SPE 165360

Flow Units: From Conventional to Tight Gas to Shale Gas to Tight Oil to
Shale Oil Reservoirs
Roberto Aguilera, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional & AAPG Pacific Section Meeting, 2013 Joint Technical Conference held in Monterey, California, USA, 1925 April 2013.

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 necessar ily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohi bited. 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

Core data from various North American basins with the support of limited amounts of data from other basins around the
world have shown in the past that process (or delivery) speed provides a continuum between conventional, tight and shale gas
reservoirs (Aguilera, 2010). This work extends the previous observation to tight oil and shale oil reservoirs. The link
between the various fluids is provided by the word petroleum in Total Petroleum System (TPS) which encompasses liquid
and gas hydrocarbons found in conventional, tight and shale reservoirs. Results of the present study lead to distinctive flow
units for each type of reservoir that can be linked empirically to gas and oil rates and under favorable conditions to
production decline. To make the work tractable the bulk of the data have been extracted from published geologic and
petroleum engineering literature. The paper introduces a new unrestricted transition flow period in tight reservoirs that is
recognized by a straight line with a slope of -0.75 on log-log coordinates. This straight line occurs as a transition between 2
linear flow periods.

Process speed is the ratio of permeability and porosity. The approximate boundary between viscous and diffusion dominated
flow in gas reservoirs is estimated with Knudsen number which can be calculated from pore throat radius (a function of
process speed). Viscous flow is present, for example, when the architecture of the rock is dominated by megaports,
macroports, mesoports and sometimes microports (port = pore throat). Diffusion flow on the other hand is observed at the
nanoport scale, which can occur in both tight and shale reservoirs.

The process speed concept has been used successfully in conventional petroleum reservoirs for several decades and in tight
and shale gas reservoirs during the past 3-4 years. The concept is extended in this paper to tight oil and shale oil reservoirs,
and hence to the complete petroleum system, with the support of core and drill-cuttings data. The approach permits
estimating volumes of petroleum-in-place, differentiating between viscous and diffusion dominated flow in gas reservoirs
and the contribution of each flow mechanism with the use of a unified diffusion-viscous flow model. This is valuable, for
example, in those cases where the formation to be developed is composed of alternating stacked layers of tight and shale
reservoirs, or where there are lateral variations due to facies changes.

It is concluded that there is significant practical potential in the use of process speed as part of the flow unit characterization
and production performance prediction in unconventional petroleum reservoirs.

Introduction

Different hydrocarbons and reservoir types can be integrated under the umbrella of a Total Petroleum System. That is the
premise for being able to integrate in this paper flow units of conventional, tight gas, shale gas, tight oil and shale oil
reservoirs and to estimate potential production rates. A previous paper (Aguilera, 2010) described flow units in tight and
shale gas reservoirs. That paper is extended in this work to the case of tight oil and shale oil.

An excellent explanation of the Petroleum System has been presented by Magoon and Beaumont (1999). The Petroleum
2 SPE 165350

System is a unifying concept that encompasses all of the disparate elements and processes of petroleum geology including a
pod of active source rock and all genetically related oil and gas accumulations.

The Petroleum System includes all the geologic elements and processes required for an oil and gas accumulation to exist. The
word petroleum includes high concentrations of any of the following substances: (1) Thermal and biological hydrocarbon
gas found in conventional reservoirs as well as in unconventional reservoirs (gas hydrates, tight reservoirs, fractured shale,
and coal). (2) Condensates. (3) Crude oils. (4) Natural bitumen. The word system describes the interdependent elements and
processes that form the functional unit that creates hydrocarbon accumulations.

Magoon and Beaumont (1999) indicate that the essential elements of a Petroleum System include the following: (1) Source
rock. (2) Reservoir rock. (3) Seal rock. (4) Overburden rock. The Petroleum System includes two processes: (1) Trap
formation. (2) Generationmigrationaccumulation of hydrocarbons. These essential elements and processes must be
correctly placed in time and space so that organic matter included in a source rock can be converted into a petroleum
accumulation. A petroleum System exists wherever all these essential elements and processes are known to occur or are
thought to have a reasonable chance or probability to occur.

The segments of the Total Petroleum System described above, dealing with conventional and unconventional oil and gas
reservoirs is the primary objective of this paper. The significant paradigm shift is that tight rocks that could not produce any
petroleum in the past or were nearly impermeable seals are now economic reservoir rocks.

Several researchers (Archie, 1950; Kwon and Pickett, 1975; MacKenzie, 1975; Chopra et al., 1987; Gunter et al., 1997;
Ebanks, 1987; Hartmann and Beaumont, 1999; Nelson, 2009; Clarkson et al., 2012) have discussed the importance of pore
and throat structure (for example size, geometry, distribution, connectivity, and composition) on flow unit and storage
capacity of porous media. Pore throat apertures have been estimated based on knowledge of process speed, i.e., the ratio of
permeability and porosity (Kolodzie, 1980; Aguilera, 2002). In turn, these pore throat apertures have been used with
reasonable success to anticipate flow rates that can be expected from given oil (Martin et al., 1997) or gas (Deng et al., 2011)
wells. In general, this type of work has been performed in the past in conventional carbonate and siliciclastic reservoirs, and
more recently in tight gas and shale gas reservoirs. This paper shows, with the use of real data that the same concept can be
extended quantitatively to the case of tight oil and shale oil reservoirs. In order to do that, data from several conventional
reservoirs around the world; tight gas and shale gas reservoirs; and tight and oil reservoirs primarily in North America are
examined in this study. Aguilera (2010) has indicated that tight gas reservoirs are best represented by at least dual porosity
models while shale gas reservoirs are best represented by at least quadruple porosity models and more rigorously by
quintuple porosity models (Lopez and Aguilera, 2013). This observation leads to volumes of original gas in place (OGIP),
free gas in place and gas recovery that are in all probability larger than considered previously. It must be noted, however, that
smaller volumes of OGIP have also been discussed in the literature (Ambrose et al., 2010).

Figure 1 shows world gas resource pyramids including global endowment for conventional gas, tight gas, shale gas, coalbed
methane, conventional oil, tight oil, shale and oil sands reservoirs. Endowment, as used in this paper, is the summation of
cumulative gas production, reserves and undiscovered gas. The total natural gas endowment, excluding natural gas hydrates,
is gigantic, at 45,000 tcf, out of which 67% is estimated to be in tight and shale gas. Tight gas endowment in the United
States and Canada is estimated 450 and 105 tcf, respectively. These volumes represent only 7% of the original gas in place.
Shale gas endowment in the United States has been estimated preliminary at approximately 240 and 70 tcf by the GFREE
team. The endowment of natural gas, the cleanest burning fossil fuel, will supply market needs for several decades. The
pyramid shows that unconventional gas is associated with very low permeabilities. As such, successful production of
unconventional gas will include increases in production, prices, activation indices, research and time. Activation index
(Economides and Oligney, 2000, p. 83) is a measure of the total investment required to establish access to new oil or gas
expressed in dollars per unit volume per day (for example, $/barrel/day or $/Mcf/d) of stabilized production. The pyramid
also shows decreases in process (or delivery speed) and pore throat apertures, which are some of the key topics discussed in
this paper.

Although process speed has been used for several decades in conventional reservoirs in the oil and gas industry, the proposed
use of this concept for distinguishing between flow units in conventional and unconventional petroleum reservoirs is new.
Comparisons of real data and theoretical simulations at the pore throat level are consistent and provide good support to the
proposed methodology. To make the results of the interpretations presented in this paper tractable the bulk of the core,
cuttings and production data used in the study have been extracted from referenced published geologic and petroleum
engineering literature.



SPE 165350 3

Process or delivery Speed

Process or delivery speed, i.e., the ratio of permeability and porosity, provides a relative indication of storage and how
quickly fluids can move through porous media. The concept has been shown to be powerful for characterizing conventional
oil and gas reservoirs in various lithologies (Chopra et al., 1987, Gunter et al., 1997), for predicting recoverable hydrocarbon
volumes (Pickett and Artus, 1970), and for determining flow units in tight gas and shale gas reservoirs (Aguilera, 2010).

The flow unit (a function of permeability and porosity) is thus a useful concept for linking geology, petrophysics and
reservoir engineering as permeability and porosity are studied in detail and used by all of these disciplines (Aguilera, 2004).
The process speed (k/) is an important part of the diffusivity equation:

(1)

where is fluid viscosity and c
t
is total compressibility. The above equation is at the heart of fluid flow calculations in porous
media by reservoir engineers. Thus it is extremely important to have knowledge of the process speed (k/|) and hydraulic
diffusivity [q = c
t
/ (k/|)].

Flow Units

Process speed is related directly to flow (or hydraulic) units, a concept introduced by H. D. Winland of Amoco using data
from formations ranging in age from Ordovician to Tertiary, including Simpson, Delaware, Tensleep, Nugget, Cotton Valley,
Muddy, Mesaverde, Terry, First Wall Creek, Frontier, Montrose, Vicksburg, and Frio sandstone. Windlands concept has
been used successfully by MacKenzie (1975) in the Cardium sandstone of Canada, Kolodzie in the Spindle field in Colorado
(1980), Pittman in sandstone reservoirs of the United States (1992), Ebanks (1987) as an aid to reservoir description for
engineering projects, Aguilera (2010) for flow unit determination in tight gas and shale gas reservoirs, and Clarkson et al.
(2012) for evaluation of the Montney formation in Canada. A flow unit is defined as a stratigraphically continuous reservoir
subdivision characterized by a similar pore type (Hartmann and Beaumont, 1999, p. 9-7). As such, the concept is powerful
for helping define optimum layering in simulation work.

Pore throat aperture (r
p35
) in microns can be calculated from (Aguilera, 2002, 2004):

( )
45 . 0
35
100
665 . 2
(

=
|
k
r
p
(2)

The equation was developed utilizing data from more than 2500 sandstone and carbonate samples from the Aux Vases,
Hoover, Dakota, Nesson, Judith River, Lodgepole, Nisku dolomite, Morrow and Keyes, Hunton, Granite wash, Venango,
Cypress, Mission Canyon, Cherokee, Bartlesville, Stony Mountain, Swift, Muddy, Tar Springs, Minnelusa, Red River,
Desmoines, Devonian, Benois, Trenton limestone, Silurian and Edwards formations. The data had been used originally by
Kwon and Pickett (1975) for creating a pore structure model and developing pore structure interrelationships.

Pore size classes are grouped on the basis of pore throat (port) apertures as megaports (r
p35
> 10 microns), macroports (2.5-10
microns), mesoports (0.5 to 2.5 microns), microports (0.1 to 0.5 microns), and nanoports (0.01 to 0.1 microns) following
approximations suggested by Martin et al. (1997). Note that ports prefixes (mega, macro, meso, micro, nano) as used
customarily in the geologic literature do not correspond to the mathematical meaning of such prefixes. Figure 2A shows a
crossplot of permeability vs. porosity for various pore size classes including conventional, tight and shale petroleum
reservoirs, and potential rates that can be obtained for oil (Martin et al, 1997) and gas (Deng et al., 2011) reservoirs. The lines
of constant r
p35
were developed with the use of equation 2. For comparison note that the radius of a methane molecule is
0.0002 microns, the radius of water is 0.000137 microns and the radius of oil ranges between approximately 0.00025 and
0.005 microns. Corroboration of the validity of equation 2 has been demonstrated with the use of simulation at the pore throat
level as shown in Figure 2B (Rahmanian et al., 2010).

Although the interpretation of pore size classes described above has been carried out mostly in conventional rocks in the past,
this paper shows that process or delivery speed provides a continuum between conventional, tight gas, shale gas, tight oil and
shale oil reservoirs. The surprising result, based on core data from various North American basins, leads to distinctive flow
units for each type of reservoir. Viscous flow is present when the architecture of the rock is dominated by megaports,
macroports, mesoports and sometimes microports. Diffusion flow on the other hand is observed sometimes during gas
4 SPE 165350

production at the nanoport level. The approximate boundary between viscous and diffusion dominated flow is estimated with
the dimensionless Knudsen number (K
n
), which is defined as the ratio of the molecular mean gas mean free path length ()
and pore diameter (d).

Conventional Petroleum Reservoirs

Figure 2A has provided reasonable results when compared against average values of permeability and porosity for 10,481
worldwide carbonate reservoirs considered by Ehrenberg and Nadeau (2005). The comparison (Aguilera, 2006) indicates that
90% (P90) of the reservoirs in all petroleum-producing countries (except Canada as Ehrenberg and Nadeau data bank for
Canada does not include permeabilities) have pore throat apertures (r
p35
) with a maximum size of about 2.5 microns
(mesoports); 50% of the reservoirs have pore throat apertures with a maximum of about 5 microns (macroports), and only
10% of the reservoirs have pore throat apertures with a maximum of about 10 microns (megaports).

Figure 2A has also provided reasonable results when compared against average values of permeability and porosity for
30,122 worldwide siliciclastic reservoirs considered by Ehrenberg and Nadeau (2005). At the P50 and P90 levels the relative
drop in siliciclastics pore throat apertures is more significant compared with the carbonate case. This might be the result of a
larger amount of fracturing and microfracturing in carbonate rocks as compared with siliciclastic reservoirs (Ehrenberg and
Nadeau, 2005; Aguilera, 2006).

The results are significant as they indicate that more than 90% of the reservoirs have pore throat sizes that are smaller than
2.5 microns (as in tight gas and shale gas reservoirs). This compares well with the global resource pyramids (Figure 1) for oil
and gas that show that the size of the pore throats decrease continuously as the size of the pyramid, towards the bottom,
becomes larger. The bottom of the resource pyramid is unknown and this opens significant possibilities for the future of
unconventional petroleum resources throughout the world.

The validity of the r
p35
approach is demonstrated with the use of Figure 3 that includes data published several years ago by
Sneider et al. (1983) in a classic paper where the authors developed an empirical qualitative methodology for evaluating drill
cuttings with the use of a binocular microscope at 20X magnification. The approach proved to be of significant practical
value for economic development of tight gas reservoirs in the Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin
(WCSB).

To the authors knowledge the data shown on Figure 3 has never been evaluated using the r
p35
method. Thus it provides a
good test for the flow unit methodology presented in this paper for the case of conventional reservoirs. The graph shows a
crossplot of permeability vs. porosity for Pennsylvanian sandstones and conglomerates of the Elk City field in Oklahoma.
This is a giant conventional oil field where Sneider et al. indicate that porosity, permeability and pore geometry are related
to grain size and sorting, cementation and compaction, consolidation and the amount of pore-filling clays. Sneider et al.
identified 3 types of rocks: (1) Type I rocks that are capable of producing petroleum without any type of stimulation. Sneider
et al. sub-divided Type I rocks into A (k >100 md), B (10 to 100 md), C (1 to 10 md) and D (0.5 to 1md). (2) Type II rocks
are capable of producing petroleum when interbedded with Type I rocks or when affected by natural fractures and/or
hydraulic fractures. Sneider et al. indicated that Type II rocks have permeabilities larger than 0.07 md to 0.5 to 1 md. (3)
Type III rocks which are too tight to produce at commercial rate even in the presence of some natural fractures and/or
hydraulic fractures. Sneider et al. indicated that Type III rocks are characterized by permeabilities smaller than 0.07 md. Note
that generally for all rock types (for example Type IC represented by the letter C in Figure 3) there is a general tendency for
the data to display a smaller permeability as porosity decreases.

Figure 4 shows Sneider et al.s data on the template developed for the r
p35
method. The graph clearly shows that that Sneider
et al.s rock types can be properly placed into separate flow units based on the r
p35
values. In this case the r
p35
template
captures properly the general tendency of permeability to decrease with porosity for each rock type. The type III rock could
not produce commercially when Sneider et al. published their paper (1983). These types of rocks, however, are now capable
of commercial production in several places in Canada and The United States thanks to technological innovations that include
horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing.

Another conventional oil example is provided by the prolific Cardium sandstone in Canada with the use of data published by
MacKenzie (1975) for the Pembina oil field. As in the previous case as far as I know MacKenzies data has never been
evaluated using the r
p35
method. Figure 5 shows MacKenzies data on the r
p35
template for his Type I and Type II rocks.
Note that Mackenzies definition of Type I and II rocks is different from the one presented by Sneider et al (1983). I retain
their original definitions in this paper to maintain consistency with their work. What is important from a practical point of
view is that in both cases the r
p35
values allow to distinguish clearly unique flow units in the Elk City (United States) and
Pembina (Canada) oil fields. On both Figures 4 and 5 the porosity and permeability data are presented as published by
SPE 165350 5

Sneider et al. (1983) and MacKenzie (1975) without any modifications. The Cardium data also introduce tight oil (now
commercial in many instances) as shown in the lower part of Figure 5 that is characterized by smaller values of r
p35
. Tight oil
is discussed later in this paper in more detail

Tight Gas and Shale Gas Reservoirs

Shales are defined in different ways by different organizations. For example the Energy Resources Conservation Board
(ERCB) of Alberta, Canada defines shale in Section 1.020(2) 27.1 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations (OGCR) as a
lithostratigraphic unit having less than 50% by weight organic matter, with: less than 10% of the sedimentary clasts having a
grain size greater than 62.5 micrometers; and more than 10% of the sedimentary clasts having a grain size less than 4
micrometers. In some cases the definition is simpler and considers only the size of the fine-grained clastic sedimentary
particles that make up the rock; for example less than 0.0625 mm. The mineralogy of clays is quite complex (Shaw and
Weaver, 1965) and includes for example quartz (21.5%), feldspar (4.5%), clay minerals (66.9%), Iron oxides (<0.5%),
carbonates (3.6%), other mineral (<2%), and organic carbon (1%).

In the case of shale gas formations, natural gas is generated in the shale and remains within the shale. Consequently the shale
is both source rock and reservoir rock. In commercial shale reservoirs the shale is an excellent source rock. An important
characteristic of both tight gas and shale gas reservoirs is that they extend over very larger distances forming part thus of
continuous accumulations (Law, 2002). Smocker (2005) has defined a continuous petroleum accumulation as those oil or
gas accumulations that have large spatial dimensions and indistinctly defined boundaries, and which exist more or less
independently of the water column. Grains and pores are smaller in shales as compared with tight and conventional gas
formations. Gas is trapped and stored in shale in different ways: (1) as adsorbed and dissolved gas into the kerogen material
(Javadpour et al., 2007), (2) free gas trapped in nonorganic inter-particle (matrix) porosity, (3) free gas trapped in
microfracture porosity, (4) free gas stored in hydraulic fractures created during the stimulation of the shale reservoir, and (5)
free gas trapped in a pore network developed within the organic matter or kerogen (Ruppeil and Loucks, 2008; Wang et al.,
2009). The last one has significant practical implications that can help explain the larger than anticipated gas rates and
recoveries of natural gas from some of these formations, for example, from Devonian shales of the Appalachian Basin. The
different types of storage suggest that shale gas reservoirs should be represented at least by quadruple porosity models
(Aguilera, 2010; Andrade et al., 2011; Swami, 2013) and more rigorously by quintuple porosity models (Lopez and Aguilera,
2013).

Figure 6 is a semi-logarithmic crossplot of permeability vs. porosity that includes data from Horn River basin and soft shales
in Canada; and Fayetteville and Barnet shales in the United States. Lines for different values of r
p35
(0.014, 0.025 and 0.04
microns) were developed with the use of equation 2. The lines provide a reasonable fit to the data. Thus although there is not
a clearly defined protocol for determining permeability and porosity in shales the r
p35
results indicate that these values should
be determined in the laboratory along with pore and pore throat apertures. The shale gas flow units in Figure 6 are used
continuously for comparison against the tight gas, shale oil and tight oil reservoirs discussed in this paper.

In the case of tight formations, natural gas is generated somewhere else (usually in a shale) and migrates to the tight reservoir
where it is trapped and stored in inter-particle (matrix porosity), slot and microfracture porosity. This suggests that tight gas
reservoirs should be represented at least by dual porosity models and preferentially by triple porosity models. The use of a
triple porosity model that permits estimating values on intergranular, slot and/or fractures, and isolated or non-effective
porosity has been demonstrated by Deng et al, 2011.

Figure 7 reproduces the same data shown on Figure 6 but also includes cores and drill cuttings data from the tight gas
Nikanassin formation (Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous) in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Clearly
the tight gas sandstone forms separate and distinctive flow units as compared with shale gas reservoirs. Permeabilities from
drill cuttings are consistently lower than in cores suggesting that some of the microfractures and slots and not preserved in
cuttings due to the action of the drilling bit on rocks. Figure 8 is a repeat Figure 7 but adding data from the Utica shale gas
in Quebec. Thus also imperfect data from shale gas reservoirs tend to form distinctive flow units for shale and tight gas
reservoirs.

The comparison is a good example of the continuum between conventional, tight gas and shale gas reservoirs presented in
this paper.

Tight Oil and Shale Oil Reservoirs

As in the case of tight gas and shale gas; tight oil and shale oil also form part of continuous accumulations. In the case of
tight oil the oil is generated somewhere else and migrates into the tight formation. In the case of shale oil, the oil is generated
6 SPE 165350

in the shale and remains within the shale. Thus in this respect the famous Bakken (United States) although generally called a
shale oil reservoir (DOE, 2012) is in reality a tight oil reservoir. In fact, oil is generated in the lower and/or upper Bakken
shales and migrates into the middle Bakken which has proved very prolific particularly in North Dakota although it is also
found as a continuous accumulation in South Dakota and Montana (United States), and Saskatchewan and Manitoba
(Canada).

In the case of the Canadian Bakken some of the oil might have been generated in the general areas where it is found but it is
likely that a significant amount of the oil might have been generated deep in the basin in the North Dakota area and might
have migrated north to the Shallower Bakken in Canada. This is suggested by the maturity levels of Bakken total petroleum
system presented in the W-E schematic cross-section shown Figure 9.

In general the Bakken is considered as a naturally fractured tight oil reservoir in North Dakota (Sonnenberg, 2011). The host
permeability can be enhanced by natural fractures and slot porosity stemming from dolomitization. This is the case of the
Elm Coulee, Parshall, and Sanish pools in North Dakota. However, the evidence of natural fractures is not as clear in the
shallower Bakken present north of the border in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada.

Figure 10 introduces a crossplot of permeability vs. porosity on the r
p35
template for the Bakken tight oil reservoir in the
United States and Canada. The data for Bakken Foghorn, Brutus and Jackson Rowdy was extracted from (Almanza, 2011).
The big red triangle highlights sweet spot properties (permeability = 0.15 md, porosity = 6%) in the Bakken as established
by Sarg, Sonnenberg et al. (2011). In this case porosity and permeability can be much larger due to dolimitization, natural
fractures and slot porosity. Note also that porosities and permeabilities tend to be larger in the shallower Saskatchewan
Bakken in Canada. However because of the lack of natural fractures the productivity of the Bakken Saskatchewan wells is
generally smaller than the productivity of the Bakken North Dakota wells. For comparison Figure 10 also includes data from
Horn River (HR) and soft shales in Canada; and Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B) in the United States included previously in
Figure 6. Different pore throat apertures (r
p35
) are clearly delineated.

Figure 11 shows a crossplot of permeability vs. porosity for Cardium conventional oil reservoirs of Type I (CT I) and Type
II (CT II) in Canada compared to Cardium tight oil reservoir (CT T). The data for the Type I and Type II rocks was published
originally by Mackenzie (1975) and was also highlighted in Figure 5. The Cardium conventional reservoir has been one of
the most prolific in Canada. Most recently the tight oil Cardium has been coming of age. Figure 11 highlights differences in
pore throat apertures between the Cardium and shale gas reservoirs. Each rock type corresponds clearly to different flow
units. This is probably responsible for the different production profiles discussed later in this paper. The data for the shale gas
reservoirs, shown initially in Figure 6, include the Horn River (HR) in Canada; Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B) in the United
States.

Figure 12 includes permeability and porosity data from the Monterey shale in California. Some of the data was published by
Freeman and Eller (2010) and was sourced from Venoco and Occidental. The Monterey shale is composed of fractured
chert and siliceous shales (and a very complex lithology that goes from Opal A, i.e., unaltered diatomite; to Opal CT, i.e.,
cristobalite tridymiteat larger depths) of Upper Miocene Age (Regan, 1953). There are clearly different flow units for the
shale gas and shale oil reservoirs in Figure 12. The shale gas samples show pore throat radii (r
p35
) varying between 0.014 and
0.004 microns. On the other hand 62.5% of the Monterey samples show r
p35
ranging between 0.55 and 2.2 microns, 31.3%
between 0.15 and 0.25 microns and 6.2% between 0.04 and 0.15 microns. Liquids require larger pore throat apertures for
commercial production due to the larger viscosity of oil as compared to natural gas. And the more viscous the oil, the larger
must the pore throat apertures required to attain commercial production. In the case of the Monterey the API gravity ranges
between less than 6 and more than 30. For comparison purposes Figure 12 also includes the same data shown on Figure 6
for Horn River basin in Canada; and Fayetteville and Barnet shale gas in the United States.

Figure 13 shows permeability and porosity data developed by Walls et al. (2011) for the Eagleford shale in Texas using an
integrated Digital Rock Physics (DRP) process for analyzing rock properties of shales and other unconventional reservoirs.
Data from Gas Research Institute (GRI) crushed sample analysis tends to show lower permeability than the DRP results in
the lower porosity range. Walls et al. indicate that the difference in porosity-perm trends between the two methods will be the
subject of further study. There is also a data point for the Eagleford shale (a green triangle followed by question mark) taken
from Freeman and Eller (2010). The question mark stems from the fact that the author is not sure as to the validity of the data
point. If the data point is correct, comparison with other tight oil reservoirs discussed in this paper would suggest very rapid
production declines for those wells with this poroperm characteristic even if the wells are drilled horizontally and
hydraulically fractured in multiple stages. As there are wells that perform much better it is likely that there are areas with
better rock characteristics as indicated by Walls et al. (2011). The Eagleford shale and the Austin chalk are considered as a
total petroleum system (Martin et al., 2011) where the Eagleford shale is the source for the naturally fractured Austin chalk.
Figure 13 also includes the same data shown on Figure 6 for Horn River basin in Canada; and Fayetteville and Barnet shale
SPE 165350 7

gas in the United States.

Sleeping Giants

When compared with the other flow units in shale and tight oil reservoirs discussed in this paper (Figure 14); pore throat
apertures (r
p35
), porosities and permeabilities suggest that the Monterey is in all probability a sleeping giant. This assertion is
increased when the Monterey area (about 1650 square miles) and thickness (1000 to 3000 ft) are taken into account. Under
these circumstances it is reasonable to anticipate that with the proper management of externalities and development this
combination of area, thickness, porosity, permeability, pore throat apertures, large API gravities in some areas and innovative
technology will most likely lead to a gigantic recovery of unconventional Monterey oil.

As for natural gas, the flow units of the Utica shale in Quebec presented in Figures 8 and 14 suggest rock quality
comparable to other prolific shale gas reservoirs. This shale extends to the U.S. where it has an area than is larger than the
Marcellus and a thickness that is also larger the Marcellus (Figure 15). Notice in Figure 14 that the pore throat apertures
(r
p35
) of the Marcellus (red squares) and the upper pattern of the Utica (yellow circles) compare reasonably well. Furthermore
note that the Utica in The U.S. side is underlain by basement rock. Based on my experience there is potential in the
basement, if naturally fractured, as the formation of natural fractures creates dilatancy and a vacuum that tends to suck the
fluids (natural gas and oil) present in the surroundings. As in the case of the Monterey, it is reasonable to anticipate that with
the proper management of externalities and development this combination of area, thickness, porosity, permeability, pore
throat apertures and innovative technology will most likely lead the Utica shale to a gigantic recovery of unconventional
petroleum (oil and gas).

Cumulative Production Distribution

Although shales are very heterogeneous and have multiple porosities (Aguilera, 2010; Andrade et al., 2011, Swami, 2013;
Lopez and Aguilera, 2013) the cumulative production of shale gas reservoirs is significantly and surprisingly more
homogeneous than the cumulative gas production distribution of tight gas and conventional gas and oil reservoirs. Figure 16
shows a production variability plot of fractional cumulative gas vs. fractional cumulative number of production wells for the
Barnett shale gas reservoir. The six curves represent different operating companies. If the shales were completely
homogeneous all the curves would fall in the dashed 45-degree straight line. The six curves separate from the dashed straight
line indicating a certain amount of heterogeneity. Figure 17 is a production variability plot for the Nikanassin tight gas
formation in six different areas of the Deep Basin (Western Canada Sedimentary Basin). The data show that as the fracture
density decreases the curvature and thus the level of heterogeneity increases. The separation from the 45-degree dashed
straight line is more significant in Figure 17 than in Figure 16 indicating a larger degree of heterogeneity in tight gas
reservoirs as compared with shale reservoirs. The result is surprising but corroborated by actual production data. At this time
there is not enough production data from tight and shale oil reservoirs to reach a conclusion with respects to the distribution
of their cumulative oil production.

Production Rates

The original attempt to correlate production rates and pore throat apertures was published by Martin et al. (1997). Pore size
classes were grouped by Martin et al. on the basis of pore throat (port) apertures as megaports (r
35
> 10 microns), macroports
(2.5-10 microns), mesoports (0.5 to 2.5 microns), microports (0.1 to 0.5 microns), and nanoports (0.01 to 0.1 microns).
Martin et al. indicated that comparatively megaports can reach medium gravity oil production rates of 10s of thousands of
barrels per day if zonal thickness and other factors are constant and without mechanical constraints, macroports can reach
thousands of barrels per day, and mesoports hundreds of barrels per day. Microports can produce few to tens of barrels per
day on pump. However, Martin et al. state that microport flow units are decidedly non-reservoir in this comparative
completion of moderate thickness and medium gravity oil without mechanical constraints. These flow units are of far more
interest as potential seals for higher quality reservoir downdip. Since Martin et al.s publication microports and nanoport
reservoirs have become economic in many instances. Subsequently, Deng et al. (2011) associated possible gas rates in
conventional reservoirs with pore throat apertures. Oil and gas rates from these efforts are presented in the upper right hand
side of Figure 2A. Martin et al. (1997) and Deng et al. (2011) estimates were for vertical wells. Figure 2A adds some
estimates of oil and gas rates for multistage hydraulically fractured horizontal wells.

This paper examines production rates and flow periods for some unconventional petroleum reservoirs and makes a
comparison with the corresponding pore throat apertures. As early as the 1970s, Aguilera (1980, p. 403) demonstrated the
presence of linear flow in wells producing from Devonian shales in an infinite-acting reservoir (Figure 18). The start of the
data went back to the 1950s and flow rates extended over a 25-year period without reaching the boundary dominated flow.
The connectivity was interpreted to occur through natural fractures. This led to the development of approximate solutions for
8 SPE 165350

linear flow in dual porosity reservoirs (Aguilera, 1986).

The linear flow observation has also been made more recently with data from wells drilled during the last few years,
particularly in wells that have been drilled horizontally and stimulated in multiple stages. Many rigorous solutions have been
developed to handle the linear flow observations in shale and tight gas reservoirs (Wattenbarger et al., 1997; El Banbi, 1998;
El Banbi and Wattenbarger, 1998; Arevalo-Villagran, 2006; Moghadam, 2010; Brohi et al., 2011) as well as approximate
solutions (Aguilera, 1986; Leguizamon and Aguilera, 2011). There have been also many useful and practical empirical
models based on actual recordings of production rates in unconventional oil and gas reservoirs (Reynolds et al., 2010; Baihly
et al., 2010 and 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hamm and Struyk, 2011). As in the case of permeabilities and porosities used for
estimating pore throat apertures (r
p35
), the petroleum rates published in some of the above mentioned studies are used in this
paper to make the proposed interpretations tractable.

Gas Rates.- Production data for the Barnett, Fayetteville, Woodford and Haynesville shale published by Baihly et al. (2010,
2011) are presented in the upper graph of Figures 19, 20, 21 and 22, respectively. The authors considered 1,957 horizontal
wells in their study and shifted the production data to the day of first production (DOFP). They grouped the wells according
to the year in which the wells started production. The middle graphs in Figures 19, 20, 21 and 22 present my interpretation
of the data as a crossplot of rate vs. time on log-log coordinates (these graphs were not presented in the Baihly et al.s study).
For the Barnett, Fayetteville and Woodford there are linear trends with a slope of -0.5 indicating an average linear flow. The
possible beginning of boundary dominated flow is also observed for some Barnett wells particularly in the group that started
production in the year 2003. For the Haynesville the data production data falls below the straight line with a slope of -0.5
indicated a possible lack of linear flow.

The lower graphs in Figures 19, 20, 21 and 22 present my interpretation of the data as a crossplot of 1.0 divided by rate (1/q)
vs. the square root of time on Cartesian coordinates (these graphs were not presented in the Baihly et al.s study). There are
indications of linear flow in the Barnett, Fayetteville and Woodford shales; and in all these cases the linear trend extrapolates
to the origin at zero time, a clear indication the there is no damage around the wellbore. For the Barnett (Figure 19) some
wells have clearly reached boundary dominated flow. The Fayetteville does not reach boundary dominated flow and the
Woodford might have reached it for the wells that started production in 2006. The Haynesville response is different. As
indicated previously the log-log crossplot of rate vs. time yielded a production trend that fell below the -0.5 straight line.
There could be linear flow, however, as the 1/q vs. square root of time shows a linear trend that extrapolates to a negative
value of 1/q. This is indicative of improved conditions around the wellbore that probably stem from the over-pressured
condition of the reservoir. The negative effect, however, is that permeability and porosity decrease as the net stress on the
fractures become larger.

Thus the type of flow observed in Barnett, Fayetteville, Woodford and Haynesville horizontal gas wells is not too dissimilar
from the linear flow observed in hydraulically fractured vertical Devonian shale wells starting in the 1950s (Figure 18). As
such the data can be generally interpreted with methods available in the literature for handling linear (and bilinear) flow
(Aguilera, 1986: Wattenbarger et al., 1997; El Banbi, 1998; El Banbi and Wattenbarger, 1998; Arevalo-Villagran, 2006;
Moghadam, 2010; Brohi et al., 2011; Leguizamon and Aguilera, 2011). The flow behavior of tight oil wells, however, can be
different as discussed next.

Oil rates.- Hamm and Struyk (2011) have presented a very complete data set for multi-stage hydraulically fractured
horizontal wells in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Based on the actual production data they have
developed empirical type curves for various reservoirs with varying types of rock quality. To generate their average type
curves they shift the production data of all wells to the same starting point. The upper graph in Figure 23 shows oil
production rates vs. time for the tight oil Cardium formation as published by Hamm et al. (2011). Their graph also includes a
curve for a Type Well developed from actual Cardium production. The graph in the middle shows a log-log crossplot of oil
rate vs. time that result in an approximate straight line with a slope of -0.75 between 2 linear flow periods. To the authors
best knowledge there are not references in the literature that explains the -0.75 slope. As a consequence an approximation is
presented in this paper to try to explain this behavior. The conclusion is reached that the -0.75 straight line is the result of a
transient unrestricted transition between 2 linear flow periods. The bottom graph shows a Cartesian crossplot of 1/q vs. time
^0.75 with straight lines bracketing the tight oil Cardium data. The explanation for the -0.75 slope has been developed with
the use of the following equation for a triple porosity model dominated by linear flow in an infinite-acting reservoir
(Leguizamon and Aguilera, 2011):

(3)

The functions for the case of restricted (pseudo steady state) inter linear flow the function is given by (1991):
SPE 165350 9


(

) (

) (

(4)

where ccs are empirical commingled completion exponents for the dual and triple porosity reservoirs, and t
Dd
and t
Dt
are
the approximate beginnings of the straight lines for the dual and triple porosity responses, respectively. For the case of
unrestricted (transient) inter linear flow the functions are given by an extension of Najurieta (1980) and Aguilera (1986,
1991):

(

(5)
e
d
and e
t
are storativity ratios given by:

(6)

The fracture storage (S
f
) is the product (|c
t
h) for the fractures, S
md
is the product (|c
t
h) for one matrix (or media) and S
mt
is
the product (|c
t
h) for the other matrix (or media) in the triple porosity reservoir. The dimensionless hydraulic diffusivity for
the dual and triple porosity media are given by q
Dd
and q
Dt
. In the case of gas reservoirs the storages are calculated at initial
pressure. The upper and lower graphs in Figure 24 show examples of results using the model described in this paper for the
case of restricted inter linear flow based on the following data: e
d
= 0.1, e
t
= 0.1, t
Dd
= 10000, t
Dt
= 0.05 and cc
d
= cc
t
= 1,
q
Dd
= 1000, q
Dt
=1000. The log-log crossplots result in 3 parallel straight lines with slopes equal to -0.5 indicating linear
flow. The upper graph assumes restricted (pseudo steady state) inter linear flow. The transition periods result in very large
slopes. This is what has been assumed so far in the literature for the analysis of multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal
wells. The lower graph assumes unrestricted (transient) inter linear flow. This is the new transition flow period introduced in
this paper that is recognized by a straight line with a slope equal to -0.75. This is the flow period observed in the tight oil
Cardium formation as shown by the real production decline data presented in Figure 23. Based on this interpretation is likely
that the rates will revert to linear flow behavior in the future. It is likely that the same approach can be used for the case of
shale oil reservoirs with a unified model that take into account viscous and diffusion-like flow (Rahmanian et al., 2013).

Conclusions

1. Process (or delivery) speed, i.e., the ratio of permeability and porosity, provides a continuum between conventional,
tight gas, shale gas, tight oil and shale oil reservoirs.
2. There are distinctive flow units for each type of reservoir penetrated by vertical and horizontal multi-stage
hydraulically fractured wells that can be linked empirically to gas and oil rates and under favorable conditions to the
type of production decline.
3. A new unrestricted transition flow period in tight oil reservoirs has been recognized by considering a triple porosity
model that leads to a straight line with a slope of -0.75 on log-log coordinates. This straight line occurs as a
transition between 2 linear flow periods.
4. To make the work tractable the bulk of the data have been extracted from published geologic and petroleum
engineering literature.

Acknowledgements

Parts of this work were funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC agreement
347825-06), ConocoPhillips (agreement 4204638), Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions (AERI agreement
1711), the Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary and Servipetrol Ltd. The laboratory work with
cuttings was carried out using Darcylog equipment provided to the GFREE research team by Dr. Roland Lenormand of
Cydarex in Paris, France. Their contributions are gratefully acknowledged. I extend my gratitude to my students in the
Schulich School of Engineering, particularly Bukola Olusola, Peng Wu and John Freddy Ramirez for their help during
preparation of this paper.

Nomenclature

cc = Empirical commingled completion exponent, dimensionless
f = Function
10 SPE 165350

h = Net pay, m
h
f
= Fracture width, m
k = Permeability, md
k
2
= Fracture permeability attached to the net pay, md
m
f
= Porosity exponent (cementation factor) of the natural fractures
p
D
= Dimensionless pressure
r
35
= Winland pore throat radius at 35% cumulative pore volume, microns
r
p35
= Pore throat radius at 35% cumulative pore volume, microns
S
t
= Storage of the second matrix in the triple porosity system (|c
t
h), m/kPa
S
T
= Total storage of the composite system
t = Time
t
D
= Dimensionless time
T
f
= Transmissibility, md.m/mPa.sec
w
f
= Fracture width, m
x
f
= Fracture half length, m


Greek
Symbols


| = Total porosity, fraction
|
2
= Porosity of natural fractures (PHI
2
) scaled relative to the bulk volume of the composite system, fraction
|
b
= Matrix block porosity scaled relative to the bulk volume of the matrix system, fraction
|
ceff
= Effective porosity, fraction
|
m
= Matrix block porosity scaled relative to the bulk volume of the composite system, fraction
t
Dd
= Approximate beginning of the of the last straight line in the dual porosity reservoir, h
t
Dt
= Approximate beginning of the of the last straight line in the triple porosity reservoir, h
e = Storativity ratio
e
d
= Storativity ratio in the dual porosity reservoir
e
t
= Storativity ratio in triple porosity

Subscripts

d = Dual porosity
D = Dimensionless
f = Fracture
g = Gas
m = Matrix
o = Oil
t = Triple porosity

Acronyms

ERCB = Energy Resources Conservation Board (Alberta, Canada)
GFREE = integrated geoscience, formation evaluation, reservoir drilling, completion and stimulation, reservoir engineering,
economics and externalities, a tight gas research program at the University of Calgary, Canada
Port = pore throat radius
WCSB = Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin

References

Aguilera, R., 1978, Log Analysis of Gas-Bearing Fracture Shales in the Saint Lawrence Lowlands of Quebec, SPE paper
7445 presented at the 53
rd
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, October 1-3.
SPE 165350 11


Aguilera, R., 1980, Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Aguilera, R., 1986. An Approximate Solution of Linear Flow in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPE paper 16442.

Aguilera, R., 2002, Incorporating Capillary Pressure, Pore Aperture Radii, Height Above Free Water Table, and Winland r35
Values on Pickett Plots, AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, No. 4, pp. 605-624.

Aguilera, R., 2003, Geologic and Engineering Aspects of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Canadian Society of Exploration
Geophysicists Recorder, Vol. 28, No. 2, P. 44-49, 2003.
Aguilera, R., 2004, Integration of Geology, Petrophysics, and Reservoir Engineering for Characterization of Carbonate
Reservoirs through Pickett Plots, AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, no. 4, pp. 433446.

Aguilera, R., 2006, Sandstone vs. Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs: A Global Perspective on Porosity-Depth and Porosity-
Permeability Relationships: Discussion, AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 5, pp. 807810.

Aguilera, R., 2008, Role of Natural Fractures and Slot Porosity on Tight Gas Sands, SPE Paper 114174 presented at the 2008
SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference held in Keystone, Colorado, U.S.A., 1012 February 2008.
Aguilera, R., 2010, Flow Units: From Conventional to Tight Gas to Shale Gas Reservoirs, SPE Paper 132845 presented at
the Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, 2730 June 2010.
Aguilera, 2010, A Method for Estimating Hydrocarbon Cumulative Production Distribution of Individual Wells in Naturally
Fractured Carbonates, Sandstones, Shale Gas, Coalbed Methane and Tight Gas Formations, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, August 2010, p. 53-58.
Aguilera, R., 2011, Shale Gas Reservoirs: Theoretical, Practical and Research Issues, presented at the First Conference on
Unconventional Oil and Gas Development at the China University of Petroleum (Eastern China), Qindao, China, July 4 5,
2011
Aguilera, R. and Aguilera, M. S., 2002, The Integration of Capillary Pressures and Pickett Plots for Determination of Flow
Units and Reservoir Containers: SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, December, pp. 465-471.

Aguilera, R. and Harding, T. G., 2007, State-of-the-Art of Tight Gas Sands Characterization and Production Technology,
paper 2007-208 presented at the Petroleum Societys 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary,
Canada, June 12-14.

Aguilera, R. F., Harding, T., Krause, F. and Aguilera, R., 2008, Natural Gas Production from Tight Gas Formations: A
Global Perspective, presented at the 19th World Petroleum Congress held in Madrid, Spain on June 29 July 3, 2008.

Aguilera, R. F., Ripple, R. D. and Aguilera, R., 2012, Link between Rocks, Hydraulic Fracturing, Economics, Environment,
and the Global Gas Portfolio, SPE 162717 presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference held in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October1 November 2012.

Almanza, A., 2011, Integrated 3D Geological Model of the Mississippian Devonian Bakken Formation, Elm Coulee,
Williston Basin: Richland County, Montana, Colorado School of Mines.

Ambrose, R. J., Hartman, R. C., Diaz-Campos, M., Akkutlu, Y., and Sondergeld, G. H., 2010, New Pore-Scale
Considerations for Shale Gas in Place Calculations, SPE paper 131772 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference
held in Pittsburgh, Pa., February 23-25, 2010.

Andrade, J., Civan, F. and Davegowda, D., Sigal, R. F., 2011, Design and Examination of Requirements for a Rigorous Shale
Gas Reservoir Simulator Compared to Current Shale Gas Simulators, SPE paper 144401prepared at the SPE North American
Unconventional Gas Conference held in the Woodlands, Texas, 14-16 June 2011.

Archie, G.E., 1950, Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks, AAPG Bull., vol. 34, 943-961, 1950.
12 SPE 165350

Arevalo-Villagran, J. A., Wattenbarger, R. A., Samaniego-Verduzco, F, Some History Cases of Long-Term Linear Flow in
Tight Gas Wells, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, March 2006, p. 31-37.
Baihly, J., Altman, R., Malpani, R. and Luo, F., 2010, Shale Gas Production Decline Trend Comparison over Time and
Basins, SPE 135555 presented at the SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September
2010.
Baihly, J., Altman, R., Malpani, R. and Luo, F., 2011, Study Assesses Shale Decline Rates, The American Oil and Gas
Reporter, May 2011.
Brohi, I., Pooladi-Darvish, M. and Aguilera, R., 2011, Modeling Fractured Horizontal Wells As Dual Porosity Composite
Reservoirs Application to Tight Gas, Shale Gas and Tight Oil Cases, SPE presented at the SPE Western North American
Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 711 May 2011.
Bustin, R. M., Bustin, A. M. M., Cui, X., Ross, D. J. K., and Murthy Pathi, V. S., 2008, Impact of Shale Properties on Pore
Structure and Storage Characteristics, SPE paper 119892 presented at the SPE Shale Gas production Conference held in Fort
Worth, Texas, November 16-18.

Chopra, A. K., M. H. Stein, and J. C. Ader, 1987, Development of reservoir descriptions to aid in design of EOR projects:
SPE 16370, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, p. 437449.

Clarkson, C. R., Jensen, J. L., Pedersen, K and Freeman, M., 2012, Innovative methods for flow-unit and pore-structure
analyses in a tight siltstone and shale gas reservoir, AAPG Bulletin, v. 96, no. 2, February 2012, pp. 355374.

DOE, U.S. Department of Energy, 2012, New Models Help Optimize Development of Bakken Shale Resources,
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2012/12003-New_Models_Aid_Bakken_Shale_Develo.html (last entered
March 3, 2013).

Ebanks, W, J. Jr., 1987, Flow unit concept integrated approach to reservoir description for engineering projects, abstract:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 71, no. 5, p. 551-552.

Economides, M. and Oligney, R., 2000, The Color of Oil: The History, the Money and the Politics of the World's Biggest
Business, Round Oak Publishing Company.

Ehrenberg, S. N., and P. H. Nadeau, 2005, Sandstone vs. Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs: A Global Perspective on Porosity-
Depth and Porosity-Permeability Relationships: AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, no. 4, p. 435-445.

El Banbi, A. H., 1998, Analysis of Tight Gas Well Performance, PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University.

El Banbi, A. H. and Wattenbarger, R. A., 1998, Analysis of Linear Flow in Gas Well Production, SPE 39972 presented at
the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15-18 March 1998

Freeman, J. and Eller, D. L., 2010, A Golden Opportunity in the Golden State: A Monterey Shale Primer, U.S. Research,
Raymond James and Associates, December 20, 2010.

Gonzalez, L. and Aguilera, R., 2013, Effect of Natural Fracture Density on Production Variability of Individual Wells in the
Tight Gas Nikanassin Formation, paper CSUG/SPE 149222-PP presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1517 November 2011. In press: Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
2013.

Gunter, G. W., J. M. Finneran, D. J. Hartmann and J. D. Miller, 1997, Early determination of reservoir flow units using an
integrated petrophysical method: SPE paper 38679 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas.

Gunter, G. W., J. J. Pinch, J. M. Finneran and W. T. Bryant, 1997, Overview of an integrated process model to develop
petrophysical based reservoir descriptions: SPE paper 38748 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas.

SPE 165350 13

Hamm, B. and Struyk, E., 2011, Quantifying the Results of Horizontal Multistage Development in Tight Oil Reservoirs of
The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin: Technical and Economic Case Studies from a Reservoir Evaluators Perspective,
CSUG/SPE 149000 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference held in Calgary, Canada on 15-17
November 2011.

Hartmann, D. J. and Beaumont, E. A., 1999, Predicting reservoir system quality and performance: In Exploring for Oil and
Gas Traps, AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Handbook of Petroleum Geology, edited by Edward A. Beaumont and
Norman H. Foster, P. 9-1 to 9-154.

Holditch, S. A, 2001, The Increasing Role of Unconventional Reservoirs in the Future of the Oil and Gas Business,
http://www.spegcs.org/attachments/studygroups/6/Holditch2001.pdf, last entered March 10, 2010.

Javadpour, F, Fisher, D., Unsworth, M., 2007, Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale Gas Sediments, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
technology, Volume 46, No. 10, October 2007.

Kolodzie, S. J., 1980, The Analysis of Pore Throat Size and Use of Waxman Smit to Determine OOIP in Spindle field,
Colorado: Society of Petroleum Engineers 55th Annual Technical Conference, SPE paper 9382, 10 p.

Kwon, B.S. and Pickett, G.R., 1975, A New Pore Structure Model and Pore Structure Interrelationships: SPWLA 16th
Annual Logging Symposium.

Lavoie, J. Y., Marcil, J. S., Dorrins, P. K., Lavoie, J. and Aguilera, R., 2011, Natural Gas Potential in the Saint Lawrence
Lowlands of Quebec: A Case Study, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, November-December, 2011, p. 71-82.

Law, B. E., 2002, Basin-Centered Gas Systems, AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 86, pp. 18911919.

Leguizamon, J. and Aguilera, R., 2011. Optimizing Hydraulic Fracturing of Naturally Fractured Tight Gas Formations, SPE
142727 presented at the SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Muscat, Oman, 31
January2 February.

Lopez, B. and Aguilera, R., 2013, Evaluation of Quintuple Porosity in Shale Petroleum Reservoirs, SPE 165681-MS
prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2022 August 2013.

Mackenzie, W. T., 1975, Petrophysical Study of the Cardium sand in the Pembina Field, paper SPE 5541 presented at the 50
th

Annual Technical Meeting of SPE held in Dallas, Texas, September 28 October 1, 1975.

Martin, A. J., Solomon, S. T. and Hartmann, D. J., 1997, Characterization of Petrophysical flow units in carbonate reservoirs,
AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, No.5, P. 734- 759.

Martin, R., Baihly, J., Malpani, R., Lindsay, G., and Atwood, W. K., 2011, Understanding Production from Eagleford-Austin
Chalk System, SPE 145117 presented at the SPE Annual technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, 30
October 2 November, 2011.

Moghadam, S., Mattar, L., Pooladi-Darvish, M., 2010, Dual Porosity Type Curves for Shale Gas Reservoirs, SPE/CSUG
137535 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 1921 October 2010.

Nelson, P. H., 2009, Pore-Throat Sizes in Sandstones, Tight Sandstones, and Shales, AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, no. 3, March
2009, pp. 329340.

Ortega C. E. and Aguilera, R., 2013, A Complete Petrophysical Evaluation Method for Tight Formations from Only Drill
Cuttings in the Absence of Well Logs, SPE 161875-PP presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October1 November 2012. In press: SPE Journal, 2013.

Pickett, G. R. and D. S. Artus, 1970, Prediction from logs of recoverable hydrocarbon volume, Ordovician carbonates,
Williston basin: Geophysics, v. 35, no. 1, p. 113-123.

Pittman, E.D., 1992, Relationship of porosity and permeability to various parameters derived from mercury injection-
capillary pressure curves for sandstone: AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, no.2, p. 191-198.
14 SPE 165350


Rahmanian, M., Aguilera, R., and Solano, N., 2010, Storage and Output Flow from Shale and Tight Gas Reservoirs, SPE
paper 133611 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anaheim, California, USA, 2729 May.

Rahmanian, M., 2011, A New Model for Flow Regime Recognition Based on Pore Level Simulation Studies of Tight Gas
Formations, MSc thesis, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary.

Rahmanian, M., Aguilera, R. and Kantzas, A., 2013, A New Unified Diffusion-Viscous Flow Model Based on Pore Level
Studies of Tight Gas Formations, CSUG/SPE 149223 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference held
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1517 November 2011. SPE Journal, February 2013, p. 38-49.

Regan, L. J., 1953, Fractured Shale Reservoirs of California, AAPG Bulletin 37, February, 2013, p. 201-216.

Reynolds, M. M. and Munn D. L., 2010, Development Update for an Emerging Shale Gas Giant Field Horn River Basin,
British Columbia, Canada, SPE 130103 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference held in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 23-25 February 2010.

Ruppel, S. C. and Loucks, R. G., 2008, Black Mudrocks: Lessons and Questions from the Mississippian Barnett Shale in the
Southern Midcontinent, The Sedimentary Record, June.

Smocker, J. W., 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Assessment Concepts for Continuous Petroleum Accumulations 1995,
Chapter 13 of Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Southwestern Wyoming Province,
Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, version 1, 2005.

Sneider, R. M., King, H. R., Hawkes, H. E. and Davis, T. B., 1983. Methods for Detection and Characterization of Reservoir
Rock, Deep Basin Gas Area, Western Canada, Journal of Petroleum Technology, September, 1983, p. 1725-1734.

Solano, N. A., 2010, Reservoir Characterization of the Upper Jurassic Lower Cretaceous Nikanassin Group, MSc Thesis,
Geoscience Department, GFREE Tight Gas Research Team, University of Calgary.

Solano, N. A., Zambrano, L. and Aguilera, R., 2011, Cumulative Gas Production Distribution on the Nikanassin Tight Gas
Formation, Alberta and British Columbia, Canada. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, June 2011, p. 357-376.

Sonnenberg, S. A.., 2011, The Bakken Petroleum System of the Williston Basin, An Example of a Tight-Oil Play, presented
at the First Conference on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development at the China University of Petroleum (Eastern China),
Qindao, China, July 4 5, 2011.
Swami, V., 2013, Development of a Quad Porosity Numerical Flow Model for Shale Gas Reservoirs, MSc thesis, Schulich
School of Engineering, University of Calgary.

Wang, F. P. and Reed, R. M., 2009, Pore networks and Fluid Flow in Gas Shales, SPE paper 124253 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 4-7.
Wattenbarger, R. A., El Banbi, A. H., Villegas, E. M. and Maggard, J. B., 1998. Production Analysis of Linear Flow into
Fractured Tight Gas Wells, paper SPE 39931 presented at the 1998 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, Co., 5-8 April, 1998.

Walls, J. D., Diaz, E., Derzhi, N., Grader, A., Dvorkin, J., Arredondo, S., Carpio, G. and Sinclair, S. W., 2001, Eagle Ford
Shale Reservoir Properties from Digital Rock Physics, CSPG CSEG CWLS Convention, Calgary, Canada.


SPE 165350 15



Figure 1. Estimates of global natural gas and oil endowment.


Reservoir Rock
1000 md
10 md
0.1 md
Unconventional Gas
Tight Gas CBM
Shales Gas Gas Hydrates
Bottom of Resource Pyramid Unknown
Increasing:
Production
Costs and
Prices
Activation
Indexes
Research
Time
Decreasing:
Delivery
Speed
(k / )
Pore
Throat
Apertures
F
u
t
u
r
e




































P
r
e
s
e
n
t
WORLD GAS RESOURCE PYRAMID
Endowment
Aguilera et al., WPC, 2008,SPE 132845, SPE 162717
Gravity
45 API
30 API
15 API
Unconventional Oil
Heavy Oil
Oil sands Tight Oil
(bituminous sands)
Oil Shale
Bottom of Resource Pyramid Unknown
Increasing:
Production
Costs and
Prices
Activation
Indexes
Research
Time
Decreasing:
Oil Mobility
(k / )
F
u
t
u
r
e



































P
r
e
s
e
n
t
WORLD OIL RESOURCE PYRAMID
Endowment
16 SPE 165350






Figure 2A. Flow units as a function of pore throat apertures (r
p35
), porosities and permeabilities; and possible ranges of oil
(thousands of bopd) for vertical wells published by Martin et al. (1997) and gas flow rates (millions of scfd) for vertical wells
published by Deng et al. (2011). Graph includes possible ranges of rates for multistage hydraulically fractured (MSHF)
horizontal wells. Knudsen number allows distinguishing between viscous and diffusion-like flow.

M
b
o
p
d
M
M
s
c
f
d
10s
1s
0.1s
0.01s
100s
10s
1s
1.0s
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

W
e
l
l
s
M
S
H
F

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
100s+
1s
10s
0.1s
SPE 165350 17



Figure 2B. There is consistency between porosities and permeabilities from core analysis for conventional, tight gas and
shale gas reservoirs (see Figure 1); and porosities and permeabilities calculated from pore scale modeling (this study). The
empirical flow units represented by r
p35
lines (Kolodzie, 1980; Aguilera, 2010) are supported by pore scale modeling
calculations for pore throats (rt) ranging between 1-4, 0.1-1.5, 0.005-0.5 and 0.009-0.1 microns.

0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

k
m
a
x

(
m
D
)
Porosity (%)
CHART FOR ESTIMATING PORE THROAT APERTURE
(Adapted from Aguilera, CSEG Recorder, Feb 2003)
r t : 1 - 4 micro meters
r t : 0.1 - 1.5 micro meters
r t : 0.05 - 0.5 micro meters
r t : 0.009 - 0.1 micro meters
r
p35
20
10
4
2
1
0.5
0.2
m
e
g
a
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
c
r
o
p
o
r
t
s
m
e
s
o
p
o
r
t
s
m
i
c
r
o
p
o
r
t
s
n
a
n
o
p
o
r
t
s
0.04
0.025
0.014
0.1
18 SPE 165350


Figure 3. Poroperm crossplot showing pore types of Pennsylvanian sandstones and conglomerates, Elk City oil field,
Oklahoma (Source: Sneider et al., 1983).


Figure 4. Poroperm crossplot showing different r
p35
flow units of Pennsylvanian sandstones and conglomerates, Elk City oil
field, Oklahoma. Data points are the same as presented in Figure 3.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
m
D
)
Porosity (%)
Servipetrol, 2003
r
p35
15
6
2.3
2
1
0.5
0.05
m
e
g
a
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
c
r
o
p
o
r
t
s
m
e
s
o
p
o
r
t
s
m
i
c
r
o
p
o
r
t
s
SPE 165350 19



Figure 5. Poroperm crossplot showing different r
p35
flow units of Cardium sandstones, Pembina oil field, Canada. Data points
for Rock of Types I and II were tabulated originally by MacKenzie (1975). The dotted ellipse in the lower part of the graph
corresponds to tight oil Cardium.

Figure 6. Permeability vs. porosity crossplot including data from Horn River and soft shales in Canada, and Fayetteville and
Barnet shales in the United States. Symbols of Fayetteville data, including blue triangles, correspond to individual wells.
Green diamonds and black dots correspond to the Horn River (Muskwa formation) basin and soft shales, respectively (. et al,
2008), brown dots correspond to the Barnett formation (Source: Aguilera, 2010).


0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
m
D
)
Porosity (%)
CHART FOR ESTIMATING PORE THROAT APERTURE
(Template Source: Aguilera, CSEG Recorder, Feb 2003)
r
p35
10
4
1.7
0.8
0.42
0.2
0.1
m
e
g
a
p
o
r
t
m
a
c
r
o
p
o
r
t
s
m
e
s
o
p
o
r
t
s
m
i
c
r
o
p
o
r
t
s
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
FAYETTVILLE
HORN RIVER
BARNETT
SOFT SHALES
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
20 SPE 165350


Figure 7. Permeability vs. porosity crossplot including shale data from Horn River (HR) and soft shales in Canada;
Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B) in the United States, also shown on Figure 6. The red dots in the upper part of the graph
represent core data from the Nikanassin tight gas formation in Canada. The black squares with red crosses in the middle, and
the red triangles are data from Nikanassin drill cuttings (Solano, 2010; Ortega and Aguilera, 2013).


Figure 8. Permeability vs. porosity crossplot including shale data from Horn River (HR) and soft shales in Canada;
Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B) in the United States, also shown on Figure 6. The red dots in the upper part of the graph
represent core data from the Nikanassin tight gas formation in Canada. The black squares with red crosses in the middle, and
the red triangles are data from Nikanassin drill cuttings (Solano, 2010; Ortega and Aguilera, 2013). The yellow circles
represent data from the Utica shale in Quebec (Lavoie et al., 2010).







1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
F
HR, B
SOFT SHALES
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
0.55
NIKANASSIN CORE
0.15
UTICA
NIKANASSIN CUTTINGS
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
F
HR, B
SOFT SHALES
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
0.55
NIKANASSIN CORE
0.15
UTICA
NIKANASSIN CUTTINGS
UTICA
SPE 165350 21


Figure 9. Cross section of the Bakken petroleum system showing approximate maturity levels (Source: Sonnenberg, 2011). It
is likely that some of the oil generated in the Bakken in North Dakota migrated north (perpendicular to this page) to the
Canadian Bakken.



Figure 10. Permeability vs. porosity crossplot for the Bakken tight oil reservoir in the United States and Canada. The big red
triangle highlights sweet spot properties in the Bakken as established by Sarg, Sonnenberg et al. (2011). In this case
porosity and permeability can be larger due to dolimitization as in the Elm Coulee, Parshall, and Sanish pools. The graph also
includes for comparison shale data from Horn River (HR) in Canada; Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B) in the United States,
also shown on Figure 6.

Bakken Petroleum System
Reservoirs:
Middle Bakken & Three Forks
Source Beds:
Upper & Lower Bakken Shales
what was made in the Bakken, stayed in the Bakken PS
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
F
HR, B
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
1.8
0.09
0.004
1
4.5
JACKSON
BRUTUS
FOGHORN
0.55
SASK
22 SPE 165350


Figure 11. Permeability vs. porosity crossplot for Cardium conventional oil reservoirs of Type I (CT I) and Type II C(T II) in
Canada compared to Cardium tight oil reservoir (CT T) highlights differences in pore throat apertures. Each rock type
corresponds clearly to different flow units. The graph also includes for comparison shale data from Horn River (HR) in
Canada; Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B) in the United States, also shown on Figure 6.

Figure 12. Permeability vs. porosity crossplot for the Monterey shale in California. Possible Eagleford information is
included. The graph also shows for comparison shale data from Horn River (HR) in Canada; Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B)
in the United States, also shown on Figure 6.

1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
F
HR, B
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
1.8
0.18
0.004
1
4.5
CT T
CT I
CT II
0.8
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
F
HR, B
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
0.55
0.09
0.004
1
2
5
1.8
MONTEREY
VENOCO C
UPPER OXY
VENOCO A
VENOCO B
LOWER OXY
EAGLEFORD?
4.5
SPE 165350 23


Figure 13. Permeability vs. porosity crossplot for the Eagleford shale (Wells A-DRP, A-GRI-DS and B-GRI-AR-AR).
Possible Eagleford information is also included (green triangle). The graph also shows for comparison shale data from Horn
River (HR) in Canada; Fayetteville (F) and Barnett (B) in the United States, also shown on Figure 6.

Figure 14. Composite of permeability vs. porosity crossplot for tight oil and shale oil reservoirs suggests pore throat apertures
(r
p35
) ranging between approximately 0.09 and 4.5 microns. The graph includes data from the Shengli field (China), Cardium
(CT I, CT II, CT T), Monterey, Bakken in Saskatchewan (BSASK), Bakken in the U.S. (Foghorn, Brutus, Jackson), Viking
in Canada (VSK, VRW). Also included are the Marcellus (red squares) and the Utica (2 different patterns of yellow circles).
The lower part of the graph presets for comparison shale data from Horn River (HR) in Canada; Fayetteville (F) and Barnett
(B) in the United States, also shown on Figure 6. At the bottom of the graph data for the Upper and Lower Bakken (B).

1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
F
HR, B
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
0.55
0.09
0.004
5
1.8
WELL A-GRI-DS
EAGLEFORD ?
4.5
10.0
WELL B-GRI-AR-AR
WELL A-DRP
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
M
D
)
POROSITY
F
HR, B
0.04
0.025
0.014
rp35
microns
0.55
SHENGLI
0.09
EAGLEFORD(?)
BSASK3
0.004
1
2
4
5
14
BSASK2
BSASK1
1.8
MONTEREY
BAKKEN
SWEET SPOT
UPPER & LOWER B
SM
CP
VP
VRW
VSK
SSK
CT I
CT II
4.5
FOGHORN
BRUTUS
JACKSON
CT T
MARCELLUS
UTICA
UTICA
24 SPE 165350




Figure 15. Areal extension and cross section covering the Marcellus and Utica shales in the United States. Based on the
authors experience there is also potential in the basement, if naturally fractured, as the formation of natural fractures creates
a vacuum that tends to suck the fluids (in this case oil and natural gas) present in the surroundings. (Source of maps:
Geology.com, 2011).

Figure 16. Fractional production variability plot for the Barnett fractured shale in Texas for various operating companies
(Source: Aguilera, 2010).


0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% WELLS
%

C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

G
A
S
BASE
Devon
Burlington
Encana
XTO
Chief
SPE 165350 25































Figure 17. Fractional production variability plot for six Nikanassin tight gas areas the Deep Basin of Canada (Source:
Gonzalez and Aguilera, 2013).



Figure 18. Drawdown linear flow for wells producing from Devonian shales connected natural fractures in an infinite-acting
reservoir. The flow rates extend over a 25-year period without reaching the boundary dominated flow (Aguilera, 1980,
p.403).




0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1

/

q

(
1
E
-
6

/

s
c
f
)
Time ^ 1/2 (Years ^ 1/2)
> 300 Mscfd
200_300Mscfd
100-200 Mscfd
< 100 Mscfd
Linear (< 100 Mscfd)
26 SPE 165350



Figure 19. Production history of the Barnet shale normalized to the first day of production (FDOP) is shown on the upper
graph. The presence of linear flow is shown in the log-log middle graph (slope = -0.5) and the lower graph (1/q vs. square
root of time). It is likely that some groups of wells start showing boundary effects at t^0.5 equal to 6 to 8 months^0.5 or 36 to
64 months (Source of data: Baihly et al., 2010, 2011).
SPE 165350 27


Figure 20. Production history of the Fayetteville shale normalized to the first day of production (FDOP) is shown on the
upper graph. The presence of linear flow is shown in the log-log middle graph (slope = -0.5) and the lower graph (1/q vs.
square root of time). No boundary effects are noticeable (Source of data: Baihly et al., 2010, 2011).
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
/
q

(
1
/
M
c
f
d
)
Time ^0.5 (months ^0.5)
FAYETTEVILLE
DOFP_YEAR_2005 8 WELLS
DOFP_YEAR_2006 53 WELLS
DOFP_YEAR_2007 118 WELLS
DOFP_YEAR_2008 173 WELLS
DOFP_YEAR_2009 115 WELLS
LINEAR
28 SPE 165350


Figure 21. Production history of the Woodford shale normalized to the first day of production (FDOP) is shown on the upper
graph. The presence of linear flow is shown in the log-log middle graph (slope = -0.5) and the lower graph (1/q vs. square
root of time). It is likely that the upper two groups of wells start showing boundary effects at t^0.5 equal to 5 to 6 months^0.5
or 25 to 36months (Source of data: Baihly et al., 2010, 2011).


SPE 165350 29


Figure 22. Production history of the Woodford shale normalized to the first day of production (FDOP) is shown on the upper
graph. There is absence of linear flow is shown in the log-log middle graph (slope -0.5). If there is linear flow the lower
graph (1/q vs. square root of time) would indicate improved conditions around the wellbore that would tend to disappear as
the reservoir is depleted (Source of data: Baihly et al., 2010, 2011).
30 SPE 165350



Figure 23. The upper graph shows oil production rates vs. time for the tight oil Cardium formation as published by Hamm
and Struik. (2011). Their graph also includes a curve for a Type Well developed from actual Cardium production. The graph
in the middle shows a log-log crossplot of oil rate vs. time suggesting a new unrestricted transition flow period with a slope
of -0.75 between 2 linear flow periods. The bottom graph shows a Cartesian crossplot of 1/q vs. time ^0.75 with straight lines
representing the unrestricted transition bracketing the tight oil Cardium data.

SPE 165350 31


Figure 24. The upper graph shows dimensionless rate vs. dimensionless time for a triple porosity model with restricted inter-
linear flow. The transition between the 2 linear flow periods generates an approximate straight line with a negative slope
much bigger than 0.75. The lower graph shows unrestricted inter-linear flow. The transition between the 2 linear flow periods
generates an approximate straight line with a negative slope equal to 0.75.
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
q
D
tD
Decline Rate, Unrestricted Inter-Linear Transition Flow
Triple Porosity Model Dominated by Linear Flow
Linear Flow (slope = -0.5)
Unrestricted Transition (slope = -0.75)
Linear
Transition
Linear