CSUG/SPE 137825-PP

Forecasting Tight Gas Well Production with a Material Balance Constraint

Michael Morgan, SPE, GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19–21 October 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by a CSUG/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
In SPE 133615, Nobakht et al. [1] introduced a simplified method of production forecasting for tight/shale gas wells which exhibit
extended periods of linear flow. The method is simple as it relies principally on a plot of inverse rate versus square root time. In the
present work, we extend this method by applying a material balance constraint that allows for changing reservoir pressure with depletion.
We generate curves for a type well. These curves are normalized on the basis of the initial rate of the well. This work shows that wells
from similar producing areas will all fit on the same “type curve”.
The advantages of this forecasting method are: (1) It requires only the initial rate and an estimate of Original Gas in Place (OGIP) ,
(2) The cumulative gas production can be calculated at any given time without the need to time-step forward and (3) it can be used as a
field development planning tool, when combined with the economics of multistage hydraulic fracturing.

Introduction
Exploration and development of Canadian natural gas resources is shifting to ultra-low permeability resource plays. These gas fields are
characterized by large volumes of gas in place but are technically and economically challenging to exploit. For petroleum engineers, it
is particularly challenging to measure, describe, and simulate field performance. Unlike conventional high-permeability gas reservoirs,
the flow regime in gas resource plays shows a subtle and prolonged transition between early and late time behavior. With this type of
behavior, it is inappropriate to use traditional type-curve solutions.
We know that multi-fractured horizontal wells can flow under linear conditions for a long time, whether the wells are completed in
naturally fractured Mexican reservoirs [2], US shales [3, 4] or Canadian tight sandstones [5]. If we assume that the flow is linear we can
say that the inverse of flow rate is proportional to the square root of time
1 √
∝ t
q

We also know that if there is sufficiently wide well spacing, the flow will transition to radial flow. . .
1
∝ log(t)
q
. . . and when the pressure transient has reached all boundaries, the flow will transition to pseudo-steady state flow
1
∝t
q
Exactly which flow regime will dominate the long-term behavior is a function of reservoir permeability and spacing. As the reservoir
permeability decreases, higher density development – either through more wells or more fracs – is needed in order to maintain a given
recovery factor.
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 2

If we assume that development will continue until there is measurable interference between wells it may be easier to view well
performance as a combination of a productivity factor and a material balance constraint. In other words, a modified flowing material
balance.
Linear-flow appear to dominate much of the productive life of tight/shale gas wells. Given the tight well spacings and frac densities
typical of current projects, it is likely that the well will reach pseudo-steady state flow or abandonment rate before a clearly defined radial
flow period is observed. For simplicity, we could assume that only linear flow occurs.
One clear and dramatic complication is which fracture model to use: a bi-wing fracture model or a dual porosity/stimulated reservoir
volume (SRV) model. Data for coal-bed methane (CBM) reservoirs and many shale reservoirs support an SRV model [6, 7]. This had lead
many practitioners to conclude that “shale gas reservoirs almost always have two different storage volumes for hydrocarbons, the rock
matrix and the natural fractures” [8]. However, much of the shale gas literature is based on a handful of shale plays – most especially the
Barnett Shale. There will doubtless be examples of unconventional reservoirs, tight sandstones in particular, that are better represented by
single-porosity systems with artificial bi-wing fractures. Moreover, the performance of SRV fracture models can look very similar to that
of bi-wing models [4].
The proposed method assumes bi-wing fractures and considers a per-frac view of performance. This is based on the belief that the
performance of a horizontal well with multiple transverse fractures will be equal to a sum of single fracture models [9–11]. The reservoir
and well description is very similar to Nobakht’s [5].

Literature Review
Linear flow analysis has become commonplace for tight gas analysis. Wattenbarger et al. [12] provided one of the first comprehensive
derivations for linear flow within a closed reservoir under constant rate, Equation 1, and constant pressure, Equation 2, conditions. The
real gas pseudo-pressure, Ψ, follows the Al-Hussainy definition [13], which is twice that of Equation 5. To correct for changing gas
properties during pseudo-steady state flow, the author recommend using pseudo-time which is defined by Equation 6.
     
xf π 1 2 ∞ 1 2 2
ΨwD = + tDye − 2 ∑ 2
e(−n π tDye ) (1)
ye 2 3 π n=1 n
  π
xf 1 4
= (2)
ye qD ∞ (− 14 n2 π2 tDye )
∑n=1 e
with

1 kh (Ψi − Ψw f )
ΨwD = = (3)
qD 1424qg T
0.00633kta
tDye = (4)
φi µi cti y2e
Z P
P
Ψ= dP (5)
Pre f µz

Z t
1
ta = (µct )i dt (6)
0 µct
√
Wattenbarger noted that at early times 1/q should be proportional to t. Wattenbarger also illustrated how √ a square root of time
plot could be used of identify linear flow, the time at which linear flow
 ends, t ehs , and calculate the parameter
 kx f . For constant rate
production, the end of the half slope should occur at (tDye )ehs = 1 2 . This should happen at (tDye )ehs = 1 4 for constant pressure
production.
More recently, Arévalo considered linear flow in a naturally fractured reservoir √ system [14]. He proposed using a dual-porosity
model dominated by flow within the fracture. He noted that a plot of ∆Ψ/q versus t should produce a straight line for constant flowing
conditions. He proposed using a linear superposition function, Equation 8, to account for changing flow conditions and provided field
examples to that effect. A 2D numerical simulator, GASSIM, was used to generate forecasts assuming constant flowing pressures.
Anderson and Mattar noted that the constant pressure solution for pure linear flow could be converted to an equivalent constant rate
solution simply by multiplying the measured time by π2 4 . Similarly, the material balance time was twice that of the constant pressure
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 3

solution. Thus, “a diagnostic plot that uses material-balance-time (for constant pressure linear flow) reduces to the time shift from 146%
to 23%” and “there is very little observable difference between a diagnostic plot that uses material-balance-time and the constant rate
solution” [15].
Ibrahim summarized the use of superposition functions for radial, linear, bi-linear and pseudo-steady state flow [16]. Respectively,
these are Equations 7 through 10.
n
Ψi − Ψ f w ∆q
=m∑ log (tn − t j−1 ) + b (7)
qn j=1 qn
n
Ψi − Ψ f w ∆q p
=m∑ tn − t j−1 + b (8)
qn j=1 qn
n
Ψi − Ψ f w ∆q
=m∑ (tn − t j−1 )0.25 + b (9)
qn j=1 qn

n
Ψi − Ψ f w ∆q
=m∑ (tn − t j−1 ) + b (10)
qn j=1 qn

where tn is pseudo-time, Equation 6.

However, Ibrahim noted the linear flow functions forms were found to be dependent on drawdown [16, 17]. This error may be
important when determining reservoir properties, but it should have little bearing in the accuracy of transient forecasts [5]. If reservoir
properties are needed, an empirical correction, based on a number of computer simulations, was proposed by Ibrahim. The correction can
be as large as 20% for high drawdowns.
Recently, Al-Ahmadi presented mathematical models that combine a fracture/matrix√model with Ibrahim’s drawdown correction [18]
and Bello’s skin effect [19]. The models again assumed that ∆Ψ/q was proportional to t.

Proposed Material Balance Method

In order to avoid using Ibrahim’s correction, this paper returns to fundamental definitions of pseudo-time and material balance time.
Instead of using average reservoir conditions to correct for changing gas properties, the properties within a region of influence or
investigation are used. For a given time, the reservoir is assumed to be only as large as this region. This technique was used by Lee [20] in
pressure test analysis of radial flow into vertical wells.
We start our derivation with Darcy’s law for Cartesian coordinates. . .

kA(Ψ − Ψw f )
q= (11)
µ

. . . and note that the average pseudo-pressure, Ψ, is directly related to the average pressure, P, which can be determined by using
using a material balance constraint
 
P Pi GP
= 1− (12)
z zi G

Anderson and Mattar [21] demonstrated that the calculation of pseudo-time can be improved by considering the total volume of gas
“seen” by the well, Ginv . This is given by the volumetric calculation

43, 560Ainv hφ(1 − Sw )

Ginv = (13)
Bg

where the formation volume factor for gas, Bg , is given as

zi T
Bg = (14)
198.6Pi

For a linear flow, we can define a “length of investigation”

CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 4

s
kta
Linv = (15)
948φµct

where the total system compressibility (for a gas dominated system) is given by qt = qg or (for the general case) by the form proposed
by Rahman [22]

ct = cti [1 − cg (Pi − P)] + Sgi [cg − cgi + cg cgi (Pi − P)] (16)
cti = c f + Soi co + Swi cw + Sgi cgi (17)

Time can be represented by a suitable pseudo-time, Equation 6. For pseudo-state flow we can use a suitable material balance
pseudo-time
Z t
(µct )i q
tca = dt (18)
q 0 µct

Systems with absorbed gas content can be modeled using the method proposed by Gerami et al. This is outlined at the end of
Appendix A.
Under transient conditions the pressure disturbance will occur mostly over the region of of investigation. In this case, the relevant
material balance constraint would be
 
P Pi GP
= 1− (19)
z zi Ginv

Material balance pseudo-time is calculated using over the volume Ginv which becomes a constant value equal to G when the well
reaches pseudo-steady state flow.
Using these definitions, it can be seen that the flowing material balance for linear flow has the same form in early and late transient
times as in pseudo-steady state flow. Following the derivation in Appendix C, it was concluded that
Ψi − Ψw f 2Pi
≈ tca − bGinv (20)
q(t) cgi µi zi Ginv
where
2 T2
zi Psc
b= 2
(21)
3L1 Pi Tsc2 kh2 φ
This can be rearranged to provide, for constant flowing pressure, the relationship
 
Ψinv − Ψw f −0.5
q=α t (22)
Ψi − Ψw f
If we think of rates and OGIPs on a per frac basis, we can run sensitivities on differing frac spacing. The initial rate should not
change with differing spacing (the initial rate should only be a function of rock quality and frac productivity which is reflected in α) but
the long term rate will change (there is less OGIP per frac). With relative ease, the production profiles, levels of interference and recovery
factors can be estimated for differing levels of development. In Figure 1 we can see the results of a set of hypothetical frac-spacing
sensitivity calculations using an assumed OGIP of 40 Bcf/section and a per frac test rate of 800 Mcf/d. Square drainage areas were
assumed (L1 = L2 ).

Field Data and Real-World Problems

Echoing previous studies, this paper confirms that linear flow is the dominate flow regime in several Canadian fields currently under
development with multi-fractured horizontal wells.
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 5

Figure 1: A semi-log plot of rate versus cumulative production as calculated by the proposed material balance model (Equation D.5).
The rates and cumulative production are presented on a per-frac basis for a hypothetical reservoir with an OGIP = 40 Bcf/section and
qi = 800 Mcf/d/frac
104
1 frac/section
2 frac/section
4 frac/section
8 frac/section
16 frac/section
103 32 frac/section
64 frac/section
128 frac/section
Rate (Mcf/d/frac)

102

101

100
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Cumulative Production (MMcf/frac)

Figures 2 though 4 show the production of all wells in three different fields in North Eastern British Columbia. On a well-by-well
basis, monthly production data from public data sources was compared to three flow-identification curves on a log-log plot of rate versus
time. Linear flow was identified by the red line with a negative half slope. The green line with a negative quarter slope was used to identify
bi-linear flow and a black line with a negative unit slope was used to identify pseudo-steady state flow.
To correct for shut-in periods and changing rates, material balance time tMB ? was used which is defined as Q/q. This has previously

been found to be an adequate method for flow regime identification [15]. The curves were normalized such that q?D was zero at a time of
10 days. As none of the wells appeared to be in pseudo-steady state flow, no correction was made to time to correct for changing gas
properties. A linear least-squares best fit algorithm was used to fit the field data to the identification curves. A more detailed well by well
analysis of the linear flow regime in Field A is presented by Nobakht [5].
As can be seen in the figures, the production signature of nearly all wells matches a linear flow model for nearly all of the production
to date. Given these examples and the previous discussion, it may be tempting to assume that each well follows a single linear-flow trend.
That would be a mistake.
As many have observed, horizontal wells under linear-flow conditions may have an apparent skin. This can be in the form of
convergence skin [19], non-Darcy flow [23], or near wellbore damage caused by lost completion fluids or finite/changing fracture
conductivity [24]. This apparent skin will have the largest affect at the highest flow rates early in a well’s life. The net result can be an
apparent bi-linear flow regime. As the highest rates are “cropped” from a well’s production profile, it initially appears that a well with
significant skin has a relatively low decline rate. This can make it easy to confuse skin, which reduces a well’s initial productivity, with
shallower long term declines.
In the authors’ own experience, bi-linear flow is a common occurrence and has been seen in multiple tight gas reservoirs. Though
bi-linear flow is not observed in every well, it is seen in all three of this paper’s example fields. When it is observed, bi-linear flow is
always followed by linear flow. Though it does represent a reduction in productivity, bi-linear flow can be observed in some of the best
and some of the worst producers.
Another issue is the possibility of multiple linear flows [9, 25]. At early times the flow may be linear and dominated by flow
perpendicular to the fractures (as assumed in this paper). After a transition to elliptical or pseudo-radial flow, a late time linear flow may
be observed that is dominated by flow perpendicular to the horizontal well. A careful matching of properties should result in a match for
all flow regimes [26], though it may be hard to identify each flow regime or converge to a unique set of reservoir properties.
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 6

Figure 2: Northeast British Columbia Field A

101
100
10−1
10−2
q?D

10−3
10−4
10−5

10−2 10−1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

? (days)
tMB

There is no easy solution to these issues of flow-regime identification. A close analysis of daily pressure and flow data can help
identify apparent bi-linear flow. Excluding this data from analysis can help address issues with changing fracture properties, convergence
skin and finite-conductivity. Unfortunately, these issues often persist for many months. If the only data available is a post-completion test
rate, correlations to existing wells may also help, provided that completion practices are similar.
Where data is still limited, the best recourse may be to resort to empirical methods. For example, the value of α in Equation 22
could be determined by consideration of an initial test rate qi . One method to do this would be to prepare a plot of q vs t for one or more
representative wells. If it is assumed that α = β × qi , a series of plots of β × qit −0.5 versus t could be overlayed on the field data to help
choose a value for β. A good initial guess is α = 4qi , if you define qi as the rate after three days of flow (e.g. a post frac test rate).
A final issue is that of the long-term performance of the wells. Though linear flow has dominated the production to date, it is likely
that at least some of the wells will make a transition to pseudo-steady state flow. It may be subtle, but the apparent Arps’s exponent
will decrease as the wells transition to pseudo-steady flow with a potentially large reduction in the expected ultimate recovery. This is
especially likely when infill potential is considered, as it is in Figure 1. The difficulty in determining type-curves for differing levels of
development is, in fact, what prompted the initial theoretical work of this paper. The proposed material balance model is an attempt to
help in this forecasting.

Conclusions
It may be tempting to view forecasting production from tight/shale gas wells as an exercise in generating type-curves with a range of
initial declines and exponents. This is undoubtedly part of the background work needed, but it is not the end. Careful consideration of the
flow regimes involved and apparent reservoir properties is always required. Interference between wells, even if only subtle, must at least
be considered.
It is always preferable to start analysis with daily rate and pressure data on multiple wells each with several years of production.
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 7

Figure 3: Northeast British Columbia Field B

101
100
10−1
10−2
q?D

10−3
10−4
10−5

10−2 10−1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

? (days)
tMB

Ideally, all wells would be drilled and completed using the same techniques and spacings of all future development. Where this is
impossible, a correlation of initial rate to medium-term production may be used, with some theoretical justification, to predict long-term
performance under a variety of drilling and completion spacings. Though not perfect, this is better than assuming a type-curve or recovery
factor.
The material balance model derived in this paper is one attempt to predict long-term performance without resorting to detailed
numerical simulation. It was derived to make maximum use of material-balance time which has proven useful in modeling production
with changing pressure and rates. The form of the derived formulas is valid for early and late time, though further work is needed to clarify
intermediate values of ta and to compare the results to numerical studies. The derivations presented are based on reservoirs dominated by
gas compressibility with zero absorbed gas content. However, the derivation can be extended quite easily to systems with absorbed gas
content and significant formation and liquid compressibility.

References
1. Nobakht, M., Mattar, L., Moghadam, S. and Anderson, D.: “Simplified Yet Rigorous Forecasting of Tight/Shale Gas Production in
Linear Flow,” SPE Western Regional Meeting (2010) SPE 133615.

2. Arévalo, J.: Analysis of Long-Term Performance in Tight Gas Reservoirs: Case Histories, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A & M University
(2001).
3. Helmy, M. and Wattenbarger, R.: “Analysis of Well Performance with Multiple Shut-in Periods,” SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference (1999) SPE 53932.
 CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 8

Figure 4: Northeast British Columbia Field C

101
100
10−1
10−2
q?D

10−3
10−4
10−5

10−2 10−1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

? (days)
tMB

4. Mattar, L. et al.: “Production Analysis and Forecasting of Shale Gas Reservoirs: Case History-Based Approach,” SPE Shale Gas
Production Conference (2008) SPE 119897.
5. Nobakht, M., Morgan, M. and Mattar, L.: “Case Studies of a Simple Yet Rigorous Forecasting Procedure for Tight Gas Wells,”
Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference (2010) SPE 137456.
6. Mayerhofer, M., Lolon, E., Youngblood, J. and Heinze, J.: “Integration of Microseismic-Fracture-Mapping Results With Numerical
Fracture Network Production Modeling in the Barnett Shale,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (2006) SPE 102103.
7. Mayerhofer, M. et al.: “What Is Stimulated Reservoir Volume?” SPE Production & Operations (2010) 25, 89, SPE 119890.
8. Lewis, A. and Hughes, R.: “Production Data Analysis of Shale Gas Reservoirs,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exposition
(2008) SPE 116688.
9. Van Kruysdijk, C. and Dullaert, G.: “A Boundary Element Solution to the Transient Pressure Response of Multiply Fractured
Horizontal Wells,” Preprint, The Joint LMA/SPE European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Robinson College,
Cambridge University (1989) .
10. Chen, C. and Raghavan, R.: “A Multiply-Fractured Horizontal Well in a Rectangular Drainage Region,” SPE Journal (1997) 2, 455,
SPE 37072.
11. Raghavan, R., Chih-Cheng, C. and Bijan, A.: “An Analysis of Horizontal Wells Intercepted by Multiple Fractures,” SPE Journal
(1997) 2, 235, SPE 27652.
12. Wattenbarger, R., El-Banbi, A., Villegas, M. and Maggard, J.: “Production analysis of linear flow into fractured tight gas wells,” SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium (1998) SPE 39931.
 CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 9

13. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. and Crawford, P.: “The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media,” SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology
(1966) 18, SPE 1243.

14. Arévalo, J. et al.: “Analysis of Long-Term Performance in Tight Gas Wells: Field Examples,” SPE Journal (2002) , 10SPE 74360.
15. Anderson, D. and Mattar, L.: “Material-balance-time during linear and radial flow,” Canadian International Petroleum Conference
(2003) Paper number CIPC2003-201.

16. Ibrahim, M.: History Matching Pressure Response Functions from Production Data, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A & M University (2004).
17. Ibrahim, M. and Wattenbarger, R.: “Analysis of Rate Dependence in Transient Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells,” SPE Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (2006) SPE 100836.

18. Al-Ahmadi, H., Almarzooq, A. and Wattenbarger, R.: “Application of Linear Flow Analysis to Shale Gas Wells – Field Cases,” SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference (2010) SPE 130370.
19. Bello, R. and Wattenbarger, R.: “Modelling and Analysis of Shale Gas Production with a Skin Effect,” Canadian International
Petroleum Conference (2009) Paper number CIPC2009-082.

20. Lee, W.: “Pressure-Transient Test Design in Tight Gas Formations,” Journal of Petroleum Technology (1987) 39, 1185, SPE 17088.
21. Anderson, D. and Mattar, L.: “An Improved Pseudo-Time for Gas Reservoirs with Significant Transient Flow,” Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology (2007) 46, 49.
22. Rahman, N., Mattar, L. and Zaoral, K.: “A New Method for Computing Pseudo-Time for Real Gas Flow Using the Material Balance
Equation,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (2006) 45, 36.
23. Settari, A., Bale, A., Bachman, R. and Floisand, V.: “General Correlation for the Effect of Non-Darcy Flow on Productivity of
Fractured Wells,” SPE Gas Technology Symposium (2002) SPE 75715.
24. Barree, R.: “Hydraulic Fracturing,” Three Day Short Course (2009).

25. Clarkson, C., Jordan, C., Ilk, D. and Blasingame, T.: “Production Data Analysis of Fractured and Horizontal CBM Wells,” SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting (2009) SPE 125929.
26. Clarkson, C. and Beierle, J.: “Integration of Microseismic and Other Post-Fracture Surveillance with Production Analysis: A Tight
Gas Study,” SPE Unconventional Gas Conference (2010) SPE 131786.
27. Gerami, S., Pooladi-Darvish, M., Morad, K. and Mattar, L.: “Type Curves for Dry CBM Reservoirs With Equilibrium Desorption,”
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (2008) 47, 48.
28. Clarkson, C., Bustin, R. and Seidle, J.: “Production Data Analysis of Single-Phase (Gas) CBM Wells,” SPE Gas Technology Symposium
(2006) SPE 100313.

A Derivation of Model for Pseudo-Steady State Flow

Following the derivation of Gerami et al. [27], we start with the material balance equation, Equation 12
 
P Pi GP
= 1− (A.1)
z zi G
Using the chain rule, we can state
   
d P d P dP dΨ
= × × (A.2)
dt z dP z dΨ dt
or
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 10

 
d P
dt z × dΨ
dP
dΨ
=   (A.3)
dt d P
dP z

Taking the derivative of Equation 12 with respect to time

    
d P d Pi GP
= 1− (A.4)
dt z dt zi G
During pseudo-steady state the pressure disturbance has reached the full drainage area and Ginv = G = constant, thus
   
d P Pi q(t)
=− (A.5)
dt z zi G
From our definition of pseudo-pressure, Equation 5,

dΨ P
=2 (A.6)
dP µz
Taking a basic derivative
 
d P P dz 1
=− 2 + (A.7)
dP z z dP z
Using the definition of non-ideal gas compressibility. . .
1 1 dz
−
cg = (A.8)
P z dP
we can substitute Equation A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8 into Equation A.3
 
dΨ 2 Pi q(t)
=− (A.9)
dt cg µ zi G
Integrating this with respect to time and dividing by q(t), we obtain
 Z t
Ψi − Ψ 2 Pi q(t)
= dt (A.10)
q(t) Gq(t) zi 0 cg µ

Using the definition for material balance pseudo-time, Equation 18,

Ψi − Ψ 2Pi
= tca (A.11)
q(t) cgi µi zi G
Using the method proposed by Gerami et al. [27], compressibility can be modified to account for gas desorbtion. . .

ct? = cti [1 − cg (Pi − P)] + Sgi [cg − cgi + cg cgi (Pi − P)] + cd (A.12)
cti = c f + Soi co + Swi cw + Sgi cgi (A.13)
zPsc TVL PL
cd = (A.14)
Tsc φP(P + PL )2

. . . as can the gas compressibility factor

z
z? = (A.15)
1 + TzP sc TVL PL
sc φ(P+PL )

?
In such a system, tca would be replaced by tca
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 11

B Linear Pseudo-Steady State Inflow Performance Equation

Rearranging Equation A.11 taking the derivative with respect to tca we find

cgi µi zi G dΨ
q=− (B.1)
2Pi dtca
If our drainage area, A, is a rectangle with sides of length L1 and L2 and we ignore water saturation, the free gas in place, G will be
given by
Ahφ L1 L2 hφ
G= = (B.2)
Bgi Bgi
Thus,

cgi µi zi L1 L2 hφ dΨ
q=− (B.3)
2Pi Bgi dtca
If we define L1 as the distance longitudinal to the frac length x f and L2 as the distance perpendicular to the frac face, we can write an
equation for the flow rate at any distance, y, perpendicular to the frac

cgi µi zi L1 yhφ dΨ
qy = − (B.4)
2Pi Bgi dtca
Dividing Equation B.3 by B.4, we find
y
qy = q (B.5)
L2
Substituting this into Darcy’s law for linear flow
y L1 kh dP
q= (B.6)
L2 Bg µ dy
or
Akh dP
yq = (B.7)
Bg µ dy
Rearranging we get
Akh
yqdy = dP (B.8)
Bg µ
Using the definition of pseudo-pressure, Equation 5, and the definition of gas formation volume factor
zPsc T
Bg = (B.9)
PTsc
we find
AkhTsc
yqdy = dΨ (B.10)
2Psc T
Integrating over the total drainage distance L2
Z L2
AkhTsc
Z Ψ
q ydy = dΨ (B.11)
0 2Psc T Ψw f

1 AkhTsc
q L22 = (Ψ − Ψw f ) (B.12)
2 2Psc T
qPsc T 2
Ψ = Ψw f + L (B.13)
AkhTsc 2
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 12

Similarly, for any given distance, y, we obtain

qPsc T 2
Ψ = Ψw f + y (B.14)
AkhTsc
The volumetric average pseudo-pressure, Ψ, is given by
R R L2 R L2
ΨdV 0 ΨL1 hdy 0 Ψdy
Ψ= = = (B.15)
V L1 L2 h L2
Z L2  
qPsc T 2
Ψw f + AkhT sc
y dy
0
Ψ= (B.16)
L2
Therefor,
qPsc T 2
Ψ = Ψw f + L (B.17)
3AkhTsc 2
or
qPsc T L2
Ψ = Ψw f + (B.18)
3khTsc L1
Combining the linear pseudo-steady state equation, Equation B.18, with the material balance equation, A.11
qPsc T L2
Ψi − Ψw f − 3khT sc L1 2Pi
= tca (B.19)
q(t) cgi µi zi G
Ψi − Ψw f 2Pi Psc T L2
= tca + (B.20)
q(t) cgi µi zi G 3khTsc L1
Ψ−Ψw f
As expected, a plot of q versus tca will yield a straight line. The slope of the line can be used to calculate the apparent
as-in-place. The intercept can be used to calculate kh LL12 , or kh if the geometry is known.
g
C Derivation of Model for Transient Linear Flow
The derivation follows that of Appendix A, with the exception that the relevant gas in place, G, is no longer constant. Instead, the gas
place is a function of the depth of investigation. Following the concept outlined by Anderson and Mattar [21], the material balance,
Equation
in 12, becomes
 
Pinv Pi GP
= 1− (C.1)
z zi Ginv
where
Ainv hφ L1 Linv hφ
Ginv = = (C.2)
Bgi Bgi
The length of investigation, Linv , is analogous to a radius of investigation for radial flow and is defined as
s
kta
Linv = (C.3)
φµcg
Combining Equation C.2 and C.3 with the definition of Bg , we find
s
L1 hφPi kta
Ginv = (C.4)
T zi φµcg
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 13

As in Appendix A, we take the derivative of Equation 12 with respect to time, this time noting that the full drainage area and Ginv is
not constant, thus
    
d Pinv Pi q(t) G p dGinv
=− − (C.5)
dt z zi Ginv G2inv dt
This leads to a formula for the derivative of the average pseudo-pressure with respect to time. . .
  
dΨinv 2 Pi q(t) G p dGinv
=− − (C.6)
dt cg µ zi Ginv G2inv dt
. . . , which, when integrated with respect to time and divided by q(t), gives

G p dGdtinv
 Z t  Z t
Ψi − Ψinv 2 Pi q(t) 2 Pi
= dt − 2 dt (C.7)
q(t) Ginv q(t) zi 0 cg µ Ginv q(t) zi 0 cg µ
The second integral on the right hand side of Equation C.7 is unwieldy, to say the least. It can, however, be expected to be much
G G
smaller than the first integral. In both Equation C.5 and C.6, the relevant term is given by G2p dGdtinv . At early times, G2p , will be small: the
inv inv
term is composed of the recovery factor divided by Ginv . At late times, dGdtinv can be expected to be small: the term will grow at a rate
√
proportional to 1/ ta . Ignoring the second integral, we find
 Z t
Ψi − Ψinv 2 Pi q(t)
≈ dt (C.8)
q(t) Ginv q(t) zi 0 cg µ
or

Ψi − Ψinv 2Pi
≈ tca (C.9)
q(t) cgi µi zi Ginv
Rearranging Equation C.9 and taking the derivative with respect to tca , we find
 
cgi µi zi dΨ dGinv
q=− Ginv + Ψinv (C.10)
2Pi dtca dtca
It can be seen that
s
dGinv L1 hφPi k 1 dta
= √ (C.11)
dtca 2T zi φcg µ ta dtca
To solve for the derivative of pseudo-time with respect to material balance pseudo-time, we can set
 
dta
dta dt
=  (C.12)
dtca dtca
dt

The derivative of pseudo-time with respect to time is given by

dta µi cgi
= (C.13)
dt µcg
For the derivative of material balance time, we substitute Ginv for G in a form of tca employed by Clarkson and others [28]. . .
 
µi cgi zi Ginv
tca = Ψi − Ψinv (C.14)
q 2Pi
Thus,

dtca µi cgi zi dGinv µi cgi zi dΨ

= Ψinv − Ginv (C.15)
dt 2qPi dt 2qPi dt
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 14

" s #
dtca µi cgi zi L1 hφPi k 1 1 µi cgi −2 Pi q
= Ψinv √ − Ginv (C.16)
dt 2qPi T zi φµcg 2 ta µcg µcg zi Ginv
" s #
dtca µi cgi Ψinv L1 hφ k µi cgi
= √ +1 (C.17)
dt µcg 4q T φµcg ta
Combining Equation C.13 and C.17,
dta 1
= q (C.18)
dtca Ψinv L1 hφ k µ√i cgi
4q T φµcg ta +1

Combining this with Equation C.11

q
L1 hφPi k √1
dGinv 2T zi φcg µ ta
= q (C.19)
dtca Ψinv L1 hφ k µ√ i cgi
4q T φµcg ta + 1
√
If we define t ♣ as
√
p 4T ta
t♣ = q (C.20)
L1 hφ φckg µ

We obtain
  
dGinv 2 Pi
= √ (C.21)
dtca µi cgi Ψinv + t ♣ zi
√ dGinv
At late times, ta and, by extension, t ♣ becomes large and Ψ becomes small. Thus, dtca becomes small and Equation C.12 simplifies
to
 
cgi µi zi dΨ
q=− Ginv (C.22)
2Pi dtca
Ψ −Ψ
This is the same form as Equation B.1 which implies that the solution for i q(t) f w will have the same form as Equation B.20. As
expected, the transient solution converges to the pseudo-steady state solution.
At early and intermediate times we have
   
cgi µi zi dΨ 2Ψinv Pi
q=− Ginv + √ (C.23)
2Pi dtca µi cgi Ψinv + t ♣ zi
If we again write an equation for the flow rate at any distance, y, perpendicular to the frac and divide Equation C.23 by the result, we
obtain
  
c µz 2Ψinv √ Pi
q + gi2Pii i zi
c µz
− gi2Pii i L1 LBinv hφ dΨ
µi cgi Ψinv + t ♣ gi dtca
   = cgi µi zi L1 yhφ dΨ
(C.24)
c µz
qy + gi2Pii i 2Ψinv √ Pi − 2Pi Bg i dtca
♣
µi cgi Ψinv + t zi
  
cgi µi zi 2Ψinv √ Pi
q+ 2Pi zi
µi cgi Ψinv + t ♣ Linv
   = (C.25)
cgi µi zi 2Ψinv √ Pi y
qy + 2Pi zi
µi cgi Ψinv + t ♣
√
At early times t ♣ is small and Equation C.25 simplifies to
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 15

q+1 Linv
= (C.26)
qy + 1 y
Which can be rewritten as
y y
qy = q+ −1 (C.27)
Linv Linv
Combining this with Darcy’s law for linear flow
y y L1 kh dP
q+ −1 = (C.28)
Linv Linv Bg µ dy
Using the definition of pseudo-pressure and the definition of gas formation volume factor we find
L1 Linv khTsc
(yq + y − Linv ) dy = dΨ (C.29)
2Psc T
Integrating over y and Ψ
Z Linv
L1 Linv khTsc
Z Ψ
(yq + y − Linv ) dy = dΨ (C.30)
0 2Psc T Ψw f

2 2 Ainv khTsc
qLinv − Linv = (Ψ − Ψw f ) (C.31)
Psc T
Or, at an arbitrary point y less than Linv

qy2 Psc T y2 Psc T

Ψ = Ψw f + − (C.32)
Ainv khTsc Ainv khTsc
Integrating the pseudo-pressure over Linv , we can find the volumetric average pseudo-pressure
Z Linv  
2P T y2 Psc T
Ψw f + Aqyinv khT
sc
sc
− Ainv khTsc dy
0
Ψinv = (C.33)
Linv
2 P T
qLinv L2 Psc T
sc
Ψinv = Ψw f + − inv (C.34)
3Ainv khTsc 3Ainv khTsc
qLinv Psc T Linv Psc T
Ψinv = Ψw f + − (C.35)
3L1 khTsc 3L1 khTsc
Combining the linear pseudo-steady state equation, Equation C.35, with the approximate material balance equation, C.9

Ψi − Ψw f + qL inv Psc T Linv Psc T

3L1 khTsc − 3L1 khTsc 2Pi
≈ tca (C.36)
q(t) cgi µi zi Ginv
Ψi − Ψw f 2Pi Linv Psc T Linv Psc T
≈ tca − + (C.37)
q(t) cgi µi zi Ginv 3L1 khTsc q3L1 khTsc
At early times, the rate, q, should be high and the depth of investigation, Linv , should be small. Removing the last term on the right
hand side, we again arrive at a form similar to Equation B.20, if we correct for Linv and Ginv . In early and late transient times our flowing
material balance has the same form as that for pseudo-steady state flow. It is not clear what happens during intermediate transient times,
but it seems reasonable to assume that

Ψi − Ψw f 2Pi zi P2 T 2 Ginv
≈ tca − 2 sc 2 (C.38)
q(t) cgi µi zi Ginv 3L1 Pi Tsc kh hφ
If we define b as
CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 16

2 T2
zi Psc
b= 2
(C.39)
3L1 Pi Tsc2 kh2 φ
And then substitute in Equation C.14
Ψi − Ψw f 1

≈ Ψi − Ψinv + bGinv (C.40)
q(t) q
Rearranging we find
 
q(t) 1 Ψi − Ψinv 1
≈− + (C.41)
Ψi − Ψw f bGinv Ψi − Ψw f bGinv
 
q(t) 1 Ψinv − Ψw f
≈ (C.42)
Ψi − Ψw f bGinv Ψi − Ψw f
√
As Ginv is directly proportional to ta , we can conclude
 
q(t) 1 Ψinv − Ψw f
∝√ (C.43)
Ψi − Ψw f ta Ψi − Ψw f

D Polynomial Approximation for Gas Properties

P
If we assume that we can approximate µz as a polynomial function of Pz , we rewrite the definition of pseudo-pressure as

Z P/z h 
4 
3 
2 i
a?1 P z + a?2 P z + a?3 P z + a?4 P z + a?5 dP


Ψ≈  (D.1)
Pre f zre f


P/z
 

5 
4 
3 
2
Ψ = a?1 P z + a?2 P z + a?3 P z + a?4 P z + a?5 P z 
(D.2)
Pre f zre f

5 
4 
3 
2 

Ψ = a1 P z + a2 P z + a3 P z + a4 P z + a5 P z + a6 (D.3)
Next, if we are interested in average pseudo-pressure, we can state
  5   4   3   2   
Ψ = a1 P z + a2 P z + a3 P z + a4 P z + a5 P z + a6
The order of the polynomial is rather arbitrary – the order should be high enough to fit the data but not so high that the resulting
polynomial is unstable near the endpoints. In the authors’ experience there is no clear improvement in data fit using polynomials greater
than fifth order. 
If we substitute out P z using our material balance relation. . .
 
P Pi
= 1 − RF
z zi
where
Q
RF =
Ginv

5  5  5  5  5  5  5
a1 Pz = −a1 Pzii RF 5 + 5a1 Pzii RF 4 − 10a1 Pzii RF 3 + 10a1 Pzii RF 2 − 5a1 Pzii RF + a1 Pzii

4  4  4  4  4  4
a2 Pz = a2 Pzii RF 4 − 4a2 Pzii RF 3 + 6a2 Pzii RF 2 − 4a2 Pzii RF + a2 Pzii

3  3  3  3  3
a3 Pz = − a3 Pzii RF 3 + 3a3 Pzii RF 2 − 3a3 Pzii RF + a3 Pzii

2  2  2  2
a4 Pz = a4 Pzii RF 2 − 2a4 Pzii RF + a4 Pzii
   
a5 Pz = − a5 Pzii RF + a5 Pzii


CSUG/SPE 137825-PP 17

Groupings terms and substituting in RF we get. . .

Ψ = b1 RF 5 + b2 RF 4 + b3 RF 3 + b4 RF 2 + b5 RF + b6
where
 5
Pi
b1 = −a1 z
 i 5  4
Pi Pi
b2 = 5a1 zi + a2 z
 5  i 4  3
Pi Pi Pi
b3 = −10a1 zi − 4a2 zi − a3 z
 5  4  i 3  2
Pi Pi Pi Pi
b4 = 10a1 zi + 6a2 zi + 3a3 zi + a4 z
 5  4  3  i 2  
Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi
b5 = −5a1 zi − 4a2 zi − 3a3 zi − 2a4 zi − a5 zi
 5  4  3  2  
Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi
b6 = a1 zi + a2 zi + a3 zi + a4 zi + a5 zi + a6

Returning to our deliverability equation, if we assume a constant flowing pressure

 
Ψinv − Ψw f −0.5
q=α t (D.4)
Ψi − Ψw f
where α includes the constant b, the definition of Ginv and (Ψi − Ψw f )
 
dQ Ψinv − Ψw f −0.5
=α t
dt Ψi − Ψw f
Z Q  Z t
Ψi − Ψw f
dQ = αt −0.5 dt
0 Ψinv − Ψw f 0
Z Q 
Ψi − Ψw f
5 + b RF 4 + b RF 3 + b RF 2 + b RF + b − Ψ
dQ = 2αt 0.5 (D.5)
0 b1 RFinv 2 inv 3 inv 4 inv 5 inv 6 wf

To solve this we can choose a value for t then iterate to find the corresponding Q.