Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada
c
Santos Limited, 60 Flinders Street, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 30 November 2011
Accepted 19 January 2012
Available online 2 March 2012
There has been a rapid evolution of technology used to evaluate unconventional gas reservoir and
hydraulic-fracture properties, and there currently are few standardized procedures to be used as guidance. Therefore, more than ever, petroleum engineers and geoscientists are required to question data
sources and have an intimate knowledge of evaluation procedures.
We propose a workow for the optimization of unconventional gas reservoir (UGR) eld development
to guide discussion of UGR evaluation. Critical issues related to reservoir sample and log analysis, ratetransient and production data analysis are raised. Further, we have provided illustrations of each step of
the reservoir evaluation process using tight gas examples. Our intent is to provide some guidance for best
practices. In addition to reviewing existing methods for reservoir evaluation, we introduce new methods
for measuring pore size distribution (small-angle neutron scattering), evaluating core-scale heterogeneity, log-core calibration, and evaluating core/log data trends to assist with scale-up of core data. Our
focus in this manuscript is on tight and shale gas reservoirs.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Unconventional gas
UGR evaluation
UGR sample analysis
UGR Petrophysics
UGR rate- and pressure-transient analysis
1. Introduction
Reservoir evaluation involves the determination of reservoir
properties from reservoir samples (ex. core), logs and pressure- and
rate-transient data. For conventional reservoirs, there are tried
and true methods for evaluation that are an outcome of relatively
well understood uid storage and transport mechanisms for these
reservoir types. Many techniques for quantifying key reservoir
properties controlling storage and ow, calculating hydrocarbons
in place, establishing recovery and forecasting production have
a long history of development and renement. The reality for
unconventional gas reservoirs (UGRs), including low permeability
(tight gas), coalbed methane (CBM) and shale gas reservoirs, is that
uid storage and transport mechanisms are poorly understood, and
we are at an early stage for some reservoir types (ex. shale gas) in
the development of such methods. Further, it is not sufcient to
characterize only the reservoir in unconventional plays but also the
induced hydraulic fracture(s) or fracture network that have a large
impact on well performance, yet methods for evaluating hydraulic
fracture properties are also in their infancy. Indeed there are new
methods for unconventional reservoir and hydraulic fracture
q 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers. Reproduced with permission of the
copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 403 220 6445.
E-mail address: clarksoc@ucalgary.ca (C.R. Clarkson).
1875-5100/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2012.01.001
10
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Table 1
Common sources for key UGR reservoir, uid and rock properties. Modied from
Sondergeld et al. (2010a).
Reservoir Property
Data Source
Porosity
Permeability
Pore Pressure
Water saturation
Rock mechanical
properties
Fracture and
closure stress
Fluid properties
Temperature
Modeling
Hydraulic Fracture
Modeling
Reservoir Simulation
xf or Acm versus
tonnage, volumes,
pumping schedule
Economic Model
Economic indicators for
various scenarios
Development Planning
Optimal Design
Fig. 1. Illustration of a workow used to optimize eld development in unconventional gas reservoirs.
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Table 2
Common sources for hydraulic fracture properties for UGRs.
Hydraulic Fracture Properties
Data Source
Macroscale (reservoir)
Mesoscale
(microfracture
network)
11
Macrofabric
Microscale (nanopore
network)
Nanoscale (gas
desorption from
nanopore walls)
Molecular (mass
transfer from
kerogen/clay bulk
Modified
from Bustin, Bustin and Cui, 2008
to pore
surface)
Fig. 2. Illustration of the impact of scale on transport mechanisms in shale gas
reservoirs. Flow to the wellbore is rst initiated at the macro-scale, followed by ow at
progressively ner scales, including molecular transport through nanoporosity in
kerogen. Modied from Javadpour et al. (2007).
Fig. 3. Illustration of the effect of sample size on dehydration time for a tight gas
sample from study area A.
12
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Macropores
> 50 nm
10
Mesopores
2 50 nm
Micropores
< 2 nm
Carbon Dioxide
100
Nitrogen
TEM
1,000
Optical Microscopy
10,000
Penetration-Fluids
Mercury Porosimetry
Radiation
100,000
IUPAC
Class.
SANS/USANS
Pore Diameter
nm
SEM
Fluid saturation and moisture content affect free gas and sorbed
gas storage (coals, some shales) in UGRs. Common methods for
saturation measurement in tight gas and shale reservoirs are Dean
Stark extraction and retort; crushed samples are often used for
extraction from shale. Both Dean Stark and retort methods have
been standardized (API e RP40, API, 1998). These API standards are
applicable to conventional and tight reservoirs with permeabilities
down to 1 md (Sondergeld et al., 2010a).
A principle source of error with retort and Dean Stark methods
is the saturation change experienced by the core during coring
operations, retrieval and preparation. Sondergeld et al. (2010a)
compared shale gas reservoir water saturations, Sws, obtained
from commercial labs using retort and Dean Stark methods,
demonstrating substantial differences. They noted that there is no
standardization of measurements for shale gas reservoirs.
For these extraction methods, sample preservation is critical
(Fig. 3). In one well in tight gas study Area A, three 36 m cores were
taken and subject to routine porosity, permeability and Dean Stark
extraction (using toluene). Over 100 1.5 diameter core plugs were
cut from the preserved cores using liquid nitrogen as a lubricant.
Sws ranged from 10.5 to 99.3%, oil saturations from 1.1 to 25.1% and
gas saturations from 0 to 84.5%. Sws were generally <30%. The
reservoir, which has low permeability (see below), appears to be
sub-normally saturated (desiccated) e the potential for phase
trapping is considered high, and is investigated further below.
Lab-based NMR has also been used to estimate Sws in coal
and shale. Guo et al. (2007), for example, used the T2 spectra from
Fig. 4. Methods used to estimate porosity and pore size distributions in unconventional gas reservoirs. Modied from Bustin et al. (2008b).
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
1E+01
1E+00
10000
1E-01
1000
100
1E-02
10
Kn
1E-03
0.1
0.01
Normal porosity
Microporosity
0.001
1E-04
1E-05
1 m
0.0001
0.00001
1E-06
1E+02
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1.0E-07
1.0E-08
1.0E-09
1.0E-10
1.0E-11
1 nm
No-slip
flow
100000
Transition
flow
13
1E+03
1E+05
50 m
10 m
1 m
300 nm
50 nm
10 nm
0.2 m
0.1
Permeability (mD)
1E+04
Pressure (kPa)
0.1 m
0.01
0.05 m
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0
10
15
20
25
30
Porosity (%)
Fig. 5. Uses of pore size distributions for unconventional reservoir characterization: a) inference of gas storage mechanism (modied from Beliveau, 1993); b) inference of transfer
mechanism (modied from Javadpour et al., 2007); c) and identication of dominant pore throat radius using a Winland-style plot (modied from Clarkson et al. 2012). Lines on (c)
represent rp35 (pore throat aperture (mm) at 35% Hg saturation during a mercury injection test) using the Eq. (2) proposed by Aguilera (2002, 2010).
14
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
0.1
0.075
Porosity (Fraction)
Porosity (Fraction)
0.05
0.025
0
2195
15
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
2200
2205
2210
2215
Confined
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Depth (m)
Ambient
Sample A
Sample B
Sample C
Fig. 7. Impact of conning pressure (hydrostatic) on porosity for tight gas samples from Area B. (a) Comparison of porosities measured at ambient conditions and those at 14466 kPa
(2098 psi) lab hydrostatic or 25468 kPa (3694 psi) reservoir conning pressure. Ambient conditions refer to measurements performed at 2758 kPa (400 psi) lab hydrostatic net
conning pressure or equivalent reservoir net conning pressure of 4856 kPa (704 psi). (b) Inuence of lithology and variable conning pressure on porosity. Modied from
Clarkson et al. (2012).
Fig. 8. Nitrogen adsorption/desorption isotherms for 3 tight gas samples collected from core plugs from tight gas Area B (a), and interpreted pore size distributions (b) using BJH
Theory. Note the bimodal pore size distributions for samples A and B, with larger pore sizes in the 50e100 nm (500e1000 ) range. Modied from Clarkson et al. (2012).
16
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Fig. 9. Example pore size distribution for tight gas sample in Area A using MICP. This sample has routine air permeability and porosity values comparable to the 3 samples in Area B.
Note the pore size classication used in the plot on the left is not the same as IUPAC (Sing et al., 1985). Modied from Clarkson et al. (2012).
10
10
-1
Intensity [cm ]
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
USANS
SANS
0.1
10
Shale#4
Sample B
Sample A
Shale#5
Sample C
Shale#24
-1
0.01
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
-1
q [A ]
Fig. 10. SANS/USANS data from 3 tight gas samples collected from core plugs cut in
tight gas Area B. q is the scattering vector. Image courtesy of Lilin He and Yuri Melnichenko of Oak Ridge National Labs (2010).
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
0.1
0.01
0.1
Probe Permeability (mD)
0.0001
2195
2197
2199
2201
2203
Depth (m)
17
y = 0.33x 0.58
R 2 = 0.77
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
0.001
2205
0.01
2207
2209
2211
2213
2215
Fig. 12. Slip-corrected probe permeability at 593 locations collected on slabbed core in
tight gas Area B. Modied from Clarkson et al. (2012).
0.1
Permeability (mD)
Permeability (mD)
0.01
0.001
0.0001
2195
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
2200
2205
2210
2215
Pulse-Decay/confined
Pulse-Decay/Ambient
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Depth (m)
Probe
Sample A
Sample B
Sample C
Fig. 13. Impact of conning pressure (hydrostatic) on permeability for tight gas samples from tight gas Area B: (a) Comparison of pulse-decay permeabilities measured at ambient
conditions and those at 14466 kPa (2098 psi) lab hydrostatic or 25468 kPa (3694 psi) reservoir conning pressure. Ambient conditions refer to measurements performed at
2758 kPa (400 psi) lab hydrostatic net conning pressure or equivalent reservoir net conning pressure of 4856 kPa (704 psi). Probe (prole) permeability values measured at the
location of the plug ends are also shown. (b) Inuence of lithology and variable conning pressure on permeability. Modied from Clarkson et al. (2012).
18
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0
10
20
30
40
Core 25
Core 34C
Core 56B
Fig. 15. Effective gas permeability as a function of Sw for 4 Area A tight gas core
samples. Gas permeabilities were measured at the maximum drawdown pressure of
20670 kPa. Modied from Clarkson et al. (2012).
10000
y = 1.00x
2.5
1000
100
1.5
10
1
0.001
-1.83
Cementation Factor, m
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.1
Fig. 16. Formation Resistivity Factor versus porosity for 18 core samples in tight gas Area A.
0.15
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
0.5
Sw (fraction)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2195
2200
2205
2210
2215
2220
Depth (m)
Core Sw
Archie Sw Default
Archie Sw Optimized
19
focus on quantifying total organic carbon (TOC) in the lab for shales,
correlating lab-based sorption measurements to TOC, then using
logs to predict TOC using a variety of methods (see below), but we
suggest that there may be considerable error in this process if TOC
is not the only driver for sorbed gas content. Nonetheless, TOC
measurements are routinely performed for shales along with an
estimate of thermal maturity, usually done using vitrinite reectance (Ro) measurements.
Ambrose et al. (2010) noted potential problems with shale gasin-place calculations if sorbed gas volume is not accounted for in
free-gas calculations associated with nanoporosity. Their investigation was performed assuming single-component gases only, but
Hartman et al. (2011) also investigated the impact of sorbed gas
volume if multi-components are present. Hartman et al. (2008)
noted that oil- or wet-gas prone shales, which are being actively
explored for, are complex with respect to uid adsorption and
recommended studies be performed in this area. The following is
brief summary of mixed gas/uid adsorption modeling performed
as part of the Hartman et al. (2011) study.
2.7.1. Shale gas example
Hartman et al. (2011) noted that many shale gas plays exhibit
a transition from dry gas to liquid-prone areas and further suggested
that multi-component sorption modeling is particularly critical in
the liquids-rich environment. Historically with shale gas and CBM
plays, the Extended Langmuir model has been the most frequently
applied for multi-component adsorption modeling, but the limitations of this model are well-known (see Clarkson and Bustin, 2000).
Hartman et al. (2011) suggested that more rigorous adsorption
models should be utilized and compared predictions of binary gas
adsorption using the Ideal Adsorbed Solution (IAS) model and the
Extended Langmuir (EL) Model. The details of the models are discussed elsewhere (ex. Clarkson and Bustin, 2000); the following is
a summary of some of the ndings of Hartman et al. (2011).
Using single component isotherm data methane, ethane,
propane, butane and carbon dioxide given in Ambrose et al. (2011),
the predictions of the IAS and EL models for binary mixtures of these
components are presented in Fig. 18 in the form of phase equilibrium
plots. In all cases, methane is included as the primary component,
and binary mixtures of methaneeethane, methaneecarbon dioxide,
and methaneebutane and methaneepropane are modeled using
the two approaches. Predictions are made at two different total
pressures (4000 and 1000 psia) for the IAS model. The predictions of
the two models for all mixtures are signicantly different, except for
the methane ethane system at 1000 psia. In all cases, the EL model
predicts more methane (weakly sorbing component) in sorbed
phase than the IAS model. The EL model predicts that the compositions do not change with pressure, which Hartman et al. (2011)
believe to be inaccurate.
From the Hartman et al. (2011) study, it is clear that: 1) different
components sorb to shale to varying degrees and if mixtures exist
in the produced uids, then multi-component adsorption must be
accounted for and 2) the amount of mixed-uid adsorption predicted depends strongly on the choice of the adsorption
model used.
2.8. Rock mechanical properties
A comprehensive discussion of mechanical properties of shales
and anisotropy was provided by Sondergeld et al. (2010a). Several
points raised by those authors are that shales are elastically
anisotropic (requiring the measurement of up to 7 elastic constants
if the samples are fractured normal to bedding); sample size must
be appropriately selected; obtaining analysis on vertical, horizontal
and 45 core plugs can be challenging for shale and there may be
20
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Fig. 18. Comparison of EL and IAS models: equilibrium composition diagrams for the various binary mixtures. IAS predictions for two different total pressures are compared.
Modied from Hartman et al. (2011).
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
0.09
0.02
0.08
Density Porosity (Fraction)
state. Limited TOC data in the area suggest that TOC is generally
<2e3%, but no TOC data were available for our core in Area B at the
time of writing. There are several methods available to estimate
TOC using logs (Sondergeld et al., 2010a); we used Passey et al.
(1990) method (Fig. 19), which indicates that above 2213 m, TOC
values are <2%.
As described above, prole permeability data were collected and
adjusted to in-situ values using pulse-decay permeability
measurements performed on core plugs which were subject to
conning pressure (Fig. 13). We applied a running average to the
prole data to yield a resolution similar to the logs (Fig. 20). The
density porosity values track the averaged prole permeameter
data reasonably well. We used the corrected probe permeameter
data (averaged) along with density porosity (with matrix density
adjusted to match routine core porosity measurements) to assist
with ow-unit identication (Fig. 21). rp35 values (predicted pore
size at 35% mercury saturation) were estimated using Eq. (2) of
Aguilera (2010) e the pore sizes estimates (assuming slit shaped
pore geometry) appear consistent with the values obtained from
nitrogen adsorption (w500 ).
Routine (air) permeability values (measured at 400 psi conning
pressure), gathered on 1.5 core plugs were plotted against routine
(helium expansion) porosity for samples from tight gas Area A in
Fig. 22. Visibly fractured samples were removed from the analysis.
We anticipate that the measured permeability and porosity values
are overestimated as they were not measured at in-situ stress.
Using the rp35 formula from Aguilera (2010), we see that a signicant percentage of the values fall between 50 and 100 nm as with
the Area B samples. Because a greater number of measurements
were taken over a larger core interval, there are also other ow
21
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
2198
2200
2202
2204
2206
2208
2210
2212
0.002
2214
Depth (m)
Density Porosity
Probe Permeability
Fig. 20. Comparison of smoothed probe permeabilities (13-point running average) and
density porosity values in tight gas Area B. Modied from Clarkson et al. (2012).
Fig. 19. Estimation of TOC (4th track) at an Area B tight gas well location using Passeys method (1990). Zone of interest is above 2213 m. Image courtesy of Howell et al. (2011).
22
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Fig. 21. Winland-style plot of corrected (for in-situ stress) probe permeability data
versus density porosity along with the lines based on several values of rp35 for Area B.
The range of pore widths from N2 adsorption analysis is also given. Modied from
Clarkson et al. (2012).
example, wireline bulk density (RHOB) and gamma ray (GR) SVs
(Fig. 23) show different characteristics for the 2198e2218 m
interval. The steadily increasing semivariance of the density SV
reects the trend of decreasing porosity with depth (Fig. 24). The
GR SV, however, shows holes (decreases in the SV) at lags of
approximately 2.6, 5.2, and 7.8 m, suggesting a strongly cyclic
element to the GR response with wavelength of 2.6 m. It is common
in turbidite deposits to nd meter-scale cyclicities and may be due
to lobe shifts or variation in sediment input (e.g., Berg, 1986).
Depending on what factors are controlling the formation
permeability, we could see either a simple trend or cyclicity or both in
the permeability variations in this interval. Analysis of the probe
permeameter measurements reveals a cyclic element (Fig. 12).
Fourier transform (FT) amplitudes of the probe data, averaged over
a span of 7 cm, show a large peak at approximately 2.6 m wavelength,
similar to that observed in the GR FT but not the RHOB FT (Fig. 25). All
FTs also show a smaller peak at approximately 1e1.5 m wavelength.
Cyclicities at these wavelengths are often difcult to identify in core
or logs, and might be mistaken for random variations in the SVs. The
probe FT also shows there is very little cyclicity at wavelengths
between 0.2 and 1 m. Cyclicities at wavelengths smaller than
15 cm, which might be present from lamination-scale variations,
are ltered out by the 13-point (30 cm) running average applied to
the probe data. The small amplitude of the probe FT amplitude below
1 m suggests that the probe data can be averaged over 50 cm or larger
lengths without loss of detail when scaling up the permeability for
ow simulation models or correlations with other measurements.
That is, except for variations at the lamination (cm) scale, averaging
Fig. 23. Semivariograms of wireline GR (left axis) and density (right axis) from interval
2198e2218 m in tight gas Area B.
Fig. 22. Winland-style plot of routine permeability data versus helium porosity along
with the lines based on several values of rp35 for Area A.
Over the last ve decades, DFITs (also called mini-fracs or prefrac diagnostics) have been performed prior to stimulation treatments to diagnose many important fracturing characteristics prior
to a nal frac design (Cleary et al., 1993; Nolte and Smith, 1981;
Barree, 1998; Nolte, 1990). DFITs involve injecting uid volumes
23
0.1
2500
0.09
2520
0.08
2540
0.07
2560
0.06
2580
0.05
2600
0.04
2620
0.03
2640
0.02
2660
0.01
2680
0
2198
2200
2202
2204
2206
2208
2210
2212
2214
2216
Porosity (Fraction)
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
2700
2218
Depth (m)
Core Porosity
Fig. 24. Wireline bulk density and full-diameter core (routine) porosity versus depth in tight gas Area B. Modied from Clarkson et al. (2012).
Fig. 25. Fourier transform amplitudes of probe permeameter (left axis) and wireline
GR and density (right axis) from interval 2198e2218 m in tight gas Area B.
24
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
gradient (to ensure connection to the entire sand). This technique obviously lends itself to targeted stimulation approaches
(Beatty et al., 2007).
Shut-In Period: The shut-in period required to describe all the
ow regimes in ACA can be lengthy. Several papers have also
shown however that this analysis approach can achieve good
approximations of formation parameters without completely
observing all the ow regimes (Chippereld, 2005).
Fig. 26. Example post-frac buildup analysis of a hydraulically-fractured vertical well in tight gas Area B. Note the short buildup times. A hydraulic fracture signature is evident from
a formation linear ow period. The estimate of formation permeability is too high in this case (radial ow not reached), and hence hydraulic fracture half-length is underestimated.
A more robust estimate for fracture half-length can be obtained using the RTA-derived permeability values.
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
25
Fig. 27. Example after-closure analysis (ACA). In this example, the radial ow period is analyzed to obtain a permeability estimate.
26
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Fig. 28. Production data analysis examples showing how non-idealities appear on type curves of log(q/dP) versus material balance pseudo-time.
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
27
Fig. 29. Two families of analysis results that could lead to signicantly different business decisions.
28
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Fig. 30. Linear ow analysis of vertical (a) and multi-fractured horizontal well (b), and type-curve analysis of vertical (c) and multi-fractured horizontal well (d) in Area B. Modied
from Clarkson and Beierle (2011).
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
800
700
600
xf (ft)
500
400
300
200
100
0
Fig. 31. Comparison of hydraulic-fracture half-lengths (xf) derived for a vertical well in
Area B from various sources. Frac modeling refers to the modeling of fracture length
using a commercial hydraulic fracture simulator, using net-pressure data etc. Flow/
BU. refers to the post-frac well-test, and RTA e Type-Curve and RTA-Straightline refer to analysis of rate-transient data using type-curve and straight-line (owregime) analysis, respectively. Microseismic 1, 2 and 3 refer to estimates from
microseismic data, as interpreted from 3 different vendors.
29
Fig. 32. Power-Law Exponential decline analysis of vertical well in Area B. Rateetime plots on semi-log and logelog plots are shown in (a) and (c), a rate-cum. plot in (b) and model
trends for D and b are shown in (d).
30
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
topics, and there are several that we have not discussed at all. For
example, PVT properties of reservoir uids were not discussed, but
we feel this is also an important aspect of UGR evaluation. Given the
current favorable pricing for oil and hydrocarbon liquids, many E&P
companies are pursuing UGR plays with a signicant liquid hydrocarbon yield. PVT evaluation of these uids is a critical aspect of
modeling, and understanding uid composition of course is critical
to valuing assets. It is unclear how liquid hydrocarbons are transported through unconventional reservoirs (ex. shales), and how pore
structure affects selective transport of these uids. The thermodynamic properties of these uids within the ultrane pore structure
are also poorly understood. Sorption properties of heavy hydrocarbons on shale has not been investigated in detail. Finally, even for dry
gas scenarios, the current trend to deeper and hotter plays means
that conventional PVT correlations for gaseous components and
their mixtures will be challenged. There is still much research to be
performed in the area of uid PVT in UGRs.
Another aspect of UGRs that was not discussed in detail includes
geological and geophysical (G&G) evaluation. An excellent discussion
of integrated geologic and engineering workows for UGRs was
provided by Newsham and Rushing (2001) and Rushing and
Newsham (2001), much of which is still relevant today. Some
UGRs are referred to as engineering plays because of the emphasis
placed on drilling and completions strategies. We contend however
that G&G evaluation of these plays is critical, from micro- to macroscale. At the microscale, for example, an understanding of mineralogic and organic matter type/thermal maturity and diagenetic
effects on pore structure is critical for understanding transport and
storage processes in UGRs e these types of studies are commonly
performed by geoscientists. At the macro-scale, understanding the
depositional and structural controls on natural fracture development
and distribution, and other controls on reservoir quality are also in
the domain of geoscientists. Also, there is the huge contribution that
microseismic (Warpinski, 2009) has made to helping us understand
geologic controls on induced hydraulic fracture networks. Our
workow in Fig. 1 is premised on the fact that much important G&G
evaluation is part of the process.
Although we touched on it, we would also like to reinforce the
importance of careful wellbore architecture, completion and
stimulation design in UGR. We refer you to excellent recent
summaries by King (2010), Cramer (2008), Britt and Smith (2009)
and Mayerhofer et al. (2008).
7. Conclusions
In this manuscript, we have attempted to provide guidance to
the practicing reservoir engineer on understanding data sources,
data uncertainty and evaluation methods for unconventional gas
reservoirs. Some new and emerging evaluation methods were also
introduced. To guide the discussion, we provided a comprehensive
workow illustrating one approach to optimizing eld development e examples of each step were provided using tight gas
reservoirs in Western Canada. The following discussion points were
raised for each step of the process:
Log Analysis
There are new petrophysical tools and workows that have
greatly aided estimation of properties affecting free-gas and
sorbed gas storage, hydraulic fracturing etc., however well-logs
must be calibrated to core data to provide quantitative
estimates
Scale-up of core data to logs continues to be a difcult process
for UGRs because core-scale heterogeneities (ex. laminations)
often are below the resolution of logging tools
Innovative methods presented in this work for nelylaminated tight gas reservoirs appear effective for establishing the appropriate scale(s) for reservoir layering
Well Test Analysis
The unique properties of UGRs continue to challenge conventional well-test analysis techniques: in particular for tight gas
and shale gas reservoirs, the radial ow period, which allows
a unique estimate of permeability to be obtained, is often not
reached in a reasonable time frame
Pre-frac testing is useful for establishing estimates of reservoir
pressure and sometimes permeability e the shorter time frame
of these tests make them desirable, but they sample a smaller
volume of the reservoir
If reservoir pressure and permeability can be established from
independent sources, conventional post-fracture well-tests
with identied hydraulic fracture signatures can still be useful
for quantifying hydraulic fracture properties
Analysis of owback data (immediately after hydraulic fracturing operations) is a promising avenue for obtaining
hydraulic fracture properties (ex. Ilk et al., 2010)
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
reD
tD
31
Greek Variables
mg
Gas viscosity, cp
v
Poissons Ratio, dimensionless
f
Porosity, fraction
References
Abdulal, H.J., Samandarli, O., Wattenbarger, R.A., 2011. New Type-Curves for Shale
Gas Wells with Dual Porosity Model. Paper CSUG/SPE 149367 presented at the
Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
15e17 November.
Abousleiman, Y., Cheng, Q.H.-D., Gu, H., 1994. Formation permeability determination by micro or mini hydraulic fracturing. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 116 (2), 104.
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W., Fussell, D.D., 1999. Analyzing well
production data using combined type curve and decline curve concepts. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 2 (5), 478e486. SPE-57916-PA.
Aguilera, R., 2002. Incorporating capillary pressure, pore aperture radii, height
above free water Table, and Winland r35 values on Picket plots. AAPG Bulletin
86, 605e624.
Aguilera, R., 2008. Role of Natural Fractures and Slot Porosity on Tight Gas. SPE
Paper 114174 at the SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone,
Colorado, 10e12 February.
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, 27e30 June 2010.
Ambrose, R.J., Hartman, R.C., Diaz-Campos, M., Akkutlu, Y., 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 23e25.
Ambrose, R.J., Hartman, R.C., Akkutlu, I.Y., 2011. Multi-component Sorbed-phase
Considerations for Shale Gas-in-place Calculations. SPE 141416, paper presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, March 27e29.
American Petroleum Institute (API), 1998. Recommended Practices for Core Analysis, RP 40, second ed. API, Dallas, TX.
Amini, S., Ilk, D., Blasingame, T.A., 2007. Evaluation of the Elliptical Flow Period for
Hydraulically-Fractured Wells in Tight Gas Sands e Theoretical and Practical
Considerations. Paper SPE 106308 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, College Station, Texas, 29e31 January.
Anderson, D.M., Nobakht, M., Moghadam, S., Mattar, L., 2010. Analysis of Production
Data from Fractured Shale Gas Wells. Paper SPE 131787 presented at the SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 23e25 February.
Andrade, J., Civan, F., Devegowda, D., Sigal, R., 2010. Accurate Simulation of ShaleGas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 135564 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19e22 September.
Apaydin, O.G., Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R., 2011. Effect of Discontinuous Microfractures
on Ultratight Matrix Permeability of a Dual Porosity Medium. Paper CSUG/SPE
147391 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15e17 November.
Barree, R.D., 1998. Applications of Pre-Frac Injection / Falloff Tests in Fissured
Reservoirs e Field Examples. SPE 39932 presented at the Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium Denver, Colorado, 5e8 April.
Barree, R.D., Cox, S.A., Gilbert, J.V., Dobson, M., November 2005. Closing the Gap:
fracture half-length from design, buildup and production analysis. SPE
Production & Facilities, 274e285. SPE-84491-PA.
Barree, R.D., Gilbert, J.V., Conway, M.W., 2009. Stress and Rock Property Proling for
Unconventional Reservoirs. Paper SPE 118703 presented at SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in the Woodlands, Texas,
19e21 January.
Bartenhagen, K., 2009. Wireline Evaluation Techniques of Shale Gas Reservoirs.
Schlumberger Presentation. Schlumberger Limited, Oklahoma City, OK.
Beatty, K.J., McGowen, J.M., Gilbert, J.V., 2007. Pin-point Fracturing (PPF) in Challenging Formations. Paper SPE 106052 presented at SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference held in College Station, Texas, 29e31 January.
Beliveau, D., 1993. Honey, I shrunk the pores. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology 32, 15e17.
Bello, R.O., Wattenbarger, R.A., 2008. Rate Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured
Shale Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 114591 presented at the CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference, Calgary, Alberta Canada, 16e19 June.
Benelkaldi, S., 2001. Reservoir Permeability Determination Using After-Closure
Radial Flow Analysis of Calibration Tests. Master of Science Thesis, University
of Oklahoma.
Berg, R.R., 1986. Reservoir Sandstones. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 481 p.
Britt, L.K., Schoefer, J., 2009. The Geomechanics of a Shale Play: What Makes
a Shale Prospective! Paper SPE 125525 presented at the 2009 SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, 23e25 September.
32
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Britt, L.K., Smith, M.B., 2009. Horizontal Well Completion, Stimulation Optimization,
and Risk Mitigation. Paper SPE 125526 presented at the 2009 SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, 23e25 September.
Byrnes, A.P., 2006. Rock Properties of Tight Gas Sandstones. Shortcourse Notes.
Bustin, R.M., Bustin, A.M.M., Cui, X., Ross, D.J.K., Murthy Pathi, V.S., 2008a. 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, 16e18 November.
Bustin, R.M., Bustin, A., Ross, D., Chalmers, G., Murthy, V., Laxmi, C., Cui, X., 2008b.
Shale Gas Opportunities and Challenges. Search and Discovery Articles # 40382
(2009). Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, San
Antonio, Texas, 20e23 April.
Chippereld, S.T., Britt, L.K., 2000. Application of After-Closure Analysis for
Improved Fracture Treatment Optimisation: A Cooper Basin Case Study. Paper
SPE 60316 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional / Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, 12e15 March.
Chippereld, S.T., 2005. After-Closure Analysis for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs:
Field Examples. Paper SPE 97015, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 9 e 12 October.
Cipolla, C., Maxwell, S., Mack, M., Downie, R., 2011. A Practical Guide to Interpreting
Microseismic Measurements. Paper SPE 144067 presented at the SPE North
American Unconventional Gas Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 14e16 June.
Civan, F., 2010. Effective correlation of apparent gas permeability in tight porous
Media. Transport in Porous Media 82, 375e384.
Clarkson, December 2011. Integration of rate-transient and microseismic analysis
for unconventional gas reservoirs: where reservoir engineering Meets
Geophysics. CSEG Recorder.
Clarkson, C.R., Beierle, J.J., 2011. Integration of microseismic and other post-fracture
surveillance with production analysis: a tight gas study. Journal of Natural Gas
Science and Engineering 2, 382e401. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2011.03.003.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 1997. Variation in permeability with Lithotype and
maceral composition of Cretaceous coals of the Canadian Cordillera. The
International Journal of Coal Geology 33, 135e151.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 1999. The effect of pore structure and gas pressure upon
the transport properties of coal: a Laboratory and modeling study. 1. Isotherms
and pore volume distributions. Fuel 78, 1333e1344.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 2000. Binary gas Adsorption/Desorption isotherms:
effect of moisture and coal composition upon component Selectivity. International Journal of Coal Geology 42, 241e272.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 2010. Coalbed Methane: Current Evaluation
Methods, Future Technical Challenges. Paper SPE 131791 presented at the SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 23e25 February.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 2011. Coalbed methane: current eld-based evaluation
methods. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 14 (1), 60e75. SPE-131791-PA.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., Seidle, J.P., 2007. Production-Data analysis of singlephase (Gas) coalbed-methane wells. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 10 (3), 312e331. SPE-100313-PA.
Clarkson, C.R., Jordan, C.L., Gierhart, R.R., Seidle, J.P., 2008. Production data analysis
of CBM wells. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 11 (2), 311e325. SPE107705-PA.
Clarkson, C.R., Jordan, C.L., Ilk, D., Blasingame, T.A., 2009. Production Data Analysis
of Fractured and Horizontal CBM Wells. Paper SPE 125929 presented at the
2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, West Virginia, 23e25
September.
Clarkson, C.R., Jensen, J.L., Pedersen, C.R., Freeman, M., 2012. Innovative methods for
ow-unit and pore-structure analysis in a tight siltstone and shale gas reservoir.
AAPG Bulletin 96, 355e374.
Clarkson, C.R., Jensen, J.L., Blasingame, T., 2011a. Reservoir Engineering for Unconventional Gas Reservoirs: What Do We Have to Consider?. Paper SPE 145080
presented at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, 12e16 June.
Clarkson, C.R., Nobakht, M., Kaviani, D., Ertekin, T., 2011b. Production Analysis of
Tight Gas and Shale Gas Reservoirs Using the Dynamic-Slippage Concept. Paper
SPE 144317 presented at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference
and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, 12e16 June.
Cleary, M.P., Johnson, D.E., Kogsbll, H.-H., Owens, K.A., Perry, K.F., de Pater, C.J.,
Stachel, A., Schmidt, H., 1993. Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to Avoid
Premature Screenout of Fractures with Adequate Proppant Concentration.
Paper SPE 25892 presented at the Rocky Mountains Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, 12e14 April.
Comisky, J.T., Newsham, K.E., Rushing, J.A., Blasingame, T.A., 2007. A Comparative
Study of Capillary-Pressure-Based Empirical Models for Estimating Absolute
Permeability in Tight Gas Sands. Paper SPE 110050 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, 11e14
November.
Corbett, P.W.M., Jensen, J.L., Sorbie, K.S., 1998. A review of up-scaling and crossscaling issues in core and log data interpretation and prediction. In:
Harvey, P.K., Lovell, M.A. (Eds.), Core-Log Integration. Geological Society,
London, Special Publication 136, pp. 9e16.
Cramer, D.D., 2008. Stimulating Unconventional Reservoirs: Lessons Learned,
Successful Practices, Areas for Improvement. Paper SPE 114172 presented at the
2008 Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, CO, 10e12 February.
Cui, X., Bustin, A.M.M., Bustin, R.M., 2009. Measurements of gas permeability and
Diffusivity of tight reservoir rocks: different approaches and their applications.
Geouids 9, 208e223.
Gan, H., Nandi, S.P., Walker, P.L., 1972. Nature of the porosity in American coals. Fuel
51, 272e277.
Gerami, S., Pooladi-Darvish, M., Morad, K., Mattar, L., 2007. Type Curves for Dry CBM
Reservoirs with Equilibrium Desorption. Paper 2007-011 presented at the
Petroleum Societys Canadian Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
12e14 June.
Gregg, S.J., Sing, K.S.W., 1982. Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity, second ed.
Academic Press, New York, 303 pp.
Guo, R., Mannhart, K., Kantzas, A., 2007. Characterizing moisture and gas content of
coal by low-eld NMR. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 46 (10),
49e54.
Gulrajani, S.N., Vasudevan, S., Ganguly, U., 1998. Enhanced Calibration Treatment
Analysis for Optimising Fracture Performance: Validation and Field Examples.
Paper SPE 50611 presented at the European Petroleum Conference held in The
Hague, The Netherlands, 20e22 October.
Hartman, C., Bhatta, Nimesh, Lasswell, P., 2008. Recent Advances in the Analytical
Methods Used for Shale Gas Reservoir Gas-In-Place Assessment. Oral Presentation, SPE Shale Gas production Conference held in Fort Worth, Texas, 16e18
November.
Hartman, R.C., Ambrose, R.J., Akkutlu, Y.I., Clarkson, C.R., 2011. Shale Gas-in-Place
Calculations Part II d Multi-component Gas Adsorption Effects. Paper SPE
144097 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference held in the
Woodlands, Texas, 14e16 June.
Howell, G., Javaid, M., Ogundele, P., 2011. University of Calgary Geology/Chemical
and Petroleum Engineering 698 Capstone Project 2011.
Ilk, D., Valko, P.P., Blasingame, T.A., 2005. Deconvolution of Variable-Rate Reservoir
Performance Data Using B-Splines. Paper SPE 95571 presented at the 2005
Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 09e12 October.
Ilk, D., Rushing, J.A., Perego, A.D., Blasingame, T.A., 2008. Exponential Vs. Hyperbolic
Decline in Tight Gas Sands e Understanding the Origins and Implications
for Reserve Estimates Using Arps Decline Curves. Paper SPE 116731 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 21e24
September.
Ilk, D., Currie, S.M., Symmons, D., Rushing, J.A., Broussard, N.J., Blasingame, T.A., 1922 September 2010. A Comprehensive Workow for Early Analysis and Interpretation of Flowback Data from Wells in Tight Gas/Shale Reservoir Systems.
Paper SPE 135607 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Florence, Italy.
Ilk, D., Rushing, J.A., Blasingame, T.A., 2011. Integration of Production Analysis and
Rate-Time Analysis via Parametric Correlations e Theoretical Considerations
and Practical Applications. Paper SPE 140556 presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in the Woodlands, Texas,
24e26 January.
Jacobi, D., Gladkikh, M., LeCompte, B., Hursan, G., Mendez, F., Longo, J., Ong, S.,
Bratovich, M., Patton, G., Shoemaker, P., 2008. Integrated Petrophysical Evaluation of Shale Gas Reservoirs. SPE paper 114925 presented at the CIPC/SPE Gas
technology Symposium Joint Conference held in Calgary, Canada, 16e19 June.
Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., Unsworth, 2007. Nanoscale gas ow in shale gas Sediments.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 46 (10), 55e61.
Javadpour, F., 2009. Nanopores and apparent permeability of gas ow in Mudrocks
(Shales and siltstones). Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 48 (8),
16e21.
Jensen, J.L., Corbett, P.W.M., Pickup, G.E., Ringrose, P.S., 1996. Permeability Semivariograms, geological structure, and ow performance. Mathematical Geology
28 (4), 419e435.
Jones, S.C., 1994. A new, fast, accurate pressure-decay probe permeameter. SPE
Formation Evaluation 9, 193e199.
Jones, S.C., 1997. A technique for Faster pulse-decay permeability measurements in
tight Rocks. SPE Formation Evaluation 12, 19e26.
King, G.E., 2010. Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned?
Paper SPE 133456 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19e22 September.
Kupchenko, C.L., Gault, B.W., Mattar, L., 2008. Tight Gas Production Performance
Using Decline Curves. Paper SPE 114991 presented at the CIPC/SPE Gas
Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference, Calgary, Alberta Canada,
16e19 June.
Lewis, A.M., Hughes, R.G., 2008. Production Data Analysis of Shale Gas Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 116688 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO, 21e24 September.
Mavor, M.J., 1996. Coalbed Methane Reservoir Properties. A Guide to Coalbed
Methane Reservoir Engineering. Gas Research Inst. Report GRI-94/0397,
Chicago.
Mavor, M.J., Saulsberry, J.L., 1996. Testing Coalbed Methane Wells. A Guide to
Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering. Gas Research Inst. Report GRI-94/
0397, Chicago.
Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.J., Warpinski, N.R., Cipolla, C.L., Walser, D., 2008. What Is
Stimulated Reservoir Volume? Paper SPE 119890 presented at the SPE Shale Gas
Production Conference, Fort Worth, TX, 16e18 November.
Melnichenko, Y.B., Radlinski, A.P., Mastalerz, M., Cheng, G., Rupp, J., 2009. Characterization of CO2 uid adsorption in coal as a function of pressure using neutron
scattering techniques. International Journal of Coal Geology 77 (69), 1e11.
Moghadam, S., Mattar, L., Pooladi-Darvish, M., 2010. Dual Porosity Typecurves for
Shale Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 137535 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary,
Alberta, 19e21 October.
C.R. Clarkson et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 8 (2012) 9e33
Mohaghegh, S.D., Ertekin, T., 1991. Type-Curve Solution for Coal Seam Degasication
Wells Producing under Two-Phase Conditions. Paper SPE 22673 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6e9 October.
Mohamed, I.M., Nasralla, R.A., Sayed, M.A., Marongiu-Porcu, M., EhligEconomides, C.A., 2011. Evaluation of After-Closure Analysis Techniques for
Tight and Shale Gas Formations. Paper SPE 140136 presented at the SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas, 24e26 January.
Newsham, K.E., Rushing, J.A., 2001. An Integrated Work-Flow Model to Characterize
Unconventional Gas Resources: Part I e Geological Assessment and Petrophysical Evaluation. Paper SPE 71351 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September- 3
October.
Newsham, K.E., Rushing, J.A., Lasswell, P.M., Cox, J.C., Blasingame, T.A., 2004.
A Comparative Study of Laboratory Techniques for Measuring Capillary Pressures in Tight Gas Sands. Paper SPE 89866 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 26e29 September.
Nobakht, M., Mattar, L., Moghadam, S., Anderson, D.M., 2010. Simplied yet Rigorous
Forecasting of Tight/Shale Gas Production in Linear Flow. Paper SPE 133615
presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California 27e29 May.
Nobakht, M., Ambrose, R., Clarkson, C.R., 2011a. Effect of Heterogeneity in a Horizontal Well with Multiple Fractures on the Long-Term Forecast in Shale Gas
Reservoirs. Paper CSUG/SPE 149400 presented at the Canadian Unconventional
Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 15e17 November.
Nobakht, M., Clarkson, C.R., Kaviani, D., 2011b. New Type Curves for Analyzing
Horizontal Well with Multiple Fractures in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Paper CSUG/
SPE 149397 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, 15e17 November.
Nobakht, M., Clarkson, C.R., 2011a. A New Analytical Method for Analyzing
Production Data from Shale Gas Reservoirs Exhibiting Linear Flow: Constant
Pressure Production. Paper SPE 143989 presented at the North American
Unconventional Gas Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, Texas, 14e16 June.
Nobakht, M., Clarkson, C.R., 2011b. A New Analytical Method for Analyzing
Production Data from Shale Gas Reservoirs Exhibiting Linear Flow: Constant
Rate Production. Paper SPE 143990 presented at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, Texas, 14e16 June.
Nolte, K.G., 1990. Fracturing pressure analysis. Recent advances in hydraulic fracturing. SPE Monograph 12.
Nolte, K.G., 1997. Background for after Closure Analysis of Calibration Tests. Paper
SPE 39407 available from: SPE, Richardson Texas (1997).
Nolte, K.G., Smith, M.B., Sept 1981. Interpretation of fracturing pressures. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 1767.
Odusina, E., Sondergeld, C., Rai, C., 2011. An NMR Study on Shale Wettability. Paper
CSUG/SPE 147371 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15e17 November.
Ozkan, E., Brown, M., Raghavan, R., Kazemi, H., 2009. Comparison of Fractured
Horizontal-Well Performance in Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 121290 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, San Jose,
California, 24e26 March.
Passey, Q.R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J.B., Moretti, F.J., Stroud, J.D., 1990. A practical model for
organic Richness from porosity and resistivity logs. AAPG Bulletin, December.
Pratikno, H., Rushing, J.A., Blasingame, T.A., 5e8 October 2003. Decline Curve
Analysis Using Type-Curves e Fractured Wells. Paper SPE 84287 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado.
33
Ramurthy, M., Marjerisson, D.M., Daves, S.B., 2002. Diagnostic Fracture Injection
Test in Coals to Determine Pore Pressure and Permeability. Paper SPE 75701
presented at the Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30
Aprile2 May.
Ramurthy, M., Barree, R.D., Kundert, D.P., Petre, E., Mullen, M., 2011. SurfaceArea vs. Conductivity-type fracture treatments in shale reservoirs. SPE
Production & Operation 26 (4), 357e367. SPE-140169-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2118/140169-PA.
Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B., Kundert, D., 2008. A Practical Use
of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays
Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale. Paper SPE 115258 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, 21e24
October.
Rushing, J.A., Newsham, K.E., 2001. An Integrated Work-Flow Model to Characterize
Unconventional Gas Resources: Part II e Formation Evaluation and Reservoir
Modeling. Paper SPE 71352 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September- 3 October.
Rushing, J.A., Newsham, K.E., Van Fraasen, K.C., 2003. Measurement of Two-Phase
Gas Slippage Phenomenon and Its Effect on Gas Relative Permeability in Tight
Gas Sands. Paper SPE 84297 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5e8 October.
Rushing, J.A., Newsham, K.E., Perego, A.D., Comisky, J.T., Blasingame, T.A., 2007.
Beyond Decline Curves: Life-Cycle Reserves Appraisal Using an Integrated
Workow Process for Tight Gas Sands. Paper SPE 109836 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, 11e14
November.
Rushing, J.A., Newsham, K.E., Blasingame, T.A., 2008. Rock Typing e Key to Understanding Productivity in Tight Gas Sands. Paper SPE 114164 presented at the SPE
Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, Colorado, 10e12 February.
Sing, K.S.W., Everett, D.H., Haul, R.A.W., Moscou, L., Pierotti, R.A., Rouquerol, J.,
Siemieniewska, T., 1985. Pure and Applied Chemistry 57, 603.
Sondergeld, C.H., Newsham, K.E., Comisky, J.T., Rice, M.C., Rai, C.S., 2010a. Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating and Producing Shale Gas Resources. Paper
SPE 131768 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 23e25 February.
Sondergeld, C.H., Ambrose, R.J., Rai, C.S., Moncrieff, J., 2010b. Microstructural Studies
of Gas. Paper SPE 131771 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 23e25 February.
Talley, G.R., Swindell, T.M., Waters, G.A., Nolte, K.G., 1999. Field Application of AfterClosure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests. Paper SPE 52220 presented at
Mid Continent Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
28e31 March.
Thompson, J.M., Nobakht, M., Anderson, D.M., 2010. Modeling Well Performance
Data from Overpressured Shale Reservoirs. Paper CSUG/SPE 137755 presented
at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 19e21 October.
Warpinski, N.R., November 2009. Microseismic monitoring: inside and out. SPE
distinguished author series. Journal of Petroleum Technology.
Washburn, E.W., 1921. The dynamics of capillary ow. Physical Review 17 (3),
273e283.
Wattenbarger, R.A., El-Banbi, A.H., Villegas, M.E., Maggard, J.B., 1998. Production
Analysis of Linear Flow Into Fractured Tight Gas Wells. Paper SPE 39931 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 5e8 April.