URTeC: 1965548

Production Analysis and Forecasting of Vaca Muerta Shale Wells in

Argentina: Case History-Based
Herrero F., Maschio L., Maria S., Pluspetrol
Copyright 2014, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2014-1965548
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 25-27 August 2014.
The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract
Vaca Muerta is an organic shale and one of the main source rocks for conventional reservoirs in the Neuquen Basin
in Argentina. According to the 2013 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) report, Vaca Muerta
could produce 16 billion barrels of liquids and 308 TCF of gas (EIA, 2013). Up to the time of writing, only about
200 wells have been drilled to test Vaca Muerta, over 90% of them vertical.
Multiple wells drilled by Pluspetrol in different Neuquen basin locations were selected for this paper to explore and
test Vaca Muerta productivity. A wide range of data was gathered. Some examples are: a full set of logs, wet
samples, petrophysic and geomechanic tests in cores, geochemistry in cut samples and PVT fluid samples. Most of
the wells were completed with two fracture stages while some others had only one stage in order to test the most
prolific horizons individually.
During the production testing, a careful and detailed oriented surveillance program was designed to gather high
quality data. Between 14 and 20 months of daily rates and pressure information is available. Additionally, several
pump in/flow back tests and extended build ups (more than 40 days) were performed on these wells. Some of these
wells flow naturally while others had an artificial lift installed providing information on different production
conditions.
This information was combined to make a full reservoir characterization. A full rate transient analysis workflow was
carried out in six wells. This includes straight line plots, type-curve analysis, analytical model history matching and
probabilistic forecasting. In addition, pressure dependent permeability and average reservoir pressure increase due to
fracture injection fluids effects on well performance will be discuss in this paper. Finally, a set of conclusion with
the findings are presented. The aim of this paper is to summarize the analysis and findings to characterize Vaca
Muerta as an unconventional reservoir.
Introduction
The importance of unconventional reservoirs to successfully supply the current and constantly increasing need of
energy of the world is well recognized. Multiple energy outlooks from the major E&P companies place the
unconventional reservoir as one the key sources to supply the world energy demand (Exxon Mobile Outlook of
energy, 2014). The EIA estimates a remarkable 7,299 TCF of gas and 345 billion barrels of oil available as
unconventional world technically recoverable resources (EIA, 2013).
Argentina has six productive basins (Legarreta and Villar, 2012) currently producing about 4.3 BFC/d of gas and
571,278 bbl/d of oil (IAPG data base, 2013). The Neuquen Basin is one of the most important, producing about 53%
of the total gas and 40% of total oil production within the country. According to the EIA, Argentina has worldclass shale gas and shale oil potential, possibly the most prospective outside North America, primarily within the
Neuquen Basin (EIA, 2013). One of the most prolific, extensive and with the greatest quality source rock in the

URTeC 1965548

Neuquen Basin is Vaca Muerta. It is estimated that Vaca Muerta has 308 TCF of risked technically recoverable gas
and more than 16 billion barrels of risked technically recoverable oil (EIA 2013). Over the last five years multiple
companies have been exploring Vaca Muerta. Today, there are about 200 wells on production targeting Vaca
Muerta, however only a few of them are horizontal.
Pluspetrol has been one of the first companies that initiated the exploration for unconventional resources within
Argentina. First exploring tight gas reservoirs and then shale oil and shale gas. Six of the wells drilled in this
exploration campaign were selected for this paper.
Vaca Muerta Description
Vaca Muerta is a world class source rock and shale reservoir in the Neuquen Basin in Argentina. This shale
formation was deposited during the Tithonian, late jurassic transgression that took place in the Neuquen Basin
(Fernandez Badessich and Berrios, 2012). It covers most of the basin with 7,400,000 acres with thickness ranging
from 100ft to over 1,500ft. Vaca Muerta generation efficiency as source rock is well documented (Cruz et al, 1996;
Cruz et al, 1996) having kerogen type II oil and gas prone (Villar et al, 2006). The TOC ranges from 2% to 12% in
the base. The shale maturity measured by the vitrinite reflectance ranges from Ro less than 0.5% to Ro over 3%.
Thus, this shale play contains all the fluid windows raging from black oil to dry gas.
The project
Min

Average

Max

Unit

Pluspetrol started an ambitious project to explore Vaca Muerta Top VM

ft
9,807
9,971
10,135
in the concessions where the company operates. Multiple Thickness
ft
328
361
410
vertical wells were drilled to test Vaca Muerta in different Porosity
5%
6.5%
8%
locations within the basin. This information was used to build a Matrix Perm
nd
60
134
218
geological and geomechanical model aiming to find a sweet TOC
0.8%
3.5%
10%
II
spot to drill the first horizontal production pilot. To accomplish Kerogen type
%
0.78
0.85
0.94
this objective, data was gathered from every single domain. A Ro
0.23
0.26
0.28 Mpsi
full set of specialized logs were run in each well. From a Vstatic
Gstatic
0.66
1.6
8.45 MPsi
reservoir and production stand point, a comprehensive
Mpsi
Estatic
1.25
4
3.29
surveillance program was designed to obtain high quality
psi/ft
Poral
Pressure
gradient
0.74
0.78
0.82
production and pressure data. This information is key to
23
24
26 API
characterize this kind of reservoirs that stay long periods in API
scf/stb
GOR
200
225
250
transient flow.
Lab
petrophysic and
geomechanic
characterization was performed on three cores. Two PVT
Table 1: typical reservoir parameters
samples were analyzed showing a crude oil of 26 API for Block
A and 23 API for Block B. Different pumping-in decline pressure analysis were executed in each well to calibrate
geomechanical and reservoir models. All of the wells were stimulated with one or two hybrid hydraulic fractures.
Between 250,000 lb and 800,000 lb per stage was usually pumped depending on pay interval. Microseismic
monitoring was performed in three of the six wells. Multiple production loggings (PLT) were ran in each well to
characterize each part of the production life, ranging from early PLTs during stimulation fluid flow back, to PLTs in
the later part of the production history. Table 1 summarizes typical parameters obtained from well measurements in
Vaca Muerta.
In this paper all the available information including more than two years of production data from Pluspetrols shale
oil vertical wells is analyzed to determine the main reservoir parameters and estimated ultimate recovery.
Methodology
It is well documented that analyzing shale oil wells performance has proven to be challenging (Clarskson et al.
2010). There are multiple variables and effects that have to be evaluated together in order to fully understand a shale
as reservoir. Some challenges associated with these reservoirs are: long transient periods due to extremely low
permeability, complex reservoir behavior, dual porosity effects, multi-layer behavior, multi-phase flow, stresssensitive permeability, production from multiple intervals and massive hydraulic fracture stimulations performed.

URTeC 1965548

Classic material balance methods do not apply for unconventional reservoirs due to the long periods of well closures
that would be necessary to estimate reservoir pressure (Lee et al. 2010). There are three methods most widely used
to analyze well performance from unconventional wells and calculate Estimate Ultimate Recovery (EUR):
I. Decline curve analysis (DCA)
II. Rate transient analysis (RTA)
III. Complex numerical simulation
I. Decline curve analysis (DCA)
These models were originally thought to handle wells that were producing under a boundary dominated flow regime.
Shale reservoirs usually stay in transient flow for long times (Lee and Sidle, 2010). Thus, experience with the
application of DCA to shale gas/oil reservoirs has shown that misleading conclusions may be extracted from
traditional models, such as Arps. Several tailored models were developed to perform decline curve analysis to
unconventional wells. Some examples of these adapted models are: Stretched Exponential Model (Valko and Lee,
2010), Power Law Model (Ilk et al, 2008) and Duong Model (Duong, 2011).
DCA is a relatively accurate method for EUR calculation if enough production data is available. Due to its
simplicity, it is an excellent method when a quick production forecast estimate is required and accuracy is not the
main concern. However, due to its empirical nature, these models do not add in gaining insights about the reservoir
parameters estimation. Furthermore, EUR forecasting may not valid if well operating conditions change in the
future, for example assessing the EUR increase of installing an electrical submergible pump.
II. Rate Transient Analysis (RTA)
As stated by Clarkson, RTA involves the interpretation of characteristic flow regimes, which evolve during
production of a well, to extract quantitative information about hydraulic fracture and reservoir properties. The
procedure and theory for RTA is analogous to pressure transient analysis (PTA); in fact, modern concept of RTA is
to analyze production data like one would a long term drawdown test, which is a classic well test procedure
(Clarkson 2011). Reservoir parameters can be extracted from RTA. Furthermore, effects such as pressure dependent
permeability and dual porosity behavior can be accounted for in the analysis. Moreover, these methods can history
match and forecast wells with changing operating conditions, such as installing artificial lift in the life of the well.
III. Complex Numerical Models
Complex numerical reservoir and fracture simulations in shale reservoirs have been documented by Cipolla (Cipolla
et al., 2009; Cipolla et al., 2011). These models are based on a discrete gridding of the entire reservoir, including the
network fractures, matrix blocks and unstimulated areas. The amount of information and data needed to populate
these models is usually massive and often unknown. Furthermore, even in the hypothetical case that all the
information is available, building and history matching with these models is extremely time consuming.
Nevertheless, if all the information and computing capabilities needed to build these complex models are available,
then they are an excellent and reliable tool to understand and predict reservoir behavior.
From the three methods listed above, RTA is selected for this paper. The next section describes the workflow used
in all six wells analyzed and the two shown in this paper. The workflow is a modified version of the one proposed
by Clarkson (Clarkson et al., 2011).
Workflow description
The workflow applied in this study can be described in the following five steps: data validation, flow regime
identification with type curves, parameter extraction from straight line plots, analytical model calibration and
probabilistic forecasting.
1) Data validation (QA/QC):
A detailed and careful quality control and quality assurance on gauge data and reported volumes is needed before
any analysis is performed. Additionally, production data was interpolated and smoothed out using a locally weighted

URTeC 1965548

scatter plot smoothing (LOESS) algorithm (Cleveland et al., 1979). This procedure simplifies the identification of
the flow regimes.
2) Flow regime identification with type curves:
Type curve matching involves fitting production history data with theoretical and/or empirical solutions to flow
equations that are cast in dimensionless variable format. Fetkovich (Fetkovich et al., 1980) was the first to extend
the concept of using type curves, previously only used in well testing analysis, to the analyzed production data.
Several modern type curves were later developed (Blasingame et al. 1991; Agarwal-Gardner et al., 1998). These
type curves are similar to Fektovich type curves. However, they also incorporate the flowing pressure data along
with production rates and they use analytical solutions to calculate hydrocarbons-in-place. In addition to flow
regime identification, reservoir parameters such as fracture half length, permeability and Original Oil In Place
(OOIP) can be extracted from type curve analysis.
In this paper, Blasingame type curve will be used for flow regime identification. Figure 1 shows Blasingame type
curve matching to two synthetic cases. Figure 1a shows a well that begins producing under linear flow and later
changes to boundary dominated flow. A slope of -1/2 is characteristic of a linear flow, whereas a slope of -1 is
characteristic of boundary dominated flow. Figure 1b shows a pseudoradial period between the linear (beginning)
and boundary dominated flow (end). This pseudoradial flow can be observed as an upward deviation from the -1/2
slope. Figures 1c and 1d shows a schematic of the models used to build these synthetic cases. In the first well,
reservoir with (xe) equals total fracture length (2xf) and therefore only linear flow is possible during the transient
period. In the second well, xe is bigger than 2xf and therefore there exist flow from outside the tip of the fracture
allowing for a period of pseudoradial flow. These same models will be used for the analysis presented in this paper
assuming a bounded drainage area with an effective permeability and a principal planar fracture.

-1/2 slope

-1/2 slope

-1 slope
-1 slope

Pseudoradial

1a

1b

1c

1d

Figure 1a and 1b show two synthetic cases analyzed with Blasingame type curve. Case 1a represents a well where
flow regime goes from linear to boundary dominated. Case 1b represents a well where there is a pseudoradial
period between linear and boundary dominated flow. Figures 1c and 1d show the schematic view of the wells used
to generate cases 1a and 1b respectively. In figure 1c the fracture length is equal to the reservoir extension, whereas
in figure 1d fracture length is smaller than reservoir extension.

URTeC 1965548

3) Parameter extraction from straight line plots:

Pressure response in a fractured well can be described by the diffusivity equation for linear flow (Bourdet et al,
2001):


 = 4.064

 

 + 

This equation can be simplified by the following expression:

 !"
#

= $ + %

The linear flow chart, plots normalized pressure [(Pi Pwf)/q] versus square root time. Linear flow data should
appear as a straight line on this plot and m and b can be extracted from the slope and y-intercept of this straight line.
A useful parameter for linear flow characterization is the Linear Flow Parameter (LFP) defined by the following
expression (modified from Anderson et al., 2010):
'() = 4  
According to the previous equations, LFP is related with m by the following expression:
'() =

*  

$ +

Therefore, knowing the values of viscosity, porosity, fluid volumetric factor and total compressibility, LFP can be
estimated from the linear flow chart.
Another important parameter to characterize linear flow is the apparent skin (s) which accounts for all the pressure
losses inside the fracture, such as damage in the fracture face, finite conductivity behavior, etc. This parameter can
be related with b by the following equation:
, =

- % 


Figure 2 shows the linear flow chart for two synthetic cases. Both show a first period of linear flow followed by a
period of boundary dominated flow, which can be identified as an upward deviation from the straight line. The plot
on the left shows how a well with infinite conductivity and no pressure loss inside the fracture looks like on this type
of chart. The plot on the right illustrates a y-intercept value different than cero, which is characteristic of wells with
significant pressure drop inside the fracture. A more detailed description of wells with apparent skin can be found in
the literature (Nobakht and Mattar 2012).

Figure 2: Two synthetic cases analyzed with the linear flow chart. The plot on the left shows a cero Y-intercept
which corresponds to a well with no pressure loss inside the fracture. The plot on the right shows a Y-intercept
which corresponds to a well with a considerably pressure loss inside the fracture.

URTeC 1965548

The other straight line plot that will be used in this step is the Flowing Material Balance (FMB). This method is
similar to a conventional material balance analysis; however, it requires no shut-in pressure data, except initial
reservoir pressure. Instead, it uses pressure normalized rate and material balance time to create a simple linear plot.
When the well has reached a boundary dominated flow, this trend can be extrapolated to x-intercept to obtain OOIP.
A full derivation of this method can be found in the literature (Mattar and Anderson, 2003).
A drawback of this method is that most of shale
wells may not exhibit boundary dominated flow for
many years. Therefore, it may take too long to
estimate OOIP. If the well is still under transient
flow, the extrapolation of the last trend would yield
a minimum value of fluids in place. Figure 3 shows
an example of a synthetic case. A linear trend can
be seen in the last period of the life of the well. This
trend corresponds to a boundary dominated flow
regime. It can be seen that if the extrapolation is
made too early when the well is still under transient
flow, the estimation of OOIP will be pessimistic.

Early extrapolation

Figure 3: Synthetic case analyzed with flowing material

balance. Linear extrapolation yields OOIP.
4) Analytical model calibration:
Many commercial analytical and numerical simulation tools are available to history match pressure and rates in
shale oil wells by calibration of model inputs. An analytical model was chosen in this work because of its speed and
easiness to perform a history match and sensitivities compared to numerical models. Considering that reservoir
pressure was never below bubble point and water rates become negligible after the first weeks of production, only
single phase flow occurred in most of the life of the wells. Thus, the analytical model is an accurate tool for this kind
of wells.
5) Probabilistic forecasting:
As pointed out by Anderson, if a well is flowing under boundary dominated flow, RTA would provide a reliable
characterization of hydrocarbon pore volume. However, when long-term transient flows are present, there is
significant uncertainty associated with the OOIP, and, although the quality of the history match may be excellent,
the solution may be non-unique. For this reason, a probabilistic approach was selected for production forecasting.
The probabilistic approach differs from the conventional deterministic approach in which a single best fit model
is the result. The probabilistic approach acknowledges that there may be multiple sets of input model parameters for
which a satisfactory history match is available and provides multiple realizations for both the input and output
terms using a simplified uncertainty model (Anderson and Liang, 2011).
This workflow was applied to six vertical wells producing from Vaca Muerta. The next section will show the
analysis on two of these wells in detail.

Well A: Workflow Description Step by Step

Well A was hydraulically fractured with hybrid fluid in 2 stages. A stimulation of 650,000 gal of fluid and 860,000
lb of Bauxite proppant at 60 bbl/min was pumped. After the stimulation, the well was opened to flow back using a
2mm choke. Since then, it has been producing by natural flow on a 2mm choke for 16 months.

URTeC 1965548

1.

Data validation (QA/QC):

Figure 4 shows production rate and estimated Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP). Rate data was normalized for
confidentiality; values of 100 represent the maximum production. The first 10 days the well was flowing through
casing. Then, the well was shut in to install the 2 7/8 production tubing. After day 30 the well started producing
through tubing. Pressure values from day 11 until day 30 were interpolated because pressure could not be measured
during the first shut in. For the rest of the life of the well, BHP was estimated from wellhead pressures using
Hagedorn and Brown correlation (Hagedorn et al., 1965). This correlation was calibrated using multiple dynamic
gradients measured during the production life. A downhole gauge was installed before starting the buildup period at
day 300. Unfortunately, due to gauge problems only the first 13 days of the buildup period were recorded. The rest
of the BHP during build up was calculated from wellhead pressure measurements.
Rates were measured using a gauge tank. Thus, LOESS algorithm was applied on oil production data to interpolate
and smooth the data. Water production only lasted for the first three days and became negligible after the fourth day
of production through tubing. Only about 14% of the water injected during fracture treatment was recovered. Gas
rates were measured during the first 50 days of production showing an average GOR of 225 scf/stb. For the rest of
the production history the GOR was assumed constant. This is a valid assumption considering that the oil bubble
point (Pb) is 1650psi, well below the ~4000 psi bottomhole flowing pressure.
Normalized Rate
200

BHP (psi)
10000

180

Normalized Oil Rate

9000

160

Normalized Water Rate

8000

140

Bottom Hole Pressure

7000

120

6000

100

5000

80

4000

60

3000

40

2000

20

Days

1000
0

31

61

91

121

151

181

211

241

271

301

331

361

391

421

451

481

Figure 4: 16 months of production history for well A.

2.

Flow regime identification:

The different flow regimes were analyzed using the Blasingame type curve (Figure 5). The first 10 days of flowback
through casing data is not shown. Three different flow periods can be identified:
I.

II.
III.

In the first ten days an upward deviation from the -1/2 slope is seen, which can be related to a
supercharging effect due to fracture fluids injection. No bi-linear flow is observed in the early days of
production.
Then, between the 10th day and the buildup, a clear linear flow with -1/2 slope is seen.
After the buildup, the -1/2 trend is lost. However, after 2 months of production, the slope resumes to
the previous -1/2 slope.

Blasingame type curve analysis suggests that Well A is still under transient linear flow regime, and no effects of
boundary dominated flow have been observed so far.

URTeC 1965548

Post build up period

-1/2 slope

First ten days of production

3.

10 months

Figure 5: Blasingame type curve analysis for well A. Ten months of linear flow can be seen
before build up. Post build up data resumes to the original linear trend after 2 months of
production
Parameter extraction from linear flow plots:

The linear flow chart is shown in Figure 6a. This plot suggests that this well is still in linear flow, being consistent
with Blasingame type curve analysis. From the slope of this chart, the LFP is estimated to be 22,383 md0.5ft2.
Unfortunately, there is no independent measure of permeability or fracture half length, to estimate one of these
variables separately. However the LFP is used to compare wells rather than each individual value. The Y-intercept
in Figure 6a is almost cero, suggesting a high fracture conductivity.
Material balance plot is shown on Figure 6b. Since the well is still in transient flow, there is no stabilized linear
trend. Extrapolation of the last trend gives an estimated OOIP of 340 Mstb, which is considered as the minimum
estimate of OOIP. Similarly, using the same principle, the minimum area of investigation drained so far is 6.2 acres.

Figure 6a: Linear flow chart for well A showing

linear flow with small Y-intercept.

Figure 6b: Flowing material balance for well A.

Extrapolation yields a pessimistic value of OOIP
because transient flow is still taking place.

URTeC 1965548

4.

Analytical model calibration:

Parameters extracted from the linear flow plots were used as a starting point for the analytical model calibration.
Additionally, estimates of initial reservoir pressure, porosity, saturations and formation compressibility were
incorporated.
It is expected that a robust reservoir model would replicate real well measurements both during production and build
up period. Figures 7 to 10 show the three iterations done to build such a robust model. The first analytical model was
built doing an automatic history match process to calibrate fracture half length, conductivity, effective permeability
and drainage area as shown in Figure 7 and table 2. It can be observed that although this model achieves a fairly
good match during the drawdown periods, it fails to model the build-up period.
A second iteration was done by trying different and more complex effects such as: dual porosity model, varying skin
with time and pressure dependent permeability. Only pressure dependent permeability effect showed an
improvement in the matching quality. An exponential equation (Pedroza, 1986) was used to account for pressure
dependent effects which relate permeability and pressure by the following expression:
./01 = .2 3

4/02 01

The parameter is known as reservoir compliance. The higher the value, the bigger the pressure dependence
effect. However in spite of incorporating a pressure dependent permeability in the model, it was not enough to
match the buildup pressure measured. The results of the second iteration, where only pressure dependent effect is
used, are shown in Figure 8 and table 2.
A third iteration was done to improve the buildup matching quality. This time, other parameters that at first were
assumed as known and constant, were now allowed to change. It was concluded from this analysis that the only
possible way to match the whole history, including the drawdown and buildup, was by increasing the estimated
initial reservoir pressure by 20%. The result of this analysis is shown in Figure 9 and table 2.
The same conclusion was drawn when the rest of the six wells were analyzed. This includes well B and well C
whose BHP was effectively measured with a downhole gauge, thus a problem related to measures in this well data
was discarded. Therefore, the following questions needs to be answered: Was the initial reservoir pressure
estimation wrong? Or is it possible that fluid volumes injected during fracture treatment could have increased
average reservoir pressure about 20%? In order to answer these questions it is important to bear in mind that the
fluid volume injected in the fracture treatment is anything but small or insignificant. This volume is equivalent to the
cumulative gross production volume of the first two years or about 25% of the EUR of the well. Thus, the injected
volume is not negligible to the reservoir. Additionally, downhole pressure measures just before opening the well
after fracture stimulation was about 20% higher than the original reservoir pressure. At first glance, this pressure
increase was thought to be a local effect in the near wellbore. However, the analysis of production data may suggest
that rather than a local effect, an average pressure increase of 20% is taking place.
Initial formation pore pressure was estimated using data obtained from sonic logs for shale/mudstone rich horizons
from Vaca Muerta and surrounding formations. A gamma ray cut-off is used to exclude sandstone and sandy
horizons in selected intervals for pore pressure prediction. With increasing depth, normal shale/mudstone
compaction will result in increasing velocity. Overpressure methods are based on the under compaction of shales on
overpressure horizons which are indicated by the divergence of sonic data from the virgin shale compaction trend.
These deviations are then related to effective stress and, therefore, to pore pressure. These estimations are calibrated
with pump in decline and pump in flow back tests when available and drilling data such as mud weight, influxes and
losses as well. For the case of this well, a pump in flow back test (Nolte and Smith, 1981) was performed yielding a
fracture gradient of 0.95 psi/ft. Thus, original pore pressure should be below this value and well below the decline
matching value. Reservoir pressure increase in the SRV area will be further reviewed and discussed later.

URTeC1965548

10

Normalized
oil rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

Actual Oil Rate

Analytical Model Oil Rate

Actual BHP

Psi
10000

Analytical Model BHP

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
61

121

181

241

301

361

421

481

61

121

181

241

301

361

421

481

Figure 7: Analytical Model I history match for well A. Oil rates from sandface pressure (left) and sandface
pressure from oil rates (right). BU pressure is not properly matched in this model.
Normalized
oil rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

Psi
10000

Actual Oil Rate

Analytical Model Oil Rate

Actual BHP
Analytical Model BHP

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

61

121

181

241

301

361

421

481

61

121

181

241

301

361

421

481

Figure 8: Analytical Model II history match for well A Oil rates from sandface pressure (left) and sandface
pressure from oil rates (right). BU pressure match is improved in this model, but still no successful match is
achieved.
Normalized
oil rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

Psi
10000

Actual Oil Rate

Analytical Model Oil Rate

Actual BHP
Analytical Model BHP

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

61

121

181

241

301

361

421

481

61

121

181

241

301

361

421

481

Figure 9: Analytical Model III history match for well A. Oil rates from sandface pressure (left) and sandface
pressure from oil rates (right). Successful history match of both drawdown an BU periods.
Initial Pressure

8134 psi

Initial Pressure

8134 psi

Initial Pressure

9800 psi

Porosity

6.5%

Porosity

6.5%

Porosity

6.5%

Net Pay

164 ft

Net Pay

164 ft

Net Pay

164 ft

Oil Saturation

70%

Oil Saturation

70%

Oil Saturation

70%

30%

Water Saturation

30%

Water Saturation

Water Saturation

30%

Form. compressibility

7.3E-06 1/psi

Form. compressibility

7.3E-06 1/psi

Form. compressibility

7.3E-06 1/psi

Effective Permeability

0.0196 md

Effective Permeability

0.0233 md

Effective Permeability

0.0164 md

Fracture half length

Area
Perm Compliance

172 ft
15 acres
0 1/psi

Fracture half length

Area
Perm Compliance

328 ft
15 acre
4E-04 1/psi

Fracture half length

Area
Perm Compliance

Table 2: Matching parameters for models I (left), II (centre) and III (right) Well A

323 ft
15 acre
3.5E-04 1/psi

URTeC 1965548

5.

11

Probabilistic forecasting:

Probability distributions were estimated for each of the variables that involve uncertainty (table 3). Porosity and
saturations distributions were estimated from log and core analysis. Net pay distribution considers uncertainty in
cutoffs and net propped height (total thickness is 350 ft). Formation compressibility distribution was estimated from
geomechanical core analysis. The lower bound of the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV), was estimated from the
flowing material balance of this well and analogs, and the upper bound from microseismic mapping. Flowing
material balance had shown a minimum drainage area of 6.2 acres. Usually this value would have been used as P90
estimated; however analog wells, well B to F, showed areas of investigation from 6.2 up to 14 acres without
reaching boundary dominated flow. Thus, based on the offset wells and knowing that this value is usually
pessimistic it was used as P99.
Reservoir pressure was maxed out at 9,800 psi for the Montercalo run. Any value above this number is impractical
since the BHP measured after stimulation and before flowing back starts was 9800 psi. Finally, it was seen that no
other pressure compliance than 3.5e-4 1/psi would achieve a history match; therefore, this parameter was fixed at
this value for this simulation.
A Montecarlo simulation was run with the input variables showed in table 3. Additionally, effective permeability,
fracture half-length and conductivity were allowed to vary in each Montecarlo iteration to match production rates
and pressures. This means that, in each Montecarlo iteration, a new history match is performed with the analytical
model. Iterations were a successful history match was not achieved were discarded according to a fitting error
criteria. Figures 10 and 11 show the results suggesting a recovery factor between 2% and 6% of OOIP within the
SRV.
Distribution

Initial Pressure

P90

P10

Normal

5%

8%

Net Pay

Normal

98

230

Oil Saturation

Normal

50%

80%

Reservoir Area

ft

100% - Oil Saturation

Form. Compressibility Normal

Lognormal

Perm Compliance

5.8E-06

30

psi

9800

Porosity

Water Saturation

Unit

25
Frequency

Variable

20
15
10
5

9.0E-06 1/psi

9.6

30

3.50E-04

Acres

1/psi

Table 3: Input variables for probabilistic forecast Well A

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Figure 10: Recovery factor histogram for well A

Normalized oil rate

1000
Production history
P90 forecast

100

P50 forecast
P10 forecast
10

1
Year
0,1
-

Figure 11: Probabilistic forecast for well A

10

15

20

25

URTeC 1965548

12

Well B workflow steps

Well B was hydraulically fractured with hybrid fluid in 2 stages; 650,000 gal of fluid and 830,000 lb of bauxite
proppant at 60 bbl/min was pumped.
1.

Data validation (QA/QC):

Figure 12 shows 18 months of production rates and BHP. During drawdown, BHP were estimated using Hagedorn
& Brown correlation calibrated with dynamic gradients measured regularly. Bottomhole and wellhead pressures
during build up were both effectively measured with a downhole and surface gauge respectively. During the first
shut in for tubing installation, wellhead pressures could not be measured; therefore pressure data was interpolated.
Rates were measured similarly to Well A and again, a LOESS smoothing algorithm was run on oil data to
interpolate and smooth out the noise. Also, oil and water rates were normalized for confidentiality. In this case,
water production became negligible after the fifth day of tubing production. Only about 10% of the volume injected
during the fracture treatment was recovered as water production. Gas rates were measured during the first 30 days of
tubing production. It was estimated that an average GOR of 225 scf/stb. As explained in Well A it is reasonable to
assume that this value will remain constant for the rest of the life of the well.
Normalized Rate

BHP (psi)

Normalized Oil Rate

200

10000

Normalized Water Rate

180

Estimated Bottomhole Pressure

160

9000
8000

140

7000

120

6000

100

5000

80

4000

60

3000

40

2000

20

1000

0
1

31

61

91

121

151

181

211

241

271

301

331

361

391

421

451

481

511

541 Days

Figure 12: 18 months of production history for well B

2.

Flow regime identification:

Flow regimes were analyzed using Blasingame type curve (Figure 13). The first 10 days of flowback through casing
data is not shown. There are four different periods shown in this plot:
I.
In the first eight days an upward deviation from the -1/2 slope is seen. This is probably related to a
supercharging effect due to fracture fluids injection. No bi-linear flow is observed in the early days of
production.
II.
Then, during the next 6 month, linear flow with -1/2 slop is seen.
III.
Later, during the last 5 months before the build up, a slope of -1/3 is observed. This slope could be
interpreted as a transition to pseudo radial flow, similar to the example seen in Figure 1. If this trend is
confirmed, effective permeability could be estimated from pseudo radial flow. Assuming that a pseudo
radial period actually existed, Blasingame type curve matching yields an effective permeability of
0.077 md (not shown in figure 13).
IV.
After the buildup, there is no clear slope indication, thus more time is needed to draw further
conclusions.

URTeC 1965548

13

According to this analysis, at the moment of tthe

he build up, this well was producing under transient flow, although it is
not certain if it was still in linear or pseudoradial flow. Post build up data shows no clear trend and more time is
needed to identify flow regime.

Post build up data

-1/2 slope

-1/3 slope
First 8 days of tbg
production

6 months

5 months

Figure 13: Blasingame type curve analysis for well B

B.. A clear period of six months of linear flow is
observed. Later a pseudoradial flow may ta
take place for the following five months.
3.

Parameter extraction from straight line plots:

Figure 14a shows the linear flow chart. Data follows a linear trend; no evidence of boundary dominated flow is seen.
The linear flow parameter is estimated to be 36,316 md05ft. The Y-intercept is small suggesting a high conductivity
acting fracture.
Figure 14b shows material balance plot. A linear extrapolation of the last trend previous to the buildup shows a
minimum OOIP of 700 Mstb. This value corresponds to an area of investigation of 14 acres.

Figure 14a: Linear flow chart. Liner flow is observed

since the beginning of production with a small Yintercept

Figure 14b: Flowing material balance chart. Linear

extrapolation yields a pessimistic OOIP since boundary
dominated flow has not started.

URTeC 1965548

4.

14

Analytical model calibration:

As explained in Well A, multiple iterations were done to develop a robust reservoir model. The first analytical
model was built assuming no pressure dependent permeability and no initial pressure increase due to fracture fluids
injection (figure 15 and table 4). Similarly to well A, matching quality results are poor if both the drawdown and
build up periods are considered.
A second analytical model was built, now including the effects of pressure dependent permeability (figures 16 and
table 4). Although this model showed an important improvement when compared with the first run, build up period
still could not be matched.
Finally, a third model was built setting initial pressure 10% higher than previous estimates. This model achieved a
successful history match of both drawdown and build up periods (figure 17 and table 4). The new pressure value
(0.90 psi/ft) is slightly lower than the value of fracture gradient estimated from a pump in flow back test in this well
before stimulation treatment (0.92 psi/ft). This may seem inconsistent due to the small difference between poral
pressure and fracture gradient. However, it is important to bear in mind that this fracture gradient value corresponds
to the original state of the reservoir (before fluids injection). If poral pressure was increased due to fluids injection,
then the fracture gradient should also have increased according to the stress path of the reservoir.
A more detailed analysis showed that, for this well, there is a range of pressure increase between 6% and 15% that
could yield a successful history match. Similarly, it is possible to perform a history match with permeability
compliance values between 2e-4 and 4.5e-4 1/psi.
Normalized
oil rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Actual Oil Rate

Analytical Mode Oil Rate

Psi
10000

Actual BHP
Analytical Model BHP

8000
6000
4000
2000
Month
2

10

12

14

16

Month

0
0

18

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 15: Analytical Model I history match for well B. Oil rates from sandface pressure (left) and
sandface pressure from oil rates (right). BU pressure is not properly matched with this model
Normalized
oil rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Actual Oil Rate

Analytical Mode Oil Rate

Psi
10000

Actual BHP
Analytical Model BHP

8000
6000
4000
2000
Month

Month
0
2

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

Figure 16: Analytical Model II history match for well B. Oil rates from sandface pressure (left) and
sandface pressure from oil rates (right). BU pressure matching improved with this model.

16

18

URTeC 1965548

15

Oil Rate

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Analytical Mode Oil Rate

Month
0

10

12

14

16

Pressure

Psi
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Actual Oil Rate

18

Actual BHP
Analytical Model BHP

Month
0

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 17: Analytical Model III history match for well B. Oil rates from sandface pressure (left) and sandface
pressure from oil rates (right). Successful BU and drawdown periods with this model
Initial Pressure

8170 psi

Initial Pressure

8170 psi

Initial Pressure

9400 psi

Porosity

6.5%

Porosity

6.5%

Porosity

6.5%

Net Pay

164 ft

Net Pay

164 ft

Net Pay

164 ft

Oil Saturation

70%

Oil Saturation

70%

Oil Saturation

70%

30%

Water Saturation

30%

Water Saturation

Water Saturation

30%

Form. compressibility

7.3E-06 1/psi

Form. compressibility

7.3E-06 1/psi

Form. compressibility

7.3E-06 1/psi

Effective Permeability

0.0356 md

Effective Permeability

0.072 md

Effective Permeability

0.050 md

Fracture half length

Area

Fracture half length

196 ft
Ininite acre

Gamma

0 1/psi

231 ft

Fracture half length

213 ft

Area

Ininite acre

Area

Ininite acre

Gamma

3.5E-04 1/psi

Gamma

2.4E-04 1/psi

Table 4: Matching parameters for models I (left), II (centre) and III (right) Well B

5.

Probabilistic forecasting:

A new set of probability distributions was estimated for well B with similar considerations to well A (table 5).
Effective permeability, fracture half length, conductivity and reservoir compliance were allowed to vary in each
iteration to perform a history match. Similarly to well A, iterations that did not achieved a successful history match
were discarded according a to a fitting error criteria. Figures 18 and 19 show the results. Figure 18 suggest a
recovery factor between 3% and 6% of the SRV.
Distribution

P90

P10

Initial Pressure

Uniform

8500

9400

Porosity

Normal

5%

8%

Net Pay

Normal

98

230

Oil Saturation

Normal

50%

80%

Water Saturation

psi
ft

100% - Oil Saturation

Form. Compressibility Normal

Reservoir Area

Unit

Lognormal

5.8E-06
14

9.0E-06 1/psi
30

Acres

Table 5: Input variables for probabilistic forecast Well B

Frequency

Variable

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

More

Figure 18: Recovery factor histogram for well A

URTeC 1965548

16

Normalized oil rate

1.000
Production History
P90 forecast

100

P50 forecast
P10 forecast

10

Year
0
-

10

15

20

25

Figure 19: Probabilistic forecast for well A

Discussion
It was shown in the examples in Well A and B that in order to achieve a successful history match for the whole
production history including both drawdown and build up periods two effects have to be accounted for:
I. Stress dependent permeability
II. Reservoir average pressure higher than pre-stimulated estimates
Stress dependent permeability is documented and has been
seen in other shales in the US. This effect has been widely
documented in Haynesville (Clarkson et al, 2012; EhligEconomides and Vera, 2013; Thompson et al, 2010;
Okouma et al, 2011). There are also some publications about
this effect in Vaca Muerta (Fernandez Badessich and
Berrios, 2012). In addition to the analysis shown in the
previous section and the publications shown above, two
more statements that support the pressure dependent
permeability hypothesis are shown below.

Permeability
(md)

1
0,1
0,01
0,001
0,0001
1E-05

Net Effective Stress (psi)

1E-06

Figure 20 shows permeability measurement on core plugs

taken from the same wells analyzed in this paper. All the
measures showed a decreasing trend in permeability when
net confined stress is increased.

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Figure 20: Pulse decay permeability measurement in

Vaca Muerta core plugs showing a decline behavior
with net effective stress.

The second statement to support this hypothesis is the production analysis of well D. The full details are not shown
so as not to make this paper so lengthy. This well flowed naturally with a BHP of about 4000 psi during the first 70
days of production. Later on, an artificial lift system was installed reducing its BHP below 1000 psi. Figure 21
shows three history matching performed with analytical models. Only model III incorporates the effect of pressure
dependent permeability.
Model I was built to match the period of natural flow. According to this model, drawdown should have
been smaller for the produced rates in the artificial lift period
Model II was built matching the period of artificial lift flow. This model does not show to be able to
reproduce pressures and rates during the natural flow period.

URTeC 1965548

17

Finally, a third model was built including pressure dependent permeability effects. A reservoir compliance
value of 2e-4 1/psi was used for this model achieving an acceptable matching of both flowing periods. Please
note that the LOESS smoothing algorithm was not run on this well, so there is more scatter in the data.
Psi
10000

Actual BHP
Analytical Model BHP

Psi
10000

Psi
10000

Actual BHP

Analytical Model BHP

Analytical Model BHP

8000

8000

8000

6000

6000

6000

4000

4000

4000

2000

2000

2000

0
1

61

121

181

241

301

361

Actual BHP

0
1

61

121

181

241

301

361

61

121

181

241

301

361

Figure 21: analytical model pressure matching from rate data (Well D). Model I (left) matches only the naturally
flowing period. Model II (centre) matches only the artificial lift period. Model III (right), which accounts for a
pressure dependant permeability, matches both periods.
Once it has been established that a pressure dependent permeability effect is taking place in Vaca Muerta, the next
step is to understand how this affect production forecast. To answer this question, forecasts from models I and II
from well B were compared. The only difference between these models was that model II had incorporated the
effects of pressure dependent permeability. This analysis showed that if natural flowing (without artificial lift) is
assumed for the forecast, both models yield a very similar EUR. There is only a 3% difference in favor of model I.
However, if the forecast was run assuming that an artificial lift system was installed, opposite conclusions can be
extracted. Model I shows that an 86% increase in the 25 years EUR can be obtained by installing an artificial lift
system, whereas in the case of model II only a 23% increase was obtained. This means that with the artificial lift
assumption, model I will be overestimating EUR by a 55%.
The effect of average reservoir pressure increasing in the SRV area after the stimulation treatment was deeply
investigated by the authors of this paper. However, little or no information was found regarding this effect. Thus, the
following question needs to be answered; is it physically possible that fracture injection fluids can increase the
average reservoir pressure in the SRV in about 15% to 25% from the original reservoir pressure? As discussed, it is
important to bear in mind that the fluid volume injected during the fracture treatment is anything but small or
insignificant. This volume is equivalent to the cumulative gross produ
production
ction volume of the first two years or about
25% of the EUR of the well. Furthermore, only less than 14% of this fluid is produced back. Thus, the injected
volume is not negligible to the reservoir and it needs to be considered. To further analyze this topic, a classical and
simple material balance calculation was performed with the aim of understanding if it is possible that the volume
injected during fracture stimulation could increase the average reservoir pressure in the SRV in about 20%. The
following equation was used (Dake, 1978) from where P can be calculated:
6 = 78 6 9

9 =

6
78 6

where V is the pore volume and V the water volume injected. There is considerable uncertainty regarding these
variables, especially pore volume; thus, a probability distribution was estimated for each of them and a Montecarlo
simulation was run. Data from well A was used for this exercise. Table 6 shows the probability distributions
assumed and figure 22 the results of the Montecarlo simulation.

URTeC 1965548

Variable

18

Distribution

P90

P10

Unit

Wi

Deterministic

ct

Normal

9.4E-06

Net Pay

Normal

98

230

ft

Porosity

Normal

5%

8%

9.6

30

acres

Reservoir Area Lognormal

bbl

15,473

1.3E-05 1/psi

Table 6: Input parameters for material balance

Figure 22: Expected pressure increase from fracture

volumes injected.
It can be seen from this analysis that a pressure increase between 6% and 28% over the original pressure prestimulation may be expected due to the fracture volume injected. It is important to remember that the pressure
increase needed to obtain a history match for wells A and B lies within this range (20% and 10%).
Conclusions
Production rates and pressures from six Vaca Muerta vertical wells were analyzed with a multi-step RTA workflow.
The following conclusions were drawn:

The multi-step RTA workflow proved to be a good tool for well performance analysis for Vaca Muerta wells.
Good quality history matches were achieved with analytical models.
All the wells showed high conductive or infinite acting hydraulic fracture stimulations.
None of the wells showed evidence of boundary dominated flow.
The area of investigation ranges between 6 and 14 acres for production histories between 14 and 20 months.
One of the wells showed some evidence of starting a transition to pseudo-radial flow. However, more time is
needed to confirm this hypothesis.
A stress dependent permeability effect seems to be taking place in Vaca Muerta. All wells analyzed needed to
include a stress dependent permeability parameter to successfully history match production. Permeability
compliance values may range between 1e-4 and 4.5e-4.
To successfully history match production rates, all of the wells needed to use an initial reservoir pressure
between 10% and 20% higher than original pre-stimulation estimates.
The hypothesis that the reservoir pressure is increased due to stimulation volumes injected during fracture can
be explained by material balance. At the time of writing this paper further discussion, investigation, analysis
and data gathering is being done to confirm this hypothesis.

Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper would like to thanks the Pluspetrols management for their time to review and permission
to publish this paper. Special thanks to Jose Gildardo Osorio, Marcelo Pomeraniec and Debora Torchinsky for their
comments and Gabriel Weber, Diego Glass, Nestor Javier Fernandez Betria, Matas Podeley, Gonzalo Cabo,
Lisandro Garza and Martin Lederhos for their contributions in this work.
Nomenclature
B
b
BHP
C1
C2
ct
P

Fluid Volumetric Factor,

linear flow chart intercept
Bottom Hole Pressure
Constant
Constant
Total Compressibility, 1/psi
Delta Pressure, psi

URTeC 1965548

19

Delta Volume, ft3

EUR Estimate Ultimate Recovery

Porosity, dimensionless

Permeability Compliance, 1/psi

h
Net pay, ft
Initial Effective Permeability, md
ki
k
Effective Permeability, md
LFP Linear flow parameter, md0.5ft2
m
linear flow chart slope
OOIP Originally Oil In Place, Mstb
Pb
Bubble Point
Pi
Initial Reservoir Pressure, psi
Pwf Bottomhole Flowing pressure, psi
q
oil rate, stb/d
Ro
Vitrinite reflectance, %
t
Time,
s
Apparent Skin, dimensionless
SRV Stimulated Reservoir Volume

Fluid Viscosity, cp
V
Total Pore Volume, ft3
Fracture Half Length, ft
xf

References
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C. Keinsteiber, S.W. and Fussell, D.D. 1998 Analyzing Well Production Data Using
Combined Type Curve and Decline Curve Concepts. Paper SPE 57916 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 27-30 September.
Anderson, D.M., Liang, P. 2011 Quantifying Uncerainty in Rate Transient Analysis for Unconventional Gas Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 145088 presented at the SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition held in The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14-16 June 2011.
Blasingame, T.A., McCray, T.L., Lee, W.J. 1991 Decline Curve Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate
System. Paper SPE 21513 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, 23-24 January 1991
Bourdet D., Johnson P., 2001. Fundamentals of Well Test Design and Analysis. Course notes.
Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P., Erdle, J.C. and Tathed, V. 2009. Modeling Well Performance in Shale-Gas Reservoirs. Paper
SPE 125532 presented at the 2009 SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference held in Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 19-21 October 2009.
Cipolla, C., Weng, X. Mack, M., Ganguly, U., Gu, H., Kresse, O. and Cohen, C. 2011. Integrating Microseismic Mapping
and Complex Fracture Modeling to Characterize Fracture Complexity. Paper SPE 140185 presented at the SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2011.
Clarkson, C.R., Qanbari, F., Nobakht, M., Heffner, L. 2012. Incorporating Geomechanical and Dynamic Hydraulic
Fracture Property Changes into Rate-Transient Analysis: Example from the Haynesville Shale. Paper SPE 162526
presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October
1 November 2012.
Clarkson, C.R. and Pedersen, P.K., 2010. Tight Oil Production Analysis: Adaptation of Existing Rate-Transient Analysis
Techniques, CSUG/SPE 137352
Clarkson, C. R. 2011. Integration of Rate-Transient and Microseismic Analysis for Unconventional Gas Reservoirs:
Where Reservoir Engineering Meets Geophysics. Article published in CSEG Recorder, Dec 2011, pages 44-60.
Cleveland, W. S. 1979. Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 74 (368): 829836.doi:10.2307/2286407. JSTOR2286407. MR0556476.
Cruz, C., A. Boll, R. Gmez Omil, E. Martnez, C. Arregui, C. Gulisano, G. Laffitte, and H. J. Villar, 2002, Hbitat de
hidrocarburos y sistemas de carga Los Molles y Vaca Muerta en el sector central de la Cuenca Neuquina, Argentina:
V Congreso de Exploracin y Desarrollo de Hidrocarburos, Mar del Plata, IAPG, CD-ROM.
Cruz, C.E., Villar, H.J. & Nelson Muoz, G. 1996. Los sistemas petroleros del Grupo Mendoza en la Fosa de Chos
Malal. Cuenca Neuquina, Argentina. In: XIII Congreso Geolgico Argentino y III Congreso de Exploracin de
Hidrocarburos, Buenos Aires, Actas, 1, 4560.
Dake, L. P., 1978. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier Science B.V.
Duong, A. N. 2011. Rate Decline Analysis for Fracture-Dominated Shale Reservoirs. Paper SPE 137748 presented at the
Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary 19-21 October 2010

URTeC 1965548

20

Ehlig-Economides, C., Vera, F. 2013. Diagnosing Pressure-Dependant-Permeability in Long-Term Shale Gas Pressure and
Production Transient Analysis. Paper URTec 1573545 presented at the Unconvetional Resources Technology
Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 12-14 August 2013.
ExxonMobil, The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040, Published on Dec 12, 2013. www.ExxonMobil.com. BP Energy
Outlook 2035, Published on January 2014. bp.com/energyoutlook
Fernandez Badessich, M. and Berrios, V. 2012. Integrated Dynamic Flow Analysis to Characterize an Unconventional
Reservoir in Argentina: the Loma La Lata Case. Paper SPE 156163 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.
Fetkovich, M.J. 1980. Decline curve Analysis Using Type Curves. Paper SPE 4629 Journal of Petroleum Technology,
June 1980
Hagedorn, Alton R., and Kermit E. Brown. 1965. Experimental study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous
Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical Conduits. Journal of Petroleum Technology. p. 475.
IHS Harmony Tutorial.
Ilk, D. Perego, A.D., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A. 2008. Integrating Multiple Production Analysis Techniques to
Assess Tight Gas Sand Reserves: Defining a New Paradigm for Industry Best Practices. Paper SPE 114947 presented
at the CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada 16-19 June 2008.
Ilk, D., Perego, A.D., Rushing, J.A. and Blasingame, T.A., 2008. Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Wells
Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps Decline Curves. Paper SPE 116731
presented at the 2008 Annual Technical Conference and Exposition, Denver, CO 24-24 September
Lee, W.J. and Sidle, R.E. 2010, Gas Reserves Estimation in Resource Plays. SPE 130102 presented at the SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA 23-25 February 2010
Mattar, L. and Anderson, D.M. 2003. A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced Analysis of
Production Data. Paper SPE 84472 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver,
Colorado, USA, 5-8 October 2003.
Legarreta, L. and Villar, H. Petrotecnia magazine August 2012. http://www.petrotecnia.com.ar/facies.pdf
Nobakht, M. and Mattar, L. 2012. Analyzing Production Data From Unconventional Gas Reservoirs With Linear Flow and
Apparent Skin. Paper SPE 137454 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October 2010.
Nolte, K.G., Smith, Michael, B., 1981. Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures. SPE 8297-PA
Okuma, V., Guillot, F., Sarfare, M., Ild, D., Blasingame, T.A. 2011. Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) as a Function of
Production Practices in the Haynesville Shale. Paper SPE 147623 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October 2 November 2011.
Pedroza, O.A, Jr. 1986. Pressure Transient Responses in Stress-Sensitive Formations. SPE 15115-MS presented at the SPE
California Regional Meeting 2-4 April 1986.
Villar, H.J., Legarreta, L., Cruz, C.E., Laffitte, G. & Vergani, G. 2006. Los cinco sistemas petroleros coexistentes en el
sector sudeste de la Cuenca Neuquina: definicin geoqumica y comparacin a lo largo de una transecta de 150 km.
Boletn de Informaciones Petroleras, Cuarta poca, 3, 5066.
United Stated Energy information Administration (EIA), Published on June 13, 2013. www.eia.gov
www.iapg.org.ar
Valko, P.P., Lee, W.J. 2010. A Better Way To Forecast Production From Unconventional Gas Wells. SPE 134231
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19-22 September 2010.
Yilmaz, O., Nur, A., and Nolen-Hoeksema, R. 1991. Pore Pressure Profiles in Fractured and Compliant Rocks. Paper SPE
22232.