SPE 148491

Shale Gas Predictive Model (SGPM) An Alternate Approach to Predict

Shale Gas Production
Deepankar Biswas, SPE, SiteLark

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Columbus, Ohio, USA, 1719 August 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not 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

Immense potential of shale gas to supplement domestic energy needs and the recent engineering strides in multistaged fractures in long horizontal well laterals have inevitably increased interest in exploitation of such plays
across the country. However, because of the continuous nature of these plays, the production potential can change
significantly from one location to the other often within close proximity. For a project to be economically viable,
under downward price pressures, large number of wells in multi-well drilling campaigns needs to produce
commercial quantities of gas. Not surprisingly, numerous attempts are being made to type-cast mineralogy,
organic contents, fracture design and completion optimization in order to reduce exploration and exploitation risks.
Many uncertainties still remain, however. The proposed model (SGPM) is developed to mitigate some of these
challenges. It is simple and easy-to use and unlike grid-based fine-grid models it focuses more on the flow around
individual wells while conserving overall mass. First, the current status of modeling from fine grid dualporosity/dual permeability simulations to analytical models for horizontal wells with multiple vertical fractures is
explained. The assumptions, formulation and the need for SGPM are described next. The model is validated with
vertical and horizontal well productions from various shale gas plays. Results of extensions to the model to account
for multi-phase flow are displayed thereafter.
This paper contributes in the following manner:
1. Provides an alternate framework to history match and forecast shale gas production. This model is better
suited for reservoir engineers routine reserves estimation work because of its quicker turnaround time.
2. Provides a relatively simpler framework to incorporate specialized asset specific physics and
geomechanics.
3. Multi-phase flow feature enables accurate condensate production in plays like Marcellus and Eagle Ford.
Background

The potential of commercial gas production from shale gas has attracted incredible attention in the recent years.
During the last decade of shale gas development, projected recovery of shale gas in-place has increased from about
2% to estimates of about 50% mainly through the development and adaptation of technologies that fits shale gas
developments e.g. multi-stage fracturing of horizontal wells, slick-water fluids with minimum viscosity and
simultaneous fracturing (King, 2010). King (2010) continues to mention that shales vary both aerially and

SPE 148491

vertically within trend, their fabric alterations demand stimulation changes within a single well to obtain best
recovery and that there is no one-size-fits all completion design for shale wells. According to Lewis et al (2004),
key reservoir parameters for gas shale deposits include a) thermal maturity, b) reservoir thickness, c) total organic
content, d) adsorbed gas fraction, e) free gas saturation, and f) permeability. They further highlight that apart from
the first two, other parameters require novel techniques to quantify. Typically, the initial production from gas
shales declines rapidly to a fairly low rate that may persist for more than 20 years.
The primary mechanism of gas production from shales is attributed to fracture network present in the reservoir.
Gas resides in the very tight matrix system and is forced to flow into the fracture network first through chemical
desorption and then through diffusion to travel to the matrix-fracture interface. Apart from the adsorbed gas, gas
can also exist in free-state in the fractures and can flow to the wellbore. The dominant mechanism is determined
by the nature of the isotherm curve and the depth of the reservoir i.e. the pressure of the reservoir.
Fractures are critical for the producibility of shale gas reservoirs and can be present either naturally or
hydraulically fractured or both. The most common way to model shale gas production is to assume a dualporosity/permeability system and additional near wellbore grid resolutions to mimic the hydraulic fractures.
The primary components of modeling gas production from shales are the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Gas flow from tight matrix into fractures

Characterizing the matrix blocks i.e. fracture spacing
Conductivity of fracture networks
Gas desorption and diffusion process
Stress sensitivity of the flow properties of the fracture network

Civan et al. (2011) present necessary and sufficient conditions of the design parameters that should be considered
to build proper shale gas simulator. They emphasized non-instantaneous dynamic distribution of fluids and
transport of fluids in interconnected nano-pores as two defining features that make modeling of these reservoirs
starkly different than the conventional systems. They advocate a quad-porosity approach accounting for a fairly
complicated reservoir pore structure that includes pores in the organic matter, inorganic matter , natural and
hydraulic fractures with heterogeneous wettability, and different relative permeability and capillary pressure
functions. Further, according to them proper storage formulation accounting for the effects of adsorbed gas, poresize and compressibility effects to avoid an overestimation of gas in place should be instituted. They also conclude
that the intrinsic permeability should be corrected for the fluid behavior and pore-size distribution in the tight
porous media. As per their recommendation a correction to fluid properties to wall proximity and noninstantaneous capillary equilibrium effect and rate-dependency of relative permeability to account for the gradual
re-distribution of fluids should be incorporated.
Various methods to capture gas flow behavior from shale gas are cited in the literature. Models describing detailed
physical processes can be built in a numerical setting where fractures can be discretely modeled and matrix blocks
are assigned to transfer gas through diffusion and desorption into the fracture blocks (e.g. Cipolla et al. 2009,
Rubin 2010; Lewis, 2004; Wang 2011; Mongalvy 2011). Various techniques are prescribed to accommodate
acceptable accuracy without consuming prohibitive CPU time in achieving this goal. For instance, it is suggested
(Cipolla et al. 2009) that the Stimulated Rock Volume (SRV) can be modeled as a Local Grid Refinement (LGR)
with different fracture properties in an otherwise Dual-Permeability based grid with larger fracture spacing. The
conceptual argument is that the complex, highly non-linear fracture network of the SRV which effectively connects
the exposed reservoir surface area to the wellbore is the dominant source for production and therefore should be
emphasized in the modeling environment. They maintain that both desorption and pressure dependent fracture

SPE 148491

properties can influence production only towards the latter part of the production history. Consequently, it is
difficult to forecast production based on the trend of early life of the well. There are other attempts in the literature
where fractures are directly modeled using Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) e.g. Meyer et al. 2010, Bazan et al.
2010. Furthermore, another important aspect of determining fracture conductivity (which ultimately results in the
gas production in a shale gas well) is to model the proppant behavior in both propped and unpropped fractures.
However, proppant transport is not very well understood and therefore is commonly accounted for via correlations
established in experiments.
More importantly though, there are several shortcomings in these detailed approaches. Firstly, detailed grid-based
numerical techniques (e.g. high conductivity elements to represent fractures) usually are resource intensive and
time consuming. Furthermore, the best-of-practice approach can very well be an optimal collection of algorithms
available for conventional reservoirs. Selection of this generally requires experience and expertise. This could be
a bottleneck and discouragement for small to medium sized companies eager to get in to shale gas production.
Often a quick and intuitive technique is required that can provide go-no-go business decision making capability.
Additionally, reservoir engineers need to prepare reserves estimates frequently where a methodology is needed that
can focus on well-by-well basis. To be specific, in the case of shale gas where there could be numerous wells
drilled in smaller spacing to set up, execute and maintain a grid-based simulation model can be very cumbersome
and often over-ambitious. A model that concentrates on individual wells and runs relatively quickly to enable
repeatability and faster turnaround is desired.
To address this specific issue, there are other techniques published in the literature that modify existing material
balance techniques for conventional reservoirs (e.g. Wei et al. 2007). These attempts try to preserve the equations
similar to conventional reservoirs but using modified variables (e.g. P/Z* instead of P/Z) specific to
unconventional reservoirs. These analytic techniques, however, have the usual drawbacks of over-simplified
geometry and underlying physics assumptions.
Researchers have also tried to augment analytical techniques to adapt to horizontal well completions with multiple
fractures. Recently (Bazan et al. 2010) highlighted the inadequacy of the symmetrical bi-wing approximation of
fracture geometry and suggested DFN fracture modeling to investigate fracture conductivity and well productivity.
They presented examples from two (Dry Gas and Condensate) wells in Eagle Ford Shale Play. The analytic
fracture modeling capability was based on Meyer et al. (2010). Meyer et al (2010) analytical model is based on
the trilinear solution of Lee and Brockenbrough (1986) and the pseudosteady-state resistivity model of Meyer and
Jacot (2005) to predict and optimize multiple finite conductivity transverse fully-penetrating vertical fractures in
horizontal wellbores in a homogeneous rectangular reservoir. A methodology of using these analytical solutions to
formulate a set of fundamental dimensionless pressure and rate solutions for multiple stage/clusters transverse
fractures in horizontal wells are presented in their work. They give details of the evolution of analytical solutions
for uniform flux, finite conductivity vertical fractures intersecting a well. These models benefited from early
attempts to forecast production of multiple infinite-conductivity transverse fractures to determine the optimum
number of fractures in horizontal wells (e.g. Soliman et al. 1978). Analytic solutions to finite conductivity
multiple fractures intercepting horizontal well are also presented by various other authors, albeit with other
underlying approximations. Raghavan et al. (1994) stressed on the importance of three dominant flow regimes,
namely (i) an early-time flow period where total flow is the flow of N co-mingled fractures (ii) an intermediate
time period that reflects the interference effects between fractures and (iii) a late time period where the composite
multiple transverse fracture system behaves as a single fracture with the length equal to the spacing between the
outermost fractures. An interesting comparison of various multi-fractured horizontal well inflow models is
provided in Kustamsi et al. (1997) where best inflow models to be used under different scenarios are
recommended. Models equipped specifically to shale reservoir declines are also developed and published

SPE 148491

(Nobakht, 2011, Strickland et al. 2011). For example, Stretched-Exponential Decline Model (Can, 2011) is used to
develop probabilistic forecast models to account for inherent uncertainties in the model parameters.
On the other hand, other authors (e.g. King et al. 1993) have tried to strike a balance by introducing methods that
are semi-analytic/numerical in nature where material balance approaches are upgraded to suite unconventional
reservoirs by relaxing assumptions and introducing relevant equations to approximate physics of two-phase (gas
and water) flow for vertical wells. As a result of these variations, the system of governing equations does not lend
itself for analytic solutions and a numerical approach is resorted to obtain meaningful values and history match
past production. However, since they are still zero-dimensional the numerical approaches converge to solutions
much faster than detailed grid-based solution techniques.
SGPM enhances the conceptual framework of King et al. (1993) by adding deliverability of horizontal wells with
multiple intersecting fully penetrating vertical fractures for multi phase flow. SGPM enables the following:
1.

Enhance the existing modeling capability by adding concepts of productivity in horizontal wells with
multi-stage fractures.
2. Augment and test the developed model against production data from different unconventional gas plays.
3. Integrate visualization mechanism to examine predictive results, diagnose production results and other
intermediate/final computational outputs.
4. Assimilate a Windows Graphics User Interface (GUI) for the predictive tool to upload input data into the
software seamlessly and execute the numerical model systematically.
This provides the operators with an alternate way to history match, predict and assess reserves in shale gas and
other unconventional resources. The algorithm has a much faster turnaround time compared to grid-based
simulation techniques, on one hand, and better accuracy by incorporating more physics compared to simpler
analytic techniques, on the other. Furthermore, the user interface eases data input and the plotting routines help to
analyze results. The integrated framework enables users to compare and contrast multiple scenarios.
Model Formulation

SGPM model formulation inherits conceptual frameworks of solving material balance and deliverability equations
simultaneously from King et al. (1993) and deliverability of multi-stage fractured horizontal wells from Raghavan
et al. (1993). The feasibility of coupling these two separate concepts is tested first both for vertical and horizontal
wells (see Figure 1). The originality of the algorithm stems from its extension to capture multi-phase flow (gas and
condensate). The deliverability equations compute how much a well can produce from a given stimulated rock
volume, however the coupled mass balance equation constraints the actual production limited by the gas
availability. The overall methodology can be summarized as follows:
1. Gas material balance has options for different isotherms and diffusion coefficients.
2. Water material balance equation is coupled in the model to history match water production from
unconventional gas reservoirs.
3. Gas, condensate and water inflow equations are modified to reflect multi-stage fracture flow.
4. Newton method is applied to solve the system of non-linear equations which improves the convergence
properties of the technique.
5. Finally advanced graphics are added both to plot simulation results and/or to diagnose existing production
behavior. This can reveal possible spatial relationship among flow attributes and expose possible sweet
spots in the reservoir.

SPE 148491

Equation 1 is an example of a material balance equation (Gas material balance, King 1993). Appropriate equations
are used when condensate is also present. Notice that the material balance equation is augmented for adsorption.
This term is active only when the pressure is below desorption pressure. Any generic (table look up) or closed
form analytic (e.g. Langmuir isotherm, used in the paper) adsorption can be used.

(1 S wi ) pi [1 c ( pi p )](1 S w ) p
G p = C (Vb , T )

+ Gd
zi
z

(1)

Similarly, the water material balance equation can be represented as shown in Equation 2 (King 1993).

Sw =

S wi [1 + cw ( pi p )] +

(W

[1 c ( p p )]

BwW p )
PV

(2)

Total deliverability from a horizontal well with multiple fractures can be computed using the Equation 3
(Raghavan 1993). This is a special case where 5 equidistant fractures constitute the horizontal well geometry.
Equation 3 is derived based on superposition of the fracture stages. In SGPM Equation 3 is generalized to any
number of fracture stages. However, as is mentioned later, the fractures are still equidistant but can have different
half lengths.

qt = Cm( p )

re
ln
qr 1
2
(4drwe1 ) 3d

qr 2
(2d )qr 3

(3)

( )

The assumptions are as follows:

1. The fractures are vertical, transverse, fully-penetrating and have finite conductivity.
2. Formation fluid can only enter the wellbore through the fractures at the perforated intervals.
3. The fractures are placed equidistant from each other along the horizontal lateral.
4. There is no pressure loss in the lateral length of the horizontal well.
5. The model accounts for desorption and changing fracture permeability as a result of time dependent
reservoir pressure.

The non-linear set of equations is linearized using Newtons method and solved for variables of interest i.e.
pressure/rates and saturations. Since this model is created exclusively for unconventional reservoirs (unlike other
models which force models developed for conventional reservoirs to work for unconventional reservoirs) it is firfor-purpose. Its relatively tractable framework enables addition of asset-specific physics. Alternatively, to expand
its applicability, other independent models (e.g. fracture mechanics, basin analysis models etc) can be easily
integrated. One of the attributes that can be perturbed during history match is the bulk volume (simulated volume)

SPE 148491

of the reservoir that the well is exposed to. This can be argued to be the SRV of the well providing post-job
lookback of the efficacy of the fracture job.
Marcellus Case Study

Marcellus shale extends the Devonian shale from its northern reaches in the west central New York on a northeast
to southwest trend down into Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia with minor portions in Virginia and Maryland.
This is highly organic (TOC of 3-12 %) black shale that were deposited (depths of 4,000 8,5000 ft) when a
shallow continental seaway existed in the area. It was created by the deposition of organic material (lack of clastic
sediments) followed by rapid burial as a result of plate tectonics of the region proved to be source materials for the
natural gas present. The rapid burial of Marcellus, a result of the continued sedimentation and thrust faulting,
eventually resulted in the sediments surpassing the temperature and pressure of the oil window leading to the
formation of large quantities of natural gas entrained in the shale porosity. The subsequent uplift and erosion of the
Marcellus Formation has resulted in the natural formation of vertically oriented fractures (Arthur et al., 2008).
As of 2008, estimated 450 wells have been drilled in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania. Despite its expense,
horizontal wells are preferred over vertical wells because of their increased long term producibility, extended
reservoir exposure and less surface footprint and disturbances during drilling. Regardless of the type of the wells,
hydraulic fractures are important necessity to make economical gas from the wells. It is noted that although
vertical may need 40 acres spacing, a 160 acres spacing may suffice for horizontal wells. It is estimated that the
region has 260-500 Tcf of gas reserves with an estimated average per well production of 3 MMcf/D.

Typical Marcellus shale horizontal well is modeled with the input properties shown in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the
gas production rate match and the associated cumulative production for approximately 1 year of production.
Antrim Case Study

Production in Antrim Shale comes from two black-shale intervals in the Lower Antrim: the Lachine (80 to 120 ft
thick) and the Norwood (20 to 50 ft thick). Gas in the Antrim is of biogenic origin and is primarily sorbed gas with
a concentration ranging from 50 to 100 SCF/ton (Jenkins, 2008). Productivity depends largely in the development
of well-connected natural fractures that initially are water saturated. As of 2005, 8,300 wells produced an average
of 50 Mscf/D of gas and 25 bbl/D of water. The gas rates vary significantly from well to well with high
concentration of CO2. Cumulative production of 2 Tcf out of potentially 10 Tcf of gas has been produced (Jenkins,
2008).
Antrim shale wells are 400 to 2,000 ft deep and gas production typically is 125 to 200 Mscf/D after 6 to 12 months
of dewatering with a decline of 8% / year after 2 years. Typically well produces a cumulative of 400 to 800
MMscf at a spacing of 30 to more than 160 acres/ well with initial gas in place estimate of 5 to more than 35 Bcf/
sq mile. Most wells drilled are vertical with nitrogen-foam hydraulically fractured in two stages.
Typical Antrim shale vertical well is modeled with the input properties shown in Table 2. Figure 3 shows the gas
production rate match and the associated cumulative production for approximately 20 years of production.

SPE 148491

Multiphase Flow - Eagle Ford Production

The Eagle Ford formation is a widespread Upper Cretaceous deposit in the Gulf Coast Region of South and Central
Texas. Long known for its hydrocarbon source rock potential (sourcing overlaying Austin Chalk), only recently
been considered as potential target for exploitation. In South Texas, where it has hydrocarbon potential, the Eagle
Ford formation is between 5000 and 13,000 below the surface with thickness ranging from 50 to 300. Unlike
Barnett, Haynesville and Marcellus shales which are primarily siliceous environments, Eagle Ford is composed of
organic-rich calcareous mudstones and chalks that were deposited during two transgressive sequences, the upper
and lower Eagle Ford (Bazan et al. 2010). The oxygen deficient deeper deposits of Eagle Ford tend to be organic
rich (1-7%) and produce more hydrocarbons. The deeper deposits (10,000 13,000) have resulted in wells
producing large quantities of dry gas. On the other hand, the shallower Eagle Ford (5,000 8,5000) did not reach
the same level of hydrocarbon maturity and therefore is much more condensate rich gas and potentially volatile oil
in the shallowest areas.
A typical Eagle Ford shale horizontal well producing dry gas is modeled with the input properties shown in Table
3. Figure 4 shows the gas production rate match and the associated cumulative production for approximately first
250 days of production.
The recent trend of exploiting liquid-rich shale (e.g. Eagle Ford, Woodford. Marcellus etc) is understandable
because of the divergence between oil and gas prices on a Btu equivalent basis. However, producing from the
condensate window has its own complexities. For starters, when the pressure falls below dew point pressure,
condensate starts to drop out of the gas. Higher the liquid content in the gas more is this drop out. Secondly, the
condensate drop out in the reservoir is detrimental to condensate and gas production. Condensate has to build up to
a critical saturation before it starts to flow. Moreover, until it flows, the condensate exerts an additional resistance
to gas flow which ultimately results in lower gas as well as condensate recovery. Finally, it has been shown for
conventional reservoirs that when wells are hydraulically fractured (as is the case for shale gas reservoirs) the
likelihood of condensate drop out is higher near the matrix-fracture interface because of the increased pressure
drop. Therefore, the dry gas model that has been described and validated in the previous sections is inadequate to
forecast recovery.
The model is augmented to handle liquid production. Special gas-condensate inputs are necessary to complete the
model data. In addition to the data provided for the dry gas, PVT and relative permeability values for the gascondensate system are needed. The mathematical model is refurbished to include two-phase (gas-condensate)
mass balance equations. In addition, appropriate deliverability equation for condensate is also incorporated. The
model solves for rates and pressures (as before) but also reports condensate rate and saturation. The model can still
be used for both for history matching past production or in the forecast mode.
To illustrate the importance of the two phase model, a representative well with limited production from Eagle Ford
shale play known to be producing from the condensate window is selected. The production data match (as shown
in Figure 5) and the associated data (see Table 4) are presented. The associated pressure behavior and condensate
saturation buildup are exhibited in Figure 6. The data used for history matching is similar to what is reported for
the well (Bazan et al. 2010).
Another feature of SGPM is that within a project, several wells can be investigated as separate cases. Once
acceptable history match or forecast is executed on each one of them, their production attributes (e.g. cumulative
production, initial pressure, final pressure, maximum gas rate, 3-months cumulative production etc) can be viewed
in a 3D plot (as shown in Figure 7) to examine the spatial relationship. This feature can identify possible sweet
spots in Shale play.

SPE 148491

Conclusions
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

An alternate approach to predict shale gas production (SGPM) is presented. Several of its features are
discussed.
The advantage of this model is that unlike unstructured grid-based models which could be time consuming
and need specialized expertise, it can be used to reproduce results quickly and repetitively in situations
where quick turnaround is required to estimate reserves from multitude of wells in single or multiple plays.
This should be popular among operators who hold millions of acres and plan to drill 100s of wells year
after year.
The model can be run in conjunction with other fracture mechanics software for better fracture design.
The model can be used both for history matching past production and forecast future production. The
model is validated against production from various shale gas plays around the country.
Multi-phase flow feature of the model helps understand condensate production in oil-rich plays. It
highlights the inaccuracies in recovery prediction if the condensate presence is neglected.

Nomenclature

Bw

= water formation volume factor (rb/STB)

cw

= water compressibility (1/psi)

C (Vb , T )
d
Gd

Gp

m( p )
p

pi

= rock compressibility (1/psi)

= a function of bulk volume and temperature
= spacing between hydraulic fractures (ft)
= Cumulative adsorption (Bcf)
= Cumulative gas production (Bcf)
= gas pseudo pressure (psi2/cp)
= current reservoir pressure (psi)

= initial pressure (psia)

= ratio of rate of a particular hydraulic fracture to the total rate

re

= drainage radius (ft)

rwe

= equivalent radius (ft)

Sw

= current water saturation

S wi

= initial water saturation

We

= Cumulative water influx (MM STB)

PV
qr

Wp
z
zi

= pore volume (Bcf)

= Cumulative water production (MM STB)

= z-factor at current reservoir pressure

= initial z-factor

SPE 148491

References
1. Andrade, J., F. Civan, D. Devegowda and R.F. Sigal: Design and Examination of Requirements for a
Rigorous Shale-Gas Reservoir Simulator Compared to Current Shale-Gas Simulators, paper SPE 144401
prepared for presentation at the 2011 Americas Unconventional Gas Conference held in the Woodlands,
TX, 14-16 June.
2. Arthur, D.J. et al: Hydraulically Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the Marcellus Shale,
paper presented at the 2008 Annual Forum of the Groundwater Protection Council, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA,
Sept. 21-24.
3. Bazan, L.W. et al.: Improving Production in the Eagle Ford Shale with Fracture Modeling, Increased
Conductivity and Optimized Stage and Cluster Spacing Along Horizontal Wellbore, paper SPE 138425
presented at the 2010 SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference held in San Antonio, Nov. 2-3.
4. Can, B. and C.S. Kabir: Probabilistic Performance Forecasting for Unconventional Reservoirs with
Stretched-Exponential Model, paper SPE 143666 prepared for presentation at the 2011 Americas
Unconventional Gas Conference held in the Woodlands, TX, 14-16 June.
5. Carlson, E.S. and J.C. Mercer: Devonian Shale Gas Production: Mechanisms and Simple Models, JPT,
April 1991.
6. Cipolla, C.L. et al: Modeling Well performance in Shale-Gas Reservoirs, SPE 125532 prepared for
presentation at the 2009 SPE/WAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference held in Abu
Dhabi, UAE, Oct. 19 21.
7. Jenkins, C.D. and C.M. Boyer: Coalbed and Shale Gas Reservoirs, JPT, Feb. 2008.
8. King, G.E.: Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned, paper SPE 133456 prepared
for presentation at the 2010 ATCE held in Florence, Italy, Sept. 19-22.
9. King, G.E.: Material Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs with
Limited Water Influx, SPERE, Feb 1993.
10. Lee, S. and J.R. Brockenbrough,: A New Approximate Analytic Solution for Finite Conductivity Vertical
Fractures, SPEFE, Feb. 1986.
11. Lewis, R. et al.: New Evaluation Techniques for Gas Shale Reservoirs, Schlumberger paper for 2004
Reservoir Symposium.
12. Meyer, B.R. and R.H. Jacot : Pseudosteady state Analysis of Finite Conductivity Vertical Fractures, SPE
95941, Oct. 2005.
13. Meyer, B. et al: Optimization of Multiple Transverse Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wellbores, paper
SPE 131732 prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference held in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, USA, Feb. 23-25.
14. Mongalvy, V., E. Chaput, S. Agarwal and L. Lu: A New Methodology for Shale Reservoir Performance,
paper SPE 144154 prepared for presentation at the 2011 Americas Unconventional Gas Conference held in
the Woodlands, TX, 14-16 June.
15. Nobakht, M. and C.R. Clarkson: A New Analytical Method for Analyzing Production Data from
Reservoirs Exhibiting Linear Flow: Constant Pressure Production, paper SPE 143989 prepared for
presentation at the 2011 Americas Unconventional Gas Conference held in the Woodlands, TX, 14-16
June.
16. Nobakht, M. and C.R. Clarkson: A New Analytical Method for Analyzing Production Data from
Reservoirs Exhibiting Linear Flow: Constant Rate Production, paper SPE 143989 prepared for
presentation at the 2011 Americas Unconventional Gas Conference held in the Woodlands, TX, 14-16
June.

10

SPE 148491

17. Paktinat, J. et al.: Investigation of Methods to Improve Utica Shale Hydraulic Fracturing in the
Appalachian Basin, paper SPE 111063 prepared for presentation at the 2007 Eastern Regional Meeting
held in Lexington, Kentucky, 17-19 Oct.
18. Raghavan, R. and Joshi, S.D.: Productivity of Multiple Drainholes or Fractures Horizontal Wells,
SPEFE, Mar. 1993.
19. Roberts, B.E. et al: Productivity of Multiply Fractures Horizontal Wells in Tight Gas Reservoirs, paper
SPE 23113 prepared for presentation at the 1991 Offshore Europe Conference held in Aberdeen, Sept 3-4.
20. Rubin, B: Accurate Simulation of Non-Darcy Flow in Stimulated Fracture Shale Reservoirs, SPE
132293 prepared for presentation at the 2010 Western Regional Conference held in Anaheim, CA, May 27
- 29.
21. Samandarli, O., H. Al-Ahmadi and R. Wattenbarger: A New Method for History Matching and
Forecasting Shale Gas Reservoir Production Performance with a Dual Porosity Model, paper SPE 144335
prepared for presentation at the 2011 Americas Unconventional Gas Conference held in the Woodlands,
TX, 14-16 June.
22. Strickland, R., D. Purvis and T. Blasingame: Practical Aspects of Reserve Determinations for Shale Gas,
paper SPE 144357 prepared for presentation at the 2011 Americas Unconventional Gas Conference held in
the Woodlands, TX, 14-16 June.
23. Wang, J. and Y. Liu: Well Performance Modeling in Eagle Ford Shale Oil Reservoir, paper SPE 144427
prepared for presentation at the 2011 Americas Unconventional Gas Conference held in the Woodlands,
TX, 14-16 June.
24. Wei, X.R. et al: A Review on recent Advances in the Numerical Simulation for Coalbed-MethaneRecovery Process, SPERE, Dec 2007.

SPE 148491

11

Depth(ft)

7,876

Thickness(ft)

162

ReservoirPressure(psia)

1,250

DesorptionPressure(psia)

1,225

DiffusionCoefficient(ft2/Day)

0.005

LateralLength(ft)

2,100

FractureHalfLength(ft)

125

No.ofStages

SimulatedVolume(Bcf)

4.02

Table 1. Simulation input data used for the Marcellus Shale Play

Depth(ft)

1,000

Thickness(ft)

100

ReservoirPressure(psia)

400

DesorptionPressure(psia)

380

DiffusionCoefficient(ft2/Day)

0.30

SimulatedVolume(Bcf)

4.14

Table 2. Simulation input data used for the Antrim Shale Play

Depth(ft)

10,875

Thickness(ft)

283

ReservoirPressure(psia)

8,350

DesorptionPressure(psia)

200

DiffusionCoefficient(ft2/Day)

0.006

LateralLength(ft)

4,000

FractureHalfLength(ft)

100

No.ofStages

10

SimulatedVolume(Bcf)

2.0

Table 3. Simulation input data used for the Eagle Ford Shale Play (Dry Gas)

12

SPE 148491

Depth(ft)

8,608

Thickness(ft)

224

ReservoirPressure(psia)

6,568

DesorptionPressure(psia)

5,700

DiffusionCoefficient(ft2/Day)

0.040

LateralLength(ft)

4,000

FractureHalfLength(ft)

100

No.ofStages

12

SimulatedVolume(Bcf)

17.0

Table 4. Simulation input data used for the Eagle Ford Shale Play (Gas Condensate)

Figure 1. Schematic showing multiple horizontal wells modeled in SGPM.

Figure 2. Marcellus shale play production match showing gas rates and cumulative production

SPE 148491

Figure 3. Antrim shale play production match showing gas rates and cumulative production

Figure 4. Eagle Ford shale play production match showing gas rates and cumulative production

13

14

SPE 148491

Figure 5. Eagle Ford shale play production match showing gas/condensate rates and cumulative production

Figure 6. Eagle Ford shale play pressure and condensate saturation buildup.

SPE 148491

Figure 7. A 3D plot exhibiting spatial relationship for cumulative production of wells in close proximity to
one-another.

15