Guidelines for Step Rate Testing

This document has been reviewed by Sponsors, revised and is considered to be final.
If future additions or modifications are made, all parties will be notified.

Introduction
A step rate injectivity test is normally used to estimate the transition from matrix (or pseudomatrix - a fracture may already be present but the bulk of the flow is radial) flow to fracturedominated injection, according to a change in slope of a plot of pressure versus rate. Step rate
testing allows for determination of when a new hydraulic fracture occurs and/or when a preexisting fracture opens/propagates.
Step rate testing allows for determining when a fracture will propagate and when a preexisting fracture will reopen. It can be run after a conventional falloff or a final falloff segment
can be used in the test. Repeated falloff testing can also be used to assess if a reservoir has
been altered by thermal changes in in-situ stresses or changes in kh associated with thermal
effects.
Injection is carried out at a number of rates below fracturing pressure. At each rate injection
continues until stabilization appears to occur. The injection operations are continued after
indications of fracture opening/propagation. The opening pressure is inferred from a significant
change in slope of a plot of bottomhole pressure versus injection rate. Figure 1 is an example.

Figure 1. Step rate test on Magnus C7.

Generic Procedures
1. If possible, have a reasonable conception of what the in-situ stresses are so that the
step rate test can be appropriately designed. Be certain that there will be adequate data
points before breakdown or reopening of the fracture.

2. Under any circumstances, have an approximation of the conversion between surface

and bottomhole treating pressure. In addition to determining in-situ stress levels, this
can be useful for evaluating the completion efficiency.
3. Under certain, restricted circumstances onshore, dead string calibration may be possible
if the backside has enough integrity.
4. If reasonable, obtain bottomhole pressure measurements. If bottomhole data are being
acquired, tandem gauges are a reasonable option. Have continuous surface readout
under any circumstances. This is a particular issue if some of the injection is on
vacuum. Some operators will not opt for tandem gauges if the supplier is reliable, if
past history shows few failures and if the cost of failure is minimal.
5. Check and calibrate all rate meters prior to testing.
6. Be certain there is enough water on location.
7. Use uniform rates and time steps! This will be demonstrated in the section on multi-rate
analysis. Record pressure and time and provide the analyst with this information.
8. Ensure that there is appropriate equipment available to fracture the well initially. If
breakdown is required, mud or cement pumps are often used. Be reasonably certain of
what will happen during the fracturing operation or use the test to make an inference of
this. Can the injection interval accept the required rates? If not, out-of-zone fracture
growth can occur.
9. It has been recommended that each time step is one hour long to ensure that the
radius of investigation is large enough. Obviously, this may not always be practical.
Either shorter times are called for because of economic or operational limitations or
substantially longer times are required to allow for thermal stabilization. At a minimum,
consider these issues before the test. Earlougher states that "in relatively low
permeability formations (k < 5 md), each injection should last for one hour; 30-minute
injection times are adequate for formations with permeability exceeding 10 md."
10. Attempt to obtain at least three readings above and three readings below the "parting"
pressure.
11. Ensure that the pressure and rate gauges are calibrated and will accommodate the
largest anticipated pressures.
12. Fracture gradient can be dependent on the average reservoir pressure. Is there an
independent measurement of the reservoir pressure (temporal) or can a measurement
be made in conjunction with the test?
13. After the rate increasing segment, two approaches are possible. The first is to back
down on the rates to assess if the cement has been damaged. Alternatively, some
specialists prefer a long falloff after the last rate because it can be analyzed to get
fracture properties (dimensions). Deterioration of the cement bond can be a cause of
altered step rate signatures or a risk to the injection process if there are multiple zones
and/or aquifers.
14. Compile all data to determine if there is a consistent relationship between apparent insitu stress and reservoir pressure.
15. Where possible, combine falloff testing with the measurements, as described in item 13,
above.
Where Possible, Falloff Should Be An Integral Part Of Step Rate Testing.

How Can You Be Fooled?

The signature on the pressure-rate curve can be anomalous if there are reservoir variations or
mechanical failure occurs during the testing. For example:
Different fluid loss. If the fracture grows out of zone into a different fluid loss regime, the
slope of the post fracturing curve can vary and may not be constant. If step rate data from
different tests are being compared, recognize that the slopes can be different if the water
quality is different. This is shown in Figure 2. Some people only show the fracturing behavior

changing (not behavior during radial flow - matrix injection). Strictly, this is not true. Slight
changes can also be seen in the portion of the curve before fracture opening/reopening.
Recognize that slope changes can be associated with different fluid characteristics.

Figure 2. A schematic variation (conceptual data) of how pressure signatures can

vary for different water qualities (after Murray). The slopes, after fracturing occurs,
is dependent on the fluid loss. With decreasing water quality, there is reduced fluid
loss, but there is additional fracture growth.
Different fracture geometry. As a note of caution, this behavior is contingent on a fracture
that is contained within one zone. Much more complex behavior can occur if out-of-zone
growth occurs. If the fracture grows out-of-zone dramatically, the excess pressure may
decrease because of the growth more than the change in pressure due to friction in the
fracture. A negative slope may appear in the post-fracturing regime. This is illustrated
schematically in Figure 3. The negative slope can be related to growth into a higher
permeability zone, rapid out-of-zone growth, etc. Eventually, depending on the degree of
particle plugging at the tip and on the surface of the fracture, the post-fracturing slope may
change strictly due to changes in efficiency.
Possibly different perforation friction and completion efficiency. If at all possible,
bottomhole pressures should be used. For example, in a layered situation, one zone may
fracture and the conformance can be changed completely. Or, the pressure drop through the
perforations may be different than what you have anticipated (refer to Friction).
Damaged cement bond. The inflection point can indicate failure of the cement sheath. It has
been speculated that it may be possible to diagnose this if rates are reduced during the test
(step-down after the highest rate of injection). Injectivity will apparently remain high (along
the second slope) even at rates below the original inflection point. The argument against this
philosophy is that if the original perforations covered the entire height, there should not be
additional injectivity once a fracture closes. If the test was through a partial set of perforations,
the stepdown should be on a slope that corresponds to a new kh. Considering these
arguments, another reason for the increased injectivity below the original inflection point
(during stepdown - reduction in rate) may be residual fracture conductivity.

Falloff behavior - it may be a toss up between doing a stepdown and a falloff test. Falloff could
be important. It is very off dominated by the reservoir (short fracture closure time and gives
data about stress-dependent permeability and residual permeability enhancement.
A good compromise, if possible, may be to combine both techniques - step up in rates,
followed by a step down cycle (the step down procedure may provide indications of whether or
not there has been fracture growth out-of-zone, etc.), followed by stepping back up and a
falloff. This may be the premium procedure and modifications may be required because of
operational constraints and available time.
Packer bypass. Determining the potential for exceeding the differential pressure limits of
isolation devices (if any) depends on the configuration. It may be possible to monitor backside
pressure or have a bomb below the lower packer (if used in a straddle configuration).
Open/pre-existing fracture. Ideally, the pressure time plot for a step-rate test would look
like that shown in Figure 4. However, if there is a pre-existing fracture, it will always have
conductivity, even at pressures below the reopening pressure. This is particularly true if it is
self-propped (jammed open) or if we are testing a converted production well that has been
conventionally stimulated. Under these circumstances, inflection may not be seen or there may
be a slight curvature followed by a straight line linear or bilinear flow regime. To detect linear
and bilinear flow regimes, log-log pressure-time plotting may be helpful. Examples of behavior
for a pre-existing, closed and a pre-existing, self-propped fracture are shown in Figures 5 and
6.
Settari and Warren (Eurorock, 1994) schematically summarized the influence of a pre-existing
fracture (or at the opposite extreme, positive skin) on the step rate test signature. This is
shown in Figure 7.
Transient Effects. Depending on the volumes injected, thermal effects can come into play,
either due to viscosity changes or in-situ stress changes. In conjunction with this, it is
extremely important to incorporate any changes in reservoir pressure if you are comparing SRT
data taken at different times in the injection life cycle.
Different Stress Levels. In comparing consecutive step-rate test programs, be certain that
you are aware of any stress field alterations that have occurred due to poroelastic and/or
thermoelastic effects. Measured differences can in fact be diagnostic of the stress changes
associated with temperature fluctuations. Figure 8 is an example. It is not a step rate test per
se. Rather it is a compilation of rate versus injection data for an actual field situation.

Figure 3. A schematic (conceptual data) indicating how pressure and rate may be
affected by out-of-zone growth.

Figure 4.

An idealized, readily-interpretable step-rate test. This is conceptual data.

Figure 5.
fracture.

An idealization of a closed (but still conductive) pre-existing hydraulic

Figure 6. An idealization (conceptual data) of a self-propped, pre-existing hydraulic

fracture.

Figure 7. An idealization of the influence of fracture conductivity on step rate test

signatures (presuming propped, unpropped and damaged fractures).

Figure 8. This figure shows step rates for Forties Alpha FA5-3. The PW points lie on
a steeper line than the SW points. If water quality effects were small then mobility
effects would be expected to make the PW line shallower. A Prudhoe Bay
performance plot shows the reverse trend to Forties. It therefore appears that the
high oil and solids content in Forties PW reduces injectivity dramatically. The effect
appears to be larger than in Prudhoe Bay and this may be the result of higher
contaminant concentrations and larger particle sizes.

Martins et al., 1994, discussed thermoelastic effects at Prudhoe Bay:

"The pressure required to open an induced fracture depends both on the initial stresses in the
rock and on stress changes induced by injection at different temperature and pressure. It has
been known since early step-rate tests that produced water has a higher fracture gradient
(0.57 - 0.60 psi/ft) than seawater (0.53 - 0.54 psi/ft) [gradient values are for Prudhoe Bay].
This was linked to the higher well-head temperature of produced water (150F versus 80F).
Most Prudhoe Bay injectors have alternated periods of seawater and produced water injection
over the subsequent 10 years. It is found almost without exception that injectivity is poorer for
produced water than for seawater, typically by 30-50%."
"[Injection data for Well H-09I are available on a day-to-day basis.] The well has switched 6
times between SWI and PWRI over a 7 year period. The points corresponding to SWI lie
approximately on a straight line which intersects the pressure axis at about 100 psi WHP. The
intersection of the straight line with the pressure axis is a good measure of the fractureopening pressure, since step-rate tests indicate very low rates (typically less than 1000
bbl/day) beneath fracture pressure. The points corresponding to produced water injection lie
on a different straight line, intersecting the pressure axis at about 900 psi. Produced water
typically requires 500 psi greater pressure than seawater, in order to inject at the same rate."
"These general features are reflected in data collected from across the field. There are
variations of up to a few hundred psi in the values of fracture pressure (and substantial
variations in rate, depending on permeability, intervals of perforation and other factors), but
the comparison between seawater and produced water follows a common pattern."
"The factors which can cause a difference in performance are water temperature (70F warmer
for produced water), viscosity (about a factor of 2 lower for produced water, which would
therefore double the rate if all other factors were equal) and water quality. The dominant factor
we believe to be temperature, because of thermoelastic stress. It appears that fractures are
often likely to be shorter in length for produced water injection, in spite of the higher
pressure."
There is a substantial amount of other data available that indicates the influence of
temperature on the injection pressure. One particularly good example is from the Eider pilot
program (Figures 9 and 10). Figure 9 plot raises certain unanswered issues. These include is
there a methodology for fitting both sections of the curve. If measurements are accurately
performed, the value of each point is significant and reflects specific occurrences in the
reservoir. If friction is reliably considered, the curves should be forced through the origin on a
plot of this nature where the y-axis is the bottomhole pressure (measured in this case) minus
the reservoir pressure. This is one of the difficulties of the plot shown in Figure 1. Ideally,
pressure differential plots should pass through the origin if the reservoir pressure and friction
are known appropriately.
For more information on changes in stress due to thermal and pore pressure changes:

Finally, Figure 11 demonstrates that the concepts of step rate testing can be used for
evaluating long-term injection data (day by day plots of pressure versus rate) to evaluate
changes in stress levels and conformance.

Figure 9. These data, from a well-controlled and monitored pilot in the Shell Eider
field, show the variation of measured stress levels with temperature. The lines are all
approximately parallel, indicating consistency in the quality of the injected water (or
insensitivity). The inferred local in-situ total stresses, as a function of temperature,
are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Excess pressure at the inflection for each temperature regime shown in
Figure 9. This clearly shows the thermoelastic elevation in the local total in-situ
stress as a function of temperature.

Figure 11. Long-term variation of wellhead pressure and injection rate, showing the
influence of temperature and quality. These are actual field data.

Data Analysis
1. The simplest, and least desirable, method of analysis is to plot surface pressures at the
end of each step versus injection rate (Figures 12 and 13). Figure 13 highlights the
difficulties in ready interpretation of surface data alone.
2. It is preferable to use measured or inferred bottomhole pressure data in these plots
(Figure 14). The bottomhole pressure in Figure 14 was calculated. Presuming that the
calculations are reasonable, delineation of the fracture opening/reopening pressure is
improved. Measured bottomhole pressure and temperature are even more desirable,
depending on the particular situation (operational and economic considerations).
3. It is also desirable to consider this as a multi-rate test and to process the data
accordingly. The procedures for this are described below.

Multi-Rate Testing Analysis

1. Figure 15 shows a generic representation of flow and time behavior during a step rate
test.
2. A step-wise approximation is used.

Figure 12. Plot of surface pressure versus rate for an actual step rate test. The
bottomhole pressure was estimated, accounting for the hydrostatic head and
frictional effects.

Figure 13.
Plot of surface pressure versus rate for an actual step rate test,
emphasizing the difficulties in picking inflection points, or multiple mechanisms
occurring (such as reopening a pre-existing fracture, more than one fracture
opening, etc.).

Figure 14. Plot of inferred bottomhole pressure versus rate for an actual step rate
test. Some of the difficulties in picking an inflection point may be overcome by these
methods. The difficulty (as evident from the one outlier) is the assumptions used for
calculating frictional pressure drops.

The premise is that multiple-rate transient data should appear as a straight line when plotted
as:

These plots will not be done properly unless the analyst understands the meaning of the
variables. The rate corresponding to each plotted pressure point is q n. This is the last rate
when that pressure point was measured. As time increases, the number of rates may increase
and the last rate may change; but each pressure point is identified with the rate occurring
when that pressure was measured. There may be several pressure points associated with a
given rate. This technique can help clarify inflection points. Furthermore, skin and permeability
can be estimated. To understand the importance of using this technique, it can be envisioned
that it accounts for changes in pressure conditions due to the injection that has preceded any
particular stage.

The units in all of the equations used for these analyses are:
k

absolute permeability (md),

formation volume factor (RB/STB),

viscosity (cP),
m'

slope of multi-rate plot (psi/STBPD/cycle),

formation thickness (feet),

b'

intercept of multi-rate plot (psi/STBD),

p porosity (fractional),
ct total system compressibility (psi-1), and,
rw wellbore radius (feet).

Figure 15.
A schematic representation of a step-rate test. The nomenclature
indicates the parameters to be used in multi-rate test analyses.

Examples
Figure 16 shows an example data set. There is an inflection point at a surface pressure of
1,000 psi. For illustrative purposes, assuming no friction, a depth of 7260 feet and a fluid
pressure gradient of 0.433 psi/ft, 1000 psi gives an estimated fracture opening/reopening
pressure gradient of 0.57 psi/ft. The data can be further analysed for formation properties
using multi-rate analysis methods. This is shown in Figure 17. The first four points fall on one
curve, indicating pseudo-radial flow.

In Figure 17, the higher rate points do not fall on a straight line because the assumptions of
radial, infinite acting flow are no longer satisfied, since fracturing has occurred.

Figure 16. An example step-rate analysis (reported in Earlougher, 1977, and

originally from Felsenthal, 1974). The multi-rate plot for these data is shown in
Figure 17.
An Excel file (for the foregoing example) is attached (click button below), indicating how multirate analyses are carried out.

Figure 17. Multi-rate analysis for the data set shown in Figure 16.
Figures 18 and 19 show rate and processed step-rate data from PCP Rosemary 16-07-2216W4. Only surface data were used in this evaluation. No information was available on the
times for each injection stage. A parametric variation in times was implemented. Three cases
are shown. The first is for arbitrary equal times. There is no consistent or interpretable
behavior. The pressure data are not clarified at all and it is still difficult to infer a fracture
opening pressure. This may have been the real situation and there could have been a gradual
transition from radial to linear or bilinear (fractured) behavior. Or, possibly the time steps
became shorter for each subsequent injection stage. An arbitrary example is shown by the red
circles in Figure 19. Two straight lines can be delineated, indicating a surface fracture opening
pressure of 6.03 MPa. Finally, another situation is arbitrarily assumed. The first three stages
were taken to be at relatively long injection times and all following stages were short. This
gives a dramatically different signature that is relatively meaningless. If injection times were
available, some of the uncertainty in this data set could be removed (i.e., in Figure 18, can a
discreet fracture opening/reopening pressure be determined by processing the data and
accounting for previous response in the reservoir?). Figure 19 shows that, incorporating time
effects and being consistent in the performance of each injection cycle could make a significant
difference in interpretation of the data. Time information is not available for this case, so no
improved interpretation is possible. The example is shown strictly to indicate the importance of
accounting for duration of each injection stage.
This is not an academic exercise. It is intended to demonstrate:
1. It is desirable to use equal injection time periods.
2. If this is not done, at least record the time at which pressure stabilization occurred and
preferably record, pressure-time data (at the very least at the surface) in detail.
3. Otherwise, meaningful and quality-controlled interpretation may not be possible.

Figure 18. Raw, surface step-rate data from PCP Rosemary 16-07-22-16W4. It is
difficult to determine a distinct reopening pressure - either because of frictional
effects, variable injection time effects, reopening of a conductive fracture or even
more complicated fracture growth behavior. Multi-rate analysis can help to remove
some of the uncertainty.

Figure 19. Arbitrary processing of surface step-rate data from PCP Rosemary 16-0722-16W4, showing the influence of different injection stage times. The
recommendation is that uniform time steps should be used and that multi-rate
evaluations are important for discriminating behavior.

More Rigorous Evaluation of SRTs

SRT data actually contains much more information than what is used in the techniques
described above, both about reservoir and fracture properties. However, to access this
information it is necessary to:
1. Record data continuously at a reasonably high frequency,
2. Include a long falloff after the last stage, and,
3. Analyze the data by simulation rather than by graphical means.

Analysis Below Fracture Opening Pressure

Each step below the fracture initiation/opening/reopening pressure is a transient event. There
is a large slope initially and a small slope at the end of a constant rate. Only the end point is
used in graphical analyses. Simulation of the early stages can be carried out with conventional
models and early and late slopes can be matched. These matches will yield both kh and
system compressibility. The simulation can incorporate any known wellbore skin components.
When the simulation starts to deviate from the data, this is an indication of induced fracturing,
or increasing conductivity of a pre-existing fracture. At this point, the conventional model
cannot give any more detailed information, beyond indicating the approximate position of
departure.

Analysis Above Fracturing Pressure

Coupled fracture-reservoir modeling is required at this point. These can be models using
fracture mechanics principles, partially coupled (e.g., GEOSIM, with fracture coupling) or fully
coupled (BP's model, after Clifford, et al.). The process can be also modeled as re-opening of
joints or creating a high permeability channel (Visage, or GEOSIM with stress-dependent
fracture representation).
Simultaneous matching of the rate steps and the falloff (while keeping the reservoir properties
from the match below fracturing pressure) allows estimation of:
1. fracture growth (geometry) with time,
2. fracture conductivity (adjustments to theoretical predictions),
3. rock mechanics parameters (controlling net propagation pressure),
4. the initial minimum stress, and,
5. possibly thermoporoelastic effects.
The estimate of the undisturbed minimum stress will generally differ from the graphical
method result and can be lower for a multitude of reasons.
The pre-existing fracture can be incorporated in the simulation analysis and will generally
result in more gradual change of the slope, as seen on the Rosemary example.
In general, simulation analysis can give clear answers in some complex cases that cannot be
interpreted by the graphical methods. However, this is achieved at a considerably higher effort.
The first step is to look at basic radial flow relationships and see if radial flow at the low rates
makes sense. The first step is graphical.
The second is to match the low and high rate ends with analytical models to look at the two
limiting situations, with and without a fracture. If there is a deviation from low rate prediction
and the actual data (in the right direction) it indicates a good test.
The final step, if warranted, is numerical analysis to make all parts fit together.

It is important to take into account pre-existing fractures. For matching pressures below p foc,
(closure pressure) determine the reservoir permeability and the fracture conductivity and
forecast to higher rates. The point of departure between this theoretical curve and the
measured data is an independent measure of the value of p foc. Above pfoc, it is necessary to
iterate with a fracture model to match the measured data.
Some operators evaluate SRT with spreadsheet models that have a radial flow and a fracture
flow component.