SPE-200425-MS
Applications of Rate and Pressure Transient Analysis in Huff-n-Puff Gas
EOR for Unconventional Reservoirs
Behjat Haghshenas, Reservoir Diagnostics Inc.; Farhad Qanbari, Seven Generations Energy
Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference originally scheduled to be held in Tulsa, OK, USA, 18 – 22 April 2020. Due
to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 31 August – 4 September 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were published
online on 30 August 2020.
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
Gas injection huff and puff (HnP) has been successfully applied in parts of Eagle Ford over the past few
years. The success is attributed to gas and oil miscibility achieved by injection of gas at high pressure and
rate in a contained hydraulic fracture system with a considerable of stimulated volume. Two key preliminary
steps in gas HnP modeling include characterization of reservoir fluid (and its interaction with injected gas)
and evaluation of hydraulic fracture system. This study focuses on simplified analytical tools for estimation
of stimulated reservoir size from production data.
Rate-transient analysis (RTA) is a tool for identification of flow regimes and estimation of key
performance metrics for multi-fractured horizontal wells. The flow regimes include enhanced fractured
region (EFR), bilinear flow, transient linear flow, transitional flow, and boundary-dominated flow. In this
study, the size of stimulated rock and total effective fracture area are estimated using an RTA method.
Further, diagnostics fracture injection tests (DFITs) and pressure buildup tests are used to characterize the
multi-fractured horizontal wells for the purpose of gas EOR evaluation. Inter-well communication test is
used to quantify the conductivity of connecting fractures between communication wells.
This study helps the engineers and managers with reservoir and hydraulic fracture characterization and
the screening process for gas HnP candidates. The outputs of these methods serve as first pass of SRV size
for more detailed numerical modeling studies.
Introduction – Gas EOR in Unconventional Reservoirs
High production decline rates and low recovery factors in tight and shale reservoirs are the main reasons
why the unconventional oil and gas producers investigate enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods. Gas HnP
has been successfully applied to some areas in Eagle Ford over the past few years. Fig. 1 shows an example
application of three stage compressors in a pad 14 wells in Eagle Ford. The production shows that the
operator was able to improve oil production during gas HnP and reduce the production rate rate.
2 SPE-200425-MS
Figure 1—Areal view of an EOR pad in Eagle Ford (top) with three-stage
compressors (bottom left) and production data pre- and post-injection.
Fundamentally, processes occurring during gas injection in conventional and unconventional reservoirs
are similar. In both systems, the key well performance controllers include reservoir/injection fluid properties,
microscopic/macroscopic rock properties, fracture-matrix interaction, and operational conditions. In
unconventional reservoirs, only huff-n-puff (HnP) gas injection have been tried and have shown success. In
this cyclic injection-production pattern, gas is injected at high pressure followed by soaking and production
from the same well. In this process, miscibility of injected gas with the in-situ liquid hydrocarbon facilitates
production of intermediate and heavy components from the reservoir.
Gas EOR in Unconventional Reservoirs – Technical Success Factors
Two key technical success factors for gas HnP in unconventional reservoirs include injection at a pressure
above first contact miscibility pressure and large shattered rock volume (SRV) (Carlsen et al., 2019); the
former guarantees miscibility of the injected gas and in-situ fluid at any proportion and the latter provides
large contact area and enhances mixing. Fig. 2 provides a list of key parameters which help technical success
of gas EOR in unconventional reservoirs. Fluid properties control the minimum first contact miscibility
pressure while compression capacity and reservoir containment dictate the possibility of achieving first
contact miscibility in the field.
SPE-200425-MS 3
Figure 2—Controlling factors for the success of gas EOR in unconventional reservoirs.
Fluid Properties and First Contact Miscibility
In terms of fluid characterization, the swelling test is the most common multi-contact gas injection
experiment in which injection gas is mixed with original reservoir oil in varying proportions and saturation
pressure of the mixture and phase volumes above and below saturation pressure are measured (Whitson and
Brulé, 2000). At and above minimum miscibility pressure obtained from the swelling test (e.g. Fig. 3), the
injected gas is miscible with the reservoir oil at any proportions. It is important to note that multi-contact
miscibility can be achieved at lower pressure than the first contact miscibility pressure.
Figure 3—Saturation pressure vs. injection gas mole fraction from a swelling test. At and above minimum miscibility
pressure obtained from the swelling test, the injected gas is miscible with the reservoir oil at any proportions.
Compression Capacity
The main requirements for high injection pressure for the purpose of first contact miscibility are high-
pressure compressors and reservoir containment. The high-pressure compressors can be used in alignment
with the existing surface facilities to benefit from the the available compression capacity and pipelines. A
block diagram of surface equipment requirements for EOR with high pressure natural gas compression is
provided in Fig. 4 (Dupuis and Rutledge, 2017).
4 SPE-200425-MS
Figure 4—Block diagram of surface equipment requirements for EOR with high
pressure natural gas compression (modified from Dupuis and Rutledge, 2017).
Reservoir Containment
Despite their overall continuous nature, the unconventional reservoirs are highly heterogeneous at different
scales from nanopores to mega-fractures as note by Clarkson et al. (2016). Examples of short vertical
partially-mineralized natural fractures in Montney cores are shown in Fig. 5 Depending on the extension
and level of cementation of natural fractures, they may contribute to flow of injection gas outside the zone of
interest. This is not favorable as it may slow down pressurization of the system during gas injection which
in turn may reduce the chance of success.
Figure 5—Examples of short vertical partially-mineralized natural fractures in Montney cores.
Containment, however, is a relative subject and its impact on the success of a gas EOR project depends
on the size of the project (i.e. number of injectors, pad wells, and compressors). As an example, it would
be difficult to pressurize a well on a producing multi-well pad with considerable communication hydraulic
and natural fractures (see Fig. 6). However, on pad level, the same pad can be pressurized more efficiently
by using multiple compressors with all the wells shut in. Further, in a multi-well pad, natural fractures have
higher impact on the outbound well pressurization compared to the inbound wells.
SPE-200425-MS 5
Figure 6—Schematic of natural and induced fractures in unconventional reservoirs. Connected natural fractures
and communicating hydraulic fractures are the main reasons for lack of gas containment on well level.
Stimulated Zone
Hydraulic fractures are created by injecting a slurry of fracturing fluid and proppant at pressures above
formation fracturing pressure. Hydraulic fracture properties are controlled by pumping schedule (rate,
pressure, slurry volume, proppant concentration etc.), fracture entry points (i.e. perforations and sleeves),
and reservoir properties (geomechanics, reservoir engineering, geology). Simplified reservoir engineering
tools are among the indirect methods for characterization of hydraulic fracture system. Based on these tools,
hydraulic fractures can be categorized into three main groups: finite-conductive, infinite-conductive, and
fracture with enhanced fracture region (EFR) and contact area as illustrated in Fig. 7. With the same fracture
spacing, a fracture system with enhanced fracture region and contact area (Fig. 7) is the most favorable
option for gas EOR purposes. More details on fracture geometry and flow regimes are provided in the next
section.
Figure 7—Hydraulic fracture types (a) finite-conductive fracture (b) infinite-
fracture fracture (c) fracture with enhanced fracture region or contact area.
Rate Transient Analysis (RTA)
Rate transient analysis (RTA) includes a series of simplified reservoir engineering tools for characterization
of the hydraulic fracture system. RTA helps to identify flow regimes in the stimulated zone (which are
associated with hydraulic fracture characteristics) and estimate the fracture properties. The fracture types
shown in Fig. 7 show unique characteristics on diagnostics and linear flow plots. On log-log diagnostics
plot of pressure-normalized rate vs. material balance time, the finite-conductive and infinite-conductive
6 SPE-200425-MS
fractures exhibit early-time -¼ and -½ slopes, respectively. Fractures with enhanced fracture region (EFR)
or contact area behave like a compound linear flow (with slope between −1 and -½ on log-log diagnostics
plot of pressure-normalized rate vs. material balance time) system with early time flow dominated by the
region with high permeability or surface area (see Fig. 7c).
As an example, production data from a a multi-fractured horizontal oil well is analyzed using both RTA
and a single-well numerical model with EFR. Field raw data (including oil rate and bottom-hole pressure,
BHP) and analysis results are provided in Fig. 8. The well produces above bubble point during the whole
production period, i.e. no free gas flow occurs in the reservoir during this period. The numerical model
(with infinite conductive fracture, EFT and stress-dependent permeability) is used to history-match the oil
rate using BHP as input. The dark green line in Fig. 8a is oil rate from the model. The EFR used to match
the production data has original oil-in-place (OOIP) of ∼300 MSTB (1 MSTB=1000 standard bbl) which is
⅛th of the well OOIP. The tuned model is then used to estimate oil rate without EFR (see the dotted orange
line in Fig. 8a). Comparison of the model results with and without EFR shows that EFR plays a major role
in controlling the early-time production rate.
RTA plots including log-log diagnostic plots, linear flow plot, and flowing material balance plot are useful
in identification of EFR. As an example, Fig. 8b shows corrected linear flow plots for the same oil modeled
earlier using the correction factor developed by Qanbari and Clarkson (2014) for pressure-dependency of
fluid and rock properties. Linear flow plot with original field data (green dots in Fig. 8b) show an early
time shallow slope (representing high performance) followed by increased slope (decreased performance).
The result of the numerical model without EFR is also shown on the linear flow plot (i.e. the orange dots in
Fig. 8b which correspond to the orange dotted line in Fig. 8a); in absence of EFR the data passes through
the origin on linear flow plot.
Figure 8—Production data from a well with enhanced fracture region (a) bottom-hole pressure (BHP) and oil rate from
filed data reports, tuned numerical model results using infinite-conductive fractures and enhance fracture region,
EFR (the historical oil rate is history-matched using BHP as input) and forecasted oil rate using the tuned model
without EFR (b) linear flow plots for the field data (green dots) and the tuned model result with no EFR (orange dots).
Identification of EFR (which is the primary target of gas EOR in unconventional reservoirs) and
estimation of its size is an important step in evaluation of a gas EOR project. It is important to note that, EFR
is based on a conceptual model and its application to the filed data requires independent characterization
of the reservoir rock. As an example, a well with highly stress-dependent permeability might show similar
performance as EFR (i.e. higher initial performance). Identification of the sources of stress-dependency
including rock matrix and induced/natural fractures helps improve the estimation of EFR size. Further,
identification of the source of stress-dependency (matrix, natural fractures, induced fractures) and the
connectivity and extend of natural fractures is important for evaluation of gas EOR performance.
The bottom-line is that we need to know if natural/induced fracture intensity and complexity is in favor of
or against gas EOR performance: high volume of EFR or shattered rock (VSRV) and short contained fractures
SPE-200425-MS 7
with low specific rock volume, (shattered rock volume, divided by total fracture surface area, Af) lead
to higher gas EOR efficiency.
(1)
VSRV is a measures of target oil for EOR and is inversely related to gas EOR recovery factor.
Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test (DFIT)
DFIT is a pressure-transient test which provides some key reservoir parameters including instantaneous
shut-in pressure (ISIP), closure pressure, leak-off type and coefficient, permeability, and initial reservoir
pressure. These parameters are required for reservoir characterization, hydraulic fracture modeling, and
reservoir engineering studies. The parameters and information obtained from DFIT are also very useful for
evaluation of gas EOR in unconventional reservoirs. The applications of the DFIT results in gas EOR are
discussed in this section.
One requirement by the regulatory bodies is that the gas injection pressure should stay below fracture
gradient of the formation to limit gas flow outside the zone of interest and ensure reservoir integrity. ISIP
from DFIT is the pressure required at the fracture tip to keep fracture growing which is equivalent to
fracturing pressure required by regulations. The closure pressure is the minimum pressure required inside
the fracture to keep it open which is equivalent to minimum stress. Operating at or close to closure pressure
is not recommended as it may enhance the conductivity of existing fracture during injection which may lead
to gas flow outside the zone of interest. Due to uncertainty in the DFIT results and system heterogeneity, it
is recommended to keep a safety factor in mind while designing gas injection. In addition, it is important to
note that closure pressure at the time of gas injection into a depleted reservoir is lower than closure pressure
from DFIT (which is done before completing the well): this can be explained by poroelasticity relationships.
Leak-off type from DFIT is also a very useful information for gas EOR evaluation purposes. Leak-off
type gives an understanding of reservoir heterogeneities and their interactions with applied pressure pulse
due to pumping the DFIT fluid. Two typical leak-off types including storage and and pressure-dependent
leak-off (PDL) are shown in Fig. 9 where PDL is known as indication of natural fractures/fissures. Although
DFIT results apply to the sampled part of reservoir, a broader understanding of the system can be obtained
by running DFITs in multiples wells.
Figure 9—Identification of leak-off type and estimation of closure pressure
using DFIT (a) storage and (b) pressure-dependent leak-off (PDL).
Initial pressure distribution across a new pad located beside an existing pad can be obtained by running
DFITs on multiple wells from the new pad. Other than providing the reservoir engineers with necessary
pressure and stress data for performance analysis of the new wells, this exercise provides an overall
understanding of the type of reservoir complexity casuing the observed pressure distribution. Pressure
8 SPE-200425-MS
distribution in the depleted areas is a characteristic of the matrix and fracture (natural/induced) system. As
an example, pressure distribution in a system with connected intense natural fractures is totally different
from a system with no natural fractures with only local induced fractures: the former leads to large depleted
zone whereas the latter gives localized pressure depletion. Integration of leak-off types from DFIT and
relative performance of outbound vs. inbound wells into the pressure distribution analysis from DFIT is
recommended for validation of the learnings from different pieces of data (existence of natural fractures
lead to larger discrepancy between the outbound and inbound well performances).
A knowledge of the distribution of initial reservoir pressure gradient in the reservoir of interest from
field-wide DFIT studies is also very important for gas EOR purposes. Pressure gradient varies across
unconventional reservoirs (Haghshenas and Qanbari, 2020a) due to different reasons including pore size
distribution, geographical variation of reservoir containment, and gas charge from deep seated parts of the
reservoir. Finding the relation between containment and over-pressured parts of the reservoir may help in
screening the reservoir for gas EOR purposes.
Pressure Buildup Test
Pressure buildup test (as a pressure-transient method) has been widely used in the petroleum industry to
characterize near-wellbore and far-filed properties and estimate the average reservoir pressure. However,
this test has not been popular in unconventional reservoirs due to the long shut-in time requirement for
characterization of the far-field properties and estimation of average reservoir pressure. A reasonably
short buildup test, however, can be used to characterize the hydraulic fracture system and near wellbore
complexity. As mentioned in the RTA section, characterization of the hydraulic fracture system is required
for evaluation of gas EOR in unconventional reservoirs. Therefore, pressure buildup test can be used
effectively to fulfill that requirement. An example pressure buildup data from a multi-fractured horizontal
oil well in a tight reservoir is provided in Fig. 10. Plots of oil rate and and bottom-hole pressure for flow and
buildup periods are provided in Fig. 10a. An analytical multi-fractured model with enhanced fracture region
(EFR) is used to history-match the buildup data (as shown in Fig. 10b). The authors recommend using both
RTA and buildup data analyses to improve the characterization of the multi-fractured horizontal wells.
Figure 10—An example buildup data from a multi-fractured horizontal oil well (a) production rate and bottom-hole
pressure vs. time (b) rate-normalized rate and its derivative vs. shut-in time from the filed data and EFR model.
Inter-well Communication
Characterization of inter-well communication in unconventional reservoirs helps understand the level of
injected gas containment at well scale and domain of influence by a specific injector. This is important
especially for candidate screening for gas EOR pilot because it helps to figure out the number of wells
influencing the pilot which is the key controller of the pilot cost. It should be noted that a reasonable pilot
SPE-200425-MS 9
should include more than a well in order to be able to account for the impact of inter-well communication
on gas EOR performance and should not include too many wells as it increases the cost (i.e. more injection
gas and compression capacity is required to cover all the wells). A quantitative method for analysis of inter-
well communication in tight reservoirs is presented by Haghshenas and Qanbari (2020b). For a pair of
producing and monitoring well, they introduce two parameters called pressure drawdown ratio (RDD) and
pressure derivative ratio (RD) which are defined as follows:
(2)
(3)
and presented an analytical method for calculation of RD and RD based on the assumption of constant pressure
production at the producing well. In Eqs. 2 and 3, tD is dimensionless time, yD is dimensionless distance
between the producing and monitoring wells, pi is initial reservoir pressure, and pf,M is monitoring well
pressure. Dimensionless time (tD) and dimensionless distance (yD) are defined as:
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
The parameters of Eqs. 4–9 are listed in the Nomenclature section. Example plots for RD and RD are
provided in Fig. 11. As shown in the plots, RD and RD are zero initially (no pressure changes at the
monitoring well) and take off after specific dimensionless time depending the dimensionless diffusivity of
the connecting fractures (ηfD) and finally approach 1. The derivative of dimensionless fracture pressure with
respect to dimensionless time (dpfD,M/dtD) increases with time and reaches a maximum and then falls off.
Figure 11—Plots of (a) pressure drawdown ratio and (b) pressure derivative ratio and derivative of dimensionless fracture
pressure with respect to dimensionless time vs. dimensionless time for different values of dimensionless fracture diffusivity.
10 SPE-200425-MS
Conclusions
Application of rate-transient analysis (RTA) and pressure-transient analysis (PTA) methods for
characterization of reservoir and hydraulic fracture systems are provided in this paper. RTA is used to
identify flow regimes including finite-conductive fractures, infinite-conductive fractures, and fractures with
enhanced fracture region (EFR). Identification of EFR and estimation of its size is an important step in
evaluation of gas EOR in unconventional reservoirs as it contains the target oil for the EOR process. DFIT
as a PTA tool is used to characterize the reservoir including estimation of geomechanical and reservoir
engineering parameters, leak-off type and reservoir heterogeneity, and pressure distribution (in the case of
DFITs from multiple wells). The results of RTA and PTA help us with candidate screening for gas EOR
and getting an idea of possible containment issues. Finally, inter-well communication test helps figure out
the number of wells influencing a gas EOR project: this is important particularly in the pilot phase of the
project as the number of communicating wells controls injection gas rate and compression capacity (i.e.
project cost).
Nomenclature
cti matrix total compressibility at initial reservoir pressure (psi−1)
ctfi fracture total compressibility at initial reservoir pressure (psi−1)
Lf representative fracture length, LPM + xf,M (ft)
LPM distance between producing and monitoring well (ft)
p pressure (psia)
pD dimensionless pressure
pf fracture pressure (psia)
pfD dimensionless fracture pressure
dimensionless fracture pressure in Laplace domain
pfD,M dimensionless fracture pressure at the monitoring well
pfD,P dimensionless fracture pressure at the producing well
pf,M fracture pressure at the monitoring well (psia)
pf,P fracture pressure at the producing well (psia)
pi initial reservoir pressure (psia)
pm matrix pressure (psia)
pmD dimensionless matrix pressure
dimensionless matrix pressure in Laplace domain
RD pressure decline ratio (dimensionless)
RDD pressure drawdown ratio (dimensionless)
t time (hr)
tD dimensionless time
x distance from the center of the fracture along the producing wellbore (ft)
xD dimensionless distance from the center of the fracture along the producing wellbore
xf,M fracture half-length of the monitoring well (ft)
y distance from the production well along the connecting fracture (ft)
yD dimensionless distance from the production well along the connecting fracture
yDM dimensionless distance between monitoring and the producing wells along the connecting
fracture
yD,M dimensionless distance between production and monitoring wells (ft)
ηf fracture diffusivity (ft2/hr)
ηfD dimensionless fracture diffusivity
SPE-200425-MS 11
ηm matrix diffusivity (ft2/hr)
ηmD dimensionless matrix diffusivity
μ viscosity (cp)
μi viscosity at initial reservoir pressure (cp)
ϕf fracture porosity (fraction)
ϕfi fracture porosity at initial reservoir pressure (fraction)
ϕm matrix porosity (fraction)
ϕmi matrix porosity at initial reservoir pressure (fraction)
References
1. Carlsen, M.L., Whitson, C.H., Dahouk, M.M., Younus, B., Yusra, I., Kerr, E., Nohavitza, J.,
Thuesen, M., Drozd, J.H., Ambrose, R. and Mydland, S., 2019, October. Compositional Tracking
of a Huff-n-Puff Project in the Eagle Ford. In Unconventional Resources Technology Conference,
Denver, Colorado, 22-24 July 2019 (pp. 4675–4699). Unconventional Resources Technology
Conference (URTeC); Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
2. Clarkson, C.R., Haghshenas, B., Ghanizadeh, A., Qanbari, F., Williams-Kovacs, J.D., Riazi, N.,
Debuhr, C. and Deglint, H.J., 2016. Nanopores to megafractures: Current challenges and methods
for shale gas reservoir and hydraulic fracture characterization. Journal of Natural Gas Science
and Engineering, 31, pp.612–657.
3. Dupuis, C. and Rutledge, J., 2017. High Pressure Natural Gas Compression for Enhanced Oil
Recovery in Unconventional Reservoirs. Exterran EOR White Paper.
4. Haghshenas, B., and Qanbari, F. 2020a. Field-wide Review of Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests
(DFIT) in Montney and Duvernay Formations – Part 1: Stress and Pressure Distributions. Paper
SPE 199990. In SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 18-19 March
2020.
5. Haghshenas, B., and Qanbari, F. 2020b. Quantitative Analysis of Inter-well Communication
in Tight Reservoirs: An Example from Montney Formation. Paper SPE 199991. In SPE
Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 18-19 March 2020.
6. Qanbari, F. and Clarkson, C.R., 2013. Analysis of transient linear flow in stress-sensitive
formations. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 17(01), pp.98–104.
7. Whitson, C.H. and Brulé, M.R., 2000. Phase behavior (Vol. 20). Richardson, TX: Henry L.
Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
