(Blasingame) SPE 107967

SPE 107967
Application of the -Integral Derivative Function to Production Analysis

D. Ilk, SPE, N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, SPE, S. Amini, SPE, and T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M U.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas
Technology Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 1618 April 2007.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In this work we present the application of the -integral
derivative function for the interpretation and analysis of production data. The -derivative function was recently proposed
for the analysis and interpretation of pressure transient data
[Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, et al (2006)], and we demonstrate that
the -integral derivative and its auxiliary functions can be used
to provide the characteristic signatures for unfractured and
fractured wells.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of
the "production data" formulation of the -derivative function
(i.e., the -integral derivative) for the purpose of estimating
reservoir properties, contacted in-place fluid, and reserves.
Our main objective is to introduce a new practical tool for the
analysis/interpretation of the production data using a new
diagnostic rate and pressure drop diagnostic function.
prefer the "pressure" analysis format because of the similarity

with pressure transient analysis, while others are more comfortable with "rate decline" analysis.
The -integral derivative functions are derived in complete
detail in Appendix A, and the primary definitions are summarized as follows:
q
(t )
[qDdi (t Dd )] = Ddid Dd ................................................ (1)
qDdi (t Dd )
(t )
p
[ pDdi (t Dd )] = Ddid Dd .............................................. (2)
pDdi (t Dd )
The definitions of the component functions used in Eqs. 1 and

2) are given as follows:
Function
Definition
1
Rate Integral
q Ddi (t Dd ) =
Rate IntegralDerivative
q Ddid (t Dd ) = t Dd
Pressure
Integral
p Ddi (t Dd ) =
Pressure
IntegralDerivative
t Dd
t Dd
d
q Ddi (t Dd ) .....(4)
dt Dd
t Dd
t Dd 0
p Ddid (t Dd ) = t Dd
q Dd ( ) d .........(3)
p Dd ( ) d ........(5)
d
pDdi (t Dd ) .......(6)
dt Dd
The associated definitions of these functions are provided in

Appendix B and are referenced as appropriate in the
Nomenclature.
This paper provides the following contributions for the

analysis and interpretation of gas production data using the integral derivative function:
Schematic diagrams of various production data functions
using the -integral derivative formulation (type curves).
Analysis/interpretation of production data using the integral derivative formulation.
In addition to the definitions of the the-integral derivative

functions, we have created an "inventory" of "type curve"
solutions for unfractured and fractured wells this inventory
is provided in Appendix C.
Introduction
Orientation
This work introduces the new -integral derivative functions

([qDdi(tDd)] and [pDdi(tDd)]) where these functions are
defined to identify the transient, transition, and boundarydominated flow regimes from production data analysis. We
have utilized two different formulations [qDdi(tDd)] is used
for "rate decline" analysis (based on q/p functions) and
[pDdi(tDd)] is used for "pressure" analysis (based on p/q
functions).
As noted above, our inventory of solutions is provided in Appendix C these solutions were selected for relevance (i.e.,
the likelihood of a practical need), but also for the value of
each case as schematic example (i.e., the resolution of flow
regime(s)).
The application (i.e., the use of [qDdi(tDd)] or [pDdi(tDd)]) is

essentially a matter of preference there is no substantive
difference in the application of these functions. Some analysts
We first consider the "decline rate" case [qDdi(tDd)] and associated functions) as shown in schematic form in Fig. 1. This
schematic plot (or "type curve") consists of unfractured and
fractured well cases for comparison including the elliptical
flow geometry solution for a fractured well [Amini et al
(2007)] where we note that these are high fracture conduct-
D. Ilk, N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, S. Amini, and T.A. Blasingame
ivity cases, and fractured well solutions are very similar (nearly identical) in this circumstance.
Schematic of Dimensionless Rate Integral Derivative Functions
Various Reservoir Models and Well Configurations (as noted)
DIAGNOSTIC plot for Production Data (qDdid and [qDdi] )
SPE 107967
derivative function are compared with the results from

conventional (i.e., established) production-analysis methods.
Example 1: Southeast Asia Oil Well
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
(Finite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture)
)
)
In this case we have the measured rate and pressure data for an
oil well daily rates and bottomhole flowing pressures are
available and are used. Fig. 3 shows the time-pressure-rate
(TPR) data for this case. We note that the data are wellcorrelated except for an abrupt decline in rates at late times
which we believe indicates the evolution of wellbore damage.
NO Wellbore Storage
or Skin Effects
10
(
(
)
)
Unfractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
10
[qDdi] ~ 1.0
(boundary
dominated flow)
1
2
For this analysis, we have chosen to use the rate decline

integral functions to overcome the data-quality issues and the
material balance time function to eliminate (at least to some
extent) the variable-rate/variable pressure drop effects. In Fig.
4 we present the field data and model matches for the qDd, qDdi,
[qDdi(tDd)] "decline" functions in dimensionless (decline)
format where the "data" functions are given by symbols.
10
[qDdi] = 0.5
(linear flow)
1
BoundaryDominated
Flow Region
-3
-3
-2
10
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
Example 1 Exploration Well (Southeast Asia)
Dimensionless Material Balance Decline Time, tDd,bar=NpDd/qDd
Schematic of [qDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured and

fractured well configurations.
Next we consider the pressure transient analysis analog case

([pDdi(tDd)] and associated functions) as shown in Fig. 2. The
major difference in Fig. 2 compared to Fig. 1 (other than the
functions being inverted) is that we can clearly diagnose transient radial and linear flow (fracture cases). In addition, the
boundary-dominated flow portion of the data is clearly evident
as viewed from [pDdi(tDd)] (or the pDd(tDd) and pDdi(tDd) functions). As we noted earlier, the use of the qDd(tDd) or pDd(tDd)format functions is a matter of preference, either (or preferably
both) sets of functions can be used at the same time.
5000
Legend:
qo Data Function
pwf Data Function
4500
4000
Oil Flowrate, qo, STB/D
Figure 1
10
3500
3000
3
10
2500
Oil Flowrate
2000
1500
Wellbore Flowing
Pressure
1000
500
10
Schematic of Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Functions

DIAGNOSTIC plot for Production Data (pDdid and [pDdi] )
Wellbore Flowing Pressure, pwf, psia
-4
10
5000
-5
4500
10
4000
) ( [qDdi]
)
Unfractured Well (Radial Flow)
Fractured Well (Finite Fracture Conductivity)
Fractured Well (Elliptical Reservoir)
3500
Legend: (qDdid
10
-2
3000
10
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Elliptical
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
)
)
2500
(
(
2000
-1
1500
10
1000
Transient Flow
Region
500
(
(
Dimensionless Rate Integral Derivative Function, qDdid

"Power Law " Dimensionless Rate Integral Derivative Function, [qDdi]
10
Production Time, t, hours
Legend: (pDdid
) ( [pDdi]
)
NO Wellbore Storage
or Skin Effects
Figure 3 Example 1: Time-Pressure-Rate (TPR) history plot.

Southeast Asia oil well very good correlation of
rates and pressures.
BoundaryDominated
Flow Region
10
Transient Flow
Region
Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function Type Curve

4
Unfractured Well Centered in a Bounded Circular Reservoir (reD = 1x10 )
Example 1 Southeast Asia Oil Well
1
1
10
(
(
Fractured Well in
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
[pDdi] = 0.5
10
)
)
-4
10
10
(linear flow)
[pDdi] = 1.0
(boundary
dominated flow)
10
-1
2
1
10
10
(
)
(
)
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
-2
Unfractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
(
)
)
(
-3
10
-5
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
Figure 2
Schematic of [pDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured and

fractured well configurations (pressure transient
analog format).
Application of the -Integral Derivative Function to

Production Analysis Field Examples
In this section we provide field examples to demonstrate/
illustrate the diagnostic value of the -integral derivative function and its applications in production analysis. The main purpose of this exercise is to provide the diagnostic value of the
-integral derivative function rather than focusing on it as a
direct solution mechanism. Our results using the -integral
Dimensionless Rate Decline Functions

(qDd(tDd), qDdi(tDd), and [qDdi(tDd)])
Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Function, pDdid

"Power Law " Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Function, [pDdi]
10
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
Model Legend: Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function
Transient "Stems"
Type Curve - Unfractured Well Centered in a Bounded
(Transient Flow Region 4
4
Analytical Solutions: reD = 1x10 ) Circular Reservoir (Dimensionless Radius: reD = 1x10 )
10
10
Legend: qDd(tDd), qDdi(tDd), and [qDdi(tDd)] versus tDd,bar

qDd(tDd)
Rate
qDdi(tDd)
Rate Integral
[qDdi(tDd)] Rate Integral -Derivative
10
10
[qDdi(tDd)]
qDd(tDd) Data Function
qDdi(tDd) Data Function
10
qDdi(tDd)
4
reD=1x10
-1
-1
10
[qDdi(tDd)] Data Function
10
10
qDd(tDd)
-2
-2
10
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated Flow
Region-Volumetric
Reservoir Behavior)
-3
-3
-4
10
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
tDd,bar=NpDd(tDd)/qDd(tDd)
Figure 4 Example 1: Diagnostic log-log plot (dimensionless

rate decline integral functions) excellent diagnostic performance of [qDdi(tDd)] data function.
The diagnostic log-log plot shown in Fig. 4 is excellent we
Once we have identified the appropriate (i.e., likely) reservoir

model and we have estimated reservoir model parameters such
as: k, s, reD, N, pi (where we note that pi is imposed in this and
all of our examples), we proceed and generate model-based
pressures and rates using superposition in time. This "analysis" procedure is performed to validate the diagnosis (obtained
from the log-log plot) in terms of history matching, to confirm
the reservoir model, and finally to check the data consistency.
The summary plot for this case is shown in Fig. 5.
Example 1 Exploration Well (Southeast Asia)
4
10
(Bounded Circular Reservoir Case)

k
reD
) qo Model Function
) pwf Model Function
re
pi
=
=
=
=
=
130
md
4
1x10 (dimensionless)
24.1
MMSTB
3430 ft
2900 psia (forced)
10
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Oil Flowrate
2000
1500
Wellbore Flowing
Pressure
1000
500
0
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Production Time, t, hours
Figure 5 Example 1: Analysis by modeling, excellent performance of the model obtained from the log-log
diagnostic plot.
In Fig. 5 we find excellent agreement between the data and the

pressures and rates generated by the reservoir model. For
reference, the reservoir model does not honor the data at late
times where we suspect that well damage is evolving.
Example 2: East Texas (US) Tight Gas
This case is taken from Pratikno et al [Pratikno et al (2003)],
and all of the relevant data and the analysis results for this
case can be found in that reference. The time-pressure-rate
(TPR) plot for this case is shown in Fig. 6. We note that the
production data for this example case are of very good quality
(although only given on a daily basis). We advocate that most
gas wells in low permeability formations should have data
acquisition programs which are comparable to those used for
this case.
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
10
3000
2000
10000
Legend: East Texas Gas Well (SPE 84287)
qg Data Function
pwf Data Function
1000
0
8000
7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
10
Production Time, t, hr
Figure 6 Example 2: Time-Pressure-Rate (TPR) history plot.

East Tx gas well. Very good correlation of rate
and pressure data indicates likelihood of good
analysis.
Since this well is hydraulically fractured, we use fractured

well models for analysis/interpretation. Since this is a gas
case (i.e., flowing fluid is compressible), we use pseudopressure and pseudotime functions. The diagnostic log-log
plot (Fig. 7) shows outstanding matches for all of the rate
integral decline functions in particular, the [qDdi(tDd)] data
function indicates that the flow is in transition to the boundary-dominated flow regime (evolving trend in the [qDdi(tDd)]
data function approaches 1).
Fetkovich McCray Rate Function Type Curve
Fractured Well Centered in a Bounded Circular Reservoir (FcD = 10)
Example 2 East TX Gas Well (Tight Gas Sand)
10
-5
-4
10
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10

(qDd(tDd), qDdi(tDd), and [qDdi(tDd)])
(
(
Analysis Results: Southeast Asia Oil Well
Legend:
qo Data Function
pwf Data Function
Oil Flowrate, qo, STB/D
10
5000
10
10
Example 2 East Texas Gas Well (SPE 84287)

(Tight Gas Sand)
From the [qDdi(tDd)] data function, it is clear that the boundaries of the drainage area have not yet established i.e., the
[qDdi(tDd)] values have not yet stabilized at 1, nor is this
function approaching 1 at that time. Specifically using the
model match for diagnosis, it can be concluded that it will take
more than another log-cycle for the response function to
exhibit full boundary-dominated flow.
500
obtained excellent data matches using the model for an

unfractured well in a homogenous reservoir model. In this
case we obtained a match of reD = 1x104 which, in
isolation, does suggest well damage effects. The only discrepancy in the [qDdi(tDd)] model and data functions occurs at
relatively "early" values of the material balance time function,
at times where we believe the data are transitioning from
transient radial flow to a transitional flow regime prior to
evidence of boundary effects.
Gas Flowrate, qg, MSCF/D
SPE 107967
10
Transient "Stems"
(Transient Flow Region Analytical Solutions: FcD = 10)
Model Legend: Elliptical Flow Type Curve - Fractured

Well Centered in a Bounded Circular Reservoir
(Finite Conductivity: FcD = 10)
Legend: qDd(tDd), qDdi(tDd), and [qDdi(tDd)] versus tDd,bar

qDd(tDd)
Rate
qDdi(tDd)
Rate Integral
[qDdi(tDd)] Rate Integral -Derivative
10
qDdi(tDd)
10
qDdi(tDd)
Data Function
10
10
qDd(tDd)
10
[qDi(tDd)]
10
10
qDd(tDd) Data Function
[qDi(tDd)] Data Function
-1
10
-1
Depletion "Stems"
Region-Volumetric
Reservoir Behavior)
10
-2
10
-5
-4
10
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
-2
tDd,bar=GpDd(tDd)/qDd(tDd)

rate decline integral functions) outstanding diagnostic performance of [qDdi(tDd)] data function.
However, as we observe from the fractured well model, this

case is in transition and requires approximately two more logcycles to reach complete boundary-dominated flow. Such an
observation is neither unusual nor unexpected for a well in a
low to very-low permeability gas reservoir. As in the previous
case, we proceed from the analysis and generate the pressure
and rate responses using the defined reservoir model and the
estimated reservoir parameters (k, reD, G, pi where, again, pi
is imposed all cases).
7000
6000
5000
3
4000
10
3000
2000
1000
0
8000
7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
500
10
1000
Production Time, t, hr
Figure 8 Example 2: Analysis by modeling, very good performance of the model obtained from the log-log
diagnostic plot.
Example 3: Mexico Very Tight Gas (long production)

This example was recently evaluated using an elliptical flow
model [Amini et al (2007)] and it was concluded that the
reservoir has a permeability of < 0.001 md (estimated by
several analyses). In addition, it is worth noting that this field
has only one well. The long production history and high
quality data yield "near textbook" quality diagnostic plots
(Figs. 9 and 10).
Example 3 Mexico Gas Well
(Tight Gas Sand Very Low Reservoir Permeability, Very Long Production History)
10
1200
900
800
700
10
600
500
400
300
Legend:
qg Data Function
pwf Data Function
16,000
15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
-4
-3
10
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
The objective of this example is to apply and validate the

elliptical boundary -integral derivative type curves. For this
purpose we have used the elliptical boundary model type
10
10
Legend: qDd(tDA), qDdi(tDA), and [qDdi(tDA)] versus tDA

qDd(tDA)
Rate
qDdi(tDA)
Rate Integral
[qDdi(tDA)] Rate Integral -Derivative
10
10
[qDi(tDA)]
[qDi(tDA)] Data Function
-1
10
10
qDd(tDA)
Transient "Stems"
(Transient Flow Region Analytical Solutions: FE = 100)
10
closed reservoir
boundary (ellipse)
y
wellbore
10
-1
qDdi(tDA)
-2
10
Depletion "Stems"
Region-Volumetric
Reservoir Behavior)
-2
fracture
-3
b
10
xf
-3
-4
10
10
-4
-3
10
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-4
Dimensionless Decline Time Based on Drainage Area (tDA)

rate decline integral functions) very good match of
the [qDdi(tDd)] function (excellent diagnostic).
The final step in our analysis is to generate the pressure and

rate responses using the (elliptical) reservoir model that we
deduced from the diagnostic plot (see Fig. 11). We note that
for this case, the computed rates match the raw data extremely
well but the calculated bottomhole pressure response does
show some disagreement with the raw pressure data. In
fairness, the pressures are the "weakest" data, and are likely
affected by phenomena such as liquid-loading.
Example 3 Mexico Gas Well
(Tight Gas Sand Very Low Reservoir Permeability, Very Long Production History)
10
1600
Analysis Results: Mexico Gas Well
(Bounded Elliptical Reservoir Case)
k
xf
FE
G
re
pi
10
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.001 md
826
ft
100
(dimensionless)
9.6
BSCF
871
ft
5463 psia (forced)
1400
1200
1000
800
10
600
400
Legend:
qg Data Function
pwf Data Function
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
10
200
qg Model Function
pwf Model Function
1,000
We note as comment that the data scatter seen in the rate is not
clearly reflected in the pressure data but we also acknowledge that this scenario could be one of data scaling, as the
pressure data are certainly not measured at the same accuracy
as the rate data. Even given this comment, we believe that
these data are accurate and correlated and we anticipate a
consistent analysis/interpretation.
qDd(tDA) Data Function
10
Example 3: Time-Pressure-Rate (TPR) history plot.

Mexico gas well. Good quality data (bottomhole
pressures are given constant).
10

Well Centered in a Bounded Elliptical Reservoir
(Finite Conductivity: FE = 100)
Production Time, t, days
Figure 9
10
0 = 0.25
qDdi(tDA) Data Function
100
1,000
10
200
10
10
17,000
1000
1100
Elliptical Flow Type Curve - Fractured Well Centered in a

Bounded Elliptical Reservoir (Finite Conductivity: FE = 100, 0 = 0.25)
Example 3 Mexico Gas Well (Tight Gas Sand Very Low Reservoir Permeability)
8000
17,000
9000
16,000
10000
0.0554 md
290 ft
10
(dimensionless)
1.586 BSCF
339
ft
9330 psia (forced)
15,000
10
=
=
=
=
=
=
14,000
k
xf
FcD
G
re
pi
13,000
11000
(Bounded Circular Reservoir Case)
Analysis Results: East Tx Gas Well
12,000
12000
Legend: East Texas Gas Well
qg Data Function
pwf Data Function
qg Model Function
pwf Model Function
curves in the matching process in the diagnostic log-log plot

(Fig. 10). In this example we utilize type curve solutions in
terms of the equivalent constant rate case in "decline" form
(i.e., qDd and the auxiliary functions qDdi and [qDdi(tDd)] versus
tDA). We obtained an excellent match using the elliptical flow
parameters FE = 100 and 0 = 0.25. We note that these are
the same results as obtained by the original reference for this
case [Amini et al (2007)]. The only substantive difference in
this analysis is that we employed the [qDdi(tDd)] data function
rather than qDdid(tDd) which indicates the transition to
boundary-dominated flow uniquely.
11,000
Example 2 East Texas Gas Well (SPE 84287)

(Tight Gas Sand)
5
10
SPE 107967
10,000
As seen in Fig. 8, the overall match of the generated responses

(rates and pressures) and the raw data are very good to
excellent for this case even taking into account the erratic
behavior in the rate data. We note that our analysis results are
very close to original results provided for this case [Pratikno et
al (2003)].

(qDd(tDA), qDdi(tDA), and [qDdi(tDA)])
Production Time, t, days
Figure 11 Example 3: Analysis by modeling, very good rate

match by the model, generated pressures fail to
honor the given constant bottomhole pressures.
As closure in this section, we present the "average" analysis
SPE 107967
results for these examples considered in this work (see Table

1).
Table 1
"Average" analysis results for this work.
Example
1 (oil)
2 (gas)
3 (gas)
k
(md)
130
0.0055
0.0010
xf
(ft)
N/A
290
825
G (or N)
(BSCF or
MMSTB)
24.1
1.6
23.0
Summary and Conclusions

Summary: The primary purpose of this paper is the presentation of the -integral derivative function as a diagnostic tool
for production data analysis. Two different (dimensionless)
formulations of the -integral derivative function are proposed
for use in production analysis applications.
[qDdi(tDd)] formulation for "rate decline" analysis
[pDdi(tDd)] formulation for "pressure" analysis
The -integral derivative function can be computed directly
using rate/pressure integral and rate/pressure integral derivative functions or rate/pressure and rate/pressure integral
functions (the relevant derivations are provided in Appendix
A). We provide a schematic "diagnosis worksheet" for the
interpretation of the -integral derivative function for rate
integral and pressure integral cases (see Appendix C) as well
as an inventory of type curves (-integral derivative solutions)
for specified reservoir models having closed boundaries.
Unfractured well Centered in a bounded circular reservoir
Fractured well Centered in a bounded circular reservoir
Fractured well Centered in a bounded elliptical reservoir
We have applied and validated the application of -integral

derivative function for production analysis using various field
cases.
Conclusions:
1. The -integral derivative function has the potential to

become a significant diagnostic tool in production analysis
as the -integral derivative function exhibits unique
character for several flow regimes.
2. The diagnostic matches of the production data obtained
using the -integral derivative function presented in this
work are excellent. It is very likely that similar diagnostic
matches would have been obtained using the rate integral
derivative function. But we have shown that the -integral
derivative function provides more resolution in particular, the -integral derivative function yields the following
behavior for the cases used in this work.
Case
Reservoir boundaries:
Closed reservoir (circle, rectangle, etc.)
Fractured wells:
Infinite conductivity vertical fracture.
Finite conductivity vertical fracture.
[qDdi(tDd)]
1
1/2
1/4
3. The incorporation of the -integral derivative function in

the modern production analysis tools will help to distinguish individual flow regimes, as well as help to differentiate transitional character this may be the source of most
value for the -integral derivative functions.
Recommendations/Comment:
Future work on this topic
should focus on the additional -integral derivative solutions

for various (preferably complicated) reservoir models and
configurations which were not described in this work as
well as more applications of the functions in practice.
Nomenclature
Field Variables
ct = Total system compressibility, psi-1
G = Gas-in-place, MSCF or BSCF
Gp = Gas production, MSCF or BSCF
h = Pay thickness, ft
k = Permeability, md
kf = Fracture permeability, md
kR = Reservoir permeability, md
N = Oil-in-place, STB
Np = Cumulative oil production, STB
p = Pressure, psia
pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psia
pp = Pseudopressure function, psia
pR = Reservoir pressure, psia
pwf = Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
q = Flowrate, STB/D
qg = Gas flowrate, MSCF/D
qo = Oil flowrate, STB/D
re = Drainage radius, ft
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
rwa = Apparent wellbore radius, ft
t = Time, hr
ta = Pseudo-time (adjusted time), hr
xf = Fracture half-length, ft
Dimensionless Variables
bDpss = Dimensionless pseudosteady-state constant
FcD = Dimensionless fracture conductivity
FE = Elliptical fracture conductivity
pD = Dimensionless pressure
pDd = Dimensionless pressure derivative
pDi = Dimensionless pressure integral
pDid = Dimensionless pressure integral derivative
= Dimensionless -pressure integral derivative

qD = Dimensionless flowrate
qDi = Dimensionless rate integral
qDid = Dimensionless rate integral derivative
[qDdi] = Dimensionless -rate integral derivative
reD = Dimensionless outer reservoir boundary radius
tD = Dimensionless time (wellbore radius)
tDd = Dimensionless decline time
tDA = Dimensionless time (drainage area)
tDxf = Dimensionless time (fracture half-length)
Mathematical Functions and Variables
a = Regression coefficient
A = Auxiliary function
b = Regression coefficient
B = Auxiliary function
Greek Symbols
= Beta-derivative
= porosity, fraction
= Viscosity, cp
0 = Elliptical boundary characteristic variable
Subscripts
a = Pseudotime
d = Derivative or decline parameter
D = Dimensionless
[pDdi]
Dd = Dimensionless decline variable

f = Fracture
g = Gas
i = Integral function or initial value
id = Integral derivative function
mb = Material balance
pss = Pseudosteady-state
r = Positive integer
R = Reservoir
Superscripts
= Material balance time
Constants
= Circumference to diameter ratio, 3.1415926
= Eulers constant, 0.577216
Gas Pseudofunctions:
p
iz
p
dp
pp = i i
pi
pbase z
t
1
c
0 ( p) c ( p) dt
t
c
q (t )
=
dt
q (t ) ( p ) c ( p )
0
ta = gi gi
tmba, gas
gi gi
References
Amini, S., Ilk, D., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Evaluation of the
Elliptical Flow Period for Hydraulically-Fractured Wells in Tight
Gas Sands Theoretical Aspects and Practical Considerations,"
paper SPE 106308 presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference held in College Station, Texas, U.S.A.,
2931 January 2007.
Blasingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L., and Lee, W.J.: "Type Curve
Analysis Using the Pressure Integral Method," paper SPE 18799
presented at the 1989 SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, 05-07 April 1989.
Doublet, L.E., Pande, P.K., McCollum, T.J., and Blasingame,
T.A.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Analysis of
Oil Well Production Data Using Material Balance Time:
Application to Field Cases," paper SPE 28688 presented at the
1994 Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in
Veracruz, MEXICO, 10-13 October 1994.
Fetkovich, M.J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,"
JPT (March 1980) 1065-1077.
Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, N., Ilk, D., and Blasingame, T.A.: "The
Pressure Derivative Revisited Improved Formulations and
Applications," paper SPE 103204 presented at the 2006 Annual
SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 23-27
September 2006.
Palacio, J.C. and Blasingame, T.A.: "Decline Curve Analysis
Using Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well Production Data,"
paper SPE 25909 presented at the 1993 Joint Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO,
26-28 April 1993.
Pratikno, H., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A.: "De-cline
Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Fractured Wells," paper
SPE 84287 presented at the SPE annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2003.
SPE 107967
SPE 107967
Appendix A: Derivation of Rate Integral -Derivative

Formulation
In this Appendix we derive the -derivative integral functions
([qDdi(tDd)] and [pDdi(tDd)]) where these functions are defined
to identify the transient, transition, and boundary-dominated
flow regimes from production data analysis.
Before we begin to derive the formulation for the -integral
derivative rate function, we start with the definitions of the so
called "rate-integral" functions [Palacio and Blasingame 1993;
Doublet, et al 1994]. For reference, the dimensionless rateintegral function is defined as:
t Dd
1
t Dd
q Dd ( ) d .................................. (A-1)
Where qDd(tDd) is the dimensionless rate decline function

[Fetkovich, 1980]. The dimensionless rate-integral derivative
function (using the Bourdet derivative formulation) is:
d
q Ddi (t Dd ) .............................. (A-2)
dt Dd
q Ddid (t Dd ) = t Dd
The derivative of Eq. A-1 with respect to the dimensionless

decline time, tDd is:
d
qDdi (t Dd )
dtDd
=
=
(t Dd )
1
t Dd
q Dd ( ) d +
1
t Dd
q Dd (t Dd )
[ q Dd (t Dd ) q Ddi (t Dd ) ]
....................................................................................... (A-3)
The power-law derivative formulation (i.e., the -derivative
formulation) for the dimensionless rate-integral function is
defined as:
[qDdi (t Dd )]
=
=
d ln[qDdi (t Dd )]
d ln[t Dd ]
1
d
qDdi (t Dd )
t Dd
dt Dd
qDdi (t Dd )
Where this result reduces to:

q
(t )
[qDdi (t Dd )] = Ddid Dd
qDdi (t Dd )
...................................................................................... (A-4)
Substituting Eq. A-3 into Eq. A-4, we obtain,
[qDdi (t Dd )]
1
1
[ qDd (t Dd ) qDdi (t Dd ) ]
t Dd
= qDdi (t Dd )
t Dd
qDdi (t Dd )
Equating Eqs. A-5 and A-6 gives us:

q Ddid (t Dd )
q (t )
= 1 Dd Dd
q Ddi (t Dd )
q Ddi (t Dd )
Solving for qDdid(tDd) yields

Where Eq. A-6 is exactly the definition given by [Doublet, et
al 1994], and thus, confirms our definition of the [qDdi(tDd)]
function.
Pressure Integral Functions
For reference, the dimensionless pressure-integral function is
defined as [Blasingame, et al 1989]: (modified to "decline"
variable format)
p Ddi (t Dd ) =
t Dd
t Dd
p Dd ( ) d ................................. (A-7)
Where pDd(tDd) is the dimensionless pressure decline function.

The dimensionless rate-integral derivative function (using the
Bourdet derivative formulation) is given as:
p Ddid (t Dd ) = t Dd
d
pDdi (t Dd ) ................................ (A-8)
dt Dd
The derivative of Eq. A-7 with respect to dimensionless decline time, tDd is:
t Dd
q (t )
[qDdi (t Dd )] = 1 Dd Dd ......................................... (A-5)
q Ddid (t Dd ) = q Ddi (t Dd ) q Dd (t Dd ) ............................. (A-6)
Rate Integral Functions
q Ddi (t Dd ) =
qDd (t Dd )
1
qDdi (t Dd )
Or, finally, we obtain:
d
p Ddi (t Dd )
dt Dd
=
=
t Dd
1
(t Dd )
1
t Dd
p Dd ( ) d +
1
p Dd (t Dd )
t Dd
[ p Dd (t Dd ) p Ddi (t Dd ) ]
...................................................................................... (A-9)
Multiplying through Eq. A-9 by the dimensionless decline
time, tDd yields:
p Ddid (t Dd )
= t Dd
d
p Ddi (t Dd )
dt Dd
= p Dd (t Dd ) p Ddi (t Dd )
.................................................................................... (A-10)
Where Eq. A-10 is a fundamental definition of the "pressure
integral" given by [Blasingame, et al 1989].
The power-law derivative formulation (i.e., -derivative formulation) for the dimensionless pressure-integral function is
defined as:
[ pDdi (t Dd )]
=
d ln[ pDdi (t Dd )]
d ln[t Dd ]
1
d
t Dd
pDdi (t Dd )
pDdi (t Dd )
dt Dd
1
1
[ pDd (t Dd ) pDdi (tDd )]
=
t Dd
pDdi (t Dd )
t
Dd
Where this result reduces to:
[ pDdi (t Dd )]
=
1
[ pDd (tDd ) pDdi (t Dd )]
pDdi (t Dd )
p (t )
= Dd Dd 1
pDdi (t Dd )
.................................................................................... (A-11)
Where we note an alternate form of Eq. A-11 is obtained using
[ pDdi (t Dd )]
1
[ pDd (t Dd ) pDdi (t Dd )]
pDdi (t Dd )
But we note that Fetkovich [Fetkovich, 1980] defined this

variable as:
r 1
bDpss = ln e
rwa 2
bDpss = ln ( reD ) 0.049298 + 0.43464 reD
.................................................................................... (A-12)
Equating Eqs. A-11 and A-12 gives us:
p Dd (t Dd )
p
(t )
1 = Ddid Dd
p Ddi (t Dd )
p Ddi (t Dd )
Solving for pDdid(tDd) yields

p Ddid (t Dd ) = p Dd (t Dd ) p Ddi (t Dd ) ........................... (A-13)
Where Eq. A-13 is exactly (as expected) the definition given

by [Blasingame, et al 1989], and thus, confirms our definition
of the [pDdi(tDd)] function.
Appendix B: Dimensionless Variables
The most straightforward approach to defining dimensionless
variables for this application is to use the approach of Fetkovich [Fetkovich, 1980] and reduce all cases to a single set of
unified variables.
This process is fairly easy for a given case, but will require
knowledge of the reservoir model for each specific case. To
simplify (somewhat) this exercise, we will use the approach of
[Pratikno, et al 2003], which states the following relations for
the dimensionless decline variables:
2
("decline" time).......................... (B-1)
t Dd =
t DA
a + a 2 u + a3 u 2 + a 4 u 3 + a5 u 4
+ 1
1 + b1 u + b2 u 2 + b3 u 3 + b4 u 4
...................................................................................... (B-8)
Where,
u = ln ( FcD )
a1 = 0.93626800
b1 = -0.38553900
a2 = -1.00489000
b2 = -0.06988650
a3 = 0.31973300
b3 = -0.04846530
a4 = -0.04235320
b4 = -0.00813558
a5 = 0.00221799
...................................................................................... (B-9)
The correlation given by Eq. B-8 is an approximation of the
exact values for this case, but this result should be more
than sufficient for all applications.
Elliptical Flow/Fractured Well: [Amini, et al 2007]
Given a particular reservoir/fracture case formulated in
the elliptical flow geometry (i.e., 0 and FE values), then
bDpss(0,FE) can be estimated using :
bDpss = 1.00146 0 + 0.0794849e 0 0.16703u
+
bDpss
q Dd = q D bDpss
("decline" rate)........................... (B-2)
1
pD
bDpss
("decline" pressure) ................... (B-3)
q D = 141.2
pD =
ct A
(t in days)................................... (B-4)
qB
1
............................................ (B-5)
kh ( pi p wf )
1
kh
( pi p wf ) ............................................ (B-6)
141.2 qB
The remaining task is to address the bDpss variable for the

unfractured well, fractured well, and elliptical flow cases
these results are:
Unfractured Well: [Fetkovich, 1980]
r 3
bDpss = ln e
rwa 4
(exact definition) .................. (B-7a)
A
0.754772
B
.................................................................................... (B-10)
Where the auxiliary functions are:
u = ln( FE )
A = a1 + a2u + a3u 2 + a4u 3 + a5u 4
Where (obviously) the bDpss variable given in Eqs. B-1 to B-3

is model-dependent. For reference, the base or "universal" definitions of tDA, qD, and pD are:
t D = 0.00633
(Fetkovich definition) .......... (B-7b)
The difference in Eqs. B-7a and B-7b, is essentially irrelevant, and from a historical perspective, the Fetkovich definition is most widely accepted. We use Eq. B-7b in this work.
Fractured Well: [Pratikno, et al 2003]
Given a particular reservoir/fracture case (i.e., reD and FcD
values), then bDpss(reD,FcD) can be estimated using :
(t )
p
= Ddid Dd
pDdi (t Dd )
p Dd =
SPE 107967
B = b1 + b2u + b3u 2 + b4u 3 + b5u 4
.................................................................................... (B-11)
The correlation given by Eq. B-10 is sufficiently accurate
for all practical applications.
In addition to the "decline" variables, we also employ the
"equivalent constant rate" concept proposed by [Doublet, et al
1994] i.e., the "material balance time" concept. Using this
approach, we "convert" variable-rate/variable pressure drop
data into an equivalent constant rate case (analog to well test
analysis). As such, we will always work in terms of the
material balance time variable which is defined as:
t =
N p (or G p )
qo (or q g )
(liquid case) ............................. (B-12)
SPE 107967
gi c gi
ta =
q g (t )
q g ( )
0 g ( ) c g ( ) d (gas case)................... (B-13)
In practice, we will use the "decline" time variables based on

the appropriate material balance time functions (liquid or gas),
and we will also present the "type curve" solutions in terms of
the (dimensionless) "decline" material balance time, given as:
NpDd
t Dd =
qDd
.............................................................. (B-14)
Where the dimensionless "decline" cumulative production is

defined as:
NpDd =
qDd
qDd ( ) d ............................................. (B-15)
As a final comment, we want to state that for the unfractured

reservoir case we have used (exactly) the Fetkovich definitions for the "decline" variables. Specifically, these definitions are:
t Dd =
1 re 2 re 1
1 ln

rwa 2
2 rw
tD ........................... (B-16)
r 1
q Dd = ln e q D ............................................... (B-17)
rwa 2
p Dd =
1
p D ............................................. (B-18)
re 1
ln

rwa 2
Where for this case, the "ordinary" dimensionless time function is given as:
t D = 0.00633
ct rw2
t ................................................... (B-19)
Appendix C: Dimensionless "Type Curve" Representations of the -Pressure Derivative and Various
other Pressure Functions (selected reservoir/well
configurations)
In this appendix we present the "inventory" of type curve
solutions for the proposed -derivative integral functions (i.e.,
the [qDdi(tDd)] and [pDdi(tDd)]). We use the dimensionless
decline "material balance time" function given as: (i.e., the
equivalent constant rate case)
t Dd =
1
qDd
qDd
qDd ( ) d
NpDd
qDd
...................................................................................... (C-1)
For the case of the elliptical flow geometry we elected not to
use the tDd-format due to certain early-time artifacts (some
trends overlap in a non-uniform manner). We believe that this
effect is not an error or flaw in the use of the tDd function, but
rather just an artifact of the formulation for this particular
case. As an alternative, we use the tDA format as proposed by
Amini et al [Amini et al (2007)] this format works very
well and yields no visible artifacts.
10
SPE 107967
Schematic of Dimensionless Rate Integral Derivative Functions

DIAGNOSTIC plot for Production Data (qDdid and [qDdi] )
Dimensionless Rate Integral Derivative Function, qDdid

"Power Law " Dimensionless Rate Integral Derivative Function, [qDdi]
10
(
(
10
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
)
)
NO Wellbore Storage
or Skin Effects
(
(
10
Unfractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
[qDdi] ~ 1.0
Transient Flow
Region
10
)
)
(boundary
dominated flow)
1
2
[qDdi] = 0.5
(linear flow)
-1
10
(
(
Fractured Well in
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
)
)
-2
10
Legend: (qDdid
) ([qDdi]
)
BoundaryDominated
Flow Region
-3
10
-5
10
10
-4
10
-3
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
Figure C.1 Schematic of [qDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured and fractured well configurations (note the distinction of the "transition" flow
regimes that the [qDdi(tDd) function provides) (analog of decline type curve analysis).
Schematic of Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Functions

DIAGNOSTIC plot for Production Data (pDdid and [pDdi] )
Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Function, pDdid

"Power Law " Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Function, [pDdi]
10
Legend: (pDdid
10
) ( [pDdi]
)
NO Wellbore Storage
or Skin Effects
BoundaryDominated
Flow Region
Transient Flow
Region
1
10
10
(
(
Fractured Well in
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
[pDdi] = 0.5
)
)
(linear flow)
[pDdi] = 1.0
(boundary
dominated flow)
-1
10
2
1
(
)
)
(
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
-2
10
Unfractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
(
)
)
(
-3
10
-5
10
10
-4
10
-3
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
Figure C.2 Schematic of [pDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured and fractured well configurations good transition and strong indicator of
the boundary-dominated flow regime (analog of well test analysis).
SPE 107967
11
Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function Type CurvetDd,bar Format

(Unfractured Well Centered in a Bounded Circular Reservoir)
Dimensionless Decline Rate, qDd(tDd),

Dimensionless Decline Rate Integral, qDdi(tDd), and
Dimensionless Decline Rate Integral-Derivative, [qDdi(tDd)]
10
10
-4
10
-3
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
Model Legend: Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function Type Curve - Unfractured

Transient "Stems"
(Transient Flow Region)
10
-2
Legend: qDd(tDd), qDdi(tDd) and [qDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd,bar

Rate Function Curves
Rate Integral Function Curves
Rate Integral- -Derivative Function Curves
2
reD=re/rwa=5
10
10
20
10
qDd(tDd)
30
[qDdi(tDd)]
50
10
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
100
500
1000
10
reD=1x10
10
5
20
30
10
50
500
10
-1
4
reD=1x10
100
10
1000
-1
[qDdi(tDd)]
10
-2
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
-2
Figure C.3 [qDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured well configuration also plotted with qDd and qDdi for comparison very good resolution
of transient and transition regimes using the [qDdi(tDd)] functions.
Pressure Function Type CurvetDd,bar Format

(Unfractured Well Centered in a Bounded Circular Reservoir)
Dimensionless Pressure, pDd(tDd),

Dimensionless Pressure Integral, pDdi(tDd), and
Dimensionless Pressure Integral-Derivative, [pDdi(tDd)]
10
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
Model Legend: Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function Type Curve - Unfractured

10
10
Legend: pDd(tDd), pDdi(tDd) and [pDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd,bar

Pressure Function Curves
Pressure Integral Function Curves
Pressure Integral- -Derivative Function Curves
10
10
Transient "Stems"
pDd(tDd)
pDdi(tDd)
10
4
reD=1x10
10
1000
5
500
10
-1
10
30 20
50
100 50
30
20
1000
10
-1
[pDdi(tDd)]
4
reD=1x10
10
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
100
500
reD=re/rwa=5
10
-2
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-2
Figure C.4 [pDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured well configuration also plotted with pDd and pDdi for comparison, similar form as the
[qDdi(tDd)] functions excellent resolution of all flow regimes.
Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function Type Curve-tDd,bar Format

( Vertical Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture FcD = 1 )
10
-3
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
qDd(tDd)
10
10
10
100
10
reD=1x10
-1
[qDdi(tDd)]
-2
10
20
500
-1
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
50
10
10

30
10

3
Model Legend: Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function Type Curve - Fractured

qDdi(tDd)
10
10
10
Transient "Stems"
10
-2
-2


10
10
-4
10
10
-3
10
10
10
-2
-1
10

10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
100
10
reD=1x10
-1
[qDdi(tDd)]
-2
-4
10
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
100
10
20
30
10
50
10
100
10
reD=1x10
-2
-2
10
-4
10
-3
10
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
qDdi(tDd)
50
500
100
10
-2
10
100
10
reD=1x10
-4
-1
[qDdi(tDd)]
-2
10
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
3
3
10
qDd(tDd)
20
10
30
50
100
500
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
qDdi(tDd)
1000
10
10
30
20
10
50
10
500
-1
100
10
reD=1x10
-1
[qDdi(tDd)]
-2
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-2
Figure C.9 [qDdi(tDd)], qDd, and qDdi vs. tDd Fractured well
configuration (FcD=500).
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
10

-4
5
10
20
30
500
-1

10
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
1000
10
5
10
10
10
qDd(tDd)
20 10
10

10

30
10
10
Transient "Stems"
10
-2
10
10
Transient "Stems"
10
-2


10
-3
-1
[qDdi(tDd)]

10
500
-1
10
-4
1000
10
10
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
qDdi(tDd)
-4
50
500
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
-1
10
qDd(tDd)
20
30
50
500
10
qDd(tDd)
30
10

qDdi(tDd)
10
10
10
10


Transient "Stems"
10
10

-4
10
5
10

10
10

10

10
10
10
Transient "Stems"
10
-4
10
10
-3
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
Transient "Stems"
10
-2


10
10
10
qDd(tDd)
20
10
30
50
500
Depletion "Stems"
(Boundary-Dominated
Flow Region)
qDdi(tDd)
100
1000
10
10
10
10
50
500
10
20
30
100
-1
10
reD=1x10
-4
-1
[qDdi(tDd)]
-2
10
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
Figure C.10 [qDdi(tDd)], qDd, and qDdi vs. tDd Fractured

well configuration (FcD=1000).
-2
SPE 107967
13

Bounded Elliptical Reservoir (Finite Conductivity: FE = 1)
10
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10

1
0 = 0.25
10
10
3
2
0.50
1.0
1.75

qDd(tDA)
Rate
qDdi(tDA)
Rate Integral
qDdi(tDA)
10
2.0
3.0
10
0 = 0.25
4.0
Depletion "Stems"
Region-Volumetric
Reservoir Behavior)
0 = 5.0
10
10
10
0.75
1.50
10
10

Transient "Stems"
10
-1
-1
-1
0 = 5.0
10
[qDi(tDA)]
10
-2
-2
wellbore
10
10
closed reservoir
boundary (ellipse)
fracture
qDd(tDA)
-3
xf
-3
10
10
-4
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
Dimensionless Time Based on Drainage Area (tDA)
Figure C.11 [qDdi(tDd)], qDd, and qDdi vs. tDd Fractured well configuration elliptical flow model (FE=1).

10
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
0 = 0.25

qDdi(tDA)
0.75 0.50
1.50 1.0
2.0
10
10
10
0 = 5.0
Depletion "Stems"
Region-Volumetric
Reservoir Behavior)
-1
10
[qDi(tDA)]
-2
10
closed reservoir
boundary (ellipse)
y
wellbore
10
10
4.0
0 = 5.0
10

qDd(tDA)
Rate
qDdi(tDA)
Rate Integral
3.0
10
10

1.75
10
10
Transient "Stems"
10
10
-1
-2
fracture
qDd(tDA)
-3
10
xf
-3
10
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-4
14
SPE 107967

10
10
-4
10
-3
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
0.75 0.50

10
Transient "Stems"
(Transient Flow Region Well Centered in a Bounded Elliptical Reservoir
Analytical Solutions: FE = 100)
qDdi(tDA)
0 = 0.25
10
-2
1.0
1.75 1.50
qDd(tDA)
Rate
qDdi(tDA)
Rate Integral
2.0
3.0
10
4.0
10
10
0 = 5.0
Depletion "Stems"
Region-Volumetric
Reservoir Behavior)
0 = 5.0
10
10
-1
10
[qDi(tDA)]
-2
wellbore
10
10
closed reservoir
boundary (ellipse)
-1
-2
fracture
qDd(tDA)
-3
b
10
xf
-3
10
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-4
10
10
-4 0.25
10
qDdi(tDA)
0.50
1.50

-3
0 = 0.25
0.75
10
10
1.0
1.75
2.0
3.0
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
Transient "Stems"
(Transient Flow
Region - Analytical
Solutions: FE = 1000)
qDd(tDA)
Rate
qDdi(tDA)
Rate Integral
10
4.0
10
10
0 = 5.0
5.0
Depletion "Stems"
Region-Volumetric
Reservoir Behavior)
0 = 0.25
10
10
[qDi(tDA)]
-1
10
-2
10
closed reservoir
boundary (ellipse)
y
wellbore
-1
-2
fracture
qDd(tDA)
10
-3
b
10
xf
-3
10
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-4

(Blasingame) SPE 107967

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

(Blasingame) SPE 107967

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SPE 107967

Application of the -Integral Derivative Function to Production Analysis

prefer the "pressure" analysis format because of the similarity

The definitions of the component functions used in Eqs. 1 and

The associated definitions of these functions are provided in

This paper provides the following contributions for the

In addition to the definitions of the the-integral derivative

This work introduces the new -integral derivative functions

The application (i.e., the use of [qDdi(tDd)] or [pDdi(tDd)]) is

D. Ilk, N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, S. Amini, and T.A. Blasingame

derivative function are compared with the results from

For this analysis, we have chosen to use the rate decline

Example 1 Exploration Well (Southeast Asia)

Dimensionless Material Balance Decline Time, tDd,bar=NpDd/qDd

Schematic of [qDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured and

Next we consider the pressure transient analysis analog case

Oil Flowrate, qo, STB/D

Schematic of Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Functions

Wellbore Flowing Pressure, pwf, psia

Dimensionless Rate Integral Derivative Function, qDdid

Production Time, t, hours

Figure 3 Example 1: Time-Pressure-Rate (TPR) history plot.

Fetkovich-McCray Rate Function Type Curve

Dimensionless Material Balance Decline Time, tDd,bar=NpDd/qDd

Schematic of [pDdi(tDd)] vs. tDd Unfractured and

Application of the -Integral Derivative Function to

Dimensionless Rate Decline Functions

Dimensionless Pressure Integral Derivative Function, pDdid

Legend: qDd(tDd), qDdi(tDd), and [qDdi(tDd)] versus tDd,bar

Figure 4 Example 1: Diagnostic log-log plot (dimensionless

The diagnostic log-log plot shown in Fig. 4 is excellent we

Application of the -Integral Derivative Function to Production Analysis

Once we have identified the appropriate (i.e., likely) reservoir

(Bounded Circular Reservoir Case)

Production Time, t, hours

In Fig. 5 we find excellent agreement between the data and the

Wellbore Flowing Pressure, pwf, psia

Figure 6 Example 2: Time-Pressure-Rate (TPR) history plot.

Since this well is hydraulically fractured, we use fractured

Dimensionless Rate Decline Functions

Analysis Results: Southeast Asia Oil Well

Wellbore Flowing Pressure, pwf, psia

Oil Flowrate, qo, STB/D

Example 2 East Texas Gas Well (SPE 84287)

obtained excellent data matches using the model for an

Gas Flowrate, qg, MSCF/D

Model Legend: Elliptical Flow Type Curve - Fractured

Legend: qDd(tDd), qDdi(tDd), and [qDdi(tDd)] versus tDd,bar

qDd(tDd) Data Function

[qDi(tDd)] Data Function

Figure 7 Example 2: Diagnostic log-log plot (dimensionless

However, as we observe from the fractured well model, this

D. Ilk, N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, S. Amini, and T.A. Blasingame

Example 3: Mexico Very Tight Gas (long production)

The objective of this example is to apply and validate the

Legend: qDd(tDA), qDdi(tDA), and [qDdi(tDA)] versus tDA

[qDi(tDA)] Data Function

Dimensionless Decline Time Based on Drainage Area (tDA)

Figure 10 Example 3: Diagnostic log-log plot (dimensionless

The final step in our analysis is to generate the pressure and

Gas Flowrate, qg, MSCF/D

qDd(tDA) Data Function

Example 3: Time-Pressure-Rate (TPR) history plot.