WELL TEST ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED GAS WELLS
FOR NON-DARCY FLOW EFFECTS
Abdul Malik Kakar1, Shiyi Zheng2 and George Stewart3
1Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL), Heriot-Watt University, m_kakar@ppl.com.pk
2Heriot-Watt University, shiyi.zheng@pet.hw.ac.uk
3Heriot-Watt University, EPS, george.stewart@pet.hw.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Vast reserves of natural gas exist trapped in low
permeability formations throughout the world. Due to
the low viscosity of gas, reserves under certain conditions
can be recovered from these low permeability formations
where the economic recovery of conventional liquid
hydrocarbons would not be possible. In order to allow
economic production from gas wells in low permeability
reservoirs, hydraulic fracturing is often necessary to
increase gas recovery.
The presence of non-Darcy flow significantly reduces
the effective conductivity of the propped fracture, and
hence adversely affects productivity of a hydraulically
fractured gas well. This paper presents study, which is
aimed at analysis of well test conducted on hydraulically
fractured gas well. A simulation study was conducted
to generate pressure-transient response for a hydraulically
fractured gas well for the purpose of well test
interpretation. The non-Darcy flow effects have been
investigated as a function of fracture geometry. The
resulting variation in transient pressure response
eventually leads to changes in the well production
capacity. The paper also includes the investigation of
optimum fracture geometry for which non-Darcy flow
effects are negligible thereby optimizing well
performance.
INTRODUCTION
Hydraulic fracturing is an effective technique for
increasing the productivity of gas wells producing from
low permeability formations. For a fractured well,
fracture length, fracture conductivity and formation
permeability are the parameters that govern productivity
of the well. Post-fractured well test analysis significantly
aids evaluating fracture treatment design and forecasting
the well performance.
When a gas well is hydraulically fractured, flow pattern
in the formation is no longer radial and propped fracture
will dominate the flow system. Therefore, conventional
inflow performance relationship (IPR) models based on
radial flow assumption are not applicable. At longer
times the Pseudo-radial flow is reached in every fractured
system irrespective of fracture conductivities.
The equations developed for radial homogeneous system
become equally applicable for analysing this flow period.
However, Pseudo-radial flow period data can not be
used for estimating fracture parameters, and a negative
skin factor has been used to reflect the stimulation effect.
As the permeability in the propped fracture is much
higher than formation matrix permeability, much of the
gas will first flow into the fracture, and then along the
fracture, before reaching the wellbore. The non-Darcy
effects associated with inertia and high flow velocities
in the fracture significantly influence the well
performance. Other factors that are likely to affect the
well productivity may include formation damage, water
blocking and alteration of capillary pressure due to
fracturing fluid invasion.
This paper presents study, which is aimed at analysis
of both pressure-transient, and deliverability testing
data, for hydraulically fractured gas wells in the presence
of non-Darcy flow. A simulation study was conducted
to generate pressure-transient response for a hydraulically
fractured gas well for the purpose of well test
interpretation. The non-Darcy flow effects have been
investigated as a function of fracture geometry. The well
is assumed vertical and producing at a constant flow
rate. Permeability, skin, non-Darcy flow co-efficient
and absolute open-flow-potential, are determined from
well test analysis. An optimum case has also been
investigated for which non-Darcy flow effects are
negligible.
263
FRACTURED WELL PRODUCTIVITY
The inflow performance of a hydraulically fractured
well is controlled by dimensionless fracture conductivity,
Fcd. [13].
Where
kf *wf = Fracture conductivity (i.e. ability of fracture to
conduct fluid to the wellbore).
k *xf = Ability of formation to deliver fluid into hydraulic
fracture.
For values of Fcd equal or greater than 300, the fracture
will be called infinite-conductive. [2]
Flow Patterns in Hydraulically Fractured Wells
Five distinct flow patterns occur in the fracture and
formation around a hydraulically fractured well. They
are named as fracture-linear, bi-linear, formation linear,
elliptical, and pseudoradial flow. [11]
Fracture-linear flow is short-lived and is normally
dominated by wellbore storage effects. During this
period, most of the fluid entering the wellbore comes
from fluid expansion in the fracture, and flow pattern
is essentially linear. Bilinear flow evolves in finite-
conductive fracture, and is mostly the first flow regime
that can be observed after the wellbore storage effects
are dissipated. This period is featured by linear flows
in both the fracture and formation and that the fracture
tips do not affect the pressure behaviour of the well.
Most of the fluid in this period comes from the formation,
and pwf is a linear function of t1/4. The duration of bi-
linear flow depends on Fcd.
Formation linear flow occurs in only infinite-conductive
fractures. Elliptical flow, a transitional flow, occurs only
in between a linear and nearly linear flow patterns at
early times and a radial or nearly radial flow at later
times. Pseudoradial flow occurs in fractures irrespective
of fracture conductivities. After sufficiently long flow
period, the fracture appears to the reservoir as an extended
wellbore. All the equations developed for radial
homogeneous system are equally applicable for
interpreting data of this flow period. The larger the time
is, the later the development of essentially radial flow.
[11]
Non-Darcy Flow
Laminar flow of fluid through a porous media can be
described using Darcys law.
Where u is the superficial velocity, k is the
permeability, dp is the pressure drop, and x is the
dimension at x-direction.
Darcys law provides basis for describing fluid
flow in porous media, but cannot describe fluid
flow accurately when the flow rate is high. For
gases, flow rate is always very high especially in
the restricted areas such as near the wellbore and
in fractures. Forchhimer (1901) proposed a classical
equation for counteracting the deficiency
encountered with Darcys law, by adding a non-
Darcy term into Darcys flow equation. He found
that the pressure gradient required to maintain a
certain flow rate through porous media was higher
than predicted by Darcys law. [1]
Where the fluid density, and is the non-Darcy flow
coefficient. Different authors have referred to in a
number of different ways including: turbulence factor
by Cornell and Katz, and Tek et. al., coefficient of inertial
resistance by Greerstma, and Al-Rumhy et. al., the
velocity coefficient by Firoozabadi, the non-Darcy
coefficient by Civan and Evans, Liu et. al. The non-
Darcy flow coefficient is usually determined by analysis
of multi-rate pressure test, and from correlations in cases
where well test data is not available. [1].
Cornell and Katz attributed the non-Darcy effect, in
other words the non-linearity between pressure gradient
and velocity, to turbulence. However many researchers
such as Bear, Scheidgger, Barek, Ruth and Ma, Whitaker
have agreed that the non-linearity is not due to turbulence
but to inertial effects. Bear gave the following three
reasons to exclude turbulence as cause for the non-
Darcy effect [1].
1. In turbulent flow through pipes, the linear term of
Eq-3 does not exist.
2. In flow through pipes, the transition from laminar
to turbulent flow is not gradual but rather steep.
3. The critical Reynolds number Re at which transition
starts is several orders of magnitude higher than that
at which non-Darcy effect begins.
264
Non-Darcy Flow in Propped Fractures
Analysis of the effects of non-Darcy flow in high rate
oil and gas wells shows that, fracture conductivities are
dominated by non-Darcy flow effects and that effective
conductivities are non-linearly dependent on proppant
coverage. [5].
Significant non-Darcy flow can exist in a fracture at
any time in the life of a vertically fractured well. On
the average, about 10% of the total fracture pressure
drop can be attributed to non-Darcy flow effects [2, 6].
If substantial non-Darcy flow is occurring in the fracture,
the calculation of fracture length using conventional
techniques will result in values that are far too small.
[7]
The transient pressure response of finite-conductivity
fractures with non-Darcy flow are governed by the
dimensionless fracture conductivity, F c d and
dimensionless flow rate, [2, 6]
When analysing post-fracture well test, the overall
effective fracture conductivity taking into account the
flow distribution along the fracture is given by:
The coefficient C depends on the flow condition in fracture,
and value ranges from 0.3 to 0.6. [5]
In high rate, hydraulically fractured gas wells, non-
Darcy flow effects may reduce effective fracture
conductivity by a factor of 10 [5]. The non-Darcy flow
can reduce the effective conductivity near the wellbore
by a factor of 20 or more. [7]
The effect of non-Darcy flow is more significant when
describing gas flow in propped fractures. As a result of
neglecting the effects of non-Darcy flow in fracture,
conflicts arise between well testing estimates and design
values of fracture conductivity and fracture half-length,
which continue cause uncertainty and debate.
SIMULATION
Overview
A numerical simulator (Eclipse-300, Schlumberger
Geoquest, compositional simulation software) is used
for generating pressure-transient behaviour of
hydraulically fractured gas well. Black-oil simulation
model could be an option, however as the main objectives
were to investigate non-Darcy flow effects, and this is
only possible with compositional model.
Dual porosity models are conventionally used to describe
fractured gas reservoirs. In this model, the flow from
the matrix to fracture is assumed to be in semi-steady
state. It has been demonstrated that such models do not
predict the matrix-fracture flow accurately. This is
particularly true when the matrix permeability is very
low. This necessitates taking full transient flow behaviour
within the matrix quantinuum. It may be noted that
transient time in a very low permeability gas reservoirs
may range from a few days to several months. [10]
Reservoir Model
In first the system investigated in this study, we have
considered a single, fully penetrated, vertical well in
the centre of a horizontal, closed and square reservoir
of uniform thickness, h. The well is intercepted by a
fully penetrating hydraulic fracture. The fracture has a
height of h, half-length of xf, width of wf and permeability
of kf. The reservoir properties are assumed uniform and
homogeneous. The fluid considered for this study is dry
gas (methane) with a specific gravity of 0.553. Table 1
lists the basic reservoir properties. The most widely
used Peng-Robison equation of state (EOS) was used
to obtain fluid properties such as viscosity, FVF and
compressibility.
Fracture Model
A symmetric two-wing, fully penetrated vertical fracture,
with half-length, xf of 100 ft and width, wf of 0.5 inch,
is modelled. Non-Darcy flow factors for proppants used
in the simulation model are taken from StimLab report.
The proppant type selected for the range of permabilities
and temperature is resin-coated sand, having porosity
of 39.1%.
Coefficient of inertia has units of [L-1], but some of
laboratories use unit of [atm-s2/g, also called Forchhimer
unit, F]. The values provided for non-Darcy flow factor
by StimLab are in the later units, and the same unit is
required for Eclipse. Values of for different proppant
permabilities are tabulated in Table 3.
Modelling Grids
A low permeability gas reservoir (square- 2,000 x 2,000
ft) with a hydraulically fractured gas well in the centre
is modelled using 2D Cartesian grids coordinates (3,
249 grid cells), (57 blocks each in x and y direction).
The size of grids cells is small near the well (1 ft) and
265
fracture tips (10 ft) in x-direction, and close to the
fracture face (1 ft) in y-direction. Larger size of grids
cells 100 ft in the matrix) is assigned to the blocks away
from the fracture. Base models grids are shown in Figs.
3. and 4.
Pressure Transient Response for Base Model
Pressure-Transient response generated from base model
is shown in Fig. 5. This shows more pressure draw down
with non-Darcy flow.
Sensitivities Studies
In order to investigate effects of non-Darcy flow on
performance of a fractured gas well, a sensitivity study
of different factors was performed. Different fracture
factors such as fracture half-length (xf), fracture width
(wf) and proppant permabilities (kf) are analysed. Table
5 presents different cases that have been studied. Pressure-
Transient response generated from simulation of all the
cases for sensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 7.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
The pressure-transient behaviour to be analysed (using
Pansystem, EPS) was generated from compositional
simulator as discussed in previous section. The schedule
of a multi-rate drawdown and build-up, in which the rates
are kept constant in all the cases, is given in Table 4.
Fluid Parameters
The fluid properties were calculated using the most
widely used Peng-Robinson EOS as shown in Table 2.
Model Validation
As a first step of interpretation the base model was analysed
for validation. The default model selected, as the base
model was a vertical fracture-finite conductivity-closed
system. The test was analysed as dry gas, vertical well,
and the analysis are shown in Fig. 6.
Analysis for Non-Darcy Flow
In order to analyse the non-Darcy flow effects, the
default model was selected as radial homogeneous-
infinite acting. In Pansystem, it is only possible to carry
out non-Darcy flow analysis, when the model is radial
homogenous. The procedure of the analysis is divided
into build-up and multi-rate drawdown:
Build-Up Analysis
The radial flow regime for initial build-up, was analysed
on semilog plot, Horner plot, to estimate initial reservoir
pressure, pi. Whereas the radial flow regime for final
build-up was analysed on semilog plot, Horner plot, to
determine average reservoir pressure, p*, reservoir
permeability, k, and total skin, S.
Flow-after-Flow Transient Analysis
This analysis is aimed at determining the Darcy and non-
Darcy skin factors, S and D respectively. In order to carry
out this analysis, it is necessary to have multi-rate test.
Procedure of analysis is as follows:
1. After selecting each of the four drawdowns on
semilog plot, Horner plot, the permeability value
obtained in the first test period was adjusted with
the one estimated from the final build-up estimated
previously.
2. Parallel lines were placed at the same permeability,
with one on each test period. In order to do rate
dependent skin analysis the non-Darcy skin analysis
option was utilized, and total skin associated with
each test period was determined.
3. On skin vs. flow rate plot (S~Q) a line was fitted
by selecting skin calculations; Darcy skin, S, rate
dependent skin, D and non-Darcy flow coefficient,
F, are determined. After confirming the results,
the previously obtained, S on Horner plot is over-
written. The skin, S determined from this plot is
appropriate since the skin from Horner plot was a
total skin, which includes both Darcy and non-
Darcy skin.
Fig-1: Graphical representation of determining S and
D form Mutirate test. [15]
4. After confirming values of S, D and F in step-3,
from transient deliverability analysis, IPR curve is
plotted.
Well Test analysis is shown in Fig. 8.
266
SUMMARY OF RESULTS CONCLUSIONS
1. The productivity of a hydraulically fractured gas
Results
well is determined by fracture length, fracture
conductivity and post-fractured permeability.
The base case was modelled with two scenarios, one
2. Non-Darcy flow in the fracture significantly affects
neglecting non-Darcy flow effects and other including
the productivity of a fractured gas well. Hydraulic
this effect. All the sensitivities of fracture geometries
fracturing treatment should create a wide and high-
were analysed for non-Darcy flow effects, while the
conductivity fracture to reduce this effect. Short
optimum case was also analysed for both scenarios.
and wide fractures (such as TSO fracturing),
Results of well tests analysis and interpretation for all
significantly reduces the non-Darcy flow effects.
the cases including base case, sensitivities and optimum
3. Propped hydraulic fracture with fracture width of
case are plotted in Figs. 9 to 11.
1 or greater, yields results which show non-Darcy
flow effects negligibly small.
Discussion
FUTURE WORK
It is clear from the comparison plots that both the
negative skin and AOF are increasing, with the increase
Some highlighted important work that may be done in
of fracture width, fracture half-length and fracture
future to continue this study is:
permeability.
1. Utilizing improved simulation skills to simulate
As observed from the results of well test analysis and
hydraulic fracture accurately, particularly looking
interpretation, the fracture width and permeability
for the fracture tip effects. Although an attempt was
significantly affect performance of the well and hence
made to study the tip effects by defining tip as
supporting the concept of tip screenout (TSO) fracturing,
impermeable block, no effects were seen in the
i.e. the wider, shorter fracture provides much better
results.
productivity than long, narrow one.
2. As the effects of non-Darcy flow are considered
more adverse for multiphase flow, this work may
As this study aimed at the analysing and investigating
be extended to hydraulically fractured Gas-
for non-Darcy flow effects, the optimum case in which
Condensate wells.
fracture width is 1 inch, gives negligible non-Darcy
flow effects. This is clear from pressure-transient response
REFERENCES
as shown in Fig. 9 and well test results. Therefore, a
fracture width of 1 inch or greater minimizes the non-
[1] SPE 70015, Literature Review on Correlations of
Darcy flow effects to negligibly small thereby improves
the Non-Darcy Coefficient, Dacun Li, SPE, and Thomas
performance of a hydraulically fractured gas well.
W. Engler, SPE, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology.
[2] SPE 71573, Fractured-Well-Test Design and
Analysis in the Presence of Non-Darcy Flow, A. Gil,
SPE, and E. Ozkan, SPE, Colorado School of Mines,
and R. Raghavan, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Co.
[3] SPE 63176, Effect of Non-Darcy Flow on the
Interpretation of Transient Pressure Responses of
Hydraulically Fractured Wells, S. Umnuayponwiwat,
SPE, and E. Ozkan, SPE, Colorado School of Mines,
and C.M. Pearson, SPE, and M. Vincent, SPE, Carbo
Ceramics Inc.
[4] SPE 26150, Physical Explanations of Non-Darcy
Flow Effects for Fluid Flow in Porous media, Hulping
Ma, SPE, and D.W.Ruth, DPE. U. of Manitoba.
[5] SPE 20709, The Effects of Non-Darcy Flow in
Propped Hydraulic Fractures, J.P. Martins, PE,
BP Exploration; D. Milton-Tayler, BP Research; and
H.K. Leung, SPE, BP Exploration

Fig. 2. Tip Screen Out and Conventional Fracturing Compared [13] [6] SPE 11101, Non-Darcy Compressible Flow of Real
Gases in Propped Fracture, Ubani, phraim A.Evans,

267
Ronald D.U. of Oklahoma.
[7] SPE 5586, The Effects of Non-Darcy Flow on the
Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells (includes
associated paper 6417), Holditch, S.A.Texas A and M
U.Morse, R.A.Texas A and M U.
[8] SPE 25465, Production Performance of
Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells , Liao, Yizhu, Lee,
W.J., Texas A and M U.
[9] SPE 77901, An Analytical Model for Production
Estimation from Hydraulically Fractured Tight-Gas
Reservoirs, M.M. Rahman*, M.K. Rahman, and S.S.
Rahman; SPE, School of Petroleum Engineering,
University of New South Wales, Australia.
[10] SPE 39060, Simulation of Fractured Gas
Reservoir-An Overview, S. Vossoughi, SPE, K. Asgarir,
SPE, University of Kansas.
[11] Gas Reservoir Engineering John Lee, Robert A.
Wattenberger.
[12] Well Testing, Prof. George Stewart.
[13] Production Technology-2, Dr. David R. Davis.
[14] Fundaments of Reservoir Engineering, L.P.Dake.
[15] Gas Well Testing, David A.T. Donohue.
[16] Unified Fracture Design, Michael Economides,
Ronald Oligney and Peter Valko.

268
269
 Table. 4. Test Schedule.

Table 1. Reservoir Properties.

Table. 3. Proppant Permeabilities.

Table. 2. Fluid Properties.

Table. 5. Different fracture geometries used for sensitivity analysis study.

270
Fig. 3. Base Case Model.

Fig. 4. Slicing of Grid showing Hydraulic Fracture.

Fig. 5. Pressure-transient Response for Base Case (with and without non-Darcy Flow effect).

271
Fig. 6. Well Test Analysis for Model Validation.

272
Fig. 6 (Contd.). Well Test Analysis for Model Validation.

273
Fig. 7. Pressure-transient Plots for Sensitivities Studied.

274
Fig. 8. Well Test Analysis for Non-Darcy Flow Effects.

275
Fig. 8 (Contd.). Well Test Analysis for Non-Darcy Flow Effects.

276
Fig. 9. Variation of negative skin with sensitivities.

277
Fig. 10. Variation of non-Darcy flow factor with sensitivities.

278
Fig. 11. Variation of AOF factor with sensitivities.

279
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Abdul Malik Kakar

Abdul Malik Kakar holds a

Masters degree in Petroleum
Engineering from Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh-UK and
Bachelors degree in Petroleum
Engineering from the University
of Engineering and Technology
(UET), Lahore-Pakistan. He is
currently working as a Petroleum Engineer with
Technical Services Department of Pakistan Petroleum
Limited (PPL). Kakar joined PPL in January 1998 and
has to his credit over six (06) years of experience in
Production Technology, Production Operations and Well
Testing. He is a member of Pakistan Engineering Council
(PEC) and Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), and
also a member of the SPEs program committee in
Karachi.

280