SPE 167185

Pseudotime Calculation in Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs

S. Hamed Tabatabaie, University of Calgary, Louis Mattar and Mehran Pooladi-Darvish, IHS Fekete Reservoir
Solutions

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference-Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 5–7 November 2013.

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

Abstract
Due to the recent advances in well design and production techniques, tight/shale gas reservoirs have received considerable
attention. At the early phase of development of these reservoirs, fast analytical models are attractive since data are limited and
a large number of sensitivity studies is required. This analytical solution is possible if the governing partial differential
equation is linear. However, the pressure dependency of gas compressibility and viscosity makes the governing partial
differential equation nonlinear. The use of pseudovariables (i.e. pseudopressure and pseudotime) significantly reduces this
nonlinearity. Unlike pseudopressure, which is an exact mathematical transformation, pseudotime is an approximate
transformation. For conventional gas reservoirs, the average reservoir pressure was utilized to evaluate pseudotime and worked
very well during boundary dominated flow.
However, in low permeability systems, when transient flow prevails, use of average reservoir pressure for pseudotime
calculation is not valid and its use can create inconsistent results. Anderson and Mattar (2007) proposed that, during transient
and transitional flow, the use of average pressure within the region of influence, rather than the average pressure of the whole
reservoir, results in responses that are more consistent with those from numerical simulators.
In this study, the idea of using average pressure within the region of influence is utilized to calculate pseudotime during
constant rate production from a tight/shale gas reservoirs. In order to achieve this, the liquid type curve was employed to find
the volume of investigation, and then the gas material balance equation was incorporated to evaluate the average pressure
within the region of influence. The significant advantage of this method is that the volume of investigation is determined based
on material balance principles by imposing a unit-slope line at each point in time, rather than depending on the radius of
investigation formulation as was used by Anderson and Mattar (2007). In an irregularly shaped drainage area, different
methods were investigated for evaluating the distance of investigation in the x- and y-directions. It was found that the distance
of investigation in the x- and y- directions could not be represented by the same formula (i.e., √ ⁄
where all parameters are in field units).
The method developed in this paper is applicable in modeling different flow regimes during transient, boundary affected
and boundary dominated flow periods. This paper outlines the proposed approach and explains its usefulness by comparing the
analytical and numerical results for different cases. It is shown that reliable forecasts of production can be obtained.
Introduction
The success of tight/shale gas resources in North America has globally accelerated exploration and exploitation of these
reservoirs. Multifractured horizontal wells are the primary method of exploitation. They have enabled commercial production
of hydrocarbons from these plays.
At the early phase of the development of these resources, when data are limited, a fast analytical model is a powerful tool
that enables engineers to study the effect of different uncertainties in a given set of parameters. This analytical solution is
possible if the governing partial differential equation is linear. However, the partial differential equation for a single-phase gas
flow through a porous medium is a nonlinear partial differential equation (see Equation (1))

( ) (1)
2 SPE-167185-MS

As no analytical solution is available for this nonlinear equation, one should reduce or remove the nonlinearity to make
Equation (1) tractable. This nonlinearity can be reduced by defining pseudopressure, which accounts for gas property
variations with pressure, as below

∫ (2)

Incorporating this transformation completely linearizes the spatial portion of Equation (1) (see Equation (3)).

(3)

However, the term on the right side of Equation (3) is still a function of pressure (and as a result a function of
pseudopressure), which means this partial differential equation is still nonlinear. One may define a pseudotime transformation
as

( ) ∫ (4)

to partially linearize the temporal portion of the partial differential equation (3) as below

(5)

Unlike pseudopressure, which is an exact mathematical transformation, pseudotime is an approximate transformation. As

can be seen in Equation (4), in the definition of pseudotime, the integration is over time, whereas gas viscosity and
compressibility are functions of pressure. Therefore, the key question in calculating pseudotime would be: what pressure
should the pseudotime be evaluated at?
Conventionally, the average reservoir pressure is used when evaluating pseudotime and it has worked very well during
boundary dominated flow. However, Anderson and Mattar (2007) showed that in low permeability systems, when transient
flow prevails, the use of average reservoir pressure for pseudotime calculation is not valid, and it can create inconsistent
results. They proposed the use of average pressure within the region of influence, rather than the average reservoir pressure.
During transient and transitional flow, this results in responses which are more consistent with those from a numerical
simulator. In their study, the well-established concept of radius of investigation was used to find the region of influence and
then, the material balance equation was incorporated to evaluate the average pressure within the region of influence. The
pseudotime found from this approach was called the corrected pseudotime.
For hydraulically fractured wells, the application of the definition of distance of investigation in calculating the
investigated area, when flow is purely linear, gives satisfactory results. However, upon the start of the pressure propagation
from the tip of the fracture, since the speed of pressure propagation in this direction is smaller than in the other directions, the
use of the definition of the distance of investigation in calculating the investigated area becomes challenging (see Figure 1).

(a) (b)

Figure 1: (a) Schematic of the sequence of flow regimes for infinite conductivity fracture (b) Identification of the flow regimes on a
dimensionless pressure and pressure derivative plot
SPE-167185-MS 3

Whittle and Gringarten (2008) suggested that by imposing a unit-slope line on the derivative plot, the investigated area can
readily be found at each point in time. They assumed that during the transient flow period, the system behaves like a growing
tank (i.e., successive pseudo steady-state condition) in which its size may be found by putting a unit slope straight line on a
derivative plot. Therefore, at each time, the equation for pseudo steady-state flow can be utilized to calculate the investigated
area (see Figure 2).
In this study, the idea of using average pressure within the region of influence is utilized to calculate corrected pseudotime
during constant rate production. The liquid type curve is used to find the volume of investigation and then the gas material
balance equation is incorporated to evaluate the average pressure within the region of influence. It is shown that the proposed
technique is superior to the distance of investigation formulation especially in an irregularly shaped drainage area, where the
distance of investigation in the x- and y- directions are represented by different formulae.
In the following, after presenting the analytical solution, the applicability of the model in forecasting the flowing pressure
is verified by comparing the results of the analytical and numerical solutions for the Base case. Next, the usefulness of the
proposed approach is confirmed by performing some sensitivity studies to demonstrate the effects of different parameters on
the accuracy of the model.
Development of the Model
In this section, we propose a methodology to calculate corrected pseudotime during constant rate production which is not
limited to any specific flow regimes. Once the corrected pseudotime is found, the “liquid” solution can be employed to find the
gas flowing pressure.
As explained earlier, to calculate the corrected pseudotime, the average pressure within the region of investigation should
be found first. Similar to the conventional technique the gas material balance equation is utilized to calculate this pressure

̅ ()
() ( ) (6)
̅ ()
where ̅ is the average pressure within the region of investigation, ( ) is the cumulative gas production and ()
is the investigated (or contacted) gas in place, which can be found from

()
() (7)

In the above equation, all parameters are known except the investigated area, ( ). In this study, the liquid type curve is
employed to find the investigated area from the following equation (see Appendix A for details)

(a) (b)

Figure 2: (a) Schematic of the investigated area (b) Determination of investigated area from the dimensionless pressure derivative plot
4 SPE-167185-MS

() (8)

where

(9)

(10)

Plugging Equation (9) into Equation (8) gives

() (11)

This equation is developed for slightly compressible fluids. One can replace in Equation (11) with the dimensionless
pseudotime, , to use it in gas flow situation as below

() (12)

Using the chain rule of differentiation, the above equation may be written as

() (13)

Realizing that the investigated area based on the liquid solution, ( ), can be found from Equation (11), we will have

() () (14)

which suggests that evaluating corrected pseudotime is an iterative process. The following procedure is suggested to
calculate corrected pseudotime
1. Generate liquid solution (type curve)
2. Calculate at different time using Equation (8) or (11)
3. Calculate using Equation (7)
4. Calculate ̅ using Equation (6)
5. Calculate corrected pseudotime, , using Equation (4) evaluated at the average pressure found in the previous step
6. Calculate using Equation (B-1)
7. Using the liquid solution (type curve) generated in Step 1, read at each obtained in Step 6
8. Calculate gas flowing pseudopressureusing Equation (B-3)
9. Convert pseudopressure obtained in the previous step to pressure
10. From a plot of versus time generated in Step 5, evaluate ( ⁄ )
11. Multiply calculated in Step 2 by ( ⁄ ) found in the previous step
12. Continue Steps 3 through 11 until ̅ becomes smaller than the flowing pressure found in Step 9

A schematic of the calculation procedure is shown in Figure 3.

SPE-167185-MS 5

Generate Liquid Type Curve

Liq . xf2
Ainv . (t) = Ainv . (t) = 2 t D
semi_log Derivative

Ainv . (t)h Sgi

Ginv . (t) =
Bgi
Gp (t) = qt

Calculate p̅ inv . (t)from

p̅ inv . pi Gp (t)
(t) = (1 )
Z̅ Zi Ginv . (t)

t
1
t a = ( g ct ) ∫ dt
i
0 g (p
̅ inv . )ct (p̅ inv . )

Calculate flowing pressure, pw (t)

Yes
STOP if pw (t) > p̅ inv . (t)

No

Liq . dt a
Ainv . (t) = Ainv . (t)
dt

Figure 3: Iterative calculation of corrected pseudotime and flowing pressure

Verification of the Model

In order to verify the analysis method proposed in the previous section, the results of the analytical and numerical models
are compared for a Base Case described below. The effect of different parameters on the behavior of the solution is presented
in the next section.
As a Base Case, an infinite conductivity planar hydraulic fracture of half-length [ ], completed in a
homogeneous tight gas reservoir of size [ ] with closed boundaries producing at a constant
gas rate of ⁄ [ ] was considered (see Figure 4a). The porosity and the initial permeability of the
model were taken to be and , respectively. The specific gas gravity and the initial reservoir pressure were
chosen to be equal to and [ ], respectively.
Comparison between numerical and different analytical solutions, where the average pressure in evaluating pseudotime
was obtained from different approaches (see Figure 4c and Figure 4d), is depicted in Figure 4b for the Base Case. As curve (I)
in this figure shows, the conventional definition of pseudotime, where the compressibility and viscosity terms in Equation (4)
are evaluated at the average reservoir pressure, causes the flowing pressure to drop faster. This is due to the fact that, since the
reservoir boundaries have not yet been observed, the average reservoir pressure, which is based on the total reservoir volume,
would not be a reasonable pressure at which to evaluate pseudotime (for more discussion see Anderson and Mattar (2007)).
This can be enhanced by evaluating the pseudotime at the average pressure within the region of investigation (see curves (II)
and (III) in Figure 4b). Curves (II) and (III) in this figure illustrate how the corrected pseudotime based on the definition of the
radius of investigation and liquid type curve, respectively, improve the results generated by the analytical solution. As curves
(IV) through (VI) in Figure 4b present, the difference between the analytical and the numerical results is reduced at each
iteration. Figure 4b indicates that the close agreement of the analytical and numerical models can be achieved after 3 iterations
for the Base case. The corresponding average pressure and pseudotime that have been used to calculate the flowing pressures
(Figure 4b) are plotted in Figure 4c and Figure 4d, respectively.
6 SPE-167185-MS

Figure 4: (a) Schematic of the Base Case (b) Flowing pressure versus time (c) Average pressure within the region of investigation versus
time (d) pseudotime versus time
(I) pseudotime is evaluated at the average reservoir pressure (II) Corrected pseudotime based on the distance of investigation formulation
(III) Corrected pseudotime based on the liquid type curve (IV) 1st iteration (V) 2nd iteration (VI) 3rd iteration

Results and Sensitivity Study

It is evident from Figure 4 that the most appropriate method of solution is that described in Figure 3. Accordingly, this
procedure is used in the examples below, to examine the effect of reservoir parameters and operating conditions on the
solution. In each instance, the flowing pressure obtained from the last iteration of the analytical solution is compared with that
obtained from the numerical simulation. The list of cases studied is given in Table 1. This range of parameters was chosen in
such a way that different flow regimes (i.e., formation linear flow to the hydraulic fracture, elliptical flow, boundary affected
flow and boundary dominated flow) can be developed.
Figure 5a shows the results when permeability is changed. By increasing the permeability the pressure propagates faster,
such that at the end of the simulation runs the flow regimes for the model with permeability of and reach
the boundary affected and boundary dominated regimes, respectively. Close agreement between the numerical and analytical
results indicates that the use of this technique is not limited to any specific flow regime.
The effect of production rate is shown in Figure 5b. This figure shows that even when the pressure gradient is large for the
case producing at the higher rate, the numerical and analytical solutions agree very closely with each other.
Table 1: List of cases studied
Case ID Parameter studied Value
1 Base Case Properties are given in Figure 4a
2 ( )
3 ( )
4 ( ⁄ )
5 ( ⁄ )
6 ( )
7 ( )
8 ( )
9 ( )
SPE-167185-MS 7

Figure 5: Comparison between the analytical and numerical solutions (a) Effect of permeability (b) Effect of production rate (c) Effect of
fracture half-length (d) Effect of initial reservoir pressure

Figure 5c presents the effect of increasing fracture half-length from to [ to ]. As

this plot shows, the model with larger fracture half-length can produce for a longer time at a constant production rate. This plot
also confirms the applicability of suggested technique when flow is purely linear (i.e., ).
Figure 5d shows the effect of initial reservoir pressure. By increasing the reservoir pressure, the initial gas-in-place
increases and as a result the rate of pressure drop will be smaller.
Discussion
The results of Figure 4 show that correcting pseudotime by using the distance of investigation method (Anderson and
Mattar, 2007) did improve the calculation somewhat over the liquid solution. However, for this reservoir configuration and
permeability, Figure 4 shows that this correction was not sufficient – the calculated pressure was still significantly different
from the numerical solution. While investigating the reasons for the mismatch, we investigated the distance of investigation
equations for calculating the depleted region. We discovered that the distance of investigation in the x- and y-directions were
different (Anderson-Mattar (2007) assumed them to be the same).
It is evident from Figure 4 that the iterative process described is able to duplicate the behaviour of gas flow (a non-linear
equation) using the liquid solution (a linear equation). The solution is not perfect, but is clearly within practical usefulness.
The late time difference between the numerical and the analytical results shown in Figure 5 can be attributed to the fact
that the variations of gas compressibility at low pressures are large and the assumption of approximating this variation by an
average compressibility can cause this error.
Based on numerous comparisons between the numerical and analytical results, it was observed that, in some cases, the
average pressure within the range of investigation drops very rapidly at each iteration. It is suggested to use the pressure
obtained from two iterations back.
The model presented in this study was developed for a constant rate production. However, in practice, maintaining
constant rate may be difficult. The principle of superposition enables us to model variable flow rate scenarios from the
constant rate solution. We were hoping that once the constant rate solution had been obtained, the principle of superposition
could be applied to model variable rate cases (in spite of the non-linearity of the solution). However, it was found that although
the constant rate solution can be obtained using the proposed technique, the application of the principle of superposition is still
problematic.
8 SPE-167185-MS

Summary and Conclusion

 In this paper, the idea of using average pressure within the region of investigation was used to evaluate corrected
pseudotime.
 It was shown that, instead of using the distance of investigation formulation, using a “type curve-based volume of
investigation formulation” to find the investigated area significantly improves the results, and furthermore, it is not limited
to any particular flow regimes.
 An iterative technique was proposed to predict the flowing pressure during constant rate production from hydraulically
fractured reservoirs.
 The applicability of this model was investigated by comparing the numerical and analytical results. The close agreement of
the numerical and analytical models confirmed the application of this methodology to forecast flowing pressure during
constant rate production from tight/shale gas reservoirs.

Nomenclature
Reservoir area,
Gas formation volume factor, ⁄
Total compressibility,
Gas-in-place,
Cumulative gas production,
Net-pay thickness,
Permeability,
Pressure,
̅ Average pressure, kPa
Normalized pseudopressure, (Equation 2)
Production rate, ⁄
Gas saturation, fraction
Time, day
Pseudotime, day (Equation 4)
Fracture half-length,
Gas compressibility factor
̅ Average gas compressibility factor
Reservoir gas specific gravity ( )
Porosity, fraction
Viscosity,

Subscripts and superscripts

Base
Dimensionless
Initial condition
Investigation
Liquid

References
Agarwal, R.G., 2010. Direct Method of Estimating Average Reservoir Pressure for Flowing Oil and Gas Wells. Paper SPE
135804 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September
Anderson, D.M. and Mattar, L., 2007. An Improved Pseudo-time for Gas Reservoirs with Significant Transient Flow.JCPT
46 (7)
Dake, L.P., 1978.Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam
Whittle, T. and Gringarten, A., 2008.The Determination of Minimum Tested Volume from the Deconvolution of Well Test
Pressure Transient. Paper SPE 116575 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, USA, 21-
24 September
SPE-167185-MS 9

Appendix A: Determination of Area from Type Curve

This section shows how the reservoir area is determined from the liquid type curve. For this purpose, the dimensionless
form of the pseudo steady-state flow of single-phase liquid is used as below (Dake, 1978; Agarwal, 2010)
( ) (A-1)
where
( ) (A-2)

(A-3)

The first term on the right hand side of Equation (A-1) represents the pressure drop due to depletion and the second term,
C, represents the pressure drop due to flow from the reservoir towards the wellbore (Agarwal, 2010). In Equation (A-1), C is a
constant and is a function of different parameters including the flow geometry (e.g. for radial flow ( ) and for
linear flow ).
Using Equation (A-1) one can write

(A-4)

Introducing Equation (A-3) into the above equation results in

(A-5)

which can be rearranged to

(A-6)

The term in the denominator of Equation (A-6) is called the semi-log derivative. This equation indicates that, during the
pseudo steady-state flow period, the reservoir area can be easily found once the semi-log derivative plot is generated.

Appendix B: Liquid Solution (Type Curve)

The liquid solution is the solution of the diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms
( ) (B-1)

(B-2)

For gas, the liquid solution in dimensionless terms can be used with the following definitions
( ) (B-3)

(B-4)

where and are defined in Equations (2) and (4), respectively.