SPE 131787

Analysis of Production Data from Fractured Shale Gas Wells

D.M. Anderson, M. Nobakht, S. Moghadam, and L. Mattar, Fekete Associates Inc.

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2325 February 2010.
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
Long-term shale gas well performance characteristics are generally not well understood. The ultra-low permeability of shale
ensures the continuing presence of pressure transient effects during well production. This makes production forecasting a
difficult and non-unique exercise. Conventional methods have proven to be too pessimistic, in many cases, because they
assume a depletion-dominated system. Recently, more suitable forecasting methods have been developed that account for
long-term transient effects. These methods incorporate a transient model (usually linear flow) which transitions into a
conventional boundary-dominated flow model after a prescribed time or upon achieving a certain region of investigation. The
underlying concept assumes that once a transition to boundary-dominated flow is observed, depletion will dominate the
production going forward. Although this methodology has been successfully applied for a variety of tight gas reservoirs, it
may not be the right model for fractured shale gas (and some conventional tight gas) reservoirs. Fractured shale gas reservoirs
get their productivity from the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV), which may be quite limited in areal extent but is
surrounded by a low-permeability reservoir (matrix). Thus, the mechanism for long-term production includes a late-time
transition from depletion of the SRV, back to infinite acting (linear or pseudo-radial) flow. This return to infinite acting flow
may or may not provide contribution to recoverable reserves within a practical time-frame, but it should be considered
nonetheless.
In this paper we present a straight forward methodology for determining the major well performance characteristics of
fractured horizontal shale gas wells, considering the impact of uncertainty and non-uniqueness. The focus will be on
determining the dominant flow regimes and bulk properties from the data, and then defining a suitable, simple reservoir model
for production forecasting, using practical experience and all available information. Field examples from the Barnett,
Marcellus, and Haynesville shales are included.
Background
Shale gas reservoirs differ from conventional gas reservoirs in that the completion makes the reservoir. Since the matrix
permeability is thought to be very low (1e-6 to 1e-4 md), an enormous conductive surface area is required between the well
completion and the reservoir to attain commercial production rates. To achieve this surface area, massive multi-stage hydraulic
fracture treatments are used to create (or enhance) complex networks of fractures connected to the well. The geometry, areal
extent, conductivity, storativity, and spacing of these induced fracture networks are generally not well understood. However,
producing companies are clearly motivated to improve their understanding of these characteristics for two reasons: 1) to obtain
more reliable production forecasts and reserves estimates; and 2) to use the information to improve their field development
strategies and drill better wells.
Production analysis has proved to be a valuable reservoir characterization tool because it is practical, reliable and inexpensive.
Some of the more popular techniques, such as those proposed by Arps (1945), Fetkovich et al. (1987; 1996), Palacio and
Blasingame (1993), Doublet et al. (1994) and Agarwal et al. (1999) are well documented in the literature. However, since
these techniques are designed for conventional reservoirs and primarily vertical wells, there are two major problems
encountered when using them for tight and shale gas reservoirs:
1.

Pre-disposition towards boundary-dominated flow: Observations have shown that this is not always the right
assumption for tight and shale gas reservoirs. Often, linear flow is dominant, and boundary-dominated flow is never
observed in the data. In other cases, early boundary-dominated flow is observed, followed by a transition back to
infinite acting flow. As a result, there is a tendency for these techniques to underpredict long-term performance of
fractured shale gas (and tight gas) reservoirs.

SPE 131787

2.

Characterization of bulk reservoir properties: The dominant flow regime observed in fractured shale gas and tight gas
reservoirs is usually linear flow. Conventional type curve analysis methods interpret this as a single fracture and
associated reservoir permeability. Horizontal fractured shale gas wells, however, have stimulated reservoir volumes
containing multiple fractures. Furthermore, the solution for fracture area and permeability (independently of each
other) is non-unique, with only the bulk reservoir property A k being uniquely defined. Wattenbarger et al. (1998)
have created type curves, based on a simple bounded linear flow model, that elegantly utilize this A k product.
However, the bounded linear flow model contains only a single fracture, so it does not properly capture the
complexity of a multi-fractured horizontal well.

To overcome these limitations, we propose an analysis method and model that follows the work of Wattenbarger et al. (1998),
but accounts for multiple transverse fractures in a horizontal well, and allows the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) to reside
within an infinite acting reservoir. The inclusion of the fracture network concept, as opposed to a single fracture, allows for a
more comprehensive long-term performance forecast. Wattenbargers bounded linear flow model follows a progression of
linear to boundary-dominated flow. The shale gas model proposed here follows a progression of linear to boundary-dominated
flow back to infinite acting (linear or radial) flow. It is important to note that the matrix permeability does not appear explicitly
in Wattenbargers bounded linear flow model, because it depends only on A k . This is not true for the shale gas model we
propose here. The magnitude of long-term contribution from the infinite acting matrix is highly dependent on the assumed
matrix permeability.
The components of the shale gas model that we will consider are as follows:
1. Completion: The completion is a horizontal well that fully penetrates the formation. The horizontal well may be cased
or open hole.
2. Fracture network: The fracture network consists of multiple parallel planar fractures, that intersect the horizontal well
at 90 angle, as shown in Figure 1. The fracture network is assumed to have finite conductivity and limited areal
extent.
3. Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV): The SRV describes connected hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) that is
accessible by the fracture network. It consists of a network of fractures and matrix blocks. The perimeter of the SRV
defines the interface between the fracture network and the unfractured, infinite acting shale matrix.
4. Matrix Blocks: Matrix blocks are the parts of the matrix that lie within the fracture network, occupying the space
between the fractures. The matrix is assumed to be homogeneous with very low permeability (1e-6 to 1e-4 md). The
gas content within the matrix is assumed to be free (porosity) gas. Adsorbed gas can easily be included in the model,
but is not considered in this paper.
5. Infinite Acting (Unstimulated) Reservoir: The SRV is surrounded by an infinite acting, homogeneous shale gas
reservoir with the same permeability and porosity as the matrix blocks.
Analyzing Production From Horizontal Shale Gas Wells
The mode of production decline in shale gas wells is similar to that of conventional tight gas wells. Initial production is
dominated by the high permeability but low storativity fracture system, and therefore declines rapidly. The ultra-low
permeability matrix provides stable long-term production.
Rate transient analysis methods for analyzing production data are well documented in the literature. Three plots are
particularly well suited for tight and shale gas production analysis. They are as follows:
1. Log-log plot
2. Specialized plot Square Root-Time plot
3. Flowing Material Balance plot
Proper usage of these plots will provide a reliable identification of dominant flow regimes exhibited in the data, as well as
estimates of bulk reservoir properties such as A k , apparent skin and hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV). Armed with this
information, we can then construct a suitable reservoir model, which can be used to generate a type curve (or series of type
curves) and a long-term production forecast for estimating reserves.
Log-Log Plot
The Log-Log plot is used to identify flow regimes. It is important to ensure that operational noise and problematic
rates/pressures have been filtered from the data set. Be very wary of productivity fall-off due to liquid loading in the wellbore.
Such data will detract from the proper interpretation of reservoir flow regimes (Anderson et al., 2006; Nobakht and Mattar,
2009).
The normalized rate and the inverse semi-log derivative should be plotted together on log-log coordinates:

SPE 131787

3
1

d
q
and
ppi ppwf
d ln ta

ppi ppwf

versus ta

d
q
and
ppi ppwf
d ln tca

p pi p pwf

versus tca

(1a)

or
1

(1b)

Where q is gas rate, ppi and ppwf are pseudo-pressures at initial pressure and flowing pressure, respectively, ta is pseudo-time
and tca is material balance pseudo-time. Equation (1a) offers an advantage in wells that produce at close to constant pressure
conditions, in that the log-log plot is not susceptible to the superposition bias that is sometimes present when using Equation
(1b). However, if significant changes in operating conditions occur, then Equation (1b) should be used.
The inverse semi-log derivative (same as PTA derivative, but inversed) is a valuable tool for interpreting fractured shale gas
reservoirs because it is not influenced by skin. As we will show in the examples, shale gas production, more than any other
kind of production, exhibits linear flow with a significant apparent skin. Bello and Wattenbarger (2009) have discussed this
skin effect in detail, attributing its presence primarily to flow convergence in a horizontal well. It also accounts for the pressure
drop within the fracture due to the finite conductivity of the fractures. When present, the skin effect masks the expected classic
linear flow behavior (half slope on log-log plot) in the rate data function, but does not impact the derivative. Accordingly,
because the derivative retains the slope of one-half, it is a much better indicator of linear flow than the rate function itself.
The following is the equation for linear flow with skin, at constant rate, in dimensionless form:
pD C ' tD s

(2)

Where pD and tD are dimensionless pressure and time, respectively, C is a constant and s is skin. Taking the semilog
derivative of both sides of Equation (2), the dimensionless pressure drop due to skin (s) disappears, because it is a constant:
dpD
1
C ' tD
d ln tD 2

(3)

The flow regimes most often observed on log-log plots of horizontal shale gas wells are linear flow followed by boundarydominated flow. However, bi-linear flow and radial flow are sometimes also observed early in the production life. These are
often caused by transient flow in the fractures, but they are relatively short-lived, and in this study, they are not analyzed in
any detail, but they are accounted for in the apparent skin.
Figure 2 presents a log-log plot of simulated shale gas performance data, based on the model shown in Figure 1, along with
log-log plots from real shale production data from various fields. Flow regimes are clearly identified. The combination of
linear flow with apparent skin is by far the most common flow regime in wells with less than 1 year of data. This has been
observed in all producing shale gas fields. The appearance of boundary-dominated flow is also common, but there is a major
variation in timing. For example, we have looked at several Haynesville shales and seen the early onset of apparent boundarydominated flow (1-3 months after on-stream date). In many of these wells, linear flow develops later on, as shown in Figure 2.
By contrast, there are Barnett shale examples where boundary-dominated flow is not observed during the first three years of
production. This underlines the critical importance of proper flow regime identification using the log-log plot (and focusing on
the derivative).

Square Root-Time Plot Linear Flow

ppi ppwf
The square root-time plot,
versus t , is probably the single most important plot for characterizing long-term
q
shale gas well performance. This is because fractured shale gas reservoirs will typically be dominated by linear flow. Linear
flow appears as a straight line on the square root-time plot. To be certain about the presence of linear flow, a clear half-slope
trend should be observed on the log-log derivative, in addition to observing a straight line on the square root-time plot. Note
that the half-slope trend may or may not appear on the log-log normalized rate, as the presence of skin damage may mask it.
Linear Flow Parameter
The dominant flow regime observed in most fractured shale gas wells is linear flow. In some cases, the observed linear
flow may prevail for several years. For the purpose of this work, we will make the assumption that the observed linear flow is

SPE 131787

a result of transient matrix drainage into the fractures. This is a reasonable assumption, but it may not be the case if the fracture
spacing is very dense and/or conductivity is low.
The slope of the square root-time plot yields the linear flow parameter ( LFP A k ), which is half of the product of total
matrix surface area draining into fracture system, 2 A , and square root of permeability:
LFP A k

630.8T

g ct i

(4)

Where m is the slope of the square root-time plot, T is reservoir temperature, is reservoir porosity, g is gas viscosity and
ct is total compressibility. There is no way to decouple the flow area from the permeability from linear flow analysis. One
must be independently estimated before the other can be determined. It should be noted that Equation (4) is derived based on
the assumption of a constant flowing pressure at the well. The constant pressure solution is presented in this study as many
shale gas wells produce under high drawdown due to the extremely low reservoir permeability.
Consider a single vertical fracture of length x (see Figure 3a). The A in A k would now be defined as the product of
the fracture length, x, and the net pay thickness, h. We could now use Equation (4) to calculate the permeability as follows:

LFP
k

xh

(5)

If we consider a cased horizontal well with multiple parallel fractures (see Figure 3b) that are equally spaced, then the area
becomes the sum of all the individual fracture areas.
A

yh L yh
x

ASRV
h
L

(6)

Where y is stimulated reservoir width, ASRV is the area of the SRV and L is fracture spacing. Combining Equation (4) and
Equation (6), we get:
2

LFP L
LFP L
k

xyh
ASRV h

(7)

There are three unknowns in Equation (7), k (permeability), L (fracture spacing) and y (stimulated reservoir width). Thus, we
must independently specify two of these. As we will see, stimulated reservoir width can be estimated from the interpreted SRV
on the Flowing Material Balance (FMB) plot, provided that boundary-dominated flow is achieved. In the absence of boundarydominated flow, a suitable stimulated reservoir width is chosen based on microseismic (if available), well spacing or analogs.
As stated previously, the range of expected permeability for shales is from 1e-6 to 1e-4 md. Thus, upon choosing suitable
matrix permeability, we could rearrange Equation (7) to solve for fracture spacing.

xyh k
LFP

(8)

Apparent Skin
In fractured shale gas wells exhibiting matrix to fracture linear flow, a significant skin effect can be observed from the
pressure loss due to finite conductivity in the fracture system, even if there is no mechanical skin damage at the wellbore. This
skin effect may have a significant impact on well productivity and therefore, is an important parameter for production
forecasting. The y-intercept on the square root-time plot, b, represents a constant pressure loss, from which the apparent skin,
s, can be calculated using the following equation:

s'

kh
b
1417T

(9)

SPE 131787

Flowing Material Balance Boundary-Dominated Flow

The mode of boundary-dominated flow seen in conventional reservoirs results from the pressure transient investigating all of
the surrounding no-flow boundaries in the system. The boundaries may be natural features such as faults or pinchouts, or in
multi-well reservoirs, simply the borders between drainage areas of adjacent wells. It is unlikely that this mechanism would be
observed in fractured shale gas reservoirs, as the matrix permeability is too low to enable investigation of large areas.
However, apparent boundary-dominated flow is seen in some shale gas production data sets. We suggest that this is not true
boundary-dominated flow, but rather depletion of the matrix blocks resulting from interference between adjacent fractures
within the stimulated reservoir volume. Figure 4b illustrates the expected layout of no-flow boundaries (caused by
interference) for two different fracture system geometries, and compares them against the conventional reservoir shown in
Figure 4a. This apparent boundary-dominated flow, should, in theory be followed by infinite acting flow as the unstimulated
matrix surrounding the SRV continues to contribute to the production response. Observations we have made with real
production data support this theory (see Figure 2).
The plotting function of interest in Flowing Material Balance (FMB) is Normalize Rate versus Normalized cumulative, which
are defined as follows (Mattar and Anderson, 2005):

Normalized Rate =

q
ppi ppwf

Normalized Cumulative =

(10a)

2qtca pi

g ct Z i ppi ppwf

(10b)

Where pi is initial pressure and Z is gas compressibility factor. The FMB analysis plot can be used to determine the connected
hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) from a boundary-dominated flow signal, which will appear as a straight line on the graph.
This boundary-dominated flow signal is representative of the SRV. If boundary-dominated flow is not exhibited on the log-log
plot then the FMB analysis plot should NOT be used to determine the SRV. In this case, an independent interpretation of the
SRV would be required.

Other Analysis Plots

Other straight line plots such as semi-log (for radial flow) and fourth root-time (for bi-linear flow) may be useful if those
flow regimes are identified on the log-log plot. However, our experience shows that radial flow and bilinear flow are not
commonly seen, and even if they are, will typically only appear briefly in the early time and will rarely be dominant flow
regimes. Thus, they are not considered to be important in describing long-term shale gas well performance.
Production Forecasting
Upon completing the analysis procedure described above, the results may be used to generate production forecasts. There are
two components to consider in the production forecast:
1. Depletion of the SRV
2. Contribution from the surrounding (unstimulated) rock volume
Depletion of the SRV
Forecasting production under the assumption of a bounded SRV (no pressure support from outside reservoir) is relatively
simple. In fact, it can be done without independent knowledge of matrix permeability or fracture spacing. The bulk parameters
gathered from the square root-time and FMB plots (LFP, s and ASRV) are sufficient on their own. Wattenbarger et al. (1998)
discussed this concept in detail in their work. If boundary-dominated flow is not observed in the data, then the stimulated
reservoir width, y, is unknown and an independent estimate of this parameter is required. Microseismic mapping (if available)
or the well spacing could provide such an estimate.
Contribution from Surrounding (Unstimulated) Rock Volume
The primary productivity from shale gas reservoirs comes from the drainage containing the fracture network created during
completion, i.e. the stimulated rock volume. As discussed above, production from the SRV can be forecast using the bulk
parameters extracted from the production analysis. However, there can be significant long-term contribution from the
unstimulated matrix that surrounds the SRV. The magnitude of this contribution depends on the matrix permeability and also
the area defined by the interface between the SRV and the unstimulated reservoir. This area is represented by:
Aouter ( x y )h

(11)

SPE 131787

Since we typically do not know the matrix permeability (only that it is within a specified range), the magnitude of contribution
from unstimulated rock volume is also an unknown. The most sensible way to approach the problem is to create minimum and
maximum production forecasts for the range of matrix permeability that would be expected.
To illustrate the concept of unstimulated rock volume, consider the type curves plotted in Figure 5. They are based on
constant pressure analytical models, one assuming a bounded SRV and the other assuming an SRV within an infinite acting
reservoir. The shape and size of the SRV used here are typical of horizontal multi-fracd shale wells. From the type curves, it
is clear that the matrix permeabilities near the low limit of 1e-6 md do not allow for any real contribution outside the SRV
(the type curves will only diverge after 230 years!). Conversely, matrix permeabilities near the high limit of 1e-4 md will
show significant contribution (the type curves diverge after just 2 years).

Summary of Methodology
Analysis Plot

Schematic

Equations and
Constraints
x = horizontal well length
L=?
y=?
1e-6 md k 1e-4 md

1. Specify appropriate
input parameters and
constraints.

2. Identify flow regimes

on log-log plot (use the
derivative plot).

Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

Numerical 1

Linear flow = slope

BDF = unit slope (constant
rate) or exponential
(constant pressure)

8
6
4
3

(linear)

10-2
6
4
Normalized Rate, Derivative

3
2

10-3
6
4

1 (BDF )

3
2

10-4
6
4
3
2

10-5
5 6 7 8 10-4

6 7 8 10-3

5 6 7 8 10-2

5 6 7 8 10-1

5 6 7 8 1.0

Material Balance Pseudo Time

3. If boundary-dominated
flow is observed,
determine HCPV (xintercept on FMB
plot), then calculate
stimulated reservoir
width (y).

Flowing Material Balance

Numerical 1
0.018

Legend
Decline FMB
0.016

ASRV

HCPV Bgi

Normalized Rate (MMscfd/(106psi2/cP))

0.014

0.012

HCPV

0.010

hSg

ASRV
x

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002
Original Gas In Place

0.000
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

10.50

11.00

11.50

Normalized Cumulative Production (Bscf)

4. Determine slope (m)

and y-intercept (b) on
square root-time plot.

Specialized Analysis - Linear Plot

Numerical 1

500

630.8T

LFP A k

450

Normalized Pressure ((106psi2/cP)/MMscfd)

400

350

g ct i

300

250

200

150

s'

kh
b
1417T

xyh k
LFP

100

50

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

Square Root Time

5. If boundary-dominated flow is present, calculate L using y in step

3.
If boundary-dominated flow is not present, calculate L based on
independent estimate of y (microseismic or well spacing).
6. Using analytical or numerical models, generate three production
forecasts: 1) Bounded SRV; 2) SRV surrounded by 1e-4 md matrix;
and 3) SRV surrounded by 1e-6 md matrix.

EURmin , EUR1e 4 , EUR1e 6

SPE 131787

Case Studies
Case Study 1- Barnett Shale (3.5 years)
Well parameters and analysis plots are shown in Figure 6. As the figure shows, the production data from this example exhibits
linear flow followed by boundary-dominated flow. The transition occurs approximately halfway through. The bulk properties
(LFP, s and ASRV) are determined from the appropriate analysis plots, as shown in Figure 6. Since boundary-dominated flow
is exhibited, the stimulated reservoir width, y, can be determined from the data. Using the linear flow parameter and an
assumed matrix permeability of 1e-4 md, the calculated fracture spacing is 174 feet.
Three production forecasts are included in Figure 7, each representing a different level of contribution from the surrounding
reservoir. A bounded SRV case (no contribution), and cases for 1e-6 md and 1e-4 md are shown.
Case Study 2- Marcellus Shale (7 months)
Details from this analysis are shown in Figure 8. The log-log plot clearly shows a half-slope derivative. The normalized rate
data are somewhat flatter than half-slope, suggesting a significant apparent skin. Linear flow with skin is confirmed upon
inspection of the square root-time plot, which exhibits a straight line with positive y-intercept. Since boundary-dominated flow
is not present, the FMB plot is not included.
As boundary-dominated flow is not observed, the stimulated reservoir width, y, cannot be uniquely determined. Therefore we
have used microseismic data from an analog well to independently estimate y.
Three production forecasts are included in Figure 9, each representing a different level of contribution from the surrounding
reservoir. Like Case 1, a bounded SRV case (no contribution), and cases for 1e-6 md and 1e-4 md are shown.
Case Study 3- Haynesville Shale (8 months)
In this example, the log-log plot shows minimal early linear flow data, an early apparent boundary-dominated flow signal,
followed by a transition into linear flow. This suggests depletion of the SRV, followed by linear flow as the outer unstimulated
reservoir contributes to the long-term production signal. On the square root-time plot, we have interpreted an early linear flow
period, representative of flow into the fractures, transition and then a late linear flow period, representative of contribution
from unstimulated reservoir rock. The transition flow period is analyzed on the FMB plot, yielding an SRV of 1.5 Bscf.
Figure 10 shows each of the analysis plots and the interpreted reservoir geometry.
In this example, we start by calculating the width of stimulated reservoir, based on the first straight line on the FMB plot (SRV
line):
y

ASRV 18 43,560

191 ft
x
4,100

The matrix permeability can be calculated by using the second (long-term) linear flow and Equation (5) and using area, A,
from Equation (11). This linear flow is interpreted as contribution from unstimulated reservoir rock outside of the SRV and is
illustrated in Figure 10.
2

LFP2

10, 700
k

6.2e-4 md
x

y
h

(
)
(4,100
191)
100

Now, the fracture spacing, L, is calculated using Equation (8), as follows:

xyh k 4,100 191 100 6.2e-4

113 ft (36 fractures)

17,160
LFP1

Note, this is much less than the distance between fracture stages (293 ft) suggesting that induced fractures cannot be simply
modeled as one bi-wing fracture per stage.
Figure 11 shows the 30-year production forecast for this case. In this example, there is no need to generate multiple forecasts
for different matrix permeabilities, because the matrix permeability was calculated from the second linear flow period.
However, it is worth noting that the minimum OGIP observed on the FMB plot is less than half the EUR predicted from the
previous forecast. As such, the forecast should be considered a most likely result (P50) rather than proved (P90). To obtain a
proved production forecast, it is sensible to apply a conventional depletion model using the minimum investigated OGIP.

SPE 131787

Conclusions
One of the major issues confronting tight and unconventional gas producers is understanding the long-term performance
characteristics of these wells. Conventional models are often too pessimistic because they do not account for ever-present
transient effects which provide additional pressure support in the long term. The model and methodology we have proposed
provides a better way of investigating long-term production of fractured shale gas wells, by linking it to independent estimates
of matrix permeability. Existing methods, such as Wattenbargers bounded linear flow model are suitable for forecasting
depletion of the SRV, but are not configured to answer the what-if questions regarding different assumptions of matrix
permeability. They also do not capture the potential contribution from the surrounding unstimulated reservoir.
Our work has provided a systematic procedure for estimating shale gas reservoir characteristics: stimulated reservoir width, y,
and fracture spacing, L, with the understanding that these solutions may be non-unique. These characteristics are based on
straight-forward interpretations of the bulk reservoir properties: linear flow parameter, LFP, and SRV.
We have pointed out that most shale gas producers are linear-flow dominated, especially during early life, and that apparent
skin caused by finite conductivity in the fracture system often masks the linear flow signal in the production rate data. We
suggest using a semi-log derivative of the same type used in pressure transient analysis, as it is not impacted by this skin
effect.
Finally, three case studies are reviewed, each with different types of production signal: 1) Linear boundary-dominated flow;
2) Linear with apparent skin; and 3) Linear boundary-dominated flow Linear.
Nomenclature
A
Half of total matrix surface area draining into fracture system, ft2
ASRV
Area of stimulated reservoir volume, ft2
Area defined by the interface between SRV and the unstimulated reservoir, ft2
Aouter
b
Intercept of the square root-time plot, psi2/cp/Mscf/day
Bgi
Formation volume factor at initial pressure, rcf/scf
C
Constant in Equation (2) and Equation (3), dimensionless
Total compressibility, psi-1
ct
EUR1e-4 Expected ultimate recovery for k = 1e-4 md, Bscf
EUR1e-6 Expected ultimate recovery for k = 1e-6 md, Bscf
EURmin Expected ultimate recovery for bounded SRV, Bscf
h
Net pay thickness, ft
k
Permeability, md
L
Fracture spacing, ft
LFP
Linear flow parameter, ft2md1/2
m
Slope of the square root-time plot, psi2day1/2/cp/Mscf
Dimensionless pressure, dimensionless
pD
pi
Initial pressure, psi
pseudo-pressure at initial pressure, psi2/cp
ppi
pseudo-pressure at flowing pressure, psi2/cp
ppwf
q
Gas rate, Mscf/day
s
Skin in Equation (2), dimensionless
s
Apparent skin, dimensionless
Gas saturation, fraction
Sg
SRV
Stimulated reservoir volume, Bscf
t
Time, days
Pseudo-time, days
ta
tca
Material balance pseudo-time, days
dimensionless time, dimensionless
tD
T
Reservoir temperature, R
x
Horizontal well length, ft
y
Stimulated reservoir width, ft
Z
Gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
Greek Symbols

Effective porosity, fraction

Gas viscosity, cp
g

SPE 131787

References
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W., and Fussell, D.D., Analyzing Well Production Data Using Combined TypeCurve and
DeclineCurve Analysis Concepts, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, pp. 478486, October 1999.
Anderson, D.M., Stotts, G.W.J., Mattar, L., Ilk, D., and Blasingame, T.A., Production Data Analysis--Challenges, Pitfalls, Diagnostics,
paper SPE 102048 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2427 September, San Antonio, Texas, 2006.
Arps, J.J., Analysis of Decline Curves, A.I.M.E, pp. 228247, 1945.
Bello, R.O., and Wattenbarger, R.A., Rate Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 114591 presented at
the CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, 1619 June, 2008.
Doublet, L.E., Pandie, P.K., Mccollum, T.J., and Blasingame, T.A., Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Analysis of Oil Well
Production Data Using Material Balance Application to Field Cases, paper SPE 28688 presented at the Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition of Mexico, Veracruz, 1013 October, 1994.
Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D., and Kiesow, U.G., Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Case Histories, SPE
Formation Evaluation, pp. 637656, December 1987.
Fetkovich, M.J., Fetkovich, E.J., and Fetkovich, M.D., Useful Concepts for Decline-Curve Forecasting, Reserve Estimation, and Analysis,
SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 1322, February 1996.
Mattar, L., and Anderson, D.M., Dynamic Material Balance (Oil or Gas-In-Place without Shut-Ins), paper CIPC 2005-113 presented at the
Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 79 June, 2005.
Nobakht, M., and Mattar, L., Diagnostics of Data Quality for Analysis of Production Data, paper CIPC 2009-137, presented at the
Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 1618 June, 2009.
Palacio, J.C., and Blasingame, T.A., Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well Production Data, paper SPE 25909
presented at the Joint Rocky Mountain Regional and Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 2628 April, 1993.
Wattenbarger, R.A., El-Banbi, A.H., Villegas, M.E., and Maggard, J.B., Production Analysis of Linear Flow into Fractured Tight Gas
Wells, paper SPE 39931 presented at SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, 58 April, 1998.

10

SPE 131787

h
3DView

rw
y
x

SRV
PlanView

Figure 1. Horizontal Well in a Shale Gas Reservoir.

Unstimulated
Matrix

SPE 131787

11

HaynesvilleExample(8months)

SimulatedExample
Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

1e-4 md

Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

Haynesville Example

2
2

10-1

10-2
8
7
6

Linear BDFLinear

8
7

Normalized Rate, Derivative

Normalized Rate, Derivative

10-1

LinearBDFInfinite

10-2

7
6
5

5
4

4
3

3
2

10-3
10-6

10-3
10-6

8 9 10-5

10-4

8 9 10-3

8 9 10-5

8 9 10-4

10-3

10-2

Material Balance Pseudo Time

10-2

Material Balance Pseudo Time

WoodfordExample(7months)

BarnettExample(2years)
Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

Barnett Shale 7

Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

Barnett Shale Example

5

3
10-2

Linear BDFLinear
apparentskin

7
6

Normalized Rate, Derivative

Normalized Rate, Derivative

10-3
9
8
7

10-3

6
7

Linearflow,apparentskin

5
4
3

3
2

2
10-4
10-5

10-4

7 8

10-3

10-2

Material Balance Pseudo Time

10-4
10-6

9 10-5

9 10-4

Material Balance Pseudo Time

Figure 2. Log-Log Plots of Production Data + Derivative from Various Gas Shales.

a)SingleFracture

b)MultipleTransverseFractures
(casedholehorizontal)

A xh
Figure 3. Illustration of Linear Flow in a Fractured Reservoir.

A yh

x
yh
L

10-1

12

SPE 131787

a)ConventionalReservoir

b)FracturedShaleReservoir
(twogeometriesshown)

ParallelFractures

ParallelandOrthogonalFractures

Truenoflowboundary

Noflowboundaries
(Causedbyinterference)

Figure 4. Boundary-Dominated Flow in a Conventional Reservoir versus a Fractured Shale Reservoir.

Constant Pressure Type Curves

Multiple Fractured Horizontal W ell

103

6
4

t=2.3yr;k=1e4md
t=23yr;k=1e5md
t=230yr;k=1e6md

3
2

102

Dimensionless Rate

4
3
2

101

6
4

3,000ft

3
2

Unbounded

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

xfy =299 ft

1.0

600ft

6
4
3

Bounded(atSRV)

SRV
10-1
2

6 7 8

102

6 7 8

103

6 7 8

104

6 7 8

105

Dimensionless Time

Figure 5. Illustration of Contribution from Unstimulated Reservoir.

6 7 8

106

6 7 8

107

6 7 8 9

SPE 131787

13

SquareRootTimePlot

LogLogPlot

Specialized Analysis - Linear Plot

Barnett Shale 5

Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

Barnett Shale 5
5

1000

4
3

900
2

Halfslope

800

Normalized Pressure ((106psi2/cP)/MMscfd)

10-3

Normalized Rate, Derivative

7
5
4
3
2

Unitslope

10-4
7

700

A k LFP 2 30,810 ft 2 md 1/ 2
b0

600

500

400

300

5
4
3

200

100
10-5
10-5

5 6 7 8 10-4

5 6 7 8 10-3

5 6 7 8 10-2

5 6 7 8 10-1

5 6 7 89

Material Balance Pseudo Time

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

Square Root Time

FlowingMaterialBalance
Flowing Material Balance

Barnett Shale 5
0.024

Legend
Decline FMB

0.022

k(assumed)=1e4 md

0.020

Normalized Rate (MMscfd/(106psi2/cP))

0.018

x=3,250ft

0.016

0.014

0.012

SRV 4.4 Bscf

ASRV 40 acres

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

Original Gas In Place

0.002

0.000
0.00

A
40 * 43,560
y SRV
550 ft
3, 250
x
0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

Normalized Cumulative Production (Bscf)

xyh k 3, 250 *550 *300* 0.0001

174 ft
LFP
30,810

Figure 6. Analysis Plots and Calculated Parameters for Field Example 1: Barnett (3.5 years).

101

Legend

Production History
SRV surrounded by k=1E-4 md EUR=4.5 Bscf
SRV surrounded by k=1E-6 md EUR=3.6 Bscf
SRV-Bounded
EUR=3.5 Bscf

4
3
2

1.0
7
5
4

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

3
2

10-1

6
4
3
2

10-2
7
5
4
3
2

10-3
05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Figure 7. 30-year Production Forecasts for Field Example 1.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

14

SPE 131787

LogLogPlot

SquareRootTimePlot

Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

Specialized Analysis - Linear Plot

7
3200

3000

3
2

2600

HalfSlope

2400
Normalized Pressure ((106psi2/cP)/MMscfd)

5
3
Normalized Rate, Derivative

A k LFP 12, 000 ft 2 md 1/ 2

2800

10-2

10-3
7
5
3
2

2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

10-4
800

7
5

b 450e6 psi 2 / cp / MMscfd

600

3
400

2
200

10-5
0

5 6 7 8 10-5

6 7 8 10-4

5 6 7 8 10-3

5 6 7 8 10-2

5 6 7 8 10-1

10

12

14

Material Balance Pseudo Time

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Square Root Time

k(assumed)=1e4md

xyh k 3, 020*700*100* 0.0001

176 ft
LFP
12, 000

y=700ft
Fromanalog
Microseismic
mapping

x=3,020ft
Figure 8. Analysis Plots and Calculated Parameters for Field Example 2: Marcellus Shale (7 months).

Legend
2

Production History
SRV surrounded by k=1E-4 md,EUR=4.5 Bscf
SRV surrounded by k=1E-6 md,EUR=4.2 Bscf
SRV-Bounded,
EUR=4.1 Bscf

1.0
9

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

8
7
6

10-1
06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Figure 9. 30-year Production Forecasts for Field Example 2.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

SPE 131787

15

LogLogPlot

SquareRootTimePlot

Wattenbarger Typecurve Analysis

Haynesville Example

Specialized Analysis - Linear Plot

Haynesville Example
2

1300

1200
10-1

1100

8
7
6

Normalized Pressure ((106psi2/cP)/MMscfd)

3
Normalized Rate, Derivative

A k LFP 2 10, 700 ft 2 md 1/ 2

1000

HalfSlope

Transition
10-2

7
6

900

800

700

600

500

400

5
4

300

A k LFP 17,160 ft 2 md 1/ 2

200
2

100

10-3
10-6

8 9 10-5

8 9 10-4

10-3

10-2

10

Material Balance Pseudo Time

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Superposition Time

FMBPlot
Flowing Material Balance

Haynesville Example

Legend

Normalized Rate (MMscfd/(106psi2/cP))

0.016

Decline FMB

0.014

SRV 1.5 Bscf

0.012

ASRV 18 acres

LFP2

0.010

y=191ft
(SRV)

LFP1

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002
Original Gas In Place

0.000
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

Normalized Cumulative Production (Bscf)

x= 4,100ft
Figure 10. Analysis Plots and Calculated Parameters for Field Example 3: Haynesville Shale (8 months).

101
101

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

7
6
5

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

4
4

2
January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

2000

1.0

8
7
6
5

3
00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

Figure 11. 30-year Production Forecasts for Field Example 3.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31