SPE 132093

Accurate Simulation of Non-Darcy Flow in Stimulated Fractured Shale Reservoirs

Barry Rubin (SPE Member), Computer Modelling Group Ltd.

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anaheim, California, USA, 27–29 May 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of th e paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessar ily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permiss ion to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Unconventional shale gas reservoirs require stimulation via hydraulic fracturing of pre-existing fracture networks for practical
exploitation, creating a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV). Within the SRV, gas flow from the nano-Darcy shale to the complex
stimulated fracture network has been modeled in reservoir simulators using a variety of techniques which upscale/simplify the
fracture network. The simulation techniques used in the past were normally not compared with reference solutions.
This work investigates using finely-gridded single well reference solutions (approximately 6-14 million cells) for simulating
Darcy and non-Darcy flow within an explicitly modeled SRV complex fracture network, in 2-D, with and without primary
hydraulic fractures, as well as scenarios which model stress sensitive permeability and later re-stimulation of a horizontal well.
The network fractures use cells which are only 0.001 ft. wide.
The reference solutions are compared with standard dual permeability and MINC (multiple interacting continua) dual
continua models as well as novel models which simulate flow inside of the SRV using coarse, logarithmically spaced, locally
refined, dual permeability grids, and simulate flow outside of the SRV using unrefined dual permeability grids. These coarse
models can be run in minutes on standard hardware, where as the reference models can take days to run on the same hardware.
We will show that excellent matches to the reference solutions are possible using a modest number of refinements to
simulate the flow within the SRV when the fracture permeability and the fracture Forchheimer number (for non-Darcy flow) are
scaled as described in the paper. These techniques allow the use of 2.0 ft. wide fracture conduits to mimic non-Darcy flow in
0.001 ft. wide fractures.
Good agreement between the reference and coarse models are observed even during the early flow period of the reservoir.

Introduction
There have been many recent papers discussing the modeling of gas production from unconventional shale gas reservoirs. Work
by Mayerhoffer et al.1 and Cipolla2 are two excellent examples. They discuss using numerical simulation of explicit fracture
networks created in a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) to model the physics of flow within a fractured shale reservoir. These
papers discussed the simplifications made in order to produce reasonable results and noted(1) the need to model fractures
explicitly at their true width (on the order of 0.001 ft.) when accounting for non-Darcy flow. It is this last requirement which can
make the simulation of such systems a daunting task. These simulations, with explicit fracture representation, use large detailed
grids and require significant execution times due to both the large number of cells used and the small size of fracture cells used.
The ultimate goal of this work is to produce predictive fractured shale gas simulation models which are easy to set up and
that run in minutes rather than hours or days. These predictive models would be small enough to be quickly run while actually
stimulating the reservoir and/or be used in history matching/optimization software.
It is easy to propose potential models, but in order to ensure the accuracy of the simplified models, it is necessary to compare
them with extremely fine grid reference solutions which are capable of modeling fracture flow using cells which are no larger
than the width of actual fractures, and flow into the fracture from the matrix using cells small enough to properly capture the
very large pressure drops involved.
The simplified models must be able to reproduce the fractured shale gas reference solutions or they would not be predictive.
Therefore the first goal of this work is to produce realistic reference solutions. This study considers only 2-D areal models due
to model size constraints and assumes only gas is mobile. The reference solutions need to model the flow into the fractures and
through the fractures very accurately. They represent the fracture network using a grid which models the fractures explicitly
using 0.001 ft. wide grid cells and the shale using a large number of cells whose size increases logarithmically as we move away
2 SPE 132093

from the fracture to properly simulate the large pressure drop between matrix and fracture. Obtaining this sort of accuracy
comes at the cost of using a large number of simulation cells (5-14 million or so in 2-D).
In this work we compare the results of the reference solutions (which take many hours of simulation time) to a number of
different simplified grids (which take minutes of simulation time).
We compare dual permeability models and MINC (multiple interacting continua) models with the reference solutions.
We investigate the use of a new dual permeability based technique which, within the SRV only, models the fracture network
explicitly using local grid refinement (LGR).
We optimally space the shale LGR blocks within the SRV to minimize their number and pseudo-ize the 0.001 ft. wide fractures
to more numerically practical sizes without compromising the results of both Darcy and non-Darcy flow models.
The first set of shale gas reference solutions model various single vertical well scenarios, and are used to validate the basic
ideas developed in this paper. Here we investigate the proposed modeling techniques using 0.0001 md and 0.01 md shales, with
and without the inclusion of non-Darcy effects.
The second set of shale gas reference solutions model flow into a horizontal well with both propped and unpropped fracture
conductivities modeled within the SRV. In these references we also investigate whether we can model stress dependent
permeability and the re-stimulation of the well, by creating a second set of propped fractures in the SRV after two years of
production.
The result of this investigation is a technique which uses small logarithmically spaced dual permeability (DK) LGR grids
within the SRV coupled to standard DK grids outside of the SRV. The explicit fractures in the LGR grids are represented
accurately by 2.0 ft. wide cells using a procedure which scales both the fracture permeability and Forchheimer number.

Vertical Well Reference Model (Darcy Flow)

The shale gas reservoir model assumed is 18,200 ft. long x 18,200 ft. wide x 300 ft. thick. The SRV is 1800 ft. x 1800 ft. x 300
ft. and centered in the model. The fracture network block size is 200 ft. The fracture network block size is the fracture length of
a single fracture in the network. The individual fractures in the network link up to form a single connected fracture network
throughout the entire reservoir. The model is a single porosity system and blocks which are denoted as fractures within the SRV
have a thickness of 0.001 ft. and a permeability of 4,000 md (fracture conductivity of 4.0 md-ft). Blocks which are denoted as
fracture blocks outside of the SRV also have a 0.001 ft. thickness but have a permeability of 1.0 md (fracture conductivity of
0.001 md-ft). Shale blocks vary in size (Table 1) and either have permeability of 0.0001 md or 0.01 md (depending on the
model). All models, both reference and coarse, use 2-D areal grids. Only gas is mobile in the reservoir. Desorption of gas from
the shale is not modeled.
There are 7,958,041 cells in total in the reference model, made up of 91 x 91 fracture networks; each of these fracture
networks is made up of 31 x 31 cells or 961 cells. In each fracture network 61 cells represent the fracture while the remaining
900 cells represent the shale. The single vertical well is centered in the model in a 0.001 ft x 0.001 ft x 300 ft. cell. The well PI
is set to an extremely high value so as to make the well pressure approximately equal to the block pressure (to within 10-3 psi).
Figure 1 presents the pressure profile in this model after one year of production at various length scales. Using Figure 1, the
complexity and the scale of the fracture system can be observed.

Figure 1a – Entire Reservoir Figure 1b – Stimulated Reservoir Volume

SPE 132093 3

Figure 1c – Approx. Nine Fracture Networks Figure 1d – Approx. One Fracture Network

Figure 1e – Approx. 4 ft. x 4 ft. area Figure 1f – Approx. 3 inch x 3 inch area

The entire reservoir is initialized to 3,004 psia and the well produces for 10 years at a minimum pressure constraint of 1,000
psia and is initially subject to a maximum rate constraint of 3.0 MMSCF per day.
PVT and reservoir properties for this gas model are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The reservoir is initialized to gas and connate
water and, except for a tiny amount of water which is made mobile due to compressibility effects, only gas flows (Krg = 1.0).

Vertical Well Reference Model (Non-Darcy Flow)

The non-Darcy shale gas reference model is identical to the Darcy flow reference model except that in the blocks designated as
fracture blocks, a non-Darcy flow model is made active. As initial tests indicated that non-Darcy flow was not occurring within
the shale itself, non-Darcy flow was ignored between shale cells.
The non-Darcy Beta factor used in the Forchheimer number is determined using a correlation proposed by Evans and Civan3.
β(f) = 1.485E9/K1.021
Where the unit of K is md and unit of β is (ft-1). This correlation for β (f) was developed using over 180 data points including
those for propped fractures and was found to match the data very well (Correlation Coefficient = 0.974).
The β factor is used in the Forchheimer equation to account for the size of the flow path in the porous media and/or fracture.
If the Forchheimer number can be thought of as a Reynolds number, β factor can be considered as a measure of the inverse of an
equivalent diameter open to flow in the Reynolds number.
4 SPE 132093

Vertical Well Reference Model Results

Each of the vertical well shale gas reference models:
0.0001 md shale Darcy Flow
0.0001 md shale non-Darcy Flow
0.01 md shale Darcy Flow
0.01 md shale non-Darcy Flow
was run using a 4 CPU Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz computer. Elapsed time for each model varied, but normally 16 hours was required
to produce each reference solution.
Due to the very small and highly permeable fracture cells and the difference in sizes between shale and fracture cells it was
necessary to use a more accurate LU factorization than normally required for general purpose reservoir simulation. The CMG
black oil model IMEX was used in all of the studies presented. Figure 2 presents the gas production rates of the four vertical
well reference solutions.

Figure 2
Reference Solutions
Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale

Dual Permeability and MINC Darcy Flow Models

Dual permeability models are normally used when simulating standard dual continua systems. Therefore we decided to begin
our comparison against our Darcy flow reference solutions using a straightforward dual permeability model.
MINC4 models have been developed primarily to account more correctly for convective heat flow from fracture to matrix in
thermal simulation. However, it is possible to set up a MINC model, without assuming horizontal fractures, so that the nested
MINC shale cells resemble a simplified version of the reference grid fracture network pattern.
The models being developed use one coarse grid cell (either DK or MINC) per fracture network block. This creates models
which are 91 x 91 x 1 cells in size. A dual permeability model (DK) of this size was set up, as was a 91 x 91 x 1 cell MINC
model. In each model, the grid cell size was 200 ft x 200 ft x 300 ft.
The dual permeability model uses one cell to represent the fracture and one cell to represent the matrix in each fracture
network block. In the DK model, flow can occur from fracture to fracture, matrix to matrix, and matrix to fracture.
The MINC model uses four nested matrix (shale) cells and one fracture cell per MINC fracture network block. The length of
each nested matrix cell increases logarithmically away from the fracture to best capture the pressure drop in the matrix. Only the
outermost nested matrix cell can communicate with the fracture cell. Flow can occur between matrix cells in each MINC
fracture network block, but matrix to matrix flow cannot occur between MINC fracture network blocks (i.e. between different
MINC grid cells). The fracture in each MINC fracture network block can communicate with fractures in adjacent MINC fracture
network blocks.
SPE 132093 5

The lack of direct fracture network block communication through the matrix (shale) is a limitation of the MINC method. It
was thought; however, that the lack of matrix to matrix communication between MINC cells may not be critical in a very low
permeability shale, as the gas likely does not migrate significant distances without using a fracture.
Care was taken to be consistent in the calculation of the effective fracture permeability and porosity used in both DK and
MINC models. We assume one fracture of 0.001 ft. width every 200 ft. in the I and J directions (vertical fractures only).
In the vertical well model this results in effective fracture permeabilities of 0.02 md in the SRV, 0.000005 md outside the
SRV, and an effective fracture porosity of 0.00001.
Figures 3 and 4 compare each of the two techniques with the Darcy flow case reference solutions. The DK low permeability
case does not have the resolution in the matrix, which is represented by a single cell, to capture the matrix-fracture flow correctly
using a Gilman and Kazemi5 matrix-fracture transfer term. In very low permeability shale, it is important to be able to model the
high pressure drops in the matrix adequately. DK failed to reproduce the production behavior of the 0.0001 md shale reference
grid. The matrix flow in the 0.01 md shale case was modeled reasonably well, but this permeability is on the high side for shale
gas reservoirs.

Figure 3 Figure 4
Reference Solution vs. Dual Permeability Grid Reference Solution vs. MINC Grid
Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale
Darcy Flow – Gas Production Rates Darcy Flow – Gas Production Rates

The MINC shale gas model produces more interesting results (again using a Gilman and Kazemi5 transfer term). At a shale
permeability of 0.01 md, the lack of matrix-matrix flow between MINC grid cells drastically affects the solution, producing a
rate result significantly different from the reference solution. Clearly flow though 0.01 md shale cannot be ignored.
However, for the 0.0001 md shale case, the production rate behavior is similar to the reference solution. While not accurate
enough for our purpose, these results initiated a more careful investigation of the MINC grid and its limitations.
Our analysis of the differences between the reference solution, the MINC model, and an explicitly gridded 2-D proxy of the
MINC grid for the 0.0001 md case, isolated MINCs limitation to the lack of resolution in the fracture. This conclusion was
arrived at by explicitly gridding a single porosity 2-D proxy model to duplicate the MINC model and selectively altering the
connections between cells manually to add more than a single fracture per MINC cell.
Normally we think of fractures as being highly conductive. In the cases studied, using a 4.0 md-ft fracture conductivity
(which is a reasonable value for an unpropped fracture in a shale gas network), the flow in the fracture produces a significant
pressure drop. Having only one fracture cell per grid cell (of 200 ft. x 200 ft. area), the MINC model is incapable of properly
resolving the pressure drop in the fracture.
This limitation would be true for any dual continua model which uses one large cell to represent the fracture per grid cell
regardless of the matrix-fracture transfer term used, as the problem is entirely one of fracture flow resolution.
However, the ability of the MINC model to approximate the reference solution for the lower permeability shale model
indicated that it may be possible to create a coarse single porosity or dual permeability refined grid similar to the 2-D MINC
proxy grid mentioned above, which does not have the limitations of the MINC model (no matrix flow between MINC cells and
poor pressure resolution in the fracture).

Local Grid Refinement Based Grids (Darcy Flow)

The results obtained with the 0.0001 md MINC shale gas model encouraged us to attempt to correct the inadequacies of MINC
using the extensive local grid refinement (LGR) options available to CMG simulators. It was possible to create LGR grids using
logarithmic cell spacing in the shale which would accurately model flow within the fracture, within the shale, and from shale to
6 SPE 132093

fracture. Using a DK grid as the basis of the model we could simultaneously allow both matrix-matrix (shale-shale) and fracture-
fracture flow.
As we did not believe the use of a 0.001 ft. fracture width was feasible for any model but those which would be used to
generate reference solutions, we applied the same effective permeability calculation as we normally apply in DK models to the
fracture cells in the LGR. We scaled these cells up to a 2.0 ft. width so that they were more of a fracture conduit or fairway. The
cells of the 2.0 ft. wide conduit were given the same fracture conductivity as the 0.001 ft. wide cells (rather than assume the
fracture has a 4,000 md permeability in a 0.001 ft. width, we assume a 2.0 md permeability in a 2.0 ft. width).
Finally, as we wanted to limit the areal extent of the LGR grids which represent the SRV, we assumed that outside of the
SRV it was not as critical to model the details of flow as accurately as we model them within the SRV. Thus outside of the SRV
a simple DK grid is used. The DK grid connects to the DK LGR grid in a logical “what you see is what you get” fashion.
We tested several LGR grid sizes and settled on a 9x9x1 refinement of each of the 200 ft. x 200 ft. x 300 ft. network fracture
blocks inside the SRV. LGR grids which were as small as 5x5x1 still produced excellent results, but as we were interested in
accuracy, we used a somewhat more detailed refinement. The resulting grid is a logarithmically spaced (to best represent the
large pressure drops near the matrix-fracture interface), locally refined, dual permeability grid or LS-LR-DK grid. See Figure 5
for a cartoon of the grid at the edge of the SRV where a single LGR block extends from 9200 to 9400 ft. in the X direction and
from -9400 to -9200 ft. in the Y direction. Table 4 presents details of the LGR grid cell sizes.
The grid size for each cell in the LGR is determined as follows:
In direction I, the size of each cell is denoted by DX(I), where I varies from 1 to an odd total number of cells in the LGR
(NLGR), with the center cell representing the fracture.
DHFW = 0.5 x Fracture Width in I direction
NFR = (NLGR-1)/2
Ratio = [Unrefined Cell Length/Fracture Width] **(1/NFR)
MNFR = NFR+1
Where MNFR is the I index of the grid block in the LGR used to represent the central fracture.
DX (MNFR) = Fracture Width in I direction
DX (MNFR+I) = DHFW *[Ratio**I-Ratio**(I-1)]
DX (MNFR -I) = DHFW *[Ratio**I-Ratio**(I-1)]
I=1, NFR

The use of this grid spacing ensures we have good resolution of the steep pressure drop from matrix to fracture. A similar
procedure is done in the J direction to determine DY values.

Figure 5
LS-LR-DK Grid at the Interface between the Refined (SRV) and Non-Refined (Un-Stimulated Reservoir) Grids
(Green - 0.0001 md Shale, Red - 4 md-ft Fracture Conduit)
SPE 132093 7

To sum up:
1. Outside the SRV we use a simple DK model.
2. Inside the SRV we use a DK model with each cell subdivided using LGR to explicitly model a crossed pair of
central fractures and surrounding shale cells.
3. The fractures cells are made into 2.0 ft. wide conduits and are single porosity, while all of the shale cells are dual
permeability cells on a grid which is increasing in size logarithmically away from the fractures.
4. The fracture porosity in the dual permeability (DK) shale cells can be used to model the native unstimulated (often
negligible) fractures which may exist in shales.
5. The fracture conduits and DK fracture cells can communicate with other fractures cells and with the shale.
6. The shale cells can communicate with all adjacent shale cells and fracture cells (either explicitly gridded cells or
DK fracture cells).

The 9x9x1 LS-LR-DK grid can be though of as a two dimensional Cartesian version of the MINC 4 (4 nested interacting
continua) grid. However, this grid allows flow in 2 dimensions within the shale in the fracture network block, direct shale to
shale flow between fracture network blocks, as well as better fracture flow resolution.
LS-LR-DK shale gas models for 0.0001 md and 0.01 md shale were built and compared with the Darcy flow reference
solutions in Figures 6-8. Excellent matches to the reference models were obtained in models which take less than 3 minutes to
run using a single processor of a 4 CPU Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz computer.
The results indicate that LS-LR-DK grids do allow us to realize the potential of a MINC-like grid approach albeit at the cost
of a larger number of grid cells per fracture network block. In addition to this, LS-LR-DK grids allow the modeling of an
underlying initial fracture network if desired, due to the DK nature of the grid, both in LGR cells and in unrefined cells.

Figure 6 Figure 7
Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid
Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale
Darcy Flow – Rate Comparison Darcy Flow – Cumulative Gas Comparison

Figure 8
Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid
Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale
Darcy Flow – Rate Comparison (0.0 to 60.0 Days)
8 SPE 132093

Local Grid Refinement Based Grids (non-Darcy Flow)

The LS-LR-DK models were altered to incorporate non-Darcy flow by simply enabling the option in the data set. However,
maintaining the correct fracture conductivity did not ensure that the proper Forchheimer number based non-Darcy flow was
maintained. The result of this study showed that without further correction, non-Darcy flow was impossible to model properly
in a fracture conduit. This was due to the incorrect velocities being used in the Forchheimer number. Figure 9 presents these
results for both the 0.01 md shale and the 0.0001 md shale.

Figure 9
Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid
Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale
Non-Darcy Flow – Rate Comparison

Non-Darcy Flow Forchheimer Number Correction

As the fracture is being modeled as a number of 2.0 ft. wide blocks, the flow through the fracture must be pseudo-ized in order
to produce results similar to the flow through a 0.001 ft. wide fracture.
The fracture conductivity (Kf x Af) should be identical in the simulation model using a 2.0 ft wide fracture to the conductivity
in the simulation model using a 0.001 ft. wide fracture. Therefore the effective Kf (Kfeff) used in this model is reduced by the ratio
of the model’s fracture area to the actual fracture area, which in this case is equal to the ratio of model fracture width to the actual
fracture width (2 ft./0.001 ft.). This gives us a fracture permeability of 2.0 md.
The use of the effective fracture width and permeability corrects Darcy flow down the fracture, but does not properly correct
the Forchheimer number in the fracture to account for the reduced fracture permeability (Kfeff) which is used in the velocity
calculation in the Forchheimer number calculation. In order to accomplish this, a permeability correction factor must be defined
in the blocks which represent the fracture. The permeability correction factor essentially multiplies the β(f) in the Forchheimer
number to give the same Forchheimer number as would have been obtained in the original, equally conductive, but higher
permeability fracture. The Forchheimer number explicitly is a function of K2 and implicitly (through β(f)) a function of 1/KN1g.
Where N1g is the exponent of K in the correlation for β factor.
Therefore in the fracture blocks we multiply the Forchheimer number by the correction factor6 Kcorr.
The value of KCorr = (Kf/Kfeff) (2-N1g)
In the constant fracture permeability example considered
KCorr = 2000.00.979 = 1704.94
When the Forchheimer number in the fracture is corrected by KCorr, non-Darcy flow is calculated properly.
Figures 10-12 compare the non-Darcy reference models and corrected non-Darcy flow LS-LR-DK grids. The Kcorr corrected
non-Darcy runs are in excellent agreement with the reference solutions, even at early time. This technique has been applied to
grids with different (Kf/Kfeff) and N1g. In each case KCorr properly corrected the Forchheimer number on extremely coarse grids.
Again the CPU time for these runs is less than 3 minutes on a single processor of a 4 CPU Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz computer.
SPE 132093 9

Figure 10 Figure 11
Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid
Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale
Corrected Non-Darcy Flow – Rate Comparison Corrected Non-Darcy Flow – Cumulative Gas Comparison

Figure 12 Figure 13
Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid Reference Solution vs. LS-LR-DK Grid
Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale Vertical Well – 0.01 md and 0.0001 md Shale
Corrected Non-Darcy Flow – Rate Comparison (0.0 to 60.0 Days) Corrected Non-Darcy Flow – Gas Resistance Factor Comparison

Figure 13 compares the Gas Resistance Factor (GRF) in the reference solutions to the GRF in the corrected non-Darcy flow
LS-LR-DK grids in the cell containing the well. GRF is defined as one plus the gas Forchheimer number. The Darcy gas flow
terms in the simulator are divided by GRF to account for non-Darcy flow. The GRF for both reference models and LS-LR-DK
grids are very similar once the Forchheimer number is corrected. The maximum GRF in the uncorrected LS-LR-DK model is
only slightly greater than 1.00, as the uncorrected Forchheimer number is less than 0.0005.

Horizontal Well - Propped Fracture Reference Solution (Non-Darcy Flow, 0.0001 md Shale)
The techniques and methods used in the vertical well shale gas models should be applicable to more complex scenarios. To test
this, we developed a horizontal well reference model which incorporates both an unpropped fracture network and a propped
planer fracture at each perforation.
Only the non-Darcy flow case is modeled in a 0.0001 md shale gas reservoir for this comparison. In this model the fracture
network block size is 100 ft., the unpropped fracture network conductivity in the SRV is 2.0 md-ft, and the initial unstimulated
fracture conductivity is 0.001 md-ft. The SRV is 25 network blocks long and 21 network blocks wide or 2500 ft. by 2100 ft.
There are seven stimulated perforations in the horizontal well. One perforation every 400 ft., and at each perforation
orthogonal to the well, a propped planer fracture has been created, which extends throughout the SRV (2100 ft fracture length).
The conductivity of each of the propped planer fractures is 20.0 md-ft.
All other properties are identical to the vertical well model except for the calculated effective DK fracture permeability and
fracture porosity, which are slightly modified due to the 100 ft. network fracture spacing (reduced from 200 ft.), and the
maximum gas rate constraint which is increased to 10 MMSCF per day due to the horizontal well’s increased productivity.
10 SPE 132093

The finely gridded reference solution uses over 6 million cells and requires slightly more than 10 hours to complete using 4
processors of a 4 CPU Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz computer. As before, the fracture network cells are as small as 0.001 ft. x 0.001 ft x
300 ft. Table 5 presents the grid sizes used in each fracture network block (27 x 27 cells) of the horizontal well reference grid.
The LS-LR-DK grid is run with and without the non-Darcy correction factor applied. Table 6 presents the grid sizes used in
the 9x9x1 locally refined grids of the LS-LR-DK model. Figure 14 presents the permeability map in the SRV of a modified LS-
LR-DK grid. The grid is modified for this figure to allow the fracture network cells to be visible. Within the actual LGR, the
cells representing the fracture have a two ft. width, while the cells representing the shale increase in size logarithmically away
from the fracture (as in Figure 5). In figure 14, the fracture width is increased in order to be visible. In addition, the grid lines
have been removed for clarity.

Figure 14
Matrix, Unpropped, and Propped Fracture Permeability
Simplified LS-LR-DK Grid for Horizontal Well Model
(Green - 0.0001 md Shale, Orange - 2.00 md-ft Fracture Conduit, Red - 20 md-ft Propped Fracture Conduit, Black - Horizontal Well Path)

Figures 15-17 present the results of the LS-LR-DK grid simulations (which required only 8 minutes on one processor of the
Xeon computer mentioned earlier). In these figures, results both with and without the non-Darcy correction factor Kcorr are
compared. The results using the non-Darcy correction factor again match the fine reference grid results quite well, even at early
time (using a log scale for clarity in Figure 17).

Figure 15 Figure 16
Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale
Non-Darcy Flow - Rate Comparison Non-Darcy Flow – Cumulative Gas Comparison
SPE 132093 11

Figure 17
Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale
Non-Darcy Flow – Early Time Rate Comparison

Re-stimulated Horizontal Well Propped Fracture Reference Solution (Non-Darcy Flow, 0.0001 md Shale)
The next model is an extension of the previous horizontal well shale gas model. In this model, it is assumed that only three of
the seven perforations are initially stimulated and that the initial stimulation produces three separate SRVs near each propped
fracture.
After two years of production, four more perforations are stimulated to increase productivity. Modeling this situation
requires the simulator to be able to re-read new reservoir permeabilities and non-Darcy correction factors in the well data at any
time.
This problem is important to consider as it forms the basis of a methodology to simulate multi-well scenarios where wells are
drilled at different times, initially stimulated and then re-stimulated when appropriate.
Conductivity in the propped planer fractures is 20.0 md-ft. In each of the three isolated SRVs, the fracture network
conductivity is 2.0 md-ft, and in the unstimulated reservoir between SRVs and away from the well, the initial unstimulated
fracture conductivity is 0.001 md-ft.
Figure 18 presents the permeability map in the SRV used in the initial two years of the run. Again this grid has been
modified to allow the fracture network to be visible (similar to Figure 14). After the re-stimulation, it is assumed that four more
propped hydraulic fractures are created and that the three separate SRVs combine into a single SRV as in Figure 14.

Figure 18 Figure 19
Matrix, Unpropped, and Propped Fracture Permeability Re-stimulated Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale
Simplified initial LS-LR-DK Grid for Re-stimulation Model Non-Darcy Flow - Rate Comparison
(Green - 0.0001 md Shale, Yellow – 0.001 md-ft Fracture Conduit,
Orange - 2.00 md-ft Fracture Conduit,
Red - 20 md-ft Propped Fracture Conduit, Black - Horizontal Well Path)
12 SPE 132093

Figures 19-21 present the comparison of the re-stimulation model with and without the non-Darcy correction factor Kcorr to
the fine grid reference solution. The non-Darcy correction used with the LS-LR-DK grid produces results which match the
reference solution quite well.

Figure 20 Figure 21
Re-stimulated Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale Re-stimulated Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale
Non-Darcy Flow – Cumulative Gas Comparison Non-Darcy Flow - Early Time Rate Comparison

Stress Sensitive Permeability in Propped and Unpropped Fractures Reference Solutions (Non-Darcy Flow,
0.0001 md Shale)
The final model of this work is again an extension of the first horizontal well shale gas model. In this model, it is assumed that
both the unpropped fracture network and propped fractures have stress sensitive permeability. This scenario was derived from
the work of Cipolla et al. (7). Properties are identical to the first horizontal well model discussed, with the exception of initial
reservoir pressure, which was raised 3,800 psia.
Note that raising the reservoir pressure to 3,800 psia results in a ten year cumulative production which is similar to the earlier
horizontal well cases without stress sensitive permeability. If reservoir pressure is kept at 3004 psia, (and stress sensitive tables
are altered accordingly), cumulative gas production of the stress sensitive permeability model is significantly lower than the
model without stress sensitive permeability.
The unpropped and propped fractures each use specific compaction tables (tables 7 and 8). Both tables assume that at the
initial reservoir pressure the conductivity of the unpropped and propped fractures are 2.0 and 20.0 md-ft respectively. We assume
that there is little to prevent the unpropped fractures from closing significantly to about 5% of initial conductivity and that the
propped fracture closes to some degree, but due to proppant, the closure is limited to 20% of the original conductivity. Therefore
the conductivities of both unpropped and propped fractures reduce with reducing pressure (increasing stress) until at 1,000 psia
(the well BHP) the conductivities are reduced to 0.11 md-ft and 4.0 md-ft respectively. The compaction table feature in the
simulator is assigned to cells representing both propped and unpropped fractures (Table 7 to unpropped fractures and Table 8 to
propped fractures).
As an additional test of the sensitivity of the reference models to shale (matrix) cell resolution, the reference solution grid
developed earlier is made even finer and compared with the original reference solution (both using stress sensitive permeability).
The reference model size is increased to slightly less than 14 million cells (13,920,361 cells). Each fracture network block is
now made up of 41 x 41 cells, 1681 cells in total, of which 81 represent the fractures (Table 9). Even the coarsest cell in the
shale is now no more than 6.2 ft. long. The extra cells in this finer grid are mainly devoted to reducing the maximum size of
shale blocks away from the fracture cells.
Figures 22-24 present the results of this scenario with stress sensitive permeability. We compare both reference grids to the
LS-LR-DK grid using corrected Non-Darcy flow.
The 14 million cell production curves indicate that the extra resolution obtained by more detailed gridding within the low
permeability shale, away from the fracture system, did not significantly change the reference model results. This confirms our
earlier observation that accurately modeling the pressure drop, in the shale, at the fracture-shale interface is most important when
simulating fractured shale production behavior.
The LS-LR-DK model with corrected non-Darcy flow also produces an excellent match to both reference grids. As before,
the LS-LR-DK model requires only minutes to run.
SPE 132093 13

Figure 22 Figure 23
Stress Sensitive Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale Stress Sensitive Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale
Non-Darcy Flow - Rate Comparison Non-Darcy Flow – Cumulative Gas Comparison

Figure 24
Stress Sensitive Horizontal Well Model 0.0001 md Shale
Non-Darcy Flow - Early Time Rate Comparison

Conclusions
1. It is possible to efficiently run reference solutions for fractured shale gas models using millions of cells with explicitly
modeled 0.001 ft. thick vertical fractures.
2. The standard Dual Permeability model is unable to properly model very low permeability fractured shales.
3. The MINC model is able to approximately reproduce the flow from our fractured 0.0001 md shale reservoir reference
models. It cannot be used in higher permeability shale gas models
4. The reasons for the MINC models inaccuracy stem from inadequate fracture resolution (0.0001 md shale) and from the
lack of matrix to matrix flow between MINC/fracture network blocks (0.01 md shale).
5. An LGR based, logarithmically spaced, dual permeability (LS-LR-DK) grid overcomes the limitations of the MINC
grid and can accurately model flow from our fractured shale gas reservoir reference models (Darcy flow).
6. A non-Darcy flow permeability based correction factor (Kcorr) can allow non-Darcy flow to be accurately modeled in
fracture conduits as wide as 2.0 ft.
7. Using LS-LR-DK grids and Kcorr together, we have been able to accurately match our reference solutions for flow in
fractured shale gas reservoirs for both vertical and horizontal wells.
8. Using LS-LR-DK grids and Kcorr together, we have been able to accurately match our reference solutions for a re-
fracturing/re-stimulation scenario. The reference solution was a simple one well model, but the ability to alter
permeability and Kcorr at any time in a DK cell or locally refined DK cell after the simulation begins, allows us to
simulate models with multiple wells drilled, stimulated and re-stimulated, with each well on its own drilling and
stimulation schedule.
14 SPE 132093

9. The basic reference solution grid was made even finer (from 6 million to 14 million cells) for the stress sensitive
permeability model. The finer reference grid produced results which were not significantly different from the 6 million
cell reference solution grid confirming that refinement is most critical in the shale near the fracture-shale interface.
10. The LS-LR-DK grids and Kcorr coupled with stress sensitive permeability can be used to accurately model non-Darcy
flow in stress sensitive fractured shale gas reservoirs.

References
1) Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.P., Youngblood, J.E., and Heinze, J.R. “Integration of Microseismic Fracture Mapping Results with
Numerical Fracture Network Production Modeling in the Barnett Shale”, paper SPE 102103 presented at the 2006 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24-27 Sept. 2006.
2) Cipolla, C.L. “Modeling Production and Evaluating Fracture Performance in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs”, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 84-90, Sept. 2009.
3) Evans, R.D., and Civan, F. “Characterization of Non-Darcy Multiphase Flow in Petroleum Bearing Formation”, Final Report, April 1994,
Work Performed under Contract No. DE-AC22-90BC14659, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy.
4) Pruess, K., and Narasimhan, T.N. “A Practical Method for Modeling Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured Porous Media”, SPEJ, pp. 14-26,
Feb. 1985.
5) Gilman, J.R., and Kazemi, H. “Improvements in Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs”, SPEJ, pp. 695-707, Aug. 1983.
6) User’s Guide, IMEX, Advanced Oil/Gas Reservoir Simulator Version 2009, CMG Ltd. Tutorial “Modelling Non Darcy Flow in
Hydraulic Fractures Accurately Using a Grid Based Approach”.
7) Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P., Erdle, J.C., and Rubin, B. “Reservoir Modeling in Shale-Gas Reservoirs”, paper SPE 125530 presented at the
2009 Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, West Virginia, U.S.A., 23-25 Sept. 2009.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank CMG for allowing me to publish this work and in particular Dr. Jim Erdle who provided a great deal of
technical help and encouragement.

Nomenclature
Af Area of the Fracture (ft2)
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
DK Dual Permeability
GRF Gas Resistance Factor
K Permeability (md)
Kcorr Non Darcy Permeability Correction Factor
Kf Fracture Permeability (md)
Kfeff Effective Fracture Permeability (md)
Krg Gas Relative Permeability
LS-LR-DK Logarithmically Spaced - Locally Refined -Dual Permeability
MINC Multiple Interacting Continua
N1g Exponent of Permeability in β(f) Correlation
SRV Stimulated Reservoir Volume
β(f) Beta Factor (ft-1)
Tables
Table 1 Table 4
Size of Cells within Each Fracture Network Block Size of LS-LR-DK cells in LGR within each SRV
(200 ft. x 200 ft. x 300 ft.) (200 ft. x 200 ft. x 300 ft.)
Vertical Well Reference Solution Vertical Well Model

I Dir/J Dir DX/DY (ft) I Dir/J Dir DX/DY (ft)

1 36.192 1 68.38
2 25.0 2 21.62
3 20.0 3 6.84
4 10.0 4 2.16
5 5.0 5 2.0
6 2.0 6 2.16
7 1.0 7 6.84
8 0.4 8 21.62
9 0.2 9 68.38
10 0.1
11 0.06 Table 5
12 0.03 Size of Cells within Each Fracture Network Block
13 0.01 Horizontal Well Reference Solution
14 0.005 (100 ft. x 100 ft. x 300 ft.)
15 0.0025
16 0.001 I Dir/J Dir DX/DY (ft)
17 0.0025 1 31.192
18 0.005 2 10.0
19 0.01 3 5.0
20 0.03 4 2.0
21 0.06 5 1.0
22 0.1 6 0.4
23 0.2 7 0.2
24 0.4 8 0.1
25 1.0 9 0.06
26 2.0 10 0.03
27 5.0 11 0.01
28 10.0 12 0.005
29 20.0 13 0.0025
30 25.0 14 0.001
31 36.192 15 0.0025
16 0.005
Table 2 17 0.01
PVT Properties of Gas 18 0.03
19 0.06
Reservoir Temperature 100 Deg F
20 0.1
Gas Viscosity 0.02 cP
21 0.2
Ideal Gas PV = RT
22 0.4
Gas Gravity 0.818
23 1.0
24 2.0
Table 3 25 5.0
Reservoir Properties 26 10.0
Initial Reservoir Pressure 3,004 psia 27 31.192
Initial Gas Saturation 0.80
Porosity in Shale 0.03
Porosity in Fracture 1.00
Compressibility of Shale 10-6/psi
Permeability of Shale 0.0001 md or
0.01 md
Intrinsic Fracture Perm. within SRV 4,000.0 md
Intrinsic Fracture Perm. outside SRV 1.0 md
Reservoir Thickness 300.0 ft
16 SPE 132093

Table 6 Table 9
Size of LS-LR-DK cells in LGR within each SRV Size of Cells within Each Fracture Network Block
Horizontal Well Model Stress Sensitive Permeability
(100 ft. x 100 ft. x 300 ft.) 14 MM Cell Horizontal Well Reference Solution
(100 ft. x 100 ft. x 300 ft.)
I Dir/J Dir DX/DY (ft)
1 31.2 I Dir/J Dir DX/DY (ft)
2 11.73 1 6.192
3 4.41 2 5.0
4 1.66 3 5.0
5 2.0 4 5.0
6 1.66 5 5.0
7 4.41 6 5.0
8 11.73 7 5.0
9 31.2 8 5.0
9 2.5
Table 7 10 2.5
Conductivity vs. Pressure Table 11 2.0
Unpropped Fracture 12 1.0
13 0.4
Pressure Conductivity 14 0.2
(psia) (md-ft) 15 0.1
1000 0.11 16 0.06
1500 0.18 17 0.03
2000 0.27 18 0.01
2500 0.43 19 0.005
3000 0.73 20 0.0025
3500 1.35 21 0.001
3800 2.00 22 0.0025
23 0.005
24 0.01
Table 8
25 0.03
Conductivity vs. Pressure Table 26 0.06
Propped Fracture 27 0.1
28 0.2
Pressure Conductivity 29 0.4
(psia) (md-ft) 30 1.0
1000 4.0 31 2.0
1500 4.0 32 2.5
2000 4.0 33 2.5
2500 4.3 34 5.0
3000 7.7 35 5.0
3500 13.5 36 5.0
3800 20.0 37 5.0
38 5.0
39 5.0
40 5.0
41 6.192