Long-Term Linear Flow in

Tight Gas Wells

Jorge A. Arévalo-Villagrán and Robert A. Wattenbarger
Texas A&M University (revised version on March 2001)

Abstract
Numerous wells in tight gas reservoirs have long-term performance, which exhibit only
linear flow. The decline curves for these wells do not exhibit pseudo-radial flow when the outer
boundary effects are detected. The objective of this work is focused on decline curve analysis
methods for long-term linear flow in fractured tight gas wells as well as application of linear
analysis, curve fitting by using non-linear optimization and numerical simulation models suitable
for analysis of tight gas reservoirs.
In many tight gas wells, long-term linear flow occurs during depletion. This is not only
caused by a hydraulic fracture, but is probably caused by other factors such as anisotropy, high
permeability streaks (layered reservoirs), and naturally fractured reservoirs. With the several
causes of long-term linear flow in tight gas wells, a wrong idea and misinterpretation of
production and pressure data may originate.
The analysis of the behavior show that the usual transient well tests equations should be
used because they usually apply to constant rate conditions. Long-term production is more nearly
a constant pressure condition (assumed with decline curve analysis). The constant pressure
equations are presented here and compared with the constant rate equations. Type curves are
shown for the two cases.
 
A simple analysis can be made by finding the slope of a m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs. t plot
and detecting where the outer boundary effect occurs. With this information, values for k xe ,
drainage area, Vp and OGIP can be estimated without knowing permeability, k, or thickness, h.
This direct calculation (without k and h) is seems to be a coincidence of linear flow and is not
possible for other flow geometries. Example calculations are shown in actual field case.

Introduction
Tight gas wells are present in reservoirs where the reservoir rock has the property of low
permeability (k < 0.1 md). Linear flow regime has been reported to dominate in numerous
situations. It is especially an important flow regime associated with production from tight gas
reservoirs. In many tight gas wells, long-term linear flow occurs during depletion1.
Linear flow is characterized by half slope line when pressure or reciprocal of production
data are plotted versus time on log-log plot.
Long-term linear flow in tight gas reservoirs may be caused by anisotropy, naturally
fractures (or “dual-porosity”) reservoirs, linear or elongated reservoirs, high permeability streaks,
and hydraulic fracture (vertical wells intercepted by vertical, horizontal, or diagonal fractures,
and horizontal wells with fractures).

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 Numerous wells in tight gas reservoirs have long-term performance, which exhibit only
linear flow. These wells do not exhibit pseudo-radial flow2. With the several causes of long-term
linear flow in tight gas wells, a wrong idea and misinterpretation of production and pressure data
may originate.
Many gas wells have been observed which stay in the linear flow regime for several
years. These are very tight gas reservoirs with designed hydraulic fractures, which may extend to
or nearly to the drainage boundary of the well. For these wells, no pseudo-radial flow is
expected nor observed during the production period. Linear flow seems to be dominate the flow
regime throughout the well’s production life3.
Fig. 1 shows the geometry of a hydraulic fractured well whose fracture continue to the
lateral boundaries1,2. The well is in the center of a rectangular drainage area. From the center of
the rectangle, the fracture half-length is xf and continue to the boundary in the x direction, xe, this
means that xf = xe. The distance to the outer boundary in the direction perpendicular to the
fracture is ye. The drainage area of the well is 4 xe ye. For a square drainage shape with 80-acre
spacing, xf = xe = ye = 933.38 ft. The distance between wells is calculated as 1,866.76 ft. For
large dimensionless fracture conductivity (FCD > 50) the fracture is assumed to have infinite
conductivity, where dimensionless fracture conductivity is expressed by:

kf w
FCD  (1)
kx f

Under these conditions, the flow is linear and is perpendicular to the hydraulic fracture.
The flow geometry of Fig. 1 is simpler than most of the fractured well cases in the
petroleum literature. The technical literature has many complicated cases for fractured wells4-10.
The solutions for these cases are presented as type curves, tables, or sometimes as equations.
Usually the cases involve fractures in infinite reservoirs, which means that flow eventually
leaves the linear regime and then becomes pseudo-radial. Often the fracture is treated as having
limited conductivity. In addition, almost all of the type curves are for constant rate flow. Very
few of these type curves are for constant (wellbore) pressure, which is of interest for long-term
production analysis.
Apparently, the only solution published for the Fig. 1 problem is for a square with
constant flow rate11. This is a special case of a more general set of solutions. No solutions were
found for the rectangular case or the constant pressure case before 1998. The reason for this is
probably that the majority of the pressure analysis literature is directed toward pressure buildup
applications rather than long term performance. However, Wattenbarger et al.1,3 have adapted the
solutions of Miller12 and Nabor and Barham13 for fractured wells in the geometry of Fig. 1. They
included both the constant rate and constant pressure cases for linear flow in a rectangle. Their
equations provide tools for analyzing long term performance of tight gas wells.
The objectives of this work are focused on decline curve analysis methods for long-term
linear flow in fractured tight gas wells as well as application of linear analysis, curve fitting by
using non-linear optimization and numerical simulation models suitable for analysis of hydraulic
fractured tight gas reservoirs.

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 xf

Linear flow
ye

xe

Fig. 1 - Top view of a rectangular reservoir and a hydraulically fractured well which has only
linear flow into the fracture (xf = xe).

Literature review
The following citations from the literature support the earlier observation of the existence of
long-term linear flow in most of tight gas reservoir basins. Some articles reported that long-term
linear flow was continuous for years in a large amount of wells (50 or 60 % of wells).
Miller12 gave solutions for linear flow in aquifers. These solutions are for the infinite
acting and bounded aquifers for both the constant rate and constant pressure solutions.
Nabor and Barham13 generalized Miller’s solutions in dimensionless variables and
derived solutions for constant pressure outer boundary case. In linear heat conduction, Carslaw
and Jaeger14 present the mathematics for these solutions.
Bagnall and Ryan15 described some field cases that show linear flow trend in the
production data of Devonian shale cases. They concluded that Devonian shale gas production is
controlled largely by natural fracturing where the gas rate from such wells also is function on the
density and width of these natural fractures.
Boardman and Knutson16 recognized three kinds of behavior: linear, intermediate, and
near radial from the plots of cumulative gas production versus time of many Uinta basin wells.
However, most wells exhibited near linear flow for at least five years of production. They
reported that under conditions of radial flow, slopes are expected to be 1.0 and under conditions
of linear flow, 0.5.
Hale and Evers17 used numerical simulation to achieve type curves for vertically
fractured wells producing at constant rate or constant bottom-hole flowing pressure. They
3

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

discussed that the group of constant-pressure equations is unlike from the group of constant rate
equations. The authors also showed two field cases where linear flow occurred for 3 and 5 years
respectively. They commented that several tight gas wells in Wyoming prevail in linear flow for
years.
Kohlhaas and Abbott18 presented techniques for analyzing spherical and linear flow.
They also suggested that the pressure data should be plotted in different plots to help identify and
recognize the different flow periods. They explained that linear flow conditions develop early in
the life of wells, which have been hydraulically fractured or late in a well test after a period of
early radial flow due to certain configurations of reservoir geometry. They described massive
tight formations, which could be expected to have layers of higher permeability. The drop of
pressure in the higher permeability layers would then originate vertical linear flow into the
higher permeability layers. This effect would result in long-term linear performance.
Hale19 used different decline equations to analyze the production data of more than
6,000 gas wells in tight formations located in the Rocky Mountains. Most of these wells are
exploited from tight gas reservoirs and have been hydraulically fractured. Long-term linear flow
was registered in many wells in the area.
Stright and Gordon20 described long-term linear performance on tight gas wells in the
Picenace basin, which did not have particularly large fracture treatments. This linear flow for
many years cannot be attribute to hydraulic fracture treatments. They believed that this long-term
linear flow could be caused by natural fracturing in the formation originated by normal tectonic
processes in a relatively hard formation, thin high permeability streaks, and long narrow
reservoir shapes.
Ammer et al.21 used log-log plots of cumulative gas produced versus time to analyze the
production mechanisms of 284 producing wells in the Clinton formation of Eastern Ohio. The
production characteristics signified that the sandstone exhibits linear flow (½ slope) in 48% of
the wells, intermediate slopes (0.5-0.9) in 45% of the wells, and radial flow slope (0.9) in 7% of
the wells. Nearly all of the intermediate slopes were close-linear slopes.
Maley22 worked decline curves (hyperbolic equation) with b value higher than 1 to study
gas production data in tight reservoirs. He concluded that the hyperbolic equation is a better
estimator that the square root of time plot in the cases he analyzed. He explained that a b value of
2 and decline factor of 0.5/month give approximately a linear flow decline.
Nott and Hara23 used the Miller’s linear flow model to analyze production data from a
low permeability, high porosity, and hydraulically fractured reservoir. The fractures are of
infinite conductivity and extend to the drainage boundaries of the wells. After five years of
depletion, the reservoir is considered to be still in transient linear flow. They used the half slope
line developed on cumulative oil produced versus time plot to determine the fracture half-length.
They found that fracture half-length are comparable to the drainage boundaries dimensions
assigned to each well.
In a recent analysis of a field with about 60 wells 2, long-term linear flow was detected in
about one-third of the wells. Several of the other wells could not be analyzed because of severe
rate fluctuations generated by gas market constraints. None of the wells showed pseudo-radial
flow theoretically expected in wells with hydraulic fractures.
El-Banbi and Wattenbarger24 presented practical approach to analyze both pressure (well
testing) and production (decline curve analysis) data which is influenced by linear flow. They
pointed out that constant rate solutions are different from the constant pressure solution and the
4

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

use of wrong equations in the analysis of tight gas wells may result in errors as high as 60%.
They also showed the application of techniques in analyzing actual production data.

Linear Flow Solutions for Fractured Wells

The following equations apply for linear flow into a fracture. These equations strictly
apply to the liquid case, but they can be used for gas wells with good accuracy if dimensionless
gas pseudo-pressure25, mD (for gas), is substituted for dimensionless pressure, pD (for liquid).
In this section, we are showing the solutions for two inner boundary conditions, which
are constant rate and constant pwf, and closed reservoir outer boundary condition.

Complete Solutions. For linear flow into fractured wells, the following equations apply to all
times. Eq. 2 is the solution for constant rate production from a closed linear reservoir.

  1  ye   xe   1  ye    1   2

2 2  xe 
pwD        t Dx e       2  exp  n    t Dx e  (2)
2  3  xe   ye     xe  n 1  n    ye  

Eq. 3 shows the solution for constant pwf production from a closed linear reservoir.

1   ye  1
   (3)
qD 4  xe    n 2 2  x  2 
 exp 

  e
 t
4  ye  e 
Dx 
n odd


In Eqs. 2 and 3 the dimensionless variables are represented by:

k h ( pi  pwf )
pwD  (4)
. qo Bo o
1412

1 k h ( pi  pwf )
 (5)
qD 1412. qo Bo o

0.00633k t
t D xe  (6)
  o ct xe 2

The units used are k in md, h in ft, p in psi, qo in STB/D, Bo in rb/STB, t in days,  o in cp, ct in
psi-1, and xe in ft. We observe that the definitions of pwD and 1/qD seem to be equal. In the pwD
case pwf varies while in the 1/qD case qo varies.

The following solutions are simplified forms for short and late time flow.

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

Early or short time linear flow approximations. Eq. 7 is the infinite-acting linear solution for
constant rate production from a closed linear reservoir, which applies to early times for both
uniform flux and infinite conductivity case.

pwD   t Dx e (7)

Eq. 7 is the linear flow (half slope) solution for tDxe < 0.01 with flow into both sides of the
fracture. Eq. 8 is the infinite-acting linear solution for constant pressure from a closed linear
reservoir.

1 
  t Dxe (8)
qD 2

Where the dimensionless variables are shown from Eqs. 4 to 6. Both constant rate and constant
pwf cases have different infinite-acting solutions that differ by a factor of /2. However, the
equivalent two equations are identical for the pseudo radial flow solution in the semi-log
straight-line region defined by Eq. 9.

1 1
pwD   ln(t D )  0.4045 (9)
qD 2

Long-term or late time linear flow approximations. The outer boundary at ye is reach at long
times. Later, the well behaves as either boundary dominated flow for the constant rate (pseudo-
steady state) or outer boundary-dominated flow for the constant pwf case. Eqs. 10 and 11 are the
approximations for closed reservoir for constant rate and constant pressure respectively, in
dimensionless forms, and referenced the initial reservoir pressure.

  xe   y 
pwD    t Dxe   e  (10)
2  ye  6  xe 

and
1   ye   2  xe 
2

   exp    t Dx e  (11)
qD 4  xe   4  ye  

Both Eqs. 10 and 11 can be expressed as stabilized flow and a productivity index
equation would be developed. The stabilized production rate, in terms of average pressure, p ,
for constant rate in filed units is expressed as:

kh( p  pwf )
qo  (12)
   y 
141.2 Bo o   e 
 6  xe 
6

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

and the stabilized production rate, in terms of average pressure, p , for constant pressure in field
units is:

kh( p  pwf )
qo  (13)
 2  y 
141.2 Bo o   e 
  xe 

The most important use of the long-term approximations is in the form of productivity index
equations. The productivity index equation is expressed as:

q
J  (14)
( p  pwf )

If the drainage volumes are known, average pressure, p , can be estimated by material balance
calculations.
Expressions 12 and 13 would be represented in different equations for productivity index.
Substituting Eqs. 12 and 13 into Eq. 14 give us Eqs. 15 and 16 showing the expressions for
constant rate and constant pressure production, respectively.

kh
J CR  (15)
  y 
141.2 Bo o   e 
 6  xe 
and

kh
J CP  (16)
 2  y 
141.2 Bo o   e 
  xe 

The pressure profiles versus distance, x, for Eqs. 12 and 13 are not equal. The constant
rate case (Eq. 12) has a parabola shape for these late times. At various long times these profiles
are parallel, typical of pseudo-steady state. On the other hand, the constant pwf case (Eq. 13) has a
shape that is proportional to sin(x/2ye) function at late times14. These different shapes result in
different relationships between ( p -pwf) and q, as pointed by the difference in Eqs. 12 and 13.
We can evaluate the ratio of productivity index for constant rate production, JCR, to the
productivity index for constant pressure, JCP. This ratio of productivity is estimated as:

J CR 12
  1.216 (17)
J CP 2

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

This means that this difference is significant and we should use the correct expression for long-
term production forecasting. Wattenbarger2 explains that long-term performance is generally at
constant pwf and the value of JCP should be used because will give lower values of production
rates.

Type curve analysis. Wattenbarger et al.3 developed a practical way to use these solutions
through log-log type curves. If in complete solutions for constant rate (Eq. 2) and for constant
pressure (Eq. 3) we use tDye rather than tDxe we can develop, the following solutions for closed
reservoirs for constant and constant pressure, respectively.

 xe   1
 

  pwD    t Dy e    1
1
2 3  
  n 2 

exp  n 2 2t Dy e (18)
 ye  n 1

and

 xe  1  1
   (19)
 
y q 4 
 n 2 2 
e D
 exp  t Dye 
n odd  4 

where the dimensionless time, tDye, is expressed as Eq. 20.

2
0.00633k t  xe 
tD ye     t Dxe (20)
  ct ye 2  ye 

Eq. 6 can be expressed as Eq. 21 as:

2
0.00633k t  ye 
t D xe     t Dye (21)
  ct xe 2  xe 

Fig. 2 shows a type curve for both constant rate and constant pressure cases for all times
of significance (complete solution). This plot is done by using Eqs. 18 and 19, in which we can
plot tDye versus (xe / ye)pwD and (xe / ye)(1/qD) rather than pwD and 1/qD. This procedure gives us
only one curve for each case, for any rectangular geometry, rather than series of curves.
In the constant rate case, Eq. 21 can be substituted in both the early infinite-acting
solution (Eq. 7) and the later outer boundary-dominated solution (Eq. 10) to obtain Eqs. 22 and
23, respectively.

 xe 
  pwD   t Dy e (22)
 ye 

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

  xe   
  pwD  t Dy e  (23)
 ye  2 6

1000
Exponential

100
(xe/ye) pwD or (xe/ye)(1/qD)

Constant Pressure
Drawdown Slope = 1
10

(tDye)ehs = 1/4
Constant Rate
Drawdown
1

(tDye)ehs =1/2

0.1
Slopes = 1/2

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDye

Fig. 2 – This plot shows linear flow type curve for constant production rate and constant pressure
for closed reservoirs.

Similarly, for constant pressure case Eq. 21 is substituted in both the early infinite-acting
solution (Eq. 8) and the later outer boundary-dominated solution (Eq. 11) to obtain Eqs. 24 and
25, respectively

 xe  1 
    t Dy e (24)
 e D
y q 2

 xe  1   2 
   exp  t Dye  (25)
 ye  q D 4 4 

We can see that Fig. 2 shows the equation forms of the short and long term solutions
(Eqs. 22 to 25). Figs. 3 and 4 show type curves for both constant rate (Eqs. 2, 7, and 10) and
constant pressure drawdown (Eqs. 3, 8, and 11), respectively. These type curves are drawn for
tDxe versus selected values of (xe / ye) for the two cases.
In the log-log plot of difference in pressure or reciprocal of production rate versus time
(type curves in Figs. 2 to 4) we can see an important particularity that they all bend upward when
the outer boundary is reached. This behavior is the contrary of the pseudo-radial flow when the
9

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

curves tend bend downward in fractured wells26,27. Wattenbarger et al.3 mentioned that this shape
difference may be important in analyzing actual data. This behavior is reversed when we plot
production rate, rather than reciprocal of rate, versus time (Fig. 5).

100

(xe/ye) = 1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/6 1/10

10
pwD

Slope = 1/2

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
tDxe

Fig. 3 – Log-log plot that shows linear flow type curve for constant production rate and closed
reservoirs.

End of the Half-Slope. A significant particularity of the type curves in Fig. 2 is the end of the
half-slope straight line or end of the infinite acting linear flow. In analysis of field data, this end
of the half slope would be used to evaluate reservoir magnitude. For the constant rate case the
end of the half slope is (tDye)ehs = ½ and for the constant pressure case is (tDye)ehs = ¼. Both
numerical values are taken to be values where the curves visibly leave from the half slope
straight line. These values are useful for the objective of founding minimum drainage areas from
actual data.

Decline curve. Fig. 5 shows a log-log decline curve for the constant pressure production solution
evaluated by using Eq. 19. These values of qD / xe ye  are reciprocal of the values that were
shown in Fig. 2. Easily we can use this type curve for long-term performance where pwf is
constant throughout the observed history. In comparison with other plots (Figs. 2 to 4), this plot
is more useful as a qualitative tool.

10

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

Gas Wells Solutions
The solutions from Figs. 2 to 5 were developed for liquid flow. These type curves can be
modified to gas flow by using the real gas pseudo-pressure defined by Al-Hussainy et al.25 and
defined as follows:

p
p
m( p )  2  dp (26)
po
z

To obtain the gas solutions pwD is replaced by mwD in the liquid solutions. The mwD parameter is
defined as follows.

k h [m( pi )  m( pwf )]
mwD  (27)
1424 q g T

100

(xe/ye) = 1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/6 1/10

10
1/qD

Slope = 1/2

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxe

Fig. 4 – This plot shows linear flow type curve for constant pressure drawdown and closed
reservoirs.

The reciprocal of the dimensionless flow rate 1/qD is defined as:

1 k h [m( pi )  m( pwf )]
 (28)
qD 1424 qgT
11

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

The dimensionless times can be defined in function of initial fluid properties as follows:

0.00633k t
t D xe  (29)
(ct )i xe
2

0.00633k t
tD ye  (30)
(  ct )i ye
2

In gas fluid for transient flow, the liquid formulations can be applied very accurately.
These liquid solutions have been previously shown and are plotted in the type curves. This has
been determined for a number of well flow problems over the years3.

100

Slopes = 1/2
10

Constant Pressure
Drawdown
1
qD/ (xe/ye)

(tDye)ehs = 1/4
0.1

0.01
Exponential

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
tDye

Fig. 5 – This plot shows a log-log decline curve for constant pressure production and closed
linear reservoirs.

Therefore, for the infinite-acting t performance Eqs. 26 to 30 behave very well. However,
these solutions do not match very well after the outer boundary effects have been felt for a long-
term period due to changes in gas properties. Fig. 6 shows the comparison of simulating gas well
behavior and the analytic liquid solutions for a long-term period. In this plot we can see that due
of fluid property variation the gas case begins to depart from the liquid solution at a
dimensionless time near of 5.0. This departure occurs at about ten times the time when the outer
boundary effects where first seen. Wattenbarger2 explains that the actual time of departure is
function on the gas properties of the case studied. If these solutions (Eqs. 26 to 30) are used in
12

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

forecasting, then Fraim and Wattenbarger normalized time28 should be used to fix these changes
in gas properties.

Analysis of Field Data

With the above solutions, there are several ways to analyze gas well field data. The
following is a methodology of analysis that will be used to study field examples.

100

10
(xf /ye) pD

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDye

Fig. 6 –Because of fluid property variation numerical simulation results by

using GASSIM3B (dots) show departure from analytic solution after tDye = 5.0

Linear analysis.
Log-log decline curve plot. The first stage is to make a log-log plot of either for
constant rate production a plot of pseudo-pressure difference divided by rate,
 
m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg , versus time, t, or for constant pressure production a plot of decline curve of
gas rate, qg, or m( p )  m( p )/ q
i wf versus time, t. This plot is recommended particularly if a
g

number of wells are being investigated. This is a simple plot and will show indications of linear
flow if the plot has a “half slope”. Of course, the analysis of this plot assumes that pwf is constant
for the constant pressure production case, and that qg is constant for the constant rate production.
Many wells may have periods where the well pressure varies or the well is shut in
because of market contracts, curtailment, etc. For these arguments, the half-slope may not
13

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

always be visible or steady for the life of the well, even if the well is completely linear flow.
Therefore, the log-log decline curve plot should be considered a screening devise rather than a
definitive quantitative analysis3.
Fig. 7 displays a semi-log decline curve showing a semi-log plot of gas rate versus time
for well J-7. This well has produced for 22.7 years. Daily rates are plotted. There were no
recorded pressures in the early years, but it was assumed that pressure was constant throughout
the producing time. We can see that this plot looks like a typical hyperbolic decline curve.
Fig. 8 shows a diagnostic plot of log-log decline curve (production rate versus time) for
this well. The gas production rate follows a negative “half-slope” behavior for most of its life.
This pattern would be typical of linear flow with constant bottom-hole pressure. Actually, we can
see that the data starts bending down after about fifteen years. Applying our linear flow analysis
shows that the well found the outer boundary at the distance ye at this time. We can see that well
J-7 is not tending toward pseudo-steady state since that would make the curve bend upward from
the half-slope, and not downward.

Fig. 7 - Semi-log decline curve that shows gas rate versus time in years for well J-7.

We can see for this well we need additional analysis and finally we need to use numerical
reservoir simulation to confirm linear flow behavior. This is necessary because the variation of
production rates and possible variation of pressures must have some effect on the decline curve.
In this case, nonetheless, the log-log decline curve seems to be a good and easy analysis tool for
well J-7.
 
Specialized plot of m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs. t . The square-root of time, t , plot is a
specialized and more definitive plot to identify the linear flow behavior. A straight line of the

14

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

  
pseudo-pressure difference divided by rate, m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs. t plot, either for the
constant rate or the constant pressure case is equivalent to the half-slope period of a log-log
period. This plot tends to account for rate and pressure variation if neither of them is exactly
constant; at least this is true for radial flow, which has equivalent solutions for constant rate or
constant pressure. We can deduce that this plot is simple and it avoids more complicated
superposition techniques. This procedure works well for several cases.
 
The slope of the straight line of m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs. t for the constant rate and
constant pressure is determined from the plot. This slope is evaluated by using Eqs. 31 and 32 for
constant rate and constant pressure cases, respectively.

Fig. 8 - Log-log diagnostic plot that shows gas production data versus time for well J-7 (decline
curve).

200.8107 T
mCR  (31)
(ct )i k xe h

315.4327 T
mCP  (32)
(ct )i k xe h

 
Fig. 9 shows a plot of qg and m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg versus t and Fig. 10 is a plot of both
m( p )  m( p )/ q
i wf g and Gp versus t , both plots are for a period of 24 years. We can see in
15

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

Fig. 10 the cumulative gas production, Gp, is also a straight line when plotted vs. t . The slope
of the cumulative curve is 2/mCP. This tends to smooth the data, but subtleties in the boundary
effect may not be seen as well.

1.E+04 3.E+07

qg mcp = 22x106 (psia2-D1/2)/(Mscf-cp)

[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg

[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg (psia -D/Mscf-cp)

1.E+03 2.E+07
qg (Mscf/D)

2
1.E+02 1.E+07

1.E+01 0.E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1/2 1/2
time (days )

Fig. 9 – Plot of qg and m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs.   t for well J-7 that gives a slope
mCP = 2.2x105 D1/2psia2/Mscf-cp

Calculation of k xe , kxe2 , or k AC products. We can estimate k xe , kxe2 , and

 
k AC , from the slope of m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs. t , mCR by using Eqs. 33 to 35 for constant
rate case, respectively. We need to know the slope, mCR, and values for other reservoir
parameters.

200.8107  T 
k xe    (33)
(ct )i  mCR h 

2
40,324.94  T 
kx  2

ct i  mCRh 
e (34)

803.2427  T 
k AC    (35)
(ct )i  mCR 

16

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

For constant pressure production, values of k xe , kxe2 , and k AC are evaluated from the slope
 
of m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs. t , mCP by using Eqs. 36 to 38, respectively. We need to know the
slope, mCP, and values for other reservoir parameters.

3.E+07 2,000

[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg
Gp
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg (psia -D/Mscf-cp)

1,500

2.E+07

Gp (MMscf)
2

1,000

1.E+07
6 2 1/2
mcp = 22x10 (psia -D )/(Mscf-cp) 500

0.E+00 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1/2 1/2
time (days )

Fig. 10 – Specialized plot that shows Gp and m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs.   t for well J-7.

315.4327  T 
k xe    (36)
(ct )i  mCP h 

2
99,497.76  T 
kx 
2

ct i  mCPh 
e (37)

1261.7308  T 
k AC    (38)
(ct )i  mCP 

Where in Eqs. 35 and 38, AC is the cross-section area to flow and it is given as follows:

AC  4 xe h (39)

17

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 All these expressions (Eqs. 33 to 38) request that permeability be known to evaluate xe or
Ac. The calculations of xe or AC are very difficult, unless k is known independently.
It should be emphasis that constant pressure equations (Eqs. 36 to 38) are not the same as
the equations used for buildup analysis (constant rate, Eqs. 33 to 35). These expressions differ by
the factor of /2.

Calculation of distance of investigation. The distance, ye, can be determined by finding

the end of the half-slope line, tehs, and comparing this time, in days, to the corresponding
dimensionless time, tDye. The value of (t Dye )ehs for the constant rate case is (tDye)ehs is ½, and for
the constant pressure case is (tDye)ehs is ¼. By using Eqs. 40 and 41 we can evaluate the
corresponding distance to the outer boundary for the constant rate and constant pressure cases,
respectively.

k tehs
ye  0.1125 (40)
(ct )i

k tehs
ye  0.1591 (41)
(ct )i

The boundary distance evaluated with Eqs. 40 and 41 can be considered minimum values
if all the history data is still on the half-slope trend. If our well performance is still on the half-
slope trend, the latest production time is used instead of tehs in Eqs. 40 and 41. This would be the
distance of investigation at the current time. This expression requires that permeability be
known. Of course, this may be not a strong point in estimating ye by this procedure since
permeability may be uncertain. Because in Eqs. 33 to 38 is difficult to separate k form xe and AC.
Thus, the value of ye is function on the value selected for xe and AC.

Calculation of drainage area. We can use Eq. 40 or 41 and substitute for k in Eq. 35 or
38, respectively. The advantage is that we can develop Eqs. 42 and 43 to calculate directly the
drainage area for constant rate and constant pressure, respectively.

90.3648  T 
A  4 xe ye    tehs (42)
(ct )i  mCR h 

200.7699  T 
A  4 xe ye    tehs (43)
(ct )i  mCP h 

Where in Eqs. 42 and 43, A is the drainage area and it is given as follows:

A  4 xe ye (44)

18

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

In Eqs. 40 and 41 we don’t need to know a value of k or xe to estimate A. The drainage area, A, is
estimated in ft2 but can be changed to acres by dividing by 43,560. If the well performance is
still in the half-slope period, the latest time is used in Eqs. 42 and 43 for constant rate and
constant pressure, respectively, and the drainage area is assumed to be minimum.

Calculation of pore volume, Vp. We can get a direct determination Vp, if we multiply
Eqs. 42 or 43 by porosity, , and height, h. This may be a good advantage, since  and h are
often not known in tight gas reservoirs. The Vp equations for constant rate and constant pressure
are, respectively:

90.3648  T 
Vp    tehs (45)
( ct )i  mCR 

200.7699  T 
Vp    tehs (46)
( ct )i  mCP 

Alternatively, simply we can use Eq. 47.

V p  Ah  (47)

Calculation of original gas in place, OGIP. Once the pore volume is calculated, then
OGIP can be directly evaluated using Eq. 48.

V p (1  S w )
OGIP  (48)
B gi

The evaluation of OGIP is insensitive to the value of water saturation, Sw, used, if gas
compressibility, cg, dominates. We can estimate a precise value of OGIP without actually having
good knowledge of permeability, k, thickness, h, water saturation, Sw, and porosity, .

Curve fitting analysis by using non-linear optimization.

In the next stage, we need to match the gas production information by using different
models where long-term linear flow performance is shown. In this stage, we used a computer
program in Visual Basic of Excel that uses several models for liner flow. We used the curve
fitting technique to determine the best value of k AC , yeAC, and OGIP parameters. Gas
properties needed for calculation are z-factor, g, cg, and Bg, which are calculated by using
correlations29-31. Next, we evaluate pseudo-pressures information and dimensionless variables.

History matching by using reservoir simulation. The linear analysis and curve fitting analysis
should be accurate if all the assumed conditions are completely met. In the example well
presented here, the reservoir-fracture system seems to behave totally linear flow. This means that
pseudo-radial flow regime was not identified. If either constant rate or constant flowing pressure
19

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

conditions are not ideal in the actual flowing conditions, we should use history matching by
using reservoir simulation in order to confirm or modify the linear and curve fitting analyses 1-3.
Even if the reservoir-fracture system seems to behave totally linear flow and not pseudo-radial
flow regime is identified
GASSIM simulator in its 3B version (GASSIM3B) was used in this step. GASSIM3B is a
single-phase simulator for simulating real gas flow. It is a two-dimensional reservoir simulator
that can work with x-y or r-z geometries32.

Example Application
Case 1. This example assumes a well with hydraulic fracture and infinite fracture
conductivity in a rectangular reservoir (Fig. 1). .
The case shows the application of the procedure described above for well J-7, which is a
tight gas well in a field in South Texas. The well has been producing for more than 22 years
without hydraulic fracture. Gas rates in monthly basis are the only production data available
among some reservoir and fluid properties. Reservoir and fluid data are given in Table 1.

Table 1 - Reservoir and Fluid data for well J-7.

gas specific gravity (air = 1), g 0.717
o
initial temperature, T 290 F
initial pressure, p i 8,800 psia
pseudo-pressure at p i , m(p i ) 26.66x108 psi2/cp
bottom-hole flowing pressure, p wf 1,600 psia
pseudo-pressure at p wf , m(p wf ) 1.683x108 psi2/cp
formation porosity,  0.15
average water saturation, S w 0.47
formation net pay thickness, h 92 ft
gas viscosity at p i , g 0.0359 cp
gas FVF at p i , B gi 0.00314108 rcf/scf
-6
water compressibility at p i , c w 4.1x10 1/psia
-6
formation compressibility, c f 4.08x10 1/psia
-6
gas compressibility at p i , c g 55.25x10 1/psia
-6
total compressibility, c t 35.2895x10 1/psia

Fig. 7 displays a semi-log decline curve of gas rate versus time for well J-7. The
fluctuations in the production rate were caused by shut-ins. Unfortunately, we do not have much
data about those shut-in periods.
Fig. 8 shows a log-log decline curve for this well. The gas production rate follows a
negative “half slope” behavior for most of its life. For this well this negative half-slope is a
confirmation that linear flow existed for long-term. We can see that the data starts bending down
after about fifteen years. The well found the outer boundary at the distance ye at this time. The
estimated value for tehs is 5,625 days. The production data for well J-7 after this time bend
downward due to boundary effects.
For this well we need additional analysis and finally we need to use numerical reservoir
simulation to confirm linear flow behavior. This is necessary because the variation of production
20

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

rates and possible variation of pressures must have some effect on the decline curve. In this
case, nonetheless, the log-log decline curve seems to be a good and easy analysis tool for well J-
7.
 
Figs. 9 and 10 show both plots of qg and m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg vs. t , and Gp and
m( p )  m( p )/ q
i wf g vs. t , respectively. The m( pi )  m( pwf )/ qg ratio and Gp plot (Fig. 10)
follow a straight line when plotted vs. t . This behavior is another confirmation that linear flow
dominates the production performance of the well. The oscillations in gas rate were caused by
shut-ins. The slope of the cumulative curve in Fig. 10 is 2/mCP and the effect of the boundary was
 
not seen in the Gp plot. For this well J-7, the value of slope in the m( pi )  m( pwf ) / qg straight
line was estimated to be 2.2x105 D1/2psia2/Mscf-cp from Fig. 9. The constant pressure case is
used despite pressure may have changes somewhat over the years.
The k xe , and kxe2 products are estimated by using Eqs. 36 and 37, respectively.

315.4327  (290  459.67) 

k xe   
(0.15)(0.0359)(35.2895x10 6 )  (2.2 x10 )(92) 
5

Or,

k xe  26.801 md 1 / 2 ft

And,

kxe2  718.2927 md ft 2

Now, unless we have an independent value of k, the calculation of ye is arbitrary.

However, we can still determine the drainage area, A, by using Eq. 43 as follows:

200.7699  (250  459.67) 

A 6   (5,625)
(0.15)(0.0359)(35.2895  10 )  (2.2 x105 )(92) 

Or,

A  2,778,270.90 ft 2
This drainage area is equal to 63.78 acres (2,778,270.9/43,560). This is the minimum area of
drainage that was established at 5,625 days. According to this procedure, this means that in 15.4
years, that drainage area has been depleted.

Next, the pore volume is evaluated by using either Eq. 46 or Eq. 47.

21

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 200.7699  (250  459.67) 
Vp  6   5,625
(0.0359)(35.2895  10 )  (2.2 x105 ) 

Or,

Vp  Ah   (2,778,270.90)(92)(0.15)  3.8340x107 rcf

However, OGIP can be evaluated directly without knowing k and h by using Eq. 46. This is a
real benefit, since k and h values are often uncertain for tight gas wells.

(3.8340  107 )(10.47)

OGIP   6.47  109 scf  6.47 Bcf
(0.00314108)

In function of the above plots, it is evident that well J-7 has been exploiting with the domain of
linear flow.

Case 2. In this case, we assumed a hydraulically fractured well in a square drainage area
of 80 acres (Fig. 11). The well is located in the center of a square. From the center of the square
the xf extends to the boundary in the x direction, xe, where xf = xe. The distance to the outer
boundary in the direction perpendicular to the fracture is ye, so xe = ye the drainage area of the
well is 4 xe xe. The xe = ye distance is evaluated as:

A (80)(43,560)
xe    933.38 ft (48)
4 4

For a square drainage shape with 80 acres spacing, xf = xe = ye = 933.38 ft. The distance
between wells is calculated as 1,866.76 ft. The fracture is assumed to have infinite conductivity.
With these conditions, again the flow is linear and is perpendicular to the fracture.
The k AC product value is estimated by using Eqs. 38 as follows.

1261.7308  (290  460) 

k AC   
(0.15)(0.0359)(35.316 x10 6 )  (2.2 x10 ) 
5

Or,

k AC  9,878.31 md 1 / 2 ft 2

The AC can be calculated directly by using Eq. 39 as:

AC  4(933.38)(92)  343,483.84 ft 2

22

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

This area is equal to 7.89 acres. Now, we can calculate k from Eq. 49.

2
 k AC 
2

  
9,878.31 
k      0.000827 md (49)
 AC   343,483.84 

1,866.76 ft xf

Linear flow ye

xe

Fig. 11 - Areal view of a square reservoir geometry and a hydraulically fractured well which has
only linear flow into the fracture (xf = xe = ye ).

Curve fitting procedure. We used the curve fitting analysis by using non-linear optimization
procedure to determine the best value of k AC , yeAC, and OGIP parameters. Table 1 shows the
data of well J-7 that were used to determine gas properties by using correlations. Figs. 12 and 13
are semilog and log-log plots of production data versus time for well J-7, respectively.
Fig. 14 is a log-log plot of 1/qD vs. tD for the same well. All these plots show the
comparison between actual data and analytical results for constant pressure case.
By using curve fitting analysis for case 1 we found a k = 0.0006067 md, AC = 426,876.33
ft2, and L = xe = 652.98 ft. With these information the following calculated parameters were
obtained: k AC  10,514.51 md 1 / 2 ft 2 , yeAC = 278,741,706 ft3, and OGIP  7.055 Bscf .
Similarly, for case 2 with AC = 343,344 ft2 and ye = 933 ft we determined a k = 0.000876 md.

Confirmation with history matching by using reservoir simulation. In all the plots presented
here for well J-7, the tight gas reservoir seems to behave totally linear flow. This means that
pseudo-radial flow regime was not identified. However, in some tight gas wells either constant
rate or constant flowing pressure conditions can be not ideal. In some examples, the actual
producing conditions are not even close to either case constant pressure or constant rate.
23

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

Therefore, history matching by using reservoir simulation was necessary in order to confirm or
modify the linear and curve fitting analyses.

10,000

Actual
Constant pwf Analytical

1,000
qg (Mscf/D)

100

10
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (years)

Fig. 12 – Semilog plot that shows production data vs. time showing the comparison between
actual data and analytical results for constant pressure case.

For our well J-7 example, daily average rates were input data into GASSIM3B simulator
along with other reservoir and fluid data. Bottom flowing pressure was then estimated for each
timestep. To fit the history data the reservoir-fracture data were changed.
The plot of comparing both the history and simulated [m(pi)-m(pwf)] / qg vs. t is shown
in Fig. 15 for case 1. The modified data which were used for the history match results in Fig. 15
were k = 0.000607 md, xe = 1,124 ft, and ye = 646 ft giving A = 66.7 acres. The values of k and
xe matched value of kxe2 was 766.9 md ft2. These values are slightly different from the linear,
curve fitting analyses, and may require filtering.
Fig. 16 displays history match of qg and m(p)/qg vs. t1/2 by using simulation for case 2.
To fit the history data only the permeability data was changed. The modified permeability data
which was used for the history match process was k = 0.00075 md having xe = ye = 933.38 ft,
and A = 80 acres. This value of k matched values of kxe2 of 654 md ft2 , and k AC of 9,407
md1/2 ft2. These values are different from the linear, curve fitting analyses, and may require
filtering.
Fig. 17 shows a comparison plot among actual data, constant pressure analytical and
simulation results of production data versus time for well J-7. We can see a slightly difference

24

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

between analytical and simulation results. This difference may be due to non-linearity of the
solutions.

10,000

Actual datal
Constant pwf Analytical

1,000
qg (Mscf/D)

100

10
10 100 1,000 10,000
time (days)

Fig. 13 – Log-log plot that shows the comparison between actual data and constant pressure
analytical for well J-7.

Discussion
The analysis procedure presented in this section is appropriate for many fractured low
permeability or tight gas wells. Both aspects the increase use of long hydraulic fractures and
more close well spacing will tend to achieve the conditions of this linear flow analysis procedure.
The analysis procedure is not complicated but may have comprehensive application when
real data are used. It is important to discuss several situations of its application.
Wattenbarger2 mentioned that in a current study of a field with near of 60 gas wells, long
time linear flow was detected in about one-third of these wells. He explained that large numbers
of the other wells could not be studied under this linear flow method because of critical gas rate
changes caused by gas market constraints. However, none of these wells showed pseudo-radial
flow, which is theoretically anticipated in tight gas wells with hydraulic fractures.

Limited fracture conductivity. The procedure analysis presented here has been for infinite
fracture conductivity. Recalling Eq. 1 we can note that when formation permeability is
extremely low, the fracture conductivity will behave as relatively high in most cases.

25

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 kf w
FCD  (1)
kx f

100
Actual
Constant pwf Analytical

10
1/qD

0
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
tD

Fig. 14 - Log-log plot of 1/qD vs. tD that shows the comparison between actual data and
analytical results for constant pressure case.

If the conductivity of the fracture is considerably low (FCD less than 50) then this would
look like as a skin in long-term production performance. Agarwal, et al33 analyzed this behavior
in massive hydraulic fracturing of low-permeability gas wells. In a plot of [m(pi) - m(pwf)]/qg vs.
t this type of behavior would be recognizable by a non-zero intercept on the y axis.
In our well J-7 this intercept was not detected. However, it should be accepted that the
short-time behavior was frequently interrupted by the effects of opening a new well on
production. Bilinear flow was detected in early flow of buildup tests on well J-7, implying that
the conductivity of the fracture was reduced2. Still, this bilinear flow was not detected on the
long time performance.

Some possible causes for linear flow behavior

Fractured well in a tight reservoir. Wells have been observed which stay in the linear
flow regime for several years. These are very tight gas reservoirs with appropriated fractures,
which may extend to the drainage boundary of the well. Fig. 1 shows the geometry of a fractured
well in a tight gas reservoir. The fracture is considered to have infinite conductivity. The fracture
length extends all the way to the drainage boundary. With these conditions, the flow is linear and
is perpendicular to the fracture. For these wells, no pseudo-radial flow is expected nor detected

26

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

during the production period. This may not appear to be logical in some cases. However, there
may be other justifications for seeing this type of linear flow.

1.E+04 3.E+07
qg, History
Slope
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg, History
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg, Simulation 3.E+07

[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg (psia2-D/Mscf-cp)
1.E+03 2.E+07
qg (Mscf/D)

2.E+07

1.E+02 1.E+07

5.E+06

1.E+01 0.E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1/2 1/2
time (days )

Fig. 15 – Semilog plot that shows history match of m(p)/qg vs. t1/2 by using simulation for case
1. The matched parameters are k = 0.000607 md, xe = 1,124 ft, ye = 646 ft to give kxe2 = 767 md-
ft2 and A= 66.68 acres.

Natural fracturing and anisotropy permeability. Long-term linear behavior on tight

gas wells, which did not have particularly large fracture treatments, has been reported 20. In this
case, long-term linear flow may be generated by natural fracturing in the formation originated by
normal tectonic processes in a relatively hard formation. These fractures would tend to be
parallel to the fracture plane and would assist linear flow even if the fracture length were limited.
Fig. 18 shows how directional fractures in a reservoir would tend to change the reservoir into an
equivalent “long, skinny” reservoir. The sketch on the left shows natural fracture oriented in the
x direction. After the equivalent transformation, which accounts for the anisotropic permeability,
the dimensions in the x- direction will be changed to:

~ 1/ 4
k  ky 
~
xe  xe  xe   (50)
kx  kx 

While the dimensions in the y- direction will be changed to

27

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 ~  kx 
1/ 4
k
~
ye  ye  ye   (51)
ky k 
 y

1.E+04 3.E+07
qg, History
Slope
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg, History
[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg, Simulation 3.E+07

[m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg (psia -D/Mscf-cp)

1.E+03 2.E+07

2
qg (Mscf/D)

2.E+07

1.E+02 1.E+07

5.E+06

1.E+01 0.E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1/2 1/2
time (days )

Fig. 16 – Plot that shows history match of qg and m(p)/qg vs. t1/2 by using simulation for case 2.
The matched permeability is 0.00075 md.

It is likely that anisotropy is sometimes much more severe than this example. The
estimated k xe from either Eqs. 33 or 36 would be the product of the square root of the
equivalent permeability expressed by Eq. 52 ant the transformed dimension ~
x . e

~
k  kxk y (52)

However, the drainage area, A, and the resultantly pore volume, Vp, and the OGIP are properly
evaluated even with this anisotropy.

High permeability streaks. One more possible reason for linear flow performance other
than the geometry of Figs. 1 or 18 would be massive tight formations, which could be expected
to have layers of higher permeability18. In this case, the drop of pressure in the higher
permeability layers would then cause vertical linear flow into the higher permeability layers.
This would result in long-term linear behavior. Fig. 19 exhibits a sketch of this situation of
vertical linear flow.

28

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 10,000
Actual
Simulation, Constant pwf, k = 0.00029 md
Constant pwf Analytical, k = 0.000607 md

1,000
qg (Mscf/D)

100

10
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
time (days)

Fig. 17 – Semilog plot that shows the comparison among actual data, analytical and simulation
results of gas rate vs. time for constant pressure in well J-7.

Layered reservoirs. If well produces from multiple layers, it would still appear as linear
flow if flow were infinite-acting in all layers. The k xe product would be a thickness weighted
average summation of these values for the individual layers (Eq. 4-53).
n

j 1
k j xej
k xe  n
(53)
h j 1
j

Determination of fracture length. The fracture length is a continual confuses for a fractured
well. In the fractured well analysis presented here, it is seen that the k xf product is estimated
from the well performance. The normal thought is that permeability must be evaluated from a
pre-frac buildup test. Wattenbarger et al.1 explain that this would apply well in a simple
reservoir, but it is expected that large number of low permeability reservoirs will behave a
multiple-layered reservoir. For these situations, the permeability averaging that is estimated
before the fracture treatment and the k xf averaging that is estimated after the fracture treatment
may not be correlated. Some type curves of complex cases may assist this situation but the
estimated results may not be with unique solution.

29

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 kx > k y xe

ye

ye

Geometry for equivalent

isotropic reservoir
Actual anisotropic geometry

xe

Fig. 18 – This picture shows the effect of anisotropy from natural fractures on equivalent
reservoir geometry.

Fig. 19 – This sketch shows vertical linear flow into a high permeability layer.

30

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

Forecasting. Once original gas in place, OGIP, has been evaluated, forecasting is simple. We
need to use the most current data, which has an honorable value of stabilized rate and bottom-
hole pressure. From this, a productivity index can be determined directly, based on Eq. 54,

qg
J CP 
m( p)  m( p )
wf
(54)

where the average pressure, p , is estimated from material balance calculations, using actual gas
cumulative production, Gp. The forecasting process is estimated by applying material balance
and gas productivity index equations of selecting future time steps. Forecasting calculations
will be conservative, if the boundary effects have not yet been detected.

Conclusions
1. Actual field data show long-term linear flow behavior for years in a large number of
wells that produces from tight gas reservoirs (low permeability).
2. Several tight gas wells with fracture treatment exhibit only linear flow and they do not
show pseudo-radial flow as sometimes expected with hydraulic fractures.
3. The expressions for analyzing long-term linear flow (constant pwf) are distinct than for
buildup analysis (constant rate).
4. A history match that does properly described the long-term linear identified in some
tight gas reservoirs should be used to forecast gas rates and reserves.
5. If the reservoir outer boundary effect has been detected, drainage area can be directly
estimated. This drainage area would be a minimum estimation if linear flow were still infinite
acting. For this procedure knowledge of permeability, k, is not indispensable.
6. Pore volume, Vp, and original gas in place, OGIP, can be directly evaluated if the outer
boundary effect of the reservoir has been detected. These Vp and OGIP would be minimum
values if linear flow were still infinite acting. Knowledge of permeability, k, and thickness, h,
and porosity, , are not required.
7. The evaluation of OGIP becomes not sensitive to the value used for water saturation,
Sw, if gas compressibility, cg, dominates total compressibility, ct. The evaluation of OGIP may be
determined accurately without having knowledge of permeability, k, porosity, , thickness, h,
and water saturation, Sw.

31

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

Nomenclature
A = well drainage area, L2, ft2
AC = cross sectional area to flow, L2, ft2.
Bg = gas FVF, dimensionless, rcf/scf
Bo = oil FVF, dimensionless, RB/STB
cg = gas compressibility, L2/m, psia-1
ct = total compressibility, L2/m, psia-1
cw = water compressibility, L2/m, psia-1
FCD = Dimensionless fracture conductivity
mCP = slope of pseudo-pressure difference, m , divided by rate vs. t , psia-D1/2/Mscf-cp
mCR = slope of pseudo-pressure difference, m , divided by rate vs. t , psia-D1/2/Mscf-cp
h = net formation thickness, L, ft
J = productivity index, L3/t/m/Lt2, STB/D-psia
k = permeability, L2, md
~
k = equivalent permeability, L2, md
kf = fracture permeability, L2, md
m(p) = real gas pseudopressure, m/Lt3, psia2/cp
m( p ) = m(p) at average reservoir pressure, m/Lt3, psia2/cp
m(pwf) = m(p) at flowing wellbore pressure, m/Lt3, psia2/cp
OGIP = original gas in place, L3, m3, scf
p = absolute pressure, m/Lt2, psia
p = average reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia
pD = dimensionless pressure
po = arbitrary lower limit of m(p) integration, m/Lt2, psia
pwf = bottom-hole flowing pressure, m/Lt2, psia
qD = dimensionless flow rate
qg = gas flow rate, L3/t, Mscf/D
qo = oil flow rate, L3/t, STB/D
(slope) = slope of [m(pi)-m(pwf)]/qg plot
Sw = water saturation, fraction
t = producing time, t, days
tDxe = dimensionless time based on xe
tDye = dimensionless time based on ye
T = reservoir temperature, T, oR
Vp = pore volume, L3, ft3
w = width of the fracture, L, ft
xe = distance from well to outer boundary, L, ft
~
xe = equivalent distance from well to outer boundary, L, ft
xf = fracture half-length, L, ft
ye = distance from fracture to outer boundary, L, ft
~
ye = equivalent distance from fracture to outer boundary, L, ft
z = gas deviation factor, dimensionless

32

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 = porosity, fraction
 = gas viscosity, m/Lt, cp
o = oil viscosity, m/Lt, cp

Subscripts

CP = constant pressure
CR = constant rate
D = dimensionless
ehs = end of “half-slope” period
g = gas
i = initial conditions
max = maximum value
min = minimum value
o = oil
w = well
x = direction x
y = direction z

33

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

References
1. Wattenbarger, R.A., El-Banbi, A., and Maggard, J.B.: quarterly reports for the Reservoir
Modeling Consortium, Texas A&M University, May 1996.
2. Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells,” reports for the Reservoir Modeling
Consortium, Texas A&M University, May 1997.
3. Wattenbarger, R.A., El-Banbi, A.H., Villegas, M.E., and Maggard, J.B.: “Production
Analysis of Linear Flow Into Fractured Tight Gas Wells,” paper SPE 39931 presented at the
1998 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, Apr. 5-8.
4. Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., and Strickler, W. R.: “Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir
Behavior-Compressible-Fluid Case,” SPEJ (June 1962), 87-94.
5. Russell, D.G. and Truitt, N.E.: “Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically Fractured
Reservoirs,” JPT (Oct. 1964), 1159-1170.
6. Wattenbarger, R. A. and Ramey, H. J.: “Well Test Interpretation of Vertically Fractured Gas
Wells,” JPT (May 1969) 625-32; Trans., AIME, 246.
7. Morse, R.A. and Von Gonten, D.: “Productivity of Vertically Fractured Wells Prior to
Stabilized Flow,” paper SPE 3631 presented at the 1971 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct.3-6.
8. Prats, M., Hazebroek, P. and Strickler, W. R.: “Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir-
Compressible Fluid Case,“ SPEJ (June 1962) 87.
9. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-Vereduzco, F., and Dominguez, N..: “Transient Pressure
Behavior for a Well With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture,” SPEJ (Aug. 1978), 253-
264.
10. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: “Evaluation and Performance Prediction of
Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing,” JPT (March,
1979) 362-372; Trans. AIME, 267.
11. Gringarten, A.C.: “Reservoir Limit Testing For Fractured Wells,” paper SPE 7452 presented
at the 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX. Oct.1-3, 1978.
12. Miller, F.G.: “Theory of Unsteady-State Influx of Water in Linear Reservoirs,” Journal of the
Institute of Petroleum, Volume 48, No. 467, Nov. 1956, 365-79.
13. Nabor, G.W. and Barham, R.H.: “Linear Aquifer Behavior,” JPT (May. 1964), 561-563.
14. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford University Press,
Second Edition, 1959.
15. Bagnall, W.D. and Ryan, W.M.: “The Geology, Reserves, and Production Characteristics of
the Devonian Shale in Southwestern West Virginia,” paper presented at the 1975
Appalachian Petroleum Geology Symposium, Morgantown, W. VA, March 1-4, 41.
16. Boardman, C.R. and Knutson, C.F.: “Unita Basin Lenticular Sandstone Reservoir
Characteristics,” paper SPE/DOE 9849 presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability
Symposium, Denver, May 27-29.
17. Hale, B.W. and Evers, J.F.: “Elliptical Flow Equations for Vertically Fractured Gas Wells,”
JPT (Dec. 1981) 2489.
18. Kohlhaas, C.A. and Abbot, W.A.: “Application of Linear and Spherical Flow Analysis
Techniques to Field Problems – Case Studies,” paper SPE 11088 presented at the 57th Annual
Fall Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 26-29, 1982.

34

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

19. Hale, B.W.: “Analysis of Tight Gas Well Production Histories,” paper SPE/DOE 11639
presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver,
March 14-16.
20. Stright, D.H. and Gordon, J.I.: “Decline Curve Analysis in Fractured Low Permeability Gas
Wells in the Piceance Basin,” paper SPE/DOE 11640 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Low Permeability held in Denver, CO, Mar. 14-16.
21. Ammer, J.R., Sawyer, W.K., and Drophin, M.J.: “Practical Methods for Detecting Production
Mechanisms in Tight Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE/DOE/GRI 12864 presented at the 1984
SPE/DOE/GRI Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 13-15.
22. Maley, S.: “The Use of Conventional Decline Curve Analysis in Tight Gas Well
Applications,” paper SPE/DOE 13898 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low
Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, May 19-22.
23. Nott, D.C., and Hara, S.K.: “Fracture Half-Length and Linear Flow in the South Belridge
Diatomite,” paper SPE 21778 presented at the 1991 Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach,
March 20-22.
24. El-Banbi, A.H. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Analysis of Linear Flow in Gas Well Production,”
paper SPE 39972 presented at the 1998 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, March 15-18.
25. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: “The Flow of Real Gas Through
Porous Media,” JPT (May 1966) 624-636.
26. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Raghavan, R.: “Unsteady-State Pressure
Distributions Created by a Well with a Single Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture,” SPEJ
(Aug. 1974) 347-360; Trans., AIME, 257.
27. Earlougher, R. C.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph No. 5, SPE of AIME, New
York-Dallas, 1977.
28. Fraim, M.L and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Gas Reservoir Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type
Curves With Real Gas Pseudo-pressures and Normalized Time,“ SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 671-
682.
29. Sutton, R.P.: “Compressibility Factors for High-Molecular-Weight Reservoir Gases,” paper
SPE 14265 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.
30. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H.: “Calculation of Z Factors for Natural Gases Using
Equations of State, JCPT (July-Sept. 1975) 34.
31. Lee, A.L, Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E.: “The Viscosity of Natural Gases,” JPT (Aug.
1966) 997; Trans., AIME, 237.
32. Lee, W. J. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: Gas Reservoir Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, Vol
5, 1996.
33. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: “Evaluation and Performance Prediction of
Low-Permeability Gas Wells Simulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing,” JPT (March
1979) 362-372; Trans. AIME, 267.

35

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

 APPENDIX

Traditional definitions used in this chapter are based on radial flow convention for pD:

1 k h( p i  p wf ) 0.00633k t
p wD   ; t D xe 
qD 141.2qo Bo  o   o ct xe 2
Then, the solutions are as follows:

Constant q solutions:

The complete solution is

  1  ye   xe   1  ye    1   2

2 2  xe 
pwD        t Dx e       2  exp  n    t Dx e 
2  3  xe   ye     xe  n 1  n    ye  

Early time solution,

pwD   t Dx e

Late time solution,

 x    ye 
pwD   e  t Dxe   
2  ye  6  xe 

Constant pwf solutions:

Complete solution,
1   ye  1
  
qD 4  xe    n 2 2  xe 
2

 exp  4   t Dx e 

nodd
  ye 
Early time solution,
1 
  t Dxe
qD 2

Late time solution,

1   ye   2  xe 
2

   exp    tDxe 
q D 4  xe   4  ye  

36

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells

Better definitions, based on strictly linear flow and ignoring the radial conventions with 2 π in the definition of pD :

1 2  xe  2x  1 k Ac ( p i  p wf ) 0.00633k t
p wDLL     p wD   e   t D Le 
  y e
;
q DLL    ye  qD 887.2 L q o Bo  o   o c t L2

Constant q solutions:

Complete solution,
 

1   1 
p DLL    t DL  
3 
  n 
n 1
2 2 

exp  n 2 2 t DL

Early time solution,

2
p wDLL   t DL


Late time solution,

1
p wDLL   t DL
3

Constant pwf solutions:

Complete solution,
1 1 1

q DLL 2   n 2 2 
 exp   t DL 
nodd  4 

Early time solution,

1
  t DL
q DLL

Late time solution,

1 1  2 
 exp  t DL 
q DLL 2  4 

37

Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells