SPE 80915
Transient Pressure Analysis for a Vertical Gas Well Intersected by a Finite-Conductivity
Fracture
Walter Nunez/Ecopetrol, Djebbar Tiab/University of Oklahoma, and, Freddy H. Escobar/Universidad Surcolombiana
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 2225 March 2003.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Pressure-transient analysis for gas wells has a great
importance in the oil and gas Industry. Transient pressure
responses of unfractured and hydraulically fractured gas wells
may be affected by non-Darcy flow near the wellbore, such
important effect needs to be taken into account when
estimating reservoir and well parameters. An additional
problem encountered in gas wells test analysis is the presence
of the rate-dependent skin, which requires a search for another
parameter (non-Darcy flow coefficient).
Several tests are performed in order to measure the
deliverability of gas wells and to describe reservoir
performance. Such specific tests as flow after flow, isochronal
and modified isochronal were initially designed to obtain the
absolute open flow potential of a well, however, the use of
these tests has been extended to obtain additional information
from the reservoir. Drawdown tests are focused in obtaining
such data as wellbore storage, reservoir transmissivity, skin
factor, flow efficiency and system geometry. Buildup tests
lead us to the average pressure of the reservoir, however,
proper analysis of buildup test provides values of
permeability, wellbore storage and apparent skin factor.
Buildup and drawdown tests are currently analyzed using
type-curve matching procedures, which involves trial and
error and conventional techniques.
Pseudopressure concept, which was used in this study, has
shown to provide sufficient engineering accuracy in dealing
with gas well test data. This study utilizes characteristic
points, intersection and lines found on the pseudopressure and
pseudopressure derivative plot to obtain fracture length,
fracture conductivity, skin factor and reservoir permeability.
It was found that changing the non-Darcy factor, D, the
shape of the pseudo-pressure curve varies from the original
gas curve shape at D=0, which implies that an additional skin
effect is added at high rates. On the other hand, the pseudo-
pressure derivative curve remains on its original shape, then,
in spite of increasing non-Darcy effect factor, D, the pseudo-
pressure derivative curve is not affected by this additional skin
effect added to the system because of the non-Darcy flow
effect. The interpretation technique was successfully tested
with simulated and field examples.
Introduction
In 1999, Tiab et al.1 extended the Tiabs Direct Synthesis
Technique for interpretation of the behavior of the pressure
and pressure derivative data of an oil well intersected by a
finite-conductivity hydraulic fracture. Now, this study extends
the Tiabs Direct Synthesis Technique usage to vertical gas
wells, which also closely follows the procedure outlined by
Tiab et al.1.
During a test on a hydraulically fractured well, initially,
fracture-linear flow occurs into the fracture, which is
characterized by a slope of 0.5 in a log-log plot. During this
fluid period, most of the fluid entering the wellbore comes
from fluid expansion in the fracture, the occurrence of this
flow period is too short and normally is never seen. Bilinear
flow2, which is characterized by a slope of 0.25 on the log-log
plot, takes place in finite-conductivity fractures as fluid in the
surrounding formation flows linearly into the fracture, most of
the fluid entering the wellbore during this flow period comes
from the formation. Fractures are considered to have finite-
conductivity when Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity2, CfD
< 100.
Fracture conductivity has been described as having values
varying typically from 1 to 500. A low value of conductivity
indicates low fracture permeability or long fracture lengths, or
possibly both. On the other hand, a high value of conductivity
implies high fracture permeability, small fracture length, or
both. Formation-Linear flow occurs only in high conductivity
fractures (CfD > 100), this flow is also identified by a slope of
0.5, once the linear flow in the formation -or the bilinear flow-
vanishes, the pseudo-radial flow takes place.
In order to define the system, consider a vertically
fractured gas well producing from a horizontal, homogeneous
and isotropic formation. The permeability is constant, the
thickness is uniform, and the fracture is the same length on
both sides of the well.
2 SPE 80915
Bilinear flow regime
Using the pseudo-pressure concept to check the applicability
for a gas well, of the general theory and equation of pressure
behavior for a fractured well under bilinear flow conditions
presented by Cinco-Ley et al.2 and Cinco-Ley et al.3, many
dimensionless oil and gas type curves were generated.
Fig. 1 shows one of the multiple curves for a finite-
conductivity vertically fractured gas well generated in Ref. 4.
It was noted that pressure and pseudo-pressure as well as
pressure derivative and pseudo-pressure derivative curves
presented the same behavior. This implies that the pressure
behavior in a gas system can be analyzed by using the general
theory and equation of pressure behavior for a fractured well
under bilinear flow presented in Ref. 2.
By changing the non-Darcy factor, D, for a gas system, it
was noticed that the shape of the pseudo-pressure curve varies
from the original gas curve shape at D=0 (Fig. 2), which
implies that an additional skin effect is added at high rates. On
the other hand, the pseudo-pressure derivative curve remains
on its original shape, then, in spite of increasing non-Darcy
effect factor, D, the pseudo-pressure derivative curve is not
affected by this additional skin effect added to the system
because of the non-Darcy flow effect.
Based upon this behavior, the relationships presented by
Tiab et al.1 will be derived in this paper for gas systems,
taking into account the pseudo-pressure derivative concept.
During the bilinear flow regime, the dimensionless well
pseudo-pressure derivative behavior is given by:
0.6127
t Dxf * m' ( p ) D = t 0.25 (1)
C fD Dxf
where the dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD, is defined
by:
k f w f
C fD = k fD wD = (2)
k x f
The dimensionless time, tDxf, and dimensionless well
pseudo-pressure derivative, m(p), are given by:
0.0002637 kt
tD =
ct x 2f
(3)
h ( ct )i rw2
m' ( p) D = 2.667 m( p) (3.a)
qscT
Combining Eqs. 1, 2, 3 and 3.a and solving for the well
pseudo-pressure derivative, m(p), yields:
t * m' ( p ) = 0.25mBL t 0.25
(4)
where the subscript BL stands for bilinear and mBL is defined
by:
444.3 qscT
mBL = (5)
(ct k )0.25 h k f w f
taking logarithm of both sides of Eq. 5 yields,
log (t * m( p)' ) = 0.25 log t + log(0.25mBL ) (6)
This expression indicates that a plot of (t*m(p)) versus
time on a log-log graph will yield a straight-line portion of
slope 0.25, if the fracture has a finite conductivity. Let
(t*m(p))BL1 be the value of (t*m(p)) at time t=1 hr on the
bilinear flow straight line, extrapolated if necessary, then Eq. 6
becomes:
(t * m' ( p )) BL1 = 0.25mBL (7)
The apparent conductivity of the fracture is obtained from
the pseudo-pressure derivative line by combining Eqs. 5 and
7:
2
12272.76 qscT
(k f w f )app = (8)
( ct )i k h(t * m ' ( p )) BL1
Pressure drawdown test analysis
One of the goals will be to calculate the fracture conductivity,
according to Guppy et al5 producing fractured wells at high
flow rates will cause non-Darcy effects in the fracture,
resulting in a pessimistic fracture conductivity, they developed
numerical and semianalytical models to analyze the unsteady
flow behavior of finite conductivity fractures producing at
high flow rates and also presented two methods for
determining the true fracture conductivity when drawdown
data are available at two different flow rates. In this paper,
equations for determining the apparent fracture conductivity
will be developed based upon Tiab et al.1, then, the true
fracture conductivity will be found by using the method
presented by Guppy et al5.
After calculating the apparent fracture conductivity
fracture from each rate, the relationship between (kfDwfD)app
and (qDND)f, can be used. This correlation (for drawdown tests)
is not general but covers common conductivities that may be
encountered in the field. The ranges of (qDND)f and (kfDwfD)t are
given in Ref. 5.
(k w )
fD fD app
(9)
= 1 + 0.31( qDND ) f
(k w ) fD fD t
where (qDND)f is used by Guppy et al.5 as a correlation factor in
analyzing transient data to discriminate between laminar and
non-Darcy flow within the fracture and it is defined as.
k f q
(qDND )f = (10)
w f h
where is fluid density, wf is fracture width, h is formation
height, is fluid viscosity, q is the total fluid flowing into the
wellbore, kf is fracture permeability, and is the inertial
factor, Eq. 10 can be expressed in oilfield units as:
SPE 80915 3

4.64 10 16 k f Mq Fturb term. From Eq. 10,

(qDND )f = (11)
w f h i
where i is the viscosity at initial reservoir conditions.
A simple relationship derived from the correlation
presented in Eq. 9 is now presented5, two tests are required to
calculate an accurate value of the true fracture conductivity.
q2 q1
(k fD w fD )t = (k fD w fD ) app1 * (12)
q2 q1 * a
or;
q2 q1
( k fD w fD ) t = (k fD w fD ) app2 * *a (13)
q2 q1 * a
where (kfDwfD)app1 and (kfDwfD)app1 are the fracture
conductivities observed at flow rates q1 and q2 respectively,
and;
( k fD w fd ) app1
a= (14)
( k fD w fD ) app2
Pressure buildup test analysis
An extension of the work in Ref. 5 was presented in Ref. 6 and
concerned the pressure buildup analysis of fractured wells
producing at high flow rates. This reference addressed the
problem in using drawdown type curves for the analysis of
fractured buildup responses. They noted that, because of the
nonlinear nature of the non-Darcy flow problem, buildup
responses could not be expressed as the superposition of
drawdown responses. They showed that if the producing time
was sufficiently long for the bilinear flow to exist, a similar
technique to that discussed in Ref. 5 for the drawdown
analysis could also be used for buildup analysis. The
correlation between (qDND)f, the true fracture conductivity and
the apparent conductivity is as follows:
(qDND )f k f
Fturb = = (17)
q w f h
In this case if kf and wf are known, factor can be
calculated.
In summary, as presented for the authors in Refs. 5 and 6,
the objectives of the technique are: (1) to determine the
apparent fracture conductivities at two different flow rates by
using the bilinear flow regime, and (2) to use Eqs. 12 or 13 to
determine the true fracture conductivity. It is important to note
that, if there is no turbulent flow, the fracture conductivities
determined will be the same for both tests.
Wellbore storage and bilinear flow
The following relationships will be derived for completeness
purposes because wellbore storage may masks the early
pressure data relevant in a fractured well. If the unit-slope
straight line, corresponding to the wellbore storage flow
regime, is present, then the wellbore storage coefficient can be
determined from the usual equations, i.e., from the pseudo-
pressure derivative curve:
q T t
C = 0.419 sc (18)
i t * m' ( p)
The coordinates of the point of intersection of the unit-
slope and bilinear flow lines on the pseudo-pressure derivative
curve can be obtained by combining Eq. 4 and 9:
q T t
0.25mBL t 0.25 = 0.419 sc (19)
i C
Replacing t with tUSBLi yields:

(k w )fD fD app
(15) CmBL i
4/3
= 1 + 0.55( qDND ) f
(k w ) tUSBLi = 0.5 (20)
qscT
fD fD t

and,
Again, simple relationships presented in Eqs. 12, 13 and 14
are derived from this correlation.
(t * m ' ( p ) w )USBLi = 0.25mBL (tUSBLi )0.25 (21)
Flow turbulent factor
Linear and bilinear flow interrelationships
Having determined the value of (kfDwfD)t by using Tiabs
Direct Synthesis technique, the flow rate constants, (qDND)f can If the formation linear flow regime is observed after the
be found for the two rates. The flow rate constant can be bilinear flow line, then the equations developed by Tiab7 for
expressed as, the infinite-conductivity fracture and uniform-flux fracture
cases can be used to determine the fracture length:
(qDND )f = Fturb * q (16)
(t m' ( p ) w ) = 0.5mL t (21.a)
where Fturb is constant for each well, provided the fluid and
fracture properties are not highly dependent on pressure5. Fturb where:
is a basic term that must be determined to forecast the
q T 1 (21.b)
behavior of a fracture well at any flow rate. In this case there mL = 40.915 sc 2
is not need to determine the factor, since it is included in the h ( c t )i x f
4 SPE 80915

taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. 21.a: Radial and bilinear flow interrelationships

log (t * m' ( p )w ) = 0.5 log t + log (0.5mL ) (21.c) The pressure derivative portion corresponding to the infinite-
acting radial-flow line is a horizontal straight line. This flow
and solving for the half-fracture length, xf at time t=1 hr regime is given by4,8,9:
yields:
711.26qscT
qscT 1 (22) (t m' ( p)) r = (28.a)
x f = 20.46
kh
h (t * m ' ( p ) )L1 ( c t ) i k
the subscript r stands for radial flow. The formation
where (t*m(p))L1 is the value of (t*m(p)) at time t=1 hour permeability is therefore4,8,9:
on the straight-line portion of slope 0.5 (extrapolated if
necessary). 711.26qscT
The coordinates of the intersection point of the lines on the k= (28.b)
pseudo-pressure derivative curve can be obtained by h(t * m' ( p ))r
combining Eqs.21.a and 21.b:
where (t*m(p))r is obtained by extrapolating the horizontal
mBLt 0.25 = 2mLt 0.5 (23) line to the vertical axis. The radial flow line can also be used
to calculate the skin factor from the following equation9:
Replacing t with tBLLi, where the subscript BLLi stands
for intersection of the bilinear and linear flow lines, yields: ( m( p))r ktr
S ' = 0.5 ln + 7.43 (28.c)
2
4 (t * m' ( p) )r ( ct )i rw
1 mBLLi (24)
t BLLi =
16 mL where tr is any convenient time during the infinite-acting
radial-flow regime.
The time-coordinate of the intersection point of the bilinear
(t * m' ( p ) w ) BLLi = mL t BLLi (25) and radial flow straight lines can be determined from a
combination of Eqs. 4 and 28.b:
or;
711.26qscT
0.25 0.25mBLt 0.25 = (29)
(t * m' ( p )) BLLi = mBL (t BLLi ) (26) kh

Substituting for mBL (Eq. 5) and mL (Eq. 21.b) into Eq. 21 we 0.25 711.26qscT 4 (30)
t RBLi =
obtain: kh mBL
x 2f k
2
1 (27.a)
t BLLi = 13905 ( ct )i substituting for mBL from Eq. 5 yields:
16 k f wf

( ct )i
Solving for permeability, k, yields:
t RBLi = 1696 (k f w f )2 (31)
k3
2
k w 16 * t BLLi This expression should preferably be used for verification
k = f 2 f (27.b) purposes. Radial and linear flow interrelationships are
xf 13905 ( ct ) i
presented in Ref. 7.

Eqs. 27.a and 27.b can be used for verification purposes, if

Radial and linear flow relationships
all three-flow regimes are observed. If the test is too short to
observe the radial flow line, or a pre-frac test is not possible As presented in Ref. 7, combining Eqs. 31. and 31.C and
such as in low-permeability formation, then Eq. 27.b may be solving for the half-fracture length, xf, we obtain:
used to calculate the formation permeability.
Combining the dimensionless fracture conductivity, Eq. 2,
and Eq. 24 may derive a useful relationship for design and xe
log(t DA * m' ( p )wD ) = 0.5 log t DA + log (31.a)
verification purposes. x
f
1
2
ct x f
2

tBLLi = 13910 (28)

16 k c fD t * m' ( p ) w = 0.5mL t (31.b)

SPE 80915 5

qT 1 1.92173 (33)
mL = 40.915 (31.c) xf =
h k (ct )i x f
2 e S ' 3.31739k

rw wk f
0.5
20.457qscT 1
(31.d) knowing the fracture conductivity, wfkf, from the bilinear flow,
xf =
h(t * m' ( p)) L1 k ( ct )i
and formation permeability, k, and apparent skin, S from
radial flow, Eq. 33 can be used to calculate the half-fracture
The point of intersection of the linear flow line and the length, xf.
infinite-acting radial flow line is unique. For further
verification, in Ref. 4 an equation was derived for gas system 2. Bilinear flow is not observed.
to estimate the ratio xf2/k from this intersection point:
If the bilinear flow line of slope 0.25 is not well defined or not
2 observed due to wellbore phenomena, then the fracture
x tLRi
f
= (31.e) conductivity, wfkf, can be calculated from1:
k 1207ct
3.31739k (34)
For completeness of the set of equations, Ref. 4 provides k f wf = S'
e 1.92173
relationships to estimate xf and drainage area, A, from the
intersection point between the linear line with the rw xf
pseudosteady-state line and with the radial line, respectively,
thus: where the formation permeability is determined from Eq. 28.b
(if a pre-frac is not possible) and post-frac skin from Eq. 28.c.
75.44 ( ct )i A (31.f) The half-fracture length is obtained from Eq. 22.
kx 2f =
t LPi
3. Radial flow line is not observed
7544 ( ct ) i (32) For short tests such as in low permeability formations, the
A=
kx 2f tLPi horizontal straight line on the pressure derivative, which
corresponds to the infinite-acting behavior might not be
kt RPi observed during the limited period of time of a conventional
A= (32.a)
301.77 ( ct )i drawdown or buildup test. In this case, Eq. 28.b cannot be
used to calculate the post-frac skin factor. If both bilinear and
formation linear flow regimes are well defined in the pseudo-
SPECIAL CASES7 pressure derivative curve, then the formation permeability is
calculated from Eq. 27.b (assuming there is no pre-frac test),
The above analysis assumes that all flow regimes (bilinear, while the post-frac skin factor is obtained either from1:
formation linear, and radial) are observed during the pressure
test and that they are well defined in the pseudo-pressure
1.92173 3.31739k
derivative curve. In many instances, at least one of the flow S ' = ln rw (35)
regimes is not observed or not well defined. Because of the w f k f
x f
short duration of the flow period answer from a branch
or from the following equation32;
fracture, the presence of wellbore storage effects may mask
this behavior.
rw 1.65 0.32u + 0.11u 2 (36)
S ' = ln +
1. Formation Linear flow is not observed. x f 1 + 0.18u + 0.064u 2 + 0.005u 3

For a low-conductivity fracture, CfD1, the straight line where;

corresponding to the linear flow regime will probably not be
observed. After the bilinear flow line, the pressure derivative
curve generally enters a transition flow. Later, if the test is run
long enough, a horizontal line on the pressure derivative curve
is observed corresponding to the infinite-acting radial flow
regime. In this case, the formation permeability is calculated
from Eq. 28.b and the fracture conductivity is determined from
the bilinear flow line (Eqs. 8). Ref. 1 presents the following
equations which relate the half-fracture length, xf, formation
permeability, k, fracture conductivity, kfwf, and the apparent
post-frac skin factor, S:
wf k f
u = ln (37)
x k
f
It is important to emphasize that accurate values of k, xf,
and kfwf can only be obtained when, respectively, the radial,
formation linear and bilinear flow regimes are well defined in
the pressure and pressure derivative curves. In the absence of
any of the three flow regimes Eqs. 33, 34 and 35 are accurate
enough (with less than one percent error) for determining
these parameters7.
6 SPE 80915
SYSTEMATIC PROCEDURE
The procedures in this chapter will be developed following the
methodology presented by Tiab1. Hydraulic fracturing has a
definite effect on the pressure transient behavior. It is
therefore important to estimate the complete expected pressure
response using assumed and measured reservoir properties, or
at the very least estimate key factors in test response. Test
design is critical since many things can mask the response we
seek, or can cause a response that is misleading because it
merely resembles the behavior expected2,3,7. It is advisable to
take pressure data at short intervals while wellbore storage is
important so that to better define the wellbore storage affected
portion of the pressure derivative curve.
Because wellbore storage effects may obscure the bilinear
and formation linear flow regimes (which may make the
pressure test not interpretable), it may be necessary to devise a
test that minimizes or eliminates the wellbore storage effects.
Best results are obtained when the well is shut-in at the sand
face and the bottom hole pressure is recorded continuously
during a transient test. Although surface pressure often can be
converted to bottom-hole values if adequate information is
available about the wellbore system, it is likely that this
conversion would result in additional noise effect on the
pressure derivative values7.
Case 1 - Ideal Case (All 3 flow regimes are observed)
By having two test data at different flow rates, the following
step-by-step procedure is for the case where all the straight
lines corresponding to various flow regimes of a finite
conductivity fracture are well defined.
Step 1. Plot the pseudopressure change, m(p) and
(t*m(p)), pseudopressure derivative values versus test time.
Step 2. Identify and draw the straight lines corresponding to
wellbore storage (slope = 1), bilinear flow (slope = 0.25),
formation linear flow (slope = 0.5), and infinite acting radial
flow (horizontal line).
Step 3. Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient from Eq. 18,
if the unit slope is well defined.
Step 4. Calculate the formation permeability, k, from the
infinite acting radial flow line on the pressure derivative
curve, using Eq. 28.b.
Step Read the value of (t*m(p)) at time t=l hr from the
bilinear flow line (extrapolated if necessary), and calculate the
apparent fracture conductivity (kfwf)app1 from Eq. 8.
Step 6. Calculate the time of intersection of the bilinear and
radial flow lines using Eq. 31, and compare with the observed
intersection time tRBLi in the graph. If the calculated and the
observed values of tRBLi are approximately equal, we can
conclude that the calculated values of the formation
permeability, k, and the fracture conductivity (kf wf)app1 are
correct. If they are different, adjust one of the two straight
lines or both and recalculate k and (kfwf)app1 until the two
values of tRBLi are equal.
Step 7. Calculate the apparent skin factor, S, from Eq. 28.c.
Step 8. Calculate the half-fracture length from Eq. 22. Verify
this value of xf by calculating tBBLi from Eq. 27.a and then
comparing it with the observed value of tBBLi . If these two
values of tBBLi are approximately equal we can conclude that xf
is correct. If the two values of tBBLI are different shift the half-
slope line until the observed and calculated tBBLi are equal.
Step 9. Calculate the apparent dimensionless fracture
conductivity (CfD)app from Eq. 2. It can be shown that the
maximum productivity index (PI) occurs at the optimum value
of CfD =1.6, for any formation, well, and proppant32. Although
the optimum CfD may not be technically or economically
feasible, if Eq. 2 yields a CfD that is very different from 1.6 it
is important to search for a reason. Generally, in low-
permeability reservoirs, CfD=1.6 indicates a long and narrow
fracture; in high-permeability reservoirs, this value of CfD may
indicate a short and wide fracture10.
Step 10. Repeat steps 1 9 for the second test at different
flow rate, and find (kfwf)app2, xf, which should be
approximately the same as calculated in step 8 for the first
test.
Step 11. Calculate the apparent dimensionless fracture
conductivity as in step 9 for test one.
Step 12. Calculate the true dimensionless fracture
conductivity by using Eqs. 12 or 13.
Case 2 - Low conductivity fracture (Linear flow line is not
observed)
By having two test data at different flow rates, for a low
conductivity fracture, the formation linear flow regime will
probably be too short-lived to be well defined, making it
difficult to draw the half slope line, or will not be observed at
all.
Steps 1 - 7: Same as above (ideal case)
Step 8. Calculate the half- fractured length from Eq. 33.
Step 9 - 12. Same as above.
Case 3 - Intermediate conductivity fracture
Two pressure tests at different flow rate in a well with an
intermediate-conductivity fracture should yield all three flow
regimes, i.e., bi-linear, formation-linear and radial. However,
if the effect of wellbore storage and/or noise on the early-time
pressure data is severe, then it would be difficult to draw the
quarter-slope line.
Steps 1 4. Same as in the ideal case.
Step Calculate the half-fracture length from Eq. 22
Step 6. Select any convenient time tR during the infinite
acting radial portion of the pressure and pressure derivative
curves, and read the corresponding values of (m(p))r and
(t*m(p))r then calculate the apparent skin factor, S, from
the Eq. 28.c.
Step 7. Estimate the fracture conductivity (kfwf)app1 from
Eq.34.
Step 8. Same as step 9 - 12 of the ideal case.
Case 4 - Short post-frac tests
For low permeability reservoirs, the portion of the curve
corresponding to the radial infinite acting behavior may not be
observed. Then, a trial-and-error procedure should be
employed.
SPE 80915 7

Steps 1-3. Same steps as in the ideal case Step 2. The bilinear flow (slope = 0.25), and formation linear
Step 4. The permeability value is determined from a pre-frac flow (slope = 0.5) were identified.
test. Step 3. No wellbore storage effect was observed (no straight
Step 5. Calculate the fracture conductivity (kf wf)app1 as line with slope=1). Therefore the wellbore storage coefficient
discussed in Step 5 of the ideal case. may not be calculated.
Step 6. Calculate the half-fracture length, xf, as discussed in Step 4. The permeability value is known, i.e. k = 0.0081 md.
step 8 of the ideal case. Step 5. Read the value of (t*m(p)) at time t = l hr from the
Step 7. Calculate apparent skin from Eq. 35 bilinear flow line (extrapolated if necessary), and calculate the
Step 8. Same as step 9 - 12 of the ideal case. apparent fracture conductivity (kf wf)app2 from Eq. 8.
(t*m(p))BL1 = 3.61x107 psi2/cp.
Field case 15
2
12272 .76 525 * 710
Table 1 presents reservoir and well parameters and table 2 (k f w f )app = 7
presents information from two drawdown tests for a fractured 0.1 * 0.0166 * 2.35 10 * 0.0081 30 * 3.61 10
4

well in a low permeability gas reservoir. (k f w f )app = 25.86 md ft

Step 1. Fig. 3 shows a plot of the pseudopressure change,
m(p) and pseudopressure derivative t*m(p) values versus The value obtained by using Tiabs Direct Synthesis
test time. technique is quite similar to the value found in Ref. 5.
Step 2. The bilinear flow (slope = 0.25), and formation linear Step 6. From Fig. 4, (t*m(p))L1=1.85x107 psi2/cp. Then, the
flow (slope = 0.5) were identified. half fracture length is calculated from Eq. 22.
Step 3. No wellbore storage effect was observed (no straight
line with slope=1). Therefore the wellbore storage coefficient
525 * 710 1
may not be calculated. x f = 20.46 7 4
Step 4. The permeability value is known, i.e. k = 0.0081 md. 30 *1.85 x10 0.1 * 0.0166 * 2.35 x10 * 0.0081
Step 5. Read the value of (t*m(p)) at time t=l hr from the x f = 244.4 ft
bilinear flow line (extrapolated if necessary), and calculate the
apparent fracture conductivity (kfwf)app1 from Eq. 8. This value is approximately equal to the value of xf
(t*m(p))BL1 = 4180652 psi2/cp. calculated in the first test at q =100 mscf/D. Eq. 27a is used to
12272.76 100 * 710
2 calculate the coordinates of the intersection point of the one-
(k f w f )app = half-slope line and the one-quarter-slope straight line for
1
0.1 * 0.0166 * 2.35 x10 * 0.0081 30 * 4180652
4
verification purposes.
(k w f )app = 69.96 md ft
1
f 2
1
( 244.4) 2
tBLLi = 13910 * 0.1 * 0.0166 * 2.35 x10 4 = 14.65 hr
16 25.86
The value obtained by using Tiabs Direct Synthesis technique
is quite similar to the value found in Ref. 5.
The above calculated value corresponds to the intersection
Step 6. From Fig. 3 (t*m(p))L1= 3484786 psi /cp. Then the 2 point observed between the two straight lines in Fig. 4. From
half-fracture length is calculated from Eq. 22. Eq. 2:
(C fD )app2 = (k fD wD )app 2 = 25.86 = 13.06
100 * 710
x f = 20.46
1
= 247.2 ft
0.0081* 244.4

30 * 3484786 0 . 1 * 0. 0166 * 2 . 35x10 4 * 0.0081
From Eq. 14;
Eq. 27a is used to calculate the coordinates of the intersection
point of the one-half-slope line and the one-quarter-slope (k fD w fd )app1 34.93
straight line for verification purposes. a= = = 2.67
(k fD w fD )app2 13.06
1
2
(247.2) 2
t BLLi = 13910 * 0.1 * 0.0166 * 2.35 x10 4 = 2.09 hr
16 69.96 From Eq. 12;

The above calculated value corresponds to the intersection
q2 q1
point observed between the two straight lines in figure 3. From
Eq. 2:
(k fD w fD )t = ( k fD w fD ) app1 *
q2 q1 * a
525 100
(C ) fD app

= (k fD wD )app =
69.96
= 34.93
(k fD w fD )t = 34.93 *
525 100 * 2.67
= 57.93
1 1
0.0081* 247.2
The value calculated by using Tiabs Direct Synthesis
Now, from the second set of pressure data at q = 525 Mscf/D.
approach for dimensionless true fracture conductivity, CfD, is
Step 1. Figure 5 shows a plot of the pseudopressure change,
approximately the same as the value calculated in Ref. 5. In
m(p) and pseudopressure derivative, (t*m(p)) values order to calculate the flow turbulent factor it is necessary to
versus test time.
8 SPE 80915

calculate the dimensionless flow rate constant, qDND, for the (t*m(p))L1 = 196167400 psi2/cp.
first drawdown test,
2
12272.76 10,000 * 710
q2 q1 525 100
(k f w f )app 2 =
(q DND )1 = 3.225 3.225 = 3.225 3.225 0.1* 0.015 * 2.35x10 4 * 0.008 100 *196167400
525 100 * 2.67
q
2 q1 * a (k w f )app 2 = 30.27 md ft
(qDND )1 = 2.08 f

The value obtained by using Tiabs Direct Synthesis technique

(q DND )1 2.08
is approximately equal to the value found in Ref. 11. To
Fturb = = = 0.02
q1 100 determine the correct permeability width product we have:

As it was mentioned before, Fturb is constant for each well. From Eq. 14.

Field case 211 (k f w f ) app1 131.84

a= = = 4.35
Table 2 presents information for a simulated case of a well (k f w f ) app2 30.27
crossed by a finite conductivity fracture. The well is produced
at 1,000 Mscf/D for sufficient time to minimize the effects of From Eq. 12.
producing time. The well is shut-in and the buildup pressure q2 q1
monitored with time. The well was produced at a second flow (k f w f )t = (k f w f ) app1 *
q2 q1 * a
rate of 10,000 Mscf/D and was shut-in for 8 hours. The
10,000 1,000
buildup data was also noted. Additional data are given in table (k f w f )t = 131.84 *
10,000 1,000 * 4.35
= 210.01 md ft
1.

Step 1. Fig. 5 shows a plot of the pseudopressure change, The value calculated by using Tiabs Direct Synthesis
m(p) and pseudopressure derivative, (t*m(p)) values approach for correct permeability-width product, kfwf, is
versus test time. approximately the same as the value calculated in Ref. 11. To
Step 2. The bilinear flow (slope = 0.25) was identified. calculate the flow turbulent factor it is necessary to calculate
Step 3. No wellbore storage effect was observed (no straight the dimensionless flow rate constant, qDND, for the first
line with slope=1), therefore the wellbore storage coefficient buildup test,
may not be calculated. Also, no linear flow regime was q 2 q1
observed (slope=0.5), therefore, there is no additional data, (qDND )1 = 1.82 1.82
q 2 q1 * a
which let us calculate xf for this particular example.
10,000 1,000
Step 4. The permeability value is known, i.e. k = 0.008 md. (qDND )1 = 1.82 1.82 = 1.07
Step 5. Read the value of (t*m(p)) at time t=l hr from the 10 , 000 1,000 * 4.35
bilinear flow line (extrapolated if necessary), and calculate the
apparent fracture conductivity (kfwf)app1 from Eq. 8. (qDND )1 1.07
6 2
(t*m(p))BL1 = 9.4x10 psi /cp. Fturb = = = 1,07 10 3
q1 1,000
2

(k f wf ) =
12272.76 1000 * 710
6
As mentioned before, Fturb is constant for each well. If kf
0.1* 0.015 * 2.35 x10 * 0.008 100 * 9.4 x10
app1 4
and wf are known, factor can be calculated. Hence in general
(k f wf )
app1
= 131.84 md ft for this fracture:

The value obtained by using Tiabs Direct Synthesis technique (qDND ) f = 1.07 103 q
is quite similar to the value found in Ref. 11. Now, from the
second set of pressure data at q = 10,000 Mscf/D. The above relationship will be necessary for predicting the
Step 1. Fig. 7 shows a plot of the pseudopressure change, non-Darcy effects (qDND)f on future changes in the flow rate.
m(p) and pseudopressure derivative, (t*m(p)) values
versus test time. NOMENCLATURE
Step 2. The bilinear flow (slope = 0.25) was identified.
Step 3. No wellbore storage effect was observed (no straight A drainage area, ft2
line with slope=1), therefore the wellbore storage coefficient AOF absolute open flow, MMscf/D
may not be calculated. Also, no linear flow regime was Bg gas formation factor, rb/Mscf
observed (slope=0.5), therefore, there is no additional data, c compressibility, 1/psi
which let us calculate xf for this particular example. C wellbore storage, Mscf/psi
Step 4. The permeability value is known, i.e. k = 0.008 md. CD dimensionless storage constant
Step 5. Read the value of (t*m(p)) at time t=l hr from the kf fracture conductivity, md-ft
bilinear flow line (extrapolated if necessary), and calculate the D turbulence factor, non-Darcy flow factor, (Mscf/D)-1
apparent fracture conductivity (kfwf)app2 from Eq. 8. Fturb flow turbulent factor
SPE 80915 9

h formation thickness, ft Technique Paper SPE 52201 presented at the 1999 SPE
k formation permeability, md Mid-Continent Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma
kfwf fracture conductivity, md-ft City, OK, March 28-31, 1999.
m(p) pseudopressure function 2. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, F and Dominguez, N.:
m(p)w well pseudopressure, psi2/cp Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with Finite-
m(p)wD dimensionless well pseudopressure, psi2/cp Conductivity Vertical Fracture SPE J. (Aug. 1978) 253-
m(p)D derivative of dimensionless pseudopressure 264.
p pressure, psi 3. Cinco-Ley, H. And Samaniego, F.: Transient Pressure
Pi initial reservoir pressure, psia Anlisis for Fractured Wells. Paper SPE 7940 presented
Pe reservoir boundary pressure, psia at the 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
pwf well flowing well pressure, psi Exhibition of the SPE of AIME held in Houston, Tx, Oct.
q gas flow rate, Mscf/D 1-3, 1978.
qDND dimensionless flow rate constant 4. Nunez, W.: Application of Tiabs Direct Synthesis
rD dimensionless radius Technique to Vertically Fractured Gas Wells. M.S.
re drainage radius, ft Thesis. The University of Oklahoma. 2002.
rw Wellbore radius, ft 5. Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley, H. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Samaniego-
S mechanical skin factor V, F.: Non-Darcy Flow in Wells with Finite-Conductivity
S apparent skin factor Vertical Fractures, Paper SPE 8281, 1982.
T temperature, R 6. Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley H., Ramey H.J. Jr.: Pressure
t test time, hr Buildup Analysis of Fractured Wells Producing at High
tD dimensionless time Flow Rates, Paper SPE 10178, 1981.
wf fracture width, ft 7. Tiab D., Analysis of Pressure and Pressure Derivative
xf half-fracture length, ft without Type-Curve Matching: Vertically Fractured Wells
in Closed Systems, Paper SPE 12345, 1990.
Greek 8. Nuez-Garca, W., Tiab, D. and Escobar, F. H. Anlisis
de Presiones de Pozos Gasferos verticales en
turbulence coefficient, non-Darcy coefficient, ft-1, Formaciones Homogneas Sin Emplear Curvas Tipo.
-1 -1
cm , m Boletn Estadstico Mensual del ACIPET. Bogota-
change, drop Colombia. No. 3, Year 35, ISSN 0122 5728. p. 9-13.
m(p) pseudopressure difference, psi2/cp September 2002.
m(p)D dimensionless pressure change or response amplitude 10. Tiab D.: Analysis of Pressure And Pressure Derivative
m(p) change of rate of pressure with time (pressure Without Type-Curve Matching _ Skin And Wellbore
derivative), psi2/cp Storage paper SPE 25426, 1993.
11. Economides, M.J., Watters, Dunn-Norman, S: Petroleum
t flow time, hr or days; shut-in time, hr or days
Well Construction, John Wiley&Sons, New York
porosity, fraction of bulk volume
(1988). 622 pages.
g gas viscosity, cp 12. Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley H., Ramey H.J. Jr.: Pressure
g gas specific gravity, air=1.0 Buildup Analysis of Fractured Wells Producing at High
Flow Rates, Paper SPE 10178, 1981.
Subscripts
Table 1. Parameters for field examples
app apparent
BL bilinear Field example 1 Field example 2
BLLi intersection of bilinear and linear flow lines
Parameter Value Value
BLRi intersection of bilinear and radial flow lines
T, R 710 710
D Dimensionless quantity
f fracture 0.1 0.1
g gas cti, psia-1 2.35x10-4 2.35x10-4
i intersection or initial conditions qg1, Mscf/D 100 100
L linear qg2, Mscf/D 525 525
R,r radial flow g 0.8 0.8
sc standard conditions h, ft 30 100
w wellbore; water k, md 0.0081 0.008
wf Flowing conditions gi, cp 0.00166 0.0015
1 time is one hour Pi, psi 3000
References
1. Tiab, D., Azzougen A., Escobar, F.H., Berumen, S.:
Analysis of Pressure Derivative Data of Finite-
Conductivity Fractures by the Direct Synthesis
10 SPE 80915

Table 2. Pressure data for field examples

Field example 1 Field example 2

t m(p)1 m(p)2 t m(p)1 m(p)2

hrs psi^2/cp psi2^/cp hrs psi^2/cp psi2^/cp
0.0833 9.10E+06 7.50E+07 0.08333 2.02E+07 4.10E+08
0.1667 1.08E+07 9.10E+07 0.1667 2.40E+07 5.10E+08
0.25 1.19E+07 1.00E+08 0.25 2.72E+07 5.60E+08
0.333 1.28E+07 1.07E+08 0.333 2.91E+07 6.10E+08
0.5 1.41E+07 1.21E+08 0.5 3.16E+07 6.50E+08
0.667 1.53E+07 1.29E+08 0.667 3.48E+07 7.20E+08
0.8333 1.60E+07 1.35E+08 0.8333 3.67E+07 7.60E+08
1 1.66E+07 1.45E+08 1 3.79E+07 7.80E+08
1.5 1.86E+07 1.61E+08 1.5 4.17E+07 8.70E+08
2 2.01E+07 1.72E+08 2 4.55E+07 9.40E+08
3 2.28E+07 1.91E+08 2.5 4.80E+07 9.90E+08
4 2.45E+07 2.05E+08 3 4.93E+07 1.02E+09
5 2.63E+07 2.19E+08 3.5 5.18E+07 1.06E+09
6 2.79E+07 2.28E+08 4 5.31E+07 1.11E+09
7 2.93E+07 2.38E+08 5 5.56E+07 1.16E+09
8 3.05E+07 2.45E+08 6 5.94E+07 1.21E+09
9 3.19E+07 2.49E+08 7 6.19E+07 1.26E+09
10 3.28E+07 2.58E+08 8 6.32E+07 1.33E+09
12 3.50E+07 2.75E+08
14 3.70E+07 2.84E+08
16 3.90E+07 2.96E+08
18 4.08E+07 3.03E+08
20 4.25E+07 3.17E+08
22 4.44E+07 3.26E+08
24 4.55E+07 3.30E+08

oil

Comparative Oil-Gas systems Finite conductivity fracture oil der

gas
gas der

10
CDf = 0.3

Oil Sys te m Gas System

dpD, tDA*dp'D ; dm(p)D, tDA*dm(p)'D

Tes t tim e: 10000 hr Tes t tim e: 10000 hr

Q: 3000 STB/D Q: 6000 M SCF/D
Well: Finite conductivity Well: Finite conductivity
Res ervoir: Hom oge ne ous Res ervoir: Hom oge ne ous
Boundaries : Infinite Boundaries : Infinite
r: 0.3 ft r: 0.3 ft
h: 40 ft h: 40 ft
Porosity: 0.1 Porosity: 0.1
k : 40 m d k : 40 m d
C: 0, S:0, Xf: 300 ft C: 0, S:0, Xf: 300 ft
B:1,4 RB/STB SG: 0.7
1 M iu: 0.6 cp. Cr: 3e -6 ps i-1
Ct: 3e-6 psi-1 Pi: 6000 ps i, Ti: 212oF
Pi: 5000 ps i, Ti: 212oF Gas param eters (Z, Cg, Mug, Bg)
calculate d from correlations .

0,1
0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100 1000 10000

tDA

Fig. 1. Comparative oil-gas systems Finite conductivity fracture

SPE 80915 11

gas
10 10 m(p) & t*m(p)' response by increasing "D" facto r gas der
oil
oil der
D=0.0001
der D=0.0001
D=0.0002

Increasing "D" factor

der D=0.0002
D=0.0003
der D=0.0003
D=0.0004
der D=0.0004
1 1 Oil and gas system behavior at S=0 and
D=0 for gas case D=0.0005

m(p) & t*m(p)'

der D=0.000.5
D=0.0006
der D=0.0006
D=0.0007
der D=0.0007
D=0.0008
der D=0.0008
D=0.0009
der D=0.0009

0.1 0.1

Derivative Curve does not change by

increasing "D"factor

0.010.01
0.001
0.001 0.01
0.01 0.10.1 11 10
10 100
100

tD

Fig. 2. Pseudopressure and derivative pseudopressure response by increasing D factor

1E+8
1.E+08
Drawdown data table 5.1, q=100 Mscf/D
m(p) & t*m(p)'

1E+7
1.E+07 Linear flow regime

(t*m(p)')BL1

Bilinear flow regime

(t*m(p)')L1

t'BBLi
1E+6
1.E+06
0.01
0.01 0.1
0.1 1 10
10 100
100

Fig. 3. m(p) and t*m(p) vs. t for drawdown data q=100 Mscf/D, exercise Ref. 5

1.E+09
1E+8
Drawdown data table 5.1, q=525 Mscf/D
m(p) & t*m(p)'

1E+7
1.E+08

Linear flow regime

(t*m(p)')BL1

Bilinear flow regime

(t*m(p)')L1
t'BBLi
1E+6
1.E+07
0.01
0.01 0.1
0.1 11 10
10 100
100
t
Figure 4. m(p) and t*m(p) vs. t for drawdown data q=525 Mscf/D, exercise Ref. 5
12 SPE 80915

1E+8
1.E+08
Buildup data table 5.2, q = 1,000 Mscf/D

m(p) & t*m(p)'

1E+7 (t* m(p)')BL1

1.E+07

Bilinear flow regime

1E+6
1.E+06
0.01
0.01 0.1
0.1 11 10
10 100
100

Fig. 5. m(p) and t*m(p) vs. t for buildup data q=1,000 Mscf/D, exercise Ref. 11

1.E+10
1E+10
Buildup data table 5.2, q = 10,000 Mscf/D

1E+9
1.E+09
m(p) & t*m(p)'

(t*m(p)')BL1

1E+8
1.E+08

Bilinear flow regime

1E+7
1.E+07
0.01
0.01 0.1
0.1 1
1 10
10 100
100

t
Fig. 6. m(p) and t*m(p) vs. t for buildup data q=10,000 Mscf/D, exercise Ref. 11
SPE 80915
Authors
Walter Nunez Djebbar Tiab
Freddy H. Escobar
Walter Nunez
Walter Nunez holds a B.S. degree in Petroleum Engineering
from Universidad de America (Bogot-Colombia) and a M.S.
degree in Petroleum Engineering from the University of
Oklahoma. He also had a Specialization Degree in Financial
Management. Mr. Nunez has been with Ecopetrol The
Colombian National oil Company- since 1994. There, he has
occupied several postions. Mr. Nunez has worked as a
Production Engineer, Leader engineer, coordinator and
production coordinator.
Dr. Freddy H. Escobar
Dr. Freddy H. Escobar holds a BS degree from the
Universidad de America (Bogota-Colombia), M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees from the University of Oklahoma all in Petroleum
Engineering. Currently, Dr. Escobar is a full-time professor in
Universidad Surcolombiana (Neiva-Colombia) where he
teaches Reservoir Engineering, Petroleoum Reservoir
Development and Well Test Analysis. His main interests
include well test analysis, reservoir characterization and
simulation, numerical analysis and software development. He
has authored and coauthored more than 30 publications related
to Petroleum Engineering.
13
Dr. Djebbar Tiab
Dr. Djebbar Tiab is the Senior Professor of Petroleum
Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. He received his
B.Sc. (May 1974) and M.Sc. (May 1975) from the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and Ph.D. (July
1976) from the University of Oklahoma - all in Petroleum
Engineering. He is the Program Director of The University
of Oklahoma Graduate Program in Petroleum Engineering in
Algeria. Before joining University of Oklahoma in 1977, he
worked as an assistant professor at the New Mexico Institute
of Mining and Technology.
Dr. Tiab is also the president of United Petroleum
Technologies (UPTEC): 1980-84, 1989 - present. He is a
member of the U.S. Research Council, Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE), Core Analysis Society, Pi Epsilon Tau, Who
is Who and American Men and Women of Science. He served
as a technical editor of various SPE, Egyptian and U.A.E.
journals. He is currently a member of the SPE Pressure
Analysis Transaction Committee.
Dr. Tiab is the author of over one hundred journal and
conference technical papers in the area of pressure transient
analysis, petrophysics, natural gas engineering, reservoir
characterization, reservoir engineering and injection processes.
In 1975 (M.S. thesis) and 1976 (Ph.D. dissertation), Dr.Tiab
introduced the pressure derivative technique which
revolutionized the interpretation of pressure transient tests. He
has two patents in the area of reservoir characterization
(identification of flow units). He is the senior author of the
textbook PETROPHYSICS, published by Gulf Publishing
Company: 1st Edition in October 1996.
Dr. Tiab has supervised 21 Ph.D. and 56 M.Sc. students at
the University of Oklahoma. Most of his Ph.D. students are
now professors at universities in the U.S.A., South America,
Africa, Asia and the Middle East. He received the
Outstanding Young Men of America Award (1983), the SUN
Award for Education Achievement (1984), Kerr-McGee
Distinguished Lecturer Award (1985), the College of
Engineering Faculty Fellowship of Excellence (1986), the
Halliburton Lectureship Award (1987-89), the UNOCAL
Centennial Professorship (1995-98), and the P&GE
Distinguished Professor (1999 2000). He also received the
prestigious 1995 SPE Distinguished Achievement Award for
Petroleum Engineering Faculty