SPE 98035

Determination of Effective Drainage Area for Tight Gas Wells

S.A. Cox, R.P. Sutton, and R.P. Stoltz, Marathon Oil Co., and T. Knobloch, James Engineering Inc.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Morgantown, W.V., 1416 September 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Early quantification of the wells ability to effectively drain
the productive reservoir will result in improved economic
performance. The effective drainage area of a tight gas well is
primarily controlled by reservoir geometry, rock and fluid
properties and well completion efficiency. This paper will
present theoretical effective drainage areas for wells
completed in blanket sands (radial drainage) and channel
sands (linear drainage).
The work will focus on the
relationship between reservoir geometry, effective gas
permeability, porosity and fracture half-length for dry-gas
reservoirs.
The relationship of effective gas permeability and fracture
half-lengths on the effective drainage area will be presented as
a result of this work. Typical Appalachian Basin producing
reservoir properties will be incorporated into the simulation
work tailoring this analysis to those producing environments.
The cases presented in this paper will include permeability
ranging from 0.01 md to 1 md, reservoir geometries ranging
from radial flow to channel widths from 250 ft to 1000 ft and
fracture stimulation half-lengths up to 300 ft. For consistency,
all stimulation cases will be based on an assumed 200 md-ft
fracture conductivity.
Introduction
The effective drainage area of tight gas reservoirs can best be
determined through production analysis. The paper discusses
two methods of determining the effective area for dry-gas
reservoirs. In tight gas reservoirs (reservoirs with effective
gas permeability less than 0.1 md), a significant amount of
time is required before the pressure transient is affected by all
of the boundaries of the reservoir. The no-flow boundaries
affecting the wells pressure transient behavior can be physical
boundaries or boundaries due to offset production. Therefore,
the effective drainage area of a tight gas producer will also be
a function of natural boundaries, drilled well spacing, effective

gas permeability and completion efficiency.

The efficient well spacing for tight gas producers can be
defined in many ways. For the purpose of this paper, the
efficient spacing is defined as the well spacing required to
attain eighty-percent recovery of the in place gas over thirty
years. An alternate definition considered by the authors was
the well spacing required to maximize the wells thirty year
recovery. The simulation results for these cases are also
presented. However, these cases resulted in very low recovery
of the in place volume.
For the same reservoir geometry the efficient well spacing
increases with both permeability and fracture half-length.
This work demonstrates that as a system becomes more linear
in nature, the effective drainage area is reduced for the same
reservoir and completion parameters.
Background Theory
The following is a brief summary of two production analysis
techniques that can be used to determine the effective drainage
area of a producing well. This is accomplished by first
estimating the wells drainage volume. The volume is then
used to estimate the wells drainage area from the volumetric
equation. Both techniques combine gas material balance and
flow equations to estimate the wells effective drainage
volume. The assumptions common to both techniques are as
follows:

Well production rates and pressures are accurate.

The flowing bottomhole pressure can be
accurately estimated from surface pressures if not
measured.
The reservoir drive mechanism is volumetric
depletion.

El-Banbi and Wattenbarger Method

The first method was proposed by El-Banbi and
Wattenbarger1,2. This method combines the gas material
balance and the stabilized flow equation for gas wells3 into an
iterative technique that can be used to estimate the drainage
volume of the well during boundary dominated flow (BDF).
Results can then be combined with the reservoir properties in
the volumetric equation to estimate the wells effective
drainage area. The stabilized flow equation is shown in
Equation 1.

SPE 98035

where:

10.04 A 3
+ s .............................. eq(2)
1.151 log
2

C a rw 4

a=

1,422T
kgh

b=

1422TD
..................................................................... eq(3)
kg h

The coefficient D is given by

D=

2.715 10 15 kMp sc
............................................. eq(4)
h g p wf rwTsc

and can be empirically estimated10 from

= 1.88 x1010 k 1.47 0.53 ............................................... eq(5)

Equation 1 is Forchheimers equation which has two
parameters (a and b) to account for Darcy (laminar) and nonDarcy (turbulent) flow, respectively. Assuming the non-Darcy
effects are negligible, the value of [ m ( p ) m p wf ]/qg will

( )

be constant for a single layer during boundary dominated

flow.
To perform the analysis, an initial gas in place is assumed and
the ratio of [ m ( p ) m p wf ]/qg is calculated and plotted

( )

versus time. If the assumed in place volume is too large, the

plot will have a positive slope at late time. If the assumed
volume is too small, the slope will be negative. The correct
estimate of gas in place will result in a late time slope of zero.
Figure 1 demonstrates this technique for a single layer, 160acre linear system. If the system is evaluated during transient
flow, the effective drainage area will be underestimated and
will increase through time. Once boundary dominated flow
has been achieved, this technique will accurately predict the
wells drainage volume.

1.2E+07

khm ( p )
..........................................................eq (6)
1422Tq (t )

QDA =

4.5Tz i Gi m( p )
t DA
....................................eq (7)
=
p wD
hAp i m( p )

Effective drainage area will continue to increase through the

transient flow period until all flow boundaries have been
reached and BDF has been established for the system. At this
point, the effective drainage area can be accurately estimated
from this technique. Figure 2 demonstrates this technique for a
single layer, 160-acre linear system.
Rate-Cumulative Decline Plot
Effective Drainage Area 160 acres - Linear Flow
0.5
80 Acres
160 Acres
320 Acres

80 Acres

0.3

0.0
0
Figure - 2

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Dimensionless Cumulative Production (QDA)

A reasonable estimate of drainage area for depletion drive gas

wells can be calculated using the volume derived from either
method. Both techniques require an accurate estimate of
flowing bottomhole pressure. In most tight gas applications,
the flowing bottomhole pressure through time is not directly
measured, but is calculated from surface data.

2
dp f g v g
=
+ g g cos .................................................eq(8)
dL
2d

Correct Area

Low Area

6.0E+06

0.0E+00
0
Figure - 1

p wD =

The following Equation5 is used to calculate the pressure drop

in a well flowing single phase gas.

High Area

[m(p)-m(pwf)/qg, (psi /cp)/Mscf/D)

El-Banbi and Wattenbarger Method

160 Acre Linear Flow

Rate Cumulative Decline Method

The second method was proposed by Agarwal and Gardner4, 5
to estimate effective drainage area. For this technique a ratecumulative-decline-curve is constructed by plotting reciprocal
dimensionless wellbore pressure, 1/PwD, from Equation 6
versus dimensionless cumulative production, (QDA) from
Equation 7. The plot forms a straight line tending towards
1/2 during boundary dominated flow.

Reciprocal Dimensionless Wellbore

Pressure (1/PwD)

() ( )

m p m p wf = aq g + bq g2 .............................................. eq(1)

1000

2000

3000
Time, Days

4000

5000

6000

For compressible flow, density, volume (velocity) and

viscosity vary with changes in pressure and temperature in the
wellbore. Cullender and Smith6 provided a solution technique
that has gained wide use by the industry to calculate the
bottomhole pressure of a gas well. Brill and Mukherjee5
review the procedure for using the this method for calculating
bottomhole pressure.

SPE 98035

The radius of drainage for a radial flow geometry3 can be

calculated from Equation 9.

kgt
rd =
377 c
g t

ultimate recovery. As the flow geometry becomes more linear

and the permeability reduces, the effective drainage area and
the maximum recoverable volume decreases.
Table 2
Model Parameters
Formation Top, ft
4,500

1/ 2

.................................................. eq(9)

This equation provides a relationship between the transient

flow period plus the rock and fluid properties. Examination of
this equation indicates that the transient radius of drainage for
a fixed time is affected by permeability, porosity, gas viscosity
and system compressibility. The equation can be easily
expressed in terms of drainage area. The drainage area is
proportional to the effective permeability to gas and inversely
proportional to the average porosity and fluid properties. This
relationship provides insight into the expected response of the
well/reservoir system and the effective drainage area contacted
by the well. In general, the slower the transient radius moves,
the smaller the efficient drainage area. It is important to note
that formation thickness is not included in the equation.
Formation thickness is important to the flow capacity of a
well, but has no impact on the drainage area.

Initial Reservoir Pressure, psi

1,950

Effective Gas Porosity, %

11.5

Gas Specific Gravity

0.69

Reservoir Temperature, F

105

Rock Compressibility, 1/psi

3E-6

Fracture Half-length Range, ft

20 - 300

Fracture Conductivity, md-ft

200

Table 3
Model Variables
Area, Acres

5 - 640

Flow Geometry

Radial, Linear

Linear Widths, ft

250, 500, 1000

Net Pay, ft

15, 30

Fracture half-lengths, ft
Tubing pressure, psi

Reservoir
Permeability, md
Porosity, %
Net pay, ft

Table 1
Clinton
Berea
<0.1 - 5
0.1 -10
3-10
5 13
2 - 20
5 - 50

Medina
0.1 2.5
4 6.5
10 - 50

Simulation Results
Simulation cases were constructed and used to develop the
theoretical drainage areas associated with various reservoir
parameters, completion parameters and operating conditions.
Variables under consideration in this study were effective gas
permeability, effective porosity, net thickness, reservoir
geometry, fracture stimulation half-lengths and tubing
pressure. The models were controlled by a fixed tubing
pressure and then produced for thirty years to determine the
recovery efficiency and cumulative production through time
for each set of conditions. The parameters common to all
models are listed in Table 2. Table 3 shows the ranges of each
variable considered in the simulation study. The results of this
study are summarized graphically throughout the text and
presented numerically in the Appendix.

Figure 3 demonstrates the relationship between the effective

drainage area, the effective permeability and reservoir
geometry for a fracture half-length of 100 ft and a flowing
tubing pressure of 100 psi. As the permeability is reduced, the
effective drainage area is also reduced. It is interesting to note
that the transient radius of investigation equation shows, that
for the same time, the transient moves slower with reduced
permeability. Likewise, as the reservoir becomes more linear,
the effective drainage area is reduced. For a radial system in a
permeability environment of 0.01 md, the effective drainage
area was found to be 13 acres, while the 1 md case could drain
447 acres. However, for the 250 ft linear system, the drainage
area is reduced to 7.4 acres for a permeability of 0.01 md and
to 69.5 acres for the 1 md case.
Effective Drainage Area
500
400
Area, acres

Typical Appalachian Basin producing reservoir properties for

the Clinton, Medina and the Berea formations are summarized
in Table 1. Reservoir parameters from these reservoirs were
used to construct the simulation runs.

20 - 300
20 -200

1 md
0.1 md
0.01 md

300
200
100
0

The effective drainage area for permeabilities of 0.01, 0.1 and

1 md ranged from 5 to over 600 acres. Permeability and flow
geometry were the most sensitive parameters affecting the
spacing required to achieve an 80% recovery of the effective
drainage area and the area required to maximize the thirty-year

250' Wide
Figure - 3

500' Wide

1000' Wide

Radial

Reservoir Geometry

The change in drainage area is not proportional to the effective

permeability or the flow geometry.

SPE 98035

Impact of Porosity on Effective Drainage Area

(Net Pay = 15', k = 0.1 md, width = radial, xf = 100', THP = 20 psi)
120
Phi = 8%
Phi = 20%

100
Drainage Area, acres

Figure 4 shows the required spacing to maximize the thirtyyear cumulative production for 250 ft wide linear flow
geometry with a fixed fracture half-length of 100 ft and a
tubing pressure of 100 psi. The minimum drainage area
required to maximize the thirty-year recovery for the 0.1 md
case was found to be 80 acres for these conditions. The
resulting recovery factor associated with the 80-acre spacing is
28%. The reduction in recovery is a result of the linear flow
in the reservoir. As the pressure transient moves away from
the well, the pressure is reduced but the cross sectional area
available to flow remains constant. The far reservoir volume
is slowly choked off from the producing well. A more
effectively stimulated completion acted to improve the
recovery factor but was found to have little effect on the
drainage area required to maximize the thirty-year recovery.
Figure 5 demonstrates this for the 0.1 md 250 ft linear system.
The recovery factors associated with the various fracture halflengths range from 26 to 30 percent. As the channel width
increases the resulting volumes and required spacing also
increased.

80
60
40
20
0

0
Figure - 6

10

20
30
Time, years

40

50

Net pay had no impact on the effective drainage area but did
result in a higher ultimate recovery through time. Figure 7
demonstrates this relationship for 0.1 md radial flow
geometry.
Impact of Net Pay on Effective Drainage Area
(k = 0.1 md, width = radial, xf = 100', THP = 20 psi)
100
15 ft'
30 ft

Cum. Gas Production, MMscf

(Net Pay = 15', k = 0.1 md, width = 250', xf = 100', THP = 100 psi)
500
400
300
200

80
60
40
20
0

100

10

20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Drainage Area, acres

Figure - 4

Impact of Fracture Half-Length on Cumulative Gas Production

(Net Pay = 15', k = 0.1 md, width = 250', xf = 100', THP = 100 psi)
500
xf = 20'
xf = 300'
400

30

40

50

Time, years

Figure - 7

As the fracture half-length becomes longer, the effective

drainage area for all flow geometries increases. The radial
system experiences the greater benefit from longer fracture
half-lengths. As the flow geometry becomes more linear, the
resulting increase in drainage area is reduced. Figures 8
through 10 show the effect of fracture half-length for each
permeability and flow geometry considered in the study.

300

Impact of Fracture Half-Length on

Effective Drainage Area, k = 0.01 md

200
30
100
0
0

Figure - 5

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Drainage Area, acres

Increasing porosity slows the transient radius of drainage and

was found to reduce the effective drainage area for a given
permeability and flow geometry. Figure 6 demonstrates this
relationship for 0.1 md radial flow geometry.

Drainage Area, acres

Cum. Gas Production, MMscf

Drainage Area, acres

Maximum Drainage Area

250' Wide
500' Wide
1000' Wide
Radial

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

Figure - 8

50

100

150

200

250

Fracture Half-Length (xf), ft

300

350

SPE 98035

analytical solutions for characterizing long-term gas well

performance in 19937. This work showed techniques to
convert gas well production with varying rate and pressure to
an equivalent constant rate liquid solution. The pseudo
equivalent time, ta Equation 10 was developed by Palacio and
Blasingame7.

Impact of Fracture Half-Length on

Effective Drainage Area, k = 0.1 md

Drainage Area, acres

120

250' Wide
500' Wide
1000' Wide
Radial

100
80
60

ta =

40

(c )
q (t )dt
=

q (t ) ( p )c ( p )
q (t )
t

g i

g i

20
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fracture Half-Length (xf), ft

Figure - 9

Impact of Fracture Half-Length on

Effective Drainage Area, k = 1.0 md
600

Drainage Area, acres

(c )

250' Wide
500' Wide
1000' Wide
Radial

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fracture Half-Length (xf), ft

Figure - 10

A reduction in tubing pressure was found to result in a

nominal increase in the effective drainage area as
demonstrated in Figure 11. While the impact on drainage area
is small, other operational considerations such as the minimum
rate necessary to keep the well unloaded will dictate tubing
pressure.
Impact of THP on Effective Drainage Area
(Net Pay = 15', k = 0.1 md, width = radial, xf = 100')

z i Gi
[m( p )] .......... eq(10)
2 pi

The average reservoir pressure must be determined to

calculate the correct pseudo equivalent time. From material
balance, the average reservoir pressure can be calculated if the
original gas in place is known. Therefore, the application of
analytical solutions to the gas producing environment for
production forecasting and gas production analysis is
inherently iterative in nature.
Field Case 1
This well is producing from the Medina reservoir from a depth
of approximately 6000 ft with an average porosity of 7%
(effective porosity 4.4%), water saturation of 37% and 15 ft of
net pay. The initial reservoir pressure was 1,720 psi. The
effective gas permeability is estimated at 0.1 md from
production analysis. The well was fracture stimulated upon
initial completion. The well production performance exhibits
radial flow. Ultimate recovery from decline curve analysis is
projected to be 223 MMscf.
The effective drainage area for this well from the theoretical
simulation work would suggest that this well should be
capable of draining approximately 125 acres. The El-Banbi
and Wattenbarger Method and the Rate Cumulative Decline
Method indicate that the well is draining approximately 240
MMscf for a 93% recovery factor. Figure 12 shows the results
of the Rate Cumulative Decline Method for this well.
Assuming a 93% recovery factor, this volume would translate
into an effective drainage area of 69 acres.

100
Rate-Cumulative Decline Plot
Results - Gas in Place = 0.24 BCF
Field Case 1

80
0.50

60
40
20
0
0

Figure - 11

10

20

30

40

50

Time, years

The simulation results were used to validate analytical

solutions. These models can be used to rapidly evaluate other
reservoir and well producing characteristics. It should be
noted that in order to properly apply the analytical solutions to
a compressible system, the dimensionless time function must
account for changing gas properties as a result of depletion.
Palacio and Blasingame originally presented the use of

Reciprocal Dimensionless Wellbore Pressure

(1/PwD)

Drainage Area, acres

THP = 20 psi
THP = 200 psi

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00
Figure - 12

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Dimensionless Cumulative Production (QDA)

Field Case 2
This well is producing from the Clinton and Medina reservoir
at a depth of approximately 6300 ft with an average porosity
of 7% (effective porosity 4.1%), water saturation of 41% and

SPE 98035

The effective drainage area for this well from the theoretical
simulation work would suggest that this well should be
capable of draining approximately 70 acres. The El-Banbi and
Wattenbarger Method and the Rate Cumulative Decline
Method indicate that the well is draining approximately 160
MMscf for a 77% recovery factor. Figure 13 shows the results
of the El-Banbi and Wattenbarger Method for this well.
Assuming a 77% recovery factor, this volume would translate
into an effective drainage area of 28 acres.

m(p)-m(pwf)/qg, (psi2/cp)/Mscf/D
*106

Slope = 0.000125
Intercept = 961184.25
Gas in Place = 0.168 BCF

16

0.50

0.40

0.30
Effects of interference
or liquid loading
0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

Figure - 14

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Dimensionless Cumulative Production (QDA)

Observations and Conclusions

The results of this work highlight the relative importance of
reservoir parameters, flow geometry, fracture half-length and
producing conditions with respect to drainage area and
cumulative production for dry-gas reservoirs. The following
table lists these parameters in order of their relative
importance. These parameters are readily available; however,
field development must include provisions to obtain this
information in order to conduct this analysis.

El-Banbi and Wattenbarger Method

Field Case 2
20

Rate-Cumulative Decline Plot

Results - Gas in Place = 0.13 BCF
Field Case 3

Reciprocal Dimensionless Wellbore Pressure

(1/PwD)

26 ft of net pay. The initial reservoir pressure was 1,700 psi.

The effective gas permeability is estimated at 0.1 md from
production analysis. The well was fracture stimulated upon
initial completion. The well production performance exhibits
linear flow with a width of 353 ft. Ultimate recovery from
decline curve analysis is projected to be 130 MMscf.

12
8

Parameter
Reservoir Geometry

4
0
0

Figure - 13

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Time, days

Field Case 3
This well is producing from the Second Berea reservoir from a
depth of approximately 1600 ft with an average porosity of
12% (effective porosity 7.8%), water saturation of 35% and 6
ft of net pay. The initial reservoir pressure was 850 psi. The
effective gas permeability is estimated at 0.5 md from
production analysis. The well was fracture stimulated upon
initial completion. The well production performance exhibits
radial flow. Ultimate recovery from decline curve analysis is
projected to be 101 MMscf.
The effective drainage area for this well from analytical
calculations (required to account for lower initial reservoir
pressure) would suggest that this well should be capable of
draining approximately 150 acres.
The El-Banbi and
Wattenbarger Method and the Rate Cumulative Decline
Method indicate that the well is draining approximately 130
MMscf for a 78% recovery factor. Figure 14 shows the results
of the Rate Cumulative Decline Method for this well.
Assuming a 78% recovery factor, this volume would translate
into an effective drainage area of approximately 17 acres. The
field is drilled on 1000 ft spacing.

Permeability
Porosity
Well completion efficiency
(Fracture half-length)
Tubing pressure
PVT
Reservoir pressure
Reservoir Temperature

Data Source
geology, production analysis
core,
transient
testing,
production analysis
core , well logs
transient testing, production
analysis
measured
measured, correlations
measured
measured

In order to maximize the value of the asset, proper well

spacing must be determined early in the field development to
insure that wells can be properly spaced and drilled as quickly
as practical. Historically, field development of tight gas
reservoirs has progressed at a slower pace, which erodes the
net present value of the asset.
By fixing the productive time of the well a maximum drainage
area can be determined. However, the drainage area is
inefficiently drained.
Parameters such as tubing size and wellhead pressure are
important to the successful operation of the property. These
parameters primarily affect production rate and the liquid
loading characteristics of the well and should not be
overlooked.
Ultimately, the proper spacing for a field is a function of
reservoir performance, well performance and the desired
economic returns.
Transient well performance can be
analyzed to determine the reservoir and well parameters

SPE 98035

necessary to characterize the behavior of the reservoir.

Quantification of the productive potential of the well and the
behavior of the reservoir early in the life of the field are
necessary to maximize the value of the asset.
Acknowledgments
We thank the management of Marathon Oil Company and
James Engineering Inc. for permission to print this article. We
would also like to thank Triad Energy Corporation for
providing field data for this paper.

References
1.

2.

3.

Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft
CA = shape factor
ct = total compressibility, psi-1
dp/dL = pressure gradient, psi/ft
d = pipe diameter, ft
f = Moody friction factor
g = gravity, ft/sec2
G = original gas in place, Mscf
G p = cumulative gas produced, Mscf
h
k
m( p)
m( p )
m( p)

=
=
=
=
=

reservoir thickness, ft
effective permeability, md
real gas pseudo pressure, psi2/cp
m( p i ) m( p ) , psi2/cp
m ( pi ) m ( pwf ) , psi2/cp

4.

5.

6.

7.

El-Banbi, A. H., Wattenbarger, R. A.: Analysis of

Commingled Tight Gas Reservoirs With Variable BottomHole Flowing Pressure and Non-Darcy Flow, paper SPE
38866 presented at the 1997 SPE Technical Conference and
Exhibition Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October.
El-Banbi, A. H., Wattenbarger, R. A.: Analysis of
Commingled Tight Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 36736
presented at the 1996 SPE Technical Conference and
Exhibition Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October.
Lee, W.J. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir
Engineering, SPE Textbook Series Volume 5 (1996).
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W. and
Fussell, D.D.: Analyzing Well Production Data Using
Combined-Type-Curve and Decline-Curve Analysis
Concepts, SPEREE (October 1999) 478.
Brill, J.P. and Mukherjee, H.: Multiphase Flow in Wells,
Monograph 17, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, TX (1999) Chapt. 2.
Cullender, M. H. and Smith, R. V.: Practical Solutions of
Gas-Flow Equations for Wells and Pipelines with Large
Temperature Gradients, JPT (Dec., 1956) 281.
Palacio, J.C. and Blasingame, T.A.: Decline-Curve
Analysis Using Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well
Performance Data, paper SPE 25909 presented at the 1993
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, 26-28
April.

Appendix

pwf = bottomhole producing pressure, psia

p = average reservoir pressure, psia
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
p wD = dimensionless wellbore pressure

q g = flow rate, Mscf/D

q(t ) = flow rate, Mscf/D
QDA = dimensionless cumulative production based on
area (A)
rw = wellbore radius, ft
s = skin factor
t = time, days
t a = pseudoequivalent time, days
T = reservoir temperature, R
t DA = dimensionless time based on area (A)
v = velocity, ft/sec
xf = fracture half-length, feet
z i = gas compressibility factor at pi
= porosity, fraction or degrees from vertical (eq 8)
= density, lbm/ft3
= viscosity, cp
= 3.14159
Subscripts
g = gas
i = initial
sc = standard conditions
pss = pseudo steady state

Table A1
Effective Drainage Area for 30 Years of Production
Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', THP = 100 psi
Channel
width
(feet)
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
500
500
500
500
500
500
250
250
250
250
250
250

Fracture
Matrix
Length Permeability
(feet)
(md)
50
50
50
250
250
250
50
50
50
250
250
250
50
50
50
250
250
250
50
50
50
250
250
250

0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
1

75%
Area
(acres)
12
78
539
26
131
>640
11
67
271
25
95
289
11
45
152
19
54
159
8
26
81
12
29
83

Recovery Factor
80%
90%
Area
Area
(acres)
(acres)
10
63
430
22
107
524
8
56
230
21
81
247
9
38
130
17
48
135
7
22
69
10
25
71

5
31
213
12
57
264
<5
31
143
na
49
161
5
23
85
11
30
89
5
14
45
7
16
46

SPE 98035

Table A2
Minimum Area Required to Maximize Cumulative Production
k = 0.1 md, Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', xf = 100', THP = 100 psi

Minimum Area Required to Maximize Cumulative Production

k = 0.01 md, Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', xf = 100', THP = 100 psi

Channel
width
(feet)

Area
(acres)

10 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

20 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

30 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

40 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

Channel
width
(feet)

Area
(acres)

10 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

20 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

30 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

40 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640

59
116
217
365
517
613
648
652
59
108
154
162
162
162
160
161
59
115
206
283
295
293
293
291
58
114
216
359
456
468
466
465

59
117
230
423
695
957
1113
1167
59
115
190
227
229
227
228
225
59
117
224
363
424
426
423
422
59
117
229
419
634
712
714
709

59
117
233
444
779
1176
1481
1625
59
116
206
273
280
278
279
276
59
118
230
401
516
526
523
523
59
118
233
441
728
895
907
901

59
117
233
445
785
1194
1514
1668
59
116
207
277
284
283
283
280
59
118
230
403
524
535
532
532
59
118
233
443
735
910
924
918

Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640

51
78
97
103
104
104
104
103
47
54
54
54
53
53
53
53
51
76
84
84
83
83
83
83
37
72
96
101
101
101
100
100

56
97
142
169
178
179
179
178
53
73
75
75
75
74
74
73
56
96
122
125
124
124
123
123
47
92
141
164
166
165
165
164

57
105
167
219
243
248
248
247
56
84
91
91
91
90
90
89
57
104
147
156
155
155
154
154
51
101
166
212
219
218
218
217

57
106
169
223
249
255
255
254
56
85
93
92
92
92
92
91
57
104
149
159
158
158
157
157
52
102
168
216
224
223
223
222

Table A4

Table A3

Table A5

Minimum Area Required to Maximize Cumulative Production

k = 0.1 md, Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', xf = 300', THP = 100 psi

Minimum Area Required to Maximize Cumulative Production

k = 0.01 md, Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', xf = 300', THP = 100 psi

Channel
width
(feet)

Area
(acres)

10 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

20 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

30 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

40 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

Channel
width
(feet)

Area
(acres)

10 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

20 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

30 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

40 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
20
40
80
160
320
640

117
229
416
651
831
905
917
59
114
174
187
185
186
184
185
118
223
329
348
346
345
343
228
412
568
591
588
587

118
235
451
796
1196
1475
1582
59
117
203
252
252
252
252
249
118
232
396
478
480
477
477
234
448
729
850
851
846

118
236
461
853
1396
1889
2149
59
118
215
296
302
303
303
300
118
234
425
569
582
579
579
235
460
803
1034
1052
1046

118
236
462
857
1411
1924
2201
59
118
216
300
307
307
307
304
118
234
427
576
592
588
588
235
460
808
1050
1071
1064

Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
500
500
250
500
500
500
250
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
160
320
10
20
40
80
80
160
320
640
640
20
40
80
160
320
640

436
856
1319
1624
1787
1869
1910
176
795
1359
1659
1878
1914
374
989
1468
1805
1710
1830
1891
1932
1921
882
1330
1640
1795
1873
1912

247
538
1017
1434
1687
1819
1885
126
548
1202
1582
1859
1905
214
702
1306
1767
1629
1790
1870
1928
1911
561
1039
1484
1718
1835
1893

183
389
818
1282
1600
1774
1863
116
415
1083
1523
1844
1897
162
537
1186
1738
1570
1760
1856
1924
1903
407
844
1367
1659
1805
1878

179
378
801
1268
1592
1770
1860
116
405
1073
1518
1843
1897
159
524
1175
1735
1564
1758
1854
1924
1903
396
828
1356
1654
1803
1877

SPE 98035

Table A6

Table A8

Minimum Area Required to Maximize Cumulative Production

k = 1 md, Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', xf = 100', THP = 100 psi

Recovery Factor for Different Drainage Areas

k = 0.1 md, Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', THP = 100 psi

Channel
width
(feet)

Area
(acres)

10 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

20 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

30 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

40 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

Channel
width
(feet)

Area
(acres)

Fracture
Length
(feet)

20 Year
RF
(%)

30 Year
RF
(%)

40 Year
RF
(%)

Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640

59
118
236
467
898
1620
2576
3450
59
118
228
396
494
501
497
498
59
118
235
455
769
944
954
947
59
118
235
466
881
1425
1696
1709

59
118
236
471
930
1782
3175
4955
59
118
232
440
658
708
711
703
59
118
235
467
867
1276
1366
1370
59
118
236
470
924
1671
2376
2516

59
118
236
471
938
1833
3410
5745
59
118
233
454
744
866
872
862
59
118
235
470
901
1457
1681
1691
59
118
236
471
935
1761
2764
3136

59
118
236
471
938
1836
3426
5802
59
118
233
455
751
880
886
877
59
118
235
470
903
1470
1709
1720
59
118
236
471
935
1767
2794
3191

Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
20
40
80
160
320
640

50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
250
250
250
250
250
250

95.7
95.0
95.7
82.1
64.7
42.7
24.2
12.6
95.7
95.0
90.8
79.3
58.6
35.7
19.0
95.6
92.1
76.0
44.4
22.4
11.1
5.6
2.7
95.7
98.7
82.3
50.0
25.1
12.5
6.2
3.1
95.7
94.8
89.2
70.4
40.4
20.3
10.1
5.0
95.7
93.7
79.2
47.4
23.8
11.8
5.9
95.4
94.6
91.3
81.2
59.2
32.7
16.4
8.1
94.9
90.2
72.3
41.8
20.9
10.4

95.7
95.5
95.7
87.6
74.4
53.8
32.8
17.7
95.7
95.5
93.3
85.6
69.0
46.0
26.0
95.7
94.0
83.0
53.8
27.5
13.7
6.9
3.4
95.7
98.9
87.5
59.1
30.3
15.1
7.6
3.7
95.7
95.4
92.3
78.8
49.8
25.3
12.6
6.3
95.7
94.9
85.4
56.7
29.0
14.4
7.2
95.6
95.3
93.6
87.0
69.5
41.7
21.1
10.5
95.4
92.9
80.3
51.2
26.0
12.9

95.7
95.5
95.7
88.0
75.1
54.7
33.5
18.2
95.7
95.5
93.4
86.0
69.8
46.9
26.6
95.7
94.1
83.5
54.6
28.0
13.9
7.0
3.4
95.7
99.0
87.9
59.8
30.8
15.3
7.7
3.8
95.7
95.5
92.5
79.4
50.6
25.8
12.8
6.4
95.7
95.0
85.8
57.4
29.4
14.6
7.3
95.6
95.4
93.7
87.4
70.3
42.5
21.5
10.7
95.5
93.1
80.8
52.0
26.5
13.2

Table A7
Minimum Area Required to Maximize Cumulative Production
k = 1 md, Phi = 11.5%, Net Pay = 15', xf = 300', THP = 100 psi
Channel
width
(feet)

Area
(acres)

10 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

20 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

30 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

40 Year
Cum
(MMscf)

Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

10
20
40
80
160
320
640
5
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
20
40
80
160
320
640

118
236
468
909
1666
2717
3730
59
118
229
402
502
512
508
509
118
235
459
783
968
978
971
236
468
893
1468
1764
1778

118
236
471
934
1804
3266
5222
59
118
232
443
664
719
721
713
118
236
469
875
1296
1391
1393
236
471
929
1696
2439
2591

118
236
471
939
1846
3473
5966
59
118
233
456
750
877
882
872
118
236
471
906
1473
1705
1714
236
471
937
1778
2818
3213

118
236
471
939
1848
3486
6019
59
118
233
457
756
891
896
886
118
236
471
908
1486
1733
1742
236
471
938
1783
2846
3268