SSJthesis

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
FRACTURE PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC PUMP- IN TESTS
OF RED FORK SANDS IN WESTERN OKLAHOMA
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
SANDEEP JANWADKAR
Norman, Oklahoma
2004
FRACTURE PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC PUMP- IN TESTS
OF RED FORK SANDS IN WESTERN OKLAHOMA
A THESIS APPROVED FOR THE

MEWBOURNE SCHOOL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
BY
Chair:________________________________
Dr. SUBHASH SHAH
Member:______________________________
Dr. CHANDRA RAI
Member:______________________________
Dr. SAMUEL OSISANYA
ii
©Copyright by SANDEEP JANWADKAR 2004
All Rights Reserved
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To achieve any kind of success only personal capabilities are not sufficient.
There are several factors that contribute towards achieving the end goals and
objectives. Some of these factors are inspiration, guidance, moral support,
motivation, initiative and encouragement. While working towards completion of this
master’s thesis several individuals have made valuable and significant contributions.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of those individuals. It would not
be possible to name each individual but I definitely would like to mention some of
them. I apologize to all those wonderful individuals whom I acknowledge but have
missed out.
Dr. Subhash Shah, my graduate advisor and Chair of my thesis committee.
Right from the beginning, throughout my work and till the end it was Dr. Shah’s
guidance, untiring support, and constant encouragement without which this thesis
would never have been possible. Thanks a lot Dr. Shah.
Dr. Samuel Osisanya, my thesis committee member who always provided me
with inspiration and built a strong desire in me to work hard to succeed. Thank you
Dr. Sam.
Dr. Chandra Rai, my thesis committee member whose support and help have
proved to be very valuable. Thank you Dr. Rai.
Mr. David Roddy, Operations Manager, Crawley Petroleum, who inspired me
throughout my thesis work. Thank you Dave.
iv
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the staff and
students of Well Construction Technology Center of The University of Oklahoma for
all their help, support and good wishes.
Several organizations have made significant contributions and I would like to
thank them:
Crawley Petroleum Corporation for providing the data required for this thesis
and also for granting the permission to publish their data, Pinnacle Technologies Inc
for the use of their software FracPro PT 10.2 which was used to run the simulations.
From the bottom my heart I would like to say a BIG THANK YOU to all the
people and organizations that made this difficult task worthwhile. I hope this work
will make a contribution in expanding the existing knowledge of the Petroleum
industry and that means so much to me.
Last but not the least I would like to mention my parents and my family who
have always supported me during all the ups and downs of life, their contribution in
achieving my objectives and goals are the most significant.
Sandeep Janwadkar
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………..… x
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………...................... xiv
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………….... 1
1.1 The Origin and Growth of Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology…………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Hydraulic Fracturing: Concept and Application……….. 1
1.3 Characteristics of the Red Fork Formation…………….. 3
1.4 Evolution of the Red Fork Fracturing Technology…….. 4
1.5 Research Goals and Outline of Work………………..… 5
Chapter 2 CONCEPTS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING……………. 7

2.1 Closure Pressure…………………………………...…… 7
2.2 Fluid Loss……………………………………………… 11
2.3 Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing……………………. 13
2.4 Hydraulic Fracture Models…………………………..… 17
Chapter 3 MINI-FRACS AND DIAGNOSTIC PUMP-IN TESTS…… 25

3.1 Mini-Fracs……………………………………………… 25
3.2 Diagnostic Pump-In Tests……………………………… 26
3.3 Comparison of Mini-Fracs with Diagnostic
Pump-In Tests………………………………………….. 27
Chapter 4 FRACTURE PRESSURE ANALYSIS AND G-FUNCTION 29

4.1 Generalized Expression for Fluid Loss………………… 29
4.2 Cumulative Fluid Loss Volume………………………... 30
4.3 Newtonian Filtrates ……………………..…………...… 32
4.4 Non-Newtonian Filtrates …………………………….… 34
4.5 Typical Pressure Profile of Fracture Treatment………... 35
4.6 Basic Definitions……………………………………..… 35
4.7 Equations for Pumping Stage………………………….. 37
4.8 Log-Log Plot …………………………………...........… 39
4.9 Pressure Derivative Plot……………………………...… 43
4.10 Near WellBore Pressure Losses………………………... 45
4.11 Rate Step-Down Test………………………………...… 48
4.12 Dimensionless Fluid Loss Function ………………...… 49
4.13 Interpretation of G-function plot……………………..… 52
4.14 Summary of G-Function...…….……………………..… 58
Chapter 5 BREAKDOWN TESTS AND SIMULATIONS……….……. 60

5.1 Test Methodology and Data Analysis………………….. 60
vi
5.2 Simulation Model Options...…………………………… 62
5.3 Log Analysis and Reservoir Layers….………………… 65
5.4 Simulator Input.………………………………………... 69
5.5 Breakdown Test Analysis……………………………… 69
Chapter 6 SIMULATION RESULTS AND INFERENCES...……….… 73

6.1 Interpretation of Simulation Plots…………………….... 73
6.2 Inferences from Simulations…………………………... 76
6.3 Comparison of PKN Model Results with GDK Model... 80
Chapter 7 WELL PRODUCTIVITY CORRELATIONS…....……….… 82

7.1 Well Productivity Factors…………………………….... 82
7.2 Statistical Analysis and Correlations (PKN Model).…... 84
7.3 Statistical Analysis and Correlations (GDK Model)…... 89
Chapter 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………... 94

8.1 Summary……………...………………………………... 94
8.2 Conclusions…………...………………………………... 94
8.3 Recommendations……………………………………… 95
Nomenclature………………………………………………………………… 96
References…………………………………………………………………..... 101
Appendix A WELL AND CASING PERFORATION DATA……………. 106
Appendix B WELL PRODUCTION DATA………………………………. 110
Appendix C LITHOLOGY OF RESERVOIR LAYERS…………………. 113
Appendix D SIMULATION PLOTS……...………………………………. 115
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Analytical equations for g (∆t D , α , θ ) and g 0 (α , θ ) …………….. 33
Table 4.2 Fracture Net Pressure – Fracture Geometry Relations…………... 38
Table 4.3 Fracture Net Pressure – Time Relations…………………………. 38
Table 4.4 Fracture width relations………………………………………….. 39
Table 4.5 Interpretation of log-log plot slopes……………………………… 40
Table 4.6 Values of α1 (Upper bound of area exponent)…………………… 50
Table 4.7 Values of CL (Leakoff coefficient)………………………………. 52
Table 5.1 Simulator Model Options………………………………………… 62
Table 5.2 Shale Index of Well-4 Reservoir Layers ………………………… 67
Table 5.3 Values of t1/t2 for Seven Wells………...………………………… 68
Table 6.1 Data from Simulation Results (PKN Model)…………………..… 75
Table 6.2 Data from Simulation Results (GDK Model)…….................…… 76
Table 6.3 Average rate of pressure decline ………….……………………... 77
Table 7.1 Height of Producing Interval for Each Well……………………... 83
Table 7.2 Well Production Data……………………...……………………... 84
Table A1 Well Configuration Data for Well – 1…………………………… 106
Table A5 Well Configuration Data for Well – 5………………………….... 108
viii
Table B1 Production data for Well – 1……………………………………... 110
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Plot of Fracture Pressure versus Fracture Width................... 7
Figure 2.2(a) Step Rate Test (Injection rate Increments)……………….… 8
Figure 2.2(b) Step Rate Test (Estimating Closure and Extension Pressure) 8
Figure 2.3 Shut-In Decline Test……………………………………..… 9
Figure 2.4(a) Influence of Rate on Flowback Test……………………..… 10
Figure 2.4(b) Estimating closure pressure from Flowback Test………..… 10
Figure 2.5 Regions of fluid loss……………………………………….. 11
Figure 2.6 Cross Section of the Bore Hole…………………………….. 14
Figure 2.7 Pressure Profile v/s Time during a Fracture Treatment……. 14
Figure 2.8 PKN Fracture Model……………………………………….. 19
Figure 2.9 GDK Fracture Model………………………………………. 22
Figure 4.1 Pressure Profile of a Fracture Treatment…………………... 35
Figure 4.2 Log-Log Plot ……………………………………………….. 40
Figure 4.3(a) T-Shaped Fracture………………………………………….. 42
Figure 4.3(b) Height growth through Pinch Point.……………………….. 42
Figure 4.3(c) Fissure Dilation…………………………………………….. 42
Figure 4.4 Estimation of closure pressure……………………………... 43
Figure 4.5 Magnification of fracture pressure events………………….. 44
Figure 4.6 Fracture Reorientation……………………………………... 46
Figure 4.7 Perforation Misalignment………………………………….. 47
Figure 4.8 Rate Step-Down Test………………………………………. 49
x
Figure 4.9 G-Function versus Pressure and Pressure Derivative……… 51
Figure 4.10 G-Plot - Normal Leakoff…………………………………… 53
Figure 4.11 G-Plot - Pressure Dependent Leakoff -Fissure Opening…... 55
Figure 4.12 G-Plot – Fracture Tip Extension…………………………… 56
Figure 4.13 G-Plot – Fracture Height Recession……………………….. 57
Figure 5.1 Typical Well Casing Diagram……………………………... 60
Figure 5.2 Log for Well-4 (gamma ray and neutron porosity)………... 66
Figure 5.3 Reservoir Layers built from Logs for simulations (Well-4).. 68
Figure 6.1 ISIP Plot for Well – 1………………………………………. 74
Figure 6.2 Square Root Plot for Well – 1……………………………… 74
Figure 6.3 G-Function Plot for Well – 1 (PKN Model).................……. 74
Figure 6.4 G-Function Plot for Well – 1 (GDK Model)..…………..…. 75
Figure 7.1 County Map of Oklahoma State ..…………………………. 82
Figure 7.2 Plot of 30-day Cumulative Production versus

Height of Producing Interval………………………………. 86

Height of Producing Interval………………………………. 86

G-Function at Closure (PKN Model)………………………. 87

G-Function at Closure (PKN Model)………………………. 87

(H/G-Function at Closure -PKN Model)…………………… 88

(H/G-Function at Closure - PKN Model)……………….…. 88

G-Function at Closure (GDK Model)…………………….... 90
xi
G-Function at Closure (GDK Model)…...…………………. 91

(H/G-Function at Closure -GDK Model)………………...… 91

(H/G-Function at Closure - GDK Model)……………….…. 92
Figure C1 Layers of Well – 1…………………………………….….… 113
Figure C2 Layers of Well – 2 (Zone 1)…………………………….….. 113
Figure C3 Layers of Well – 2 (Zone 2)………………………………... 113
Figure C4 Layers of Well – 2 (Zone 3)…………………………….….. 113
Figure C5 Layers of Well – 3………………………………………….. 114
Figure C6 Layers of Well – 5……………………………………….…. 114
Figure D1 ISIP Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 1)…………………….………. 115
Figure D2 ISIP Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 2)………………………….…. 115
Figure D3 ISIP Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 3)………………………….…. 116
Figure D4 ISIP Plot for Well – 3…………………………………….… 116
Figure D5 ISIP Plot for Well – 4………………………………….…… 116
Figure D8 ISIP Plot for Well – 7………………………………….…… 117
Figure D9 Square Root Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 1)…………………..... 118
Figure D10 Square Root Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 2)………………...….. 118
xii
Figure D11 Square Root Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 3)……………………. 118
Figure D12 Square Root Plot for Well – 3…………………………….... 119
Figure D13 Square Root Plot for Well – 4…………………………...…. 119
Figure D14 Square Root Plot for Well – 5…………………………...…. 119
Figure D17 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 1)……... 120
Figure D20 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 3……………….. 121
Figure D21 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 4.………………. 122
Figure D25 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 1)……... 123
Figure D28 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 3……...……….. 124
Figure D29 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 4.………...……. 124
Figure D30 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 5……………..... 125
Figure D31 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 6…………...….. 125
Figure D32 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 7………………. 125
xiii
ABSTRACT
Estimation of a well’s productivity prior to a fracture stimulation job is the
key to a successful economic analysis of a fracture treatment. Methods to correlate
various factors with the production response are available. Case studies have proven
that there exists a relationship between productivity of a well and parameters such as
pump-in derived permeability, leakoff coefficient, and net pressure development
during hydraulic fracture, etc.
The Red Fork formation in western Oklahoma is a tight sandstone gas
reservoir. Due to low permeability these wells typically do not produce economically
without fracture stimulation. Performing build up tests in order to determine the
economics of fracture stimulation is time consuming. The decision of selecting
candidate wells for fracturing is difficult and at times very tricky one. The existing
procedures for selecting wells as candidates for fracture stimulation are not reliable
which sometimes do not result in an increase in the productivity of the wells after the
fracture job.
The objective of this study is to obtain a correlation between post-fracture
productivity of the Red Fork sands and parameters obtained from the pump-in
diagnostic tests. In developing this correlation this study considers the G-function at
closure obtained from the pump-in diagnostic test.
Utilizing production data from seven wells in the Hammon field of western
Oklahoma and data obtained from diagnostic pump-in tests performed on these wells
were utilized to perform simulations on commercially available stimulation design
xiv
software, to develop and establish the correlation of the G-function at closure with the
post fracture well productivity.
This correlation can be implemented in the future wells to predict the
productivity prior to fracture stimulation. With the help of this correlation the
economics of future fracturing jobs in the Red Fork formation (western Oklahoma)
can be evaluated. If the well productivity cannot justify the cost of expensive fracture
stimulation jobs then the decision of fracture stimulation needs further careful review.
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.6 The Origin and Growth of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Hydraulic fracturing technology was developed in the late 1940s. The first
hydraulic fracture job was performed in 1947 on the well “Klepper No. 1” in the
Hugoton gas field located in Grant County of western Kansas1. Since then this
technology has continuously been improved, developed and applied to the oil and gas
industry. Statistics indicate that approximately 50 percent of natural gas wells and 30
percent of oil wells employ hydraulic fracturing to improve hydrocarbon recovery2.
In a time span of 15 years from 1984 to 1999 more than 100,000 wells have
been hydraulically fractured in the U.S., which has been responsible for an increment
of more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas2. The
above facts and figures clearly demonstrate the significance of hydraulic fracturing in
the oil and gas industry.
1.2 Hydraulic Fracturing: Concept and Application
The recovery of hydrocarbons from the subsurface formations involves the
flow of oil and gas from the reservoir into the wellbore and then to the surface. This
phenomenon is similar to a person walking through a dense forest without any roads
or rivers to follow and trying to locate a nearby town. In the event that a road existed
through the forest that connects the towns then the person would have to travel a
small portion of his journey through the forest till he reaches the road and then reach
1
the town in a much faster and easier way. The concept of hydraulic fracturing is to
induce a crack in the formation to facilitate the flow of oil and gas through the
formation. The fracture in the formation acts like a road through the forest which
speeds up the flow of fluids through the reservoir.
The process of hydraulic fracturing consists of pumping a fluid into the
wellbore in order to break down the formation and to create a fracture. A proppant is
added to the fluid in order to keep the fracture propped open after the pumping of
fluid has stopped. The fluid used has high enough viscosity to suspend the proppant
during pumping and after pumping has ceased. Fracturing fluids are designed to
breakdown after the fracturing job is completed so that they can easily be recovered.
Hydraulic fracturing has several applications; some of the major ones are
described below1:
1. Fracturing to Overcome Wellbore Damage
Fluids and solids in the drilling mud invade the formation and reduce its permeability.
Limited penetration hydraulic fracturing is performed to overcome the near wellbore
damage.
2. Deep Penetrating Fractures
Deep fractures help in recovering large volumes of hydrocarbons at an accelerated
rate. They are meant to increase the drainage areas in formations with low
permeability.
3. Improve Secondary Recovery Operations
2
Hydraulic fracturing is performed in the injecting well to increase capacity of a well
to accept fluid in water injection. Additionally fracturing the producing well
increases the overall efficiency of waterflooding.
4. Disposal Wells
With the help of fracturing, large volumes of fluids and industrial waste can easily be
disposed off.
1.3 Characteristics of the Red Fork Formation
This research study is focused on the Red Fork formation. The total overall
thickness of the Red Fork formation is approximately 1500 feet and is located in the
Anadarko basin of western Oklahoma. Consisting of a sequence of sandstones and
shales the Red Fork formation is of Middle Pennsylvanian Age (Des Moinesian)3.
Red Fork formation consists of fine sand deposited in a deltaic complex3. It is
primarily a sandstone formation with major component of quartz (70%) and a
moderate quantity of feldspar (15%); other clay minerals (kaolinite and illite) and iron
minerals (chlorite and siderite) exist in the range4 of 3 to 6%.
The Red Fork formation has four main producing zones: Cherokee and the
Lower, Middle and Upper Red Fork. Porosity of the Red Fork formation ranges4
from 6 to 18%. The Young’s modulus ranges from 4.9 to 8.5 x 106 psi and the acid
solubility varies5 from 4 to 15%. The amounts of primary and secondary porosity
determine the permeability of the Red Fork formation, which usually exists in the
range3 from less than 1 µd to 0.5 md. Generally speaking the Red Fork formation is
3
classified as tight gas bearing sandstone with low permeability and low to moderate
porosity.
1.4 Evolution of the Red Fork Fracturing Technology
The early fracture treatments on the Red Fork formation were performed
during the late 70’s. The first treatments were performed using sintered bauxite as a
proppant (less than 2 ppg) with borate cross-linked hydroxypropylguar (HPG) fluids.
The trend was to increase the fluid and the proppant volumes4. The production
results were not as expected. One of the possible reasons for low productivity after
fracture treatments was due to the settling phenomenon of the high-density proppant
used in conjunction with the shear sensitive cross linked fluids. Due to the higher
cost of bauxite as a proppant and settling of the proppant, subsequent fracture
treatment designs used sand with non-cross linked gels3. Concerns were raised for
regaining the permeability, surfactants were used to reduce surface tensions and
increase the treatment recoveries6. A 2% KCl water solution was found to be
compatible with the formation and was considered as a fluid. The results obtained
with linear gel and sand showed substantial improvement due to which the fluid and
proppant volumes were reduced3.
The use of CO2 as a fracturing fluid started emerging. Although the density of
CO2 is similar to water, CO2 has a lower surface tension due to which a faster clean up
can be achieved. Early treatments with CO2 faced several problems due to high
tubing friction pressures and unreliable equipment coupled with the lack of
knowledge of the physical properties of foams and liquid CO2. A new procedure of
4
flowing back the fluid as soon as possible was adopted. This helped the prevention of
proppant settling as the fracture closed and trapped the proppant before substantial
settling3.
Average productive interval in Red Fork formation is 20 to 35 feet. High
viscosity fluids resulted in excessive fracture heights beyond the pay zone, as fracture
height is directly proportional to the fluid viscosity. The strategy adopted to
overcome this problem was to reduce gel concentration and lower the injection rates;
due to this the effective treatments grew smaller in size and proppant concentrations
used went up to 4 ppg. The next trend in the industry was to use pre-cured resin-
coated proppant and fluids using delayed cross linkers. This resulted in economically
priced intermediate strength proppants and fluids with better transport characteristics.
The treatments resulted in longer propped fractures and increased the ability of the
fluids to transport proppant.
The current trend is to use delayed cross-linked HPG fluids along with
intermediate-strength proppant. Higher injection rates can be obtained because cross
linkers are used with lower gel concentration. Fracturing fluids of low viscosity
result in less fracture height and longer fracture lengths as fracture length is inversely
proportional to the fracturing fluid viscosity3. Further improvements in the fracture
treatments were obtained with the help of limited-entry perforating and calibration
treatments.
1.5 Research Goals and Outline of Work
The step-by-step scope of work is outlined below:
5
• To review the history of fracture technology
• To review the characteristics of the Red Fork formation in Western Oklahoma
and the evolution of the fracture technology as applicable to the Red Fork
formation
• To summarize the theoretical concepts of hydraulic fracturing
• To present a critical review of fracture pressure analysis
• To compare the procedures of mini-fracs versus diagnostic pump-in tests
• To collect production data from seven producing wells in the Hammon field
after the fracture stimulation jobs have been carried out
• To collect data from diagnostic pump-in tests (breakdown tests) for the above
wells
• To enter data from diagnostic pump-in tests (breakdown tests) to FracProPT
version 10.2 and run breakdown simulations
• To prepare Instantaneous Shut In Pressure Plot (ISIP), square-root plot and G-
function plot (The G-function is discussed in detail in Chapter 4)
• To analyze simulation results
• To develop a correlation to predict post-frac productivity
6
Chapter 2
Concepts of Hydraulic Fracturing
2.3 Closure Pressure
The width of the fracture is directly proportional to pressure in the fracture as
depicted7 in Fig. 2.1. As the fracture pressure increases the fracture width increases
along the solid line in Fig. 2.1. The plot is a straight line except for the initial portion,
which is non-linear. Figure 2.1 is valid for all fracture models (PKN, GDK etc).
Fracture
Width
Non-Linear Portion
σ min
Pc
Fracture Pressure
Figure 2.1- Plot of Fracture Pressure versus Fracture Width7, fracture closure
pressure corresponds to the pressure when width reduces to zero
As the fracture pressure is reduced it results in a reduction of the fracture
width. The reversal of this plot (reduction of pressure) follows a straight line7. The
pressure at which the fracture width reduces to zero is the fracture closure pressure
7
Pc. This plot is a straight line and the non-linear portion is replaced by the dotted line
as illustrated in Fig. 2.1. The measurement of changes in fracture width with respect
to pressure is not practical in the field and therefore the estimation of fracture closure
pressure is accomplished using several other techniques as discussed below.
The fluid used in the step rate test depends on the permeability of the
reservoir. In low permeability reservoirs the step rate test is performed with the
completion fluid like treated water, whereas for high permeability reservoirs polymer
fluids are used to control fluid loss8. The closure pressure can be estimated by
performing a step rate test9. The test is conducted by pumping fluids at different
(increasing or decreasing) rates and recording the corresponding pressures.

Bottomhole pressure at
Injection Rate
step end
Pc
Extension Pressure
0 0 Injection Rate
Elapsed Time
Figure 2.2a- Step Rate Test (Injection rate Figure 2.2b- Step Rate Test
increased in fixed time intervals)9 (Estimating closure pressure
and extension pressure)9
A plot of the bottomhole pressure versus the injection rate provides an
estimate of the closure pressure Pc as well as the fracture extension pressure as shown
8
in Figs. 2.2a and 2.2b. The fracture extension pressure as obtained can be considered
as the upper bound of the closure pressure.
The shut-in decline test is performed by initiating a fracture, shutting-in the
well and observing the pressure decline (Fig. 2.3). The bottomhole pressure during
the shut-in decline period is inversely proportional to the square root of time elapsed,
which is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. A change in slope on the pressure decline
curve is an indicator of closure pressure. After the fracture closure the pressure
decline is gradual, normal or fast depending on the rate of fluid leak off as seen in
Fig. 2.3.
Bottomhole
pressure
Pc
s
litie
ibi
ss
Po
0
Square root of time elapsed since injection
Figure 2.3- Shut-In Decline Test9
The closure pressure can also be estimated by using the G-plot for the shut-in
decline test. The G-plot is the bottomhole pressure plotted versus the G-function, this
is discussed in detail later in Chapter 4. A derivative plot is used to magnify the
changes to easily identify a change in slope. Estimating the closure pressure from the
shut-in decline test is not very reliable due to the following two reasons7:
9
• The shut-in decline plots may not indicate any change in slope at all.
• There could be more than one change in slope and the change in slope
could be due to several reasons, some of these reasons are as follows7:
o Fracture closure
o Height recession from bounding layers
o Fracture extension and recession transition
o Reservoir linear or radial flow
The closure pressure can also be obtained from the data of flowback test10.
After the fracture is created the well is flowed back at a constant rate. The rate of
flowback is important to estimate the closure pressure accurately. Figure 2.4(a)
shows the influence of flowback rate on the pressure response. The three curves
shown in Fig. 2.4(a) represent the pressure response for too low, correct and too high
flow rates. The correct flow rate is usually 1/6 to ¼ of the last injection rate7.
Flowback
Pump-in Flowback
Rate too Low Intersection of tangents

Bottomhole
Bottomhole
pressure
pressure
(closure pressure
estimate)
Correct rate
Rate too high
0 0
Time Time
Figure 2.4(a)- Influence of Rate Figure 2.4(b)- Estimating closure

on Flowback Test10 pressure from
Flowback Test10
10
The closure pressure is estimated by drawing two tangents on the pressure
response curve as shown in Fig. 2.4 (b). The intersection of these two tangents is the
estimated closure pressure.
2.4 Fluid Loss
The total fluid loss is characterized by two coefficients:
1. Fluid-loss coefficient, CL
2. Spurt-loss coefficient, Sp
Spurt loss occurs for wall building fluids till the filter cake develops11. Making an
assumption of linear flow fluid loss, Carter12 in 1957 developed the following
equation for the rate of fluid loss, qL.
2CL A
qL = …………………………………………………………..……………(2.1)
t −τ
where A is an element of the fracture area created at a time τ and t is the time from
the start of injection. The fluid loss has three distinct regions11 (filter cake, invaded
zone, reservoir control region) as shown in Fig. 2.5.
Figure 2.5- Regions of fluid loss11
11
The fluid-loss coefficient CL can be split up into three coefficients as follows 13:
1. Wall building fluid loss coefficient, Cw
2. Viscosity controlled fluid loss coefficient, Cv
3. Compressibility controlled fluid loss coefficient, Cc
The wall building property of the fracturing fluid defines Cw. The fracturing fluid
filtrate penetrates the formation as is shown in the invaded zone of Fig. 2.5. The
filtrate effect is controlled by Cv. The factors on which Cv depends are as follows11:
a) Relative permeability of the formation to the fracturing fluid filtrate.
b) Pressure difference (pressure inside the fracture minus the reservoir
pressure).
c) Viscosity of the fracturing fluid.
As the fluid leaks off it has to displace the formation fluid, this reservoir effect
defines Cc. The factors on which Cc depends are as follows11:
a) Pressure difference (pressure inside the fracture minus the reservoir
pressure).
b) Permeability of the formation to the mobile formation fluids.
c) Viscosity of the formation fluid.
d) Total system compressibility for the reservoir, ct.
The three coefficients Cw, Cv and Cc vary depending on the factors as mentioned
above and collectively contribute to the total leak-off coefficient, CL.
12
2.5 Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing
Figure 2.6 shows a cross section of a borehole with a wellbore fluid pressure
of Pi. The in-situ maximum and minimum horizontal stresses are σx and σy
respectively. The radius of the wellbore is ‘a’. Regional stresses present in the
formation induce stresses around the wellbore14.
The stresses at any point which is at a distance of ‘r’ from the wellbore center
and at an angle ‘θ’ measured from point ‘A’ can be expressed as:
Radial Stress:
 σ x + σ y  a 2   σ x − σ y  4a 2 3a 4     a 2 
σ r =  1 − 2  +  1 − 2 + 4 (cos 2θ ) +  Pi  2  …. (2.2)
 2  r   2  r r     r 
The last term in Eq. 2.2 is that component of stress which is induced around the
borehole due to internal fluid loss.
Tangential Stress:
 σ x + σ y  a 2   σ x − σ y  3a 4     a 2 
σ θ =   
1 + 2  −  1 + 4 (cos 2θ ) −  Pi  2  …….….. (2.3)
 
 2  r   2  r     r 
Shear Stress:
 σ x − σ y  2a 2 3a 4 
τ rθ = − 1 + 2 + 4 (sin 2θ ) ……………………………...……..….. (2.4)
 2  r r 
Figure 2.7 shows the profile of pressure vs. time for a fracture treatment. The
rock initially breaks-down at a pressure equal to Pc1, the instantaneous pressure when
the pumps are shut down is equal to Ps and the pressure at which the existing fracture
propagates further is equal to Pc2.
13
B
r
A' Pi
θ A σ h,max = σ x
B'
σh,min =σy
Figure 2.6- Cross section of the borehole

showing stress distribution14
Breakdown Pressure
Pc1
(Pc1 - Pc2) Fracture Propagation
Pressure
Pc2
Pressure
Ps
Resume Pumping
Stop Pumping (Instantaneous
Shut-in Pressure)
0
Time
Figure 2.7- Pressure Profile versus Time during a Fracture Treatment14
14
In rocks the fracture propagates in a plane perpendicular to the least principal
normal stress. If the tensile strength of the rock is equal to -To then the condition for
a vertical fracture to occur is that at points A and A’:
3σ h,min − σ h,max − Pc1 = −To …………………………………………...………..... (2.5)
The fracture propagation pressure is less than the breakdown pressure; the tensile
strength of the rock can be expressed as:
Pc1 − Pc 2 = To ……………………………………………...…………………..…... (2.6)
The average stress in the horizontal direction is equal to σ h and is defined as follows:
σ h ,min + σ h ,max
σh = ……………………………………...………….…………..... (2.7)
2
K , K and N are ratios that are defined as follows:
σ h ,max σ x
K= = ………………………………...…………………….………..... (2.8)
σ h ,min σ y
σh
K= ………………………………………...……………………………........ (2.9)
σv
σ h ,min
N= ………………………………………..…………………………....... (2.10)
σ h ,max
The conditions for a vertical fracture to take place are:
1  N +1 
N> and K < 
3  6N − 2 
which can alternatively be expressed as Eqs. 2.11 and 2.12.
1 
σ h ,min >  σ h ,max  ……...……………………………………………...……...... (2.11)
3 
15
 σh 
K <   ..……………………………………………………....…..(2.12)

 3σ h , min − σ h , max 
It can be proved that the breakdown pressure is given by the following expression:
 υ (3 − K )  
Pc1 =  (γZ − Pp ) + To ……………………………………..…….......... (2.13)
 (K − υ )  
where υ , γ , Z and Pp are the Poisson’s ratio, fracture gradient, depth and pore
pressure respectively.
In the special case where σ x = σ y = σ h the value of K = 1 and Eq. 2.13 reduces to
Eq. 2.14.
 2υ  
Pc1 =  (γZ − Pp ) + To ………………………………..…………….......... (2.14)
 (1 − υ )  
The average horizontal fracture gradient to create a vertical fracture G f is given by:
 υ (K + 1)   K + 1  1 − 2υ  
G f =   S v +   α p (PG )  …………...…………........ (2.15)
 2(K − υ )   2  K − υ  
where α p is the poro-elastic constant with a range from 0 to 1, PG is the pore pressure
gradient and Sv is the vertical stress gradient due to overburden.
In the special case of α p = 1 , Eq. 2.15 reduces to Eq. 2.16.
 υ (K + 1)   K + 1  1 − 2υ  
G f =   S v +    (PG )  ……………...…………….... (2.16)
 2(K − υ )   2  K − υ  
In the special case of K = 1 , Eq. 2.16 reduces to Eq. 2.17.
 υ   1 − 2υ  
G f =   S v +   (PG )  ………………...…………...……..….... (2.17)
 (1 − υ )   1 − υ  
16
2.6 Hydraulic Fracture Models
Hydraulic fracturing is a complicated process because it involves four
different types of mechanics: fracture mechanics, solid mechanics, fluid mechanics
and thermal mechanics15. For proper design and analysis of hydraulic fracturing it is
necessary to build models. The four major reasons for the development and usage of
fracture models can be summarized as follows15:
1 Economic optimization.
2 Design a pump schedule.
3 Simulation of the fracture geometry and proppant placement obtained from a
pump schedule.
4 Fracture treatment evaluation.
Some of the early work on fracture modeling was reported by Sneddon16,
Sneddon and Elliot17. They proved that for a fracture of fixed height and infinite
extent the maximum width and net pressure can be given as:
2 pnet h f
w= …………………………………....…………….……...…….......... (2.18)
E'
E
where, E ' = is the plane strain modulus.
1 −υ 2
They assumed that the shape of the fracture is elliptical, therefore the average width is
π
given as: w = w.
4
In 1955 Khristianovich and Zheltov18 developed a model considering the
fracture mechanics with simple assumptions about the fluid flow. In 1957 Carter12
built a model by concentrating his work on fluid leakoff and neglected effects of fluid
viscosity and solid mechanics. In 1961 Perkins and Kern19 concentrated their work
17
on fluid flow and neglected the role of fracture mechanics. Geertsma and de Klerk20
incorporated fluid loss in 1969 and developed an extension to the work of
Khristianovich and Zheltov and provided a model known as the GDK model. In 1972
Nordgren21 added leakoff and storage width to the work of Perkins and Kern and
developed a model, which is now known as the PKN model. The GDK model
considers the fracture mechanics aspects of the fracture tip. The assumption in this
model is that the flow rate in the fracture is constant and that the pressure in the
fracture could be approximated by a constant pressure in the majority of the fracture
body, except for a small region near the tip with no fluid penetration, and hence no
fluid pressure. The concept of fluid lag is an important element of the mechanics of
the fracture tip. Warpinski22 validated the concept of fluid lag at the field scale in
1985. Brady et al23 published the results of their work in 1993. They utilized
simulators to study the details of fracture initiation and near-well complexities of
three-dimensional fracture models.
The basic underlying assumption made by Perkins and Kern is that every
vertical cross section acts independently. The pressure at a section is dominated more
by the height of the section than by the length of the fracture15. This is true where the
length is much larger than the height. The PKN model neglects the effect of fracture
tip and fracture mechanics and focuses on fluid flow and their pressure gradients19.
Other assumptions of the PKN model are that the height of the vertical fracture is
constant and does not exceed the pay zone19. The cross section of the fracture is
assumed to be elliptical. At any cross section the maximum width is proportional to
the net pressure at that point and independent of the width at any other point19. The
18
fracture width at any point is proportional to its height. The in-situ stresses are
assumed to be homogeneous and the PKN model utilizes the Sneddon16,17 width
equation.
Figure 2.8 shows a diagrammatic representation of a PKN fracture model24.
z
L
hf /2
V(x)
x
b(0,t) w(x,t)
hf /2
Figure 2.8- PKN Fracture Model24
Perkins and Kern neglected the effects of fluid leakoff and storage resulting from
width increase and developed the following expressions for net pressure and width19:
1
16µqi E '3 L  4
pnet =  …………………………………....…………...…….......... (2.19)
 πh f
4

 q µ (L − x )  4
1
w( x) = 3 i  ………………...……………………….…...…….......... (2.20)
 E' 
Equation 2.20 when expressed in oilfield units results in Eq. 2.21 where ww is the
width at the wellbore ( x = 0 ).
19
In Eq. 2.21 the flow rate, width, viscosity µ and the plain strain modulus E’ are
expressed in bbl/min, inches, centipoise and psi respectively.
1
 q µL  4
ww = 0.38 i '  ………………...………………………….......………......... (2.21)
 E 
Nordgren21 considered leakoff and storage width and obtained Eq. 2.22
 ∂ 2 w4  E '  ∂w   8CL 
 2  = +  .………………….........………........ (2.22)
 ∂ x  128 µh f  ∂t   ( )1
 π t − t f ( x) 
2 
where tf is the time of fracture opening and initial fluid exposure.
Nordgren21 defined a dimensionless time term and solved Eq. 2.22 numerically to
obtain approximation for two cases.
2
 64CL 5 E 'h f  3
td =   t ……………..……………………….….........…….......... (2.23)
 π 3 µq 2 
 i 
Case 1: Storage dominated or high-efficiency (td < 0.01)
In this case the fluid efficiency approaches one (η → 1 ) and the length and width of
the fracture are given by:
1
 E 'qi 3  5
L(t ) = 0.39(t )  4  ……………..……………………….….....…….......... (2.24)
4
5
h µ
 f 
1
 qi 2 µ  5
ww = 2.18(t )  '  …………..……………………….…...........…….......... (2.25)
1
5
Eh 
 f 
Case 2: High Leakoff (td > 1)
In this case fluid efficiency approaches zero (η → 0 ) and the length and width of the
fracture are given by:
20
1  qi 
L(t ) = (t ) 2  ……………..……………………….….....……….…....... (2.26)
 2πh C 
 f L 
1
 qi 2 µ  4
ww = 4(t )
1
8   ……………………………….…...........…...….......... (2.27)
 π 3 E 'C h 
 L f 
For any point at a distance x from the wellbore the following are the approximations
for the PKN model14:
1
  x  4
w = wmax 1 −    …………………………………….…...........….……........ (2.28)
  L 
π
w= wmax ………………………………….…................................……........... (2.29)
5
Figure 2.9 shows a diagrammatic representation of a GDK fracture model24.
The GDK model is based on the assumption that the fracture width is proportional to
its fracture length, the fracture height is constant, the fracture has an elliptical cross-
section in the horizontal plane, there is slippage between layers, fluid does not act on
the entire fracture length and the cross section in the vertical plane is rectangular
(fracture width is constant along its height)14.
21
Area of Highest
Flow Resistance
L
w(x,t)
xL
Vx Approximately Elliptical
Shape of Fracture
w(0,t)
Rw
hf
Figure 2.9- GDK Fracture Model24
Geertsma and de Klerk15 incorporated fluid loss into the work of Khristianovich and
Zheltov and developed Eq. 2.30, Eq. 2.31 and Eq. 2.32:
4
ww = (Pnet L ) ………………………………………………..........…...…........ (2.30)
E'
1
 ' 3 21qi µ  4
Pnet ,w = E  …………………………………….…......…...….......... (2.31)
 64πh L2 
 f 
1
 1  84qi µL2  4
ww =  '   …………………………..…….…...........…...….…..... (2.32)
 E  πh f 
The length and width can be expressed as a function of time for two different cases as
follows15:
Case 1: No Leakoff (where L, t, E’, qi, hf and µ are in ft, min, psi, bbl/min, ft and cp)
1
 E 'qi 3  6
L(t ) = 0.38(t ) 3  3  ……………..……………………….….....…….......... (2.33)
2
h µ
 f 
22
1
 q 3µ  6
ww = 1.48(t ) 3  i' 3  …………..……………………….….............……....... (2.34)
1
Eh 
 f 
Case 2: High Leakoff (where L, t, qi, hf and CL are in ft, min, ft3/min, ft and ft/min1/2)
1  qi 
L(t ) = (t ) 2  ……………..……………………….….....………..…...... (2.35)
 2πh C 
 f L 
In case of high leakoff no explicit equation for width has been provided by Geertsma
and de Klerk.
For any point at a distance x from the wellbore Eqs. 2.36 and 2.37 are an
approximation for the GDK model14:

1
  x  2
w = wmax 1 −    …………………………………….…...........…...….......... (2.36)
  L 
π
w= wmax ………………………………….…................................…...…........ (2.37)
4
This model assumes that the fracture propagates in a uniform stress medium
without any vertical containment, the shape of the fracture is circular and the
maximum width is at its center. Other assumptions made in this fracture model are
that the fracture propagates radially by the same distance, pressure drop at the same
distance from the wellbore in all directions is equal, no boundary containment or
interface slippage and the width decreases in all directions14.
The maximum width of the radial fracture can be expressed14 by Eq. 2.38:
 8P R 
wmax =  net'  ……………………………….................................…...…........ (2.38)
 E 
23
Geertsma and de Klerk20 developed the equations for a radial fracture. The
width and radius approximation for different cases are summarized below:
Case 1: No Leakoff (where ww, t, E’, qi, R, and µ are expressed in inches, min, psi,
bbl/min, ft and cp)
1
 µ 2 qi 3t  9
ww = 2.17   ……………………….….................................…...…........ (2.39)
'2
 E 
1
 E ' qi 3  9 4 9
R = 0.52   t …………………….…....................................…...…........ (2.40)
 µ 
Case 2: High Leakoff
1
1 q t 
2 4
R =  i 2  …………………….…..............................................…...…........ (2.41)
π  CL 
24
Chapter 3
Mini-Fracs and Diagnostic Pump-In Tests
3.1 Mini-Fracs
To ensure the success of a fracture treatment, a careful design and planning of
the fracture treatment job in advance is a must. The design of the fracture treatment
requires several parameters. A mini-frac is performed to obtain some of these
parameters. The parameters that are obtained from the mini-fracs are closure
pressure, in-situ elastic rock properties, fluid-loss coefficient, fluid efficiency,
fracture geometry, and fracture height. The mini-frac essentially consists of two
parts: the stress test and the calibration treatment24,25. Brief outline of these tests is
given below25.
Potassium chloride treated water (water with 4 to 6 percent KCl as an
additive) without proppant is pumped till the formation breaks down; subsequently a
step rate injection test is carried out. In the next step a flowback or a pressure decline
analysis is performed from which the closure pressure is determined. One of the most
critical parameters in any fracture treatment design is the closure pressure. The
closure pressure can be defined as equal to the minimum horizontal in-situ stress. In
addition to the closure pressure the stress test also determines the fracture extension
pressure, perforation and fluid friction pressure25.
A calibration treatment is performed after the stress test. In the calibration
treatment the fluid pumped is generally the same that will be used later in the actual
fracture treatment; but without the proppant24,25. Fluid without proppant is pumped at
25
the same rate as that is planned for the fracture treatment. The pressure decline is
closely monitored until closure is attained. Information obtained from the pump-in
period is: the type of fracture propagation, identification of rapid height growth,
detection of fissure opening25. The other critical parameters obtained from the
pressure decline are the in-situ fluid efficiency and fluid loss co-efficient for a
particular fluid in the well25,26,27. Fluid efficiency is defined as the ratio of the volume
of the fracture created to the volume of the fluid pumped. The information obtained
is then utilized in optimizing the fracture treatment.
3.2 Diagnostic Pump-In Tests (Breakdown Tests)
In known areas where several wells have been drilled and fractured in the near
vicinity the preference is to perform a Diagnostic Pump-In Test, also known as a
Breakdown test. The breakdown test is described below.
The fluid in the casing is displaced to KCl treated water. The zone of interest is
perforated. Potassium chloride treated water is pumped down the casing with the
well shut-in. The pressure inside the casing keeps rising until the fracture gradient of
the formation is reached. Further pumping of the fluid results in the formation being
fractured, this is confirmed by a drop in the pressure. Subsequently balls made of
synthetic material are dropped in the wellbore. The number, size and the
specifications of the balls are selected based on the number and size of perforations.
The well is shut-in and the balls are allowed to fall to the bottom of the wellbore.
Pumping of fluid is resumed and a ‘Ball off” operation is performed. The ‘Ball off”
operation ensures that the balls seal off the open perforations, and with fluid being
26
pumped the closed and partially open perforations begin to open up. When all
perforations have been opened and all restrictions cleared up the pumping of fluid is
stopped. The balls are then surged off the perforations and allowed to fall to the
bottom of the wellbore. A step rate test is performed at different pressures and the
rates and pressures are recorded. The details of the step rate test are described in
Chapter 2. The well is the shut-in and the shut-in decline data monitored. At the end
of the shut-in decline the pressure is bled-off and the well flown back. The shut-in
decline data is analyzed to determine the G-function values at various pressures,
closure pressure, fracture geometry, leak-off coefficients and pump-in derived
permeability. The G-function is described in detail in Chapter 4.
3.3 Comparison of Mini-Fracs with Diagnostic Pump-In Tests (Breakdown
Tests)
The major differences between mini-fracs and the breakdown tests are as
follows:
• The Stress test portion of the Mini-Frac is performed with KCl treated
water and the calibration treatment portion of the mini-frac is
performed with the same fluid that will be used in the main fracture
treatment. The breakdown test is performed only with KCl treated
water.
• A mini-frac uses the same blending equipment as those planned for
main fracture treatment. It is due to this reason that the mini-frac is
performed immediately prior to the main-frac job. A breakdown test is
27
performed several days prior to the main-frac job, this provides
sufficient time to make a decision whether to perform the main
fracture treatment or not.
• Upon review of the results of the mini-frac, last minute changes in the
main fracture treatment design are made. The main-fracture treatment
is conducted after the mini-frac. After analyzing the results of the
breakdown test one decides whether the main-frac job must be carried
out or not.
• Mini-Fracs require more time and equipment (blenders); therefore
mini-fracs are more expensive and time consuming as compared with
breakdown tests.
• Due to the additional equipment, the number of personnel required for
a mini-frac is more, which also adds to the total cost.
• Conducting mini-frac is not critical in known areas.
It is for these reasons that breakdown tests are becoming more common in the field.
28
Chapter 4
Fracture Pressure Analysis and G-Function
4.1 Generalized Expression for Fluid Loss
Once the formation breaks down fracture is initiated. Further growth of the
fracture results in an increase of the fracture area. If the fracture area at any time τ is
equal to a and this fracture area changes to A at time t then the ratio of the fracture
areas at these two different times is expressed7 in terms of Eq. 4.1:
α
a τ 
=   ……………………………....…………...……….………...……........ (4.1)
A t
where, α is the fracture area growth exponent
To consider Newtonian as well as non-Newtonian fluid-loss filtrate a generalized
expression for fluid loss flux (uL) can be expressed in terms of the fluid loss rate ( q L )
as follows7:
qL 2C L
uL = = ….………………....………………….…….…..……........ (4.2)
A (t − τ )1−θ
where, θ is the fluid loss exponent. By integrating Eq. 4.2 with respect to time the
specific fluid loss volume vL is obtained as follows:
t
 2C θ
vL = ∫ u L dt = −  L (t − τ (a ))  ………….......……………….……....……........ (4.3)
0  θ 
where, vL is defined as the fluid loss volume per unit leak off area.
If the flow behavior index of the power law fluid model of the fracturing fluid
filtrate invading the formation is given by nf, then it can be proven that28:
29
nf
θ= …………………………….......………………….…….…...……........ (4.4)
nf +1
1
For a Newtonian fluid filtrate the value of n f = 1, θ = and Eq. 4.2 reduces to Eq.
2
2.1 which is the Carter’s equation for fluid loss7. Similarly when the fluid filtrate is
1
pseudoplastic non-Newtonian7 then the value of n f < 1, and θ < . For viscoelastic
2
filtrate29 the value of θ is greater than ½ and less than 1, the values of θ ≈ 1 for high
values of nf (of the order of 10-15).
4.2 Cumulative Fluid Loss Volume
The cumulative fluid lost can be expressed as:
VL = VL ,C + VL ,S …………...………….......………………….………....……......…(4.5)
where, VL,C is the Carter’s fluid loss volume (CL component) and VL,S is the spurt loss
fluid volume.
To obtain an expression for the fluid loss volume a dimensionless shut-in
time ∆t D , dimensionless area parameter ξ and dimensionless time tαD are defined as
follows:
t − tp ∆t
∆t D = = …………………….….……..…………………...……......……(4.6)
tp tp
a t
ξ= and tαD = ……………...….......………………….……...……......…...(4.7)
Af tp
where, Af is the fracture area at the end of injection and tp is the injection time. The
term A in Eq.4.1 is the fracture area at any intermediate time t. Substituting the terms
30
of Eq. 4.7 into Eq. 4.3 and integrating over the area, the volume of the Carter
component of fluid loss VL ,C (CL component) can be obtained as follows7:
(
V L ,C = 2 rp A f C L t p
θ
) g (∆t D, α , θ ) ………...…………………….……...……......….(4.8)
where, rp is the ratio of permeable area of the fracture to the total fracture area and the
dimensionless fluid loss volume function g (∆t D , α , θ ) is defined as7:
1 θ
g (∆t D , α , θ ) = ∫ 1 + ∆t D − ξ α  dξ
1 1
∆t D > 0 ………………….......……(4.9)
θ 0 
where, ∆tD, α, θ and ξ are the dimensionless shut-in time, fracture area growth
exponent, fluid loss exponent and dimensionless area parameter. At the end of
injection, substituting ∆t D = 0 in Eq. 4.9, the following Eq. 4.10 is obtained:
θ1
1
g (∆t D = 0, α , θ ) = g 0 (α ,θ ) = ∫ 1 − ξ α  dξ
1
∆t D = 0 …….….........(4.10)
θ 0 
In 1989 Meyer and Hagel30 proved that the G-function in Eq. 4.9 for Newtonian
fluids can be expressed as follows:
α Γ(α ) π
g 0 (α ) = ……….......……………….………………….…….…....….(4.11)
3 
Γ + α 
2 
where, g 0 (α ) is equal to the fluid loss volume function g (∆t D , α , θ ) when ∆t D = 0
1
and θ = (Newtonian fluids). The term Γ(α ) in Eq. 4.11 is the Euler gamma
2
function and α is the fracture area growth exponent. Alternate expression of the fluid
loss volume function was given by Valko and Economides31 in terms of a
hypergeometric function F [a, b; c; z ] as follows:
31
 1 −1  
4α ∆t D + 2 1 + ∆t D  F  , α ; 1 + α ; (1 + ∆t D )  
g (α , ∆t D ) =  2 
……........…........ (4.12)
1 + 2α
The hypergeometric function F [a, b; c; z ] is available in tabular form32 or through
computing algorithms.
Some of the fracturing fluids exhibit a wall building characteristic. The
volume of fluid lost prior to the cake build up is known as the spurt fluid loss ( VL ,S )
and is expressed in7 Eq. 4.13, where SP is the spurt loss co-efficient:
VL ,S = 2rp S P A f ………………………….…….......……………….……........…..(4.13)
4.3 Newtonian Filtrates
Fracturing fluids that have a wall building characteristic produce a Newtonian
1
filtrate ( n f = 1 and θ = ) after the wall cake has been deposited. The fracture area
2
1
growth exponent α as defined in Eq. 4.1 has bounding values given by: < α < 1.
2
The simplified expressions for the fluid loss volume function ‘g’ for the bounding
values of α are obtained by substituting the values of α and θ into Eq. 4.9 and 4.10
and integrating the resulting equations8,9. Simple interpolation can be used to obtain
the values of ‘g’ for other values of α lying between ½ and 1. Table 4.1 is obtained
from Eqs. 4.9 and 4.10.
32
Table 4.1: Analytical equations8,9 for g (∆t D , α , θ ) and g 0 (α , θ )
g0 (∆t D = 0) g (∆t D )
1 1 π 1 + ∆t D sin −1 (1 + ∆t D )
−1
+ ∆t D
1
α= , θ= 2 2
2 2 2
α = 1, θ =
1
2
4
3
4
3
(
(1 + ∆t D ) 2 − ∆t D 2
3 3
)
The CL component of fluid loss at the end of the injection period is obtained
1
by substituting ∆t D = 0 and θ = in Eq. 4.8 as follows:
2
 1
A f g 0 α ,θ = 
1/ 2
V L ,C = 2 rp C L t p ………….…...………………...…........……(4.14)
 2
The total fluid loss at the end of the injection period is obtained by substituting Eqs.
4.13 and 4.14 into Eq. 4.5 and simplifying as follows7:
VL , P = 2rpκC L t p A f g 0 α ,θ = 1 ( 2
) ……………………………...….…..…….. (4.15)
where, the spurt factor κ which provides for increase in fluid loss over no-spurt
condition is given by the following expression:
SP
κ = 1+
(
g 0 α , θ = 1 CL t p
2
)
………….……………………………....……....….(4.16)
The fluid loss during the shut-in period is obtained by subtracting Eq. 4.15
from Eq. 4.8 as follows27:
(
VLS (∆t ) = 2rp CL t A f ) [g (∆t ) ( )]
α ,θ = 1 2 − g 0 α ,θ = 1 2 ………...……......….(4.17)
D,
33
4.4 Non-Newtonian Filtrates
When fracturing fluids that have a power law based fluid rheology and do not
build up a filter cake; the filtrate that leaks off is a non-Newtonian fluid. Integrating
Eq. 4.10 an expression for g 0 (α ,θ ) is obtained7:
Γ(1 + θ )Γ(1 + α )
g 0 (α ,θ ) = ……………………………………...…...……......….(4.18)
θ Γ(1 + α + θ )
where, Γ(x ) is the gamma function.
For the upper bound, value of α = 1 and the fluid loss volume function is expressed
as7:
g (∆t D , α = 1, θ ) =
1
θ (1 + θ )
[ ]
(1 + ∆t D )1+θ − (∆t D )1+θ ……………...……..……....….(4.19)
In cases where the value of θ approaches 1 the fluid loss volume function is
expressed as7:
1
g (∆t D , α , θ = 1) = + ∆t ……………...….…………….…….…….....…(4.20)
(1 + α ) D
The fluid loss at the end of the injection period is given as follows7:
1
VLp = 2rp C Lt p A f g 0 (α ,θ )
θ
θ≠ ………….……...………......…..(4.21)
2
The fluid loss during the shut-in period is obtained by subtracting Eq. 4.19
from Eq. 4.8 as follows7:
(
VLs (∆t ) = 2rpCLt θ A f ) [g (∆t α ,θ ) − g 0 (α ,θ )]
D, θ≠
1
2
………...(4.22)
34
4.5 Typical Pressure Profile of Fracture Treatment
The pressure profile of a typical fracture treatment9 is shown in Fig. 4.1. The
bottomhole pressure pw increases as proppant-laden fluid is injected until the fracture
is initiated. Following the injection stage the well is shut-in and the bottomhole
pressure declines until the fracture closes on the proppant at the closure pressure, pc.
The net pressure in the fracture is equal to pw - pc. The pressure keeps reducing in the
fracture until the bottomhole pressure reaches the reservoir pressure.
Figure 4.1- Pressure Profile of a Fracture Treatment7
4.6 Basic Definitions
Some of the basic terminologies used in subsequent sections are defined
below.
The fracture treatment efficiency (η) can be defined7 as the ratio of the volume
of the fracture created at the end of pumping (Vfp) to the total volume of fluid injected
(Vi).
V fp
η= ……………………………....…………...……….……...…….….......... (4.23)
Vi
35
During the fluid pumping stage the pressure within the fracture varies from
the maximum pressure pw at the wellbore to pc the closure pressure that is a short
distance away from the fracture tip. The pressure gradient7 within the fracture is
characterized by a factor β which is defined as the ratio of the average net pressure
∆ p f in the fracture to the net pressure at the wellbore pnet.
∆pf
β= …………………………....…………...……….……...…….….......... (4.24)
pnet
pnet = pw − pc …………………………....…………...……….……….….......... (4.25)
∆ p f = p f − pc …………………………....…………...………...……...…........ (4.26)
where p f is that constant internal pressure that would produce the same average
width as that when a pressure gradient exists.
The pressure gradients during injection and shut-in are different, which
implies that the value of β is different for these two stages. For injection stage as
well as shut-in stage the values of β are selected at the end of the respective stage and
are designated as β p and β s respectively.
The fracture width averaged over its length and height known as w is directly
proportional to its net pressure. The proportionality constant c f is the fracture
compliance and depends on the factor β , the plane strain modulus E’, and the fracture
geometry model being considered7.
w = c f p net ……………………………....…………...………...…….…........... (4.27)
36
4.7 Equations for Pumping Stage
The equations relating fracture pressure, fracture geometry and time during
fluid injection stage have been developed by Nolte33,34 and are given in the following
sections.
The fracture net pressure is directly proportional to the term as given in Table
1
4.2. The exponent e = , where n and K are the power law behavior exponent
2n + 2
and consistency index of the fracturing fluid. As can be seen from Table 4.2,
Nolte33,34 concluded that for all models the fracture net pressure depends on
parameters like n, K, qi and fracture extension (L or R). In case of PKN model the net
pressure is directly proportional to the fracture extension L, whereas in case of GDK
and radial fracture model the net pressure is inversely proportional to L and R
respectively. From Table 4.3 it can be concluded that a plot of net pressure versus
time on a logarithmic scale would yield a straight line with slope equal to the
exponent in Table 4.3. The value of the flow behavior index can then be calculated
from the actual data.
37
Table 4.2: Fracture Net Pressure – Fracture Geometry Relations33,34
Model Net Pressure
proportional to
PKN  L 
e
(E ' 2 n+1
K qi )
n e
 3n+1 
 h f 
GDK  1 
e
(E ' 2 n +1
K qi )
n e
 n 2n 
 h f L 
Radial
(E )
e
' 2 n +1 n e  1 
K qi  R 3n 
Similar to the relations for fracture net pressure Nolte33,34 also developed
relations for the fracture width and are summarized in Table 4.4.
Table 4.3: Fracture Net Pressure – Time Relations33,34
Model Net Pressure
proportional to
↓ ↓
PKN (t )1 / 4(n+1) for η → 0 (t )1 / (2 n+3) for η → 1

GDK (t )− n / 2(n+1) for η → 0 (t )− n / (n+2 ) for η → 1
Radial (t )−3n / 8(n+1) for η → 0 (t )− n / (n+2 ) for η → 1
38
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Table 4.4; Nolte33,34 recognized that
for all models the fracture width depends on parameters like n, K and qi. In case of
PKN model the width is directly proportional to the fracture extension L and the
fracture height hf, whereas in case of GDK the width is directly proportional to the
fracture extension L and inversely proportional to the fracture height hf. In case of the
radial fracture model the width is directly proportional to the fracture extension R.
Table 4.4: Fracture width relations33,34
Model Fracture width
proportional to
PKN e
 Kqi n  1−n e
 '  hf L
 E  [ ]
 
GDK  Kqi n 
e
 L2 
e
 '   n
 E 
   h f 
Radial e
 Kqi n  2−n
 '  R
 E  [ ]e
 
4.8 Log-Log Plot
The slope of a log-log plot of net pressure versus time provides a lot of
information about the fracture propagation mode. Figure 4.2 is a log-log plot
showing various fracture propagation modes. Table 4.5 provides the interpretation of
the various slopes on the log-log plots.
39
Log net pressure
IV Va
III
Vb
II
Ia, Ib
Log time
Figure 4.2- Log-Log Plot showing various fracture propagation modes7
Table 4.5: Interpretation of log-log plot slopes7
Section Slope of Section Slope of Section Interpretation from

of Plot (for n = 0.5) (for n = 0.25, Slope
typical for frac
fluids)
Ia −1 to − 1 − 1 to − 1 GDK model propagation
6 5 10 3
Ib −1 to − 1 −3 to − 1 Radial model
8 5 40 9 propagation
II 1to 1 1 to 2 PKN model propagation
6 4 5 7
III Less than section Less than section Controlled height
II II growth or Stress
sensitive fissure
IV 0 0 Height growth through
pinch point or Fissure
dilation or T-shaped
fracture
Va ≥ 1 ≥ 1 Restricted Extension
Vb Negative Negative Uncontrolled height
growth
The ratio of perforated interval to the reservoir thickness determines the initial
section (Ia/Ib) of fracture propagation. In case of the length of perforated intervals
equal to the length of reservoir the fracture propagation approximates a GDK model
40
(Section Ia). Alternatively in the case of limited fluid entry interval (low ratio of
perforation length to reservoir length) the fracture propagates in a radial mode
(Section Ib). The slope in this section is negative indicating that the fracture is
propagating in an unrestrained manner with a reducing net pressure7.
The section II in Fig. 4.2 is observed when the fracture height growth is
confined, this happens when the reservoir is bounded by higher stress zones above
and below. The fracture propagation approximates a PKN fracture model. The net
pressure rises as the fracture extension increases and the resulting slope of the plot is
positive. The slope of the plot in section Ia, Ib and II depends on the value of n and
η (fracture treatment efficiency), the relationships given in Table 4.3 are utilized to
calculate the slope for different values of n and η (fracture treatment efficiency).
Section II progresses till the fracture net pressure approaches a value of one
half the stress difference between the stress of the formation being fractured and the
stress of the adjoining barrier. When this happens the fracture begins to penetrate the
adjoining barrier. This controlled height growth is shown as section III in Fig. 4.2.
Fissures are very fine cracks that occur naturally in the earths crust. Some of these
fissures are stress sensitive. During fracturing the increase in the stress causes these
fractures to open up and dilate. The dilation of stress sensitive fissures is another
possible cause of the section III in Fig. 4.2. Propagation of the fracture from a low
stress formation to a high stress formation causes the fracture width to abruptly
reduce, this phenomenon produces a pinch point as seen in Fig 4.3(b). A horizontal
fracture immediately above a vertical fracture is known as T shaped fracture. The
causes of Section IV (usually a flat section) as seen in Fig. 4.2 are either height
41
growth through a pinch point or fissure dilation or a T-shaped fracture. Figure 4.3
shows the typical shape of a T-shaped fracture, height growth through a pinch point
and dilation of stress sensitive fissures.
Pinch Point Fissures
Fracture width
T-Shape
width
width
(c)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.3 (a)- T-Shaped Fracture

(b)- Height growth through Pinch Point
(c)- Fissure Opening
Section Va shows a sharp shoot-up in the net pressure as well as the slope of
the plot rises ( > 1). The possible cause for this type of behavior is restricted
extension (screenout). The slope of this section is less if the restriction exists at the
fracture tip (Tip screenout) as compared to the slope of the section when the
screenout occurs at the wellbore.
42
Section Vb in Fig. 4.2 is a characteristic indication of uncontrolled height
growth. This could happen when the fracture propagates vertically beyond the barrier
intervals into a low stress region.
4.9 Pressure Derivative Plot
Fracture pressure diagnosis and analysis become easier when the pressure
derivative is plotted in addition to the net pressure on the same graph using a
logarithmic scale. Ayoub et al35 showed that by plotting the pressure derivative we
can estimate the closure pressure or confirm closure pressure obtained from other
techniques as illustrated in Fig. 4.4.
10000
Underestimated pc
Net Pressure (psi)
ct p c
Corre
pc
1000 Overestimated
ativ e
deriv
re s sure
P
100
1 10 100
Time (min)
Figure 4.4- Estimation of closure pressure35
pnet = pw − pc = At b …………………….…………...………...…….….............. (4.28)
The terms b, A and t are defined as:
43
• b is the slope of net pressure and pressure derivative plots on a log-log scale
• A is a constant
• t is time
The net pressure and the pressure derivative plots are separated by a value of 1/b on a
log-log scale.
Differentiating Eq. 4.28 with respect to time t and multiplying both sides of the
resulting equation by t we get,
 dp w 
t dt  = Abt ……………………….…………..……………...…….….......... (4.29)
b
 
Nolte34 showed that a pressure derivative plot gives a magnification of
fracturing events (eg. Introduction of proppant, Tip screenout) as illustrated in Fig.
4.5.
Net Pressure (psi)
Injection time (min)
Figure 4.5- Magnification of fracture pressure events34
The pressure derivative plot is much more sensitive than the net pressure plot
due to which the fracturing events are easily recognized. The fracture height growth
into the barrier zones can be quantified and tip screenouts are detected much earlier34.
44
4.10 Near WellBore Pressure Losses
The fracture pressure analysis can give erroneous results if the near wellbore
pressure losses are not accounted for. The near wellbore pressure losses occur due to
three main reasons as given below7:
When the fluid is injected, kinetic energy gets dissipated as it flows with a
high velocity through the small opening of the perforation. This pressure loss could
be high if the number of perforations is insufficient or there was a poor perforation
cleanup or if the breakdown procedure was ineffective. One way to identify high
perforation friction, ∆p pf is when the bottomhole pressure measurement displays an
instantaneous change during shut-in7. The perforation friction pressure can be
quantified from the change in the bottomhole pressure at shut-in or by performing a
rate step-down test as explained subsequently in the section on rate step down test.
The number of perforations N that are accepting fluid can be estimated by using Eq.
4.30, this equation is derived from the standard orifice equation:
 q 2ρ 
∆p pf = 0.2369 2 i 4 2  ……………………...……………...…….…........ (4.30)
N D C 
 p 
where the flow rate, density of fluid, diameter of perforation and the discharge
coefficient are denoted by qi, ρ , Dp and C respectively. In case the value of ∆p pf is
very high that would restrict the value of qi; re-perforating with larger holes or a
perforation clean up can be performed. For non-Newtonian fluids El-Rabba et al36
developed correlations to estimate the coefficient of discharge used in Eq. 4.30.
45
The connection between the wellbore and the main fracture body could be
straight or it could be a highly convoluted path as illustrated in Fig. 4.6. This latter
case is defined as near wellbore fracture tortuosity15.
Figure 4.6- Fracture Reorientation15
Tortuosity can have a major effect on the fracture treatment when the wellbore
and the stress fields are misaligned37. The effect produced is a reduction in the width
of the fracture. In extreme cases there is excessive reduction of the width at the
wellbore which may result in near wellbore screenouts.
The effects of tortuosity reduce as the treatment progresses. One method to
reduce the pressure drop caused by tortuosity is to increase the fluid viscosity38.
Increasing the pad volume is another way to reduce effects of tortuosity and prevent
near wellbore screenouts. The side effect produced by these methods is that it can
affect the height confinement, permeability in the fracture and proppant placement.
46
Some of the perforations are well aligned with the preferred fracture plane
whereas others may be misaligned to as much as 90 degrees. When the fracture does
not initiate at the perforation then the fluid communication between the perforation
and the fracture takes place through narrow channel on the side of the casing39. This
is illustrated in Fig. 4.7. This width restriction results in an increase of treating
pressures and in certain cases the proppant forms a bridge at the pinch point which
may result in a screenout.
Figure 4.7- Perforation Misalignment15
Unlike tortuosity the effects produced by the pinch points increase as the
pressure increases. The fluid at the pinch point has a high velocity which has an
erosive effect. This phenomenon takes place where proppant slugs are pumped to
erode the pinch points and thereby reduce the restriction37.
47
4.11 Rate Step-Down Test
Rate step-down test is performed to identify the existence of near wellbore
pressure loses (perforation friction and losses due to tortuosity)40. These losses can
be estimated and the approximate number of blocked perforations can be identified.
The procedure for the rate step-down test is as follows40:
1. Following a calibration treatment or a breakdown injection test, reduce the pump
rate in intervals of 20 to 30 percent of the maximum rate.
2. At each interval measure the stabilized pressure (preferably bottomhole) and the
rate. The change in the two constant rates should be done quickly.
3. Calculate the drop in pressure ∆p at each interval of the rate step down test. The
perforation pressure from Eq.4.30 :
2
∆p pf = k pf qi ………………………...…………………………...…….….......... (4.31)
 ρ 
where k pf = 0.2369 2 4 2  ………………....……………......…….…........ (4.32)
N D C 
 p 
The pressure drop due to tortuosity is given as37:
1
∆pt = kt qi 2 ……………...…...………………………………......…….….......... (4.33)
where kt is a proportionality constant. The pressure drop, ∆p for each interval of the
rate step down test is substituted in Eq. 4.34 and the values of kpf and kt are
determined using a dual fit algorithm.
1 2
∆p = kt qi 2 + k pf qi ……………...…………………….……......…….…............ (4.34)
A plot of ∆p , ∆p pf and ∆pt versus the rate is prepared on the same graph to evaluate
the severity of perforation friction and tortuosity friction as illustrated in Fig. 4.8.
48
Figure 4.8- Rate Step-Down Test (Adapted from Wright40)
It can be seen from Fig. 4.8 that for this particular case the perforation friction losses
are higher as compared to the tortuosity losses. Based on the results obtained we can
then take the appropriate action to rectify the problem.
4.12 Dimensionless Fluid Loss Function G (∆t D )
The fracture area growth exponent α has a lower bounding value of α 0 when
the fluid efficiency η → 0 (high fluid loss) and an upper bounding value of α1 when
the fluid efficiency η → 1 (negligible fluid loss). Equation 4.35 defines7 the lower
bounding value of α .
α 0 = 1 − θ ……………………………....…………...……….……...……........ (4.35)
nf 1
where, θ = ; in case of a typical value of θ = , the lower bounding value of
nf +1 2
the area exponent α 0 equals ½ ( as nf = 1 for Newtonian fluids).
49
Table 4.6: Values of α1 (Upper bound of area exponent)7
Model α1
PKN 2n + 2
2n + 3
GDK n +1
n+2
Radial 4n + 4
3n + 6
The upper bounding value of the area exponent α1 depends on the fracture model and
the flow behavior index of power law fracturing fluid and is given7 in Table 4.6
The value of α can be calculated by interpolating between the lower and upper bound
values as shown below7:
α = α 0 + η (α1 − α 0 ) …………………....…………...……….……...……........... (4.36)
Table 4.1 gives the analytical equations of g (∆t D , α ) and g 0 (α ) with θ =

1
and for
2
upper and lower bounds of α . Values of g (∆t D , α ) at other values of α are
obtained by interpolation7 with Eq. 4.37, where, α1 is the upper bound of the fracture
area growth exponent α and η is the fracture treatment efficiency:
 1   1 
g (∆t D , α ) = g  ∆t D , α =  + η ((2α 1 ) − 1) g (∆t D , α = 1) − g  ∆t D , α =  ……... (4.37)
 2   2 
Nolte41 introduced a function G (∆t D ) defined as follows:
4
G (∆t D ) = [g (∆tD ) − g0 ]……………..............…………...……….………........ (4.38)
π
50
It can be proven7 that the bottomhole pressure pw during the shut-in period can be
expressed by Eq. 4.39, where pws is the bottomhole pressure at shut-in.
  π rpCL t p  
pw = −    [G (∆t D )] + pws .............……...……….…………........ (4.39)
  2c f  
 
Equation 4.39 indicates that a plot of pw versus G (∆t D ) has a negative slope equal
π rp C L t p dP
to as illustrated in Fig. 4.9. The derivative (pressure with respect to
2c f dG
G-function) is also shown in Fig. 4.9.
Figure 4.9- G-Function versus Pressure and Pressure Derivative7
The G-function at the closure pressure pc is defined as Gc. Fluid efficiency is defined
as the ratio of the volume of the fracture created to the volume of the fluid pumped.
If the fluid leaks off at a high rate then the volume of the fracture created is relatively
smaller then the volume of the fluid pumped. A low fluid efficiency indicates a high
51
rate of fluid leakoff and a high fluid efficiency indicates a low rate of fluid leakoff.
The fluid efficiency η can be expressed7 in terms of the G-function at closure and the
spurt factor κ (defined in Eq. 4.16) as shown below in Eq. 4.40 :
Gc
η= ...........…………………………………….....……….………........ (4.40)
2κ + Gc
The leakoff coefficient CL can be calculated from the slope m as given in Table 4.7,
where β s is the pressure gradient in the fracture during shut-in as was defined earlier.
The expressions in Table 4.7 can be utilized to calculate the leakoff coefficient
provided the values of rp and hf (for PKN models), L (for GDK models) and R (for
Radial models) are known.
Table 4.7: Values7 of CL (Leakoff coefficient)
Model CL
mβ s
PKN
[ ]
hf
rp t p E '
GDK mβ s
[2 L]
rp t p E '
Radial mβ s  32 R 
rp t p E '  3π 
2
4.13 Interpretation of G-function plot
Subsequent to the work done by Nolte41 and Castillo27, Barree and
Mukherjee42 developed techniques for identifying pressure dependent leakoff and its
52
effect on fracture geometry. The technique developed by Barree and Mukherjee42 is
dP dP
to plot pressure, pressure derivative , and the superposition derivative G
dG dG
versus the G-function. Their research work was done on five hypothetical case
studies in which unique behavior of the plot for pressure dependent leakoff, fracture
extension, fracture recession and height changes were identified. They validated their
work by using a fully 3-D fracture geometry model43. The technique developed by
Barree and Mukherjee42 was applied to field case studies by Craig et al 44

. The G-
function plots were utilized to identify the type of leakoff, fracture closure stress and
fracture geometry behavior. The G-function plots for four common leakoff types in
44
low permeability sandstones from Craig et al are described in the following
sections.
Figure 4.10 shows the G-function plot for a normal leakoff.
Figure 4.10- G-Plot - Normal Leakoff (from Craig44)
53
The requirements for a normal leakoff to occur are a constant fracture area
during shut-in and a homogeneous rock matrix. The two characteristic signatures for
normal leakoff are44:
dP
1. A constant pressure derivative .
dG
dP
2. The superposition derivative G lies on a straight line that passes
dG
through the origin.
dP
The fracture closure point is identified on the superposition derivative G
dG
curve when the curve starts to deviate from the straight line as shown in Fig. 4.10.
This point is then projected vertically on to the pressure curve and the pressure at this
point is the fracture closure pressure. A small initial portion of the pressure decline
might be pressure dependent, but the majority (more than 80%) of the pressure
decline is a normal leakoff.
Dilation of fractures or fissures during injection results in a pressure
dependent leakoff during shut-in. Figure 4.11 shows the G-function plot for a
pressure dependent leakoff due to fissure opening.
54
Figure 4.11- G-Plot - Pressure Dependent Leakoff -Fissure Opening
(from Craig44)
The characteristic signatures for a pressure dependent leakoff are44:
dP
1. A large hump in the superposition derivative G .
dG
2. Subsequent to the hump, the pressure decline exhibits a normal leakoff.
3. The portion of normal leakoff lies on a straight line passing through the
origin.
4. The hump lies above the straight line that passes through the origin.
The pressure at the point where the straight line begins is the fissure opening
pressure. The superposition derivative then exhibits a decline from the straight line
indicating a fracture closure. The fracture closure point is identified on the
dP
superposition derivative G curve when the curve starts to deviate downwards
dG
from the straight line as shown in Fig. 4.11. This point is then projected vertically on
to the pressure curve and the pressure at this point is the fracture closure pressure.
55
Figure 4.12 shows the G-function plot for a pressure decline in which fracture
tip extension occurs. Fracture tip extension is said to occur if the fracture continues
to grow after shut-in. Fracture tip extension is a typical phenomenon occurring in
low permeability reservoirs, in most of the cases it results in poor well
productivity45,46. Leakoff is very low in low permeability reservoirs; the energy
which cannot be released through leakoff then results in fracture-tip extension after
shut-in.
The characteristic signatures for a fracture tip extension are44:
dP
1. The superposition derivative G curve lies on a straight line.
dG
2. This straight line when extrapolated intersects the Y-axis above the origin.
In Fig. 4.12 fracture closure has not yet taken place as the superposition derivative
dP
G does not deviate downwards from the straight line.
dG
Figure 4.12- G-Plot – Fracture Tip Extension (from Craig44)
56
Figure 4.13 shows a G-function plot where fracture height recession occurs.
The layers adjoining the fracture zone are usually high stress and having relatively
low permeability. During injection if the fracture propagates through the adjoining
impermeable layers then during shut-in the fracture first closes on the impermeable
layers and subsequently closes on the permeable layers.
Figure 4.13- G-Plot – Fracture Height Recession (from Craig44)
During shut-in initially the pressure declines at a constant rate which is
relatively low, this happens because only the permeable area causes fluid leakoff in
the entire fracture. Subsequently the impermeable fracture area starts closing (height
recession), during this period rate of pressure decline increases. At the end the
fracture consists of only permeable area, during this period the rate of pressure
decline is once again constant (normal leakoff) but at a higher value than the initial
leakoff. The three characteristic signatures for height recession during shut in are44:
57
dP
1. The superposition derivative G curve lies below a straight line
dG
extrapolated through the normal leakoff data.
2. Concave down pressure curve.
dP
3. Increasing pressure derivative curve .
dG
4.14 Summary of G-function
The theory and equations pertaining to the G-function have been discussed in
detail in the previous sections. The same can be summarized as given below:
G-Function is a function of:
Fracture Area Growth Exponent
Dimensionless Time
Dimensionless Area Parameter
Fluid Loss Exponent
Some of the important equations pertaining to the G-function which have been
discussed in detail in the previous sections have been summarized below:
α
a τ 
=   ……………………………....…………...……….………...……........ (4.1)
A t
t − tp ∆t
∆t D = = …………………….….……..…………………...……......……(4.6)
tp tp
a t
ξ= and tαD = ……………...….......………………….……...……......…...(4.7)
Af tp
1 θ
g (∆t D , α , θ ) = ∫ 1 + ∆t D − ξ α  dξ
1 1
∆t D > 0 ………………….......…….(4.9)
θ 0 
58
1 θ
1  α 
g (∆t D = 0, α , θ ) = g 0 (α ,θ ) =
1
θ ∫0 
 1 − ξ  dξ ∆t D = 0 ……..............(4.10)

4
G (∆t D ) = [g (∆tD ) − g0 ]……………..............…………...……….…….…........ (4.38)
π
59
Chapter 5
Breakdown Tests and Simulations
5.1 Test Methodology and Data Analysis
A total of seven wells were considered in this study. Figure 5.1 shows a
typical well casing diagram for the wells under consideration. The details about
casing and perforation depths for each of the seven wells are given in Appendix A.
20" set @ 100'
13 3/8" set @ 600'
9 5/8" set @ 5000'
4 1/2" Casing, P-110, 11.6 ppf

up to 11,000' to 11,500'
4 1/2" Casing, P-110, 13.5 ppf

set @ 12,000' to 13,000'
Figure 5.1 Typical Well Casing Diagram
60
A pump-in diagnostic test was carried out for seven wells under consideration.
All of these wells are located in the Hammon field in western Oklahoma. These
wells are gas wells producing from the Red Fork formation. The details regarding
the diagnostic pump-in tests (breakdown tests) performed on each of the wells and
the simulation results are given in the following sections. The breakdown tests
were performed using KCl treated water. The well was shut-in and the pressure
decline was observed for approximately two to three hours after breakdown. The
pressures during the shut-in period were monitored and recorded.
The breakdown test data recorded consists of the following:
• Time in one second interval
• Surface pressure in psi
• Fluid flow rate in bpm
The data obtained from the service company was in an ASCII (American Standard
Code for Information Interchange) text format and an ASCII Excel comma separated
value spreadsheet format. The time interval of the data recorded was one second;
therefore data recorded over a period of four hours had approximately 14,400 rows of
data per well. The first step done was to ensure that the data for every breakdown test
was complete, evenly spaced at one-second-time interval and was free of errors. Data
for a total of ten wells were analyzed. Three wells which had missing data or out of
range readings were not considered in this analysis. The fracturing simulator requires
that the data file be entered in a binary format. Commercially available data
conversion software was utilized to convert the ASCII format files into binary format
(database files).
61
5.2 Simulation Model Options
For each well an input file for the fracture simulator was created and the options
selected for the simulations are summarized in Table 5.1 and subsequently
discussed in detail:
Table 5.1: Simulator Model Options
Model/Option Selection for Selection for
Simulations Simulations
(Set 1) (Set 2)
Fracture Model PKN GDK
Leakoff Model Lumped Parameter Lumped Parameter
Backstress Option Backstress Ignore Backstress Ignore
Fracture Growth Option Allow Growth after Shut- Allow Growth after
in Shut-in
Fracture Orientation Vertical Vertical
Option
Heat Transfer Option Heat Transfer Ignore Heat Transfer
Ignore
Iteration Option General Iteration General Iteration
Fracture Model: The options available for the fracture model are PKN,
GDK, Radial, Tip Dominated and Conventional. The tip-dominated model predicts
very high net pressures; radial and conventional models predict low net pressures47.
The assumptions of the PKN model are that the height of the vertical fracture is
62
constant and does not exceed the pay zone19. The cross section of the fracture is
assumed to be elliptical. At any cross section the maximum width is proportional to
the net pressure at that point and independent of the width at any other point19. The
fracture width at any point is proportional to its height. The fracture model utilized
for the simulator for the first set of simulations was ‘PKN’ as the assumptions of the
PKN model are more appropriate for breakdown tests. Additionally field experience
with the breakdown tests have proven that the PKN fracture model for the simulator
gives reliable results in comparison to the other models available.
The simulations were repeated for all the wells with the GDK fracture model
for comparison with the results obtained from the PKN model.
Leakoff Model: The two models available for leakoff were ‘lumped
parameter’ and ‘grid based’. The ‘lumped-parameter’ leakoff model was selected for
the simulations. This model is formulated for speedy computations and is accurate in
low permeability reservoirs. The grid-based leakoff models are slow and are more
suited for reservoirs with high permeability (atleast 100 mD) and reservoirs having
large variations in permeability47.
Backstress Option: There are two options available; ‘backstress model’ and
‘backstress ignore’. Reservoirs having a high fluid leakoff increase the pore pressure,
which results in a change in formation closure stress known as backstress. For gas
reservoirs selecting the backstress model option complicates and slows the
computations. The Red Fork formation being a low permeability gas reservoir has
relatively low fluid leakoff, due to this reason the ‘backstress ignore’ option was
utilized for the simulations47.
63
Growth After Shut-In Option: Accurate interpretation of the pressure-
decline requires that growth after shut-in be considered47. Among the two options
‘freeze dimensions’ and ‘allow growth after shut-in’ the later option was selected for
the simulations.
Fracture Orientation Option: Among the two options (‘vertical’,
‘horizontal’) for fracture orientation the ‘vertical fracture orientation’ was selected for
the simulations as vertical orientation is the most commonly occurring fracture
orientation.
Heat Transfer Effect Option: For Heat transfer effects there are two options
available; ‘heat transfer model’ and ‘heat transfer ignore’. The volume of the fluid
pumped in a breakdown test is very small as compared to the main fracture treatment.
Neglecting the heat transfer effects will increase the computation speed and not have
any significant change in the accuracy of the results. The ‘ignore heat transfer’
option was selected for the simulations.
Iteration Option: Among the two options of ‘general’ and ‘simplified’
iteration, the ‘general’ iteration option was selected for the simulations. Simplified
iterations are much faster but the results obtained are less accurate. The ‘general
iteration’ option takes longer computation time but the results are more accurate and
reliable.
The next step performed was to input the binary format database file into the
simulator. Subsequently the wellbore configuration was created for the simulations.
The data entered to complete the wellbore configuration are as follows:
• Drilled Hole Data (various hole sizes and corresponding depth)
64
• Casing Data (various casing strings diameter, corresponding setting
depths, casing grade, casing weight and casing inner diameter)
• Survey Data (inclination and azimuth)
• Perforation Data (depth, diameter of perforations, number of perforations)
5.3 Log Analysis and Reservoir Layers
Logs for the seven wells were analyzed to determine the lithology of the
formation. Gamma ray and neutron porosity logs were analyzed. The estimated
lithology was used to create reservoir layers in the commercial fracturing software.
Figure 5.2 shows the gamma ray and neutron porosity logs for Well – 4. For every
reservoir layer a shale index Ish is calculated from the log using Eq. 5.1:
I sh = (γ log − γ min )/ (γ sh − γ min ) ………………………………………………(5.1)
where γlog is the log response for the layer being evaluated, and γsh and γmin are the log
responses in shales and zones of minimum radioactivity48.
65
Feet
0 Gamma Ray (gr) 130 30 Neutron Porosity (cnl) -10
(API) (pu)
Figure 5.2 Log for Well-4 (gamma ray and neutron porosity)49
Table 5.2 summarizes the values of γlog for the individual layers and the
corresponding values of the shale index Ish calculated using Eq. 5.1. The log has a
scale of 0-130 API gamma ray units. The values of γsh and γmin are 110 and 52 API
gamma ray units. A lithology of shale, sandy-shale, shaley-sand and sandstone was
modeled for Ish ranges of 0.9 - 1, 0.6 – 0.89, 0.25 – 0.59 and 0 – 0.24 respectively.
66
Table 5.2: Shale Index of Well-4 Reservoir Layers
Layer top Layer γlog Ish Lithology
depth (feet) thickness (feet) API
units
104 0.90 Shale

12600 26 98 0.79 Sandy-Shale
12626 22 65 0.22 Sandstone
12648 7 78 0.45 Shaley-Sand
12655 10 57 0.09 Sandstone
12665 6 96 0.76 Sandy-Shale
12671 18 59 0.12 Sandstone
12689 4 72 0.34 Shaley-Sand
12693 22 58 0.10 Sandstone
12715 8 78 0.45 Shaley-Sand
12723 12 58 0.10 Sandstone
12735 41 91 0.67 Sandy-Shale
12776 7 64 0.21 Sandstone
12783 32 90 0.66 Sandy-Shale
12815 10 99 0.81 Sandy-Shale
12825 105 0.91 Shale
From Table 5.2 it can be concluded that the total thickness of all the sandstone
layers (t1) and all the non-sandstone (shaly-sand and sandy-shale) layers (t2) for Well-
4 are 91 and 92 feet respectively. The ratio of t1 to t2 for Well-4 is 0.98.
The depth and the rock type (shale, sandstone, shaly-sand, sandy-shale etc.)
were entered into the simulator for all layers of the reservoir. Figure 5.3 shows the
reservoir layers built for Well-4.
67
Figure 5.3 Reservoir Layers built from Logs for simulations (Well-4)
Following similar procedures layers were built for six other wells. The
lithology inferred in these wells is shown in Appendix C. Additionally, the total
thickness of sandstone layers (t1) and the total thickness of non-sandstone layers (t2)
for all other wells were calculated. Table 5.3 summarizes the ratio of t1 to t2 for the
seven wells. Wells 2, 5 and 7 indicate a very high thickness of sandstone layers as
compared to the sum of shaley-sand and sandy-shale layers. The Well production
data given in Appendix B indicates that the cumulative production for Wells 2, 5 and
7 were the highest among the seven wells.
Table 5.3: Values of t1/t2 for lithology of seven wells
Well t1 / t2
1 1.5
2 5.1
3 0.29
4 0.99
5 5.71
6 0.35
7 6.59
68
5.4 Simulator Input
The type of fluid and proppant need to be specified prior to running the simulator.
Potassium chloride treated water without proppant was specified for the
simulations.
The treatment schedule details that were specified for the simulations were the
stage type (water injection stage, shut-in stage etc), stage length in minutes and the
type of fluid for water injection stage. The treatment schedule information entered
was obtained from the service company breakdown report and was verified with the
ASCII format breakdown data file to ensure accuracy of simulations.
The final simulation input that need to be specified to the simulator are the
start time, end time and the time step for performing calculations. Start time is
selected in order to skip over any initial glitches in pump rate or data that is collected
prior to actually starting the job. The end time selected is usually a few minutes more
than all the stages of the treatment schedule. The start time and end time are obtained
from the test reports and verified from the ASCII format data files to eliminate
possible errors in simulations. The time step determines the frequency of calculations
performed by the simulator. The time step recommended47 for conducting Minifrac
analysis is between 0.1 and 0.5 minute. The time step selected for performing the
simulations was 0.05 minute.
5.5 Breakdown Test Analysis
Simulations were executed and from the results a breakdown test analysis was
performed for each well. The simulator calculates several parameters from the
69
database file to create plots required for breakdown test analysis; the methodology is
as given below:
Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure Plot (ISIP): This is a plot of surface
pressure and bottomhole pressure versus time. The surface pressure and time are
obtained from the database file which was input to the simulator. The bottomhole
pressure during the shut-in period is calculated by using Eq. 5.2:
p w = (0.052 * Z * ρ ) + p s …………………………………………………..(5.2)
where pw is the bottomhole pressure in psi, Z is the depth from the surface to the
center of the perforations in feet, ρ is the density of the KCl treated water in ppg and
ps is the measured surface pressure in psi. A vertical line is drawn on the plot at the
time when pumping stopped; this vertical line is the beginning of the shut-in decline
period. The ISIP plots in Chapter 6 and Appendix D are drawn to have the Y-axis as
the end of pumping which is also the beginning of shut-in decline period. A tangent
is drawn to the bottomhole pressure decline curve at the start of the decline. The ISIP
should be the reflection of the pressure in the main body of the fracture. Near
wellbore effects make it difficult to pick the true ISIP. The tangent should be
positioned in such a way that the initial effects have dissipated. The intersection of
the tangent with the end of the injection line (Y-axis for plots in Chapter 6 and
Appendix D) gives the ISIP.
Square-root Plot: The square-root plot shows surface pressure, bottomhole
pressure and the derivative of the surface pressure plotted versus the square root of
time. The scale on the ‘X-axis’ of this square-root plot is non-linear similar to the
non-linear scale of a log-log plot. As previously discussed in Chapter 2, a change in
70
slope of the bottomhole pressure on a square-root time plot indicates fracture closure.
The surface area available for fluid leak-off changes at fracture closure and this
results in a change of slope on the pressure decline curve. A tangent is drawn to the
bottomhole (BH) pressure curve; the point at which the BH pressure curve starts to
deviate from the tangent is the bottomhole closure pressure. The time at this point is
the closure time. The surface pressure for the plot is obtained from the database file;
the bottomhole pressure is calculated using Eq. 5.1. The simulator calculates the
values of dps/dt (derivative of surface pressure with respect to time).
G-Function Plot: G-Function plot consists of the surface pressure,
bottomhole pressure, derivative of the surface pressure and the superposition
derivative of the surface pressure (G dP/dG) versus the G-function time. A tangent is
drawn to the superposition derivative of the surface pressure (G dP/dG) curve passing
through the origin; the point at which the curve starts to deviate from the tangent is
the closure point. The G-function time (dimensionless) at this point is the G-function
time at closure. The bottomhole pressure at this closure point (G-function time at
closure) is the bottomhole closure pressure.
The equations utilized to generate the G-function plot are as follows:
• The values of t (instantaneous time) and tp (end of injection time) are
obtained from the breakdown test data. Equation 4.6 is utilized to calculate
the ∆tD (dimensionless time)
• A value of α = 4/5 is assumed for the simulations with the PKN fracture
model and α = 2/3 is assumed for the simulations with the GDK fracture
model. As discussed in Chapter 3 for Newtonian filtrates the lower and
71
upper bounds for the fracture area growth exponent α are ½ and 1. The fluid
used for the breakdown tests being KCl treated water implies that ½<α<1.
Additionally it has been proven that for the PKN fracture model the value of
α = 4/5 is a very good approximation50 . Similarly the value of α = 2/3 is a
very good approximation for the GDK model. Equation 5.3 is utilized for
estimating the G-function50 for the simulations performed with the PKN
fracture model.
2 3
g (4 / 5, ∆t D ) = 1.415 + 1.376∆t D − 0.388∆t D + 0.097∆t D
4 5 6
……………….…(5.3)
− 0.01407∆t D + 0.00105∆t D − 0.000031∆t D
Equation 5.3 is a very good approximation to obtain the G-function values for a PKN
fracture model with KCl treated water as the fracturing fluid (without proppant) used
for the breakdown tests. The value of g0 = g(4/5, ∆tD) = 1.415 for PKN fracture
model.
The G-function for the simulations performed with the GDK fracture model is
obtained31 by substituting the value of α = 2/3 in Eq. 5.4.
 1 −1  
4α ∆t D + 2 1 + ∆t D  F  , α ; 1 + α ; (1 + ∆t D )  
g (α , ∆t D ) =  2 
……........…........ (5.4)
1 + 2α
The hypergeometric function F [a, b; c; z ] is available in tabular form32 or through
computing algorithms.
72
Chapter 6
Simulation Results and Inferences
6.1 Interpretation of Simulation Plots
The ISIP and square-root plots for Well-1 are shown in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2
respectively. The G-function plots for Well-1 with PKN and GDK fracture
models are shown in Figs 6.3 and 6.4 respectively. Similar plots for Well-2
through Well-7 are illustrated in Appendix D as Figs. D1 through D32. The
instantaneous shut-in pressure, bottomhole closure pressure and the G-function at
closure for each well is estimated from the simulation plots utilizing the procedure
described in Chapter 4.
Data obtained from simulation plots for PKN and GDK fracture models are
summarized in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 respectively. The average of the closure pressure
obtained from the square-root plot and the G-function plot is denoted by ‘Average
pc’. The closure time is denoted by ‘tc’ and the dimensionless G-function at closure is
denoted by ‘Gc’. Well-2 has three zones; the break down test for each of these zones
was performed separately; the values of ‘average pc’, ‘tc’ and ‘Gc’ given for Well-2 in
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 are the weighted average values for all the three zones.
73
Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
10000 5000
ISIP = 9,632 psi

Tangent to Bottomhole
9600 4600
pressure curve
9200 4200
8800 3800
8400 3400
8000 3000
22.0 42.2 62.4 82.6 102.8 123.0
Time (min)
Figure 6.1- ISIP Plot for Well – 1
(d/dt) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)

200 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
5000
10000
120
9600 4600
40 4200
9200
-40
3800
8800
-120
8400 3400
-200
3000
80000.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Time (min)
Figure 6.2- Square-root Plot for Well – 1
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
2000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 2000
10000 5000
1600 1600
9600 4600
1200 1200
9200 4200
800 800
8800 3800
400 400
8400 3400
0 0
8000 0.000 0.780 1.560 2.340 3.120 3.900 3000
G Function Time
Figure 6.3- G-Function Plot (PKN Fracture Model) for Well – 1
74
10000 5000
1600 1600
9600 4600
1200 1200
9200 4200
800 800
8800 3800
400 400
8400 3400
0 0
8000 0.000 0.800 1.600 2.400 3.200 4.000 3000
G Function Time
Figure 6.4- G-Function Plot (GDK Fracture Model) for Well – 1
Table 6.1: Data from Simulation Results (PKN Fracture Model)
Well ISIP (psi) Average pc (psi) tc (min) Gc
1 9,632 9,190 44.7 2.45
2 11,100 10,789 62.71 2.36
3 10,010 9,064 101.7 4.30
4 9,609 9,536 24.6 3.96
5 10,430 9,039 98.1 3.38
6 10,513 9,954 101.4 5.00
7 10,345 9,812 74.4 1.70
75
Table 6.2: Data from Simulation Results (GDK Fracture Model)
Well ISIP (psi) Average pc (psi) tc (min) Gc
1 9,632 9,223 40.17 2.13
2 11,100 10,805 40 1.60
3 10,010 9,111 84.2 3.99
4 9,609 9,547 21.7 4.03
5 10,430 9,083 89.9 3.19
6 10,513 9,968 100 4.85
7 10,345 9,830 75.2 1.74
6.2 Inferences from Simulation Plots
ISIP Plots: The average rate of pressure decline during the shut-in period can
be obtained from the ISIP plot (the total pressure drop divided by the shut-in period
time). Table 6.3 summarizes the average rate of pressure decline for seven wells
obtained from the ISIP plots (Figs. 6.1 and D1 through D8). Well-2 has the highest
rate of pressure decline (44 psi/min) and Well-4 has the lowest rate of pressure
decline (1.42 psi/min). The rate of pressure decline is an indication of the rate of
fluid leakoff.
76
Table 6.3: Average rate of pressure decline
Well Average rate of pressure
decline (psi/min)
1 6.32
2 44
3 6.824
4 1.42
5 10
6 5.06
7 6.7
As discussed in Chapter 2 the fluid leakoff is characterized by the spurt-loss
coefficient and the total fluid loss coefficient. Potassium Chloride treated water does
not build a filter cake which implies the spurt-loss is not applicable. The total fluid-
loss coefficient depends on wall building fluid loss coefficient, viscosity controlled
fluid loss coefficient and the compressibility controlled fluid loss coefficient. For
KCl treated water the only factors that affect the fluid loss are viscosity controlled
fluid loss coefficient and the compressibility controlled fluid loss coefficient. The
factors that affect the fluid leakoff rate in the break down tests with KCl treated water
are as follows:
1. Relative permeability of the formation to the fracturing fluid filtrate.
2. Pressure difference (pressure inside the fracture minus the reservoir pressure).
3. Viscosity of the fracturing fluid.
77
4. Permeability of the formation to the mobile formation fluids.
5. Viscosity of the formation fluid.
6. Total system compressibility for the reservoir, ct.
The viscosity of the fracturing fluid and the formation fluid being similar for
all the wells are not the contributing factors for the difference in the rate of pressure
decline. Relative permeability of the formation to the fracturing fluid and the
formation fluids are the most significant factors affecting the leakoff rate. A high rate
of fluid leakoff is an indication of high formation permeability which implies a high
probability that the well will be a good producer. Production data in Appendix B
indicates that Well-2 had the highest cumulative production in the first sixty-day
period as compared to all other wells. Well-6 had the lowest cumulative production
among the seven wells; the average rate of pressure decline for Well-6 was observed
to be 5.06 psi/min which was the second lowest among the seven wells.
Square-Root Plots: Closure pressure is determined from the square-root plot.
Occasionally a change of slope cannot be observed on the bottomhole pressure curve.
Alternatively there could be more than one change in slope and the change in slope
could be due to either fracture closure, height recession from bounding layers or from
fracture extension/recession transition.
In situations where the closure point cannot be easily identified, the pressure
derivative curve is utilized. The pressure derivative magnifies the changes in
pressure and helps in identifying the closure point. In case of Well-2 (Zone-2) the
closure point is easily identified by the change of slope in the bottomhole pressure
curve (Fig. D10). In case of Well-2 (Zone-1) the change of slope of the bottomhole
78
pressure curve cannot be easily identified (Fig. D9). The pressure derivative curve
helps to identify the closure point in Fig. D9.
A combination of the square-root plot and the G-function plot can help
eliminate the ambiguity in determination of the closure pressure. An example where
the G-function plot is utilized to identify the closure point is Well-4. In Fig. D13 the
closure point cannot be identified from both the bottomhole pressure curve as well as
the pressure derivative curve. The G-function plot for Well-4 (Fig. D21) is utilized to
identify the closure point.
The closure pressure obtained from the square-root plot differs slightly from
the closure pressure obtained from the G-function plots. Well-2 (Zone-2) has a high
pressure derivative slope indicating a high rate of fluid leakoff as seen in Fig. D10.
The cumulative production of Well-2 was the highest among all the wells.
G-Function Plots (PKN Model): The characteristic signatures of the G-
function plot are utilized to determine the leakoff mechanism as mentioned in Chapter
4. The characteristic signatures for a normal leakoff, pressure dependent leakoff,
fracture tip extension and fracture height recession were elaborated earlier in Chapter
4. Analysis of Figs. 6.3 and D17 through D19 for Well - 1 and Well – 2 (Zones 1, 2
and 3) indicate a normal leakoff as the pressure derivative (dP/dG) is constant and the
superposition derivative (G[dP/dG]) lies on a straight line that passes through the
origin. Analysis of Figs. D20 through D22 for Well–3 through Well-5 respectively
indicate a pressure dependant leakoff due to the following reasons:
1. A large hump in the superposition derivative (G dP/dG).
2. Subsequent to the hump, the pressure decline exhibits a normal leakoff.
79
3. The portion of normal leakoff lies on a straight line passing through the origin.
4. The hump lies above the straight line that passes through the origin.
G-Function Plots (GDK Model): Analysis of Figs. 6.4 and D25 through
D27 for Well 1 and Well – 2 (Zones 1,2 and 3) indicate a normal leakoff. Analysis of
Figs. D28 through D30 for Well–3 through Well-5 respectively indicate a pressure
dependant leakoff.
6.3 Comparison of PKN model results with GDK Model
The ISIP and the square-root plots for both the models are identical as these plots
depict the pressure decline data, which is recorded at the surface and is
independent of the fracture model selected.
Well-1 has a normal leakoff with PKN as well GDK fracture models, similarly
Well-4 has a pressure dependent leakoff in both the models. For every well the
G-function plots for the simulations performed with the PKN model and GDK
model indicate an identical leakoff mechanism. The reasoning for this similarity
is that the leakoff mechanism (normal or pressure dependent) is controlled by the
reservoir properties and is independent of the geometry of the fracture created.
Pressure dependent leakoff occurs due to opening of natural fissures and is an
inherent property of the reservoir.
The closure pressure and closure time obtained from the G-function plots for the
PKN model are slightly higher than those obtained from the G-function plots of
the GDK model. The reasoning for this phenomenon is that the PKN model
predicts fractures with more length and less width in contrast to the GDK fracture
80
model that predict fractures with less length and more width. The actual range of
the fracture geometry as generated by the simulator for PKN and GDK models
were as follows:
PKN Model:
Fracture half length range: 190 – 210 feet
Fracture width range: 0.04 – 0.08 inch
GDK Model:
Fracture half length range: 85 – 110 feet
Fracture width range: 0.11 – 0.15 inch
The range of the fracture half length generated with the PKN models is almost
twice that of GDK model; whereas the range of fracture width generated for GDK
model is approximately 50 percent more than the PKN model.
81
Chapter 7
Well Productivity Correlations
7.1 Well Productivity Factors
The productivity of a well depends on several factors; some of the major ones
are listed as follows:
• Reservoir Pressure
• Well Stimulation (Acidizing/Fracturing)
• Height of Producing Interval
• Porosity
• Permeability
All seven wells considered in this study are in the Hammon field, which is
located in two adjoining counties namely Roger Mills and Custer in western part of
Oklahoma. Figure 7.1 shows the location of the Counties.
Figure 7.1 County Map of Oklahoma State

(Source: http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/staemap.html)
82
Subsequent to the diagnostic injection test these wells have been stimulated
and all of them have a very similar fracture stimulation job performed. The
producing formation for all of the above wells is ‘Red Fork’ and the heights of the
producing intervals are given in Table 7.1. Production data for the seven wells are
provided in Appendix B. The 30-day (Q30) and 60-day (Q60) cumulative gas
production for the seven wells is summarized in Table 7.2.
The 60-day cumulative production data for Well-3 was not available, as this
well has been completed recently. Due to this reason Table 7.2 and Figs. 7.3, 7.5,
7.7, 7.9 and 7.11 have one data point less corresponding to the cumulative production
of the sixty-day period.
Table 7.1: Height of Producing Interval for Each Well
Well Height of producing
Interval (feet)
1 130
2 16 (Zone 1)
2 52 (Zone 2)
2 32 (Zone 3)
3 60
4 90
5 200
6 38
7 128
83
Table 7.2: Well Production Data
Well Q30 Q60

(Mscf) (Mscf)
1
42200 70500
2
71500 128653
3
25000 n/a
4
38890 71600
5
56210 116872
6
17337 27253
7
69891 154976
7.2 Statistical Analysis and Correlations for PKN Fracture Model
A statistical analysis of the data in Tables 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 indicated that no
correlation exists between the well production data and three other variables ISIP,
closure pressure pc and closure time tc. The data, however indicates a correlation of
the well productivity with the G-function at closure.
Figures 7.2 and 7.3 are log-log plots of the height of the producing interval of
each well in feet versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first thirty-day and
sixty-day period respectively. A good correlation could not be established that fitted
all the points on Figs. 7.2 and 7.3. The reason for this is attributed to the variation of
reservoir properties as can be seen in the lithology of the layers in Figs. 5.3 and C1
through C8. The ratio of the total thickness of sandstone layers to the total thickness
of the non-sandstone layers was calculated and is summarized in Table 5.3. Wells 2,
5 and 7 have the highest values of the ratio t1/t2 which is in the range of 5.1 to 6.59.
84
The corresponding values of the ratio t1/t2 for the Wells 1, 3, 4 and 6 were in the
range of 0.29 to 1.5. The production data in Table 7.2 indicates that Wells 2, 5 and 7
have the highest cumulative production. The higher value of the ratio t1/t2 for the
Wells 2, 5 and 7 is considered as one of the reasons for higher well productivity.
As discussed in Chapter 6 one of the reasons for high cumulative production
of a well is the high rate of pressure decline during the shut-in period. Analysis of the
data in Table 6.2 (Rate of Pressure Decline) indicates that Well-2 has the highest rate
of pressure decline (44 psi/min). A high rate of pressure decline indicates a high rate
of fluid leakoff. The high rate of fluid leakoff implies that the permeability of the
well is high. High permeability is considered as one of the reasons for the high
cumulative production of Well-2.
A detailed review of the logs of the seven wells indicated that the porosity of
Well-7 to be the highest and was in the range of 11 to 12.5 percent. For all other
wells the porosity was found to be in the range of 8 to 10 percent. The high
cumulative production of Well-7 can be explained due to the high porosity.
Wells 2 and 7 have the highest cumulative production and the corresponding
points for these wells lie prominently apart from all the other points in Figs. 7.2 and
7.3. Wells 1, 3 and 4 through 6 when considered as a group show a good correlation
on the plots of Figs. 7.2 (96.79 percent fit) and 7.3 (94.89 percent fit). The curve on
Figs. 7.2 and 7.3 was fitted with the points corresponding to Well 1, 3 and 4 through
6.
85
100000
2 7
5
30 Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
1
0.7052 4
y = 1407.8x
2
R = 0.9679
10000
10 100 1000
Height of Producing Interval (feet)
Figure 7.2 Plot of 30-Day Cumulative Production versus

Height of Producing Interval
1000000
7
0.841
y = 1349.8x 2
2
R = 0.9489
5
100000
4 1
10000
10 100 1000
Height of Producing Interval (feet)

Height of Producing Interval
Figures 7.4 and 7.5 are semi-log plots of the G-function at closure of each
well versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first thirty-day and sixty-day
period respectively. It can be seen that in general the G-function at closure (PKN
86
Model) is inversely proportional to the thirty-day and sixty-day cumulative
production.
100000
7 2
5
1 4
6
2
y = -2161.6x - 1177.2x + 76015
2
R = 0.7927
10000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
G-Function at Closure

G-function at Closure (PKN Model)
1000000
7
2
5
100000
4
2
y = -1822.9x - 19837x + 177507
2
R = 0.6936
10000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
G-Function at Closure

G-function at Closure (PKN Model)
87
Figures 7.6 and 7.7 are semi-log plots of the Height/G-function at closure for
PKN model of each well versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first thirty-
day and sixty-day period respectively.
100000
7 2
5
30 Day Cumulative production (MCF)
4 1
0.5603
y = 5770.1x
6 2
R = 0.9459
10000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
(Height/G-function at Closure)

H/(G-function at Closure-PKN Model)
1000000
60 Day Cumulative production (MCF)
5 2
100000
4
1
0.6499
y = 7710.6x
2
R = 0.8892
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
(Height/G-function at Closure)

H/(G-function at Closure-PKN Model)
88
Equation 7.1 gives a fit of 94.59 percent as seen from Fig. 7.6:
(0.5603 )
H 
Q30 = 5770.1  ……………………………………………………..……..(7.1)
 Gc 
(0.6499 )
H 
Q60 = 7710.6  ……………………………………………………………(7.2)
 Gc 
where Q30 and Q60 is the cumulative production in MCF of gas produced for the first
30-day and 60-day periods respectively, H is the height of the producing interval in
feet and Gc is the G-function at closure (dimensionless) for PKN model.
Figure 7.6 indicates that there exists a very good correlation between the ratio
Height/G-function at closure for PKN model and thirty-day cumulative production.
Whereas Fig. 7.7 indicates that there exists a reasonably good correlation between the
ratio Height/G-function at closure for PKN model and sixty-day cumulative
production.
Wells 2 and 7 in Figs. 7.6 and 7.7 do not stand prominently apart as they did
in Figs. 7.2 and 7.3. The reason for this is that the G-function takes into account
properties of the formation.
7.3 Statistical Analysis and Correlations for GDK Fracture Model
Similar to the PKN fracture model a statistical analysis was performed
utilizing the data obtained from the simulations with the GDK fracture model shown
in Table 6.2. No correlation exists between the well production data and three other
variables ISIP, closure pressure pc and closure time tc. The simulation results confirm
89
that similar to the PKN model the GDK model indicates a correlation of the well
productivity with the G-function at closure. Figures 7.8 and 7.9 are semi-log plots of
the G-function at closure (GDK Model) of each well versus the cumulative
production in MCF for the first thirty-day and sixty-day period respectively. Similar
to the PKN Model it can be seen that the G-function at closure for the GDK Model is
inversely proportional to the thirty-day and sixty-day cumulative production.
100000
2
7
5
30-Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
2
y = -2185.9x - 1018.2x + 75790
2 6
R = 0.7922
10000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
G-function at Closure

G-function at Closure (GDK Model)
90
1000000
60-Day Cum. Production (MCF)
7
2
5
100000
1 4
6
2
y = -1862.1x - 19567x + 177110
2
R = 0.6927
10000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
G-function at Closure

G-function at Closure (GDK Model)
Figures 7.10 and 7.11 are semi-log plots of the Height/G-function at closure
for GDK model of each well versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first
thirty-day and sixty-day period respectively.
100000
0.5788
y = 5700.4x
2
R = 0.856 2 7
5
1
4
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Height/G-function at Closure

H/G-function at Closure (GDK Model)
91
1000000
0.6791
y = 7447.7x
2
R = 0.833
7
2
5
100000
4
1
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Height/G-function at Closure

H/G-function at Closure (GDK Model)
(0.5788 )
H 
Q30 = 5700  ……………………………………………………..…...…..(7.3)
 Gc 
(0.6791)
H 
Q60 = 7447.7   ……………………………………………………………(7.4)
 Gc 
where Q30 and Q60 is the cumulative production in MCF of gas produced for the first
30-day and 60-day periods respectively, H is the height of the producing interval in
feet and Gc is the G-function at closure (dimensionless) for GDK model.
The PKN model gives better correlations than those obtained with the GDK model.
This indicates that the fracture geometry actually created are better modeled with the
PKN fracture model. The reasoning for this is that the fluid utilized for the
breakdown tests is KCl treated water which is a low viscosity fluid. The length of the
92
fracture created is inversely proportional to the viscosity of the fracturing fluid;
therefore KCl treated water creates fractures that are longer and sammler in width.
This geometry is more suited with a PKN fracture model.
93
Chapter 8
Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Summary
1. Breakdown test data and post-frac production data for seven wells from Hammon
field in Western Oklahoma were analyzed for performing simulations.
2. Wireline logs of the above wells were analyzed and lithology layers created for
the reservoir.
3. Input files for the simulator were created from well data and lithology layers.
4. Breakdown test data and input files were utilized to perform simulations for PKN
and GDK fracture models.
5. Specialized plots were obtained from the simulations.
6. Statistical analysis was performed on the data obtained from these specialized
plots.
7. Correlations were developed to estimate the post-fracture well production from
simulation results obtained from the breakdown test data.
8.2 Conclusions
1. Pump-in diagnostic testing can be utilized to develop correlations for predicting
post-frac production response.
2. The cumulative production of the well was found to be proportional to the ratio of
height of the producing interval divided by the G-function at closure.
94
3. Simulations with a PKN fracture model give better results than those with a GDK
fracture model.
4. A high rate of pressure decline during the shut-in decline period indicates that the
well is likely to be very productive.
5. The probability of the well to be a good producer was found to be directly
proportional to the ratio of the total thickness of sandstone layers to the total
thickness of the non-sandstone layers in the pay zone.
8.3 Recommendations
1. The correlations developed to estimate well productivity should be used as a
guideline to estimate well productivity. Offset well productivity and field
experience are significant factors to be considered.
2. Other factors like porosity, permeability and reservoir pressure should be
taken into consideration in addition to the G-function at closure and the height
of the producing interval.
3. Data for additional wells should be considered to improve the reliability of the
correlations developed.
4. Permeability derived from pump-in data can be considered an additional
variable for the improving the correlations.
95
Nomenclature
a = intermediate area of one face of fracture, ft2
A = area of one face of fracture, ft2
Af = area of one face of fracture at the end of injection, ft2
AL = leakoff area, ft2
cf = fracture compliance
C = discharge coefficient of perforation
CL = leakoff co-efficient, ft/min1/2
Dp = diameter of each perforation, in
E = Young’s Modulus, psi
E’ = Plane strain modulus, psi
go = fluid-loss volume function
g (∆t D ) = dimensionless fluid-loss volume function
G (∆t D ) = dimensionless fluid-loss time function
Gf = average horizontal fracture gradient, psi/ft
hf = fracture height, ft
hp = permeable height of fracture, ft
K = consistency index for power law fluids, lbf-secn/ft2
L = fracture half length, ft
n = flow behavior index of power law fracturing fluid
N = number of perforations
nf = power law exponent of filtrate
96
Pc1 = breakdown pressure of the rock, psi
Pc2 = fracture propagation pressure, psi
Pi = wellbore fluid pressure, psi
Pnet = net pressure, psi
Pp = pore pressure, psi
Ps = instantaneous shut-in pressure, psi
∆pf = average net pressure, psi
∆p = total near wellbore pressure loss, psi
∆p pf = perforation friction pressure loss, psi
∆pt = tortuosity friction pressure loss, psi
pf = constant fracture internal pressure, psi
pc = closure pressure, psi
pw = bottomhole pressure, psi
pws = bottomhole pressure at shut-in, psi
PG = pore pressure gradient, psi/ft
qi = injection rate, bbl/min
qL = fluid leakoff rate, bbl/min
rp = ratio of surface area available for leakoff to total fracture
area
R = fracture radius, ft
Rf = radial fracture radius, ft
Sp = Spurt loss coefficient, gal/ft2
97
Sv = vertical stress gradient due to overburden, psi/ft
t = time, min
td = dimensionless time
te = time at end of injection, min
tf = time of fracture opening and initial fluid exposure, min
tp = injection time, min
-To = tensile strength of the rock, psi
-To’ = tensile strength of the rock in the vertical direction, psi
uL = leak off velocity, ft/sec
vL = specific fluid loss volume
Vfp = volume of fracture created at end of pumping, bbl
Vi = total volume of fluid injected, bbl
VL = cumulative fluid volume leaked off, bbl
VL,C = fluid loss volume (Carter’s component), bbl
VL,S = fluid loss volume (Spurt loss component), bbl
VLp = fluid loss volume (at the end of injection), bbl
VLs (∆t ) = fluid loss volume (during shut-in), bbl
w = fracture width, in
w = fracture width averaged over length and height, in
wmax = maximum fracture width, in
ww = fracture width at the wellbore, in
w = average fracture width, in
xf = fracture half length, ft
98
Z = depth, ft
α = fracture area growth exponent
σx = stress in ‘x’ direction, psi
σy = stress in ‘y’ direction, psi
σh = horizontal stress, psi
σv = vertical stress, psi
σr = radial stress, psi
σθ = tangential stress, psi
τ rθ = shear stress, psi
υ = Poisson’s ratio
γ = fracture gradient, psi/ft
αp = poro-elastic constant (range from 0 to 1)
µ = viscosity, cp
κ = spurt factor
τ = time, min
θ = fluid loss exponent
η = fracture treatment efficiency
β = fracture fluid pressure gradient factor
∆t D = dimensionless shut-in time
ξ = dimensionless area parameter
Γ(x ) = gamma function
99
Γ(α ) = Euler’s gamma function
ρ = density, lbm/ft3
100
References
1. Howard G.C., and Fast C.R.: “Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE Monograph, Vol. 2, 8,
1970
2. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.: “Hydraulic Fracturing: A Primer,”

July, 1999
3. Cornell, F.L.: “Engineering Improvements for Red Fork Fracturing,” JPT (Feb.
1991) 132-137
4. Hickey, J. W., Brown, W. E., and Crittenden, S. J.: “The Comparative

Effectiveness of Propping Agents in the Red Fork Formation of the Anadarko
Basin”, SPE No. 10132, presented at the 56th Annual Fall Technical Conference
of SPE, San Antonio, Texas (Oct. 5-7, 1981)
5. Rose, R. E.: “New Techniques Lead to Better Completions in Red Fork and Other
Low-Permeability Formations”, SPE No. 17305, presented at the SPE Permian
Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas (March 10-11, 1988)
6. Penny, G.S., Soliman, M.Y., Conway, M.W. and Briscoe, J.E.: “Enhanced Load
Water-Recovery Technique Improves Stimulation Results”, SPE No. 12149,
presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, CA, (October 5-8, 1983)
7. Gulrajani S.N. and Nolte K.G.: “Fracture Evaluation Using Pressure Diagnostics,”
Chapter 9 of “Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by
Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.”
8. Smith, M.B.: “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise Hydraulic Fractures,” paper
SPE 10313, SPE Journal (June 1985), 371.
9. Nolte, K.G.: “Principles for Fracture Design Based on Pressure Analysis,” paper
SPE 10911, SPE Production Engineering (February 1988c) 3, No.1, 22–30.
10. Plahn, S.V., Nolte, K.G., Thompson, L.G. and Miska, S.: “A Quantitative
Investigation of the Fracture Pump-In/Flowback Test,” paper SPE 30504, SPE
Production & Facilities (February 1997) 12, No. 1, 20–27.
11. Smith, M.B. and Shlyapobersky, J.W.: “Basics of Hydraulic Fracturing” Chapter
5 of “Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by Economides, M.J.
and Nolte, K.G.”
12. Carter, R.D.: “Derivation of the General Equation for Estimating the Extent of the
Fractured Area,” Appendix I of “Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture
101
Extension,” Drilling and Production Practice, G.C. Howard and C.R. Fast, New
York, NY, USA, American Petroleum Institute (1957), 261–269.
13. Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R.: “Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture
Extension,” Drilling and Production Practice, New York, New York, USA,
American Petroleum Institute (1957) 24, 261–270. (Appendix by E.D. Carter)
14. Shah, S.N.: “Advanced Stimulation - PE 5423 – University of Oklahoma - Class

Lecture Notes”, Fall 2003
15. Mack, M.G., and Warpinski N.R.: “Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing” Chap 6
of “Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by Economides, M.J. and
Nolte, K.G.”
16. Sneddon, I.N.: “The Distribution of Stress in the Neighbourhood of a Crack in an

Elastic Solid,” Proc., Royal Soc. London (1946) 187, Ser. A., 229–260.
17. Sneddon, I.N. and Elliot, A.A.: “The Opening of a Griffith Crack Under Internal
Pressure,” Quarterly of Appl. Math. (1946) 4, 262–267.
18. Khristianovich, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P.: “Formation of Vertical Fractures by

Means of Highly Viscous Liquid,” Proc., Fourth World Pet. Congress, Rome
(1955) 2, 579–586.
19. Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R.: “Widths of Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 89,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1961) 13, No. 9, 937–949.
20. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: “A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent
of Hydraulic Induced Fractures,” paper SPE 2458, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (December 1969) 21, 1571–1581.
21. Nordgren, R.P.: “Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture,” paper SPE 3003,
SPE Journal (August 1972) 12, No. 8, 306–314.
22. Warpinski, N.R.: “Measurement of Width and Pressures in a Propagating

Hydraulic Fracture,” SPE Journal (February 1985) 25, No.1, 46-54.
23. Brady, B.H., Ingraffea, A.R. and Morales, R.H.: “Three-Dimensional Analysis
and Visualization of Wellbore and the Fracturing Process in Inclined Wells,”
paper SPE 25889, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeabililty Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 12-14,
1993)
24. Gidley et al: “Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE Monograph Vol.
12, 1990 Edition, SPE, Richardson, Texas.
102
25. Thompson, J.W., and Church D.C.: “Design, Execution, and Evaluation of
Minifracs in the Field: A Practical Approach and Case Study”, SPE No. 26034,
presented at the Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, USA (26-
28 May, 1993)
26. Warpinski, N.R.: “Hydraulic Fracturing in Tight, Fissured Media”, JPT (Feb.
1991) 146-209.
27. Castillo, J.L.: “Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pressure-
Dependent Leakoff”, SPE No. 16417 presented at the 1987 SPE DOE Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 18-19.
28. Parlar, M., Nelson, E.B., Walton, I.C., Park, E. and Debonis, V.: “An
Experimental Study on Fluid-Loss Behavior of Fracturing Fluids and Formation
Damage in High-Permeability Porous Media,” paper SPE 30458, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October
22–25, 1995).
29. Chaveteau, G.: “Fundamental Criteria in Polymer Flow Through Porous Media
and Their Relative Importance in the Performance Differences of Mobility
Control Buffers,” Water Soluble Polymers, J.E. Glass (ed.), Advances in
Chemistry Series (1986), 213.
30. Meyer, B.R. and Hagel, M.W.: “Simulated Mini-Frac Analysis,” Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Engineering (September–October 1989) 28, No. 5, 63–73.
31. Valkó, P. and Economides, M.J.: “Fracture Height Containment with Continuum
Damage Mechanics,” paper SPE 26598, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6, 1993b).
32. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A. (eds.): Handbook of Mathematical Functions,

ninth edition, New York, New York, USA, Dover (1989).
33. Nolte, K.G.: “Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules from Fracturing
Pressure Decline,” paper SPE 13278, SPE Production Engineering (July 1986b)
1, No. 4, 255–265.
34. Nolte, K.G.: “Fracturing Pressure Analysis for Non-Ideal Behavior,” paper SPE
20704, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 23–26, 1990); also in Journal of Petroleum
Technology (February 1991) 43, No. 2, 210–218.
35. Ayoub, J.A., Brown, J.E., Barree, R.D. and Elphick, J.J.: “Diagnosis and
Evaluation of Fracturing Treatments,” SPE Production Engineering (February
1992a), 39.
103
36. El-Rabba A.M., Shah S.N. and Lord D.L.: “New perforation Pressure-Loss
Correlations for Limited-Entry Fracturing Treatments,” SPE Production and
Facilities (February 1999), Vol. 14, No. 1, 63-71.
37. Cleary, M., Johnson, D., Kogsboll, H., Owens, K., Perry, K., de Pater, C., Stachel,
A., Schmidt, H. and Tambini, M.: “Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to
Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures with Adequate Proppant
Concentration,” paper SPE 25892, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA
(April 12–14, 1993).
38. Aud, W.W., Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C.L., Harkrider, J.D. and Hansen, J.T.: “The
Effect of Viscosity on Near-Wellbore Tortuosity and Premature Screenouts,”
paper SPE 28492, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 25–28, 1994).
39. Nolte, K.G.: “Application of Fracture Design Based on Pressure Analysis,” paper
SPE 13393, SPE Production Engineering (February 1988a) 3, No. 1, 31–42.
40. Wright C.: “Rate step-down test analysis – a diagnostic for fracture entry,”
Sidebar 9E of “Fracture Evaluation Using Pressure Diagnostics,” Chapter 9 of
“Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by Economides, M.J. and
Nolte, K.G.”
41. Nolte, K.G.: “Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure

Decline,” paper SPE 8341, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (September 23–26, 1979).
42. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: “Determination of Pressure Dependent Leakoff
and Its Effect on Fracture Geometry,” paper SPE 36424, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA (October
6–9, 1996).
43. Barree, R.D.: “A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three-Dimensional Fracture

Propagation in Heterogeneous Media,” paper SPE 12273, presented at the SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, California, USA (November
15–18, 1983).
44. Craig D. P., Eberhard M. J. and Barree, R.D.: “Adapting High Permeability
Leakoff Analysis to Low Permeability Sands for Estimating Reservoir
Engineering Parameters,” paper SPE 60291, presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/ Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado,
USA (March 12–15, 2000).
45. Rollins, K. and Hyden, R.E.: “Pressure-Dependent Leakoff in Fracturing—Field

Examples from the Haynesville Sand,” paper SPE 39953 presented at the 1998
104
SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, 5-8 April 1998.
46. Craig, D.P., et al.: “Case History: Observations From Diagnostic Injection Tests
in Multiple Pay Sands of the Mamm Creek Field, Piceance Basin, Colorado,”
paper SPE 60321 presented at the 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 12-15 March 2000.
47. FracProPT 10.2 User’s Guide, 2003.
48. Bassiouni, Z.: “Theory, Measurement and Interpretation of Welllogs”, SPE

Textbook Vol. 4, 1994 Edition, SPE, Richardson, Texas.
49. Well Drilling Data Files, Crawley Petroleum Corporation, 800 N. Hudson, High
Tower Building, Oklahoma City, OK, 2003.
50. Craig D.P. and Brown T.D.: “Estimating Pore Pressure and Permeability in
Massively Stacked Lenticular Reservoirs Using Diagnostic Fracture Injection
Tests,” paper SPE 56600 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
51. Well Production Data Files, Crawley Petroleum Corporation, 800 N. Hudson,
High Tower Building, Oklahoma City, OK, 2003.
105
Appendix A
Well Casing and Perforation Data49
Table A1: Well Configuration Data for Well – 1
Well TD 13,100’
Casing Surface to – 11,556’, 4.5” csg, 11.6 ppf
11,556’ to – 13,093, 4.5” csg, 13.5 ppf
Perforations Total 260 perforations of 0.35” - 2 SPF
Perforated Intervals 12635’ to 12,765’
Well TD 13,100’
Casing Surface to 11,574’ -- 4.5”, 11.6 ppf
11,574’ to 13,098’ – 4.5”, 13.5 ppf
Perforations Total 202 perforations of 0.35”
Perforated Intervals 12,462’ – 12,468’ at 4 SPF
12,578’ to 12,582’ at 4 SPF
12,596’ – 12,602’ at 4 SPF
12,634’ – 12,686’ at 2 SPF
12,752’ – 12,784’ at 2 SPF
106
Well TD 13,000’
11,470’ to 12,981’ – 4.5”, 13.5 ppf
Perforations Total 114 perforations of 0.42” at 2/4 SPF
Perforated Intervals 12,486 -- 12,496 at 4 SPF
12,560 – 12,564 at 4 SPF
12,612 – 12,626’ at 2 SPF
12,708’ – 12,740’ at 2 SPF
Table A4: Well Configuration Data for Well - 4
Well TD 12,995’
11,963 to 12,995’ – 4.5”, 13.5 ppf
Perforations Total 90 perforations of 0.27” at 1 SPF
Perforated Intervals 12,628’ – 12,648’
12,656’ – 12,664’
12,672’ – 12,688’
12,694’ – 12,714’
12,724’ – 12,734’
12,776’ – 12,782’
12,804’ – 12,814’
107
Well TD 12,910’
11,911’ to 12,908’ – 4.5”, 13.5 ppf
12,700’ – 12,730’
Well TD 12,909’
11,374’ to 12,889’ – 4.5”, 13.5 ppf
108
Well TD 12,950’
11,415’ to 12,946’ – 4.5”, 13.5 ppf
Perforations Total 376 perforations of 0.42”
Perforated Intervals 12,452’ – 12,460’ at 4 SPF
12,472’ – 12,530’ at 2 SPF
12,546’ – 12,556’ at 4 SPF
12,574’ – 12,600’ at 2 SPF
12,606’ – 12,622’ at 2 SPF
12,626’ – 12,636’ at 4 SPF
12,640’ – 12,660’ at 2 SPF
12,664’ – 12,670’ at 4 SPF
109
Appendix B
Well Production Data51
Table B1: Production data for Well – 1
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod CumulativeProduction Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
Dec-03 7 7 6.71 6.71 12788 12788
Dec-03 8 62 5.42 12.13 7422 20210
Dec-03 7 31 5.71 17.83 7474 27684
Jan-04 8 9 7.63 25.46 10064 37748
Jan-04 8 0 8 33.46 9994 47742
Jan-04 8 0 8 41.46 5235 52977
Jan-04 7 0 7 48.46 5234 58211
Feb-04 29 0 29 77.46 31236 89447
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod Cumulative Production Prod.
May-03 20 29 18.79 18.79 47748 47748
Jun-03 30 23 29.04 47.83 61526 109274
Jul-03 31 3 30.88 78.71 49186 158460
Aug-03 31 0 31 109.71 40668 199128
Sep-03 30 0 30 139.71 34748 233876
Oct-03 31 72 28 167.71 31289 265165
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod CumulativeProduction Prod.
Jan-04 5 45 3.13 3.13 3688 3688
Jan-04 14 0 14 17.13 13892 17580
Feb-04 29 0 29 46.13 15934 33514
110
Cumu.
Apr-02 7 5 6.79 6.79 6916 6916
May-02 31 87 27.38 34.17 37720 44636
Jun-02 30 0 30 64.17 31317 75953
Jul-02 31 0 31 95.17 24730 100683
Aug-02 31 26 29.92 125.08 21447 122130
Sep-02 30 0 30 155.08 18815 140945
Oct-02 31 0 31 186.08 17487 158432
Nov-02 30 0 30 216.08 15587 174019
Dec-02 31 0 31 247.08 14989 189008
Jan-03 31 0 31 278.08 13901 202909
Feb-03 28 8 27.67 305.75 11743 214652
Mar-03 31 0 31 336.75 12497 227149
Apr-03 30 0 30 366.75 11695 238844
May-03 31 0 31 397.75 11751 250595
Jun-03 30 0 30 427.75 11277 261872
Jul-03 31 0 31 458.75 11234 273106
Aug-03 31 0 31 489.75 10903 284009
Sep-03 30 0 30 519.75 10527 294536
Oct-03 31 76 27.83 547.58 10236 304772
Cumu.
Nov-02 6 98 1.92 1.92 2560 2560
Dec-02 31 24 30 31.92 57319 59879
Jan-03 31 24 30 61.92 60890 120769
Feb-03 28 12 27.50 89.42 46364 167133
Mar-03 31 0 31 120.42 46325 213458
Apr-03 30 4 29.83 150.25 35617 249075
May-03 31 40 29.33 179.58 32847 281922
Jun-03 30 0 30 209.58 30109 312031
Jul-03 31 0 31 240.58 26457 338488
Aug-03 31 0 31 271.58 24477 362965
Sep-03 30 0 30 301.58 20953 383918
Oct-03 31 99 26.88 328.46 18873 402791
111
Cumu.
Mar-03 6 57 3.63 3.63 4017 4017
Apr-03 30 22 29.08 32.71 14689 18706
May-03 31 0 31 63.71 9709 28415
Jun-03 30 0 30 93.71 7668 36083
Jul-03 31 0 31 124.71 7027 43110
Aug-03 31 0 31 155.71 6611 49721
Sep-03 30 0 30 185.71 6090 55811
Oct-03 31 121 25.96 211.67 5211 61022
Cumu.
Oct-03 3 7 2.71 2.71 3001 3001
Nov-03 8 15 7.38 10.08 16177 19178
Nov-03 8 24 7 17.08 16209 35387
Nov-03 8 0 8 25.08 20939 56326
Nov-03 6 0 6 31.08 16081 72407
Dec-03 8 0 8 39.08 20535 92942
Dec-03 8 0 8 47.08 19975 112917
Dec-03 8 0 8 55.08 17755 130672
Jan-04 7 0 7 62.08 14339 145011
Jan-04 8 0 8 70.08 15338 160349
Jan-04 8 0 8 78.08 14381 174730
112
Appendix C
Lithology of Reservoir Layers
Fig. C1 Layers of Well-1 Fig. C2 Layers of Well-2 (Zone 1)
Fig. C3 Layers of Well-2 (Zone 2) Fig. C4 Layers of Well-2 (Zone 3)
113
Fig. C5 Layers of Well-3 Fig. C6 Layers of Well-5
Fig. C7 Layers of Well-6 Fig. C8 Layers of Well-7
114
Appendix D
Simulation Plots

12500 8000
ISIP = 11,322 psi

12000 7400
11500
Tangent 6800
11000 6200
10500 5600
10000 5000
20.0 44.6 69.2 93.8 118.4 143.0
Time (min)
Fig. D1 ISIP Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 1)

12000 7000
ISIP = 11,322 psi

11400 Tangent 6400
10800 5800
10200 5200
9600 4600
9000 4000
111.1 115.0 118.9 122.7 126.6 130.5
Time (min)
115
11000 6000
10400 5400
9800 4800
9200 4200
8600 3600
8000 3000
39.0 63.2 87.4 111.6 135.8 160.0
Time (min)

11000 7000
10200 6200
9400 5400
8600 4600
7800 3800
7000 3000
326.5 356.0 385.5 415.0 444.5 474.0
Time (min)
Fig. D4 ISIP Plot for Well – 3

10000 4900
9800 4700
9600 4500
9400 4300
9200 4100
9000 3900
6.00 17.80 29.60 41.40 53.20 65.00
Time (min)
116
12000 7000
11200 6200
10400 5400
9600 4600
8800 3800
8000 3000
28.3 58.8 89.4 119.9 150.5 181.0
Time (min)

11000 6000
10600 5600
10200 5200
9800 4800
9400 4400
9000 4000
23.9 48.1 72.3 96.6 120.8 145.0
Time (min)

11000 6000
10400 5400
9800 4800
9200 4200
8600 3600
8000 3000
75.0 94.2 113.4 132.6 151.8 171.0
Time (min)
117
7000
12000
60
11600 6600
20 6200
11200
-20
5800
10800
-60
10400 5400
-100
5000
100000.0 24.5 48.9 73.4 97.8 122.3
Time (min)
Fig. D9 Square Root Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 1)

8000
12000
300
11400 7000
100 6000
10800
-100
5000
10200
-300
9600 4000
-500
3000
90000.0 3.9 7.7 11.6 15.4 19.3
Time (min)

7000
12000
300
11200 6200
100 5400
10400
-100
4600
9600
-300
8800 3800
-500
3000
80000.0 24.0 48.1 72.1 96.1 120.1
Time (min)
118
12000
12000
300
9600 9600
100 7200
7200
-100
4800
4800
-300
2400 2400
-500
0
0 0.0 29.6 59.3 88.9 118.5 148.1
Time (min)
Fig. D12 Square Root Plot for Well – 3

6000
11000
600
10400 5400
400 4800
9800
200
4200
9200
0
8600 3600
-200
3000
80000.0 11.7 23.5 35.2 47.0 58.7
Time (min)

12000
12000
900
9600 9600
300 7200
7200
-300
4800
4800
-900
2400 2400
-1500
0
0 0.0 31.0 62.0 93.0 124.0 155.0
Time (min)
119
7000
12000
760
10600 5600
520 4200
9200
280
2800
7800
40
6400 1400
-200
0
50000.0 24.2 48.4 72.7 96.9 121.1
Time (min)

6000
11000
300
10400 5400
100 4800
9800
-100
4200
9200
-300
8600 3600
-500
3000
80000.0 19.1 38.2 57.2 76.3 95.4
Time (min)
12000 7000
800 800
11600 6600
600 600
11200 6200
400 400
10800 5800
200 200
10400 5400
0 0
10000 0.000 1.020 2.040 3.060 4.080 5.100 5000
G Function Time
Fig. D17 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 1)
120
12000 8000
2400 2400
11400 7400
1800 1800
10800 6800
1200 1200
10200 6200
600 600
9600 5600
0 0
9000 0.000 0.420 0.840 1.260 1.680 2.100 5000
G Function Time
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 1.180 2.360 3.540 4.720 5.900 3000
G Function Time
11000 7000
2400 2400
10200 6200
1800 1800
9400 5400
1200 1200
8600 4600
600 600
7800 3800
0 0
7000 0.000 1.140 2.280 3.420 4.560 5.700 3000
G Function Time
Fig. D20 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 3
121
50.00 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 100.0
10000 4500
40.00 80.0
9800 4300
30.00 60.0
9600 4100
20.00 40.0
9400 3900
10.00 20.0
9200 3700
0.00 0.0
9000 0.000 1.500 3.000 4.500 6.000 7.500 3500
G Function Time
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.900 1.800 2.700 3.600 4.500 3000
G Function Time
11000 6000
3200 3200
10600 5600
2400 2400
10200 5200
1600 1600
9800 4800
800 800
9400 4400
0 0
9000 0.000 1.100 2.200 3.300 4.400 5.500 4000
G Function Time
122
11000 6000
2400 3200
10400 5400
1800 2400
9800 4800
1200 1600
9200 4200
600 800
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.380 0.760 1.140 1.520 1.900 3000
G Function Time
12000 7000
800 800
11600 6600
600 600
11200 6200
400 400
10800 5800
200 200
10400 5400
0 0
10000 0.000 1.020 2.040 3.060 4.080 5.100 5000
G Function Time
Fig. D25 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 1)
12000 8000
2400 2400
11400 7400
1800 1800
10800 6800
1200 1200
10200 6200
600 600
9600 5600
0 0
9000 0.000 0.420 0.840 1.260 1.680 2.100 5000
G Function Time
123
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 1.180 2.360 3.540 4.720 5.900 3000
G Function Time
11000 7000
2400 2400
10200 6200
1800 1800
9400 5400
1200 1200
8600 4600
600 600
7800 3800
0 0
7000 0.000 1.140 2.280 3.420 4.560 5.700 3000
G Function Time
Fig. D28 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 3
50.00 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 100.0
10000 4500
40.00 80.0
9800 4300
30.00 60.0
9600 4100
20.00 40.0
9400 3900
10.00 20.0
9200 3700
0.00 0.0
9000 0.000 1.560 3.120 4.680 6.240 7.800 3500
G Function Time
124
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.900 1.800 2.700 3.600 4.500 3000
G Function Time
11000 6000
3200 3200
10600 5600
2400 2400
10200 5200
1600 1600
9800 4800
800 800
9400 4400
0 0
9000 0.000 1.100 2.200 3.300 4.400 5.500 4000
G Function Time
11000 6000
2400 3200
10400 5400
1800 2400
9800 4800
1200 1600
9200 4200
600 800
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.420 0.840 1.260 1.680 2.100 3000
G Function Time
125

SSJthesis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SSJthesis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

FRACTURE PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC PUMP- IN TESTS

OF RED FORK SANDS IN WESTERN OKLAHOMA

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

A THESIS APPROVED FOR THE

Dr. SUBHASH SHAH

Dr. CHANDRA RAI

Dr. SAMUEL OSISANYA

objectives. Some of these factors are inspiration, guidance, moral support,

motivation, initiative and encouragement. While working towards completion of this

Dr. Subhash Shah, my graduate advisor and Chair of my thesis committee.

would never have been possible. Thanks a lot Dr. Shah.

Dr. Samuel Osisanya, my thesis committee member who always provided me

proved to be very valuable. Thank you Dr. Rai.

Mr. David Roddy, Operations Manager, Crawley Petroleum, who inspired me

throughout my thesis work. Thank you Dave.

students of Well Construction Technology Center of The University of Oklahoma for

all their help, support and good wishes.

Several organizations have made significant contributions and I would like to

will make a contribution in expanding the existing knowledge of the Petroleum

industry and that means so much to me.

achieving my objectives and goals are the most significant.

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ viii

Chapter 2 CONCEPTS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING……………. 7

Chapter 3 MINI-FRACS AND DIAGNOSTIC PUMP-IN TESTS…… 25

Chapter 4 FRACTURE PRESSURE ANALYSIS AND G-FUNCTION 29

Chapter 5 BREAKDOWN TESTS AND SIMULATIONS……….……. 60

Chapter 6 SIMULATION RESULTS AND INFERENCES...……….… 73

Chapter 7 WELL PRODUCTIVITY CORRELATIONS…....……….… 82

Chapter 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………... 94

Appendix A WELL AND CASING PERFORATION DATA……………. 106

Appendix B WELL PRODUCTION DATA………………………………. 110

Appendix C LITHOLOGY OF RESERVOIR LAYERS…………………. 113

Appendix D SIMULATION PLOTS……...………………………………. 115

Table 4.1 Analytical equations for g (∆t D , α , θ ) and g 0 (α , θ ) …………….. 33

Table 4.2 Fracture Net Pressure – Fracture Geometry Relations…………... 38

Table 4.3 Fracture Net Pressure – Time Relations…………………………. 38

Table 4.4 Fracture width relations………………………………………….. 39

Table 4.5 Interpretation of log-log plot slopes……………………………… 40

Table 4.6 Values of α1 (Upper bound of area exponent)…………………… 50

Table 4.7 Values of CL (Leakoff coefficient)………………………………. 52

Table 5.1 Simulator Model Options………………………………………… 62

Table 5.2 Shale Index of Well-4 Reservoir Layers ………………………… 67

Table 5.3 Values of t1/t2 for Seven Wells………...………………………… 68

Table 6.1 Data from Simulation Results (PKN Model)…………………..… 75

Table 6.2 Data from Simulation Results (GDK Model)…….................…… 76

Table 6.3 Average rate of pressure decline ………….……………………... 77

Table 7.1 Height of Producing Interval for Each Well……………………... 83

Table 7.2 Well Production Data……………………...……………………... 84

Table A1 Well Configuration Data for Well – 1…………………………… 106

Table A2 Well Configuration Data for Well – 2…………………………… 106

Table A3 Well Configuration Data for Well – 3…………………………… 107

Table A4 Well Configuration Data for Well – 4…………………………… 107

Table A5 Well Configuration Data for Well – 5………………………….... 108

Table A6 Well Configuration Data for Well – 6…………………………… 108

Table B1 Production data for Well – 1……………………………………... 110

Table B2 Production data for Well – 2……………………………………... 110

Table B3 Production data for Well – 3……………………………………... 110

Table B4 Production data for Well – 4……………………………………... 111

Table B5 Production data for Well – 5……………………………………... 111

Table B6 Production data for Well – 6……………………………………... 112

Table B7 Production data for Well – 7……………………………………... 112