Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Interference well-test model for vertical well with double-segment fracture T

in a multi-well system
Jiazheng Qina, Shiqing Chenga,∗, Peng Lia, Youwei Heb,∗∗, Xin Lua, Haiyang Yua
a
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, Beijing 102249, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Single well pressure transient analysis ignores the impact from adjacent wells, while well interference has ob-
Interference well-test analysis vious effect on the pressure response. Additionally, fracture conductivity and half-length may decrease severely,
Double-segment fracture leading to non-uniform closure along fractures. The interpreted fracture half-length could be much shorter than
Fracture closure designed half-length if this phenomenon is ignored. Besides, well interference caused by adjacent wells in multi-
Vertically fractured well
well system could be mistaken as boundary effect in single-well model since type curves of these two circum-
Multi-well system
Type curves
stances are quite similar to each other, which could bring about unrealistic results compared with geologic
characteristics. Therefore, distinguishing interference effect from boundary effect while considering non-uniform
fracture closure becomes a major challenge.
This work proposes a new interference well-test model of vertical well with double-segment fractures
(VWDSF). Each double-segment fracture (DSF) contains two fracture segments (FS) with individual length, rate
and conductivity, etc. The new model allows the observation well and adjacent wells to produce at the same
time, which does not influence production. Analytical solution is verified by comparing with numerical solution
from Saphir, and model comparison is proposed to elaborate the significance of the novel model. New flow
regimes including fracture interference flow, multi-well interference flow, interference-radial flow regime (IRFR)
and system-radial flow can be observed on type curves. Furthermore, the influence of the observation well and
adjacent wells on type curves are analyzed. Case study highlights the ability of the developed model in dis-
tinguishing the interference effect and boundary effect using the novel model. The proposed model provides a
useful tool for addressing erroneous interpretation of pressure transient data due to non-uniform fracture closure
and/or well interference.

1. Introduction solutions of the vertical well with infinite-conductivity fracture devel-

Wide application of hydraulic fracturing technology has led to a
boom in the development of low-permeability, tight and unconven-
tional reservoirs (Weijermars et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2019). Due to
proppants broken and fracture-fluid retention, it is hard to determine
effective fracture half-length and fracture conductivity. Russell and
Truitt (1964) discussed the effect of vertical fractures on pressure
buildup test and concluded that fracture penetration is vitally im-
portant in pressure performance evaluation. Raghavan et al. (1972)
examined the influence of fracture parameters on production capacity
and well behavior of vertically fractured wells. Later, the analytical
oped by Gringarten et al. (1974, 1975) made it possible to compare the
behavior of vertical fracture and horizontal fracture. After Gringarten
and Ramey (1973) presented series of instantaneous Green's and source
functions for generating new solutions by using Newman Product
method (Newman, 1936), plenty of work have been conducted to in-
vestigate the pressure transient behavior of fractured wells based on
mathematical methods including Source Function, Green's Function and
Laplace transform, etc. Cinco-Ley (1974) and Cinco-Ley et al. (1975)
analyzed transient pressure behavior and unsteady-state performance
of fractured well and slanted wells with inclined fractures. Then, Cinco-
Ley et al. (1978) studied the transient behavior of vertical fracture with

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chengsq973@163.com (S. Cheng), youweihe10@gmail.com (Y. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106412
Received 10 February 2019; Received in revised form 12 August 2019; Accepted 20 August 2019
Available online 22 August 2019
0920-4105/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Qin, et al.
finite-conductivity to obtain the reservoir and fracture characteristics.
In fact, single well-test analysis has been the main approach for inter-
preting the parameters of reservoir and vertically fractured well
(Wattenbarger and Ramey, 1969; Lee and Holditch, 1981; Holditch
et al., 1983). Dinh and Tiab (2010) focused on the interpretation of type
curves of wells with inclined hydraulic fractures. Dejam et al. (2018)
presented a semi-analytical solution for investigating the role of frac-
tures on pressure response of vertical well subject to dual-porosity re-
servoir. However, fracture conductivity can be affected distinctively
due to proppant breakage, ineffective proppant-pack cleanup and
fracture fluid residue. In detail, fracture segment near the wellbore
owns higher conductivity while the conductivity of the fracture seg-
ment stretched into wider formation is lower, which makes the effective
fracture length much shorter since only the segment with higher con-
ductivity can be identified evidently and that with lower conductivity
could be neglected. Thus, it is difficult to match the calculated fracture
half-length with the designed fracture half-length using traditional
well-test model due to fracture closure and formation damage (Russell
and Truitt, 1964; Millheim, 1968; Holditch and Morse, 1976; Lee and
Holditch, 1981). To fill this gap, some researchers have devoted to
pressure transient analysis of segmented fractures and non-uniformly
distributed fractures of vertically fractured well and multi-fractured
horizontal well (Huang et al., 2016; He et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2018a,
2018b). The rate transient analysis of segmented fractures has also been
performed curves as well (Qin et al., 2018c).
Although well-test analysis in single well system can satisfy the need
of parameter interpretation at the initial stage of reservoir develop-
ment. With the long-term development of oil and gas field, interference
effect from adjacent wells becomes evident, which could obscure or
distort radial flow regime behavior on pressure and its derivative curves
(Lin and Yang, 2007a,b). Since it could lead to erroneous results if the
interference effect is mistaken as boundary effect, interference well-test
in multi-well system becomes a better choice. Over the past few dec-
ades, different models have been developed for exploring the pressure
response in multi-well system. Onur et al. (1991) raised a pressure
buildup model for analyzing pressure response of a multi-well system
consists of producing wells. Later, Marhaendrajana et al. (1999) de-
veloped a rigorous method to interpret pressure data in multi-well
system by regarding “interference effect” as a regional pressure decline
which turned out to be efficient and practicable. Although some re-
searchers analyzed the interference pressure response of multi-well
system, wells were set to be producing wells. The research on pressure
transient analysis of multi-well system with both of producers and in-
jectors should be further investigated. To fill this gap, Lin (1993) pre-
sented a novel method to interpret pressure data when producing and
injection wells are both completed. Adewole (2012) proposed a pro-
cedure to investigate the communication between different locations in
the reservoir system using interference data. Besides, a general ap-
proach for analyzing pressure buildup data when all wells in multi-well
system are shutting in at the same time were presented (Deng et al.,
2015). During recent years, more and more methodologies for ana-
lyzing interference pressure transient behaviors have been developed
(Malekzadeh and Tiab, 1991; Malekzadeh, 1992; Dong et al., 1999; Lin
and Yang, 2005; Lin and Yang, 2007a,b; Giegbefumwen and Adewole,
2015). However, observation well should be shut in during traditional
interference well-test which could affect the production obviously.
Therefore, He et al. (2018, 2019) presented the interference well-test
models of multi-segment horizontal well and multi-fractured horizontal
well of which the observation well does not need to shut in. For ver-
tically fractured well, even if the observation well keeps producing
during the test, the parameters of hydraulic fracture are assumed to be
distributed uniformly along the fracture which ignores the effect of
fracture closure and formation damage.
In summary, it would lead to deviation in well-test analysis if the
effect of fracture closure or influence caused by adjacent wells were
ignored. There is still lack of pressure analysis model to overcome these
2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412
difficulties. Therefore, this paper develops an innovative interference
well-test model of VWDSF to better estimate fracture closure and de-
termine well communications in multi-well system at the same time.
Analytical solution is verified by comparing with numerical solution
from Saphir, and model comparison is proposed to elaborate the sig-
nificance of the novel model. Type curves are developed and flow re-
gimes are analyzed. Sensitivity analysis is performed to discuss the
influence of the observation well and adjacent wells on type curves.
Synthetic cases are generated to show the ability of the developed
model in matching interference pressure data. Moreover, interference
effect and boundary effect can be distinguished using the novel model.
The proposed model provides a useful tool for addressing erroneous
interpretation of pressure transient data due to non-uniform fracture
closure and/or well interference.
2. Model development
2.1. Physical model
In this paper, an VWDSF is surrounded by multiple vertical wells in
multi-well system. Some assumptions of the reservoir and fluids are as
follows:
(i) The reservoir is an anisotropic reservoir with constant horizontal
permeability (kh), vertical permeability (kv), porosity (ϕ), forma-
tion thickness (h) and total compressibility (Ct). The reservoir ex-
ternal boundary is considered infinite acting while the top and
bottom boundaries of the reservoir are sealed (no-flow). The initial
pressure throughout the entire reservoir equals to pi.
(ii) Fluid is single-phase oil and slightly compressible with constant
viscosity (μ), and it flows into the vertical wellbore through double-
segment fracture (DSF). The effect of capillary pressure and gravity
can be ignored in this situation.
Other basic assumptions of the multi-well system are as follows:
(i) The VWDSF is set to be the observation well of which the bottom
hole pressure (BHP) is recorded. It is intersected by a fully pene-
trated vertical fracture with multiple segments.
(ii) The observation well is surrounded by n vertical wells (VW),
shown in Fig. 1.
(iii) There is no need to shut in the observation well or any adjacent
wells during the pressure test process which makes the model more
flexible and practical.
2.2. Mathematical model
The governing equation considering permeability anisotropy is
given by Muskat (1938):
Fig. 1. Schematic of an VWDSF (observation well) with multiple VW (adjacent
wells).
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

2p 2p 2p p qi
kx + k y 2 + k z 2 = µCt qiD =
x2 y z t (1) q (16)

Here,
x fi
k x = k y = kh (2) x fiD =
L (17)
kz = k v (3)
where L equals to the fracture half-length.
where kx, ky and kz are the permeability in x, y, and z direction, re- In this study, each wing of DSF includes two vertical fracture seg-
spectively. kh and kv are the horizontal permeability and vertical per- ments (FS) fully penetrating the formation. In detail, the left wing is
meability. composed of fracture segment L1 (FSL1) and fracture segment L2
Using Eqs. (2) and (3), we can write Eq. (1) as: (FSL2). Additionally, the right wing includes fracture segment R1
2p 2p 2p
(FSR1) and fracture segment R2 (FSR2). The top and front view of DSF
p
kh + kh 2 + k v 2 = µCt is shown in Fig. 2. Some basic information about DSF are illustrated in
x2 y z t (4) Table 1.
Eq. (4) can be rewritten as: Based on Source Function and Laplace transformation, Ozkan
2p 2p 2p
(1988) developed a procedure to solve the transient flow problem in
µCt p porous media, through which the pressure solution caused by a con-
+ + 2
=
x2 y2 kh kh t tinuous point source in Laplace Domain can be derived. If the source is
z
kv (5) located at xwD, ywD, zwD, the pressure drop is given by:
The horizontal diffusivity (ηh) in the reservoir considering perme-
ability anisotropy can be defined as: qsource µ exp [ s (xD x wD )2 + (yD ywD )2 + (zD zwD )2 ]
p=
kh 4 kh L (xD x wD )2 + (yD ywD )2 + (z D zwD) 2
h =
µCt (6) (18)
Then Eq. (5) can be transformed to: where qsource is the rate from the continuous point source, s is the La-
2p 2p 2p
1 p place Transform variable.
+ + = Eq. (18) is the pressure drop in an infinite reservoir. In addition,
x2 y2 z *2 h t (7)
boundary conditions of different reservoirs and wells can be taken into
kh consideration by the method of images. Since the top and bottom of the
z* = z formation are impermeable, the point source solution in this system
kv (8)
equals to:
where z* is also a parameter representing reservoir anisotropy.
For better understanding, the dimensionless variables in this study exp [ s (xD xwiD )2 + (yD ywiD )2 + (zD zwiD 2nhD )2 ]
are defined as: qsource µ +
(xD xwiD )2 + (yD ywiD )2 + (zD zwiD 2nhD)2
p=
2 kh h 4 kh Ls exp [ s (x D xwiD)2 + (yD ywiD )2 + (zD + zwiD 2nhD )2 ]
pD = p n= +
qµB (9) (xD xwiD )2 + (yD ywiD )2 + (zD + zwiD 2nhD )2

kh (19)
tD = t
µCt L2 (10) On the basis of Poisson's summation formula (Carslaw and Jaeger,
x 1986) and Laplace transformation, Eq. (19) can be transformed into:
xD =
L (11)
K 0 [ (xD xwD )2 + (yD ywD )2 • s ]
y qsource µ
yD = p= n2 2
L (12) 2 k h LhD s + 2
n= 1 K 0 (xD xwD )2 + (yD ywD )2 • s + 2
cosn
zD
hD
z
cosn wD
hD
hD

zD =
z kh (20)
L kv (13)
The line source function can be used to represent the solution of a
h kh fracture in the system. Therefore, the analytical solution of each FS can
hD =
L kv (14) be derived by integration of point source solution (i.e., Eq. (20)). Ad-
ditionally, the pressure drop caused by all FSs can be achieved through
C the principal of superposition:
CD =
2 Ct hL2 (15)

3
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

Fig. 2. Schematic of DSF belonging to VWDSF.

Table 1 pobsD
Basic information of DSF belonging to VWDSF.
+ 1 xfl1D
1 kv qfl1D 2
Parameters DSF belonging to VWDSF = K 0 [ s xD x wfl1D ]d
s kh x fl1D 1x
Left wing of DSF Right wing of DSF 2 fl1D
+ 1 xfl2D
FSL1 FSL2 FSR1 FSR2 qfl2D 2
+ K 0 [ s xD x wfl2D ]d
x fl2D 1x
Length xfl1 xfl2 xfr1 xfr2 2 fl2D
Rate qfl1 qfl2 qfr1 qfr2
+ 1 xfr 1D
Center (x axis) −0.5xfl1 -xfl1-0.5xfl2 0.5xfr1 xfr1+0.5xfr2 qfr1D 2
+ K 0 [ s xD x wfr1D ]d
x fr1D 1x
2 fr 1D
xfl1
qfl1 µ
+
L + 1 xfr 2D
qfr 2D 2
pobs = K0 s (xD x wfl1D )2 + (yD ywfl1D )2 d + K 0 [ s xD x wfr 2D ]d
4 kh hD x fl1 s xfl1 x fr 2D 1x
L 2 fr 2D (22)
xfl2
+
qfl2 µ L
+ K0 s (xD x wfl2D )2 + (yD ywfl2D )2 d where
4 kh hD x fl2 s xfl2
L
1
xfr1 x wfl1D = x fl1D
qfr1 µ
+
L 2 (23)
+ K0 s (xD x wfr1D )2 + (yD ywfr1D )2 d
4 kh hD x fr1 s xfr1
L 1
xfr 2 x wfl2D = x fl1D x fl2D
+ 2 (24)
qfr 2 µ L
+ K0 s (xD x wfr 2D )2 + (yD ywfr 2D )2 d
4 kh hD x fr 2 s xfr 2
L 1
x wfr1D = x fr1D
(21) 2 (25)

where pobs means pressure drop cause by all FSs of the VWDSF in
1
Laplace space. The term “α” is a variable that represents the length of x wfr 2D = x fr1D + x fr 2D
(26)
2
each fracture segment.
Substitute the dimensionless variables into Eq. (21), the analytical Eq. (22) can be recast into the following form with the aid of Eqs.
solution can be written as: (23)–(26). Meanwhile, the pressure drop cause by skin effect can be
considered at the same time (Van Everdingen, 1953):

4
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

Fig. 3. Pressure derivative smoothing.

+ 1 xfl1D
1 kv qfl1D 2
1
pobsD = K0 s xD + x fl1D
s kh x fl1D 1x 2
2 fl1D Fig. 4. Comparison between interference well-test model raised in this paper
+ 1 xfl2D and numerical model in Saphir.
qfl2D 2
1
+ K0 s xD + x fl1D + x fl2D d
x fl2D 1x 2 Additionally, the dimensionless pressure drop considering wellbore-
2 fl2D
+ 1 xfr 1D
storage effect is given by:
qfr1D 2
1
+ K0 s xD x fr1D d pSD
x fr1D 2 pSCD =
1x
2 fr 1D
1 + s 2CD pSD (31)
+ 1 xfr 2D There are different kinds of methods for calculating pressure deri-
qfr 2D 2
1
+ K0 s xD x fr1D x fr 2D d vative. In this work, the value of derivative is given by Eq. (32) with
x fr 2D 2
1x
2 fr 2D respect to the points just after and just before the time window (x-d,
qfl1D hD qfl2D hD qfr1D hD qfr 2D hD x + d) around the point x, as shown in Fig. 3.
kv
+ Sfl1 + Sfl2 + Sfr 1 + Sfr 2 p (ti) p (t 1) p (t 2 ) p (ti)
kh Cfl1D Cfl2D Cfr1D Cfr 2D (t2 ti ) + (ti t1)
dp ti t1 t2 ti
=
(27) dt ti t2 t1 (32)
where CfD is the dimensionless fracture conductivity of each FS. where
The integral in Eq. (27) can be handled using the alternate form of
a t1 < ti < t2 (33)
integral K 0 [f (x )] demonstrated by Ozkan (1988). With the help
a
of numerical integration or tables given by Abramowitz and Stegun
3. Model validation
(1972), the value of the integral can be finally obtained.
Now, we consider the dimensionless pressure drop caused by ad-
To validate the interference well-test model for VWDSF in multi-
jacent VW. The pressure drop caused by the k-th adjacent well can be
well system raised in this paper, a numerical well-test analysis is de-
written as:
signed by Saphir (KAPPA, 2011). In this section, the multi-well system
qk kv consists of one observation well (vertically fractured well) and one
pkD = K 0 [ s ( xkD xobsD + ykD yobsD )]
sqobs kh (28) adjacent well (VW) producing at the same time.
To keep the same assumption with the numerical well testing model
Dimensionless well spacing between the k-th adjacent well and the in Saphir, the proposed model in this paper was simplified to contain
observation well is given by: two identical FS in this section. In the multi-well system, the distance
xobsD )2 + (ykD yobsD )2 between two wells is 1500 m. Some basic information of the formation
rkD = (xkD (29)
and multi-well system is tabulated in Table 2. As shown in Fig. 4, good
Thus, the total pressure drop caused by all n adjacent wells is given agreements between the interference well-test model raised in this
by: paper with the numerical model in Saphir has been noticed, which
n demonstrates the rationality of our model.
1 kv
padjD = qk K 0 [ s ( xkD xobsD + ykD yobsD )]
sqobs kh (30)
k=1 4. Type curves and model comparison

Table 2 In this section, the type curves and flow regimes of the VWDSF in-
Basic information of formation and multi-well system. terference well-test are discussed firstly. After that, comparisons be-
Formation information Value Multi-well system information Value tween the proposed model and single-well model of a vertically frac-
tured well are shown to better understand the novelty of this model.
Permeability (D) 0.033 Rate of observation well (m3/D) 10
Fig. 5a shows the type curve of interference well-test model of
Porosity 0.1 Wellbore radius of observation 0.1
well (m) VWDSF. Seven flow regimes can be recognized on pressure and its
Thickness (m) 20 Fracture half-length of 91.44 derivative curves. After wellbore storage flow and transitional flow
observation well (m) predominated by wellbore-storage effect and skin effect separately, the
Compressibility (MPa−1) 0.000018 Rate of adjacent well (m3/D) 10 fluids in the formation flows into FS near the wellbore (i.e. FSL1 and
Formation volume factor 1.0 Wellbore radius of adjacent well 0.1
FSR1) linearly, results in the linear-flow regime identified as a one-half
(m)
Viscosity (cP) 1.0 Distance between two wells (m) 1500 slope on pressure derivative curve. Later, fluids from the formation
starts to flow into FS far from the wellbore (i.e. FSL2 and FSR2). This

5
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

Fig. 5. (a) Type curve of interference well-test of an VWDSF; (b) Comparison between scenario 1 and 2; (c) Comparison between scenario 1 and 3; (d) Comparison
between scenario 1 and 4.

Table 3 phenomenon can lead to the fracture interference flow regime (char-
Basic information of four scenarios for comparison. acterized by a straight line with k1 slope on pressure derivative curve)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
which does not exist on the type curves of traditional vertical well with
single-segment fractures (VWSSF). Subsequently, fluids converge ra-
Well system Single-well Multi-well Single-well Multi-well dially into the VWDSF, known as the pseudo-radial flow regime. After
Observation well VWSSF VWSSF VWDSF VWDSF radial flow period, the adjacent wells begin to affect the BHP of the
Adjacent well – VW – VW
observation well. This could lead to a new flow regime, which is termed
as the multi-well interference flow, and can be recognized as a straight
Table 4 line with slope k2 on pressure derivative curve. Finally, fluids flow ra-
Basic parameters of reservoir and multi-well system in sensitivity analysis. dially into the entire multi-well system, known as system-radial flow
regime. One thing should be noticed that when there is more than one
Reservoir parameters Value Multi-well system parameters Value
adjacent well in multi-well system, another new flow regime, IRFR,
Permeability (D) 0.033 3
Rate of observation well (m /D) 10 appears after pseudo-radial flow. The IRFR will be elaborated in Section
Porosity 0.1 Wellbore radius of observation 0.1 5 since there is only one adjacent well in this section.
well (m) To further illustrate the importance of the interference well-test
Thickness (m) 20 Fracture half-length of 100
model of VWDSF proposed in this paper, four scenarios are selected for
observation well (m)
Compressibility (MPa −1
) 0.000018 Wellbore radius of adjacent well 0.1 comparison. Some basic information of each scenario is listed in
(m) Table 3.
Formation volume factor 1.0 The scenario 1 only includes an VWSSF. For scenario 2, there are
Viscosity (cP) 1.0 four VW (adjacent wells) around the VWSSF (observation well). In
addition, although both of the scenarios 1 and 3 are single well, the well
is VWDSF in scenario 3 while it is VWSSF in scenario 1. Besides, the

6
J. Qin, et al.
Fig. 6. Type curves when rkD and qkD distributed uniformly.
multi-well system includes one observation well (VWDSF) and four
adjacent wells (VW) in the fourth scenario.
Obvious differences can be observed between different scenarios. As
shown in Fig. 5b, comparing with single well-test model, the pressure
curves (solid line) and its derivative curves (dotted line) of interference
well-test model move up after pseudo-radial flow due to the pressure
consumption caused by adjacent wells. This phenomenon indicates the
beginning of the multi-well interference flow regime during inter-
ference well-test. Fig. 5c illustrates that the fracture interference flow
appears when vertically penetrating fractures are divided into two FS
according to VWDSF, while this flow regime does not exist for VWSSF.
In summary, flow regimes including transitional flow, linear flow,
fracture interference flow, pseudo-radial flow, multi-well interference
flow and system-radial flow are distinct between VWSSF single well-test
model and VWDSF interference well-test well, shown in Fig. 5d. This
further testifies that it would lead to erroneous results during parameter
interpretation if the effect of fracture closure or influence caused by
adjacent wells were ignored.
5. Results and discussion
Seven cases are designed to investigate the influence of some fun-
damental properties on transient pressure behavior. In detail, two
parameters of adjacent wells (i.e. well spacing and production rate) and
three parameters of observation wells (i.e. rate of DSF, half-length of
DSF and conductivity of DSF) are analyzed. Some basic parameters are
listed in Table 4.
5.1. Adjacent well
Since the rate of each adjacent wells (qkD) and well spacing between
each adjacent wells and the observation well (rkD) have comprehensive
impact on pressure behavior, four kinds of scenarios are proposed to
discuss the effect of these two factors on types curves synthetically.
1) Well spacing between adjacent wells and the observation well
7
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412
distributed uniformly (r1D = r2D = r3D = r4D), and rate of adjacent
wells distributed uniformly (q1D = q2D = q3D = q4D);
2) Well spacing between adjacent wells and the observation well dis-
tributed non-uniformly (r1D≠r2D≠r3D≠r4D), and rate of adjacent
wells distributed uniformly (q1D = q2D = q3D = q4D);
3) Well spacing between adjacent wells and the observation well dis-
tributed non-uniformly (r1D≠r2D≠r3D≠r4D) and the value of dis-
tances are similar to each other, and rate of adjacent wells dis-
tributed uniformly (q1D≠q2D≠q3D≠q4D);
4) Well spacing between adjacent wells and the observation well dis-
tributed non-uniformly (r1D≠r2D≠r3D≠r4D) and the value of dis-
tances are much different from each other, and rate of adjacent wells
distributed uniformly (q1D≠q2D≠q3D≠q4D);
5.1.1. rkD and qkD distributed uniformly
When well spacing is kept the same between different adjacent wells
and the observation well (r1D = r2D = r3D = r4D) and all adjacent wells
are producing at the same time (q1D = q2D = q3D = q4D), Fig. 6 illus-
trates that the pseudo-radial flow regime lasts longer while the multi-
well interference flow regime appears later as well spacing increases
(e.g. rk = 100, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000m). This is because it takes more
time for the pressure to propagate from adjacent wells to the observa-
tion well with the well spacing increasing. Besides, the dimensionless
pressure derivative of all cases equals to v1 (v1 = 0.5) during the
pseudo-radial flow regime and increases gradually during the period of
multi-well interference flow regime and stabilizes at v2
(v2 = 0.5 + 0.5∑qk/qobs) during the system-radial flow. In this in-
stance, since the total production rate of adjacent wells equals to the
rate of the observation well (∑qk/qobs = 1), the value of v2 equals to
one. For the cases with shorter well spacing (rk = 100 m), the pseudo-
radial flow could be covered by the multi-well interference flow, while
the system-radial flow could be mistaken as the pseudo-radial flow
leading to erroneous results.
5.1.2. rkD distributed non-uniformly and qkD distributed uniformly
To investigate the impact of well spacing on multi-well interference
flow regime and system-radial flow regime, four cases are designed for
further discussion. In this part, the well spacings between the ob-
servation well with different adjacent wells are distinctive (i.e.
1000r1D = 100r2D = 10r3D = r4D) while the rate of each adjacent well
is identical (q1D = q2D = q3D = q4D). For single-well system (qkD = 0),
there are not multi-well interference flow or system-radial flow regime.
It means the value of dimensionless pressure derivative will be stabi-
lized at 0.5 eventually. However, more than one radial flow regimes
exist before the system-radial flow in multi-well system belonging to
this scenario. Specifically, when multi-well system is composed of one
observation well and n adjacent wells, there could be n IRFR. The in-
terference from an adjacent well is shown as a specific IRFR on pressure
derivative, and closer the well spacing between the adjacent well and
observation well is, earlier the IRFR appear. The last IRFR is also the
system-radial flow regime. The pressure curves are plotted using the
solid lines, and the pressure derivative curves are presented using the
dotted lines in the log-log type curves. The semi-log type curves only
include the semi-log pressure derivative, remarked by the dash lines.
Specially, each IRFR behaves as a horizontal line with zero slope on
pressure derivative curve, shown in Fig. 7a. If we assume that
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

Fig. 7. Type curves when rkD distributed non-uniformly and qkD distributed uniformly: (a) log-log type curves; (b) semi-log type curves.

Table 5
Value and calculating process of IRFR.
Case qkD IRFR Formula Dimensionless value of pressure derivative

Case 1 qkD = 1 1st IRFR v1 = 0.5 + 0.5 × q1/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × 1 = 1.0
2nd IRFR v2 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (1 + 1) = 1.5
3rd IRFR v3 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (1 + 1+1) = 2.0
4th IRFR v4 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3+q4)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (1 + 1+1 + 1) = 2.5
Case 2 qkD = 1/2 1st IRFR v1 = 0.5 + 0.5 × q1/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.75
2nd IRFR v2 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.5 + 0.5) = 1.00
3rd IRFR v3 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.5 + 0.5+0.5) = 1.25
4th IRFR v4 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3+q4)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.5 + 0.5+0.5 + 0.5) = 1.50
Case 3 qkD = 1/4 1st IRFR v1 = 0.5 + 0.5 × q1/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × 0.25 = 0.625
2nd IRFR v2 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.25 + 0.25) = 0.75
3rd IRFR v3 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.25 + 0.25+0.25) = 0.875
4th IRFR v4 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3+q4)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.25 + 0.25+0.25 + 0.25) = 1.0
Case 4 qkD = 1/8 1st IRFR v1 = 0.5 + 0.5 × q1/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × 0.125 = 0.5625
2nd IRFR v2 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.125) = 0.625
3rd IRFR v3 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.125+0.125) = 0.6875
4th IRFR v4 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3+q4)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.125+0.125 + 0.125) = 0.75

Fig. 8. Type curves when rkD and qkD distributed non-uniformly while rkD are similar to each other: (a) log-log type curves; (b) semi-log type curves.

8
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

Table 6
Value and calculating process of vn.
Case qkD Dimensionless value of pressure derivative

Case 1 qkD = 0.125:0.25:0.5:1.0 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.25+0.5 + 1.0) = 1.4375

Case 2 qkD = 0.125:0.25:0.5:0.5 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.25+0.5 + 0.5) = 1.1875
Case 3 qkD = 0.125:0.25:0.25:0.25 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.25+0.25 + 0.25) = 0.9375
Case 4 qkD = 0.125:0.125:0.125:0.125 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.125+0.125 + 0.125) = 0.75

Fig. 9. Type curves when rkD and qkD distributed non-uniformly while rkD are much different from each other: (a) log-log type curves; (b) semi-log type curves.

r1D < r2D < … < rkD < … < r(n-1)D < rnD, the value of pressure deri-
vative during the kth interference-radial flow equals to vk
(vk = 0.5 + 0.5(q1+q2+ … +qk-1+qk)/qobs, 1 ≤ k ≤ n) since smaller
well spacing represents for earlier interference, as shown in Fig. 7b. The
value and equations of each IRFR are tabulated in Table 5 for better
understanding.
5.1.3. rkD and qkD distributed non-uniformly while rkD are similar to each
other
Four cases are designed to analyze the effect of production rate on
type curves when production rate of adjacent wells are not the same
(qkD = 0.125:0.25:0.5:1.0; qkD = 0.125:0.25:0.5:0.5; qkD = 0.125:0.25:
0.25:0.25; qkD = 0.125:0.125:0.125;0.125) and well spacing are close
to each other (r1D:r2D:r3D:r4D = 1.0:1.2:1.4:1.6). As shown in Fig. 8a,
due to the similar well spacing between each adjacent well and the
observation well, the IRFR (1st IRFR, 2nd IRFR, 3rd IRFR, 4th IRFR)
would overlap with each other and make it hard to tell the distinctions
among them. Finally, the pressure derivative during system-radial flow
regime behaves as a horizontal line with the value of vn
(vn = 0.5 + 0.5∑qk/qobs), shown in Fig. 8b. The values and equations
of vn are listed in Table 6.
5.1.4. rkD and qkD distributed non-uniformly while rkD are much different
from each other
To further investigate the impact of well spacing between adjacent
well and the observation well when rate of adjacent wells are not the
same (qkD = 0.125:0.25:0.5:1.0), two examples are generated
(r1D:r2D:r3D:r4D = 1000:100:10:1; r1D:r2D:r3D:r4D = 1:10:100:1000).
Fig. 9a illustrates that various IRFR (1st IRFR, 2nd IRFR, …(n-1)th IRFR,
nth IRFR) could be distinguished clearly when well spacings are much
different from each other. From Fig. 9b, as the kth adjacent well be-
comes closer to the observation well, the effect of this well on IRFR
appears earlier. The values and equations of vk are listed in Table 7.
5.2. Observation well
5.2.1. Rate of DSF
Due to formation damage, fracturing-fluid retention and proppants
broken, production contributed from the FS near the wellbore is much
larger than that from FS far away from the wellbore. To analyze the

Table 7
Value of interference-radial flow regime.
Case qkD IRFR Formula Dimensionless value of pressure derivative

Case 1 rkD = 1000:100:10:1 1st IRFR v1 = 0.5 + 0.5 × q1/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × 1 = 1.0
2nd IRFR v2 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (1 + 0.5) = 1.25
3rd IRFR v3 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (1 + 0.5+0.25) = 1.375
4th IRFR v4 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3+q4)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (1 + 0.5+0.25 + 0.125) = 1.4375
Case 2 rkD = 1:10:100:1000 1st IRFR v1 = 0.5 + 0.5 × q1/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × 0.125 = 0.5625
2nd IRFR v2 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.25) = 0.6875
3rd IRFR v3 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.25+0.5) = 0.9375
4th IRFR v4 = 0.5 + 0.5 × (q1+q2+q3+q4)/qobs 0.5 + 0.5 × (0.125 + 0.25+0.5 + 1.0) = 1.4375

9
J. Qin, et al.
Fig. 10. Effect of rate of DSF on type curves.
Fig. 11. Effect of half-length of DSF on type curves.
influence of rate distribution of DSF on type curves, the total production
rate of DSF remains constant in this scenario
(qfl1+qfl2+qfr1+qfr2 = constant). Furthermore, to focus on the differ-
ences between the FS near the wellbore and that far from the wellbore,
the rate is stipulated to distribute symmetrically with respect to the
wellbore (qfl1D = qfr1D = 0.5qf1D, qfl2D = qfr2D = 0.5qf2D). Fig. 10 pre-
sents the type curves with different rate distribution of DSF. It is ob-
served that as qf1D becomes larger, the pressure and its derivative in-
creases, while the slope of the fracture interference flow regime (k1)
decreases. Besides, the duration of linear flow regimes lasts longer
when rate of DSF distributed uniformly (qf1D = qf2D) than that under
non-uniformly rate distribution condition since interference between FS
seems more evident when qf1D≠qf2D.
5.2.2. Half-length of DSF
To investigate the influence of the half-length of DSF on pressure
10
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412
behavior of VWDSF, five cases are given in this section and total length
of DSF are set to be invariable. Dimensionless half-length of each FS can
be defined as half-length of the FS divided by half-length of DSF
(xfl1D = xfl1/L; xfl2D = xfl2/L; xfr1D = xfr1/L; xfr2D = xfr2/L). Moreover,
to focus on the differences between the FS near the wellbore and that
far from the wellbore, the half-length of FS is assumed to distribute
symmetrically regarding to the wellbore (xfl1D = xfr1D = 0.5xf1D,
xfl2D = xfr2D = 0.5xf2D). It is noted that when xf1D is smaller than xf2D,
type curves move down and the linear flow disappears later as xfl1D
increases, shown in Fig. 11. Since the interference between different FSs
is more severe when the discrepancy between xf1D and xf2D are greater,
the fracture interference flow regime lasts longer and behaves as a
straight line with slope k2 on pressure derivative curve.
5.2.3. Conductivity of DSF
In this case, we attend to analyze the effect of conductivity of DSF
on pressure and its derivative curves. For VWDSF, different FSs own
distinctive conductivity. Specifically, the conductivity of the FS near the
wellbore could be much larger than that of FS far from the wellbore due
to the non-uniform distributed formation damage and fracturing con-
struction. It is assumed that the Cfl1D = Cfr1D = Cf1D, and
Cfl2D = Cfr2D = Cf2D. Type curves are established under different con-
ductivity of DSF (i.e. Cf1D/Cf2D = 1, 2, 5, 10, 50). Since larger fracture
conductivity represents for higher fracture permeability or bigger
fracture width, as Cf1D/Cf2D increases (Cf2D remains constant, Cf1D in-
creases), the pressure and its derivative curves will move down during
wellbore-storage flow, transitional flow and linear flow regimes, shown
in Fig. 12.
6. Synthetic case study
Basically, when it comes to history matching of pressure data from
field case, pressure and its derivative curves can be generated initially.
Then, based on geological features and typical flow behaviors of the
pressure and pressure derivative curves, we can choose appropriate
well-test model (well model, boundary model) for history matching.
For instance, infinite reservoir model is suitable for pseudo-radial
flow on type curves. When pressure and its derivative curves move up
during late-time period, one-fault model is often used since imperme-
able boundary effect in single-well system can cause this phenomenon.
However, since the upwards moving may not be caused by the im-
permeable boundary effect according to geological condition, erro-
neous results could be obtained if the model with fault was used.
In the past time, researchers mainly focus on single-well system
instead of multi-well system. Nowadays, it has already been observed
and proved that interference effect in multi-well system could be vitally
important.
This session tries to illustrate that analytical interference well-test
model of VWDSF proposed in this paper is necessary and accurate.
Firstly, a synthetic case, including one vertically fractured well (ob-
servation well) and four adjacent wells, was established to generate the
pressure data using numerical model of Saphir. Then, different analy-
tical well-test models are used for history matching. Table 8 shows the
interpreted parameters of the formation and multi-well system. Total
simulation time is 10,000 h.
Fig. 13a shows the pressure distribution of the multi-well system.
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

reasonable.
For the interference model raised in this work, the matching can be
done by the following steps:

6.1. Data input

As we mentioned before, a synthetic case was generated using nu-

merical model of Saphir. Then, the pressure and its derivative data can
be exported. After that, these data can be collected and input to pro-
gram compiled based on the model raised in this work.

6.2. Initiation of known parameters

Some parameters can be determined or estimated referred to field

data, such as production rate, porosity, and formation permeability.
Good parameter initialization is beneficial for reducing the number of
iterations and making the interpreted parameters reasonable compared
Fig. 12. Effect of conductivity of DSF on type curves. to field geologic and dynamic information. In this scenario, the initial
parameters include permeability (0.001D), porosity (0.1), thickness
(20 m), compressibility (0.0001 MPa−1), viscosity (1.0 cP), rate of the
Table 8
observation well (20m3/D), wellbore radius (0.1 m), fracture half-
Interpretation results of formation and multi-well system.
length of observation well (100 m), rate of adjacent wells (15 m3/D),
Formation information Value Multi-well system information Value and well spacing (1100 m).
3
Permeability (D) 0.003 Rate of observation well (m /D) 20
Porosity 0.1 Wellbore radius of observation well 0.1 6.3. Setting variation range of unknown parameters
(m)
Thickness (m) 20 Fracture half-length of observation 60 To reduce the non-uniqueness during history matching, we need to
well (m)
−1
limit the parameter range on the basis of well and reservoir informa-
Compressibility (MPa ) 0.0004 Rate of adjacent wells (m3/D) 10
Viscosity (cP) 1.0 Wellbore radius of adjacent wells 0.1 tion. For instance, the permeability should change from 0 to 10 mD
(m) (this case), and the half-length of each fracture segment (xfl1, xfl2, xfr1,
Well spacing (m) 1100 xfr2) should change between 0 m and 100 m (this case). The advantage
of this step is to reduce the number of iterations and make the inter-
preted parameters reasonable compared to field geologic and dynamic
Since four adjacent wells are producing at the same time with the ob- information.
servation well, the interference can be recognized on type curves.
Three models (infinite reservoir model, one-fault model and inter- 6.4. Adjustment of uncertain parameters referred to sensitivity analysis
ference model) are used for history matching. As shown in Fig. 13b, the
pressure and its derivative curve of infinite reservoir model can only Sensitivity analysis show that the effect of fracture closure and in-
match with the interference data during wellbore-storage flow, transi- terference from adjacent wells are obvious and recognizable during
tional flow and pseudo-radial flow regime. It is unable to match the different flow periods. Therefore, the unknown parameters can be ad-
curves after pseudo-radial flow regime, since the type curves move up justed based on the feature of pressure and pressure derivative curves in
gradually. different flow regimes based on field data.
This phenomenon (type curve gradually moving up) could be It's observed that type curves matched well with the help of inter-
caused by impermeable boundary effect in single-well system or in- ference model raised in this paper during all flow regimes, shown in
terference effect in multi-well system. Therefore, one-fault model and Fig. 13d. It can be observed that the interpretation results from our
interference well-test model are used for history matching. model matches well with the input data which verify the reasonability
Since much more attention have been paid to well test model in of our model. As a result, ignoring the interference effect caused by
single-well system instead of multi-well system, this phenomenon (type adjacent wells would lead to erroneous interpretation results by using
curve gradually moving up) is often thought to be caused by boundary the improper model for history matching.
effect during interpretation even if there might be no fault near the
observation well based on geological information. In that case, if pet- 7. Conclusions
roleum engineers try to use one-fault model for interpretation, it still
cannot match well with interference pressure data, as shown in In this work, a novel well-test model of vertically fractured well
Fig. 13c. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to apply the one-fault considering the non-uniform fracture closure and interference effect
model since there is no impermeable boundary in this scenario ac- from other wells in multi-well system, is developed for better analyzing
cording to geological information. Thus, one-fault model is not pressure transient behaviors. Following conclusions can be drawn:

11
J. Qin, et al.
Fig. 13. History matching results of Scenario 1 (a) pressure distribution of multi-well system (b) using infinite reservoir model; (c) using one-fault model; (d) using
interference model.
(1) For multi-well system with only one adjacent well, seven flow re-
gimes can be recognized on type curves, including wellbore storage
flow, transitional flow, linear flow, fracture interference flow,
pseudo-radial flow, multi-well interference flow, and system-radial
flow.
(2) When there are more than one adjacent well in multi-well system,
IRFR exist between system-radial flow when rkD distributed non-
uniformly. The value of dimensionless pressure derivative during
the kth IRFR equals to vk = 0.5 + 0.5(q1+q2+ … +qk-1+qk)/qobs,
1 ≤ k ≤ n, assuming r1D < r2D < … < rkD < … < r(n-1)D < rnD.
(3) The IRFR would overlap with each other and make it hard to tell the
distinctions among them when rkD are similar to each other. Finally,
the pressure derivative during system-radial flow regime behaves as
a horizontal line with the value of vn = 0.5 + 0.5∑qk/qobs.
(4) Except for parameters of adjacent well, type curves can also be
affected by properties of the observation well. The pressure and its
derivative increases as qf1D becomes larger, while the slope of the
fracture interference flow regime (k1) decreases. Besides, the
duration of linear flow regimes lasts longer when rate of DSF dis-
tributed uniformly (qf1D = qf2D) than that under non-uniformly rate
distribution condition since interference between FS seems more
evident when qf1D≠qf2D. Additionally, type curves will move down
12
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412
during wellbore-storage flow, transitional flow and linear flow re-
gimes as Cf1D/Cf2D increases.
(5) For length of DSF, type curves move down and the linear flow
disappears later as xfl1D increases when xf1D is smaller than xf2D.
Since the interference between different FS is more severe when the
discrepancy between xf1D and xf2D are greater, the fracture inter-
ference flow regime lasts longer and behaves as a straight line with
slope k2 on pressure derivative curve.
(6) The case study indicates the advantages of this interference well-
test model of VWDSF in distinguishing the interference effect from
boundary effect.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the support from National Natural Science
Foundation of China (11872073) and National Science and Technology
Major Projects of China (No. 2017ZX05009-003) for providing research
funding.
Nomenclature
B fluid formation volume factor
J. Qin, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412

CD dimensionless wellbore-storage coefficient pD dimensionless pressure solution in Laplace space

Cfl1D dimensionless fracture conductivity of the 1st segment of the pkD dimensionless pressure drop caused by the kth adjacent well
left wing in Laplace space
Cfl2D dimensionless fracture conductivity of the 2nd segment of the pobs pressure drop caused by all FSs in Laplace space, Pa
left wing pobsD dimensionless pressure drop caused by all FSs in Laplace
Cfr1D dimensionless fracture conductivity of the 1st segment of the space
right wing
Cfr2D dimensionless fracture conductivity of the 2nd segment of the Appendix A. Supplementary data
right wing
Ct total compressibility, Pa−1 Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
h formation thickness, m doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106412.
hD dimensionless formation thickness
kh horizontal permeability, m2 References
kv vertical permeability, m2
L length of horizontal wellbore, m Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I.A., 1972. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas,
p pressure, Pa Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. National Bureau of Standards Applied
Mathematics Series 55. Tenth Printing.
qsource rate from the continuous point source, m3/s Adewole, E.S., 2012. Interference tests analyses of horizontal and vertical well combi-
qfl1 rate of the 1st segment of the left wing, m3/s nations in a reservoir subject to double-edged water drive. In: Presented at the SPE
qfl2 rate of the 2nd segment of the left wing, m3/s Nigerian Annual International Conferences and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigerian, 6-8
August, SPE-178338-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/178338-MS.
qfr1 rate of the 1st segment of the right wing, m3/s Carslaw, H.S., Jaeger, J.C., 1986. Conduction of Heat in Solids, second ed. Clarendon
qfr2 rate of the 2nd segment of the right wing, m3/s Press, Oxford.
qfl1D dimensionless rate of the 1st segment of the left wing Cinco-Ley, H., 1974. Unsteady-state Pressure Distribution Created by a Slanted Well or a
Well with an Inclined Fracture. PhD Dissertation. Stanford University, California,
qfl2D dimensionless rate of the 2nd segment of the left wing USA.
qfr1D dimensionless rate of the 1st segment of the right wing Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey, H.J., Miller, F.G., 1975. Unsteady-state pressure distribution cre-
qfr2D dimensionless rate of the 2nd segment of the right wing ated by a well with an inclined fracture. In: Presented at Fall Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 28 September–1 October, SPE-5591-
qk rate of the kth adjacent well, m3/s
MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/5591-MS.
qobs total rate of the observation well, m3/s Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, V.F., Dominguez, A.N., 1978. Transient pressure behavior for a
s Laplace transform variable well with a finite-conductivity vertical fracture. SPE J. 18 (4), 253–264. https://doi.
Sfl1 skin factor of the 1st segment of the left wing org/10.2118/6014-PA.
Dejam, M., Hassanzadeh, H., Chen, Z., 2018. Semi-analytical solution for pressure tran-
Sfl2 skin factor of the 2nd segment of the left wing sient analysis of a hydraulically fractured vertical well in a bounded dual-porosity
Sfr1 skin factor of the 1st segment of the right wing reservoir. J. Hydrol. 565, 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.08.020.
Sfr2 skin factor of the 2nd segment of the right wing Deng, Q., Nie, R., Jia, Y., et al., 2015. A new method of pressure buildup analysis for a
well in a multiwell Reservoir. In: Presented at SPE North Africa Technical Conference
t time, s and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 14–16 September, SPE-175866-MS. https://doi.org/
tD dimensionless time 10.2118/175866-MS.
x, y, z Cartesian coordinates Dinh, A.V., Tiab, D., 2010. Transient-pressure analysis of a well with an inclined hy-
draulic fracture using type curve matching. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 13 (6), 845–860.
xD, yD, zD dimensionless Cartesian coordinate https://doi.org/10.2118/120540-PA.
xf fracture half-length, m Dong, J., Zhai, Y., Yang, J., et al., 1999. Determination of injection-production ratio size
xfl1 length of the 1st segment of the left wing, m by type-curve analysis. In: Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25-26 October, SPE-57320-MS. https://doi.
xfl2 length of the 2nd segment of the left wing, m org/10.2118/57320-MS.
xfr1 length of the 1st segment of the right wing, m Giegbefumwen, P.U., Adewole, E.S., 2015. Interference test pressures of a reservoir with
xfr2 length of the 2nd segment of the right wing, m vertical and horizontal wells. In: Presented at the SPE Nigeria Annual International
Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 4-6 August, SPE-178338-MS. https://doi.
xfl1D dimensionless length of the 1st segment of the left wing
org/10.2118/178338-MS.
xfl2D dimensionless length of the 2nd segment of the left wing Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Raghavan, R., 1974. Unsteady-state pressure distributions
xfr1D dimensionless length of the 1st segment of the right wing created by a well with a single infinite-conductivity vertical fracture. SPE J. 14 (4),
xfr2D dimensionless length of the 2nd segment of the right wing 347–360. https://doi.org/10.2118/4051-PA.
Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Raghavan, R., 1975. Applied pressure analysis for frac-
xwfl1D dimensionless coordinate of the 1st segment center of the left tured wells. J. Pet. Technol. 27 (7), 887–892. https://doi.org/10.2118/5496-PA.
wing Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., 1973. The use of source and Green's functions in solving
xwfl2D dimensionless coordinate of the 2nd segment center of the unsteady-flow problems in reservoirs. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 13 (5), 285–296. https://doi.
org/10.2118/3818-PA.
left wing He, Y., Cheng, S., Li, S., et al., 2017. A semianalytical methodology to diagnose the lo-
xwfr1D dimensionless coordinate of the 1st segment center of the cations of underperforming hydraulic fractures through pressure-transient analysis in
right wing tight gas reservoir. SPE J. 22 (3), 924–939.
He, Y., Cheng, S., Qin, J., et al., 2018. Analytical interference testing analysis of multi-
xwfr2D dimensionless coordinate of the 2nd segment center of the segment horizontal well. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 171, 919–927.
right wing He, Y., Cheng, S., Qin, J., et al., 2019. Interference testing model of multiply fractured
xwiD, ywiD, zwiD dimensionless coordinates of the ith continuous point horizontal well with multiple injection wells. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 176, 1106–1120.
Holditch, S.A., Morse, R.A., 1976. The effects of non-Darcy flow on the behavior of hy-
source
draulically fractured gas wells. J. Pet. Technol. 28 (10), 1169–1178. https://doi.org/
xkD, ykD dimensionless coordinates of the kth adjacent well 10.2118/5586-PA.
xobsD, yobsD dimensionless coordinates of the observation well Holditch, S.A., Lee, W.J., Gist, S.R., 1983. An improved technique for estimating per-
meability, fracture length, and fracture conductivity from pressure-buildup tests in
z* Cartesian coordinates considering permeability anisotropy
low-permeability gas wells. J. Pet. Technol. 35 (5), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.
φ porosity, fraction 2118/9885-PA.
ηh horizontal diffusivity, m3/s Huang, Y., Cheng, S., Yu, H., et al., 2016. A semianalytical approach to estimate fracture
ηv vertical diffusivity m3/s closure and formation damage of vertically fractured wells in tight gas reservoir. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 150, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.10.049.
μ viscosity, Pa∙s KAPPA, 2011. KAPPA Saphir V4.30 Tutorials. https://www.kappaeng.com/documents/
α a variable that represents the length of each fracture segment flip/ecrin_430_tutorials/.
p pressure solution in Laplace space, Pa Lee, W.J., Holditch, S.A., 1981. Fracture evaluation with pressure transient testing in low-
permeability gas reservoirs. J. Pet. Technol. 33 (9), 1776–1792. https://doi.org/10.
padjD dimensionless pressure drop caused by all adjacent wells in 2118/9975-PA.
Laplace space

13
J. Qin, et al.
Lin, J., 1993. Pressure Buildup Analysis for a Well in a Pressure-Maintained System.
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME SPE-27421-MS.
Lin, J., Yang, H., 2005. Analysis of two-phase flow pressure buildup data from well in an
infinite multiwell reservoir. J. Hydrodyn. B 17 (4), 489–497.
Lin, J., Yang, H., 2007a. Analysis of well-test data from a well in a multiwell reservoir
with water injection. In: Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11-14 November, SPE-110349-MS. https://doi.
org/10.2118/110349-MS.
Lin, J., Yang, H., 2007b. Pressure buildup analysis using type curves for a well in a
pressure-maintained system. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 15 (1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1004-9541(07)60026-3.
Malekzadeh, D., Tiab, D., 1991. Interference testing of horizontal wells. In: Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6-9 October,
SPE-22733-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/22733-MS.
Malekzadeh, D., 1992. Deviation of horizontal well interference testing from the ex-
ponential integral solution. In: Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 18-21 May, SPE-24372-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
24372-MS.
Marhaendrajana, T., Kaczorowski, N.J., Blasingame, T.A., 1999. Analysis and inter-
pretation of well test performance at arun field, Indonesia. In: Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 October, SPE-56487-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/56487-MS.
Millheim, K.K., 1968. Testing and analyzing low-permeability fractured gas wells. J. Pet.
Technol. 20 (2), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.2118/1768-PA.
Muskat, M., 1938. The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous media. Soil Sci. 46 (2),
169.
Newman, A.B., 1936. Heating and cooling rectangular and cylindrical solids. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 28 (5), 545–548. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50317a010.
14
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019) 106412
Onur, M., Serra, K.V., Reynolds, A.C., 1991. Analysis of pressure-buildup data from a well
in a multiwell system. SPE Form. Eval. 6 (1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.2118/
18123-PA.
Ozkan, E., 1988. Performance of Horizontal Wells. PhD Dissertation. The University of
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Qin, J., Cheng, S., He, Y., et al., 2018a. An innovative model to evaluate fracture closure
of multi-fractured horizontal well in tight gas reservoir based on bottom-hole pres-
sure. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 57, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2018.07.
007.
Qin, J., Cheng, S., He, Y., et al., 2018b. A novel well-testing model to analyze production
distribution of multi-stage fractured horizontal well. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 59,
237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2018.09.004.
Qin, J., Cheng, S., He, Y., et al., 2018c. Decline curve analysis of fractured horizontal
wells through segmented fracture model. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 141 (1), 012903.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040533.
Raghavan, R., Cady, G.V., Ramey, H.J., 1972. Well-test analysis for vertically fractured
wells. J. Pet. Technol. 24 (8), 1014–1020. https://doi.org/10.2118/3013-PA.
Russell, D.G., Truitt, N.E., 1964. Transient pressure behavior in vertically fractured re-
servoirs. J. Pet. Technol. 16 (10), 1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.2118/967-PA.
Van Everdingen, A.F., 1953. The skin effect and its influence on the productive capacity of
a well. J. Pet. Technol. 5 (6), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.2118/203-G.
Wattenbarger, R.A., Ramey, H.J., 1969. Well test interpretation of vertically fractured gas
wells. J. Pet. Technol. 21 (5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.2118/2155-PA.
Weijermars, R., van Harmelen, A., Zuo, L., et al., 2018. Flow interference between hy-
draulic fractures. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 21 (04).
Yu, H., Yang, Z., Luo, L., et al., 2019. Application of cumulative-in-situ-injection-pro-
duction technology to supplement hydrocarbon recovery among fractured tight oil
reservoirs: a case study in Changqing Oilfield, China. Fuel 242, 804–818.