Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
GRADUATE COLLEGE
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
By
SVJETLANA LALE
Norman, Oklahoma
2008
FRACTURE FACE INTERFERENCE OF FINITE CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURED
WELLS USING NUMERICAL SIMULATION
BY
_______________________________
Dr. Jeffrey G. Callard – Chair
_______________________________
Dr. Djebbar Tiab
_______________________________
Dr. Samuel Osisanya
_______________________________
Dr. Dean S. Oliver
©Copyright by SVJETLANA LALE 2008
All Rights Reserved.
iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Callard G. Jeffrey for
opportunity to work and think as petroleum engineer. He impressed me with his brilliant
ideas and hard work in academic research. I learned from him about importance of
application of new technologies to research and industry and also to recognize the
problem, analyze, and solve it. Special thanks to him for giving me opportunity to
participate in the Devon Project on fractured shale gas reservoir, which supported my
thesis.
Many thanks to Dr. Tiab Djebbar for guiding me through well test analysis problems
Especial thanks to Dr. Dean Oliver and Dr. Osisanya Samuel for serving as my
I am grateful to the group of Dr. Dean Oliver assistants who helped me to find the right
direction in Eclipse software usage and make this research study much easier.
v
A lot of appreciation to the MPGE faculty and stuff Dr Faruk Civan, Robert A.
Hubbard, Dr Chandra Rai, Sonya Grant, Shalli Young, Mona Troxell, Cynthia Willis, to
I give a huge appreciation to my parents Stoja and Milinko Lale and my family Jelenka
and Muhamed Kuburic, Hana Kulosman, and friends for their support and unlimited
love.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………. iv
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..……………. 1
Reference …………………………………………….………….….……….. 83
Appendix A ..………………………………………………………………… 87
Appendix A1 – Data File For FCD=100, Constant Rate Case and Vertical Well 88
Appendix A3 – Data File For FCD=100, Constant Rate Case and Point Source 94
ix
and Pressure for xf/y=255, Constant Rate Case, Vertical Well ….. 160
and Rate for xf/y=128, Constant Pressure Case, Vertical Well ….. 162
Figure 1 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate for and FCD=1 – Line source –
Figure 2 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 3 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
xi
Figure 4 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 5 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate for and FCD=100 – Line source –
Figure 6 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 7 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 8 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 9 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 10 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 10A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
Figure 11 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 11A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
Figure 12 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 12A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
Figure 13 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 14 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
for fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=1 –
for fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=5 –
List of Tables
Table 3.2. – Reservoir, fracture and fluid PVT properties for constant
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 – Agarwal (1979) constant rate finite conductivity type curve …… 18
Figure 2.2. – Agarwal (1979) constant pressure finite conductivity type cure . 19
Figure 2.3. – Bennett (1985) constant rate finite conductivity type curve ….. 20
Figure 2.4. – Bennett (1985) constant pressure finite conductivity type curve 21
Figure 3.3. – Well and fracture location in square reservoir (Nashawi, 2007) . 27
Figure 3.4. - Reservoir with grid blocks – imported from Eclipse ………….. 28
Figure 3.5. - Part of reservoir grid with well and fracture …………….……. 29
Figure 3.6. - Model simulation results (symbols) with Bennett (1985) finite
Figure 3.7.- Dimensionless flow rate qD versus dimensionless time tDxf for constant
Figure 3.8. – Model simulation results (symbols) with Bennett (1985) finite
xviii
Figure 4.2. – Bennett (1985) finite conductivity type curve for constant rate case
Figure 4.4. – Bennett (1985) finite conductivity type curve for constant
Figure 5.1. – Part of the reservoir with two wells and two fractures ………. 52
Figure 5.7. – Numerical model with two wells and two fractures …………. 58
Figure 5.9. – Constant rate case - Finite conductivity type curve for family of
Figure 5.10. – Constant pressure case - Finite conductivity type curve for
Figure 5.11. – Constant pressure case – Finite conductivity type curve for
Figure 6.1. – Point sources (horizontal well) with two vertical fractures …... 66
Figure 6.2. – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
Figure 6.3. – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture
Figure 6.6. – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture
half-lengths ……………………………………………………... 79
Figure 7.6. – Sensitivity analysis for different number of the grid blocks in
z direction for point source, constant rate case and FCD=1 …….. 80
xxi
Abstract
Supply and demand of natural gas has allowed economic exploitation from
fracturing technology to achieve economical gas production. This includes multi stage
using finite fracture conductivity models for vertical wells has been extended to model
the effects of horizontal well penetration into the stimulated finite conductivity fractures
stimulation treatments.
Investigation in this direction was performed using numerical simulation. A study was
conducted using ECLIPSE, version 2007.1, numerical simulator to model reservoir and
well performance for a single phase flow system. The start point was to create a
numerical model with outcomes that will match previous results presented by Bennett
(1985) for a vertical fracture intersected by a vertical well. After model validation, the
performed utilizing the validated model and incorporating geometry for a horizontal
well penetration into a finite conductivity vertical fracture and the inclusion of a second
vertical fracture.
xxii
Fracture face interference for six cases was generated utilizing a dimensionless
A case history for a tight gas reservoir demonstrating the combined effects of a
1. Introduction
Conventional reservoirs produce economic volumes of gas and oil at economic flow
rates without large stimulation treatment or any other special recovery process. These
reservoirs have high to medium permeabilities with vertical wells, and perforated pay
interval.
Unconventional reservoirs do not produce enough oil and gas to have economic
recovery processes. Unconventional reservoirs include tight gas, coal-bed methane, and
shale.
Development of the unconventional reservoirs is based on higher prices and higher risks
than development of the conventional reservoirs. For a long time they have not been
very popular among engineers because it was very difficult to evaluate them and the
right recovery techniques had to be successfully chosen and carefully applied in order to
avoid production problems. New technologies made this kind of reservoirs very
perspective in the future. Today, daily gas production from tight and unconventional
2
reservoirs in USA is more than 25% of total gas production- Naik (2004), and with
The first tight gas production was developed in the Western United States. Tight gas
reservoirs can be found in any geological and tectonic setting. They may and may not
fracturing. Tight gas reservoirs are often defined as a gas bearing sandstone or
carbonate matrix with in-situ permeability to gas less than 0.1 millidarcies. Most of
tight gas reservoirs permeabilities are the function of the pressures. The pores are
irregularly distributed through the reservoir and they are poorly connected by very
narrow capillaries resulting in very low permeability. Gas flows through these rocks at
low rates and it is not generated in the reservoir beds. Source beds sometimes
fluid phases across a wide range of water saturation. Critical water saturation and
irreducible water saturation often occur at similar values of water saturation in the
production commonly implies that a reservoir system is at, or near, irreducible water
3
saturation. On the other hand, in tight gas reservoir irreducible water saturation and
In traditional reservoir, there is wide range of water saturations at which both water and
gas can flow. Situation is opposite in tight gas reservoir. There is a broad range of water
saturation in which neither gas nor water can flow in tight gas reservoir. In some
4
extreme cases, there is virtually no mobile water phase even at very high water
saturations.
Another unconventional source of natural gas is shale gas. Because of its matrix low
only with fractures to provide permeability. Shale gas has been produced from shales
with natural fractures for a long time, but lately due to the hydraulic fracturing
stimulation improvement its production has been increased. Very often shale gas has
been produced using horizontal wells technology. Some of the gas is held in natural
fractures, some in the pore spaces, and some is adsorbed onto the organic material. The
gas in the fractures is produced immediately, and gas adsorbed onto organic material is
released as the formation pressure declines. Gas is usually generated in place from shale
The Barnett Shale in Forth Worth Basin is the most active shale gas play in USA. Due
to the high gas prices and use of horizontal well technology to increase production,
drilling expanded significantly in past few years. The Barnett Shale wells are deep –
about 8,000 feet. Most economic wells are between 300 and 500 feet of thickness
(Daniels, 2007).
5
One of the stimulation methods for increasing well productivity and developing
The purpose of this stimulation technique is to expose a large surface area of the low-
permeability formation to flow into the well bore. To increase reservoir area in direct
communication with the well bore, it is necessary to create a highly conductive path
some distance away from the well bore. Using this method, a greater volume of fluid
can be produced into the well bore per unit of time and result is an increased production
The hydraulic fracturing stimulation has applied to low-permeability gas formation with
in-situ permeability of 0.1 md or less, and tight-gas formation with pores irregularly
distributed throughout reservoir which have poor connection by very narrow capillaries.
Since the permeability in these formation is low, gas flows through these rocks at low
rates. The goal of hydraulic fracturing is to increase gas production flow rates.
Hydraulic fracturing treatment is pumping a suitable fluid, usually water, into the
formation at a rate faster than fluid can leak off into the rock. When the fluid pressure or
stress at the sand-face is higher than earth compressive stress, fracturing of formation
matrix has initiated along a plane perpendicular to the minimum compressive stress.
Fluid has been injected until the fracture is open wide enough to accept proppant. Then
6
proppant has been added to the fracturing fluid and import to the fracture to keep it
open. The hydraulic fracturing treatment is applied on a massive scale, which involves
the use of at least 50,000 to 500,000 gal of treating fluid and 100,000 to 1 million
pounds of proppant. When sufficient proppant has been injected, the pumps are shut
down, pressure in the fracture drops, and earth compressive stress closes the fracture.
Pressure in the fracture must exceed pore pressure by an amount equal to the minimum
effective rock matrix stress to keep the fracture open after hydraulic fracturing. This
Figure 1.2. presents major physical processes at fractured wells which may imply
permeability and fracture closure have great influence on the well production.
The fracture orientation depends on the stress distribution in the formation. If the least
otherwise the result will be horizontal fracture. Vertical fractures are more common for
- uniform-flux fracture
- infinite-conductivity fracture
Uniform-flux fractures occur when fluid enters the fracture at a uniform flow rate per
Fractures with infinite permeability and conductivity have little or no pressure drop
along its axis. These fractures are referred as infinite-conductivity fractures. They exist
Finite-conductivity fractures are the fractures with significant pressure drop along its
axis. This model is very common case, unless formation permeability is extremely low
– in microdarcy range.
Cinco-Ley (1978) showed that for practical values of dimensionless time the pressure
k f wf
FCD = …………………………………………………………… (1)
kx f
where
Four flow regimes occur in the fracture and formation around a hydraulically fractured
Fracture linear flow is very short. During this flow period, most of the fluid entering the
well bore comes from fluid expansion in the fracture. The flow regime is linear. It may
formation flows linearly into the fracture and before fracture-tip effects begin to
influence well behavior. Most of the fluid entering the well bore during this flow period
Pseudo-radial flow occurs with fractures of all conductivities. After a sufficiently long
flow period, the fracture appears to the reservoir as an expanded well bore. If the
fracture length is large relative to the drainage area, then boundary effects change or
demand for a gas focused attention of the industry onto exploration and development of
unconventional gas reservoirs. Production from tight gas reservoir still presents main
11
challenge in petroleum industry because there is available only limited knowledge about
causes and solutions of the problems concerning gas production from tight gas
reservoirs. Generally, very interested topic for research are finite conductivity fractures.
Not so many studies have been published about this topic. The main goal of this study is
conductivity fractures on the pressure data for constant rate production or flow rate data
for constant pressure production mode. The aim is to extend a current solution from
horizontal wells with multi stage stimulation treatments with a use of numerical solution
techniques. It is necessary to develop type curves for constant rate and pressure
achieved results – developed type curves for different reservoir and well performances.
conductivity fractures. The Agarwal finite conductivity type curves for constant
pressure and constant rate were analyzed and compared with Bennett’s finite
Chapter 3 presents the development of the numerical model for line source – vertical
well, numerical simulation process and verification of the numerical model which was
Chapter 4 presents numerical model for point source – horizontal well, numerical
Chapter 5 describes study of fracture face interference with vertical wells, containing
numerical model for simulation, and development of new type curves with length to
numerical model for simulation and developed new type curves with length to distance
ratio as parameters, but for the point source – horizontal wells. At the end real well data
The concept of finite flow-capacity fractures was developed by Cinco-Ley (1978). They
used semi analytical approach to point out the need to consider fracture to be finite if
the dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD is less than 300 which is the case of very
long fractures and low capacity fractures. This is the first step in the technology of
fluid viscosity-compressibility product. Cinco – Ley type curve can be used for post-
fracture analysis of data from a constant-rate flow test or a pressure-buildup test and it
fracture
Agarwal, R.G (1979) discussed the limitations of the conventional analysis methods and
alternative techniques for determining fracture half-length and fracture flow capacity on
MHF wells with finite flow-capacity fractures. Low-permeability gas wells normally
produce at a constant well pressure, but if the rate declines smoothly with bottom hole
flowing pressure, then constant rate type curve should be used. Agarwal developed a
set of constant well rate and constant well pressure type curves for MHF wells using
numerical simulation and discussed the type curve matching technique and actual
application of new type curves. Agarwal type curve is useful for analyzing flow tests or
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, V.F. (1981) analyzed finite conductivity fractures and
defined bilinear flow regime which is the result of two linear flow regimes. One flow
regime is linear flow within the fracture and another is linear flow into the fracture
from the matrix. The bilinear flow regime is characterized by 0.25 slope on a log-log
plot of pressure drop versus time for the early time pressure data. After bilinear flow,
the linear flow occurs with 0.5 slope. They analytically defined that bilinear flow exists
when most of the fluid entering the well bore comes from the formation and when
fracture tip effects have not yet affected the well behavior.
Bennett, C.O. (1985) developed finite conductivity type-curves for constant pressure
and constant rate modes of production using analytical solution for multi layered
reservoirs. They identified parts of the type-curves with bilinear and linear flow periods,
15
and also part with the straight line. Their study can be applied to cases where the
fracture extends above or below the productive interval, and cases where the fracture
Bennett, C.O. (1986) incorporated numerical and analytical solutions for performance
concluded that the fracture height and fracture length effects on the well response can
be significant for the homogeneous single layer reservoirs if the conductivity of the
fracture is the function of the depth or if fracture height is higher than formation height,
hf>h. For multi layer reservoirs, vertical gradients may be significant even if fracture
Tiab, D. (1994), (1995) developed Tiab’s direct synthesis (TDS) technique. This
method interprets log-log plots of pressure and pressure derivatives versus time for
different ratios of xe/xf for a vertically fractured well inside a closed system without
using type curve matching. At this time he has developed TDS method for uniform flux
fracture and infinite conductivity fracture. However, the finite conductivity fractures
have been observed later by Tiab, D. (1995). A log-log plot of pressure and pressure
derivative versus time for the well intersected by a finite conductivity hydraulic fracture
in a closed system, may have several straight lines which correspondence to the
bilinear, linear, infinite-acting radial flow and pseudo-steady state flow. The slopes and
intersection points can be used to calculate permeability, skin factor in the absence of
the infinite-acting radial flow line, well bore storage coefficient, half-fracture length in
16
the absence of the linear flow regime straight line of slope 0.5, fracture conductivity in
the absence of the bi-linear flow line of slope 0.25 and drainage area.
wells. Pseudopressure, non-Darcy flow effects, and formation damage have been
incorporated in the liquid solution theory to simulate actual real gas flow around the
well bore. The investigation shows that for constant-pressure gas production, the
conventional semilog plot of the reciprocal dimensionless rate versus the dimensionless
time used for liquid solution must be modified to account for high velocity flow effects,
especially when reservoir permeability is relatively high (>1md) and the well test is
Nashawi, I.S., Malallah, A.H. (2007), investigated pressure buildup and draw down
tests influenced with well bore storage effect. These effects dominate at the early time
enabling good formation characterization of the area surrounding the well bore.
Constant bottom hole pressure tests are immune on these adverse effects. Nashawi and
producing at constant bottom hole pressure from closed reservoirs without type curve
matching. They used log-log plots of the reciprocal rate and derivative of reciprocal rate
versus time for analysis of all the dominant flows: bilinear, pseudo-radial, and
permeability, skin factor, well drainage area and reservoir shape factor.
17
Agarwal has developed finite conductivity type curves for constant pressure and
constant rate production modes for low permeability reservoirs with in-situ permeability
less than 0.1[md]. These type curves were defined using numerical simulation.
- ignored damage
Agarwal constant rate finite conductivity type curve, Figure 2.1., is log-log plot of
dimensionless pressure, pD, versus dimensionless time in function of the fracture half-
Dimensionless fracture conductivity is in the range from 0.1 to 500, where higher
values correspond to the higher fracture flow capacities. Higher values of the
Figure 2.1– Agarwal (1979) constant rate finite conductivity type curve
Dotted line on the Figure 2.1. presents infinite fracture flow capacity. At early times -
lower values of tDxf, there are deviations among the dimensionless fracture
conductivities but they are diminished at later time. Dimensionless time ranges from 10-
5
to the 1. For the time less than 10-5, porosity and compressibility in the fracture have
great influence on the type curve. Besides the pressure draw down data, this type curve
may be applied to analysis of the pressure buildup data if producing time, tP, before shut
in is significantly large compared with the shut-in time, ∆t. Otherwise the effect of
Agarwal constant pressure finite conductivity type curves, Figure 2.2., are used when
well produces at a constant well pressure. Instead of the dimensionless pressure, the
reciprocal dimensionless flow rate, 1/qD, was plotted on log-log paper versus time in
19
function of fracture half-length, tDxf, and with dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD,
as a parameter.
Figure 2.2. – Agarwal (1979) constant pressure finite conductivity type curve
These type curves have the same tDxf and FCD ranges with similar shape to the constant
Bennett finite conductivity type curves have been developed for the multi layer and
Bennett constant rate finite conductivity type curves, Figure 2.3., are similar to the
Agarwal ones. The dimensionless time axis scales from 10-6 to 1, while the Agarwal
dimensionless time scale starts at 10-5. Bennett defined time periods corresponding to
the different flow regimes and applied them to the finite flow capacity type curves. The
part of the curves on the left side of the triangles defines bilinear flow period, that can
be presented by the straight line on the Cartesian plot pwD versus tDxf0.25.
Figure 2.3. – Bennett (1985) constant rate finite conductivity type curve
21
The time period between x letters defines the time for which the straight line will exist
on the Cartesian plot ∆p versus tDxf0.5. Linear flow period will occur between circles on
the curves and this is the time period for which straight lines are defined on log-log plot
pwD versus tDxf with slope of 0.5. The square data points define time period with
asymptotic expansion which is correspondent to the straight line on the Cartesian plot
∆p versus t0.3. Finally, the dimensionless fracture conductivities are in smaller range in
Bennett constant pressure finite conductivity type curves, Figure 2.4., are the similar to
Figure 2.4. – Bennett (1985) constant pressure finite conductivity type curve
The points marked with triangles, circles, squares or x letter denote the same definition
Difference between Bennett’s finite conductivity type curves and Agarwal finite
conductivity type curves for constant pressure is in the time scale, presented number of
dimensionless fracture conductivities, flow regimes definition, and the way that they
Since the Bennett finite conductivity type curves have flow regimes data, these type
Three preparation steps were required to provide type-curve development. The first step
is the preparation of numerical model for line source – vertical well and point source –
horizontal well. The second step is data file development for numerical simulation using
synthetic data of reservoir, reservoir geometry, and fluid properties. The third step is
converting simulation results – flow rates and pressures to the dimensionless ones. The
fourth step is plotting and comparing these results with already developed Bennett finite
Developing of numerical simulation model was performed for synthetic reservoir and
The single layer reservoir has been discretizated into 103,515 blocks with distribution
x:y:z=335:309:1. This huge reservoir has been chosen to avoid boundary effects. Block
Table 3.1. – The Bennett (1985) empirical guidelines for design of x and y grids
A. For All Grid Blocks
According to this table, grid blocks dimensions of the model and their uneven
and than decreasing to the minimal dimension equal to the well grid block. This
minimal dimension is the tip of the fracture and at that point, the distance between the
well and fracture tip is the half-fracture length in x direction. Adjacent grid block
dimensions increase until the maximum. All next grid blocks have the same dimension.
In y direction, the minimal dimension of the grid has the block with well.
dimension in y direction
Well
xf
dimension in x direction
The dimension of the adjacent grid blocks increases to the maximal value and then they
Figures 3.1 and 3.2. show the uneven distribution of grid blocks in the reservoir. Since
the reservoir is symmetric relative to the well and fracture position, the quarter of the
1000
dx, dy - Length of Block x or y Respectively [ft]
100
10
Fracture Half-Length
dx dy
1
Well 0 10 20 30 40
n- Number of Blocks
The blue circles (Figure 3.2.) present dimension of the blocks in x direction, while red
crosses present the dimension of the blocks in y direction. In z direction all grid blocks
have the same dimension and the fracture height is equal to the reservoir height.
Three dimensional aspect of the well and fracture position in the reservoir is presented
in Figure 3.3. The vertical well is located in the center of the square reservoir and that
grid block has the minimum x and y dimensions. Finite fracture is parallel with x axis
Figure 3.3. – Well and fracture location in square reservoir (Nashawi, 2007)
28
Total number of grid blocks in x and y direction as well the total reservoir dimension:
Total number of blocks Total reservoir Total number of blocks Total reservoir
in x direction dimension in x direction in y direction dimension in y direction
nx x [ft] ny y[ft]
335 100,646 309 100,978
Well is in central block with 2[ft] dimension, while fracture is in direction of x axis. The
middle of the fracture starts in block 1 and fracture continues to the adjacent 20 blocks
Figure 3.4. is imported from Eclipse shows huge reservoir with 103,515 grid blocks.
Since the grid block dimensions are much lower than total dimension of the reservoir,
gridding effect is displayed on the Figure 3.4. as blue color of the reservoir. To be able
to analyze reservoir gridding, the part of the reservoir in the white square is going to be
zoomed out.
Well
Fracture
Figure 3.5. presents the result of the increased central part of the reservoir. Grid blocks
are defined with blue lines where blue thick lines are the effect of fine gridding.
Black circle in the center of the picture is the well. According to the scale below, initial
reservoir pressure value is correspondent to red color and during numerical simulation
pressure decrease is observed by color change from beginning red to final blue.
30
Since this picture presents Day 0, reservoir is presented by red color because the
Fluid properties that are needed to model single-phase fluid flow are those that appear
with characteristics given in Table 3.2. has been chosen. Model for numerical
Fracture length f
simulation is low permeability reservoir
2x with permeability of 0.1[md]. Rock
compressibility has been neglected for simplification purposes.
Model does not account for well bore storage, skin, frictional losses in the well bore and
capillary pressures.
Fracture width 0.5[in] was very low and unacceptable for simulation by simulator,
because the well bore radius was 0.3[ft] and fracture width had to be higher than this
dimension. The most convenient dimension was 2[ft], the dimension of the smallest grid
Since the fracture porosity of 35% corresponds to the fracture width of 0.5[in], the
wφ f
φe = ……………………………….……………………….……… (2)
we
where:
FCD kx f
kf = ………………………………………………………….. (3)
w
where:
kfw
k fe = ………………………………………………………….…... (4)
we
Summary of all reservoir, fracture and fluid properties are listed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. – Reservoir, fracture and fluid PVT properties for constant pressure
case
Reservoir Properties
Initial pressure pi [psi] 5,000
Bottom hole flowing pressure BHFP [psi] 500
Formation porosity, fraction φ 0.2
Formation permeability k [md] 0.1
Formation height (reservoir thickness) h [ft] 100
Rock compressibility c [psi-1] 0
Skin s 0
Well bore radius rw [ft] 0.3
Fracture Properties
Fracture half length xf [ft] 2043
Fracture width w [in] 0.5
Fracture porosity φf 0.35
Equivalent Fracture Properties Adjusted for Numerical Simulation
Equivalent fracture width we [ft] 2
Equivalent fracture porosity φfe 0.0073
Fluid Properties
Compressibility cf [psi-1] 3.00E-06
Viscosity µ [cp] 1
FVF B [RB/stb] 1
The start date of simulation is determined, by the default, to be January 1st, 1997.
Initially, the first moment of simulation was chosen to be the first second when
production started (1.15741x10-5 days) for both cases – constant flow rate and constant
pressure case. But to cut the simulation time in the constant pressure case, the first
moment of observation was chosen to be 1.03x10-4 days. For the verification purposes
33
of this model, it was necessary to compare simulation results with Bennett Type Curves
which have logarithmic scale. Chosen time steps have geometrical progression with
factor 2.
A single-well and two-well simulation models in 3D reservoir were set up with the
- isothermal flow
- thermodinamical equilibrium
The inflow equation used by Eclipse is defined by the volumetric production rate of
(
q p, j = Twj M p, j P j − Pw − H wj ) …………………….………………..(5)
where:
qp,j – volumetric flow rate of phase p in connection j at stock tank conditions. The flow
is positive from the formation into the well, and negative from the well into formation
Hwj – well bore pressure head between the connection and the well’s bottom hole datum
depth. Pw+Hwj is the pressure in the well at the connection j, called “connection
pressure”
cθKh
Twj = …………………………………………..……….……. (6)
ro
ln + s
rw
where:
θ – the segment angle connecting with the well (2π) for the well located in the center of
s - skin factor
Pressure equivalent radius of the grid block is distance from the well at which the local
pressure is equal to the average nodal pressure of the block. Peaceman’s formula has
been used in Cartesian grid for rectangular grid blocks in an anisotropic reservoir:
35
1
1 12
Ky 2 K 2
D x2 + D 2y x
K x
Ky
ro = 0.28 ……………………………... (7)
1 1
Ky 4 Kx 4
+
K Ky
x
where:
In the first case the BHFP is assumed to be 500[psi] and bottom hole flowing rate has
been determined as a result of simulation. Data for the case of the constant pressure are
All data for constant flow rate case are the same, except the pressure input. Instead of
pressure, for constant flow rate case input will be flow rate of 100[stb/day] and pressure
To verify developed model, Bennett finite conductivity type curves for constant flowing
For each dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD, presented in Bennett type curves for
constant flowing rate, fracture porosity is calculated using equation (2). Real fracture
porosity has been assumed to be 35% and equivalent is calculated in function of the
For calculating fracture permeabilities, input data that have been used are listed below:
Where equivalent fracture width must be higher than the well bore radius and in this
case it was convenient to set it to 2 [ft] because that was dimension of the grid block
with well.
37
Calculated real and equivalent fracture permeability using correlations (3) and (4) are
Dimensionless
Real Fracture Equivalent Fracture
Fracture
Permeability Permeability
Conductivity
FCD kf kfe
1 4,903 102
5 24,516 511
10 49,032 1,022
25 122,580 2,554
100 490,320 10,215
500 2,451,600 51,075
Six data files were made for six different fracture dimensionless conductivities, FCD = 1,
5, 10, 25, 100, 500 with only difference in equivalent fracture permeability (keyword:
Data file for FCD=100 is given in Appendix A1. Well diameter is assumed to be 0.6 [ft]
Assumed flow rate was 100[stb/d] and it was control mode for constant flow rate case
(keyword: WCONPROD).
In SUMMARY section of Data File, output data well BHP and well production rate
were requested. Numerical simulation results for all six dimensionless fractures
To be able to compare numerical simulation results to the Bennett type curves, it was
necessary to transform time and pressure into dimensionless time in function of fracture
of fracture half-length:
0.0063288k
t Dxf = t ……………………………………..……..…..……. (8)
φct µx f 2
where:
pD =
(
kh pi − pwf ) ………………………………………….…………... (9)
141.2qBµ
39
where:
For the reservoir, fracture, and fluid properties given in Table 3.3 dimensionless time
and dimensionless pressure can be calculated using time and pressure multipliers from
simulation output of time in days and well bore flowing pressure in psi.
Figure 3.6. presents graphical solution of numerical simulation results for constant rate
case. These results are colored data points with Bennett type curve results shown in
background. Match with Bennett type curves for all six dimensionless fracture
10
Dimensionless Pressure pD
FCD=1
0.1
FCD=5
FCD=10
FCD=25
0.01
FCD=100
FCD=500
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Figure 3.6. – Model simulation results (symbols) with Bennett (1985) finite
conductivity type curve for constant rate case (lines)
Only difference between these and Data Files for constant flow rate case is the control
mode (in keyword: WCONPROD) which is BHP instead of the flow rate. Data File for
Equation (8) was used to transform time from the model simulation runs into
dimensionless time. For flow rate conversion from field units into dimensionless rate,
141.2 Bµq
qD =
(
kh pi − pwf ) ………………………………….……………….… (10)
where:
Rate multiplier calculated using equation (10) and based on numerical model data set:
qM=3.14E-03 [day/STB]
42
1000
Dimensionless Flow Rate qD
100
10
FCD=1
1 FCD=5
FCD=10
FCD=25
0.1 FCD=100
FCD=500
0.01
1.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 3.7. – Dimensionless flow rate qD versus dimensionless time tDxf for constant
pressure case - line source (vertical well)
well as dimensionless time and dimensionless flow rates, are presented in Table 1 to 6
Figure 3.8. presents numerical results plotted on Bennett type curve with dimensionless
time in function of fracture half-length and reciprocal dimensionless flow rate for
10
FCD=1
0.1 FCD=5
FCD=10
FCD=25
0.01
FCD=100
FCD=500
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 3.8. – Model simulation results (symbols) with Bennett (1985) finite
conductivity type curve for constant pressure case (lines)
Colored data points are results of numerical simulation of previous described numerical
model. Match with Bennett finite conductivity type curves for all six dimensionless
Point source – horizontal wells numerical modeling is similar to the previous described
numerical modeling of line source – vertical wells. The same model with synthetic data
of reservoir, reservoir and fracture geometry and fluid properties. After model
development, the numerical simulation results converted into the dimensionless time
numerical simulation of vertical well finite conductivity for constant rate and constant
pressure production.
Model reservoir has been discretizated into 931,635 blocks with distribution
x:y:z=335:309:9.
Uneven grid block distribution has been respected for the x, y and z layers like in the
Well is located in the central fifth block in z direction and also in 168th block in x and
155th block in y directions. Fracture’s blocks in x direction have the same distribution as
in the previous model - different dimensions increasing to maximum value and than
Total number of grid blocks in x, y and z directions as well as the total reservoir
dimension are:
Total number of Total reservoir Total number of Total reservoir Total number of Total reservoir
blocks in x dimension in x blocks in y dimension in y blocks in z dimension in z
direction direction direction direction direction direction
Point sources are in central blocks with 2[ft] dimension in x, y and z directions, while
The middle of the fracture starts in block 1 and fracture continues to the adjacent 20
Fluid, fracture and rock properties are the same as in the basic numerical model for
In the first case the BHFP is assumed to be 500 [psi] and bottom hole flowing rate has
been determined as a result of simulation. All data for constant flow rate case are the
identical to the constant pressure case, except the pressure input. Instead of pressure, for
constant flow rate case input will be flow rate of 100 [stb/day] and pressure will be the
Fracture length f
result of the numerical simulation. 2x
4.2.1. Constant Flow Rate Case for Point Source (Horizontal Well)
For each dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD, presented in Bennett type curves for
constant flowing rate, fracture porosity is calculated using equation (2). Data for real
conductivities are the same as in the previous model and they are presented in Table
3.3. in Chapter 3.
Six data files were made for six different fracture dimensionless conductivities, FCD = 1,
5, 10, 25, 100, 500 with only difference in equivalent fracture permeability which is the
Eclipse data input file for point source – horizontal well, constant rate and FCD=100 is
In SUMMARY section of Data File, output data well BHP and well production rate
for FCD=100.
Conversion of time and pressure into dimensionless time in function of fracture half-
length and dimensionless pressure was done using correlations (8) and (9) and results
also values of dimensionless pressure and dimensionless time in function of the fracture
10
Dimensionless Pressure pD
0.1 FCD=1
FCD=5
FCD=10
FCD=25
0.01
FCD=100
FCD=500
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Figure 4.2. – Bennett (1985) finite conductivity type curve for constant rate case
and numerical model results for point source (horizontal well)
The point source (horizontal well) is compared to the line source (vertical well) Bennett
type curve (Figure 4.2.) Deviation can be seen to be greater for the lower dimensionless
fracture conductivities and that for all fracture conductivities the solutions converge to
line source (vertical well) at late times. This type curve is developed for the ratio
Only difference between these and Data Files for constant flow rate case is the control
mode (in keyword: WCONPROD) which is BHP instead of the flow rate. Data File for
To transform time into dimensionless time in function of the fracture half-length and to
transform the flow rate into dimensionless one the correlations (8) and (10) have been
used respectively.
Time and rate multipliers are the same as for the vertical well:
qM=3.14E-03 [day/STB]
rates, are presented in Table 7 in Appendix B and plotted in the Figure 4.3. for six
1000
0.1
1.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01
Dimensionless Time tDxf
10
1
FCD=1
1/q D
FCD=5
0.1
FCD=10
FCD=25
0.01
FCD=100
FCD=500
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 4.4. – Bennett (1985) finite conductivity type curve for constant pressure
case and numerical model results for point source (horizontal well)
51
dimensionless ones. They are plotted on Bennett type curve with dimensionless time in
function of fracture half-length and reciprocal dimensionless flow rate for fractures
Like in the previous case, the deviations are higher for the lower dimensionless
fractures conductivities and they are smaller for the higher dimensionless fracture
conductivities. This type curve is developed for the ratio fracture half-length versus
Visualization of fracture face interference is shown using the images imported from
Eclipse simulation runs. The Figure 5.1 presents the day 0 for the reservoir with two
wells presented by black circles and two fractures presented by green lines.
Well 1
Well 2
Fracture 1
Figure 5.1. – Part of the reservoir with two wells and two fractures
53
Red color of the reservoir present initial reservoir pressure. During the life of the
reservoir – reservoir simulation, this color will change according to the color scale
below the picture showing pressure depletion. As depletion proceeds a scale change is
One of the simulation case with length to distance ratio of xf/y=8 were imported from
Well 1
Fracture distance, y
Fracture 1
Well 2
Figure 5.2. – Depletion in the reservoir after 260 days for case xf/y=8
Depletion at Figure 5.2. is observed by color change from beginning red – initial
pressure to the orange – pressure in the reservoir after some time, 260 days for this
example. It starts and continues from the well and fractures in both directions of y axis.
54
For the same case xf/y=8 at day 449 (Figure 5.3.), depletion in the reservoir area
between two fractures is higher than outside of the fracture, showing near complete
interference, defined by lighter orange color of the part of the reservoir between two
fractures.
Well 1
Fracture distance, y
Fracture 1
Well 2
Figure 5.3. – Depletion in the reservoir after 449 days for case of xf/y=8
After 516 days (Figure 5.4.), depletion in the reservoir area between two fractures is
still higher than outside of the fracture, but depletion outside the well continues.
55
Fracture 1
Well 1
Well 2
Fracture 2
Figure 5.4. – Depletion in the reservoir after 516 days for case of xf/y=8
Fractures Tips
Figure 5.5. - Depletion in the reservoir after 1580 days for case of xf/y=8
56
After 1580 days (Figure5.5.), the radial flow occurs around the wells and fractures.
Figure 5.6. presents total depletion at the end of the life of the reservoir. After 22 years,
the area between two fractures is totally depleted due to the fracture face interference.
Reservoir will be depleted from both sides of the fractures although the total depletion
can be expected near the fractures and between two fractures due to the fracture face
interference.
Fractures Tips
Figure 5.6. - Depletion in the reservoir at the end of the reservoir life
57
After matching Bennett’s solutions and model verification, the FCD=100 type curve for
constant rate was the object of further research. Numerical model that has been used in
previous research has been used for this research with few modifications. The y
dimension of the reservoir has been doubled by doubling the number of blocks in y
direction.
nx x [ft] ny y[ft]
335 100,646 618 201,956
Two vertical wells are located in the center of each of the two halves of the reservoir
presented by numerical model, data file in Appendix 5. Two vertical parallel fractures
were extending throughout the wells in both direction of x axis (Figure 5.7).
For better analysis, fractures have been enlarged and defined by green lines and
fracture distance, y. This model is developed for two wells presented by black circles,
but this could represent two fractures in the same horizontal well.
Fracture length f
2x
58
Initial Reservoir
100,500
Well 1
Enlarged
201,000
Fracture
y
Added Part of
Reservoir
Well 2
Enlarged
Fracture
Figure 5.7. – Numerical model with two wells and two fractures
Total production flow rate was also doubled to 200 [stb/day]. Reservoir and fracture
physical characteristics and fluid PVT properties were constant. The only variable was
the distance between two fractures, y which was the maximum at the start of the
research. This distance has been decreased by removing grid blocks between fractures.
59
In order to make this observation dimensionless and applicable to the real well data,
different cases of length between two fractures are defined by length to distance ratio
decreasing the length y, this length to distance ratio will increase. The length to distance
h
h
2xf 2xf
y1 y2
xf xf
If y1 < y2 then >
y1 y2
Figure 5.8. presents two cases of two fractures with y1 and y2 distance between them
and their reflection on the length to distance ratio. For lower distance between two
Data file for the case of constant rate, dimensionless fracture conductivity FCD=100 and
FCD = 100
xf = 2034 [ft]
kf = 10,215 [md]
Graphical solutions are given in Figure 5.9. For the higher distance y, the lower length
to distance ratio of 0.028, the simulation result fits the type curve of FCD=100. There is
no deviation from that base case. Decreasing distance y, length to distance ratio
10
0.01 16.0
100
63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 5.9. – Constant rate case - Finite conductivity type curve for family of finite
conductivity fractures with deviations for fracture face interference for FCD=100
The higher length to distance ratio, the earlier the deviation. For the length to distance
ratio equal 255 the deviation is the greatest and it starts at early time.
61
For lower length to distance ratio, the dimensionless pressure will be lower, and
pressure will decrease slowly. Production time will be longer with constant rate and this
case is optimal. However, for the higher deviations from the base case FCD=100 –
higher length to distance ratios, the dimensionless pressure will be higher and pressure
decrease faster. This will cause shorter production time with constant production rate
The same analysis was done for the FCD=1, 5, 10, 25, and 500 and graphical results are
different dimensionless conductivities, FCD, is the number of grid blocks between two
Research methodology for this case was the same as for the case of the constant flow
rate. The reservoir was doubled and its geometry has already been described. Reservoir
and fracture physical characteristics and fluid PVT properties were constant. The only
variable was the distance between two fractures, y which was the maximum at the start
of the research. This distance has been decreased by removing grid blocks between
fractures.
62
Data file for length to distance ratio of 128 is given in the Appendix A6. Results of
numerical simulation and dimensionless time and flow rate are given in Table 9 in
Appendix B. Plot of well production rate versus time with length to distance ratio as
In this case instead of the reciprocal dimensionless flow rate for one fracture and one
well, the result that has been plotted is the reciprocal dimensionless flow rate for two
fracture system. Results of the simulation are the flow rates for one well but numerical
model is two-well two-fracture system. Total flow rate will be equal to the arithmetic
average of the flow rate of both of the wells (fractures) – Equation (11), and it
represents the secondary axis on the Bennett finite conductivity type curve with
2 1
=
qDtfs qD1 +qD2 ………………………………………………… (11)
2
Dimensionless results of the simulation were plotted on the Figure 5.10. and deviations
from the base case have been observed similarly like in the case of the constant flow
rate. For lower length to distance ratios, the deviations were not so high, but for higher
ratios these deviations were more explicit. The reciprocal dimensionless flow rate 1/qD
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D xf - fracture half-length
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 5.10. – Constant pressure case - Finite conductivity type curve for family of
finite conductivity fractures with deviations for fracture face interference for
FCD=100 (reciprocal rate)
1000
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
100 FCD=100
Figure 5.11. – Constant pressure case - Finite conductivity type curve for family of
finite conductivity fractures with deviations for fracture face interference for
FCD=100 (rate)
64
This will cause the higher production with constant pressure (Figure 5.11). Contrary,
the higher length to distance ratio will result with higher reciprocal dimensionless flow
rate and lower flow rate. This means, the production will be lower with constant
pressure for higher deviations from base case and this is the worse case of the
production.
The similar analysis was done for dimensionless fractures conductivities of FCD=1, 5,
10, 25, and 500. Results are presented in the Figures 7 to 12 in Appendix C.
65
The FCD=100 type curve for constant rate and for constant pressure cases were the
object of analysis of fracture face interference for point source (horizontal well).
Numerical model and simulation methodology were the same as in the previous
described case. Besides doubled y dimension of the reservoir, the number of layers was
Total number of Total reservoir Total number of Total reservoir Total number Total reservoir
blocks in x dimension in x blocks in y dimension in y of blocks in z dimension in z
direction direction direction direction direction direction
The point sources are located in the center of the reservoir, 5th block in z direction and
in the same position like vertical wells in previous model. Two vertical parallel
fractures were extending throughout the point sources in both direction of x axis. The
Figure 6.1. – Point sources (horizontal well) with two vertical fractures
Production flow rate remains 200 [stb/day]. Reservoir and fracture physical
characteristics and fluid PVT properties were constant. The only variable was the
distance between two fractures, y which was the maximum at the start of the research.
This distance has been decreased by removing grid blocks between fractures. The
Eclipse simulator data input file for the point source case with constant rate,
Table 11 in Appendix B.
Graphical solutions are shown in Figure 6.2 comparing effects of various distance ratios
with FCD =100 to previously developed point source solutions for all FCD curves.
Observations are similar to those made for the line source (vertical well). Decreasing
10
1
FCD
1
length to distance ratio
0.1 5 xf
y
10
25 4.0
16.0
100
0.01 63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 6.2. – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate and FCD=100 – point source (horizontal well)
with previous point source solutions for all FCD values
68
This type curve is developed for the ratio fracture half-length versus reservoir thickness
xf/h =2043/100
The same analysis was done for the FCD=1, 5, 10, 25, and 500 and graphical results are
The research methodology is almost identical to the one described in the case of the
constant flow rate. The only difference is the control mode and in this case it is
BHP=500 psi. Reservoir geometry has already been described and reservoir and fracture
physical characteristics and fluid PVT properties were constant. The only variable was
the distance between two fractures, y which was the maximum at the start of the
research. Simulation methodology was the same, the distance between fractures has
Eclipse simulator data input file for length to distance ratio, xf/y=255 and dimensionless
fracture conductivity, FCD=100 is given in the Appendix A8 for point source. Results of
numerical simulation and dimensionless time and flow rate are given in Table 11 in
Appendix B. Plot of well production rate versus time with length to distance ratio as
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCD=100
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q
xf - fracture half-length
y - distance between two fractures
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 6.3. – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure and FCD=100 – point source (horizontal well)
with previous point source solutions for all FCD values
In these cases, the match with base case is observed at earlier time for lower length to
distance ratios and deviations are established at later times. This is especially obvious
for lower length to distance ratios. For the higher length to distance ratios, deviations
start earlier and increase earlier comparing with base case FCD=100 and lower length to
distance ratios.
For lower length to distance ratio, the reciprocal dimensionless flow rate 1/qD will be
lower and production flow rate will be higher (Figure 6.4.). This will cause the higher
production with constant pressure. Contrary, the higher length to distance ratio will
70
result with higher reciprocal dimensionless flow rate and lower flow rate. This means,
the production will be lower with constant pressure for higher deviations from base case
100
FCD=100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
4.0
16.0
1
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Figure 6.4. – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=100 – Point source
(horizontal well)
This type curve is developed for the ratio fracture half-length versus reservoir thickness
xf/h =2043/100
The similar analysis was done for dimensionless fractures conductivities of FCD=1, 5,
10, 25, and 500. Results are presented in the Figures 19 to 24 in Appendix B.
71
The motivation for predicting of fracture face interference was to determine if observed
well performance data could be attributed to this model. Gas well McAlister O.H. 16 in
East Newark field has been the subject of investigation. Well data were obtained from
1,000,000
Production Rate [Mcf/month]
100,000
10,000
1,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [months]
Monthly gas production for the subject gas well in a semilog format is shown in Figure
6.5.
The McAlister O.H. 16 well was completed on December 15, 2002, as a horizontal well
in the Barnett Shale formation stimulated with hydraulic fracturing. Cumulative gas
Time in months and monthly gas rate have been converted into dimensionless
qM=1,200 [Mcf/month-1]
where
t Dxf = t[months]t M
Mcf
qD = q qM
month
Monthly gas production data, dimensionless time and dimensionless flow rate are listed
in Table 10 in Appendix B.
Results are plotted on Point source finite conductivity type curve for constant pressure
with deviations for fracture face interference, Figure 6.6. The FCD=100 type curve was
production data with developed deviations from the base case of FCD=100, it is apparent
that well data can match curve of length to distance ratio xf/y=128. The interpretation
would be the fracture’s half-length of this well is equal to 128 times distance between
fractures. Other length to distance ratios could also be matched. A unique match would
fracture length to distance ratios could be interpreted from completion data or micro
seismic analysis. The finding of this work is simply that production performance of
73
fracture stimulated horizontal wells can be modeled by the effects of fracture face
interference.
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCD=100
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q
xf - fracture half-length
y - distance between two fractures
0.1 5
10
25
4.0
100
0.01 16.0
500 63.8
128
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 6.6. – Point Source finite conductivity type curve with deviations for
fracture face interference and McAlister O. H. 16 well data
74
Initial pressure for the numerical model based on synthetic data was 5,000[psi]. The aim
of the sensitivity analysis in this case is to investigate the possibility of type curve
Three pressures values have been chosen for this investigation: pi=1000, 2000, and
5,000 [psi] for the fracture dimensionless conductivity FCD=5 (Figure 7.1.) and FCD=100
(Figure 7.2).
Results of simulation are the flow rates that have been converted in dimensionless ones
using equation (10) and time was converted in dimensionless time in function of the
According to the Figures 7.1. and 7.2., the type curve matching has obtained providing
model. The new finite conductivity type curves for initial pressures 1,000, 2,000 and
5,000 [psi] do not have any deviations from the Bennett finite conductivity type curve
10
Dimensionless Pressure p D
0.1
pi=1,000
pi=2,000
0.01 pi=5,000
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
10
Dimensionless Pressure pD
0.1
pi=1,000
pi=2,000
0.01 pi=5,000
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
productivity indexes by adding keyword WELPI in Schedule section of Data File for
FCD=5 and FCD=100. The three different well productivity indexes were set up: initial
one, twice higher and twice lower than initial ones. Results are given in the Figures 7.3
and 7.4.
Results of the analysis are plotted on Bennett finite conductivity type curve for FCD=5
and FCD=100 and they match the numerical simulation solution and provide numerical
model verification.
10
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D
0.1
Jinitial=1,285
J=2*Jinitial=2,536
0.01 J=0.5*Jinitial=634
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 7.3. – Sensitivity analysis of the change of productivity index for FCD=5
77
These figures showed that for the different productivity indexes, it is obvious to have
type curve matching. There is no deviation from the developed type curve and constant
10
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D
0.1
Jinitial=25,710
J=2*Jinitial=50,730
0.01 J=0.5*Jinitial=12,682
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 7.4. – Sensitivity analysis of the productivity index change for FCD=100
Finite fracture type curves with deviations for fracture face interference have been
observed. To get those results, the fracture half-length of 2,043[ft] have been used as
input data. To check developed type curves for different length to distance ratios, it was
78
Data file for length to distance ratio equal to 255 is given in Appendix A9. Since the
fracture half length is about four times less than in the previous case, the distance
between two fractures were adjusted to get the same ratio, 255. Using this methodology
it was possible to compare deviation for fracture face interference of two fractures with
different half-lengths.
Time and pressure multipliers are calculated using equations (8) and (9):
tM = 4.12E-03 [day-1]
pM = 7.08E-04 [psi-1]
Results of numerical simulation and dimensionless time and pressure data are given in
Table 12 in Appendix B.
These data were plotted on Bennett finite conductivity type curve with deviations for
fracture face interference developed in previous research. Results are the same. Colored
data point matches the derived curves of fracture face interference for the same length
to distance ratios and different fractures half-lengths. Figure 7.5. presents summary of
these results.
79
10
FCD=100
1
Dimensionless Pressure pD
0.1
length to distance ratio
2043 506
y y
2 2
0.01
8 8
36 36
255 255
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
According to the previous figure, there are no deviations from base cases. Developed
type curves for different length to distance ratios are not sensitive for the fracture half-
length change.
Point Source
The analysis of point source for both cases – constant pressure and constant flow rate
was performed for 9 blocks in z direction. The sensitivity analysis aim was to check the
80
simulation results if number of grid blocks increases to the 13. Results are plotted on the
Figure 7.6.
According to the figure, the change of the number of grid blocks in z direction do not
have influence on the analysis of the point source which will have the same
10
Dimensionless Pressure pD
FCD=1
1
0.1
9 blocks
0.01
13 blocks
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Figure 7.6. – Sensitivity analysis for different number of the grid blocks in z
direction for point source, constant rate case and FCD=1
81
8.1. Summary
fractures for both constant pressure and constant rate at the well bore.
connection in the central layer in vertical direction to extend the solution for
horizontal wells.
interference was determined for both vertical (offsetting) and horizontal wells
(multistage completion).
82
1. The future work includes the application of the pressure derivative on the newly
developed type curves for constant rate production and rate integral and integral-
stimulated fractures.
3. The third goal of the future work should be investigation of the fracture face
4. Incorporation of micro seismic data for verification of the rate transient analysis
Reference
Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., Polloc, C.B., – Evaluation and Performance Prediction
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F. – Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs:
– May 1996
84
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B. and Ma, T. – Formation Damage Processes Reducing
Productivity of Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs – SPE 60325 presented at the SPE
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, V.F., Dominguez, N.,– Transient Pressure Behavior for
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, V.F., – Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells
Daniels, J., Waters, G., LeCalvez, J., Lassek, J., Bentley, D. – Contacting More of
Petrophysics and Hydraulic Fracture Design – SPE 110562 – SPE Annual Technical
Naik, G.C. - Tight Gas Reservoirs – An Unconventional Natural Energy Source for
Nashawi, I.S, Qasem, F.H, Gharbi, R, – Transient Pressure Analysis of Gas Wells
(2003), 89-102
Nederlof, M. H – The Scope for Natural Gas Supplies from Unconventional Sources
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/PDQ/quickLeaseReportBuilderAction.do,
Shanley, K.W., Cluff, R.M, and Robinson, J.M. – Factors Controlling Prolific Gas
Matching: 1-Skin and Well bore Storage – Paper SPE 25423 presented at the
APPENDIX A
88
Appendix A1 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case And
Vertical Well – Line Source
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 309 1 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
103515*4950 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
89
Appendix A1 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case And
Vertical Well – Line Source - continued
DZ
103515*100 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 309 1 1 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 309 1 1 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 309 1 1 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 309 1 1 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1.0 3.0D-6 1.0 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
90
Appendix A1 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case And
Vertical Well – Line Source - continued
-- Well quantities
-- Well BHP
WBHP
/
-- Well water production rate
WWPR
/
RUNSUM
EXCEL
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
/
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
/
TSTEP
0.00001157 1.39E-05 1.67E-05 2.00E-05 2.40E-05 2.88E-05
3.46E-05 4.15E-05 4.98E-05 5.97E-05 7.17E-05 8.60E-05
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02 7.99E+02 9.58E+02 1.15E+03
1.38E+03 /
END
91
Appendix A2 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case And
Vertical Well – Line Source
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical hydraulic fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 309 1 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
103515*4950 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
92
Appendix A2 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case And
Vertical Well – Line Source - continued
DZ
103515*100 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 309 1 1 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 309 1 1 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 309 1 1 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 309 1 1 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1 3.0D-6 1 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
-- Well quantities
WBHP
/
WWPR
/
93
Appendix A2 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case And
Vertical Well – Line Source - continued
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=3 FREQ=1 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
/
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN BHP 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 500 1* 1* 1* /
/
TSTEP
0.00001157 1.39E-05 1.67E-05 2.00E-05 2.40E-05 2.88E-05
3.46E-05 4.15E-05 4.98E-05 5.97E-05 7.17E-05 8.60E-05
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02 7.99E+02 9.58E+02 1.15E+03
1.38E+03 1.66E+03 1.99E+03 2.39E+03 2.86E+03 3.43E+03
4.12E+03 4.95E+03 5.93E+03 7.12E+03 8.55E+03 1.03E+04 /
END
94
Appendix A3 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case And
Horizontal Well - Point Source
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 309 9 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
103515*4950 103515*4971 103515*4987 103515*4995 103515*4999
103515*5001 103515*5005 103515*5013 103515*5029 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
95
Appendix A3 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case And
Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
DZ
103515*21 103515*16 103515*8 103515*4 103515*2
103515*4 103515*8 103515*16 103515*21 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 309 1 9 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 309 1 9 / -- reservoir porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture X perm.
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 309 1 9 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 309 1 9 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ====================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1.0 3.0D-6 1.0 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
96
Appendix A3 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case And
Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
-- Well BHP
WBHP
/
-- Well water production rate
WWPR
/
RUNSUM
EXCEL
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 5 5 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
/
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
/
TSTEP
0.00001157 1.39E-05 1.67E-05 2.00E-05 2.40E-05 2.88E-05
3.46E-05 4.15E-05 4.98E-05 5.97E-05 7.17E-05 8.60E-05
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02 7.99E+02 9.58E+02 1.15E+03
1.38E+03 /
END
97
Appendix A4 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case And
Horizontal Well - Point Source
--
-- Vertical fracture, FCD=100, constant pressure, point source
--
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical hydraulic fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 309 9 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
103515*4950 103515*4971 103515*4987 103515*4995 103515*4999
103515*5001 103515*5005 103515*5013 103515*5029 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
98
Appendix A4 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case And
Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
DZ
103515*21 103515*16 103515*8 103515*4 103515*2 103515*4 103515*8 103515*16 103515*21 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 309 1 9 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 309 1 9 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture X porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 309 1 9 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 309 1 9 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
5000 1 3.0D-6 1 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
5000 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
-- Well quantities
WBHP /
99
Appendix A4 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case And
Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=3 FREQ=1 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 5 5 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
/
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN BHP 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 500 1* 1* 1* /
/
TSTEP
0.00001157 1.39E-05 1.67E-05 2.00E-05 2.40E-05 2.88E-05
3.46E-05 4.15E-05 4.98E-05 5.97E-05 7.17E-05 8.60E-05
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02 7.99E+02 9.58E+02 1.15E+03
1.38E+03 1.66E+03 1.99E+03 2.39E+03 2.86E+03 3.43E+03
4.12E+03 4.95E+03 5.93E+03 7.12E+03 8.55E+03 1.03E+04 /
END
100
Appendix A5 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Two Vertical Wells – Line Sources
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 312 1 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
104520*4950 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4
4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
101
Appendix A5 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Two Vertical Wells – Line Sources - continued
DZ
104520*100 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 312 1 1 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 312 1 1 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PERMX 10215 149 187 158 158 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture porosity
PORO 0.0073 149 187 158 158 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 312 1 1 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 312 1 1 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1.0 3.0D-6 1.0 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
-- Well quantities
102
Appendix A5 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Two Vertical Wells – Line Sources - continued
-- Well BHP
WBHP
/
-- Well water production rate
WWPR
/
RUNSUM
EXCEL
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
W2 G 168 158 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
W2 168 158 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
W2 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
TSTEP
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02
/
END
103
Appendix A6 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case,
xf/y=128 and Two Vertical Wells – Line Sources
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 314 1 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
105190*4950 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4 8
8 4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
104
Appendix A6 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case,
xf/y=128 and Two Vertical Wells – Line Sources - continued
DZ
105190*100 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 314 1 1 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 314 1 1 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PERMX 10215 149 187 160 160 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture porosity
PORO 0.0073 149 187 160 160 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 314 1 1 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 314 1 1 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1.0 3.0D-6 1.0 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
105
Appendix A6 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case,
xf/y=128 and Two Vertical Wells – Line Sources - continued
-- Well BHP
WBHP
/
-- Well water production rate
WWPR
/
RUNSUM
EXCEL
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
W2 G 168 160 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
W2 168 160 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN BHP 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 500 1* 1* 1* /
W2 OPEN BHP 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 500 1* 1* 1* /
TSTEP
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02
/
END
106
Appendix A7 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Horizontal Well - Point Source
-- Constant rate case, point source
-- FCD=100
-- Two vertical fractures, xf/y=255
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 312 9 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
104520*4950 104520*4971 104520*4987 104520*4995 104520*4999
104520*5001 104520*5005 104520*5013 104520*5029 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4
4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
107
Appendix A7 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
DZ
104520*21 104520*16 104520*8 104520*4 104520*2
104520*4 104520*8 104520*16 104520*21 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 312 1 9 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 312 1 9 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PERMX 10215 149 187 158 158 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture porosity
PORO 0.0073 149 187 158 158 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 312 1 9 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 312 1 9 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1.0 3.0D-6 1.0 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
108
Appendix A7 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
-- Well BHP
WBHP
/
-- Well water production rate
WWPR
/
RUNSUM
EXCEL
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
W2 G 168 158 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 5 5 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
W2 168 158 5 5 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
W2 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
TSTEP
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02
/
END
109
Appendix A8 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case,
xf/y=255 and Horizontal Well - Point Source
-- Constant pressure case, point source
-- FCD=100
-- Two vertical fractures, xf/y=255
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
335 312 9 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
104520*4950 104520*4971 104520*4987 104520*4995 104520*4999
104520*5001 104520*5005 104520*5013 104520*5029 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 6*256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 4
4 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340 /
110
Appendix A8 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case,
xf/y=255 and Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
DZ
104520*21 104520*16 104520*8 104520*4 104520*2
104520*4 104520*8 104520*16 104520*21 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 335 1 312 1 9 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 335 1 312 1 9 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 10215 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PERMX 10215 149 187 158 158 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 187 155 155 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture porosity
PORO 0.0073 149 187 158 158 1 9 / -- equivalent fracture porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 335 1 312 1 9 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 335 1 312 1 9 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1.0 3.0D-6 1.0 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
111
Appendix A8 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Pressure Case,
xf/y=255 and Horizontal Well - Point Source - continued
-- Well BHP
WBHP
/
-- Well water production rate
WWPR
/
RUNSUM
EXCEL
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 168 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
W2 G 168 158 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 168 155 5 5 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
W2 168 158 5 5 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN BHP 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 500 1* 1* 1* /
W2 OPEN BHP 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 500 1* 1* 1* /
TSTEP
1.03E-04 1.24E-04 1.49E-04 1.78E-04 2.14E-04 2.57E-04
3.08E-04 3.70E-04 4.44E-04 5.32E-04 6.39E-04 7.67E-04
9.20E-04 1.10E-03 1.32E-03 1.59E-03 1.91E-03 2.29E-03
2.75E-03 3.30E-03 3.96E-03 4.75E-03 5.70E-03 6.84E-03
8.20E-03 9.84E-03 1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02
2.45E-02 2.94E-02 3.53E-02 4.23E-02 5.08E-02 6.10E-02
7.31E-02 8.78E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01 1.82E-01
2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.15E-01 3.77E-01 4.53E-01 5.43E-01
6.52E-01 7.83E-01 9.39E-01 1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00
1.95E+00 2.34E+00 2.80E+00 3.37E+00 4.04E+00 4.85E+00
5.81E+00 6.98E+00 8.37E+00 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.08E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01 3.60E+01 4.32E+01
5.18E+01 6.22E+01 7.47E+01 8.96E+01 1.08E+02 1.29E+02
1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02 2.67E+02 3.21E+02 3.85E+02
4.62E+02 5.55E+02 6.66E+02
/
END
112
Appendix A9 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Fracture Half-Length 506[ft] for Vertical Well – Line Sources
-- Constant rate case, FCD=100
-- Fracture half-length 506
-- Vertical fracture xf/y=255
NOECHO
RUNSPEC =========================================================================
TITLE
Vertical fracture model, (Wf)r=0.5 in ==> (Wf)e=2 ft
DIMENS
---- dx dy dz
323 311 1 /
-- Units
FIELD
GRID ===========================================================================
TOPS
100453*4950 /
DXV
-- reservoir
139*340 3*256 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- half fracture-1
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 128 64 32 16 8 4
-- well
2
-- half fracture-1
4 8 16 32 64 128 128 64 32 16 8 4 2
-- reservoir
4 8 16 32 64 128 3*256 139*340
DYV
147*340 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 2
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 147*340
/
113
Appendix A9 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Fracture Half-Length 506[ft] for Vertical Well – Line Sources - continued
DZ
100453*100 /
EQUALS
PERMX 0.1 1 323 1 311 1 1 / -- reservoir X permeability
PORO 0.2 1 323 1 311 1 1 / -- reservoir Porosity
PERMX 2530 149 175 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PERMX 2530 149 175 157 157 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture X permeability
PORO 0.0073 149 175 155 155 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture porosity
PORO 0.0073 149 175 157 157 1 1 / -- equivalent fracture porosity/
/
COPY
PERMX PERMY 1 323 1 311 1 1 /
PERMX PERMZ 1 323 1 311 1 1 /
/
INIT
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
RPTGRID
TRANX TRANY /
PROPS ==========================================================================
PVTW
-- PREF BW(PREF) CW VW(PREF) CVW
4014.7 1.0 3.0D-6 1.0 0
/
ROCK
-- PREF CR
4014.7 0
/
DENSITY
-- OIL WATER GAS
44.09 62.28 0.066 /
RPTPROPS
/
SOLUTION =========================================================================
RPTSOL
-- Fluid Create init
-- in place Restart file
FIP=1 RESTART=2 /
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
SUMMARY ==========================================================================
114
Appendix A9 – Eclipse Data Input File for FCD=100, Constant Rate Case, xf/y=255
and Fracture Half-Length 506[ft] for Vertical Well – Line Sources - continued
-- Well quantities
WBHP
/
-- Well water production rate
WWPR
/
RUNSUM
EXCEL
SCHEDULE ==========================================================================
RPTRST
BASIC=2 /
RPTSCHED
WELSPECS /
WELSPECS
-- WELL GROUP -LOCATION- BHP PHASE DRAINAGE FLAG FLAG FLAG PRESS FLAG
-- NAME NAME I J DEPTH RADIUS GAS SHUT CROSS TABLE DENS
W1 G 162 155 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
W2 G 162 157 1* WATER 1* STD SHUT NO 1* SEG /
/
COMPDAT
-- WELL --LOCATION-- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL EFF SKIN D PENETRATION
-- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM KH FACTOR FACTOR DIRECTION
W1 162 155 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
W2 162 157 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.60 1* 0 0 Z /
WCONPROD
-- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP THP VFP ALQ
-- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE TABLE
W1 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
W2 OPEN WRAT 1* 100 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* /
TSTEP
1.18E-02 1.42E-02 1.70E-02 2.04E-02 2.45E-02
2.94E-02 3.52E-02 4.23E-02 5.07E-02 6.09E-02
7.31E-02 8.77E-02 1.05E-01 1.26E-01 1.52E-01
1.82E-01 2.18E-01 2.62E-01 3.14E-01 3.77E-01
4.52E-01 5.43E-01 6.51E-01 7.82E-01 9.38E-01
1.13E+00 1.35E+00 1.62E+00 1.95E+00 2.33E+00
2.80E+00 3.36E+00 4.03E+00 4.84E+00 5.81E+00
6.97E+00 8.36E+00 1.00E+01 1.20E+01 1.45E+01
1.74E+01 2.09E+01 2.51E+01 3.01E+01 3.61E+01
4.33E+01 5.20E+01 6.23E+01 7.48E+01 8.98E+01
1.08E+02 1.29E+02 1.55E+02 1.86E+02 2.23E+02
2.68E+02 3.22E+02 3.86E+02 4.63E+02 5.56E+02
6.67E+02 8.00E+02 9.61E+02 1.15E+03 1.38E+03 /
END
115
APPENDIX B
116
t t
[months] q[Mcf/m] tDxf qD [months] q[Mcf/m] tDxf qD
1 45,816 2.70E-06 3.82E+01 29 30,127 7.83E-05 2.51E+01
2 95,857 5.40E-06 7.99E+01 30 29,846 8.10E-05 2.49E+01
3 76,889 8.10E-06 6.41E+01 31 28,822 8.37E-05 2.40E+01
4 78,556 1.08E-05 6.55E+01 32 29,362 8.64E-05 2.45E+01
5 69,757 1.35E-05 5.81E+01 33 26,080 8.91E-05 2.17E+01
6 66,602 1.62E-05 5.55E+01 34 29,420 9.18E-05 2.45E+01
7 59,948 1.89E-05 5.00E+01 35 28,784 9.45E-05 2.40E+01
8 51,841 2.16E-05 4.32E+01 36 27,173 9.72E-05 2.26E+01
9 53,079 2.43E-05 4.42E+01 37 29,166 9.99E-05 2.43E+01
10 47,095 2.70E-05 3.92E+01 38 28,066 1.03E-04 2.34E+01
11 49,919 2.97E-05 4.16E+01 39 23,200 1.05E-04 1.93E+01
12 44,319 3.24E-05 3.69E+01 40 26,474 1.08E-04 2.21E+01
13 44,979 3.51E-05 3.75E+01 41 25,212 1.11E-04 2.10E+01
14 43,737 3.78E-05 3.64E+01 42 26,565 1.13E-04 2.21E+01
15 38,344 4.05E-05 3.20E+01 43 24,300 1.16E-04 2.03E+01
16 41,482 4.32E-05 3.46E+01 44 24,601 1.19E-04 2.05E+01
17 39,781 4.59E-05 3.32E+01 45 23,552 1.22E-04 1.96E+01
18 38,887 4.86E-05 3.24E+01 46 23,236 1.24E-04 1.94E+01
19 37,787 5.13E-05 3.15E+01 47 23,874 1.27E-04 1.99E+01
20 39,142 5.40E-05 3.26E+01 48 22,521 1.30E-04 1.88E+01
21 36,193 5.67E-05 3.02E+01 49 21,305 1.32E-04 1.78E+01
22 34,558 5.94E-05 2.88E+01 50 22,362 1.35E-04 1.86E+01
23 34,100 6.21E-05 2.84E+01 51 21,997 1.38E-04 1.83E+01
24 32,084 6.48E-05 2.67E+01 52 22,933 1.40E-04 1.91E+01
25 32,300 6.75E-05 2.69E+01 53 22,379 1.43E-04 1.86E+01
26 32,002 7.02E-05 2.67E+01 54 20,673 1.46E-04 1.72E+01
27 28,602 7.29E-05 2.38E+01 55 26,054 1.49E-04 2.17E+01
28 31,073 7.56E-05 2.59E+01
165
APPENDIX C
170
10
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 1 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate for and FCD=1 – Line source – Vertical well
10
0.01 16.0
100
63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 2 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate and FCD=5 – Line source – Vertical well
171
10
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 3 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate and FCD=10 – Line source – Vertical well
10
0.01 16.0
100
63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 4 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate and FCD=25 – Line source – Vertical well
172
10
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 5 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate for and FCD=100 – Line source – Vertical well
10
0.01 16.0
100
63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 6 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant flow rate and FCD=500 – Line source – Vertical well
173
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 7 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=1 – Line source – Vertical well
100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
10 FCD=1
0.028
4.0
0.1 16
63.8
255
0.01
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
1
FCD=5
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 8 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=5 – Line source – Vertical well
100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
FCD=5
10
16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D xf - fracture half-length
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 9 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=10 – Line source – Vertical well
100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
FCD=10
10
4.0
16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D xf - fracture half-length
y - distance between two fractures
25 16.0
63.8
0.01 100 128
500 255
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 10 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=25 – Line source – Vertical well
100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
FCD=25
10
0.028
1
4.0
16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 10A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=25 – Line source –
Vertical well
177
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D
xf - fracture half-length
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 11 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=100 – Line source – Vertical well
1000
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
100 FCD=100
Figure 11A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=100 – Line source –
Vertical well
178
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q D
xf - fracture half-length
25 16.0
63.8
0.01 100 255
500 128
0.001
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
Figure 12 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=500 – Line source – Vertical well
1000
FCD=500
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
100
1 4.0
16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 12A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=500 – Line source –
Vertical well
179
10
1
FCD
1
length to distance ratio
0.1 5 xf
y
10
25 4.0
16.0
100
0.01 63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 13 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant rate case and FCD=1 – Point source – Horizontal well
10
1
FCD
1
length to distance ratio
0.1 5 xf
y
10
25 4.0
16.0
100
0.01 63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 14 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant rate case and FCD=5 – Point source – Horizontal well
180
10
1
FCD
1
length to distance ratio
0.1 5 xf
y
10
25 4.0
16.0
100
0.01 63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 15 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant rate case and FCD=10 – Point source – Horizontal well
10
1
FCD
1
length to distance ratio
0.1 5 xf
y
10
25 4.0
16.0
100
0.01 63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 16 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant rate case and FCD=25 – Point source – Horizontal well
181
10
1
FCD
1
length to distance ratio
0.1 5 xf
y
10
25 4.0
16.0
100
0.01 63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 17 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant rate case and FCD=100 – Point source – Horizontal well
10
1
FCD
1
length to distance ratio
0.1 5 xf
y
10
25 4.0
16.0
100
0.01 63.8
500 255
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 18 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant rate case and FCD=500 – Point source – Horizontal well
182
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 19 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=1 – Point source – Horizontal well
10
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
FCD=1
4.0
16
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 19A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=1 – Point source –
Horizontal well
183
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 20 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=5 – Point source – Horizontal well
100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
FCD=5
10
1 4.0
16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 20A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=5 – Point source –
Horizontal well
184
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCD=10
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q
xf - fracture half-length
y - distance between two fractures
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 21 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=10 – Point source – Horizontal
well
100
FCD=10
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
10
4.0
1
16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 21A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=10 – Point source –
Horizontal well
185
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCD=25
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q
xf - fracture half-length
y - distance between two fractures
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 22 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=25 – Point source – Horizontal
well
100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
FCD=25
10
length to distance ratio
xf
y
4.0
1 16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 22A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=25 – Point source –
Horizontal well
186
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 23 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=100 – Point source – Horizontal
well
100
FCD=100
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
4.0
16.0
1
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Figure 23A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=100 – Point source –
Horizontal well
187
10
FCD - dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCD=500
Reciprocal Dimensionless Flow Rate 1/q
xf - fracture half-length
y - distance between two fractures
0.001
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Figure 24 – Finite conductivity type curve with deviations for fracture face
interference for constant pressure case and FCD=500 – Point source – Horizontal
well
1000
Dimensionless Flow Rate q D
FCD=500
100
1
16.0
63.8
255
0.1
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Dimensionless Time tDxf
Figure 24A – Dimensionless rate versus dimensionless time with deviations for
fracture face interference for constant pressure case and FCD=500 – Point source –
Horizontal well
188
APPENDIX D
189
Nomenclature
D - depth [ft]
pD - dimensionless pressure
s - skin [-]
θ - the segment angle connecting with the well (2π) for the well located in