Stabilized Well Productivity in
Double-Porosity Reservoirs
Jacques Hagoort, SPE, Hagoort & Associates B.V.
Summary
In this work, we present a simple1 analytical formula for the sta-
bilized productivity index (PI) of an arbitrary well in an arbitrary
closed, naturally fractured reservoir that can be modeled as a
double-porosity reservoir. The formula relates the PI to the PI of a
well in a single-porosity reservoir with permeability equal to the
effective fracture permeability of the double-porosity reservoir.
We have elaborated this formula for a vertical and a horizontal
well in a rectangular reservoir made up of orthogonal matrix
blocks. It appears that the double-porosity characteristics, along
with reservoir flow capacity and reservoir volume, combine into a
single factor, which plays the same role as the familiar skin factor.
For small values of this double-porosity skin, well productivity is
dominated by fracture permeability; for large values, the control-
ling parameter is matrix permeability. Inflow-performance rela-
tionship (IPR) curves of wells in double-porosity gas reservoirs
can be created readily with the help of the new PI formula. An
example is included showing the production profiles of a vertical
and a horizontal well in a double-porosity gas reservoir with cubes
and square pillars as matrix blocks. The results of this work are
particularly relevant for the reservoir engineering of naturally frac-
tured gas reservoirs.
Introduction
The productivity of a well is commonly indicated by a PI, which
is defined as the ratio of the production rate to the difference
between average reservoir pressure and well pressure (i.e., pres-
sure drawdown). In the case of compressible liquid flow in a
bounded reservoir, the PI starts out with a relatively high value but
declines rather rapidly down to a constant value reflecting flow
that is dominated by the outer reservoir boundary. This is true
regardless of whether production takes place at a constant rate or
at a constant well pressure. The constant PI value is known as the
stabilized PI. Most, if not all, of the analytical work on stabilized
PIs concerned wells in nonfractured, single-porosity reservoirs.
In this work, we address the stabilized PI of wells in naturally
fractured reservoirs that can be modeled as double-porosity reser-
voirs. A double-porosity reservoir comprises two distinct and
coupled flow systems: (1) a highly conductive, continuous fracture
network with little storage capacity that surrounds (2) a system of
poorly conductive matrix blocks with a high storage capacity. Fluid
transport to wells occurs exclusively through the fractures, while the
matrix blocks act as sources of fluid that feed into the fractures.
In the early 1960s, Warren and Root (1963) set down the the-
oretical basis for the description of compressible-fluid flow in
double-porosity reservoirs. Their work and later work by others
focused on the interpretation of transient-pressure well tests and as
a consequence were restricted mainly to the early-time transient-
flow regime. To the best of our knowledge, no formulas exist in
the open petroleum-engineering literature for the PI of wells in
double-porosity reservoirs in the stabilized-flow regime.
The outline of this paper is as follows. We begin with the
general flow equations for stabilized flow of a slightly compress-
ible fluid with constant viscosity in double-porosity reservoirs.
This leads to a general formula for the stabilized PI of an arbitrary
well in an arbitrary double-porosity reservoir. We then elaborate
Copyright © 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 8 March 2007. Revised manuscript received
for review 18 February 2008. Paper peer approved 23 February 2008.
940
this formula for a vertical and a horizontal well in a rectangular-
box-shaped reservoir that comprises orthogonal matrix blocks with
arbitrary aspect ratios. We further show how the PI formula is to
be modified to include wells in fractured gas reservoirs. Finally,
we present an example calculation of the production profiles of a
vertical and a horizontal well in a double-porosity gas reservoir
with cubes and square vertical pillars as matrix blocks.
The results of this work are particularly relevant for the reser-
voir engineering of naturally fractured gas reservoirs where stabi-
lized-flow conditions often prevail during most of their producing
lives. The formulas presented enable quick-and-easy estimations
of well productivities and related sensitivities to the double-
porosity characteristics. In addition, the results may serve as an
analytical benchmark for numerical simulations of complex natu-
rally fractured reservoirs.
Stabilized PI
Let us consider a naturally fractured reservoir filled with a slightly
compressible fluid with a constant viscosity. We assume that flow
in this reservoir can be described by the double-porosity model of
Warren and Root (1963), comprising a highly conductive network
of continuous fractures that enclose a system of unconnected ma-
trix blocks. In this model, the fracture network and the matrix
blocks constitute two continuous flow systems defined in the same
space domain.
Flow in the fracture network is governed by Darcy’s law and
the law of mass conservation. As a result, the pressure distribution
in the continuous fracture system is given by
kf 2 ⭸pf
ⵜ pf = 共␾c兲f + qmf, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
␮ ⭸t
where kf is the fracture permeability; ␮ is the fluid viscosity; pf is
the fracture pressure; (␾c)f is the product of porosity and total
compressibility (pore and fluid) of the fracture system; t is the
time; and qmf is an as yet unspecified flux of fluid from the matrix
blocks into the fractures. The fracture permeability in Eq. 1 is the
effective (macroscopic) permeability of the fractured rock and not
the (microscopic) permeability inside the individual fractures.
Generally, the fracture permeability will be different in different
directions depending on the geometry of the fracture network.
The pressure distribution in the matrix system is described by
⭸pm
qmf = −共␾c兲m , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
⭸t
where (␾c)m is the product of porosity and total compressibility
(pore and fluid) of the matrix system and pm is the pressure in the
matrix. The flux from the matrix blocks into the fracture network
depends on the boundary conditions at the matrix fracture inter-
face, fluid properties, matrix permeability, and the geometry of the
matrix block.
During stabilized-flow conditions, the time rate of change of
the pressure in the fracture network and in the matrix blocks is the
same at any point in the fractured reservoir and is related to the
fluid-withdrawal rate, qsc, at stock-tank conditions by
⭸pf ⭸pm qscB
= =− , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
⭸t ⭸t 关共␾c兲f + 共␾c兲m兴VR
where B is the formation volume factor of the fluid and VR is the
reservoir bulk volume. Following Warren and Root (1963), the
October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
interporosity flux during stabilized-flow conditions can be ex-
pressed by
␴km
qmf = 共p − pf兲, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
␮ m
where ␴ is a shape factor that depends on the geometry of the
matrix blocks and km is the permeability of the matrix blocks.
Substituting Eqs. 2 and 3 into Eq. 1, we obtain
kf 2 qscB
ⵜ pf = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
␮ VR
Eq. 5, along with appropriate boundary conditions, defines the
pressure distribution in the fracture network for a given depletion
rate. Mathematically, Eq. 5 is identical to the equation for the
pressure distribution for stabilized flow in a single-porosity reservoir
Eq. 14 relates the PI of a well in a double-porosity reservoir to the
PI of a well in a single-porosity reservoir with permeability equal
to the fracture permeability of the double-porosity reservoir. The
other double-porosity parameters (i.e., matrix permeability, stor-
ativity ratio, and shape factor), along with fluid viscosity, forma-
tion volume factor, reservoir volume, and single-porosity PI, com-
bine into a single term in the denominator of Eq. 14. Because this
term is positive, the double-porosity PI is always lower than the
single-porosity PI. Eq. 14 is general in the sense that it applies to
any reservoir and well configuration and to depletion at a constant
well rate or at a constant well pressure.
In the special case of a vertical well positioned in the center of
a double-porosity, disk-shaped reservoir and production at a con-
stant rate, Eq. 14 follows directly from the long-time analytical
solution for the well pressure as given by Warren and Root (1963).
This solution reads

冋 册
with a permeability equal to the effective fracture permeability, kf .
Once the pressure distribution in the fractures is known, the ␮Bqsc 2kf 共1 − ␻兲2
pw = pfm − ln共re Ⲑ rw兲 − 0.75 + . . . . . . . (15)
pressure distribution in the matrix-block system follows from 2␲kf h ␴kmr2e
␮qscB共1 − ␻兲 The PI of a well in the center of a single-porosity circular reservoir
pm = pf + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
␴kmVR with permeability kf is given by (Dietz 1965)
Eq. 6 is obtained by substitution of Eqs. 3 and 4 into Eq. 2. It 2␲kf h
Jsp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
shows that in any point in the double-porosity reservoir, the matrix ␮B关ln共re Ⲑ rw兲 − 0.75兴
pressure is higher than the fracture pressure by a constant amount.
The PI of a well in a dual-porosity reservoir is defined by Upon substitution of Eq. 16 into Eq. 15, the double-porosity
PI becomes
qsc
Jdp = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) qsc Jsp
pfm − pw Jdp = = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
pfm − pw ␮B共1 − ␻兲2
where pfm is the average pressure in the dual-porosity reservoir and 1+ Jsp
pw is the well pressure. The average pressure is related to the ␴km␲hr2e
average pressure in the fractures and in the matrix by which is Eq. 14 for a circular reservoir.
pfm = ␻pf + 共1 − ␻兲pm, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) Orthogonally Fractured Reservoirs
where ␻ is the storativity ratio defined by We shall now elaborate Eq. 14 for an orthogonally fractured, box-
shaped reservoir that is depleted by a single vertical or horizontal
共␾c兲f well (see Fig. 1). The reservoir has a length L, width w, and
␻= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
共␾c兲f + 共␾c兲m thickness h. The outer boundaries of the reservoir are closed. We
assume that the matrix blocks are all identical and that their bound-
As we have seen above, the matrix pressure is higher than the ing planes are parallel to the plane boundaries of the reservoir. The
fracture pressure by a constant amount. Consequently, the average length, width, and thickness of the matrix blocks are denoted by Lx,
matrix pressure differs from the average fracture pressure also by Ly, and Lz, respectively. Fluid is withdrawn from the reservoir
the same amount. Hence, through a vertical or horizontal well that is producing at either
␮qscB共1 − ␻兲 a constant well rate or a constant well pressure. The horizontal well
pm = pf + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) lies parallel to the length direction of the reservoir. Determining
␴kmVR
the stabilized PI of a well in this reservoir with Eq. 14 amounts to
Substitution of the average matrix pressure given by Eq. 10 into Eq. the evaluation of the PI of the well in a single-porosity, anisotro-
8 then gives the average pressure in the double-porosity reservoir: pic, box-shaped reservoir and to the shape factor of orthogonal
matrix blocks.
␮qscB共1 − ␻兲2
pfm = pf + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
␴kmVR Anisotropic PI. The productivity of vertical and horizontal wells
in single-porosity, box-shaped reservoirs has been dealt with ex-
The average pressure in the fracture network follows from the tensively in the literature. See, for example, Dietz (1965), Helmy
solution of the single-porosity Eq. 5 for a given well and reservoir and Wattenbarger (1998), Babu and Odeh (1989), Goode and Ku-
configuration. Suppose that this solution is known and that the asso- chuk (1991), and Hagoort (2006). Of particular importance is the
ciated PI of the well is given by Jsp, where the subscript sp denotes effect of permeability anisotropy caused by the fracture network.
single porosity. From the definition of the PI, it then follows Since the fracture planes run parallel to the bounding planes of the
qsc
pf = pw + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
Jsp
Substitution of Eq. 12 into Eq. 11 gives the pressure drawdown:
qsc ␮qscB共1 − ␻兲2
pfm − pw = + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
Jsp ␴kmVR
Finally, substitution of Eq. 13 into Eq. 7 yields the double-
porosity PI:
Jsp
Jdp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
␮B共1 − ␻兲2
1+ Jsp
␴kmVR Fig. 1—Rectangular reservoir with orthogonal matrix blocks.

October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 941

reservoir, the principal directions of the anisotropy coincide with
the principal directions of the reservoir box. Flow in such an
anisotropic reservoir can be reduced to the flow in an equivalent
isotropic reservoir by a simple coordinate transformation (Muskat
1937). The PI of a well in the anisotropic reservoir then follows
directly from the PI of the equivalent well in the equivalent iso-
tropic reservoir.
Besson (1990) presented a comprehensive discussion on the
flow in anisotropic reservoirs. Let the fracture permeability in the
three principal directions be denoted by kfx, kfy, and kfz. Then the
equivalent permeability of the equivalent reservoir becomes
kfeq = 公kfxkfykfz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
3
The equivalent length, width, and thickness of the reservoir are
given, respectively, by
porosity skin factor. It is a measure of the difference between the
pressure in the matrix and that in the fractures. The double-
porosity skin is always positive and thus reduces the productivity.
The smaller the dimensionless single-porosity PI, the larger the
reduction. Hence, double-porosity skins have a stronger impact on
horizontal wells than on vertical wells.
Traditionally, double-porosity reservoirs are characterized by
the storativity ratio ␻ and an interporosity-flow coefficient ␭ de-
fined by
␴kmrw2
␭= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (29)
公kfxkfy
(Warren and Root 1963). By use of this definition, we can rewrite
Eq. 28 as follows:
共1 − ␻兲2 rw2

Leq =
公kfykfz
kfeq
L= 冑 kfeq
kfx
L, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
sdp = 2␲
␭ Lw
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30)

showing how the double-porosity skin is related to ␻ and ␭.

weq =
公kfxkfz
kfeq
w= 冑 kfeq
kfy
w, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20) Shape factors. The shape factor of an orthogonal matrix block can
be derived from the long-time solution of the pressure distribution
and in the block with an initial uniform pressure and with a constant,

冑
lower pressure at the outer-block boundary. The solution can be
公kfxkfy kfeq obtained readily from the known analytical solution for the equiva-
heq = h= h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21) lent-heat-conduction problem discussed by Carlslaw and Jaeger
kfeq kfz
(1959). At long times, the average temperature in the block and the
The coordinate transformation also affects the well geometry, spe- total heat flux at the boundary of the block decline exponentially.
cifically the length and radial cross section. The equivalent well The shape factor for isotropic matrix blocks is then given by

冉 冊
length of a vertical well and of a horizontal well in the length 1 1 1
direction becomes ␴ = ␲2 2 + 2 + 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (31)

冑
Lx Ly Lz
kfeq In the case of vertical slabs, Lx and Ly are infinity, and the shape
hweq = h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
kfz w factor reduces to ␴⳱␲2/L2z . Likewise, we have for the shape factor
and of square vertical pillars (Lz is infinity and Lx=Ly): ␴⳱2␲2/L2x ; and
for the shape factor of identical cubes (Lx=Ly=Lz): ␴⳱3␲2/L2x .

Lweq = 冑 kfeq
kfx w
L , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
Inserting Eq. 31 into Eq. 28, we obtain for the double-porosity skin

sdp =
2共kf h兲eqL2x共1 − ␻兲2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (32)
respectively. Upon transformation, the circular cross section of the ␲kmLwh共1 + L2x Ⲑ L2y + L2x Ⲑ L2z 兲
well becomes elliptic. The equivalent well radius of an elliptic well In passing, we note that the expression for the shape factor
is the average of the minor and major axis of the ellipse (Kuchuk given by Eq. 31 differs from the shape factor for slabs, square
and Brigham 1979). For the vertical well, we then have pillars, and cubes originally proposed by Warren and Root (1963).

rwveq =
rw
2
冉冑 冑 冊 kfeq
kfx
+
kfeq
kfy
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
Their shape factor for a slab is 12/L2x , which is based on the
long-time analytical solution for the 1D pressure depletion of a
slab at a constant rate. The shape factors for a square pillar (32/L2x )
and for the horizontal well we have and a cube (60/L2x ) were obtained from a heuristic generalization of

冉冑 冑 冊
the 1D shape factor to two and three dimensions. In the double-
rw kfeq kfeq porosity model, however, a matrix block is surrounded by a fluid
rwheq = + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25) at a certain pressure. Therefore, constant pressure is a more-fitting
2 kfy kfz
boundary condition, and Eq. 31 is more appropriate for the prob-
The PI of a well in an anisotropic, double-porosity reservoir lem in question.
follows from the PI of the equivalent well in the equivalent single-
porosity reservoir through Eq. 14. In the case of a constant- Example. As an example, let us consider an orthogonally fractured
thickness reservoir, this equation can be formulated more conve- reservoir with a square drainage area, which is being depleted by
niently in dimensionless form by introducing a dimensionless PI a vertical, fully penetrating well in the center. In addition, we
defined by assume that the matrix consists of identical cubes and that the
fracture permeability is isotropic. The dimensionless PI for the
␮B
JD = J, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26) single-porosity reservoir is then given by
2␲共kf h兲eq
JspD = 1 Ⲑ 关ln共L Ⲑ rw兲 + C兴, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (33)
where (kfh)eq is the flow capacity of the equivalent reservoir. Eq. where C is a constant that depends on the depletion mode. In the
14 then becomes case of depletion at a constant rate, C⳱−1.311; and for depletion
JspD at a constant pressure, C⳱−1.285. These constants follow directly
JdpD = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27) from the Dietz shape factor (Dietz 1965) for a well in the center of
1 + sdpJspD a square drainage area, which is 30.88 for constant rate (Ear-
where lougher 1977) and 29.34 for constant pressure (Helmy and Wat-
tenbarger 1998). Substitution of Eq. 33 into Eq. 27 and conversion
2␲共kf h兲eq共1 − ␻兲2 to dimensional form yields the following expression for the
sdp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)
␴kmVR double-porosity PI:
The factor sdp plays the same role as the skin factor in the familiar 2␲kf h
Jdp = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (34)
well inflow formulas, and for this reason, it may be called double- ␮B关ln共L Ⲑ rw兲 + C + sdp兴

942 October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

where
2kf L2x共1 − ␻兲2
sdp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (35)
3␲kmL2
Eq. 34 is similar to the formula for the single-porosity PI of a well
in a square drainage area. It illustrates that the effect of double
porosity on well productivity is two-fold. First, the permeability in
the flow capacity (kh) of a double-porosity reservoir is the fracture
permeability. Second, the double porosity gives rise to a positive
skin factor.
Formulas for the productivity of wells in other drainage shapes
can be derived with the Dietz shape factors as tabulated by Ear-
lougher (1977) and Helmy and Wattenbarger (1998). The effect of
well damage and limited entry can be incorporated through addi-
tional skin factors.
Fig. 2 shows the double-porosity skin factor as given by Eq. 35
as a function of block size for a storativity ratio ␻⳱0.01 and for
three values of the fracture/matrix permeability ratio, kf/km⳱100,
1,000, and 10,000. As we can see, the skin increases with increas-
ing block size and increasing permeability ratio. Fig. 2 shows that
for the double-porosity skin to have a significant impact, the per-
meability ratio must be very large.
The double-porosity skin factor is a very useful parameter to
typify the productivity of a well in a naturally fractured reservoir.
For small values of the double-porosity skin (less than unity) well
productivity is dominated by the permeability of the fracture sys-
tem, and the release of fluids from the matrix can easily keep up
with the production of fluid from the fractures. For large values of
the double-porosity skin (more than 10 times 1/JspD), it is just the
opposite. Here, the limiting factor is the influx from the matrix
system into the fracture system. In that case, well productivity is
controlled solely by the characteristics of the matrix blocks, nota-
bly the matrix permeability.
Gas reservoirs
The preceding analysis holds for liquid flow (a small and constant
compressibility and constant viscosity), and thus it is not valid for
wells in gas reservoirs. The results, however, also can be applied
to gas wells through the concept of real-gas pseudopressure (Al-
Hussainy et al. 1966), which reduces steady-state gas flow to
steady-state liquid flow. In normalized form, the real-gas
pseudopressure m is defined by
p mensionless PI of 0.1 and 0.5, representing a vertical and horizon-
兰 ␮ B dp, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (36)
1 tal well, respectively. The reservoir flow capacity (kf h)eq is 50
m共p兲 = 共␮gBg兲r
pr g g
(Hagoort 1988), where the subscripts g and r refer to gas and
reference pressure, respectively. Specifically, formulas for com-
pressible-gas flow can be obtained from the corresponding formu-
Fig. 2—Double-porosity skin vs. block size (␻=0.01, Lx=Ly=Lz,
w=L).
October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
las for compressible-liquid flow by replacing pressures with nor-
malized pseudopressures and the product ␮B with the product
␮gBg at the reference pressure of the normalized pseudopressure.
Let us suppose that the dimensionless PI for liquid flow in a
double-porosity reservoir is known and given by JdpD. This di-
mensionless PI is a function solely of the geometry of the well-/
reservoir-configuration and of the characteristics of the matrix
blocks. Given the dimensionless PI, the well rate and pressure
drawdown for liquid flow are related by
2␲共kf h兲eq
qsc = JdpD 共pfm − pw兲. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (37)
␮B
Converting Eq. 37 to gas flow, we obtain
2␲共kf h兲eq
qsc = JdpD 共mfm − mw兲, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (38)
共␮gBg兲r
where qsc is now the well rate at standard conditions. For the PI of
a gas well, we may then write
qsc mfm − mw 2␲共kf h兲eq
Jdp = = J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (39)
pfm − pw pfm − pw 共␮gBg兲r dpD
For pressure drawdowns that are not too large [less than 100 bar
(1,500 psi)], Eq. 39 simplifies to
2␲共kf h兲eq
Jdp = JdpD, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (40)
␮gBg
(Hagoort 1988), where
2共␮gBg兲w共␮gBg兲fm
␮gBg = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (41)
共␮gBg兲w + 共␮gBg兲fm
the geometric average of the product ␮B at the reservoir and
well pressure.
As is clear from Eqs. 39 and 40, the PI of a gas well depends
on the reservoir pressure and the pressure drawdown. Specifically,
the PI decreases with decreasing reservoir pressure and with in-
creasing pressure drawdown. Therefore, the productivity of a gas
well can no longer be captured by a single number. Instead, it is
customarily represented by an IPR defined by Eq. 38, which is
commonly displayed as a graph of bottomhole pressure vs. pro-
duction rate at a given reservoir pressure.
As an illustration, Fig. 3 shows typical IPR curves for a di-
md⭈ft, the reservoir temperature is 168°F, and the reservoir pres-
sure is 2,800 psi. The gas gravity is 0.65, and the pseudocritical
pressure and temperature are 671 psi and 374°R, respectively. Fig.
3 displays two IPR curves for each well type: one for a zero
double-porosity skin and one for a double-porosity skin of unity.
As we can see, the IPR curve bends downward, and its rate span
is larger for the horizontal well as expected for a well with a better
Fig. 3—IPR curves for a well in a gas reservoir.
943
 The inflow performance is controlled by the gas properties, the
equivalent reservoir flow capacity, and the dimensionless double-
porosity PI (Eq. 39). The gas properties are accounted for with
pseudopressures. The equivalent reservoir flow capacity follows
directly from the thickness and permeability of the equivalent res-
productivity. These two features follow directly from the slope of
ervoir. The dimensionless double-porosity PI follows from the
the IPR curve, which is given by
dimensionless single-porosity PI and the double-porosity skin
dpw dpw dmw 共␮gBg兲w − 共␮gBg兲r 1 共␮gBg兲w 1 (Eqs. 27 and 28, respectively). To estimate the dimensionless
= = × =− , single-porosity PI, we have used the approximate analytical
dqsc dmw dqsc 共␮gBg兲r 2␲共kfh兲eq JD 2␲共kfh兲eq JD
method of Peaceman (1990) for the vertical well and the simplified
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (42) analytical method of Hagoort (2006) for the horizontal well. See
Appendix A for details. The dimensionless single-porosity PI is to
showing that the slope is proportional to the product ␮B at the well
be based on constant-rate production during the plateau period and
pressure, which increases with decreasing well pressure and is
on constant-pressure production during the decline period.
inversely proportional to the dimensionless PI. Fig. 3 also brings
Table 3 lists the input for the calculation of the reservoir flow
out nicely the stronger impact of the double-porosity skin on the
capacity and the dimensionless double-porosity PI for the two
horizontal well.
block configurations along with the intermediate results. The frac-
ture permeability of the reservoir with the matrix cubes is isotro-
Example Calculation
pic; therefore, the equivalent reservoir parameters are the same as
To illustrate the effect of the double-porosity characteristics on the original reservoir parameters. In the case of the (vertical) pil-
well productivity, we have calculated the production profiles of a lars, the vertical permeability is the same as that for the cubes
vertical and a horizontal well in a double-porosity gas reservoir. reservoir, but the two horizontal permeabilities are twice as low.
We have carried out the calculations with the help of a simple As a result, the equivalent flow capacity of the pillars reservoir is
tank-type depletion model. This model solves at successive times half as much. In both reservoirs, there is no anisotropy in the
both the reservoir material-balance equation and the equation for horizontal plane, so the dimensionless single-porosity PI of the
the stabilized inflow performance of the well (Hagoort 1988). The (fully penetrating) vertical well (JspvD) is the same. The two entries
IPR is evaluated with normalized pseudopressures, which are for the dimensionless PI refer to depletion by constant rate and by
based on the z-factor correlations of Hall and Yarborough (1977) constant pressure, respectively. The effect of the depletion mode is
and the viscosity correlations of Lee et al. (1977). In the model, the negligibly small for the vertical well. The dimensionless single-
well operates either at a constant specified rate (plateau period) or porosity PI of the horizontal well (JsphD) is slightly larger for the
at a constant specified bottomhole flowing pressure (decline pe- pillars. This is caused by the lower ratio of equivalent vertical
riod). The output of the model is a time series of instantaneous
production rate, cumulative production, reservoir pressure, and
bottomhole flowing pressure.
Table 1 lists the pertinent reservoir, gas, and well properties.
The reservoir has the shape of a rectangular box with a horizontal
aspect ratio (L/w) of two and a vertical aspect ratio (w/h) of 40. The
initial reservoir pressure is 2,800 psi, and the reservoir temperature
is 168°F. The reservoir contains a dry gas with a gas gravity of
0.65 and a pseudocritical pressure and temperature of 671 psi and
374°R, respectively. The wells are openhole wells positioned in
the center of the reservoir and have radii of 0.25 ft. The vertical
well fully penetrates the reservoir. The penetration ratio of the
horizontal well (Lw /L) is 0.5.
We consider two different matrix-block configurations: identi-
cal cubes and vertical square pillars. Table 2 shows the relevant
double-porosity characteristics of the reservoir for these two block
systems. The characteristic block dimension is 1/40 of the reser-
voir length. The matrix itself is a rather tight rock with a perme-
ability of 0.01 md and an effective hydrocarbon porosity of 12%.
The porosity of the fracture system is 0.12%, so the storativity
ratio is 0.01. The fracture permeability of the reservoir with cubes
is 5 md in all directions. In the pillar system, the vertical fracture
permeability is the same as the isotropic cube permeability, but the
horizontal fracture permeabilities are twice as low, reflecting the
lower fracture density in the vertical x–z and y–z planes.

944 October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

thickness and equivalent width, which gives rise to a lower vertical 3. For small values of the double-porosity skin, well productivity
pressure drop near the horizontal well and thus to a more efficient is dominated by fracture permeability; for large values, the con-
overall inflow. Here, there is a notable effect of the depletion trolling factor is matrix permeability.
mode, which can be attributed to the more-linear flow pattern. The 4. IPR curves of wells in double-porosity gas reservoirs can be
dual-porosity skin is larger for the cubes, but in both cases, it is readily created by use of the new PI formula.
rather small. Thus, well productivity in this example is controlled
by the permeability of the fracture system. The final dimensionless Nomenclature
double-porosity PI of the vertical well (JdphD) is the same for cubes B ⳱ formation volume factor
and pillars. The final dimensionless double-porosity PI of the hori- C ⳱ constant
zontal well (JdphD) for the cubes is approximately 10% smaller F ⳱ parameter
than that for the pillars. h ⳱ thickness of reservoir (m)
The gas-expansion factor at the initial reservoir pressure and J ⳱ productivity index (m3/Pa)
temperature is 180.86 ft3/scf with standard conditions of 14.69 psi k ⳱ permeability (m2)
and 60°F. For the gas initially in place in the reservoir, we then L ⳱ length of reservoir (m)
calculate 69.45 Bscf. We assume an allowable depletion rate of 25
Lw ⳱ length of horizontal well (m)
MMscf/D and a minimum bottomhole well pressure of 500 psi. In
the ideal case of an infinite reservoir capacity and no well-pressure Lx ⳱ length matrix block in x-direction (m)
constraint, the reservoir producing life would be 2,778 days (7.6 Ly ⳱ length of matrix block in y-direction (m)
years). In reality, the producing life is much longer. We have run Lz ⳱ length of matrix block in z-direction (m)
the model for a total elapsed time of 6,000 days or until a well rate m ⳱ normalized pseudopressure (Pa)
of 1 MMscf/D, whichever comes first. p ⳱ pressure (Pa)
Fig. 4 shows the production profiles for the vertical and hori- pfm ⳱ pressure of double-porosity reservoir (Pa)
zontal well and for both matrix-block configurations. The profiles qmf ⳱ interporosity flux [(m3/s)/m3]
for the horizontal well show a relatively long plateau period fol- qsc ⳱ well production rate at stock-tank or at surface
lowed by a rather short decline. The profiles for the vertical well conditions (m3/s)
show a very short plateau period (cubes) or no plateau at all (pil-
re ⳱ radius outer boundary (m)
lars). In the latter case, the pressure drawdown at the prescribed
plateau rate exceeds the difference between initial reservoir pres- rw ⳱ well radius (m)
sure and well pressure, which precludes a plateau period. Here, the s ⳱ skin factor
decline period already starts at Day 1. t ⳱ time
The better performance of the horizontal well is, of course, a VR ⳱ reservoir volume (m3)
direct result of its larger PI. We further see that the profile for the w ⳱ width of reservoir (m)
cubes is more favorable than for the pillars, particularly in the case xw ⳱ well coordinate in the length direction (m)
of the vertical well. The main reason for this difference is the better yw ⳱ well coordinate in the width direction (m)
flow capacity of the cubes reservoir (500 md⭈ft vs. 250 md⭈ft). The zw ⳱ well coordinate in the vertical direction (m)
better flow capacity is slightly offset by the larger double-porosity ␥ ⳱ gas gravity
skin (0.13 vs. 0.0975), but because the double-porosity skin is so
ⵜ2p ⳱ Laplacian of pressure (Pa/m2)
small, its effect on the production profiles is minor.
⌬pxy ⳱ pressure drawdown in x,y plane (Pa)
Conclusions ⌬pwyz ⳱ near-well pressure drop in y,z plane (Pa)
1. We have derived a simple analytical formula for the stabilized ⌬pxyz ⳱ 3D pressure drawdown (Pa)
PI of an arbitrary well in an arbitrary double-porosity reservoir. ␭ ⳱ interporosity-flow coefficient
The formula relates the PI to the PI of a well in a single-porosity ␮ ⳱ fluid viscosity (Pa⭈s)
reservoir with permeability equal to the effective fracture per- ␴ ⳱ shape factor (1/m2)
meability of the double-porosity reservoir. ␾c ⳱ product of porosity and compressibility, respectively
2. Application of this formula to a vertical and a horizontal well in (1/Pa)
an orthogonally fractured reservoir shows that the double- ␻ ⳱ storativity ratio
porosity characteristics along with reservoir flow capacity and
reservoir volume combine into a single factor. We have called Subscripts
this factor “double-porosity skin” because it plays the same role
dp ⳱ double porosity
as the familiar skin factor.
D ⳱dimensionless
eq ⳱ equivalent
f ⳱ fracture
g ⳱ gas
h ⳱ horizontal
i ⳱ initial
m ⳱ matrix
r ⳱ reference pressure
R ⳱ reservoir
sc ⳱ standard conditions
sp ⳱ single porosity
v ⳱ vertical
w ⳱ well
x ⳱ x-direction
y ⳱ y-direction
z ⳱ z-direction
References
Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B. 1966. The Flow of
Fig. 4—Production-profiles example calculation. Real Gases Through Porous Media. JPT 18 (5): 624–636.

October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 945

Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S. 1989. Productivity of a Horizontal Well.
SPERE 4 (4): 417–421. SPE-18298-PA. DOI: 10.2118/18298-PA.
Besson, J. 1990. Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells on an
Anisotropic Medium. Paper SPE 20965 presented at the European Pe-
troleum Conference, The Hague, 21–24 October. DOI: 10.2118/20965-
MS.
Borisov, J.P. 1964. Oil production using horizontal and multiple deviation
wells, trans. J. Strauss. Bartlesville, Oklahoma: R&D Library, Phillips
Petroleum Co. (1984).
Carlslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. 1959. Conduction of Heat in Solids, second
edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dietz, D.N. 1965. Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From
Build-Up Surveys. JPT 17 (8): 955–959; Trans., AIME, 234. SPE-
1156-PA. DOI: 10.2118/1156-PA.
Earlougher, R.C. Jr. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 5.
Goode, P.A. and Kuchuk, F.J. 1991. Inflow Performance of Horizontal
Wells. SPERE 6 (3): 319–323. SPE-21460-PA. DOI: 10.2118/21460-
PA.
Hagoort, J. 1988. Fundamentals of Gas Reservoir Engineering. Amster-
dam: Elsevier Science.
Hagoort, J. Simplified Analytical Method for Estimating the Productivity
of Horizontal Wells Producing at Constant Rate or Constant Pressure.
J. of Pet. Sci. and Eng. (submitted Dec 2006).
Hall, K.R. and Yarborough, L. 1977. A New Equation-of-State for Z-Factor
Calculations. Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 1 (13): 227–235.
Helmy, M.W. and Wattenbarger, R.A. 1998. New Shape Factors for Wells
Produced at Constant Pressure. Paper SPE 39970 presented at the SPE
Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, 15–18 March. DOI: 10.2118/
39970-MS.
Kuchuk, F. and Brigham, W.E. 1979. Transient Flow in Elliptical Systems.
SPEJ 19 (6): 401–410; Trans., AIME, 267. SPE-7488-PA. DOI:
10.2118/7488-PA.
Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E. 1977. The Viscosity of Natural
Gases. Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 1 (13): 201–204.
Muskat, M. 1937. The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous
Media. New York City: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Peaceman, D.W. 1990. Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well.
SPERE 5 (2): 252–253.
Prats, M. 1961. Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior—
Incompressible Fluid Case. SPEJ 1 (2): 105–118; Trans., AIME, 222.
SPE-1575-G. DOI: 10.2118/1575-G.
Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J. 1963. The Behavior of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs. SPEJ 3 (3): 245–255; Trans., AIME, 228. SPE-426-PA.
DOI: 10.2118/426-PA.
Appendix A—Estimation of the PI of Vertical and
Horizontal Wells in Single-Porosity Reservoirs
Vertical Well. We have estimated the PI of a vertical well by
means of the approximate method of Peaceman (1990). In this
method, the pressure drawdown to a well in a rectangular drainage
area is approximated by the sum of the stabilized drawdown for
linear flow in the length direction and the steady-state radial pres-
sure drop near the wellbore. Let xw and yw denote the well coor-
dinates in the x–y coordinate system with axes parallel to the sides
and with the origin in the left bottom corner of the rectangular
drainage area. Then, the pressure drawdown for stabilized flow at
a constant rate is given by :
⌬pxy =
␮Bqsc
2␲kh 再
−ln关共2␲rw Ⲑ w兲 sin共␲ywD兲兴
+
2␲L 3
冎
关x + 共1 − xwD兲3兴 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
3w wD
where ywD⳱yw/w and xwD⳱xw/L. The first term on the right-hand
side of Eq. A-1 represents the steady-state, near-well pressure
drop, and the second term represents the stabilized pressure draw-
down for linear flow. Eq. A-1 is an close approximation for aspect
ratios L/w that are greater than unity. Aspect ratios that are less
than unity can be accommodated by replacing xwD with ywD, re-
placing ywD with xwD, and replacing L/w with w/L.
946
Peaceman applied his approximation to depletion at a constant
rate. The same reasoning applies equally well to depletion at a
constant well pressure. In that case, the first term within the braces
of Eq. A-1 remains the same, but the prefactor in the second term
must change to 8L/(␲w), which reflects the depletion in a linear
system at a constant well pressure.
Horizontal Well. We have estimated the horizontal-well PI with
the approximation of Borisov (1964). In this approximation, the
essentially 3D flow problem is split into two 2D problems: hori-
zontal flow to a fracture of the same length as the horizontal well
and vertical flow in a plane perpendicular to the horizontal well.
Let ⌬pxy denote the pressure drawdown for stabilized flow in the
horizontal plane, and let ⌬pwyz denote the near-well pressure drop
in the vertical plane. Then, the pressure drawdown in the 3D
configuration is approximated by
⌬pxyz = ⌬pxy + ⌬pwyz, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
so that the PI becomes:
Jxyz = qsc Ⲑ ⌬pxyz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
The horizontal pressure drawdown can be evaluated analytically
for short fractures (Lw/L<0.3) and for long fractures (Lw/L>0.8).
For short fractures, the effect of a fracture on the pressure draw-
down is similar to a circular well with an apparent radius of one-
quarter of the fracture length (Prats 1961). The pressure drawdown
for short fractures and reservoir aspect ratios greater than unity
then follows from
再
␮Bqsc
⌬pxy = −ln关共0.5␲Lw Ⲑ w兲 sin共␲ywD兲兴
2␲kh
冎
2␲L 3
+ 关x + 共1 − xwD兲3兴 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
3w wD
where xw and yw indicate the coordinates of the midpoint of the
horizontal well with respect to the center of the rectangular reser-
voir. Here, the first term on the right-hand side represents the
near-fracture pressure drop, and the second term represents the
pressure drawdown for stabilized flow at a constant rate. Reser-
voirs with aspect ratios less than unity can be handled by setting
the x-axis parallel to the longest side.
For long fractures, the horizontal pressure drawdown is given by
再 冎
␮Bqsc 2␲w 3
⌬pxy = 关y + 共1 − ywD兲3兴 + Fwxy , . . . . . . . . (A-5)
2␲kh 3L wD
(Hagoort 2006), where the parameter Fwxy is given by
Fwxy = −2关ywD
2
+ 共1 − ywD兲2兴 × ln兵cos关␲LwD共2xwD − 1兲兴
× sin共␲LwD Ⲑ 2兲其, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
and LwD⳱Lw/L. The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. A-5
represents the pressure drawdown for linear flow at a constant rate
in the width (y) direction. The second term gives the pressure drop
near the fracture tips. This pressure drop reduces to zero in the
limiting case of a horizontal well penetration of unity (xwD⳱0.5,
and LwD⳱1).
Eqs. A-4 and A-5 are valid for short (LwD<0.3) and long frac-
tures (LwD>0.8), respectively. For fractures in the interval from
LwD⳱0.3 to 0.8, the pressure drawdown can be obtained by cubic
interpolation. This interpolation honors both the function values
and the slopes at LwD⳱0.3 and LwD⳱0.8.
The near-well pressure drop in the vertical plane is given by
␮Bqsc
⌬pwyz = −
2␲kLw
ln关共2␲rw Ⲑ h兲 × sin共␲zw Ⲑ h兲兴. . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
Eq. A-7 is similar to the first term in Eq. A-1, but now, the
near-well pressure drop is taken in the vertical y–z plane perpen-
dicular to the well axis.
Once the horizontal pressure drawdown and the vertical near-
well pressure drop are known, the PI can be deduced straightfor-
wardly from Eqs. A-2 and A-3.
Eqs. A-4 and A-5 hold for depletion at a constant rate. The
same equations apply to depletion at a constant pressure, provided
October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
the prefactor in the linear term of Eq. A-4 is replaced by 8L/(␲w) Jacques Hagoort has been a reservoir engineering consultant
and in the linear term of Eq. A-5 is replaced by by 8w/(␲L). with Hagoort & Associates B.V. since 1983. E-mail: jacques@
hagr.demon.nl. Previously, he worked for Shell as a reservoir
engineer in the Netherlands, the USA, and Canada. From 1987
to 2003, Hagoort also was a part-time professor of reservoir
SI Metric Conversion Factors engineering at Delft University of Technology. He holds MS and
ft × 3.048* E−01 ⳱ m PhD degrees from Delft University of Technology. A Distin-
guished Member of SPE, Hagoort served as a 1990–91 SPE Dis-
ft3 × 2.831685 E−02 ⳱ m3 tinguished Lecturer and is the recipient of the 1975 Raymond
psi × 6.894757 E+00 ⳱ kPa W. Rossiter Award, the 1998 Lester C. Uren Award, and the 2001
°F (°F-32)/1.8 ⳱ °C Cedric K. Ferguson Certificate.
°R (°F+459.67)/1.8 ⳱ K

*Conversion factor is exact.

October 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 947