2
159 . 0

.

\

= ................................................................................................................... (1)
m p p
c
T
f k A
wf pi
t g
CP m cm
1 1 1262
=

......................................................................................... (2)
2
0857 . 0 0852 . 0 1
D D CP
D D f = ...................................................................................................... (3)
Where D
D
is drawdown parameter that is defined as follows:
pi
wf pi
D
p
p p
D
= ............................................................................................................................... (4)
The calculation of fracture halflength is independent of the number of fractures. Restating, the same value of fracture half
length per well is calculated regardless of the assumption used in number of fractures per stage. The calculated x
f
ranges
from 110 to 570 ft for P90 and P10, respectively, with 300 ft as median. Table 1 summarized several wells showing input
and output parameters calculated from this exercise. Fig. 7 shows the result of range of permeability using different
assumptions in number of fractures per stage. Numerical simulation models were built to investigate the effect on production
forecasts of uncertainty in number of fractures created. The results of this simulation models will be discussed in the next
section.
Table 1 Example of Input and output parameters calculated from end of linear flow.
From ELF Analysis
1 frac/stage 3 fracs/stage
6 fracs/stage
Well
L
e
ft
h
ft
No. of
Stages
Intercept
1/(MMscf/D)
Slope, m
1/(day
MMscf/D)
t
elf
days
y
e
ft
k
nd
y
e
ft
k
nd
y
e
ft
k
nd
x
f
ft
1 992 288 3 0 8.25x10
5
1821 248 258 62 16 29 4 535
2 1505 266 4 0 4.16x10
5
2370 251 203 68 15 33 3 863
3 1690 250 5 0 4.89x10
5
1602 211 213 60 17 29 4 572
After estimating permeability and fracture halflength using time and slope at end of linear flow, product of
m cm
k A , were
calculated and plotted against cumulative gas production, G
p
. (see Fig. 8). The product of
m cm
k A appears generally well
correlated with cumulative gas production, in particular, with longerterm production.
Effect on Production Forecasts of Uncertainty in Number of Fractures Created
From previous discussion, number of fractures created during stimulation procedure was assumed in order to calculate shale
permeability. This assumption will be treated as uncertainty; one fracture, three fractures or six fractures created per stage.
For a 10stage well this would result in 10 fractures, 30 fractures, or 60 fractures. There was not consensus on the number of
fractures created with some believing that only one fracture achieves length per stage while others believing that all fracture
initiation points (perforation clusters) achieve long fractures. This sets the upper and lower limit of one or six fractures per
stage and three fractures being a middle case.
With production history establishing a convincing straight line on the specialized plot the slope will yield three sets of
permeability number of fracture pairs with each pair having the same fracture halflength. The effect of these three pairs
(permeability number of fractures) to the longterm production forecast for a Barnett Shale well is investigated. To do this,
two different simulation models were created as shown in Fig. 9. First model does not have flow boundary at fracture tips
(x
e
=x
f
) as shown in Fig. 9a. On the other hand, second model (Fig. 9b) was built with flow boundary at fracture tips (x
e
>x
f
).
This simulation effort begins by generating a numerical model that approximates the estimated reservoir parameters of a
typical well in the North Barnett Shale gas play examined in the field data analysis. Fig. 9 shows only the first k
m
n
f
pairs
out of three, with number of fractures and permeability equal to 10 and 360 nd, respectively. Both models for all pairs have
the same fracture halflength. The pertinent reservoir and completion parameters are contained in Table 2.
Results of numerical model from Fig. 9 are presented in Figs. 10 and 11. Fig. 10 shows production forecasts of numerical
models from horizontal well with homogeneous completion and no flow from fracture tips. These simulation models were
run with different pairs of k
m
n
f
, yet producing the same cumulative gas production. Estimated ultimate gas recovery is
about 3 Bscf for all pairs for this model after 50 years of production. Hence, these models have the same t
elf
and m slope in
the specialized plot and also have the same product of
m cm
k A
. The uncertainty in number of fractures created is nil once end
of linear flow is reached (i.e. all production forecasts with number of fractures permeability pairs will be identical).
4 SPE 166176
Table 2 Reservoir and well system parameters for North Barnett Shale gas play used in numerical simulations.
Parameters SI Unit Field Unit
Fracture halflength, x
f
91.4 m 300 ft
Fracture conductivity, C
fD
3000  3000 
Number of fracture, n
f
(Fracture
spacing, 2y
e
) Permeability, k
pairs
10 (101 m) 3.6x10
19
m
2
30 (33.8 m) 4.0x10
20
m
2
60 (16.9 m) 1.0x10
20
m
2
10 (333 ft) 3.6x10
4
md
30 (111 ft) 4.0x10
5
md
60 (56 ft) 1.0x10
5
md
Perforation length, L
e
914 m 3000 ft
Reservoir thickness, h 55 m 180 ft
Matrix porosity,  6 percent 6 percent
Temperature, T 93C 200F
Well radius, r
w
0.07 m 0.23 ft
Reservoir pressure, p
i
2.76x10
7
Pa 4000 psia
Well pressure, p
wf
4.14x10
6
Pa 600 psia
Fig. 11 shows production forecasts of numerical models from horizontal well with homogeneous completion and flow from
fracture tips (x
e
>x
f
). These numerical models were run using 10 fractures and 360 nd of permeability. Model 1 in Fig. 11
using x
e
=x
f
is shown as reference case. Model 2 (x
e
>x
f
) has 43% more cumulative gas production than reference case after 50
years of production. This is because Model 2 has additional flow from fracture tips. The differences in production are much
smaller (13%) at three years of production (see an insert in Fig. 11). These differences do not start until after end of linear
flow time and then the incremental volume produced above x
e
=x
f
grows slowly with time. Therefore, the difference in
reserves between cases is more than the difference in net present value.
Horizontal Well Spacing using Numerical Model
History Match: History match using numerical model from developed area was run to verify reservoir properties before
running longterm production forecasts. The model parameters for this area such as shale permeability and fracture half
length obtained from production analysis at ELF from offset well were utilized. The shale permeability and fracture half
length from the offset well are 55 nd and 230 ft, respectively. Fracture conductivity and number of fractures are used as key
parameters to history match. History match was run using calculated bottom hole pressure as simulation control. The
pertinent reservoir and completion parameters are contained in Table 3.
Table 3 Reservoir and well system parameters for developed area used in history match.
Parameters SI Unit Field Unit
Fracture halflength, x
f
70 m 230 ft
Perforation length, L
e
1006 m 3300 ft
Reservoir thickness, h 69 m 225 ft
Matrix porosity,  6 percent 6 percent
Temperature, T 93C 200F
Well radius, r
w
0.07 m 0.23 ft
Reservoir pressure, p
i
2.76x10
7
Pa 4000 psia
The result of matches of model with the production data are shown in Fig. 12. A decent history match is obtained using
dimensionless fracture conductivity and number of fractures, 80 and 16, respectively. This history match may not provide
unique solution. Therefore, model parameters from production analysis are utilized to narrow down the uncertainty in
reservoir properties.
Longterm Production Behavior: The main objective of this exercise is to investigate the longterm production behavior to
estimate appropriate spacing for undeveloped area using numerical simulation. The effects of drainage area on the short and
longterm production will be considered. Seven different values for drainage area are considered, from 4 to 16 wells per pad
as shown in Fig. 13. For each pad configuration, single horizontal well model with homogeneous completion was run with
the same fracture halflength, except for case 16 wells/pad. In this case, the fracture halflength was shortened because half
of distance between wells is shorter than the original fracture halflength. Model parameters from history match exercise
were utilized to predict longterm production behavior with constant pressure for 50 years.
SPE 166176 5
Table 4 summarizes the distance between wells and corresponding number of wells/pad along with the initial rate and
estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) results for each case of the single well model. Total initial rate, EUR and recovery for
entire acreage are also provided in this table. These total numbers are calculated by multiplying the production results from
single well with number of wells/pad. Table 4 shows the case for 16 wells/pad (tighter well spacing) has lower initial rate
than other cases for single well. This is because the 16 wells/pad case has a shorter fracture halflength. This means the rate
of value destruction when wells are too close is much more rapid than the rate of value creation when wells are too far apart.
Restating, it is better to have a little extra space between wells than to be too close.
From this exercise, the optimum well spacing where there is no significant incremental value (EUR or recovery of total
acreage) by adding more wells occurs at 12 wells/pad that corresponds to approximately 560 ft well spacing (Fig. 14). Using
results from Table 4, economic analysis was performed and the number of wells to be drilled for a specific area or lease was
evaluated. The economic results also align approximately with 560 ft well spacing.
Pratikno, et al. (2013) have performed a study on the northern Barnett looking for an approximation to estimate appropriate
well spacing by analyzing production performance from infill wells (spacing pilot) compared with non infill wells. That
work used a completely different approach resulting in a similar answer in well spacing.
Table 4 Results of single well numerical simulation runs for each well spacing case. Total initial rate and EUR are calculated
from single well.
Single Well Total Acreage
No. of
Wells/Pad
Area
acres
Well Spacing
ft
Initial Rate
MMscf/D
EUR
gas
Bscf
Area
acres
OGIP
Bscf
Initial Rate
MMscf/D
EUR
gas
Bscf
Recov.
gas
%
4 168 1675 1.7 3.5 672 68 7 14 21
6 112 1117 1.7 3.5 672 68 10 21 31
8 84 838 1.7 3.5 672 68 13 28 41
10 67 670 1.7 3.5 672 68 17 35 51
12 56 558 1.7 3.3 672 68 20 39 57
14 48 479 1.7 3.0 672 68 23 41 60
16 42 419 1.5 2.6 672 68 24 42 62
Conclusion
In this paper, a workflow to analyze horizontal wells and identify end of linear flow is presented and used. The review of
approximately 2,500 MFHW in two Northern counties of the Barnett Shale yielded more than 100 wells where end of linear
flow could be clearly observed in production characteristics. Consistent operations to provide smooth production data are
vital to allow for end of linear flow to be determined from the production data.
With the end of linear flow determined for these wells, estimates of permeability and fracture halflength were determined. A
key uncertainty is the number of fractures. However, the uncertainty in the number of fractures has little impact on the long
term production forecast. This uncertainty in number of fractures also does not affect the fracture halflength calculation.
The area defined by the length of the well and extent of the fractures is constant as is the original gas inplace contained
within this area. The depletion of this area with more fractures and lower permeability (a fixed
m cm
k A for all of these cases)
will have the same production forecast as the case with less fractures and a higher permeability. For the cases studied, if
volume outside the fracture tips is considered then a small amount of additional rate is produced from the beginning and the
share of total well rate that comes from outside the fracture tips increases with time. This extra recovery outside the fracture
tips has a reduced impact on economics due to its character; a wedge of gas volume that is small at the beginning growing
with time.
A single well simulation study feeding an economic evaluation was then used to study well spacing and yielded optimum
development spacing. This study suggests an optimum spacing for this area of study between 500 and 600 ft.
Other parameters need to be considered that might impact spacing when developing a new area, such as lease shape, reservoir
thickness, geology, completion design, etc. As part of this work, it was clear that wells spaced too closely destroy more value
faster than wells spaced farther apart then optimum. Therefore, spacing wells a little farther apart than optimum is
recommended.
6 SPE 166176
Nomenclature
Symbols
A
cm
= total matrix surface area draining into fracture system, ft
2
c
t
= total matrix compressibility, psi
1
D
D
= drawdown parameter, dimensionless
f
CP
= slope correction factor, dimensionless
h = reservoir thickness or height, ft
k
m
= matrix or shale permeability, md
L
e
= perforation length, ft
m = slope of 1/q versus t plot, 1/(day
MMscf/D)
n
f
= number of fracture, dimensionless
p
i
= initial pressure, psia
p
wf
= flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
p
pi
= pseudopressure at initial pressure, psia
p
pwf
= pseudopressure at flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
q
g
= gas flow rate, MMscf/D
t = time, day
t
elf
= time at end of linear flow, day
T = temperature, F or K
x
e
= distance between horizontal well to reservoir boundary (half of reservoir width), ft
x
f
= fracture halflength, ft
y
e
= distance between fracture to boundary (half of distance between fractures), ft
Greek Symbols
g
= gas viscosity, cp
 = matrix porosity, fraction or percent
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank ConocoPhillips for their support and permission to publish this study. The authors also
would like to thank Taofeek Ademola who provided Barnett Shale maps.
References
Ambrose, R.J., Clarkson, C.R. Youngblood, J., et al. 2011. LifeCycle Decline Curve Estimation for Tight/Shale Gas
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 140519 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition,
Woodlands, TX, 2426 January.
Anderson, D.M. and Mattar, L. 2004. Practical Diagnostics Using Production Data and Flowing Pressure. Paper SPE 89939
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 2629 September.
Anderson, D.M., Nobakht, M., Moghadam, S., et al. 2010. Paper SPE 131787 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas
Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 2325 February.
Dong, Z., Holditch, S.A., and McVay, D.A. 2012. Resource Evaluation for Shale Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 152066
presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodland, TX, 68 February.
ElBanbi, A.H., and Wattenbarger, R.A. 1998. Analysis of Linear Flow in Gas Well Production. Paper SPE 39972 presented
at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1518 March.
Frantz Jr., J.H., Williamson, J.R. Sawyer, W.K., et al. 2005. Paper SPE 96917 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 912 October.
Ibrahim, M.J. and Watternbarger, R.A. 2006. Analysis of Rate Dependence in Transient Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells.
Paper SPE 100836 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E., 58 November.
Ilk, D, Broussard, N.J., and Blasingame, T.A. 2012. Production Analysis in the Eagle Ford Shale Best Practices for
Diagnostic Interpretations, Analysis, and Modeling. Paper SPE 160076 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 810 October.
SPE 166176 7
Lancaster, D.E., Holditch, S.A., McKetta, S.F., et al. 1992. Reservoir Evaluation, Completion Techniques and Recent Results
from Barnett Shale Development in the Fort Worth Basin. Paper SPE 24884 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Washington, DC, 47 October.
Mattar, L. and Anderson, D.M. 2003. A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced Analysis of Production
Data. Paper SPE 84472 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 58 October.
Nobakht, M. and Clarkson, C.R. 2011. A New Analytical Method for Analyzing Production Data from Shale Gas Reservoirs
Exhibiting Linear Flow: Constant Pressure Production. Paper SPE 143989 presented at the Americas Unconventional
Gas Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 1416 June.
Pratikno, H., Reese, D.E., Maguire, M.M., et al. 2013. Spacing Pilots Performance Study Using Public Data in the Barnett
Shale. Paper URTeC 1624264 presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, CO,
1214 August.
Sahai, V., Jackson, G., Rai, R., et al. 2012. Optimal Well Spacing Configuration for Unconventional Gas Reservoirs. Paper
SPE 155751 presented at the Americas Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 57 June.
Wattenbarger, R.A., ElBanbi, A.H., Villegas, M.E., et al. 1998. Paper SPE 39931 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional/LowPermeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 56 April.
8 SPE 166176
Figures
Fig. 1 Barnett Shale map showing vertical and horizontal wells.
SPE 166176 9
Stage Cement Plug Casing Stage Cement Plug Casing
x
f
2y
e
Fractures
b) Crossectional view of single fracture numerical model horizontal well homogeneous completion, no flow from
fracture tips (modified from Ambrose et al. 2011).
a) Multi stage horizontal well completion design current Barnett shale well completion (number of fractures are
shown for illustration purpose only).
y
e
Stage Cement Plug Casing Stage Cement Plug Casing
x
f
2y
e
Fractures
b) Crossectional view of single fracture numerical model horizontal well homogeneous completion, no flow from
fracture tips (modified from Ambrose et al. 2011).
a) Multi stage horizontal well completion design current Barnett shale well completion (number of fractures are
shown for illustration purpose only).
y
e
Fig. 2 Schematic of a multi stage horizontal well homogeneous completion.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10
Time, t , days
G
a
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
q
q
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
Slope
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
R
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
1
/
q
q
,
(
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
)

1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Straight Line
5 0
,
.
t day
Example of Barnett Horizontal Well Showing Linear Flow (Monthly Production Data)
a) Loglog Plot b) Specialized Plot
Legend: Legend:
Fig. 3 Example of linear flow of horizontal well (a) Loglog plot and (b) Specialized plot.
10 SPE 166176
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
R
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
1
/
q
q
,
(
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
)

1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Well 1
Straight Line
5 0
,
.
t day
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 10 10 10
Time, t , days
G
a
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
q
q
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
Well 1
Slope
Example of Barnett Horizontal Wells Showing End of Linear Flow (Monthly Production Data)
a) Loglog Plot b) Specialized Plot
Legend: Legend:
0
1
2
3
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
R
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
1
/
q
q
,
(
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
)

1
0
1
2
3
4
Well 2
Straight Line
5 0
,
.
t day
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 10 10 10
Time, t , days
G
a
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
q
q
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
Well 2
Slope
Legend: Legend:
0
1
2
3
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
R
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
1
/
q
q
,
(
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
)

1
0
1
2
3
4
Well 3
Straight Line
5 0
,
.
t day
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 10 10 10
Time, t , days
G
a
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
q
q
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
Well 3
Slope
Legend: Legend:
Fig. 4 Example of Barnett horizontal wells showing end of linear flow (a) Loglog plot and (b) Specialized plot.
SPE 166176 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
R
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
1
/
q
q
,
(
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
)

1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Straight Line
5 0
,
.
t day
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
R
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
,
1
/
q
q
,
(
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
)

1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Straight Line
5 0
,
.
t day
Example of Barnett Horizontal Wells Showing Importance of Consistent Operations
(Specialized Plot Monthly Production Data)
a) Consistent Operation b) Nonconsistent Operation
Legend: Legend:
Fig. 5 Specialized plots of horizontal well showing production with (a) consistent operation and (b) nonconsistent
operation.
Fig. 6 Barnett Shale map showing horizontal wells with end of linear flow.
12 SPE 166176
Range of Matrix Permeability
Barnett Horizontal Wells Indicating End of Linear Flow
P0.1
P1
P2
P5
P10
P20
P50
P80
P90
P95
P98
P99
P99.9 P99.9
P99
P98
P95
P90
P80
P50
P20
P10
P5
P2
P1
P0.1
10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10
Permeability, k
m
, nd
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1 f rac/stage
Median = 284 nd
P90/P10 = 197/563
3 f racs/stage
Median = 25 nd
P90/P10 = 17/48
6 f racs/stage
Median = 6 nd
P90/P10 = 4/12
Legend: Assumption
Fig. 7 Cumulative probability plot showing result of range of permeability from 4 to 560 nd assuming 1, 3, and 6 number
of fractures and 350 ft per stage.
Total Matrix Surface Area Draining into Fracture System
Barnett Horizontal Wells Indicating End of Linear Flow
R
2
= 0.79
R
2
= 0.62
R
2
= 0.75
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
G
a
s
P
r
o
d
.
,
G
p
,
B
s
c
f
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1yr Gp
2yr Gp
3yr Gp
Legend:
5 0 2 3
, 10
.
m cm
 k A md ft
Fig. 8 Total matrix surface area draining into fracture system Barnett horizontal wells indicating ELF.
SPE 166176 13
a) Single Well Numerical Simulation Schematic
Horizontal Well Homogeneous Completion with No
Flow From Fracture Tips (x
e
=x
f
)
Horizontal well
b) Single Well Numerical Simulation Schematic
Horizontal Well Homogeneous Completion with
Flow From Fracture Tips (x
e
>x
f
)
Fractures
Model boundary
x
f
x
e
L
e
2y
e
y
e
Fig. 9 Schematic of simulation model of horizontal well homogeneous completion for n
f
=10, k
m
=360 nd (a) no flow from
fracture tips (x
e
=x
f
) and (b) flow from fracture tips (x
e
>x
f
).
Production Forecasts of Simulation Models
Horizontal Wells Homogenous Completion (x
e
=x
f
)
with Different k
m
n
f
Pairs
10
10
10
10
10
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, t , years
G
a
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
q
g
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
G
a
s
P
r
o
d
.
,
G
p
,
B
s
c
f
Model 1: nf =10, km=360 nd
Model 2: nf =30, km=40 nd
Model 3: nf =60, km=10 nd
Gp Model 1
Gp Model 2
Gp Model 3
Legend:
x
e
=x
f
Fig. 10 (Semilog Plot): Production forecasts of numerical simulation models horizontal well homogeneous completion
(x
e
=x
f
) with different k
m
n
f
pairs producing the same cumulative gas production.
14 SPE 166176
Production Forecasts of Simulation Models
Horizontal Wells Homogenous Completion (x
e
>x
f
)
n
f
=10, k
m
=360 nd
10
10
10
10
10
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, t , years
G
a
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
q
g
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
G
a
s
P
r
o
d
.
,
G
p
,
B
s
c
f
Model 1: xe=xf (Ref . case)
Model 2: xe=1.5xf
Gp Model 1
Gp Model 2
10
10
10
10
0 1 2 3
t , years
q
g
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
G
p
,
B
s
c
f
1.5x
f
x
e
=x
f
Legend:
x
e
>x
f
x
e
=x
f
1.5x
f
1.5x
f
x
e
=x
f
Fig. 11 (Semilog Plot): Production forecasts of numerical simulation models horizontal well homogeneous completion
(x
e
>x
f
) n
f
=10, k
m
=360 nd.
History Match of Numerical Simulation Model
Horizontal Wells Homogenous Completion
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time, t , days
G
a
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
q
g
,
M
M
s
c
f
/
D
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
G
a
s
P
r
o
d
.
,
G
p
,
B
s
c
f
Gas Rate Data
Gas Rate Model
Cum. Gas Prod. Data
Cum. Gas Prod. Model
Legend:
Fig. 12 Gas rate production data history match.
SPE 166176 15
a) Numerical Simulation Schematic
Showing 4 Wells/pad
b) Numerical Simulation Schematic
Showing 16 Wells/pad
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
w
e
l
l
Single well model
Well
pad
spacing
Well
Fig. 13 Well layout showing different number of wells per pad.
Total Acreage Result from Numerical Simulation
Effect of Well Spacing on Recovery (50 years)
3350 1675 1117 838 670 558 479 419 372
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
No. of Wells/Pad
G
a
s
E
U
R
,
B
s
c
f
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Well Spacing, ft
G
a
s
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
,
%
Gas EUR
Gas Recovery
Legend:
Fig. 14 Effect on well spacing on recovery at 50 years Gas EUR and recovery versus number of wells/pad and well
spacing.