SPE 98098

New Analysis of Step-Rate Injection Tests for Improved Fracture Stimulation Design
K.F. Lizak, Shell; K.M. Bartko, Saudi Aramco; and J.F. Self, G.A. Izquierdo, and M. Al-Mumen, Halliburton Energy
Services Group
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, LA, 1517 February 2006.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Prehydraulic fracture diagnostic pumping analysis has recently
improved with the use of new analysis techniques such as G-
Function derivative plots, after-closure analysis, and step-rate
tests. This paper analyzes various types and combinations of
step-rate injection tests from many different formations around
the world to determine the usefulness of these tests. The
analysis uses wells with both surface and bottomhole gauge
data, and in some instances, compares the results of the two.
The final results of the stimulation treatments are also
compared to the prefrac analysis. While the results of these
tests provide information on the presence of excess near-
wellbore friction or tortuosity, what is often not taken into
account is that this tortuosity often destroys the usefulness of
these step-rate tests in providing much sought-after data such
as accurate fluid efficiency and closure pressure numbers.
The focus of this paper will be on step-up and step-down
analysis, with the result being a new type of graph that
provides an indepth look at the quality of these tests in any
given well. Often these tests are performed and erroneously
analyzed because of the effects of tortuosity, with the end
result being either the data is ignored or discarded. Techniques
are provided for analyzing these tests and suggestions are
given to improve the results obtained from these tests.

Introduction
Oil and gas wells of different permeabilities and lithologies
often need to be effectively fracture stimulated to provide
operators with sufficient economic return on investment. In an
effort to ensure that a stimulation treatment can be placed,
injection tests or fracture stimulations without proppant or
with minimal amounts of proppant have been employed to test
a formations capacity to receive a treatment and to help
optimize the final treatment design. The design of these
injection tests, usually called minifracs or datafracs is
based on the type of information the operator or stimulation
designer seeks. Information that can be obtained or inferred
from these tests include closure stress or minimum stress,
bounding stresses, fracture geometry, presence of natural
fractures, permeability, leakoff coefficient, fluid efficiency,
pore pressure, fracture gradient, fracture extension pressure,
net pressure, and excess friction.
1-3
Variations that can be
made in these tests include injection rate, fluid type, fluid loss
additives, proppant type, proppant volumes and
concentrations, and finally, combinations of various diagnostic
injections. The order in which these tests are performed can
also have an influence on the outcome of the analysis and final
treatment design.
One such test is the step-up step-rate test. In this test,
injection into a formation is begun at a slow rate for a fixed
amount of time, and the rate is then increased and again held
for the same amount of time. This is repeated in an attempt to
achieve three matrix injection rates and three fracture injection
rates. A graph of rate vs. bottomhole pressure is then made at
the stabilized points, and fracture-extension pressure is
indicated as the point where the pressure breaks over or
large increases in rate provide small increases in bottomhole
treating pressure. As will be discussed, a plot of bottomhole
pressure vs. injection rate provides a myriad of useful
information, provided there is good communication between
the wellbore and the formation. It will also be shown that the
presence of tortuosity virtually destroys this test, and while it
has been proposed that near-wellbore friction can be
mathematically removed from this test, the supplied analysis
demonstrates that this is rarely the case.
Another rate-dependent test is the step-down step-rate
test. It has been proposed and is now generally accepted that
this test can provide a rate dependent friction value for
tortuosity and perforation friction, and can differentiate
between the two. The main requirements of this test are that it
be sufficiently rapid, or sufficiently slow in the case of
formations with very low leakoff, so that the fracture
geometry does not change during the step-down test, and that
a displacement fluid with known friction values or bottomhole
pressure is accurately determined from a live annulus or
bottomhole gauges.
For step-down tests in low-permeability reservoirs it has
been recommended that each rate or step be large enough to
stop fracture growth during the step. It has been proposed that
a period of up to 10% of injection time can be used for this
test. While this may be possible in extremely tight rock, in
virtually all of the examples provided, regardless of how short
or long the steps, it appears that some change in fracture
geometry does occur. These examples indicate that it is also
important that either bottomhole gauge data be used or that a
2 SPE 98098
fluid be used in which the friction numbers are well
understood. Another limit to this test is that tortuosity can vary
based on injection history, which includes the amount of fluid
that has been pumped into the formation, injection rate
variations, and injected proppant volumes (as reported in
literature). Examples provided illustrate this effect.

Step-Up Tests
The most common documented reason to perform a step-up
test is to obtain an upper limit for fracture-closure pressure
(FCP), which is identified as fracture-extension pressure
(FEP). The idea behind this test is that by slowly increasing
the injection rate in steps of equal time, a fracture will initiate
and begin to grow, which will then produce minimal increases
in bottomhole-injection pressure with increasing rate. Often
this test is performed erroneously by extending each rate step
until the pressure stabilizes. Based on the authors
experience, and as described by Nolte,
4
each step should be
for a fixed period of time. By plotting rate vs. pressure, it is
possible to interpolate this point.
5-7
An example of this test and
its analysis are shown in Fig. 1. As shown in this figure, and
for simplicity in this discussion, the first line that runs through
the lower rate points determined before the pressure
breakover, or FEP, is obtained will be designated as the
matrix line. The second line that runs through the points
drawn after the pressure breaks over or levels off will be
referred to as the fracturing line. While not investigated in
this paper, it is conceivable that the slope of the fracturing
line is proportional to the width and height of the hydraulic
fracture.
Once this point is known, maintaining the bottomhole
pressure above the extension pressure helps ensure that the
fracture continues to grow. The injection rate at the FEP is the
minimum rate needed to maintain an open fracture in a given
formation. Field experience indicates that to obtain useful
data, the well must be (1) broken down, and (2) exceptional
communication between the fracture and the wellbore must be
obtained. It may be necessary for an acid job, gel breakdown,
additional perforations, or proppant slugs to be pumped to
allow usable data to be obtained. It is often the case that
tortuosity cannot be removed even with combinations of these
techniques. Step-up tests in wells with good wellbore-to-
fracture communication can provide good estimates of closure
pressure and pore pressure.
A better definition of this plot when it provides usable data
would be fracture reopening pressure because the well
should be broken down before this test. If a step-up test is
the first injection into a well, often the pressure obtained will
not be the fracture extension pressure, but rather the
breakdown pressure. This behavior is not limited to hard rock
fracturing, and has been reported in soft rock, high-
permeability fracturing as well.
8
An initial high-rate injection
with thick fluid is typically needed to overcome the
perforation damage effects, formation of multiple fractures,
drilling induced stresses, or any cement and mud damage.
Failure to sufficiently break down a well can result in the
presence of residual near-wellbore friction or tortuosity that
will cause the fracture extension pressure to be above the
initial shut-in pressure (ISIP) of the injection test or minifrac.
This negates any benefit one might obtain from this test
because the most important information obtained is an upper
limit for closure. To be beneficial, this point should fall
between the ISIP and the closure pressure.
If the extension pressure is above the ISIP, the operator or
stimulation engineer has two options. The first option is to use
the ISIP as the fracture extension pressure and realize that the
well has significant tortuosity effects that may adversely effect
the placement of the treatment. In the second option, steps
could be taken to remove the tortuosity, such as reperforating,
pumping an acid treatment, use crosslinked gel slugs or
proppant slugs and then attempting to repeat the step-rate test
to obtain usable information. The authors have witnessed
numerous treatments around the world in which the FEP was
calculated far in excess of the ISIP of the treatments.
If the FEP obtained from the test is above the ISIP, no
usable data has been obtained from stepping up the rate other
than proof that near-wellbore friction was present in the well.
The decline of this test can be analyzed to produce closure and
net pressure. Fluid efficiency can be estimated, but because
these tests are often performed with fluids other than the
fracture treatment fluid, this value may not be useful.
Errors in analysis of this test are often caused by the use of
different displacement fluids that can vary in density, fluid
loss properties, or frictional properties. Operators focused on
cost reductions often will want to cut corners by mixing
displacement fluids, for example, by switching from the
displacement fluid to the next treatment fluid, using only
crosslinked gels, or underdisplacing the step-rate test to reduce
displacement fluid volumes. Even when real-time bottomhole
pressure is available, all of these shortcuts should be avoided.
All step-rate test (and all injection test) fluids should be (1)
uniform in consistency, viscosity, and density, and (2) filtered
to prevent perforation plugging. While discussing injection
fluids, it is often the case that linear gel will be used to
perform a datafrac or minifrac prior to a crosslinked injection
test. While correlations exist for using the leakoff obtained
from different fluids, these are often field and permeability
specific, and should be avoided when possible.
Another problem often observed, especially in older fields,
is low bottomhole pressure. Accurate analysis using surface
data is virtually impossible as depletion lowers the fracture
gradient. Typically, a well that will go on a vacuum in minutes
indicates that the formation is being fractured with just the
hydrostatic weight of the fluid. Bottomhole gauges can be
invaluable in the analysis of these wells. Care should be used
in this type of analysis because once the fluid level begins to
fall below the surface (the well goes on a vacuum), there will
be flow into the formation that may require specialized
analysis.

Step-Down Tests
Step-down tests are designed to determine the presence of
near-wellbore friction and to allow this friction to be divided
into a tortuosity value and a perforation value.
9
An example of
this type of test is shown in Fig. 2. While any sudden drop of
bottomhole pressure from a corresponding drop in the
injection rate indicates excess near-wellbore friction, this test
is designed to allow the tortuosity value and the perforation
friction value to be separated so that a specific remedial action
can be taken to help ensure a successful stimulation treatment
SPE 98098 3
placement. Equations 1 and 2 are used to differentiate between
perforation friction and tortuosity. A well with no near-
wellbore or perforation friction would appear as a straight line
on the X-axis; at all rates, the excess friction would be zero.

P
perf
=C*Q
2
....................................................................... (1)

P
tortuosity
=C*Q
1/2
............................................................... (2)

The most important characteristic of this test is that the
fracture geometry not change during the test. In other words,
the fracture should have neither significant growth, nor loss of
length or height, during the rate stepdown. In many instances,
this cardinal rule is violated. Changes in geometry often affect
the net pressure in the fracture and subsequently the pressures
used in the step-down calculations. High permeability or
depleted formations will need small, rapid steps. Micro-Darcy
formations may need up to 10% of the injection time for
fracture growth to stop. Another important consideration is
that the well have either (1) only one fluid with known friction
and hydrostatic properties during the test, or (2) a bottomhole
pressure gauge.
An example of a poorly designed step-down test is shown
in Fig. 3. In this example, the injection rate was stepped down
seven times, taking almost 5 minutes to complete. A net-
pressure match was made of this test using a popular fracture
modeling software. The stresses were adjusted to the values
obtained from both the step-rate test and the minifrac. When
the final match was run for the step-rate test, results indicated
that both the length and height changed by at least 30% during
the test (Fig. 4). In Fig. 4, fracture dimensions are plotted vs.
time along with bottomhole pressure and injection rate. This
reduction in fracture geometry would also cause the net
pressure or pressure inside the fracture to fall, which would
appear as additional friction in the step-down analysis. The
match indicated that the net pressure in the fracture fell from
approximately 600 psi to less than 200 psi during the step-
down test.
To improve the step-down test results from this high-
permeability oilwell, fewer steps of less duration would have
helped. A simple prejob model, using any fracture simulator,
would have shown that there were too many steps in a
duration that was too long. It would also have been beneficial
to use a more efficient fluid, such as the fracturing fluid. The
use of bottomhole pressure gauges would also have been
extremely valuable in this analysis because this was a 15,000-
ft well with 3.5-in. tubing.

Surface vs. Bottomhole Pressure
Fig. 5 compares a job in which a bottomhole gauge was run to
within 40 ft of the perforations and a separate step-rate test
was followed by a minifrac that incorporated a proppant slug
and a step-down test. A chart of the breakdown, step-rate test
and minifrac is shown in Fig. 6. A hard or high-rate
breakdown was used because this technique is often used to
reduce near-wellbore friction or tortuosity. As shown, there is
insignificant difference when comparing the two treatments.
In this example, the lower- and higher-rate steps have good
agreement, while the mid-range rates have the most error. As
can be seen, to ensure proper analysis, it is critical to use
bottomhole gauges and/or a fluid with well-understood friction
properties.
The step-down test was also analyzed for near-wellbore
friction using both surface and bottomhole data. The resulting
friction using the two data sets was within 50 psi. The total
friction was calculated at 1,478 psi, of which 1,122 psi was
perforation friction. Because of the high perforation friction,
the top 10 ft of the zone of the previously perforated 60-ft
zone of interest was reperforated and the minifrac repeated.
The fluid used in this second minifrac contained 25 lb/Mgal of
100-mesh sand to help reduce the near-wellbore friction. The
results seen in Fig. 7 show that 1,000 psi of near-wellbore
friction remained. This result is clearly indicated by the abrupt
pressure drop in the bottomhole gauge pressure when the
pumping is stopped. Because no step-down test was
performed, it is difficult to determine whether the 100-mesh
sand or the reperforating was more beneficial.
An alternative to using bottomhole-gauge pressure has
been proposed. The idea is to take an ISIP or instantaneous
shut-in pressure at the end of each rate in a step-up test. This
ISIP would then be converted to bottomhole pressure by the
addition of hydrostatic pressure and then analyzed, typically
by being plotted vs. the injection rate just before the ISIP is
taken. A surface chart of this method is shown in Fig. 8 and
the analysis is shown in Fig. 9. It appears that this method is
viable; however, it can be difficult to select an ISIP, especially
if the presence of near-wellbore friction dampens the pressure
response (as in this case). The method is also very rough on
the equipment and tubulars, especially in high-treating
pressure areas, and requires a very experienced crew to
repeatedly achieve the rapid injection rate stops and starts.
In the analysis shown in Fig. 9, the last two points appear
to fall away from the fracture length trend. This may be
caused by (1) the shut-in times allowing the previous fluid
volumes to leak off, or (2) the selection of ISIPs that were not
precise. It is possible that longer stages are needed at the
higher rates using this type of analysis. Interestingly, the same
trend was observed and identical results were obtained using
the calculated bottomhole pressure.

Combined Step-Rate Test Analysis
In analyzing many of these different types of tests, it became
apparent that a very useful tool for diagnostic pumping could
be made by combining the step-up, step-rate test with a step-
down, step-rate test. The analysis of the two could then be
plotted on a single graph and a clear picture could be
instantaneously obtained on the quality of the tests. In a well
with no near-wellbore friction, the pressures obtained from
diagnostic pumping should fall into the following order:
breakdown > ISIP > fracture extension > closure > pseudo
radial > reservoir. This pressure sequence should occur in all
injection test analyses. Diagnostic tests that do not follow this
order would indicate problems with the near-wellbore area or
pipe friction. A conceptual drawing of this analysis is shown
in Fig. 10. Using this graphical method, the ISIP and fracture
extension pressure would be obtained directly. The breakdown
pressure would have to be obtained from a previous injection.
The closure pressure and pseudo-radial pressure would have to
be obtained from traditional falloff analysis, and the reservoir
4 SPE 98098
pressure would have to come from a Horner analysis or
previous reservoir test.
With the extension pressure above the closure and below
the ISIP, it provides an upper limit for closure. Any wiggles,
squiggles, inflections, or bends that would fall between the
ISIP and the fracture extension pressure can then be omitted
when selecting the fracture closure pressure. Closure will
always be below the extension pressure. Obtaining the correct
closure pressure is the key to determining fluid efficiency and
minimum stress for fracture modeling.
A good example of an actual job with a combined step-up
and step-down step-rate test is shown in Fig. 11. This
carbonate formation was broken down with a small acid
treatment before starting this test. Only surface data was
available, and the test was performed using 20 lb/Mgal linear
gel. At the beginning of the test, it can be seen in Fig. 12 that
the early injection steps do not fall on the straight-line portion
of the matrix line. This is caused by a previous breakdown
injection, which left the near-wellbore region super-charged
with the wellbore fluids. Even with the effects of the previous
injection, the test was successful.
In Fig. 12, data points from the analysis not only fall in the
correct order, but when the matrix line is drawn through the
points before fracture extension and is extrapolated to zero
rate, they intersect at approximately the reservoir pressure.
10
In
early use of step-rate tests in water injection wells, the matrix
line was always drawn through the reservoir pressure. If this
method is used in an area where the reservoir pressure is not
known, the test provides an upper limit for the reservoir
pressure. Likewise, when the line drawn through the points
after the FEP or the fracturing line are extrapolated to zero
rate, they intersect at the closure pressure as selected from
decline curve analysis. These two checks provide an excellent
quick look at the quality of the test. To provide a complete
analysis, additional points should be added to the graph such
as breakdown pressure, the step-up and step-down rates and
pressures, treatment ISIP, FEP, closure pressure, pseudo-radial
pressure, and reservoir pressure.
An example of potential problems with the data is shown
in Fig. 13. In this example, the FEP is above the ISIP. This is
most likely caused by near-wellbore friction or perforation
friction. This type of response is often seen in wells that have
not been previously broken down. Ideally, all the step-down
points would be above the step-up analysis and form a straight
line parallel to the X-axis, as seen in Fig. 12.

Fixing Step-Up Tests with Step-Down Data
There have been attempts to fix or remove the near-wellbore
friction from these tests by using the step-down data to adjust
the pressures in the step-up data. The correction is simple and
logical. The bottomhole or calculated bottomhole step-down
pressure is plotted vs. injection rate. As previously discussed,
if there were no near-wellbore friction, all the points would
fall on the X-axis. A best-fit line is drawn through the points,
and the excess friction at any given injection rate can then be
read directly from the graph. An example of the graphical
analysis of a step-down test with a best-fit line is shown in
Fig. 14. The excess friction would then be subtracted from
each point in a step-up step-rate test. In theory, this idea to
correct the step-up test using step-down results seems
plausible and should provide improved results.
This method of repairing or fixing step-rate tests was
attempted in over 50 Middle East wells. In each case, the
correction appears excessive in the higher rate region, which
causes the fracturing line to have a negative slope. This would
indicate that net pressure is dropping, an indication that the
fracture is getting smaller with increasing rate. An example of
this effect is shown in Fig. 15 in which both the corrected and
uncorrected step-rate values from an actual test are plotted.
Obviously, the fractures do not usually become smaller with
increasing rate. The most likely reason for this pressure
response is that the near-wellbore region has changed between
the step-up and step-down tests. Changing fracture geometry
from a test that exhibited too long, too short, or erroneous
friction pressure could also adversely affect this test.
Taking an ISIP after each rate has been proposed as a
method to eliminate any friction effects, both near-wellbore
and tubular. As discussed, this method introduces its own
limitations:
It may be difficult to obtain a good ISIP in cases with
severe near-wellbore friction.
Geometry changes may be severe.
Mechanical difficulties are inherent in this type of test.

Combining Different Injection Tests
Because it appears that tortuosity and near-wellbore friction
are dependent on injection history, combining the results from
different injections would not appear to be a good idea. Fig.
16 shows an example in which a KCl water step-rate test and a
step-down test from a minifrac are plotted together and appear
to provide useful data. In this instance, the well had very high
near-wellbore friction; as shown, the ISIP of the step-down
test is more than 1,000 psi below the fracture extension
pressure. This graph is made with bottomhole gauge pressure.
Also, note the highly negative inclination of the step-down
test, which is another indication of near-wellbore friction. In
this case, a conservative propped-fracture treatment was
successfully placed, leading off with large early stages of low
proppant concentration to help erode or clean up the near
wellbore region.
The authors do not have sufficient case histories to
determine whether combining different injections into a single
analysis would provide the most useful information to use a
single step-up and step-down for this analysis. The case
provided indicates that different injections can be used. High
near-wellbore friction, if present in one test and eliminated in
another test, could complicate the analysis.

Additional Examples
A good case for use of the graphs presented is shown in Fig.
17. In this case, the well was displaced from gas to water,
broken down, a step-rate test was performed with both a step-
up and step-down test, and the well was then treated with a
large acid-fracture treatment at rates of up to 70 bbl/min. A
second step-rate test was then pumped, and finally, the well
was treated with a closed-fracture acidizing treatment.
11
The
second step-rate test was performed to compare results to the
first test and determine what effects the acid-fracture treatment
SPE 98098 5
may have had on formation properties such as FEP and
closure. Determining closure pressure is important in these
wells because it is used to establish the injection rate of the
closed-fracture acidizing treatment.
The typical step-rate test analyses for the two tests are
shown in Figs. 18 and 19. These figures show how the tests
would be analyzed by simply drawing a best-fit line through
the matrix injection rates to obtain the matrix line, and then
doing the same after the breakover for the fracturing line. In
these analyses, no attempt was made to place the matrix line
through the reservoir pressure at zero rate. If the reservoir
pressure was not known, this method would provide an upper
limit of about 8,000 psi. A FEP of 12,400 psi is obtained.
Notice in Fig. 19 that it is virtually impossible to determine
the FEP or whether the well was even fractured because it
appears that virtually all the points fall along the matrix line.
Figs. 20 and 21 show the same two tests with the first line
or matrix line drawn through the reservoir pressure. In this
case, the pressure was known from offset well information. A
FEP of 12,100 psi is observed, which would have lowered the
horsepower requirements for the acid-fracturing treatment. In
Fig. 20, the effect of even the small volume of fluid used to
break down the formation can be seen from the first injection
points that fall above the matrix line. The analysis provides the
fracture extension rate of 6 bbl/min at this time. Extrapolating
the fracturing line gives a closure of ~11,100 psi.
Once the matrix line in Fig. 21 is drawn through the
reservoir pressure, the analysis becomes clear. The effect of
the 110,000-gal acid fracture treatment is easily seen. The
graphical analysis of Fig. 21 gives a FEP of ~12,100 psi,
exactly as observed in the pretreatment, step-rate analysis. The
fracture extension rate increased significantly to 48 bbl/min.
The closure, which is in good agreement with the prejob step-
rate test and the minifrac, is again 11,100 psi. Even with the
large amount of reactive fluids used in these tests, the closure
and FEP remained virtually the same. The step-down test rates
fall off, indicating either near-wellbore friction or high fluid
leakoff. Because of the large acid-fracture treatment placed in
this well, it is most likely the result of high leakoff to the
stimulated interval. Both step-rate tests were pumped using
only KCl water.
The advantages of the step-up and step-down test
combined with correct analysis provides a wealth of
information about the formation and the effectiveness of the
stimulation treatment.

Conclusions
A plot has been developed that graphically demonstrates the
quality of a step-rate test and diagnoses the presence of near-
wellbore friction. The use of this graph indicates when a step-
rate test would need to be repeated because of an erroneous
FEP caused by near-wellbore friction.
When there is limited near-wellbore friction and no large
injections in front of a test, step-rate tests can provide a great
amount of information about the reservoir, including reservoir
pressure and closure pressure.
Matrix lines should always be drawn through the reservoir
pressure, if known. If the reservoir pressure is not known,
extrapolation of the matrix line to zero rate will provide an
upper limit to the reservoir pressure.
Fracturing lines extrapolated to zero rate approximate the
closure pressure in wells with low near-wellbore friction.
Analysis indicates that injection tends to reduce the near-
wellbore friction that could complicate the combination of
injections performed at different times to make a graphical
analysis.
Most step-down tests are performed too slowly, allowing
fracture geometry and net pressure to change. A fracture
simulator can be used to model a treatment and provide limits
to stage lengths and rates.
Trying to correct step-up, step-rate tests for near-wellbore
friction using step-down tests has not been successful.
While bottomhole pressure data is preferred, in most cases
valuable analysis was obtained from surface data. Good
friction correlations are essential for these tests to work.
Linear estimates of near-wellbore friction from an ISIP
without stepping down the rate provide the total near-wellbore
friction. This may be a more accurate test because the effects
of fluid leakoff and geometry change are limited. However,
the friction cannot be separated into its near-wellbore and
perforation components.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of Saudi
Aramco and Halliburton for permission to write this paper.

References
1. Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A.: Diagnostic Techniques
to Understand Hydraulic Fracturing: What? Why? and
How? SPE 75359, SPE Production and Facilities
(February 2002), 2335.
2. Barree, R.D., Fisher, M.K. and Woodroof: A Practical
Guide to Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Technologies,
paper SPE 77442, presented at the 2002 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
29 Sept2 Oct.
3. Thompson, J.W. and Church, D.C.: Design, Execution,
and Evaluation of Minifracs in the Field: A Practical
Approach and Case Study, paper SPE 26034 presented at
the 1993 Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska,
2628 May.
4. Nolte, K.G.: Fracture Design Considerations Based on
Pressure Analysis, paper SPE 10911 presented at the
1982 SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, Tyler, TX, 20 May.
5. Felsenthal, M. and Ferrell, H.H.: Fracturing Gradient in
Waterfloods of Low-Permeability, Partially Depleted
Zones, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (June, 1971),
727-730.
6. Felsenthal, M.: Step Rate Tests Define Safe Injection
Pressures in Floods, Oil and Gas Journal (Oct. 28, 1974)
49-54.
7. Reservoir Stimulation, second edition, Economides, M.J.
and Nolte, K.G., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey (1991).
8. Stewart, B.R., Mullen, M.E., Brown, J.E. and Norman,
W.D.: Step-Rate, Calibration Injection and Treating
Pressure Anomalies in Soft Rock High Permeability
Formations: An Explanation Based on Bottom Hole
Pressure and Production Results, paper SPE 29444
6 SPE 98098
presented at the 1995 Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24 April.
9. Wright, C.A.: On-Site Step-Down Analysis Diagnoses
Problems and Improves Fracture Treatment Success,
Harts Petroleum Engineer International (January 1977).
10. Dozier, G.C. and Sutton, T.W.: Real-Time Pressure
Diagnostics Used to Improve Pretreatment Frac Design:
Case Studies in the Antrim Shale, SPE Production and
Facilities (February 2000), 20-26.
11. Fredrickson, S.E.: Stimulating Carbonate Formations
Using a Closed Fracture Acidizing Technique, paper
SPE 14654 presented at the 1986 East Texas Regional
Meeting, Tyler, TX, April 21-22.

Nomenclature

P
perf
= perforation friction, psi
C = constant
Q = rate, bpm
P
tortuosity
= tortuosity friction, psi
SPE 98098 7


Fig. 1Example of typical step-rate test on left and analysis on right.







Fig. 2Example test on left and generalized analysis of a step-down test shown on the right.



8 SPE 98098


Fig. 3Poorly designed step-rate test surface and bottomhole pressure responses.





Fig. 4Fracture geometry modeling of a step-up/step-down test. Notice that the fracture geometry significantly changes during the step-
down test, losing a third of its length and height.



SPE 98098 9


Fig. 5Step-rate test analysis comparing surface vs. bottomhole gauge data.





Fig. 6Step-up and step-down tests using bottomhole gauge data.



10 SPE 98098


Fig. 7Second minifrac of the above well after reperforating. The 1,000-psi pressure drop in the bottomhole gauge pressure is remaining
near-wellbore or perforation friction.





Fig. 8Taking an ISIP at the end of each rate has been proposed as an alternative step-rate test to eliminate near-wellbore friction and the
need for bottomhole pressure gauges.




SPE 98098 11


Fig. 9Analysis of the step-rate test shown in Fig. 8, using the ISIPs for the analysis.





Fig. 10Analysis of a combined step-up and step-down test with no near-wellbore friction.




12 SPE 98098


Fig. 11Combined step-up and step-down test.






Fig. 12Analysis of the actual treatment shown in Fig. 11, a combined step-up and step-down test with no near-wellbore friction.




SPE 98098 13


Fig. 13Example step-rate test where ISIP falls below fracture extension pressure due to tortuosity effects. Note how the extrapolated
fracturing line would indicate that the fracture closure is also above the ISIP.





Fig. 14Graph and best fit line equation to be used to remove tortuosity effects from step-rate test.




14 SPE 98098


Fig. 15Step-rate test as shown in Fig. 13 with a corrected set of data points. When corrected for tortuosity, the bottomhole pressure falls
with increasing rate as seen in the fracturing line.





Fig. 16KCl water step-up step-rate test plotted with a step-down test from a crosslinked gel minifrac in red.



SPE 98098 15


Fig. 17Acid fracture treatment with pre and post job step-rate tests.





Fig. 18Initial analysis of first step-up and step-down test.


16 SPE 98098


Fig. 19Initial analysis of second step-up and step-down test. Without placing the matrix line through the reservoir pressure, it appears that
the zone did not fracture even at rates above 60 bbl/min.




Fig. 20Revised analysis of first step-rate test using known reservoir pressure as first point in matrix injection rate line.




SPE 98098 17


Fig. 21Revised analysis of second step-rate test using known reservoir pressure as first point in matrix injection rate line. Excellent
agreement is now obtained between the fracture extension pressures in the pre- and post-treatment tests.