SPE 161016

Analysis of Production Decline Characteristics of a Multi-stage Hydraulically

Fractured Horizontal Well in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
Sarath Pavan Ketineni, Turgay Ertekin, SPE, Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, Pennsylvania State
University

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Lexington, Kentucky, USA, 35 October 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Most unconventional gas reservoirs are naturally fractured in nature and exhibit dual porosity characteristics. Hydraulic
fracturing often alters the reservoir parameters around the wellbore, thus, potentially creating a rubble zone (stimulated
reservoir volume-SRV) with distinctly different characteristics when compared to the outer zone. This problem could ideally
be approximated as an equivalent flow problem around a horizontal wellbore in a composite naturally fractured domain.
The computational package developed in the current study could be used in generating forward solutions for prediction of
production transients in hydraulically fractured double porosity reservoirs. Additionally, as a part of an inverse analysis
procedure, using relevant dimensionless parameters, it will be possible to characterize the composite naturally fractured
reservoirs.
A solution to the elliptical flow problem that considers flow into a horizontal wellbore in a truly composite naturally fractured
reservoir has been attempted. Mathieu modified functions were used to solve the elliptical flow problem. Stehfest algorithm is
used for inversion of the Laplace space solutions back to real time domain. This generated solution is validated with other
existing solutions by collapsing it into its subsets given in the literature. Forward solutions are generated for various
dimensionless parameters. A graphic user interface (GUI) has been developed to generate production decline curves.
The interface elliptical coordinate does have a significant effect on the dual porosity signature of production transients in the
case of mobility ratios higher than 10. It is observed that the mobility ratio, diffusivity ratio, storativity ratio, interporosity flow
coefficient ratios of the inner, and outer regions exhibit significant effects on the decline curves experienced by this class of
reservoirs.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing, secondary or tertiary recovery processes like water/steam flooding, in-situ combustion or CO2 miscible
flooding often causes a change in permeability of the region adjacent to the wellbore (Ambastha 1988). Hydraulically
fractured reservoirs are often treated as composite reservoirs with a radial discontinuity owing to finite nature of fracture
propagation.Most shale gas reservoirs are naturally fractured in nature and hence exhibit dual porosity characteristics.
Fractures receive the fluid from matrix and conduct it into the wellbore, and this is guided by the matrix fluid transport
capacity that is referred to as interporosity flow (Warren and Root 1963). Various models (de Swaan 1976; Kazemi 1969;
Warren and Root 1963) have been suggested in the literature for the transfer of fluid steady state, pseudo steady state and
unsteady state methods.
Production decline type curves have been introduced to enable engineers estimate the initial volume of oil/hydrocarbon in
place and calculate recoverable resources until the abandonment conditions are reached. Several authors (Agarwal 1999;
Palacio and Blasingame 1993; Carter 1985; Arps 1956) have worked on developing type curves based on numerical, analytical
and semi-analytical methods.With the advances in technology and increase in demand, the reservoirs which were earlier
considered not economical have started to become economical enough for production. The emphasis in recent times has
shifted to extraction of unconventional resources owing to the volume of resources available.
Elliptical flow model is in general applicable to elliptical shaped reservoirs, fully penetrated by hydraulic fractures, naturally
fractured reservoirs, reservoirs with pronounced anisotropy and horizontal well problems. Prats et al. (1962) used elliptical
flow to describe the flow of compressible fluids at constant pressure from a vertically fractured reservoir. Obut and Ertekin
(1987) generated a composite system solution in elliptical flow geometry. An infinite conducting vertical fracture is analyzed

SPE 161016

in a composite reservoir. The solution obtained involved Mathieu functions and the Laplace space solutions are inverted using
a numerical inversion algorithm suggested by Stehfest (1970).
However, it was Riley et al. (1991), who presented a detailed study on elliptical flow in a vertical hydraulically fractured well
with finite conductivity. Like all other elliptical studies, the reservoir pressure is obtained as a series of Mathieu functions, and
fracture pressure as a series of circular functions. For extremely small values of time, approximate solutions are given and for
all other times, exact analytical solutions are presented. Two flow regimes, namely linear and bilinear, are observed based on
the elliptical conductivity.
More recently, Amini et al. (2007) concluded that elliptical flow is not just a transitional flow regime, but depending on the
reservoir and hydraulic fracture properties, the elliptical flow can last for longer periods. They evaluated the decline curve
characteristics in hydraulically fractured wells in a tight gas reservoir and found that elliptical flow is a dominant flow regime
in low permeability systems.
Alpheus and Tiab (2007) developed an exact analytical solution for elliptical flow in a naturally fractured reservoir. The
pseudo steady state double porosity model as suggested by Warren and Root (1963) is employed in this study. This study
quantifies the anisotropy in naturally fractured reservoirs, where the elliptical flow model is extended to hydraulic fractures
with infinite conductivity.
Brohi et al. (2011) solved a horizontal well problem in composite dual porosity reservoir. They presented a linear composite
model using linear dual porosity model for the inner zone and linear single porosity for the outer region. Type curves are
presented for various cases, and they observed three linear flow periods based on the reservoir parameters assumed. The first
linear flow is from fractures into the wellbore followed by flow from matrix to fracture and the lastly from the outer single
porosity region.
Traditionally, elliptical flow models have been applied to vertical fractures, horizontal wells, anisotropic reservoirs, naturally
fractured reservoirs, composite reservoirs. However there are no existing solutions in literature for flow from a horizontal well
in a truly composite naturally fractured reservoir (where both inner and outer regions are considered to be dual porosity
domains). In this this study, the works of Alpheus and Tiab (2007), and Obut and Ertekin (1987) are used primarily to find an
approximate analytical solution to a horizontal well producing from a composite reservoir where both inner and outer zones
are represented by dual porosity regions.
The genealogy of the analytical solutions available including the analytical solution proposed in this thesis (highlighted in red)
is represented below in Fig. 1.

Single Region!

Single Porosity!
(Ehlig-Economides
1979)!
Double Porosity!
(Da Prat et al. 1981)!

Vertical well!

Composite Region!

Single Porosity!
(Satman et al.
1980)!
Double Porosity!
(Satman 1991)!

Reservoir Diffusivity
Equation!

Single Region!

Horizontal well!

Composite Region!

Figure 1: Genealogy of the Analytical Solutions

Single Porosity!
(Kuchuk and
Brigham1979)!
Double Porosity!
(Alpheus and Tiab
2007)!
Single Porosity!
(Obut and Ertekin
1987)!
Double Porosity!
(Current study
2012)!

SPE 161016

The purpose of the present work is to develop an approximate analytical solution for flow at constant bottom-hole pressure
into a multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal well in a naturally fractured reservoir. Forward solutions (dimensionless
flow rate vs. dimensionless time) are presented for different values of the storativities, interporosity flow coefficients,
mobility, and diffusivity ratios. In the solutions indicated in Fig.1, Ehlig-Economides (1979), Da Prat et al. (1981), Kuchuk
and Brigham (1979), Alpheus and Tiab (2007), Obut and Ertekin (1987) have proposed production transient solutions for a
well producing with constant bottom-hole pressure specification. Satman et al. (1980) and Satman (1991) have proposed
pressure transient solutions, which are inverted to production transient solutions using Duhamel principle for the purposes of
current study.
Mathematical Formulation
Multistage hydraulically fractured horizontal wells in naturally fractured reservoirs can be approximated as composite regions
with inner region, Region 1 represents stimulated reservoir volume (SRV with dual porosity characteristics) and the second
region, Region 2 is the double porosity (naturally fractured) region with different values of permeability and porosity from
those of Region 1 as shown in Fig. 2. Flow geometry suggests that flow into the horizontal well is elliptical in nature with
confocal ellipses representing the isopotentials and orthogonal hyperbolas representing the streamlines.
Elliptical outer boundary

Elliptical outer boundary

Hydraulic
fractures

Rubble zone

Natural fractures

Multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal

well in an elliptical naturally fractured reservoir

Equivalent representation
aa
Equivalent
representation of
ofaahorizontal
horizontalwell
wellinin
composite
composite naturally
naturallyfractured
fracturedelliptical
ellipticalreservoir
reservoir

Figure 2: Equivalent representation of the multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal well in a naturally fractured reservoir

The following are assumptions made in the development of this model:

The reservoir fluid is slightly compressible with single phase flowing in matrix and fracture.
The reservoir is composite in nature with distinct values of porosity, permeability, compressibility, viscosity in each
zone.
Each zone is naturally fractured.
Warren and Root double porosity model is implemented.
The horizontal well of length L completely penetrates the formation with a radius rw is placed on the midplane of the
formation.
Pressure approaches initial pressure in the limit as the distance to the outer boundary approaches to infinity.
The flow is laminar; hence Darcys law is applicable.
There is no flow into the ends of the horizontal well.
Reservoir has a uniform thickness of h.
Schematic representation of the system under consideration is shown in Fig. 3.
!! ! ! Wellbore location
(degenerate ellipse)

Region 2: Naturally Fractured

Region 1: Stimulated reservoir volume

!! ! External boundary

!! ! Interface location

Figure 3: Elliptical coordinate representation

SPE 161016

The governing equations for the double porosity model can be written as:
!!" ! ! !! !!" ! ! !!
!!!
!!!
...........................................................................................................(1)
!
! !! !!
! !! !!
!
!
! !!
! !!
!"
!"
and the mathematical representation of the transfer of the fluid from matrix to fracture can be represented as:
!!! !!!
........................................................................................................................................(2)
!! !!
!
!! ! !!
!"
!
where, subscript m denotes the properties of matrix and f denotes the properties of the fracture and
!! ! ! !
...........................................................................................................................................................(3)
!!
!!
The following dimensionless quantities are defined to transform the Eqs. 2 and 3 into dimensionless form (for constant
bottom-hole pressure specification):
!!! ! !! !
!!" !
..............................................................................................................................................................(4)
!!! ! !!" !
!!" !
!! !

!! !

!!! ! !! !
!!! ! !!" !!

!!!

!! !

!
!!! !"

!"#
!! !!!! ! !!" !

..............................................................................................................................................................(5)

.........................................................................................................................................................(6)
.........................................................................................................................................................(7)

Using the dimensionless quantities for the constant bottom-hole pressure specification, the Eq. 1 transforms into:
!!" ! ! !!" !!" ! ! !!"
! ! ! !!!"
! !!!"
............................................................................................(8)
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!! !!
!! !!
!!!
where:
!! !!
!!
..................................................................................................................................................................(9)
!! !! !!!

!!!"
.......................................................................................................................................(10)
! ! !!" ! !!"
!!!
!!! !!
!!
.......................................................................................................................................................................(11)
!!
Transformation into elliptical coordinates yields us the following equation:
! ! !!" ! ! !!" !!"#!!! ! !"#!!!
!!!"
!!!"
..........................................................................(12)
!
!
!!!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
Now, Eq. 12 represents the elliptical form of Eq. 1
Since the definition of these dimensionless groups incorporates all the independent variables, it is often a practice that these
dimensionless groups are eventually plotted in the final solutions (i.e. pD vs. tD or qD vs. tD). The above Eq. 12 is the most
general form of dimensionless equation representing elliptical flow in a naturally fractured reservoir.
The equations describing the two composite regions are written by analogy. The definitions for the dimensionless parameters
remain the same; however equations are tailored specific to the region.
For the Region 1, Eq. 12 is written with a subscript 1:
! ! !!"! ! ! !!"! !!"#!!! ! !"#!!!
!!!"!
!!!"!
..................................................................(13a)
!
!
! ! !!
! !!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
In Eq. 13a, the parameters !1 and "1 represent storativity ratio and interporosity transfer coefficient specific to Region 1. This
equation is valid in the region ! ! !! ! ! !! (starting from wellbore to the interface)
For Region 2, the equations are written analogously as:
! ! !!"! ! ! !!"! !!!"#!!! ! !"#!!!
!!!"!
!!!"!
................................................................(13b)
!
!
! ! !!
! !!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
The parameters !2 and "2 in Eq. 14a and 14b correspond to the storativity ratio and interporosity transfer coefficient of the
Region 2 and also:
!! !! !!!!! !! !!!
!!
!
................................................................................................................................................(14a)
!! !! !!!!! !! !!!
!!!

SPE 161016

!!!
!!
!!
...............................................................................................................................................(14b)
!!!
!!
where, # represents the diffusivity ratio and M represents the mobility ratio. The equation for Region 2 is valid in the region
!! ! !! ! !!! Thus, Eqs. 13a and 13b together represent the elliptical reservoir model in dimensionless coordinates.

Boundary and Initial Conditions of the Model

There are two fundamental boundary conditions that could possibly be specified at the wellbore, namely constant bottom-hole
pressure specification and constant rate specification. For the current study, constant bottom-hole pressure specification is
adopted.
Constant bottom-hole pressure specification (Dirichlet type boundary condition);
!!"! !! !! !!
where:

!!!!

!!

...................................................................................................................................................(15)

!! ! !!! !!! !! !! !
..............................................................................................................................................(16)
!! ! !!! !!! ! !! !! !
The reservoir is initially assumed to be at a constant pressure pi all throughout the medium. This condition upon translation
into dimensionless pressure yields a zero initial pressure condition which is represented as:
...........................................................................................................................................................(17)
!!"! !! !! !! ! !!!
!!"! !

...........................................................................................................................................................(18)

!!"! !! !! !! ! !!!

At the interface (! ! ! !! ), the solution in pressure must be continuous in nature. The flow entering from one side of the
interface has to be the same on the other side of the interface. Accordingly, it should satisfy the following constraints
(continuity requirement):
!!"! !! ! !! !! ! !!"! !! ! !! !!

.............................................................................................................................(19)

!!!"!
!!!"!
.............................................................................................................................(20)
!! ! !! !! ! !
!! ! !! !!
!"
!"
Since the outer boundary of the system tends to be at infinity, the dimensionless pressure drop at any time on the outer
boundary is zero:
..................................................................................................................................................(21)
!"# !!"! !! !! !! ! !!
!!!

Solutions are generated for constant bottom-hole pressure case as it is the relevant boundary condition for generation of the
rate decline curves.Laplace transformation enables us to remove the time dependency of the problem with the usage of inner
and outer boundary conditions. If p(t) is pressure at any point in the reservoir and a function dependent on time, then the
Laplace transformation is expressed in the following way:
! ! !

! !!" ! ! !"

.........................................................................................................................................(22)

! ! !!"! ! ! !!"! !!!"#!!! ! !"#!!!

!!!"!
......................................................(23)
!
!
! ! !!
! !! !!"!
!
!
!!
!!
! ! ! ! !! !
!
!! ! ! !! ! ! !!
..........................................................................................................................................(24)
!! ! !
!! ! ! ! !! !
substituting Eq. 24 in Eq. 23 will yield:
! ! !!"! ! ! !!"! !!! ! !!"#!!! ! !"#!!!!!"!
..........................................................................................(25)
!
!
!! !
!! !
!
On solving the above equations, one can obtain:
!!"! !!! !! !!! ! !

!!!

!!! !"!! !! !!! !"!! !! !!! ! !!! !"#!! !! !!! !"!! !! !!!

..........................................(26)

Infinite Reservoir case

Application of the Boundary Conditions:
The exact solutions for the given problem are found out by application of boundary conditions on the general solutions for
Regions 1 and 2:

SPE 161016

External boundary condition: (Boundedness condition)

!"# !!"! !!! !! !!! ! ! !
..........................................................................................................................................(27)

!!!

The above condition could be satisfied if and only if B2n =0, as Ce2n approaches infinite value when ! ! ! .This condition
modifies the solution for the second region as shown below:
!!"! !!! !! !!! ! !

!!!

!!! !"#!! !! !!! !"!! !! !!!

...........................................................................................(28)

........................................................................................................................................(29)

!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !!

where:

!!!! !
!!!! !

!!

!!!! !"!!
!!

!
!
!! ! !!!

!!!! !"#!!

.............................................................................................................................................(30)

!
!
!! ! !!!

.............................................................................................................................................(31)

By imposing the interface conditions on Eq. 26 and Eq. 28, one can obtain:
....................................................................................................................................(32)

!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!

where:

!!!! ! !"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

also,
where:

.....................................................................................................................(33)

!!!! ! !"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.....................................................................................................................(34)

!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!

.....................................................................................................................(36)

!!!! ! !!"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

!!!! ! !!"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

!!!! ! !!"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

!!!! ! !!"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.....................................................................................................................(35)

.......................................................................................................................(37)
.......................................................................................................................(38)
.......................................................................................................................(39)

So, the following system of equations is developed:

!!!!
!!!!
!!!! !!!
!!
!!!!

!!!!

!!!! !!! !

...........................................................................................................................(40)

!!!!
!!!!
!!!! !!!
!
The system of equations from Eq. 40 is solved to obtain the values of the Fourier coefficients!!!! ! !!! ! !!! .
The volumetric flow entering the internal boundary from the reservoir is written as:
!!

!!

!!!
!

!"
!"

!!!!

!"

...........................................................................................................................................(41)

In terms of dimensionless coordinates, the Eq. 41 can be written as:

!! !

!
!

!!

!!!"!
!"

!!!!

!"

.........................................................................................................................................(42)

To obtain the dimensionless flow rate in Laplace space, one needs to take derivate of !!"! with respect to ! and evaluate
the value of derivative at wellbore. Then, one obtains:

SPE 161016

!!!"!
!"

!!!!

! !! !!! !"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !! !!! ! !!! !"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !! !!!

................................................(43)

Substituting Eq. 43 in Eq. 42 results in:

!! !

!
!

!!

!!! !"!! !! ! !!! ! !!! !"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !! !!! !"

........................................................................(44)

From McLachlan (1964), the following property is considered:

!!

!"!! !! !!! !" !

! !!!!
!
! !

..........................................................................................................................................(45)

Substituting Eq. 45 in Eq. 44 yields:

!! !

!
!!!

!!!!

!!

!!! !"!! !! ! !!! ! !!! !"#!! !! ! !!!

............................................................................................(46)

Finite Outer Boundary

Boundary conditions: The exact solution for the pressure is obtained by application of appropriate boundary conditions at the
inner boundary and outer boundary. The interface conditions enable us to calculate the Fourier coefficients.
External boundary conditions: (in Laplace space)
No flow outer boundary condition
!!!"!
!! !! !
! ! ....................................................................................................................................................(47)
!"
!!!!
Constant pressure outer boundary specification:
!!"! !! !! !
!!
..................................................................................................................................................(48)
!!!!
The imposition of interface condition yields:
!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!

.............................................................................................................(49)

where,

!!!! ! !"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

!!!! ! !"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.............................................................................................................................(50)
.............................................................................................................................(51)

!!!! ! !!"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.............................................................................................................................(52)

!!!! ! !!"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.............................................................................................................................(54)

!!!! ! !!"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.............................................................................................................................(53)

!!!! ! !!"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.............................................................................................................................(55)

!!!! ! !!"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

!!!! ! !!"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

.............................................................................................................................(56)
.............................................................................................................................(57)

No flow external boundary:

The external boundary condition (Eq. 47) when implemented yields:

!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!

................................................................................................................................................(58)

where,

!!!! ! !"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

!!!! ! !"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

Constant pressure external boundary:

.............................................................................................................................(59)
.............................................................................................................................(60)

SPE 161016

The external boundary Eq. 48 when implemented results in:

!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!

.................................................................................................................................................(61)

where,

!!!! ! !"#!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

!!!! ! !"!! !! ! !!! !"!! !!! !!! !

................................................................................................................................(62)
................................................................................................................................(63)

Results and Dicsussion

Validation
The closed forms of solutions are developed for a horizontal well located in a composite naturally fractured reservoir. The
current model is validated with solutions available in the literature. The problem is collapsed to its subsets and the solutions
generated are validated with the available published data in literature.
Case 1: Validation with data from Obut and Ertekin (1987)
Obut and Ertekin (1987) developed closed form solutions for the elliptical flow model in a composite reservoir. By
collapsing the double porosity charactertistics to single porosity region, the composite, naturally fractured reservoir problem
collapses to composite single porosity case. Infinite outer boundary is considered for validating the results. The results thus
obtained seem to be in exact agreement as indicated in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the dots represent the data points generated from Obut
and Ertekin (1987) model, and the solid line represents the data obtained from the current formulation.

Figure 4: Comparison of data with Obut (1987) Study

Figure 5: Comparison of data with Alpheus(2007) study

Case 2: Validation with data from Alpheus and Tiab (2007)

The model is collapsed to simple double porosity region, .i.e. the model of Alpheus and Tiab (2007). The current model
predicts the values of qD with an approximate error of 10% between the times tD = 4 to tD=2000. At later times, predictions
seem to be in line with Alpheus study. This is evident from Fig. 5, that at late times, the solution predicted by the current
model lies in exact agreement with the Alpheus model. The reference model predictions are depicted by blue dots and the data
from the current model is plotted as the black solid line.
Case 3: Validation with data from Kuchuk and Brigham (1979)
In addition to the aforementioned models, further checks are conducted by collapsing the current model to a homogeneous
reservoir model. The model could be collapsed to homogeneous case by equating diffusivity and mobility ratios to unity and
replacing s*f(s) by s in the problem formulation. Thus the model should be able to predict the results generated by Kuchuk
(1979) study. Comparative study is presented in Fig. 6. From the results generated, it is evident that the model provides an
exact match with the data from literature.
A closer look at these figures indicates that consistently, better
agreements have been obtained for larger time values. Thus it
could be concluded with confidence that the model is able to
predict accurate values for dimensionless flow rates at various
tD values for horizontal well configurations.
In order to establish the validity of the current model,
comparisons are drawn with the well-known radial solutions
by collapsing the current model to be applicable to radial flow
around a vertical well; the results are indicated in Figs. 12
through 15 in the Appendix A.

Figure 6: Comparison of data with Kuchuk(1979) study

SPE 161016

The following example case is simulated to illustrate the decline periods observed in a horizontal well producing from a
composite naturally fractured formation
Table 1: Reservoir properties assumed in generation of Fig. 7
200

Matrix permeability of Region 1, km1(mD)

1.33E-06

Viscosity of Region 1, 1 (cp)

1.3

Fracture porosity of Region 1, !f1

0.05

Matrix porosity of Region 1, !m1

0.45

Matrix compressibility of Region 1, cm1

1.00E-06

Fracture compressibility of Region 1, cf1

1.00E-06

Fracture spacing of Region 1, Wf1

Fracture permeability of Region 2, kf2

20

Matrix permeability of Region 2, km2

1.33E-05

Viscosity of Region 2, 2

1.3

Fracture porosity of Region 2, !f2

0.005

Matrix porosity of Region 2, !m2

0.495

Matrix compressibility of Region 2, cm2

1.00E-06

Fracture compressibility of Region 2, cf2

1.00E-06

Fracture spacing of Region 2, Wf2

3.1627

Length of the horizontal well, L (ft)

1500

Wellbore radius, rw (ft)

0.25

10

10
q,STB/D

Fracture permeability of Region 1, kf1 (mD)

! =0;
w
! =4;

2
3

10

M=10;
"=1;
# =0.1;
1
# =0.01;
2
$ =10-9;
1
$ =10-8

5
2

10

10

6
0

10

10

10

t,sec

10

15

10

Figure 7: q vs. t for a horizontal well producing from a composite

naturally fractured reservoir example case

The log-log plot of flow rate against time plotted in Fig. 7 yields us with crucial deductions about the model. There are 6
kinds of decline periods. Period 1 describes the inner region fracture linear flow which extends for a very short time (in few
seconds to few hours). Period 2 depicts the inner region fracture boundary dominated flow and interval 3 indicates that
production from the inner matrix has started and is linear in nature. The outer fracture linear flow and inner region matrix and
fracture boundary dominated flow could be observed in period 4. Interval 5 indicates that production must have started from
the outer region matrix blocks after having felt the fracture boundaries in the outer region, and finally period 6 indicates the
formation linear flow where all the flow elements contribute to flow. A rather low interporosity values has been considered to
enhance the transition zone characteristics. The sensitivity of the model to each of the dimensionless parameters is explained in
Appendix B.

Figure 8: Tree of forward solutions generated

10

SPE 161016

The forward solutions (as presented in Fig. 8) are generated and the conclusions derived from these are presented under the
summary and conclusions.
Numerical Example
The following example is considered to validate the type curve data with data from a commercial numerical simulator
CMG IMEX*:
The sample data set that has been used in simulations is indicated in Table 4 of Appendix A. An inner crushed zone is
simulated by changing the properties (fracture spacing, fracture permeability, matrix and fracture porosity) of grid blocks
surrounding the wellbore such that, the inner zone represents the stimulated reservoir volume. As it can be observed from Fig.
9, the inner zone takes the shape of nearly an ellipse.
The screen shot of the results as generated by the numerical model is attached below for visualization of the model.

Figure 9: Screenshot of the CMG IMEX model used for

validation.

Figure 10: Screenshot of the CMG IMEX pressure

transient data at the end of the run

The data set comprised of randomly assigned values, and corresponding dimensionless values are found and fed to the
analytical solution to generate an appropriate type curve.
The corresponding dimensionless values are tabulated in Table 2:
Table 2: Dimensionless parameters for generation of forward solution

Storativity ratio of Region 1, !1

Storativity ratio of Region 2, !2
Interporosity flow coefficient of Region 1, "1
Interporosity flow coefficient of Region 2, "1
Diffusivity ratio, #
Mobility ratio, M

0.01
0.001
3.37E-6
6.75E-6
200
200

Necessary corrections are made to account for the change in viscosity, volume formation factor, and effective permeability to
the oil flow in the process of translating the dimensional production to dimensionless production.
The assumptions made in the model are:
Infinite acting outer boundary
Inner region and outer region are two distinct double porosity regions
The flow rate with time data obtained from the commercial simulator is converted into dimensionless flow rate (qD) vs.
dimensionless time (tD) data using the manipulations indicated by developments made in the current formulation.
The numerical simulator is run for twenty years to compare the data with the current work.
Fig.10 indicates that the infinite outer boundary specification is valid throughout the run as the screenshot displays the extent
to which pressure transients have travelled by the end of the run time. Results are shown in Fig. 11.
As it can be observed from Fig. 11, for dimensionless times (tD) up to 104, a very good agreement has been obtained. The
errors in the early time and later time regions could be attributed to the assumption of average viscosity and volume formation
factor throughout the range of tD considered. The conversion used in translating the dimensional flow rate into dimensionless
flow is indicated below:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
*CMG IMEX is a product of Computer Modelling Group Ltd. located in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

SPE 161016

11

Comparison of data with Numerical simulator!

1!

1!

10!

100!

1000!

10000!

100000!

Log10(qD)!

0.1!

0.01!

0.001!

0.0001!

Log10(tD)!
Numerical model!

Proposed analytical model!

Figure11: Comparison of results from the numerical model and the proposed analytical model

!! !

!!!

!!! !

!
!!!!! !! !

!! ! !!!"#$% ! !

!! !

!!! !
!! !!!! ! !!" !
!

!! ! !!!! ! !"!! !

Summary and Conclusions

The problem of multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal well in a naturally fractured reservoir could approximately be
modeled as a composite naturally fractured reservoir comprising of two double porosity regions. New solutions are developed
for constant pressure and constant rate inner boundary conditions. Owing to the large number of dimensionless variables, rate
decline curves could not be presented as type curves. Instead forward solutions are generated for various scenarios of mobility
ratios, diffusivity ratios, interporosity flow coefficients, and storativity ratios.
The curves generated indicate that the effect of boundary is minimal in the range of mobility and diffusivity ratios assumed.
The flow rate curves shift upward with increasing interface location from the wellbore when the mobility ratios of greater than
1 are assumed. The flow rate curves shift downward with increase in interface distance from the wellbore when the mobility
ratios of less than 1 are assumed. Forward solutions generated indicate that the value of interporosity flow coefficient has a
dominant effect on the onset of second decline arising from the drainage of matrix.
The proposed model achieved excellent results within the range of values considered in developing the model. At early times,
for large mobility ratios and small interporosity flow coefficient values, the solutions seem to oscillate. Necessary
modificiations need to be made to include small time and long time asymptotic solutions.

12

References

SPE 161016

Agarwal, Ram G. 1979. "Real gas pseudo-time" - A new function for pressure buildup analysis of MHF gas well . Paper SPE 8279 presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 23-26 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8279-MS
Alpheus, O. I., and Tiab, D. S. 2007. Well Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs using Elliptical Flow. Paper IPTC 11165
presented at International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai,U.A.E., 4-6 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/11165-MS
Ambastha, A. K. 1988. Pressure Transient Analysis for Composite Systems. Technical Report SGP-TR-117, Stanford Geothermal Program,
Department of Engineering and Earth Sciences,Stanford University,Stanford,California (October 1988).
Amini, S., Ilk, D., and Blasingame, T. 2007. Evaluation of the Elliptical Flow Period for Hydraulically-Fractured Wells in Tight Gas Sands - Theoretical Aspects and Practical Considerations. Paper SPE 106308 presented at SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference,
College Station, Texas, 29-31 January. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/106308-MS.
Arps, J.J. 1956. Estimation of Primary Oil Reserves. Transactions of the AIME,228-247. SPE 945228-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/945228G.
Brohi,I.,Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Aguilera, R. 2011. Modeling Fractured Horizontal Wells As Dual Porosity Composite Reservoirs Application To Tight Gas, Shale Gas And Tight Oil Cases. Paper SPE 144057 presented at SPE Western North American Region
Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 7-11 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144057-MS.
Carter, R. 1985. Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear Gas Flow Systems:Constant Terminal Pressure Case. SPEJ, 719-728.SPE-12917PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12917-PA.
Da Prat, G. I., Cinco-Ley, H. U., and Ramey Jr., H. S. 1981. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves for Two-Porosity Systems . SPE J,
354-362. SPE-9292-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9292-PA.
De Swaan O., A. 1976. Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir Properties by Well Testing. SPE J, 117-122. SPE5346-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5346-PA.
Du, M., Zhan, L., Li, J., Zhang, X., Church, S., Tushinghamm, K., Hay, B. 2011. Generalization of Dual-Porosity-System Representation
and Reservoir Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing-Stimulated Shale Gas Reservoirs.Paper SPE 146534 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30 October-2 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/146534-MS.
Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 1979. Well Test Analysis for Wells Produced at a Constant Pressure. PhD dissertation, Stanford
University,Stanford, California(June 1979).
Kazemi, H. 1969. Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Uniform Fracture Distribution. SPE J, 451-462.SPE2156-A. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2156-A.
Kucuk, F., and Brigham, W. E. 1979. Transient Flow in Elliptical Systems. SPEJ, 401-410.SPE-7488-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7488PA.
McLachlan, N. 1964. Theory and Application of Mathieu Functions. New York: Dover Publications.
Obut, S.T., and Ertekin, T. 1987. A Composite System Solution in Elliptic Flow Geometry. SPE Form Eval, 227-238.SPE-13078-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13078-PA.
Palacio, J., and Blasingame, T. 1993. Decline-Curve Analysis With Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well Production Data. Paper SPE 25909
presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 12-14 April.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25909-MS.
Prats, M. H., and Strickler, W. 1962. Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior--Compressible-Fluid Case. SPE J, 87-94. SPE-98PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98-PA.
Rajagopal, R. 1993. Well Test Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Petroleum Engineering Series.
Riley, M.F., Brigham, W.E., Horne, R.N. 1991. Analytic Solutions for Elliptical Finite-Conductivity Fractures. Paper SPE 22656 presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6-9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22656-MS.
Satman, A. S. 1991. Pressure-Transient Analysis of a Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoir. SPE Form Eval,169-175.SPE-18587-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18587-PA.
Satman, A. S., Eggenschwiler, M. I., and Ramey Jr., H. J. 1980. Interpretation of Injection Well Pressure Transient Data in Thermal Oil
Recovery. Paper SPE 8908 presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Los Angeles,California, 9-11 April.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8908-MS.
Van Everdingen, A. H. 1949. The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs. J. Pet Tech, 305-324.SPE949305-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/949305-G.
Warren, J. E., and Root, P. J. 1963. The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE J, 245 - 255.SPE-426-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/426-PA

SPE 161016

13

Appendix A
Further Validation checks
The following reservoir parameters shown in Table 3 and 4 are assumed in generation of the results for validation checks:
Table 3: Reservoir parameters assumed for various cases
Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Elliptical Wellbore Coordiante,"w

Elliptical Interface Coordinate,"0

0.6

0.6

0.6

Diffusivity ratio,!

1.1

Mobility ratio, !

0.9

Interporosity transfer coefficient,!!

0.000015

Storativity ratio, !

Time under consideration,tD

10

10

10

Table 4: Reservoir properties assigned for the numerical simulator model

Fracture permeability of Region 1, kf1 (mD)

1000

Matrix permeability of Region 1, km1(mD)

5.68E-07

Viscosity of Region 1, 1 (cp)

1.3

Fracture porosity of Region 1, !f1

0.05

Matrix porosity of Region 1, !m1

0.45

Matrix compressibility of Region 1, cm1

1.00E-06

Fracture compressibility of Region 1, cf1

1.00E-06

Fracture spacing of Region 1, Wf1

Fracture permeability of Region 2, kf2

Matrix permeability of Region 2, km2

5.68E-07

Viscosity of Region 2, 2

1.3

Fracture porosity of Region 2, !f2

0.005

Matrix porosity of Region 2, !m2

0.495

Matrix compressibility of Region 2, cm2

1.00E-06

Fracture compressibility of Region 2, cf2

1.00E-06

Fracture spacing of Region 2, Wf2

31.627

Length of the horizontal well, L (ft)

1500

Wellbore radius, rw (ft)

0.25

With having compared the data generated from previous works in literature against the current work , it clearly indicates that
the model developed in the current study could succesfully encompass all the susbset solutions indicated in the Fig. 1

Figure 12: Comparison of data with Satman(1991) study

Figure13: Comparison of data with Eggenschwiler (1980)

study

14

SPE 161016

Figure 14: Comparison of data with Da Prat (1981) study

Figure 15: Comparison of data with Economides (1979)

study

Appendix B
Sensitivity Analysis:
The following sensitivity analysis (Table 5) is done in order to gain better insight into the capabilities of the solution. The
results of these tests are displayed in Figs. 16 through 20. Critical analysis of the following figures should be able to generate
some meaningful implications about the sensitivity of the proposed model.
Table 5: Reservoir properties assumed for various case scenarios

Parameter

Symbol

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Elliptical wellbore coordinate

"w

Elliptical interface coordinate

"0

0.5

4.0

4.0

0.5

3,4,5,6

0.1

0.1, 0.01, 0.001,

0.0005

0.1

.001

.01

10-6

10

-6

-6

10

-5

Storativity ratio of Region 1

#1

0.01

0.1

Storativity ratio of Region 2

#2

0.001

0.001

Interporosity transfer coefficient of Region 1

$1

10

-6

Interporosity transfer coefficient of Region 2

$2

10

-6

Diffusivity ratio

Mobility ratio

0.1, 0.5, 2.0,5.0

Dimensionless time considered

tD

10

Figure 16: Sensitivity analysis with respect to mobility ratio

(M)

10

-6

10

-5

0.001
-4

-5

10

0.1, 0.5, 2,
5

10

-6

10 , 10 , 10 ,
-7
10
-5

10

10
1

1.1

10

20

10

10

Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis with respect to diffusivity

ratio (!)

Case 1: From Fig. 16, it can clearly be observed that increase in the mobility ratio (M) shifts the flow rate curves
! !
downwards. Mobility ratio is the ratio of ! ! , so if the viscosity of both of the regions is assumed to be constant, then the
!! !!!

mobility ratio (M) would represent the permeability ratio alone. Accordingly, with increasing contrast in permeability values
between Region 1 and Region 2, the composite characteristics begin to predominantly influence the solution. The permeability
term in the dimensional transformation could account for this downward trend observed.

SPE 161016

15

Case 2: As the diffusivity ratios were increased, the decline curves shifted downward as shown in Fig. 17. Diffusivity ratio
!!
!!
(#) is
!
, but the mobility ratio (M) is assumed to be unity. Hence diffusivity ratio (#) simplifies to!!!!! !! !
!! !! !!!

!! !! !!!

!!!! !! . From this definition as diffusivity ratio (#) increases, the compressibility of the flow in Region 2 is increased (as
porosity does not vary significantly across the regions). When compressibility of the inner region is higher, naturally more
flow can occur for the same amount of pressure drop. Hence the results generated are in line with the theoretical
considerations. With larger values of elliptical interface distance, a significant double dual porosity signature becomes more
evident as displayed in Fig. 17.

Figure 18: Sensitivity analysis

interporosity flow coefficient (")

with

respect

to

Figure 19:Sensitivity analysis with respect to storativity

ratio (#) of Region 1

Case 3: From Fig. 18, it is evident that the interporosity flow coefficient (") does have a significant effect on the
dimensionless flow rates. The onset of second linear flow is determined by the value of ". As the value gets smaller, the onset
of second decline gets delayed as seen in Fig. 18. At large tD, flow rates again become independent of the interporosity flow
coefficient value considered.
At low values of tD, the Laplacian parameter becomes a large number, thereby simplifying the following expression
as:! ! !

! !!! !!!
!! !!! !

!!

! !!! !
!!! !

! ! . This expression hence is almost independent of ", and is reflected from the Fig. 18 at

early times.
Case 4: Fig. 19 indicates that the curves shift upward with decrease in storativity ratio, however decline faster with
decreasing storativity ratio values. The flow rates are higher when the matrix stores the bulk of the fluid and that is evident
from Fig. 19. At late times when the fluid from the Region 1 has
been withdrawn, Region 2 acts as a primary source of
production, because of which the curves coincide at higher tD
values. In Fig. 19, the crossover is a result of higher initial rates
and faster decline with high storativity ratio values. This could
be explained by the fact that when fractures store bulk of the
fluid, the initial flow rates are higher and at the same time, they
drain faster. As the storativity value (!) decreases, the matrix
holds bulk of the fluid and drainage process takes higher time,
as can be seen from the delay of onset of decline in Fig. 19.
Case 5: A further check with respect to the interface
distance is performed and results exhibit an interesting trend.
Depending on the interface location, the second declines are
branched out at varying times, with steeper declines arising
from the nearer interface locations. The results are displayed in
Figure 20: Sensitivity analysis with respect to interface
Fig. 20 which shows the dependency of the interface location on
distance ($0)
the double dual porosity signature.
Flow rate values do not vary significantly with change in
storativity ratio of the outer region. At large times, the asymptotic expression for the Fourier coefficients and resultant Mathieu
functions need to be used to avoid oscillatory solutions. At large times, the system of equations that is formed for finding the
solution may be ill ranked. To avoid potential divergence problems, it is advised to use the asymptotic solutions for large time
values.

16

SPE 161016

Appendix C
Mathieu Functions
The formulae used to compute Mathieu functions in the current work are shown in the following equations:
!"
!! ! !!!
! !! !
!
!
!
!"!! ! ! !!
!!
!
!
!!
!!! !!! !!!"#$!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!
..........................................................................(C.1)
!"!! !! !! !
!"
!!!
!!
!!
! !!
!! !
!!
!
!
!!!"#$!!!
!! !!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!!!

!!
!! !!!

where,
!

!!! ! !! !!! !

!!

!! ! !!! !! !!! !!! !!! !

!! ! !"!! !! ! !"!!
!!!!

!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!"!!! ! !

!
!!
!

........................................................................(C.2)
...............................................................................(C.3)

The second kind of modified Mathieu function can be written in terms of Bessels modified functions as shown below:
!
!
!"!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!! !!! !!"#$!!
!!
!!!
!!!
!"#! !"#!! ! !

!"#!! !! !! !

!!

!"!! !! !
!"!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!! ! !!! !!! !!"#$!!

......................................................................(C.4)

!"#! !"#!! ! !

!!
!"! !!!

!!
!! ! !!!
!! !!! !!! !!! !

Calculation of the Coefficients

To compute A2r, one needs to obtain v2r ratio of the two consecutive successive Fourier coefficients which is given by:
!!!
!
!!!!! !
!
!!"#!! ! !
.............................................................................................(C.5)
!!!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!!
For calculating the first coefficient vo, the following formula is used;
!! !!!!
!!
...................................................................................................(C.6)
!! ! !!!! !
!!"#!! ! !
!!! ! !! ! ! !!!
!!
Normalization of the above Fourier coefficients can be achieved in the following way:
!!!!

!!!! !

! !

!!!

!!!! !!!! !! ! !

..................................................................................................................................(C.7)

Eq. C.7 gives:

!
!! !
!! !
!! !
......................................................................................................................(C.8)
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !
Using Eqs. C.5 and C.6 the ratios obtained are substituted in Eq. C.8, and the value of !! !!!! can be obtained. Rest of the
values for the Fourier coefficients can be generated using back substitution method through Eq. C.5.

Appendix D
Coordinate Transformation
In order to solve the flow equation in elliptical coordinates, one needs to switch over from Cartesian to elliptical
coordinates. Amongst the different ways that exist in literature, the following transformation is employed:
Let
! ! ! ! !!!! !"#!!! ! ! ! !!

.................................................................................................................................(D.1)

SPE 161016

17

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

..........................................................................................................................................................(D.2)

By definition, the partial derivatives can be written in the following way:

!
!!
!!
.....................................................................................................................................................(D.3)
! !! !
!"!! !!
!!
The method of separation of variables is used in the solving the Eq. D.3:
!!"! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!
............................................................................................................................................(D.4)
!! !

Assuming that !! ! ! , and the above equations could be rewritten as:

!
! ! ! !! !
...........................................................................................................................(D.13)
! !! ! !! !"#!!!!! ! !
!! !
!
! ! !! !
...........................................................................................................................(D.14)
! !! ! !! !"#!!!! ! !
!! !
According to McLachlan (1964), the following pairs of Mathieu functions satisfy the necessary conditions:
!"!! !! !!! ! !"!! !!! !!! !
!"#!! !! !!! ! !"!! !!! !!! !

Laplace Space Inner Boundary Conditions

Constant Pressure specification (Dirichlet type boundary condition):
!
...........................................................................................................................................(D.15)
!!"! !! !! !
!
!!!!
!
External boundary condition
!!"! !! !! !
!!
...........................................................................................................................................(D.16)
!!!
Interface conditions:
Continuity of pressure:
!!"! !! !! !
! !!"! !! !! !
.......................................................................................................................(D.17)
!!!!
!!!!
Continuity of flux
!!!"!
!!!"!
!! !! !
!!
!! !! !
...........................................................................................................(D.18)
!"
!"
!!!
!!!
!

Appendix E
Graphic User Interface
A Graphic User Interface (GUI) is developed to facilitate generation of type curves in a user friendly manner. This feature
enables user to enter the reservoir parameters and generate a forward solution (type curve of desired nature).
As indicated in the GUI Snapshot below, user can select from the following 8 options:
Well type Horizontal or Vertical
Reservoir type Homogeneous, Composite, Dual porosity, Composite dual porosity
Snapshots of two example decline curves generated through GUI are displayed in Figs. 21 and 22

Figure 21: Results generated by GUI for a vertical

well producing from a homogeneous reservoir

Figure 22: Results generated by GUI for vertical

well in a composite reservoir case