A New Analytical Method for Analyzing Linear Flow in Tight/Shale Gas Reservoirs: Constant-Flowing-Pressure Boundary Condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Many tight/shale gas wells exhibit linear flow, which can last for several years. Linear flow can be analyzed using a square-root-of-time plot, a plot of rate-normalized pressure vs. the square root of time. Linear flow appears as a straight line on this plot, and the slope of this line can be used to calculate the product of fracture half-length and the square root of permeability. In this paper, linear flow from a fractured well in a tight/shale gas reservoir under a constant-flowing-pressure constraint is studied. It is shown that the slope of the square-root-of-time plot results in an overestimation of fracture half-length, if permeability is known. The degree of this overestimation is influenced by initial pressure, flowing pressure, and formation compressibility. An analytical method is presented to correct the slope of the square-root-of-time plot to improve the overestimation of fracture halflength. The method is validated using a number of numerically simulated cases. As expected, the square-root-of-time plots for these simulated cases appear as a straight line during linear flow for constant flowing pressure. It is found that the newly developed analytical method results in a more reliable estimate of fracture half-length, if permeability is known. Our approach, which is fully analytical, results in an improvement in linear-flow analysis over previously presented methods. Finally, the application of this method to multifractured horizontal wells is discussed and the method is applied to three field examples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".