See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/300042195

A New method for Permeability Stress-sensitivity Quantification and

Stimulation Efficiency Evaluation

Conference Paper · January 2015

DOI: 10.2118/178283-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 128

7 authors, including:

Tianyi Zhao Weiyan Ren

China University of Petroleum - Beijing Tsinghua University
19 PUBLICATIONS 650 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 187 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tianyi Zhao on 17 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-178283-MS

A New method for Permeability Stress-sensitivity Quantification and

Stimulation Efficiency Evaluation
Xiangji Dou, Xinwei Liao, China University of Petroleum, Beijing; Xiangnan He, Yan Chang Oil Company;
Tianyi Zhao, Zhiming Chen, Weiyan Ren, and Rui Zhang, China University of Petroleum, Beijing

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4 – 6 August 2015.

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

Abstract
Straight-line analysis is a useful method to obtain formation and fracture parameters. However, conven-
tional straight-line method may lead to significant error if the reservoir permeability and fluid properties
are pressure-dependent. Besides, pressure-dependence of permeability is always difficult to be quantified
with traditional method. The objectives of this paper are to analysis the error and manage to propose a new
procedure to quantify the pressure-dependence of permeability as well as to evaluate the stimulation
efficiency.
In this paper, the errors caused by pressure-dependence of permeability and gas properties are analyzed
firstly and the influencing factors are also investigated. Afterwards, a new method for radius of influence
calculation is introduced. Then, procedures used to quantify pressure-dependence of permeability as well
as estimate formation/fracture parameters are presented in detail. Finally, these procedures are validated
by several examples.
It can be concluded from the error analysis that, while analysis with traditional straight-line method,
the plot obtained would derivate from straight-line due to the existence of pressure-dependent permea-
bility and gas properties. By applying the modified method in this paper to both numerical simulated data
and field data, this method is proved to be accurate to quantify pressure-dependent of permeability and
evaluate the stimulation efficiency.
The technique contributions of this paper include: (1) the error caused by ignoring pressure-dependent
permeability and gas properties is evaluated; (2) a new method for pseudotime calculation under variable
rate/flowing pressure condition is presented; (3) a new procedure used to quantify pressure-dependence
of permeability as well as evaluate the stimulation efficiency is also proposed and validated.
Keywords Straight-line analysis; Pressure-dependent parameters; Permeability modulus

Introduction
Due to the success of tight gas development on a global scale, considerable attention has been paid to these
unconventional reservoirs. Hydraulic fractured wells have been the primary method of commercial
exploitation of such reservoirs.
2 SPE-178283-MS

Tight gas reservoir has been one of the main unconventional gas reservoirs all over the world, which
is mainly developed with hydraulic fractured wells. Transient formation linear flow may be the dominant
flow regime for these wells due to the ultra-low permeability (Wattenbarger, R. A. et al., 1998, M.
Ibrahim, et al., 2006, Clarkson, C R & Beierle, J J, 2011). Which provide the basis for stimulation
efficiency evaluation, by obtaining an very important fracture parameter: fracture half-length.
Furthermore, the permeability of some tight gas reservoir may be stress-sensitive. For the tight gas
reservoir with relatively strong stress-sensitivity, the reservoir permeability could not be assumed to be
constant when the reservoir is developed with rapid pressure change, and may challenge the fracture
efficiency evaluation. Vairogs (1971), Jones (1975, 1980) and Ostensen et al. (1986) concluded from
experiments that the core permeability decreases with an increase in the effective stress, especially when
the initial permeability is less than 1 md. Exponential model is an effective function to describe the
relationship between reservoir permeability and the pore pressure.
(1)

Where ␥ is defined as the permeability modulus, and is important to characterize the degree of
permeability stress-sensitivity. Currently, the permeability modulus is mainly determined using laboratory
experiments (Suyang Zhu, 2013). However, traditional experiments may be expensive, and may overes-
timate the stress-sensitivity. Therefore, a simpler and more efficient method is required to quantify the
stress-sensitivity of the reservoir permeability and consequently contribute to the development of a tight
gas reservoir.
The flow regime analysis method has been widely used to obtain information on reservoirs and
fractures based on production data (Economides, M. J. et al., 2007; Clarkson, C. R., 2013). For example,
the square-root-of-time plot (SRTP) is the most popular method used to analyze the formation linear flow.
However, for reservoirs with compressible fluids, the traditional method may not be applicable or lead to
significant error. To solve this problem, Fraim and Wattenbarger (1987) and Agarwal et al. (1999)
proposed pseudo-time to consider the pressure-dependent gas properties. Franquet et al. (2004) proposed
corrected pseudo-parameters that can be used to take the reservoir permeability stress-sensitivity into
consideration. However, the precondition of this procedure is that the permeability modulus has been
obtained before the modification. Unfortunately, for tight gas reservoirs that emphasize cost-control, it is
always difficult to provide this value for every well. Therefore, the modification procedure for this
situation still remains to be investigated.
Therefore, the objective of this paper is to propose a new procedure for the permeability stress-
sensitivity quantification and stimulation efficiency evaluation. The paper is organized as follows. First,
the deviation caused by pressure-dependent gas properties and permeability stress-sensitivity is investi-
gated. Then, s new procedure used to quantify permeability stress-sensitivity and to evaluate the
formation/fracture properties is described in detail and validated by both synthetic and field data.

Deviation caused by pressure-dependent gas properties and permeability

stress-sensitivity
The square-root of time plot (SRTP) is defined as a plot of the rate-normalized pressure versus the
square-root of time, and has been proved to be a useful method to analyze linear flow. The concept of
pseudo-pressure has contributed to applying this method to natural gas. However, if the reservoir
permeability is stress-sensitive, the relationship between the rate-normalized pressure and the square-root
of time always deviate from a straight line. To analyze the deviation, three cases are assumed, construct
basic assumption of which are shown in Fig.1 and Table. 1. The production rate is assumed to be 353.15
Mscf/D and the reservoir temperature equals 673.15 °R. The only flow regime involved is the formation
SPE-178283-MS 3

linear flow perpendicular to the fracture. In this study, the conductivity of the fracture is assumed to be
constant and no mechanical skin is considered.

Figure 1—Basic reservoir geometry used for Cases 1/2/3 (color for the web version only)

Table 1—Basic assumption for each case

pi(psi) h(ft) xf(ft) ki(md) ␮cg(cp) ␥(10-4 psi-1)

Case 1 4351 32.8 1000 0.01 constant 0

Case 2 4351 32.8 1000 0.01 Pressure-dependent 0
Case 3 4351 32.8 1000 0.01 Pressure-dependent 4.15

Figure 2—Relationship between ␮gz/␮gcg and pressure (color for the web version only)

The relationship between pressure and production rate is shown in Eq.(2) to Eq.(4).
Case 1:
(2)

Case2:
(3)
4 SPE-178283-MS

Case3:
(4)

Obviously, these equations are non-linear and the degree of non-linearity increase from Case 1 to Case
3. Case 1 is for oil reservoir with constant permeability, Case 2 is for gas reservoir with constant
permeability, while Case 3 is for gas reservoir with stress-sensitive permeability. In order to linearize these
equations, the concept of pseudopressure is proposed.
(5)

With pseudopressure, Eq. (2) can also be rewritten as Eq. (6).

(6)

In practice, the production data (mainly including gas rate and flowing pressure) is recorded daily.
Therefore, we can determine the value of ␺i-␺wf/q and for each day and eventually obtain several
points on the traditional SRTP. The slope of the line that connects the origin and each point represents the
ratio between ␺i-␺wf/q and , which can be characterized by Eq. (7) in this case (Wattenbarger, R. A.
et al., 1998).
(7)

It can be concluded from Eq. (7) that the slope is independent of time; therefore, a straight line can be
found between ␺i-␺wf/q and for oil reservoir, as shown in Fig. 3. With m1 determined, can be
calculated using Eq. (7), which is the theoretical basis for the traditional SRTP method.

Figure 3—Traditional square-root-of-time plot for Cases 1/2/3 (constant rate condition)

However, for natural gas (Eq.(3)), the equation may not be linearized with only pseudopressure.
Therefore, the concept of pseudotime is also presented and modified by Fraim and Wattenbarger (1987)
to solve this problem.
(8)
SPE-178283-MS 5

With psudotime, Eq. (3) becomes

(9)

When plotted on a traditional SRTP, the slope of this case (m2) can be expressed as
(10)

For stress-sensitive gas reservoir (Case3 and Eq. 4), even the pseudopressure and pseudotime are used
together, the equation may not be linearized due to the changing of pressure with pressure for depletion
wells. While plotting ␺i-␺wf/q and of this case on a traditional SRTP, the slope of the line connecting
the origin and the point (m3) is
(11)

Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (11), we obtain

(12)

It can be concluded from Eq. (12) that m3 is also time-dependent (Fig. 3).
To quantify the deviations, a new coefficient ␩, which is defined as the ratio between slopes of the
different cases, is introduced in this paper.
(13)

Combining Eq. (7) and Eq. (12), we obtain Eq. (14).

(14)

It can be concluded from Eq. (14) that the deviation is influenced by the pressure dependencies of the
gas properties and the permeability modulus. The relationship between ␩3-1 and the time for different
permeability modulus values is shown in Fig. 4 (q⫽353.15Mscf/D). Whether is overestimated or
underestimated for stress-sensitive tight gas reservoirs is determined by the relationship between pressure
dependence of gas properties and permeability modulus.
6 SPE-178283-MS

Figure 4 —Relationship between ␩3-1 and time for different values of the permeability modulus

In addition, the production rate also influences the value of ␩3-1 because high production can lead to
a greater change in the average pressure in the region of influence and consequently result in the more
significant deviation. The relationship betweenand time for different production rates is shown in Fig. 5
(␥⫽4.15⫻10-4␺).

Figure 5—Relationship between ␩3-1 and time for different gas rates

Note that, apart from the permeability modulus and production rate, the degree of deviation is also
influenced by some other factors, such as reservoir properties and fracturing qualities. However, this
influence will not be discussed further in this paper due to space constraints.
It is worth noting that the degree of deviation could be neglected for the early stage of the production
data, as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, can be roughly estimated by applying the traditional
straight-line analysis to production data at the early stage and using the modifications of the method
described in Section 3.
SPE-178283-MS 7

Figure 6 —Straight-line analysis for the early stage of the production data

Procedure for stress-sensitivity quantification and stimulation efficiency

evaluation
It can be concluded from Section 2 that for a permeability stress-sensitive tight gas reservoir, the
relationship between ␺i-␺wf/q and deviates from a straight line on the traditional SRTP. In 2004,
Franquet et al. proposed corrected pseudo-time and pseudo-pressure to obtain a straight line.
(15)

(16)

Thus, Eq. (10) can be rewritten as Eq. (17).

(17)

Therefore if ␺k, and tka can be calculated directly, by plotting the relationship between (␺ki-␺kwf) / q and
, a straight line could be obtained, and the fracture half-length could be evaluated. This method has
been proved to be useful for permeability stress-sensitive reservoirs by some researchers. However, the
precondition for applying this method is that the value of the permeability modulus is already known,
which may not be practical in field case. Therefore, a new procedure needs to be presented in this paper
to determine the permeability modulus as well as evaluate the fracture half-length for a permeability
stress-sensitive reservoir.
To obtain the permeability modulus, attention should be paid to the calculation of the average pressure
first, because , and in Eq. (16) are the values at the average pressure. Traditionally, the average
pressure in the entire reservoir is used to calculate the pseudotime (Fraim and Wattenbarger, 1987;
Agarwal et al, 1999). However, as indicated by Anderson and Mattar (2005), this traditional calculation
approach may cause errors, especially in low-permeability reservoirs; they proposed the use of the average
pressure in the region of influence instead (Anderson and Mattar, 2005).
The distance of investigation is essential for calculating the average pressure in the region of
investigation (Nobakht, M., & Clarkson, C. R., 2012c). According to Wattenberger (1998), the distance
of investigation for constant rate linear flow can be described as Eq. (18).
8 SPE-178283-MS

(18)

In light of the research conducted by Behmanesh et al. (2014), Eq. (18) is also applicable for
determining the permeability stress-sensitivity condition. Furthermore, according to Nobakht, the average
pressure in the region of influence for constant rate condition could be described with Eq. (19).
(19)

If all of the parameters on the right side are calculated, the average pressure in the region of influence
can be obtained using Eq. (19). However, in general, the value of fracture half-length is unknown before
the analysis. Fortunately, it can be concluded from Fig. 6 that by applying the traditional straight-line
analysis to the early stage of production data, can be roughly estimated and can be used to
substitute for in Eq. (19). Therefore, the determination of the average pressure in the region of
influence is an iterative procedure, the details of which will be introduced below.
Noting that Eq. (19) is for the constant rate condition, however, the gas rate always changes with time
in field case, which may introduce two problems: (1) determining how to convert the production data for
variable rate/flowing pressure condition to constant rate condition and (2) determining how to calculate
the distance of investigation for variable rate/flowing pressure conditions.
The concept of material balance time proposed by Agarwal (1999) is introduced in this paper to solve
the first problem.
(20)

For the second problem, it can be concluded from the concept of the distance of investigation that for
a certain well, the distance of investigation is a single function of the operation condition, which is given
by Eq. (21).
(21)

where C is a single function of the operation conditions and is independent of the formation/completion
conditions or the gas properties. When the operation conditions are constant, C equals 0.113. Additionally,
the coefficient C satisfies the relationship in Eq.(27).
(22)

where y1 and y0 is the distance of investigation for the variable rate and constant rate conditions,
respectively.
Therefore, based on the numerical simulation method, we can obtain the value of C by comparing the
distance of investigation for the variable rate condition and that for the constant rate condition using a pure
linear flow model. The properties of the model are not constrained as long as the flow regime in this model
is pure linear flow. The following procedure is proposed to determine the radius of investigation equation
for variable rate/flowing pressure condition.
i. Collect the gas rate data for the well and define a signature for the bound of distance of
investigation. For example, the signature could be the pressure change of this grid is within 0.05
pi.
SPE-178283-MS 9

ii. Conduct a numerical simulation using a pure linear flow model, the production rate is assumed to
be the rate in step (i). The distance of investigation for the variable rate condition (y1) can be
estimated by analyzing the pressure distribution for the grid.
iii. Conduct a numerical simulation with the same model in step (ii); but the operation condition is
assumed to be the constant rate condition, which is given by the average value of the gas rate data
in step (i). The distance of investigation for the constant rate condition (y0) can be estimated by
analyzing the pressure distribution for the grid.
iv. Obtain the coefficient C using Eq. (22).
Similar to the derivation process from Eq. (19), the average pressure in the region of influence for
variable rate/flowing pressure condition can be determined using Eq. (23)
(23)

When the operation condition is constant rate, Eq. (23) could be simplified to Eq. (19).
After the average pressure in the region of influence being determined using Eq. (19) or Eq. (23), to
calculate the corrected pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time, the next parameter required should be the
permeability modulus. However, as has been stated, the permeability modulus is the parameter we want
to obtain via the procedure in this paper because in most cases, the value of this modulus is unknown
before analysis. Fortunately, using the straight line obtained from the early stage of production data,
can be approximately determined. Therefore, the cut-and-trial method can be used to estimate the
permeability modulus. A straight line can be obtained as long as the modulus input equals the actual value
and calculated using the slope is close to . The procedure for this method is as follows.
1. Determine coefficient C in Eq. (23) for the operation condition using the procedure (i)~ (iv)(for
a constant rate condition, this step could be omitted, and C equals 0.113).
2. Determine by conducting the traditional straight-line analysis for the early stage of
production data using Eq. (7); the time used in this step is the real time (or the material balance
time for variable rate/flowing pressure condition).
3. Calculate the distance of investigation for each point using and further obtain the average
pressure in the region of influence.
4. Compare the average pressure obtained for the last point of the early stage (nth point) with the
initial formation pressure. If the difference between these pressures is within 1%, then continue;
otherwise, shorten the duration for the early stage.
5. Referring to the degree of deviation, provide an initial value of the permeability modulus to
calculate the pseudo-pressure and the pseudo-time using Eq. (15) and Eq. (16), respectively (or the
corrected material balance pseudo-time for variable rate/flowing pressure condition).
6. Plot (␺ki-␺kwf)/q and the square-root of the corrected pseudo-time (or the corrected material
balance pseudo-time for variable rate/flowing pressure condition) on Cartesian coordinate. Next,
analyze the characteristics of the plot, continue adjusting the value of the assumed modulus until
a straight line, the slope of which is close to that determined with early production data, is obtained
on the plot. In this case, the permeability modulus input is viewed as the accurate value for the
reservoir, and the value of obtained using the slope is regarded as the value of the
formation/fracture parameters.
7. Build a numerical model using the parameters obtained, and then validate the results via numerical
simulation history match.
10 SPE-178283-MS

Validation
To validate the quantification procedure for the permeability modulus described in Section 3, a series of
synthetic and field data are analyzed using this procedure. The data in Example 1is generated using the
numerical simulator, while the data in Example 2 are field data from the Sulige gas field, a typical
stress-sensitive tight gas field in China.
Example 1:
The basic model used in this study is the same as case 3 in Table 1. Considering the production rate of
this example as being a constant, Eq. (19) can be used to determine the average pressure in the region of
influence directly. As discussed in Section 2, can be estimated with the first 25 days (shown in Fig.
6) as 98.9 ft·md0.5 and can be used to substitute to calculate the pseudo-time.
Next, using the cut-and-trial method, a straight line on the corrected SRTP is obtained (Fig. 7), and
calculated with the slope is 99.7 ft·md0.5, which is close to the input value. The permeability
modulus determined is 4.2⫻10-4 psi-1, which is within the error limit. Finally, a numerical simulation
history match, which match the flowing pressure with the gas rate fixed, is conducted; the result in Fig.
8 indicates that the parameters obtained are accurate.

Figure 7—Straight-line analysis before/after correction (Example 1)

Figure 8 —Comparison between the historical data and the matched data (Example 1)

Example 2:
This case study is for a multi-fractured horizontal well with five hydraulic fractures in the Sulige tight gas
field. The initial pressure is 4773 psi, the porosity is 10.6 %, the reservoir temperature is 668 °R, and the
effective thickness is 41.6 ft. The well produces with variable rate/flowing pressure condition, and the
production data are recorded daily, as shown in Fig. 12.
SPE-178283-MS 11

The well is also analyzed using the procedure provided in Section 3. First, the distance of investigation
equation is determined using the procedure (i ~ iv) as Eq. (24).
(24)

It can be concluded from Fig. 9 that the points in the plot would not follow a straight line before
correction. By applying the traditional SRTP method to the early stage of the production data, we obtain
an approximate straight line with a slope equal to 0.0255; thus, the value of obtained from the early
stage of production data is 176 ft·md0.5. In addition, the average pressure for the last point is 4751, which
is only 0.5% smaller than the initial pressure; thus, can be used to substitute for to calculate
the average pressure in the region of influence. Next, the cut-and-trial method is used to determine
permeability modulus. A straight line can be found on the coordinate when the modulus input is
2.8⫻10-4psi-1, and the value of determined is 178 ft·md0.5 (Fig. 9), which is close to the value
determined from the early stage of the production data. It is important to note that we only use the data
in the relatively “front” to make sure the flow is linear flow and avoid noisy points, and the data used is
sufficient to meet the demand for analysis. Finally, the parameters obtained are validated by comparing
the numerical simulation with the historical data (Fig. 10); this result indicates that the simulated data are
consistent with the actual data, which proves that the permeability modulus and calculated using
this method are accurate.

Figure 9 —Straight-line analysis before/after correction (Example 3)

Figure 10 —Comparison between the historical data and the matched data (Example 3)
12 SPE-178283-MS

Conclusions
Based on the results of present study, the following conclusions are offered:
1. Ignoring the pressure-dependent gas properties and the reservoir permeability may lead to
deviations in the square-root of time plot and errors in the evaluation of the fracture effect when
applying the traditional straight-line method to a stress-sensitive tight gas reservoir. The value of
the permeability modulus determines whether the fracture half-length is overvalued or underval-
ued. In addition, the degree of error is rate-dependent.
2. For the constant rate condition, the reservoir permeability stress-sensitivity could be quantified
using the modified straight-line method by combining the iteration and cut-and-trial approaches.
3. For the variable rate/ flowing pressure condition, numerical simulation method could contribute to
the distance of investigation equation determination and finally assist in the permeability stress-
sensitivity quantification and fracturing efficient evaluation. Noting that although numerical
simulation is used in the procedure, considering the model used in this method is a very simple
“mechanism model” and the input parameters, except for the production data, could be relatively
arbitrary in a reasonable range as long as the flow is pure linear flow, the using of numerical
simulation would not lead to serious complication but could help us determine the pseudotime
accurately.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation (U1262101) and Chinese National
Major Science and Technology (2011ZX05009-004-001).

References
Agarwal, R. G., Gardner, D. C., Kleinsteiber, S. W., & Fussell, D. D. (1999). Analyzing well
production data using combined-type-curve and decline-curve analysis concepts. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, 2 (05), 478 –486.
Anderson, D. M., & Mattar, L. (2007). An improved pseudo-time for gas reservoirs with significant
transient flow. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 46 (7), 49 –54.
Behmanesh, H., Tabatabaie, S.H., Heidari Sureshjani, M., & Clarkson, C.R.. (2014, April). Modifi-
cation of the Transient Linear Flow Distance of Calculation for Use in Hydraulic Fracture Property
Determination. In SPE Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Clarkson, C. R., & Beierle, J. J. (2011). Integration of microseismic and other post-fracture surveil-
lance with production analysis: a tight gas study. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,
3 (2), 382–401.
Clarkson, C. R. (2013). Production data analysis of unconventional gas wells: Review of theory and
best practices. International Journal of Coal Geology, 109, 101–146.
Economides, M. J., Ehlig-Economides, C. A., & Tosic, S. (2007, January). Application of Pressure-
Transient and Production-Data Analysis for Hydraulic-Fracture-Treatment Evaluation. In SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Fraim, M. L. (1987). Gas reservoir decline-curve analysis using type curves with real gas pseudo-
pressure and normalized time. SPE Formation Evaluation, 2 (04), 671–682.
Franquet, M., Ibrahim, M., Wattenbarger, R. A., & Maggard, J. B. (2004, January). Effect of
Pressure-Dependent Permeability in Tight Gas Reservoirs Transient Radial Flow.
Jones, F. O. (1975, April). A laboratory study of the effects of confining pressure on fracture flow and
storage capacity in carbonate rocks: 8F, 22R. J. PETROLEUM TECH. V27, JAN. 1975, P21–27.
In International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts (Vol.
12, No. 4, p. 55). Pergamon.
 SPE-178283-MS 13

Jones, F. O., & Owens, W. W. (1980). A laboratory study of low-permeability gas sands. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 32 (09), 1–631.
M. Ibrahim, SuezCanal U., R.A. Wattenbarger. (2006, November). Analysis of rate dependence in
transient linear flow in tight gas wells. In Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Nobakht, M., & Clarkson, C. R. (2012). A new analytical method for analyzing linear flow in
tight/shale gas reservoirs: constant-rate boundary condition. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engi-
neering, 15 (01), 51–59.
Nobakht, M., & Clarkson, C. R. (2012). A new analytical method for analyzing linear flow in
tight/shale gas reservoirs: constant-flowing-pressure boundary condition. SPE Reservoir Evalua-
tion & Engineering, 15 (03), 370 –384.
Nobakht, M., & Clarkson, C. R. (2012). Analysis of production data in shale gas reservoirs: Rigorous
corrections for fluid and flow properties. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 8,
85–98.
Ostensen, R. W. (1986). The effect of stress-dependent permeability on gas production and well
testing. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1 (03), 227–235.
Tabatabaie, S. H., Pooladi-Darvish, M., & Mattar, L. (2013, November). Pseudotime Calculation in
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs. In SPE Unconventional Resources Conference Canada. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
Vairogs, J., Hearn, C. L., Dareing, D. W., & Rhoades, V. W. (1971). Effect of rock stress on gas
production from low-permeability reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 23 (09), 1161–
1167.
Wattenbarger, R. A., El-Banbi, A. H., Villegas, M. E., & Maggard, J. B. (1998). Production analysis
of linear flow into fractured tight gas wells. In Rocky Mountain regional meeting/Low permea-
bility reservoirs symposium (pp. 265–276).
Zhu, S. (2013, September). Experiment Research Of Tight Sandstone Gas Reservoir Stress Sensitivity
Based On The Capillary Bundle Mode. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.

View publication stats