m

Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

6200 N, Central Expwy
Dallas, Tex. 75206

Determination of Gas Wel I Del iverabi I ity

of Vertical Iy Fractured Wd Is

By
Nino Hadinoto, Member SPE-AIME, R. Raghavan, Member SPE-AIME, and
G.W. Thomas, U. of Tulsa

THIS PAPERISSUBJECT TO CORRECTION

(Fjopyrigl?t 1976
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
Thispaperwasprepared forthe51stAnnual FallTechnica/Conference andExhibitionof theSocietyofPetroleum
Engineers of AIME, held in New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976. Permission to copy isrestrictedto an abstract ofnotmore
than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF
PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usuai~ygranred upon
request to the Editor of the appropriate journal, provided agreement to give proper c:edit is made. Discussion of
this paper is invited.

.. .. ... -.

ABSTRACT This study also indicatesthat if the

Odeh-Jondsmethod of analysisis used, then
The applicabilityof commonlyaccepted data obtainedfor analysisshould correspondto
radial flow solutionsto estimatedeliverability the pseudo radial flow period. If early data
of verticallyfracturedgas wells was examined. where Iinesr flow controlspressurebehavior
Syntheticdeliverabilitydata (isochronaland are used, then erroneousresultswill be
flcw after flow) were generatedusing a obtaineds
two-dimensionalsingle-phasegas simulator. The
effect of fracturelength and pressurelevel and INTRODUCTION
PVT data was investigated. Flow-after-flowdata
also were used to investigatethe applicationof Gas well deliverabilitytests are
the Odeh-Jonesmethod for analyzingvariable multipointtests consistingof three or more
rate drawdowndata to determineformation flows with pressures,rates, snd other data
permeabilityand skin factor (fracturelength) be-ingrecordedas a functionof time. These
for a verticallyfracturedgas well. tests are usually requiredby state regulatory
agenciesfor prorationpurposesand to obtain
It is shown in this study that conventional ,pnallowable, In addition,these tests can
methods of predictingdeliverabilityfrom provideinformationfor reservoirand produc-
short-timeisochronaland flow-after-flowtests tion engineeringstudies.
will lead to calculationof erroneousvalues of
absoluteopen flow (AOF) than that.which would Basicallythere are two differenttypes of
be obtainedfrom long-timeflow tests. deliverabilitytests: (1) flow-after-flow
Dependingon specificconditions,these errors tests end (2) isochronaltests. Both of these
can be either lower or higher than actual are very well documentedin the literature.l?2
values. It is also shwn that flow exponents Gas deliverabilityis often determinedby use
differentfrom unity can be obtainedfrom short- of the empiricalequation:
time flow tests even though lsminarflow
prevails. This result is a consequenceof
changingflow regimesthat result due to the q =c(F2-p:f)n . . . . . . . . . .(1)
verticalfracture.
v:!lereC is the performancecoefficientthat
Referencesend illustrationsat end of paper.
 DEIWMINATION OF GAS WELL DEGWERABILITY
n~ VT7RTTCI?.TTV 17RAmrfrmm LIT7TT12
. .-. ..---
depends on the physicalpropertiesof the reser-
voir, the propertiesof the flowingfluid, the
location,extent,and unless flow conditionsare
stabilized,u~n time. The exponentn depends
on the flowingconditions,namely,Dsrcy or non-
Darcy flow.
Eq. 1 assumesthat the gas is ideal snd
flows under steady-state,isothermalconditions
where pressuregradientsare small. If the well
has stabilizedthe flow exponent,n, the
constantC may be evaluatedand the absolute
open flow potential(AOF),which is a measure of
the quality of the well, can be obtained.
Eq. lmaybe modifiedto accountfor the
flow of real.gases and cases where pressure
gradientsare not small by use of the real gas
pseudo pressure,jm(p), as:
q =C[m(F)-p@pwf)ln, s . . . . (2)
where
P and two sets of PVT data (G .0.5$ andO.7)
pdp
m(p) = 2 .***,...(3)
~ where the entire deliverabiMty data are domi-
pb z
As alreadymentioned,Eqs. 1 and 2 are
based on the assumptionthat flow is radial;
that is, pressureis a Mneer functionof the
logarithmof flow time. Butit is well known
.
that in many instances,particularlyin low
permeabilitywells, stimulationin the form of
= hy&auMc fracturingor acid fracturingis
requiredfor wells to be commercial. In such
cases, pressuresare more likelyto be functions
of squareroot of time (liiiear flow), transi-
tional or logarithmicfunctionsof time (pseudo
radial flow), each for differentflow rates.~
In addition,a good fracturingjob on some gas
wells could lead to a linear flow period long
enough to encompassthe entire deliverability
testingperiod. To date the applicabilityof
Eqs. 1 or 2 to fracturedgas wells has not been
investigated. However,field interpretationof
pressuredata from such wells based on radial
flow solutionsin some instancesat least
appearsto provide~sonable answersfor
heavily fracturedwells. This difference
between field results and theoreticalexpec-
tati.onsbased on analyticalsolutionsimplies
that there is a need for study. Thus, the first
objectiveof this paper is to examinethe
applicabilityof commonlyacceptedsolutionson
estimatingdeliverabilityof fracturedgas wells.
As is well known, flow after flow data can
be used to calculateformationflow capacity,
kh, skin effect,s, and the non-Dsrcyflow
coefficient,D, by use of the 0deh40nes tech-
nique.5 Like deliverabilitytests, this tech-
nique is also based on the premise that radial
*-*- **b~ ~
mnv
mru
Z.!o
Q A> I
flow prevails. To the best knowledgeof the
authorsthere has been no investigation
regardingapplicationof this techniqueto
fracturedgas wells where the flow regime can
change during a test. The second objectiveof
this paper is to test the applicabilityof the
0deh40nes method to fracturedgas wells.
GEW3WlZONOF GAS-DEJXVIRABIIZTY
DATA
In this study,gas-deliverability data for
the fracturedwell was obteinedusLng a two-
dimensional,single-phasemathematicalmodel
that rigorouslyincorporatesvariationin fluid
properties. The well.is assumedto be located
at the center of a vertical.fracturethat
totally penetratesa horizontal,homogeneous,
and isotropicsquarereservoir. The vertical.
fractureis locatedsymmetricallyin a square
reservoirand is parallelto one of the sides
of the square boundary (Fig. 1). Two fractuxe
penetrationratios, xe/xf, (1 and 5), three
pressure levels (I06L7, 5,CKX3,and 10,MIOpsi)
and two values of permeability(1 end 0.5 red),
were examined. The fully penetratingcase
(dq = 1) was chosen to investigatecases
nated by the linear flow period. At time t X,
0, gas is producedfrom the well at a consiaiii
surfacerate.
This investigationmodeled the fracture
plane by assumingthe flux distributionalong
the fractureto be uniform. Followingthe
nomenclaturein Ref. 4, this type of fracture
will be referredto as a uniform flux fr~~cture,
This impliesthat pressurealong the frmtare
will vary and the fracturehas a high, but not
infinite,conductivity. For the purposesof
this investigation,this assumptionis not a
limitationas all featuresof transientflow
behaviordue to a fractureintersectinga well.
are preserved. The generalresults are also
applicableto wells intersectinginfinite
conductivityfractures. The reservoirpsrem-
eters and fluid characteristicsare given in
Table 1.
An importantconsiderationin the solution
of finite-difference equationsis the effectof
discreti.zationin space and time. For exemple,
in modelingflow behaviorin a fracturedsystem,
space discretizationnear the tip of the frac+
ture becomes important. The followingprocedurf
was adoptedto insure that discretizationerrors
did not affect the solutionsobtained.
Wattenbargerend Ramey6 have shown that
constantrate drawdownsolutionsfor fractured
gas wells may be correlate with constantprop-
t along the lines
erty liquid flow solutions
suggestedby A1-Hussainyet ala Thus, for eacl
flow system considered,&%w~wn solutionswere
SPE 6136 NICO HADINOTO.R.
. . RAGHAVAN. end G. W. THOM4S

obtainedand the dimensionlessreal.gas pseudo =2

pressuredrops, ~ vs dimensionlesstime$ tD~
solutionswere comparedwith liquid flow solu- tD> z $. , , . (8)
tions presentedby Gringartenet~f14 The .
4rw
dimensionlessreal gas pseudo pressure drop tand
dimensionlesstime are definedby and tDA is the dimensionlesstime based on the
drainagearea sndis definedby
rn~ = . (k)
142f17 qT m(~) - m (pwf)l -4
2.64x1O kt

DA = * (9)
$(CtlJ)i AO*Q.,.
2.64 x10-4kt ,
D = ****.* (5) Eq. 6 is also applicablefor production
$(~c)i ~ from a fracturedwell providedthe appropriate
values for the dimensionlessp~wsure drops am
In all instsncesthe comparisonwas excellent used. The requiredvalues for the systemunde~
throughoutall flow regimes. study are given h Ref. l+. Thus, for a frac-
tured well the backpressureequationis:
For each case a material-balsncecheck was khT~c
also used to insure that the solutionswere -5
accurate. Though the above material-balance 1.987x 10 - dpwf)l
[rn(fi)
qTpsc
checks are not absoluteas an indicationof
accuracy,they do insure that no seriouserrors
are occurringand that the mass with&awn would p~(xefxft D#2mtDA* . . 0 . . . (10~
match the mean pressuredecline.
Eq. 10 is generaland appliesto all
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION periods (shortand long flowingt~mes) and can
be usedto generateplot log (m (p) - m (p~f))
The BaclumessureCurve For FracturedWells vs log q at any instsntin time providedthe
permeabilitythickness,fracturelength,and
Followingthe work of Aron fsky and fracturepenetrationratio are knownC
Jenkins,7A1-HussainyandRsme& have shown
that, for productionof a real gas in a bounded In actualpractice,the permeability-
radial flow system at a constantrate, the thicknessproduct snd fracturelengthmay be
backpressureequationis given by calculatedfrom &awdown or builduptest by
type curve matchingproceduresuggestedinRef,
-5 khTsc
1.987X1O [m(i) - m (pWf)l 4. The fracturepenetrationratio would have
qTpsc to be determinedfrom a lmowledgeof the exten
of the drainagearea. The drsinagesrea would
have to be determinedindependently,though a
d lower limit can be obtainedfrom a &awdown
=lnr , . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) or buildup test.10
w
where rd is the stabilizeddrainageradius. Q From the above discussion,it shouldbe
6 neglectsthe skin effect and non-Darcyflow. evidentthat AOF and stabilizeddeliverability
An expressionfor the right-handside of Eq. 6 equationcsn be readily obtained for the cases
may be obtainedfrom simulatedin this study. For example,for
~/xf = 5, the AOFis givenby
d -5
In ~ ~=pw~(tDA)-2n DA, . . . (7) 1.987x1O khT~c [m(~) - m(pwf=14.7)
q=
where pwD(tDA)is the van Everdingenand Hurst9 psc[pWD(5StDA)-2 fitDA]
dimensionlesspressuredrop given by 4*SO*** *O***** **O* (11

PWD(!D) = 1/2 (lnD +0.80907) ; where

2 pwD(5$ DA)=2fitDA+l9973* (12

r
10()<tD < 5 } Values of AOF end the correspondingstabilized
coefficient,C, for the fracturedwell systems
w
examinedhere are given in Table 2. These
2 values will be used as a basis for comparing
e w results obtainedfrom isochronaland flow-
pW~(tD) ln~w- 3/4+2tD(~);
after-flowtests. Times for end and start of
r
e
 DE!MRMINATIONOF GAS WELL DEIZVERABIIZTY
k OF VERTICALLYFRACTUREDWELLS
various flow periods for cases examinedin this
study are given in Table 3. Comparisonof flow
times used in this study end the various flow
periods indicatesthat the durationof the iso-
chronaltests is such that all flow regimes
[linearflow period, transition,pseudo radial
flow pericd and transitionto pseudc-steady
state [stabilized)]have been investigated.
Isoc!monalTestin~ of FracturedWells
A sampleof the syntheticisochronaltest
data generatedduring the course of this study
using the single-phasereservoirsimulatorare
shown in Figs. 2 through1+as circles,tri-
angles?crossestand square data potits.
DetAls of these tests may be found in Ref, 11.
The stabilizedbackpressurecalculatedfrom ~,
10 is shown as a broken line in each of these
figures. For all cases except (~/~ = It pi =
1061.7psi) in this study,the isochronaltests
yield straightlines with a flow exponentequal
to unity. For Xe/~ = 1, pi = 1061.7,the flow
exponentwas equal to 0.911+for flow periodsof
1 and 3 hours. For longer flow periods the
flow exponentwas 1 (See Fig. 2). This implies
that~ even though flow regimes change, in
generalthe flow exponent,n, of the back-
pressurecurve can be obttied from a short-time
isochronaltest of a fracturedwell will be no
differentfrom that of an unfracturedwell.
Thus, it is impossibleto distinguishan un-
fracturedwell from that of a fracturedwell
by exsminingdeliverabilitydata. The results
indicatethat if the floi~ tests are run long
enough,the flow exponent,n, csn be assumedto
unity.
Followingthe proceduresuggestedinRef.
1, the absoluteopen flow potentialswere
calculated. The results sre summarizedin
Tables 4 and 5, and are comparedwith values
predictedby Eq. 10 for app~opriateflowing
times. Calculatedvalues of the performance
coefficient,C, obtainedfrom isochronaltest
data also are given in Tables 4 and 5. For
small times? isochronaldata indicatevalues
differentfrom that of the drawdownresults.
For some cases, values of AOF are lower, but in
other cases they are higher than that predicted
by the drawdownequation. ior long times,
agreementbetween drawdownand isochronaldata
is fair. However, all values of AOF and C are
higher than from the stabilizedvalues due to
the short flow periods invnlved. It is also
seen that, if flow times are comparableto
times for stabilization,then the isochronal
results comparefavorablywith stabilized
performance(Table2).
Before proceedingfurther,one other point
deservesmention. As alreadymentionedfor the
~/xf. 1, pi= 1061.7case, it was found that
the flow exponent,n, was differentfrom unity
for small times. Thus, values of C are much
SPE 6136
higher than that obtainedfrom the draw-down
equation,but AOF vakes are much lower since
n<l.
Determinationof StabilizedPerfoimsnce
CoefficientFrom TransientData
As is well known, deliverabilitytests
are often not run long enoughto reach
stabilizedflow conditions. The stabilized
flow coefiicientis usually obtainedfrom the
well lmown relation suggestedby Poetmsnnand
Schilson,12which is based on plane radial flow
considerationsand is given by
Cl In @ ~n
c= ***,.*, (13)
ln(+ K)n
where a/a is defined as
.i
In
C2
lln
2 (cl - c2in )
2
a=
T lln . , , . (14)
cl
l/n 1/n
2 (cl -C2 )
tl
and Cl and C2 are performancecoefficients
correspondingto a multipointflow test with
flow periods equal to tl and t2! respectively?
and C is the desiredperformancecoefficier~i
correspondingto flow period,t,
If pressurebehavioris dominatedentirely
by the linear flow period, the deliverability
correspondingto the end of the linear flow
period may be obtainedfrom13
c1 ( /T-l)n
c= ~*.**.**** * (15)
( a)n
where Cl is the performancecoefficientcorre-
spendingto a multipointflow test with a flow
period of tl and C is the desiredperformance
coefficientcorrespondingfor any time during
the Mnesr flow period. It shouldbe noted,
however,that the meaning of the deliverability
curve is not obvious in this case as k and xf
csnnot be determineduniquelyif data is domi-
nated completelyby the linear flow period.
In the following,we shall demonstrate
errors that can result if the various flow
regimes controllingflow behaviorof fractured
wells are not taken into account. Values of
the performancecoefficientcalculatedfrom the
isochronaltests are comparedwith that pre-
dieted by Eq. 13 in Fig. 5 for the.cases
SPE 6136 NICO HADINOTO,R. RAGHAVAN,and G. W. THOMAS
examinedhere. The solid lines in Fig. 5 were
obtainedu~ing I@. 13. Values of Cl, C2, tl,
end t2 used to predict the performancecoeffi-
cient correspondto that of the two lowest time
periods shown in Tables 1+and 5.
The resultsin Fig. 5 indicatethat, if
the durationof the isochronaltest is such that
it is greaterthan the Iinea flow period~
valuesof C predictedby %. 13 are in fair
agreementwith long time isochronaldata; see
data for p. = 5000 psi; k= 1 md (star data
points) an~pi = 1061.7 psi; k = lmd (square
data points). Howevertif the test duration
is smallerthen the time for end of linear flow$
then values by IQ. 13 are in poor agreementwith
long-timeisochronaland stabilizedflow data,
Noting that the ordinatein Fig. 5 is l/C and
not C, determinationof values of C using ~ 13
~ be larger (see, for eyle* %1~ = 5, pi =
10,000and 5,000,k = 0.5 md or smal er (see,
for example,~/~ = 1, pi = 5,000). Thusf the
AOF calculatedon the baszs of ~. 13 can be
smalleror larger. Thus, it is quite possible
that in some instancesdeterminationof AOF for
heavily fracturedwells using radial flow
considerationscan lead to values which appear
reasonable.
The applicabilityof ~. 15 is shown in
Fig. 6. The solid lines in Fig. 6 were obtained
by Eq. 15 using the results of the l-hourtests
for x~xf = 5, The square and circle, stex snd
triangledata @nts shown are values of C
obtainedfrom the isochronaltests. The results
indicatethat, even for the case where much of
the data is dominatedby linear flow, Eq. 15 is
not adequate. As predicted,values of C are
much lower then that obtained from isochronal
data. Thus, Eq. 15 does not appear to be
particularlyuseful.,even for predicting
deliverabilityduring the Mnear flow period.
Fig. 7 shows the correspondingresults for ~~
% = 1 case. For this case also predicted
values of C are much lower then that obtained
from isochronalend, more important,do not
follow the trend predictedby Eq. 15. Thus,
Eq. 15 doesnot appear to be particularlyuse-
ful even for predictingdeliverabilityduring
the linear flow period.
In summary,the results obtainedhere
imply that the cormnonly
acceptedmethods of
determiningstabilizeddeliverabilityare
adequateonly if test durationsare such that
the flowingtimefor each flow is well beyond
the linear flow period. If data is controlled
by the hear flow period then estimatesof
AOF can be in error (eitherlow or high).
Comparisonfor ~jxf = 1, pi = 1061.7psi
is not presentedsince values of C from short-
time tests are very large. If these values are
used, they would predict values of C
than that obtainedfrom longer-timeisochronal
data.
Flow-After-FlowTests for FracturedWells
A few of the backpressurecurves obteined
in this investigationfrom normal sequenceflow
after-flowtests are shown in Figs. $ and 9.
The square,circular,end triangulardata
@nts representtest periods of 1, 3, end 24
hours, respectively. The stabilizied back-
pressurecurve calculatedfrom Eq. 10 is shown
as a dashed line in each of these figures. In
general,the flow exponentfor the normal
sequencecurves is equal to one. The only
exceptionis xe/xf = 1 case for small times
(Fig. 8)0 Thus, in this instsncealso it would
be impossibleto detect a verticalfracture
from a deMverabil.itycurve.
Figs. 10 and 11 present sampleback-
pressurecurves obtainedfrom reverse sequence
flow-after-flowtests in this study. The most
surprisingand importantresult is that, for
small flowingtimes, flow exponentsfor the
reverse sequenceflow-after-flowtests are much
greaterthan unity. This phenomenonwas
observedfor all penet~ationratios end} as
shown in Figs~O end 11, is not restrictedto
the l-hourtests. We have carefullychecked
this result end are certainthis is not due to
truncationerrors, etc. At long times the flow
exponentis unity. To the best knowledgeof
the authors,this type of behaviorhas no
counterpartin plane radial flow. On the basis
of Figs. 10 end 11, it can be concludedthat
reverse sequenceflow-after-flowtests are
inadequatefor estimatingdeliverability.
Analogousto the isochronalcase values
of AOF and C calculatedfrom the flow-after-
flow tests were comparedwith the drawdown
equation. For small values of time, the normal
sequenceflow-after-flowcurves predicted
lower values of unstabilizedopen flow poten-
tial thsn drawdowndata. For largertimes
agreementwas good. However, it was found that
in all cases isochronaltests were supericrto
flow-after-flow(normalsequence)tests for all
times.
A@ication of Odeh-JonesProcedure
to Flow-After-FlowData For FracturedWells
In Fig. 12a, samplesof 0deh40nes graphs
obteined.fromthe simulatedflow-after-flow
data are shown. Basically,the applicationof
this method to fracturedwells impliesthat the
enlargedwellbore radius idealizationcommonly
used to representfracturedwells is applicable
The most importsntpoint to be noted about
these figuresis that well defined straight
lines ere observed. Aga3n this impliesthat
the sham of the Odeh-Jonesplot for multipoint
 DHERMINATI(MOF GAS WEU DEKVERABIIZTY
6 OF VERTICALLYFRACTUREDWELIS SPE 61?6
-. --z -

testingcan provideno informationon the coefficientsmay be calculatedwith reasonable

existenceof a fracturedwell.. Furthermore, accuracyushg data taken in the transitional
the conjectureof Essis and Thomasl~that period. The secondimportantcontributionof
anomalousresultsin the form of bends, chenges this study has been to demonstratethat reverse
in slope, etc., can occur if this method is sequencetests can result in the flow exponent
appliedto fracturedwells appearsto be n being differentfrom unity. On the basis of
ticorrect. the results obtainedhere, reverse sequence
flow-after-flowtests are not recommendedfor
Calculatedvalues of permeabilitythickness estimatingdeliverability. As a result of
are in fair agreementfor ~/xf = 5 provided this study, the followingspecificconclusions
data are chosen beyond the endof the linear can be drawn.
flow period (Table6). If data are dominatedby
the linear flow period, then results are poor. 1. The slope of a backpressurecurve
Results for long flowing times are not good due obtainedfrom a short-timeisochronaltest on
to errors that result due to superposition.15 a fracturedwell is, in general?equal to .
Thus, care shouldbe taken in applyhg this unity,
procedureto fracturedwells and flow regimes
shouldbe proper~yidentifiedprior to using 2. The performancecoefficient,C, is a
this method. Iheskiq factors shown in Table 6 functionof time. The stabilizedperformance
were calculatedusing an effectivewellbore coefficientmay be calculatedfrom short-time
radius given in Fig. 14 of Ref. 4. Nottig that isochronaldata using the radial flow approxi-
calculatedvalues of the skin factors are mation if, and only if, data are unaffectedby
negative,it can be concludedthat they do the linesr flow period.
reflect that a stimulatedzone exists in the
vicinityof the wellbore. The applicabilityof 3. In order to avoid problemsdue to
the Odeh+ones procedurefor ~ 7~ = 1 is changes h flow regimes,it is recommendedthat
summarizedin Table 7. As shown h Fig. 111 an backpressurecurves for fracturedwells be
acceptablestraightline can be drawn even obtained from long-timedrawdowntests assuming
though linear flow prevails. But it is cleer the flow exponent,n, to be unity. This
from Table 7 the results can be erroneousif the procedureis applicableonly if non-Dsrcyflow
flow regime is not taken into account. Our effects are negligible.
objectivehere is to emphasizethat, if linear
flow controlsflow behavior,then the method is 4. Normal sequenceflow-after-flowtezts
not applicable. may be used to determinedeliverabilityof
fracturedwells providedflowingtimes are
The most interestingfeatureregardingthe long. However, isochronaltests are recom-
resulte summarizedin Tables 6 and 7 is that mended.
acceptablevalues of permeabilitythicknesscan
be obtainedfrom short-timereverse sequence 5. Reverse sequenceflow-after-flowtests
flow-after-flowtests. Thus, even though such are not recommendedfor determiningdeliver-
tests sre not recommendedfor estimating abilityof fracturedwells.
deliverability,they may be used for determining
permeability-thickneSS. 6. The Odeh-Jonesproceduremaybe used
to snalyzeflow-after-flowtest data obtained
DISCUSSIONAND CONCIllSIONS on a fracturedwell providedpressuredata
beyond the linear flow period arc obtained.
The main objectiveof this paper is to The enlargedwellboreradius conceptis not
fill an efistinggap in our knowledgeconcerning applicablefor short producingtimes when
analysisof fracturedgas well ttiats.Given linear flow prevails.
the fact that most gas wells are fracturedto
make them commercial,it seemedworthwhileto 7. In the course of this study,no
investigatethe applicabilityof commonly anomalousbehaviorwas observedwhen data were
acceptedmethodsof analysiswhen differentflow analyzedby the Odohdones procedure.
regimes are normallyencounteredin testing
fracturedwells. To the best knowledgeof the NOMEI?CL4TURE
authors,this is the fiist study to rigorously
examinethis problem. A = area, sq ft
C = performancecoefficient,Mcf/D/psi2/cp
On the basis of this study,it can be = gas compressibility,psi-l
Cg
concludedthat if linear flow controlspressure cr = rock compressibility,psi-l
behaviorduring multiratetesting,then Cw = water compressibility, psi-l
stabilizedflow coefficientscalculatedfrom G = gas gravity
this data can be grossly in error. On the other k = reservoirpermeability,md ~
hand, it appearsthat stabilizedflow m = real gas pseudopressure,psi /cp
I 6136 NICO HADINOTO.R. RAGHAVAN, end G. W. THOMAS
. dimensionlessreal gas pseudopressuredroF
%
n . flow exponent
P = reservoirpressure,psi
= averagereservoirpressure,psi
: = dimensionlesspressuredrop
Pi = initialreservoirpressure,psi
)Sc= standardpressure (14.7psi), psi
kf = flowingwellheadpressure,psi
q= gas productionrate, Mcf/D
rd = stabilizeddrainageradius, ft
= wellboreradius, ft
~ = irreduciblewater saturation
T= reservoirtemperature,%
1
SC
.-
standardtemperature,%
= Porous Media~ J. ApD1. Mech. (1953)20,
t = flowingtime, hours
tD = dimensionlesstime
Xe = half of drainagelength,ft
Xf . half of fracturelength,1%
z . gas deviationfactor
~ = viscosity,Cp
@ = porosity
The authorstake this opportunityto
xpress their appreciationto the Depto of
etroleumfigineering~the U. of Tulsa? for
!insncialaid. Nico Hadinotowould like to
?xpresshis gratitudeto the Agency of Inter-
~ationalDevelopment,Washingtm~ D. C.$ for
hsncial aid. Computerprogramsfor this study
/ereprovidedby TechnicalScientificSoftware
hc.~ Dallas,Tex.
mI?ERENcEs
1. Cullender,M. H.: Rewint Series,No. 9--
The IsochronalPerformanceMethod of
Determinergthe Flow Characteristicsof
Gas Wells, Society of Petroleumhgineers
of AIME, Dallas, Tex., 203-208.
2. Rawlins,E. L. and Schell.hardt,M. A.:
ItBackPressureData on Natural Gas Wells
and their Applicationto ProductionPrac-
tices,rMonograph7, USBM.
3. A1-Hussainy,R., Remey, H. J., Jr., and
Crawford.P. B,: ~tTheFlow of Real Gases
ThroughfiorousMedia,J. Pet. Tech. (May
1966) 624-635.
4. Grtigarten,A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and
Raghavan,R.: UnsteadyState Pressure
1
DistributionCreatedby a Well with a
Single InfiniteConductivityVertical
Fracture,Sot. Pet. Ekw. J, (Aug. 1974)
347-359*
5. Odeh~-A.S. and Jonest L. G.: Wressure
DrawdownAnalysisVariableRate Case,~l
J, Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965) 960-96A,
.
6. Wattenbarger,R. A. end Remey, H. J., Jr.
Well Test Interpretationof Vertically
FracturedGas Wel,l.s~ J. Pet. Tech. (May
1969) 625-632.
7* Aronofs~, ~. S. and Jenkins,R.:
UnsteadyRadial Flow of Gas Through
210.
8. A1-Hussainy,R. snd Remey, H. J., Jr.:
tApplicationof Real Gas Flow Theory to
Well Testing end DeliverabilityFore-
casting, J. Pet, Tech. (May 1966) 624-
636.
99 van Everdingen,A. F. and Hurstt W.:
TheApplicationof the LaplaceTrans-
formationto Flow Problemsin Reservoirs,
Trans., AIME (1949)~305-324,
10. Gringarten,A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr., end
Raghavan,R,: AppliedPressureAnalysis
for FracturedWells: J. Pet. Tech. (July
1975) e87-e920
11. Hatiotoj N;: Determinationof Gas Well
Del.iverabiliityin VerticallyFractured
Wells,tMs thesistU. of Tulsa (1975).
12. Poettmsnn,F. H. and Schilson,R. E.:
Calculationof the StabilizedPerform-
ance Coefficientof Low Permeability
Natural Gas Wells, Tran~.,AIME (1959)
216$ 240-246.
13, ~iq, MohemmadSyed: lWffectof Vertical
Fractureson Back PressureTest Behavior
of Gas Wells, MS thesis,StanfordU.
(1975).
M+. Essis, A. E. B. and Thomas,G. W.: ~lThe
Use of Open Flow PotentialTest Data in
DeterminingFormationCapacityand Skin
F#~4 Sot. Pet. llwz.J. (July 1971)
.-*
15. Chk,R. Y, L.t Mountford,C. J.,
Raghavan,R,, and Thomas,G. W.:
lDeterminationof ReservoirProperties
from Back PressureTests with Applica-
tions to ReservoirSimulation,!! J. Pet.
Tech.
- (May 1976) 603-610.
 TABLE 1

RESERVOIR PROPERTIES AND FLUID CHARACTERISTICS

For all systems examined

thefollowing properties
wereconstant:
Thickness
oftheReservoir.
oh,feet 20
Reservoir Temperature, T, R 644
Porosity, 0 0.119
-1
Rock Compressibility, c=, psi 3 x 10-5
Water Compressibility, Cw, psi-1 5X1 O-5
Irreducible Water Saturation, Sw 0.185
Gas Gravity, G 0.58&0.7
Standard Pressure, p Scl Psi 14.7
Standard Temperature, T*C, R 520

Reservoir Characteristics

Reservoir Fracture Initial Rate Flow

:.ength Penetration Ratio Permeability Pressure Schedule Periods
ft. Xe I Xf k, md Pi, psi q, MCF/D t, hrs.

760 1 1 1061.7 95, 190,285,380 1,3,12,24,48

760 1 1 5000.0 95, 190,380,760 1,3, 12,24,48
760 5 1 1061.7 9.5, 19,28.5,38 1,3, 12,24,48
760 5 1 5000.0 9.5, 19,28, 5, 38 1,3, 12,24,48
1900 5 0.5 5000.0 237.5,475, %QIWI .1,7.5, 12,24
1900 5 0.5 10000.0 2X?,5,475, %Q11YX) l,?. 5, 12,24

Initial Gas Iriitial Gf,s

Initial Pressure Compressibility Viscosity Permeability Grr,vity
Pig psi C~i. psi- bjs CP k, md z

10,000 3.65 X 10-5 0.0393 0.5 0.7

5,000 1,2721 x10-4 0.0263 0.5 0.7
5,000 1.2151 x10-4 0.0236 1.0 0.58
1061.7 8.8685 X104 0.0146 1.0 0, 58

TABLE 2

STABILIZED ABSOLUTE OPEN FLOW POTENTLAL FROM DRAWDOWN DATA

-5
Fracture Penetration Ratio Initial Pressure Permeability Stabilized AOF Stabilized C 10
3
%=/Xf pi, pai m~ q, MCF/D MC F/D/psi fcp

1 1061.7 1 3492 4,2008

5000 1 36362 4.2008

5 1061.7 1 911 1.0960

500C 1 9533 1, 0960

5 5000 0.5. 7584 0.54140

10000 005 17533 0.54140

Note: Permeability k = 1 md cases correspond to G = O. 58 and k = O. 5 md to G = 0.7.

 TABLE 3

DURATIONS OF FLOW PERIODS

Initial Approximate Approxim:. ce Approximate

Fracture Penetration Pressure Permeability End of Linear Start of Pseudo Start of Pseudo Steady
Ratio, xe/xf pi, psi k, md Flow, t, hrs, Radial
F1ow,t,hrs. State Flow, t, hrs.
.

1 5000 1 17.60 . 31.2

1061.7 1 76, 00 . 135.0

5 5000 1 0, 312 3, 12 31.2

1061, 7 1 1.350 13, 50 135.0

5 5000 0.5 16.24 162.40 469.75

10000 0.5 7.52 75.20 1014.80

TABLE 4

COMPARISON OF AOF AND C RESULTS FROM CP.LCULATEII

ISOCHRONAL AND DRAWDOWN DATA

(for xe/xf = 1)

-5
Flowtime AOF, MCF/1) C, MC F/ D/psi2/cp x 10
t, hours Isochronal Test Equation 10 Isochronal Test Equation 10

Pi = 1061.7 psi, m(pi) = 8.3126 x 10 psi2/cp, k = 1 md, G = O. 58

1 9665 15909 55.790 19, 138

3 5895 9613 34.03 11.564

12 5098 5451 6.1332 6, 5575

24 4305 4338 5.1789 5.2186

48 3703 3703 4.4817 4,4547

Pi = 5000 psi, m(pi) = 8.7345 x 108 psi2/cp, k = 1 md, G = O. 58

1 74957 85996 8.5817 9.8456

3 52581 55590 6.0200 6.3644

12 38194 38463 4.3728 4.4036

24 36485 36622 4.1770 4.1928

48 36420 36370 4.1468 4.1640

 i

TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF AOS? AND C RESULTS FROM CALCULATED

ISOCHRONAL AND DRAWDOWN DATA .

(forxe/xf= 5)

-5
Flowtime AOF, MCl?/D C, MCF/D/psi2/cp x 10
t, hours From Isochronal Test Equation 10 From Isochronal Test Equation 10

Pi = 1061.? psi, rn(pi)

= 8.3126x 107psi2/cp,k =lmd, G= 0,58.

1 2533 3043 3.0474 3.6607

3 1702 1872 2.0474 2.2520

12 1204 1196 1.4478 1.4388

24 1050 1031 1.2629 1.2403

48 930 940 1.1199 1.1308

Pi = 5000 psi, rn(pi) 8.7345 x 108 psi2/cp, k =lmd, G= O.58

1 15363 17108 1.7589 1.9587

3 11630 12301 1.3315 1,4083

12 9926 9817 1.1364 1.1239

24 9704 9568 1.1111 1.0954

48 9533 9533 1.0910 1.0914

pi = 5000 psi, m(pi) = 1.4009 x 109 psi2/cp, k =0.5 md, G= 0.7

1.0 9.4657 8.7253 6.7573 6.2315

7.5 3.3628 3,2107 2,4006 2.3014

12.0 2,6092 2.5568 1,8626 1.8372

24.0 1,8930 1.8518 1.3514 1.3393

Pi = 10,000 psi, m(pi) = 3.2385 x 109 psi2fcp, k =0.5md, G= 0.7

1.0 14.3370 13.6166 4,4271 4.2060

7.5 5.2651 5. 063? 1,6258 1.5700

12.0 4.2369 4.1223 1,3083 1.2806

24.0 3,2708 3.1074 1.0100 0.9712

 TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF RESULTS USING ODJ2H-JONES PROCEDURE

(for x=/xf = 5)

Initial Pressure Permeability Thickness Duration skin

Pi kh, md ft Hour S Type of Test kh, md ft Factor

1061.7 20 1 26.43 -1,80

3 Normal Sequence 21.98 -1.95
24 16.77 -2.32
1 23.57 -1.88
3 Reverse Sequence 20.20 -2.04
24 14,76 -2.54
5000 20 1 20.50 -1.87
3 Normal Sequence 17.91 -2.08
24 6.11 -3.23
1 20.37 -2.12
3 Rcveree Seqvence 19.10 -2.00
24 4.01 -3.51
5000 1 46. ill -1.40
7.5 17.62 -1.87
Normal Sequence
12 15.81 -1.93
24 16.07 -1.91
1000 10 1 27.01 -1.63
7,5 13.79 -2.02
Normal Sequence
12 13.42 .2.04
24 12.73 -2.10

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF RESULTS USING ODEH-JONES PROCEDURE

(for xe/xf = 1)

Initial Permeability
Pressu~ s Duration Thickness Skin
pi, psi Hours Type of Teat kh, md ft Factor

1061,7 1 107.36 -1.21

3 Normal Sequence 67.34 -1.49
12 17.48 -2.08
1 89.77 -1.34
3 Reverse Sequence 69.62 -1.62
12 26,84 -1.97

5000 1 62.46 -1.51

3 Normal Sequence 22,21 -1.98
24 6,36 -2.21
1 160.39 -@. 67
3 Reverse Sequence 48.86 +9. 72
24 4.62 -2.26

Actual Permeability Thickneee = 20 md ft

 FRACTURE

AXIS OF HELL BORE

BOUNDING SURFACES
OF DRAINAGE VOLUME

Fig. 1A - Schematic view of fractured well

and accompanying reservoir drainage volume

FKACTUkE

Fig. lB - Plan view of fractured reservoir

showing position of symmetry element

I I I 1 1 # I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 11

J!. I ..
FLOW TV4E,t,hours
/4

1
#t i
a td10 1 1 I 1 I 1 Itl
lo?
1 t 1 1 I I t 1

4?
Fm RATE,q,hiCF/O

Fig. 2- Back pressure curve: isochronal test (xe/xf = 1)

 i 1 , 1 I I 1 1 t
I , I I I 1 1 1 ,

FLOW TIM$,t, hours 1

01
n
0
7.5
12
1
R 24 /
- STABILIZED CASft /,

x./xf plsloooo
5,@ ,/
&.0.5md */
A

Kfl- , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 I t 1 1 I t

d d d
FL(W RATE,q,MCF/C)

Fig. 3 - Back pressurecurve: isochronaltest(xe/xf

= 5)

= 105 1 t 1 1 I 1#11 t 1 1 1 I 1, k
K! 10 102 lo~

FLOW RATE,q, MCF/D

L
FA(131.
12- Fig, 4 - Back pressurecurve: Isochronaltest (xe/xf 5)

10-

e-

4 -
X@/xf#s
I

o~m
FLOW TIME,t,
how

Fig. 5 - Compari
son of values of C predictedby Eq. 13
and isochronaltests
 ~RMMMANCE COEFFICIENT,
C X K?, MCFID@ %p
w a m a 5
0 I 1 , 1 I : I

I I r I I I I 1 1

PENET~fl;OJ RATIO, Xc/Xf ~ 1

Fig. 6- Comparisonof values of C predlcted by Eq. 15 +
and isochronaltests (xe/xf= 5)

.
a

o
~n
I I n I r I rI 1 1 I I 1 Ill-
I
0:
FLOW TIME,t, hOUrO 0
41 t # 1 , 1 1 1 t 1
03 ,/ 0.s t
x 12
RECIPROCALSQUAREROOT FLOWTIME,
-- sT~lL@W CAM /(
1~, hours-2
~/x, 1, p, ro61.7pd

/
kml~
/

0 Fig, 7 - Canparisonof valuesof C predictedby Eq. 15

and isochronaltests (xe/xf= 1)
/,
/
~ ~. :

/0

3
Ii!1($ 1 , 1 * 1 , I I 1 I , t m, L
to 102 103

FLOW RATE,q, MCF/D

Fig. 8- Back pressurecurve:normal sequenceflow

after flow test (Xehf = 1J
 0 12
/

1
X 24
la - STABILIZED CASE /
/
x, /xf 5, pi=iomo p8i 4
fj
k o,s md / / 1

I
.1
FLC?4/ RATE, q, MCF/D

flow test (xe/xf = ~)

NY! 1 r 1 I , ,,, , 1 I 1I 1 1111 , 1 , v

FLOW TiME,t,houra
F Al
03 J
0 .24
-s, pi~sooopti
=imd

i&Lw1 ~1 . , ,
I io i&
FLOW RATE, q, MCF/D

Fig. 10 - Back pressure curve reverse sequence flow

after flow test (xe/xf= 1)
 I I I 1 I Ill] 1 I I 1 1 I 11

I 07~

106~ A

1
FLOW TIME, t, hours
al
) 03
0 24
Xe/Xf * 1, pi 4000 psi
k= Imd
1

I 05
t 1 t I I I 1 1 1 1 t I I 1 1 1 I
,.2 103
10
FLOW RATE, q, MCF/D

Fig. 11 - Back pressure reverse sequence

flow after flow test (xe/xf + 5)

- 14

- [u

3 -
-8
N .-
UI
a
2 -.6 ft
Q
x

1-

1
I
I I I 1 1 1
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 of

f ~LoG(tn-tj-l)
j-l n

Fig. 12 - Sample Odeh - Jones qraphs for

a vertical Iy fractured well