Mini-Frac Analysis For Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fast Welltest 16-Aug-2013 0

Mini‐frac (DFIT)Analysis for Unconventional
Reservoirs using F.A.S.T. WellTest™
Toll Free: 1.800.625.2488 :: Phone: 403.213.4200 :: Email: fast@fekete.com

fekete.com
Course Outline
• Introduction
• What is a Mini‐frac Test?
• Why Perform a Mini‐frac Test?
• Mini‐frac Test Overview

• Analysis
• Pre‐Closure Analysis
• Leak‐off Types
• Nolte After‐Closure Analysis
• Soliman/Craig After‐Closure Analysis
• ACA Modeling
• Radial Flow Example
• Linear Flow Example
• Mini‐frac Test Design

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 2
What is a Mini‐frac Test?
• A mini‐frac test is an injection/falloff diagnostic test

performed without proppant before a main fracture
stimulation treatment
• The intent is to break down the formation to create a

short fracture during the injection period, and then
to observe closure of the fracture system during the
ensuing falloff period.

What is a Mini‐frac Test?
• The created fracture can cut through near‐wellbore damage, and provide better
communication between the wellbore and true formation.
• A mini‐frac test is capable of providing better results than a closed chamber test performed
on a formation where fluid inflow is severely restricted by formation damage.
Why Perform a Mini‐frac Test?
• Determine initial formation pressure (Pi) & effective

permeability (k) to:
– Assist production/pressure data analysis
– Provide initial inputs for reservoir models
– Assess stimulation effectiveness
– Help quantify reserves
• Estimate fracture design parameters such as:

– Fracture gradient
– Closure pressure (minimum horizontal stress)
– Leak‐off coefficients

For Shale/Tight Formations:
Effective Permeability (k) is very low

• Matrix permeability of a few nanodarcies to a few microdarcies (when
natural fractures exist) render conventional tests impractical before
stimulation
Horizontal Multi‐Frac Wells

• Massive hydraulic fracture treatments
• Multiple fracture stages
• Multiple perforation clusters per fracture stage
• Numerous fracture networks created
• Difficult to quantify effective formation permeability and pressure after
stimulation
Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & k (After Perforating)

Based on Haynesville Shale Properties
Simulated Pressure Buildup After Perforating

11500
11000
10500
10000
9500 100 Nanodarcies

5 Months
Pressure (psi(a))
2 Weeks
8500 10 Nanodarcies
4 Years!
8000
7500
7000
6500 Skin = +2
6000
5500
5000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time (h)

Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & k (After Perforating)

Simulated PITA Derivative After Perforating

107
2
Skin = +2
((106psi2/cP) hr)
106
105
Impulse Derivative (ta)2 d/d(ta)
104
103
2 100 Nanodarcies 10 Nanodarcies

1000 Nanodarcies
102 5 Months 4 Years!
2 Weeks
4
101
1.0
10-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 102 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 103 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 104 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 105
Pseudo-Time (h)

Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & K (After Mini‐frac)

Simulated Pressure Falloff After Minifrac

16000
15500
15000
Skin = ‐2.5
14500
14000
Pressure (psi(a))

10 Nanodarcies
1 Day
13000 5 Months
12500
100 Nanodarcies
2 Weeks
12000
11500
11000
10500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (h)

Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & K (After Mini‐frac)

Simulated PITA Derivative After Minifrac

107
Skin = ‐2.5
((106psi2/cP)hr)
106
105
Impulse Derivative (ta)2 d/d(ta)
104
103
102 1000 Nanodarcies 100 Nanodarcies 10 Nanodarcies

4 1 Day 2 Weeks 5 Months
2
101
1.0
10-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 102 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 103 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 104 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 105
Pseudo-Time (h)

Mini‐frac Test Overview

Mini‐frac Analysis
Mini‐frac Test Analysis is conducted in two steps:
• Pre‐Closure Analysis (PCA)

– Uses special derivatives and time functions (G‐Function, √t)
– Indentify leak‐off behaviour and closure pressure
• After‐Closure Analysis (ACA)

– Similar workflow to traditional pressure transient analysis
– Uses “impulse” solution to establish formation permeability (k)
and pressure (Pi)

PCA: Parameters
The following parameters are determined from the Pre‐Closure Analysis (PCA):
• Fracture Closure Pressure (pc)

pc = Minimum Horizontal Stress
• Instantaneous Shut‐In Pressure (ISIP)/Propagation Pressure

ISIP = Final Bottomhole Injection Pressure ˗ Friction Component
• Fracture Gradient
Fracture Gradient = ISIP / Formation Depth
• Net Fracture Pressure (Δpnet)

Δpnet = ISIP – Closure Pressure
• Fluid Efficiency: the ratio of the stored volume within the fracture to
the total fluid injected

PCA: G‐Function
The G‐function is a dimensionless time function relating shut‐in time (t) to total
pumping time (tp) at an assumed constant rate and are based on the following
equations:
Two limiting cases for the G‐function are shown here:
α = 1.0 is for low leak‐off

α = 0.5 is for high leak‐off
The value of g0 is the computed value of g at shut‐in.
PCA: G‐Function Analysis
G-Function
1000 8000 120
Inj. Volume 3.99bbl
Fracture Closure
ISIP 7930.1 psi(a)
Gc 21.014 7900 110
900 Ddatum 9650.000 ft
tc 159.76min Frac grad 0.822psi/ft
pc 7308.4psi(a) 7800
100
800 7700
Semilog Derivative
pdata 90
7600
Semilog Derivative G dp/dG (psi(a))
Fracture Closure
First Derivative dp/dG (psi(a))

700 First Derivative
Gc 21.014 80
tc 159.76min 7500
600 pc 7308.4 psi(a)
7400 70
p (psi(a))
500 7300 60
7200 50
400
7100
40
300 7000
30
200 6900
20
Fracture Closure 6800
100 Gc 21.014
6700 10
tc 159.76min
pc 7308.4 psi(a)
0 6600 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
G-function time
Fracture closure is identified as the point where the G‐Function derivative starts to
deviate downward from the straight line
PCA: Leak‐Off Types
Normal Leak‐off: occurs when the fracture area is constant during shut‐in and the leak‐off
occurs through a homogeneous rock matrix
The characteristic signatures of normal leak‐off are :

1. A constant pressure derivative (dP/dG) during fracture closure.
2. The G‐Function derivative (G dP/dG) lies on a straight line that passes through the
origin
Normal Leakoff
• Normal Leakoff
G Function Derivative (G dp/dG)

G‐Function (G Time)
Transverse Fracture Storage/Fracture Height Recession is indicated when the G‐Function derivative G
dP/dG falls below a straight line that extrapolates through the normal leak‐off data, and exhibits a concave
up trend
Transverse Fracture Storage/Fracture Height
Recession
Two characteristics are visible on the G‐function curve:

1. The G‐Function derivative G dP/dG lies below a straight line extrapolated through the normal
leak‐off data.
2. The G‐Function derivative G dP/dG exhibits a concave up trend.
3. The First Derivative dP/dG also exhibits a concave up trend.
Copyright © Fekete Associates Inc. 18
Fracture Height Recession
• Fracture penetrates impermeable zone
Fracture Height Recession
• Fracture penetrates impermeable zone
Transverse Storage
• Early Time – Secondary fractures open
Transverse Storage
• Late Time – Secondary fractures close
Pressure Dependent Leak‐off (PDL): indicates the existence of secondary fractures intersecting the main
fracture, and is identified by a characteristic “hump” in the G‐ Function derivative that lies above the
straight line fit through the normal leak‐off data.
The characteristic signatures of pressure dependent leak‐off are:

1. A characteristic large “hump” in the G‐Function derivative G dP/dG lies above the straight
line that passes through the origin..
2. Subsequent to the hump, the pressure decline exhibits normal leak‐off.
3. The portion of the normal leak‐off lies on a straight line passing through the origin.
4. The end of the hump is identified as “fissure opening pressure”.
Copyright © Fekete Associates Inc. 23
Pressure Dependant Leak‐off
• Early Time ‐ Extra leak‐off from microfractures at high
pressure/early time
Pressure Dependant Leak‐off
• Late Time‐ Microfractures close, normal leak‐off resumes
Fracture Tip Extension occurs when a fracture continues to grow even after injection is stopped and the
well is shut‐in. It is a phenomenon that occurs in very low permeability reservoirs, as the energy which
normally would be released through leak‐off is transferred to the ends of the fracture.
The characteristic signatures of fracture tip extension are:

1. The G‐Function derivative G dP/dG initially exhibits a large positive slope that continues to
decrease with shut‐in time, yielding a concave‐down curvature.
2. Any straight line fit through the G‐Function derivative G dP/dG intersects the y‐axis above the
origin. Copyright © Fekete Associates Inc. 26
Fracture Tip Extension
• Fracture Tip Extension Provides Extra Leak‐Off
After‐Closure Analysis (ACA)
• ACA is performed on falloff data collected after fracture closure
• Similar workflow to traditional pressure transient analysis
• Traditional PTA founded on the “constant‐rate solution”

• Main ACA techniques are founded on the “impulse solution”
• The “constant‐rate solution” hinges on the flow rate prior to SI
• The “impulse solution” hinges on a “defined volume”
After Closure – Linear Flow
Plan View
After Closure – Radial Flow
• Radial Flow in Horizontal Plane
– If linear flow is observed before radial flow, can use
fracture model
3D Plan View – Vertical Model

with Fracture
After Closure
• Radial Flow in Horizontal Plane
– If only radial flow is observed, can be modelled as vertical
with negative skin
Conceptual Model Vertical Model
Plan View
After‐Closure Analysis (ACA)
• After‐Closure Analysis (ACA) is performed on falloff data collected after
fracture closure.
• Similar workflow to traditional pressure transient analysis.
• Traditional PTA founded on the “constant‐rate solution”; Mini‐Frac ACA
techniques are founded on the “impulse solution”.
• The “constant‐rate solution” hinges on the flow rate prior to the analyzed
shut‐in period whereas the “impulse solution” hinges on a “defined volume”.
• Impulse solutions are used because of the short injection period and assume
the entire injected volume is injected instantaneously.
• There are two ACA techniques available in F.A.S.T. WellTest™ (Nolte and
Soliman/Craig).

Nolte ACA
• This after‐closure analysis method is based on the work of K.G. Nolte8,
and expanded on by R.D. Barree4.
• Based on the solution of a constant pressure injection followed by a
falloff.
• The impulse equations are obtained by approximating the injection
duration as very small.
• Uses injected volume as the impulse volume and the falloff begins at
fracture closure.
• Characteristic slopes of the semi‐log derivative when plotted on the log‐
log derivative plot differ from traditional PTA:
• Impulse Linear flow has a slope of ‐1/2.
• Impulse Radial flow has a slope of ‐1.

Nolte ACA
Derivative
104
5
p, Semilog Derivative (FL2 2)dp/d(FL2 2) (psi(a))
3
2
10 3
t 15.08 h
5 p 6750.9 psi(a)
3 t 38.73 h
2 p 6652.6 psi(a)
Impulse Linear -1/2

102
3
Impulse Radial -1
2
pdata k 0.0165 md
Derivativedata
101
1.0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10-1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10-2
FL2 2

Soliman/Craig ACA
• This after‐closure analysis method is based on the combined works of M.Y.
Soliman and D. Craig1.
• Soliman’s solution is based on a constant rate injection followed by a long
falloff2.
• Soliman applied superposition in Laplace space to obtain a single equation
and then took the late‐time approximation to obtain impulse equations (for
bilinear, linear and radial flow).
• D. Craig developed an analytical model which accounts for fracture growth,
leak‐off, closure and after‐closure3.
• The late‐time approximation of Craig’s model produced impulse equations
that are consistent with Soliman's solutions.
• Uses injected volume as the impulse volume.
• Characteristic slopes of the impulse derivative when plotted on the log‐log
derivative plot are identical to those of traditional PTA.
• Soliman/Craig's solutions facilitate the use of analytical models in F.A.S.T.
WellTest™. Copyright © Fekete Associates Inc. 35
Soliman/Craig ACA
Derivative
t 12.98 h t 38.13 h
10 4
p 6777.5 psi(a) p 6653.5 psi(a)
4
Impulse Derivative t (tp + t) dp/dt (psi hr)
10 3
5 Linear 1/2 Radial 0

3 X f(sqrt(k)) 1.24 md1/2ft k 0.0165 md
2 k 0.0165 md
Xf 9.676 ft
10 2 s Xf -2.780
10 1
6
4
2
Derivativedata
1.0
10-3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10-2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 2
t (h)

ACA ‐ Modelling
• Once the initial reservoir pressure (Pi) and permeability (k) are estimated, a model is
generated (Soliman/Craig)to confirm these estimates. Note that the existing model
does not account for the change in storage that occurs while the induced fracture is
closing, and the analysis is focused on the after‐closure data.
Derivative
(psi hr)
104
kh 0.6138md.ft s' -2.731 pi (syn) 6592.0psi(a)
3 h 40.000ft sXf -2.738
103 k 0.0153md Xf 9.273ft
Impulse Derivative (t)2 dp/d(t)
3
102
3
101
3
1.0
3
Derivativedata
10-1
Derivative model
3 Ext. Derivative model
10-2
10-3 2 3456 10-2 2 345 6 10-1 2 3 4 56 1.0 2 3 4 56 101 2 3 4 56 102 2 3 4 56 103
t (h)
• This is especially critical when reservoir dominated (radial) flow is not achieved within a
test period, or when data scatter aggravates the analysis.
Mini‐frac Observations from Real Data
• An example of a Mini‐frac test conducted on a vertical well at a formation

depth of 10,000 ft analyzed using F.A.S.T. WellTest™ is depicted in the
following slides.
History
11500 Stop Injection 0
Formation Breakdown t 0.31 h
11000
pdata 10942.7 psi(a) pdata 9557.0 psi(a) -200
10500 qw -1440.00 bbl/d
10000 -400
9500
-600
Liquid Rate (bbl/d)

Pressure (psi(a))
9000
Inj . Volume 16.35 bbl
-800
8500 ISIP 9444.2 psi(a)
Ddatum 10100.000 ft Estimated ISIP
8000 -1000
Frac grad 0.935 psi/ft
pdata 9444.2 psi(a)
7500
-1200
7000
6500 -1400
6000
Start Injection qwater -1600
5500 pdata
5000 -1800
1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.42 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58
Time (h)

• The pre‐closure analysis using the semi‐log and first derivative corresponding
to G‐function time is shown below:
Fracture Closure G-Function

2200 1000
Gc 6.233 Analysis 1 Inj. Volume 16.35 bbl 9500
2000 tc 166.76 min ISIP 9444.2 psi(a) 900
pc 7217.0 psi(a) Ddatum 10100.000 ft 9000
1800
Semilog Derivative G dp/dG (psi(a))
Frac grad 0.935 psi/ft 800
First Derivative dp/dG (psi(a))

1600
Fracture Closure 8500
Gc 6.233 Semilog Deriv ative
700
1400 tc 166.76 min pdata 8000
pc 7217.0 psi(a) 600
p (psi(a))
First Deriv ativ e
1200
7500
500
1000
7000 400
800
6500 300
600
400 Fracture Closure 6000 200

Gc 6.233
200 100
tc 166.76 min 5500
pc 7217.0 psi(a)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
G-function time
• From this plot, fracture closure is identified within the initial 3‐hours of the
falloff period
• The Nolte ACA log‐log diagnostic plot is shown below:
Derivative
104
, Semilog Derivative (FL2 2)d/d(FL2 2) (106psi2/cP)
3
2
t 5.64 h
103 p 6322.9psi(a)
7
5 t 23.07h
p 5604.5psi(a)
3
rinv 21.976 ft
2
102 Impulse Radial -1

7
k 1.8577e-03 md
5
3
2  data
Derivativedata
101
1.0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10-1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10-2
FL2 2
• The semi‐log derivative, calculated with respect to closure time, exhibits a slope of ‐1
after 5.64 hours, suggesting that radial flow has developed.
• The fluctuations in the derivative slope can be attributed to gas‐entry that is not
accounted for with the bottomhole pressure calculations.
• The falloff data plotted with the Nolte ACA radial time function FR2 is shown below:
Minifrac Radial (Nolte)

2500
Analysis 1 7600
2400 kh 0.1115 md.ft 7400

h 60.000 ft
2300 k 1.8577e-03md 7200
p* 5363.9 psi(a)
2200 7000
6800
2100
 (106psi2/cP)
6600
2000
p (psi(a))
6400
t 23.07h
1900
p 5604.5psi(a) 6200
1800 rinv 21.976ft

6000
1700 5800
1600 5600
5400
1500
data 5200
1400
0.64 0.60 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.00
FR1

• The log‐log plot of the derivative used in the Soliman/Craig impulse solution shows the match
obtained with the model:
Derivative
10 4 kh
0.1978 md.ft X f 1.572 ft
Impulse Derivative t a (tp + ta) d/dta ((106psi2/cP) hr)
h 60.000 ft s Xf -0.963
4 k 3.2968e-03 m d pi 5461.7psi(a)
10 3 Approaching
Radial Flow
4 t 23.07 h
Radial Flow
2 Δt = 50.0 h
10 2
4
Derivative data
2 Derivative model
Ext. Derivative model
10 1
10 -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 -2 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 2
t a (h)
• The model suggests radial flow was not quite achieved during the test period, and would likely
develop after ~50 hours of shut‐in.
• In this case, the transition to radial flow is sufficiently developed to yield reliable estimates of
formation pressure and permeability.
Mini‐Frac Test Design
• Short duration injection period, followed by extended falloff period.

• Water commonly used for injection.
• Optimum injection rate/duration:
• 1 – 2 bpm (1500 – 3000bbld)
• 2 – 3 minute injection (after wellbore fill‐up)
• sufficient to breakdown formation, while minimizing fracture
growth and closure time
• Falloff duration controlled by permeability (k) and rock properties:
• minimum 2 days for k > 0.001 md (1000 Nanodarcies) minimum 2
• weeks for k < 0.001 md (1000 Nanodarcies)

References
1. "New Method for Determination of Formation Permeability, Reservoir Pressure, and Fracture Properties from a Minifrac Test",
Soliman, M.Y., Craig D., Barko, K., Rahim Z., Ansah J., and Adams D., Paper ARMA/USRMS 05‐658, 2005
2. “Analysis of Buildup Tests With Short Producing Times”, M. Y. Soliman, SPE, Halliburton Services Research Center, Paper SPE
11083 August 1986.
3. “Application of a New Fracture‐Injection/Falloff Model Accounting for Propagating, Dilated, and Closing Hydraulic Fractures, D. P.
Craig, Haliburton, and T. A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University, Paper SPE 100578, 2006.
4. “Holistic Fracture Diagnostics”, R. D. Barree, SPE, and V. L. Barree, Barree & Associates, and Craig, SPE, Halliburton, Paper SPE
107877, Presented at the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 16‐18 April 2007.
5. “After‐ Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests”, Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., and Owens, K.A., Paper SPE 38676, Presented at
the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5‐8 October, 1997.
6. "Background for After‐Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests", Nolte, K. G., Paper SPE 39407, Unsolicited companion
paper to SPE 38676 July, 1997.
7. “Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pressure‐Dependent Leakoff”, Castillo, J. L., Paper SPE 16417, presented
at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Joint Symposium, Denver, CO, May 18‐19, 1987.
8. “Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline", Nolte, K. G., Paper SPE 8341, Presented at the Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 23‐26, 1979.
9. "Use of PITA for Estimating Key Reservoir Parameters", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi‐Darvish, Martin S. Santo and
Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2006 ‐ 172, presented at 7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 13 ‐ 15,
2006.
10."Development of Equations and Procedure for Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi‐
Darvish and Louis Mattar, Paper SPE 95510, presented at 80th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Dallas,
TX, October 9 ‐ 12, 2005.

Mini-Frac Analysis For Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fast Welltest 16-Aug-2013 0

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mini-Frac Analysis For Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fast Welltest 16-Aug-2013 0

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mini‐frac (DFIT)Analysis for Unconventional

Reservoirs using F.A.S.T. WellTest™

Toll Free: 1.800.625.2488 :: Phone: 403.213.4200 :: Email: fast@fekete.com

• Mini‐frac Test Overview

• Radial Flow Example

• Linear Flow Example

• Mini‐frac Test Design

• A mini‐frac test is an injection/falloff diagnostic test

• The intent is to break down the formation to create a

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 3

• Determine initial formation pressure (Pi) & effective

• Estimate fracture design parameters such as:

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 5

Effective Permeability (k) is very low

Horizontal Multi‐Frac Wells

Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & k (After Perforating)

Simulated Pressure Buildup After Perforating

9500 100 Nanodarcies

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 7

Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & k (After Perforating)

Simulated PITA Derivative After Perforating

2 100 Nanodarcies 10 Nanodarcies

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 8

Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & K (After Mini‐frac)

Simulated Pressure Falloff After Minifrac

13500 1000 Nanodarcies

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 9

Shut‐in Time Required to Estimate Pi & K (After Mini‐frac)

Simulated PITA Derivative After Minifrac

102 1000 Nanodarcies 100 Nanodarcies 10 Nanodarcies

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 10

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 11

Mini‐frac Test Analysis is conducted in two steps:

• Pre‐Closure Analysis (PCA)

• After‐Closure Analysis (ACA)

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 12

• Fracture Closure Pressure (pc)

• Instantaneous Shut‐In Pressure (ISIP)/Propagation Pressure

• Net Fracture Pressure (Δpnet)

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 13

Two limiting cases for the G‐function are shown here:

α = 1.0 is for low leak‐off

First Derivative dp/dG (psi(a))

The characteristic signatures of normal leak‐off are :

G Function Derivative (G dp/dG)

Two characteristics are visible on the G‐function curve:

The characteristic signatures of pressure dependent leak‐off are:

The characteristic signatures of fracture tip extension are:

• Traditional PTA founded on the “constant‐rate solution”

3D Plan View – Vertical Model

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 32

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 33

Impulse Linear -1/2

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 34

5 Linear 1/2 Radial 0

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 36

• An example of a Mini‐frac test conducted on a vertical well at a formation

Liquid Rate (bbl/d)

Copyright © Fekete AssociatesInc. 38

Fracture Closure G-Function

Frac grad 0.935 psi/ft 800

First Derivative dp/dG (psi(a))

400 Fracture Closure 6000 200