May 20-22,
1979.

11.

Gidley, J. L., Mutli, D. H., Nierode, D. E.,

Kehn, D. M., and Muecke, T. W.: "Stimulation of
Low-Permeability Gas Formations by Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing - A Study of Well
Performance, II J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1979) 525531.

12.

Sinha, M.K.: "Gas Well Deliverability Prediction

for Hydraulically Fractured (Vertical) Wells in
Ti ght Reservo irs, II paper SPE 7948 presented at
1979 SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs, Denver, May 20-22,1979.

TABLE 1
EXAMPLE WELL DATA
WELL A
Locat ion
State
County
Geologic Basin
Format ion

NW New Mex i co
San Juan
San Juan
Mesaverde

Average Depth, ft (m)

5i ze of Frac Treatment
Gals gelled water (m 3 )
Lbs sand (kg)
Initial reservoir pressure, psi (kPa)
Bottom-hole flowing pressure, psi (kPa)
Reservoir temperature, of (C)
Formation pay thickness, ft (m)
Formation permeability, md
Format i on poros ity, fract ion
Initial gas viscosity, cp (Pa-s)
System compressibility, psi- 1 (kPa- 1 )
Fracture half-length, ft (m)
Dimensionless Fracture capacity*
Well drainage area, acres (m 2 )
*

WELL B

5626

(1715)

136500
157000
1175
600
173
29
0.04
0.08
0.0143
5.2E-04
1030
500
320

(517)
(71214 )
(8101)
(4137)
(78)
(8.8)

WELL C

S. Texas
Zapata
W. Gulf Coast
Wilcox

( .0000143)
(7.5E-05)
(314)
(1295000 )

11450

(3490)

240000
480000
7040
6705
350
35
0.1
0.2
0.02
2.0E-04
1050
5
100

(908)
(217724)
( 48539)
( 46229)
(177)
(10.7)

S. Colorado
Rio Bl anco
San Juan
Mancos "B"
(930)

9069

(2764 )

(303)
80000
195000
(88450)
(4261)
618
(2213)
321
(49)
120
(29.9)
98
0.054
0.099
0.012
( .000012)
1. 2E-03
(1. 7E-04)
(17.4 )
57**
300
160
(647500)

441895
640000
4700
500
248
130
0.003
0.09
0.023
1.IE-04
1000
500
320

(1673)
(290299)
(32405)
(3447)
(120)
(39.6)

3050

( .00002)
(2.9E-05)
(320)
(404687)

Obtained from pre-frac design calculations and/or pressure transient survey analyses.

** Problems occurred with the frac treatment; pressure transient analysis of post-frac buildup indicated xf

57'

.l2

TABLE 2
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR WELL A

Using equation (3):

_ 0.000264 kt
t Dxf - q, (].ICt) i xf2
- 4.02

0.000264 (.04) t
.08 (.0143) (5.2E-04) (1030)2

1.673 x 10- 5 t, t in hrs

10- 4 t, t in days

0.1466 t, t in years
m(Pi)

1.108 x 10 8 psi 2 /cp

(corresponding m(p) for Pi

m(pwf}

3.036 x 10 7 psi 2/Cp

(corresponding m(p) for Pwf

t.m(p}

8.044 x 10 7 psF/cp

Using equation (6) and solving for q:

=
kht..m(p)
0.04 (29) (8.044 x 10 7 )
1424 (633) (l/qO)
q
1424T (l/qO)
t ,days
5
15
30
183
365
730
1460
2190
2920
3650
5475
7300
9125
10950
12775
Note:

2.01xl0- 3
6.02xlO- 3
1. 20x10- 2
7.35xlO- 2
1.47x10- 1
2.93xl0- 1
5.86x10- 1
8.79xlO- 1
1.173
1.466
2.199
2.932
3.664
4.397
5.136

.014
.041
.082
0.5
1
2
4
6
8
10
15
20
25
30
35

psi)

600 psi)

= 103.52

l/qO

t,years

= 1175

0.115*
0.197*
0.274*
0.592*
0.767*
0.978*
1.232*
1. 373*
1. 50**
1.62**
1. 95**
2.25**
2.50**
2.85**
3.10**

1/qO
q, MCF/D
900
525
378
175
135
106
84
75
69
64
53
46
41
36
33

MMCF***
6
11
18
54
81
124
192
250
302
351
462
562
656
746
833

t is the el apsed time since the start of production.

*

l/qD from Figure 2 for t Oxf

1.0 using FCO - 500.

**

l/qo from Figure 5 for tOx

1.0 using xe/xf " 2, where xe

and xf
***

1030' .

E. Texas
Pano 1a
Cotton Valley Trend
Cotton Valley

1867'

Cumulative recovery is obtained by integrating area under rate curve

or by summation of successive monthly productlOn. Ultimate recovery
of 833 MMCF represents 70% of the 1190 MMCF OGI P.

( .000023)
(1.6E-05)
( 305)
(1295000)

(AI Linear Flow

- .,. T-r r.-r T""'_ ..J..J. J.. ~ ~.J. J. j._

Well

I BI Elliptical Flow

1~\\\7r7?\
\JJJ..J.~~~\,v
I CI Pseudo- Radial Flow or Pseudo steady -State Flow

,/\il&~\,
",/

''</1))''
For pseudo-radial flow, r<xe'
For pseudo steady- state flow, r = xe'

Fig. 1

Schematic of fractured well flow regimes.

10----------~----------_r----------,_----------~--------_,

Constant Pressure Performance

Finite Capacity Fractures
10-3L-~~LL~~~~~-L~~~~~-L~W-~~~-L~L-~~~~~~
10-5
10"3
10-2

Dimensionless Time, t Ox f

log-log
Agarwal,

curves for finite capacity

and Pollock l ,8).

1or-----------.-----------.-----------.-----------.---------~

Constant Rate Performance

Finite Capacity Fractures
1cr3~__~~~~UL___L~_L~~~_ _L_~~~~_ __L~-L~~~_ _~~~~~

165

10"3
10- 2
Dimensionless Time, t ox ,

Constant rate log-log type curves for

fractures (after Agarwal, Carter and

10 __----------~----------r-----------~----------~--------~10

Constant Pressure
Constant Rate

Comparison of Constant Pressure

And Constant Rate Performance

10"3 ~_~~~J.J..L...L.I.._ _L~_L~..L..U~_~....L_.L..J....LL.I..U.._ _L___l._L.J_.L...LLIu......._...L_....l_...L...J_U..J..U 10- 3

10- 5
10-4
10-3
10- 2
10. 1
1
Dimensionless Time, t ox ,

Fig. 4
A comparison of constant
type curves for finite capacity

rate

102r---------------,----------------r--------------~----------------~------------~

Constant Rate Performance

Uniform Flux Fractures

,
J
----:::-:/
--/"" --- -

Co n stan t Pre $ sur e 1/ qD val u e s

for FeD value of <, ~"d >10.

---;::..;

--~
/""~
----~
/""

10

Dimensionless Time, t DXf

Fig. 5 - Constant rat~ log-log typ~ curv~s for uniform-flux

9
fractures (after Gringarten, Ramey and Raghavan ).

10,000

10,000

Well A

fI-

1000

lIl-

Il-

I-

100

~
"

::

;:

Well 8

lI-

Mesaverde Formation
New Mexico

f-

Wilcox Formation
South Texas

-Actual

I-

-Actual

- - Predicted

- - Predicted

!-"

1000

~\f\
...
I- '

~-

....

_-- ..... _---

100

l-

~----- ......

_-

.....

- ... ----~

;:

lIlI-

IlI-

r-

II10
1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

10
1978

6 - A comparison of actual and predicted

for example Well A.

Fig. 7 - A
performance

1979

1960

1981

1982

of actual and predicted

example Well B.

10,000 _ - - -.....----.,.--"'1""------------..

Well C
Mancus '8' Formation
South Colorado
-Actual
- - Predicted

1000~------~------~r_------4_------_+--------~

""LL
()

:::e
100~--~--~------~r_------4_------_4--------~

----

----

__

10~------~--__--~__----~~------+_---- ~
1978
1979
1981
1980
1982

Fig. 8

A comparison of actual and predicted performance for example Well C.

10,000

Well 0

l-

IlI-

Cotton Valley Formation

East Texas

1000

~
I-III--

-Actual
- - Predicted

'-~-

--. --- --

----- ------

LL

()

:::e

l-

100
t-

lI-l-

II-I-I-

10
1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

Fig. 9 - A comparison of actual and predicted performance for example Well D.