SPE 90002

After-Closure Analysis to Identify Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Simon Chipperfield, Shell International E&P Inc.
2

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2629 September 2004.
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
After-Closure Analysis (ACA) in homogeneous matrix
reservoirs provides a method for extracting critical reservoir
information from pre-frac injection tests. This paper extends
the theory and practise of ACA to identify the presence of
natural fractures.
Natural fractures are important to identify prior to conducting
a stimulation treatment because their presence requires designs
that differ from conventional matrix treatments. Literature
shows that naturally fractured reservoirs are very susceptible
to formation damage and require stimulation treatments to
account for this issue. The historical problem however has
been to confidently characterize the reservoirs prefrac, both in
terms of the reservoir quality and deliverability mechanism
(fractures versus matrix) prior to committing to these design
specifications.
This paper presents the results of a simulator used to analyse
the mini-frac after closure period to identify the presence of
natural fractures. The simulation results are distilled to a
simple approach that can be used in the field to determine the
extent of natural fracturing and the formation reservoir quality.
Introduction
Motivation for Identifying Natural Fractures
Identifying the presence of natural fractures is important for
field management. On a field scale, realising the presence of
natural fractures can impact reserves estimation, expected well
rates and declines as well as planned well locations. With
respect to well completions, fractured reservoirs necessitate a
special stimulation approach. Since fractured reservoirs
produce from a relatively small reservoir volume (ie. the
fractures) these formations can be highly susceptible to
1

damage . Literature shows that the use of foamed treatments ,

100 mesh and low gel loadings can be used to effectively

stimulate these reservoirs. Literature also shows the disastrous
results that can arise when damage prevention steps are not
1

taken . As a result there is a definite need to identify natural

fractures prior to a stimulation treatment such that the
appropriate design decisions can be made.
In the past, conventional well testing such as Pressure Build
Up (PBU) tests have been used for determining the reservoir
description. However these techniques often prove costly both
in terms of additional equipment requirements and delays in
well on-line dates. In addition, conventional well testing may
not be successful in low permeability reservoirs since these
wells may not flow at measurable rates pre-stimulation. These
cost and reservoir limitations have forced the engineer to seek
other low cost methods for determining reservoir properties.
One such option for acquiring this data is the use of a minifrac injection test conducted prior to a stimulation treatment.
The mini-frac analysis techniques available to provide
estimates of the formation capacity (kh) and indications of the
presence of natural fractures include pre-closure and postclosure methods.
Pre-Closure Methods
These methods analyse the pressure decline after a mini-frac
injection prior to mechanical closure of the fracture. The
advantage of these techniques is that the period of analysis
occurs very quickly (ie. immediately after shut-in). The
principal pre-closure method used to determine the reservoir
3

quality is the Mayerhofer method. Though this technique has

been used successfully in many areas of the world, its broad
applicability has been hindered by the complex interactions
4

between the fracture and the reservoir during fracture closure .

The pre-closure period can also be used to diagnose natural
fracture dilation since this leads to a characteristic pressure
decline that has been used successful to identify fissured
5,6

systems . There are two main disadvantages of this approach

however. Firstly, it cannot discern between fractures that are a
production mechanism (ie. those very necessary to preserve)
and those fissures or discontinuities (eg. bedding planes) that
dilate during injection but are not material to production.
Secondly, natural fractures do not always dilate during
injection since this depends on the treating pressure exceeding

the critical fissure opening pressure. This critical pressure

can be significantly higher than the closure stress especially in
areas with high horizontal stress contrast7.
Post-Closure Methods
The Post-Closure methods focus on the analysis of the minifrac pressure decline after the mechanical closure of the
fracture8. Analysis of this period to determine reservoir
permeability is not dependent on the uncertainties of fracture
propagation and closure, unlike the pre-closure methods9. This
method has been successfully applied in the field and in some
cases has proven more reliable than pre-closure methods10.
The disadvantage of this approach is the long decline time that
may be required to capture the pseudo-radial flow regime from
which reservoir permeability can be determined. However
literature has shown that reasonable estimates for formation
permeability can be obtained even in the event that radial flow
is not reached11.
To date however there have been no methods available to
evaluate the post-closure period for natural fractures. This
paper however presents such a method. The approach outlined
herein, will, unlike the current pre-closure methods, identify
those reservoirs where fractures are material to production and
thus identify those reservoirs where tailored stimulation
treatments are necessary.
Theoretical Background
This section covers a significant amount of theory to set the
stage for the simulator development and results in the
subsequent sections. Firstly, the theory of After-Closure
Analysis (ACA) is presented. Secondly classical dual porosity
(natural fracture) well test analysis is discussed since elements
of this are used in the natural fracture after-closure model.
Finally the preferred ACA analysis approach is presented.
These different theoretical threads will provide the reader with
the necessary background to understand the simulator and
results.
After-Closure Analysis Theory
ACA was first introduced by Gu et al8. This method provides
the ability to use the mini-frac not only to estimate parameters
dictating fracture propagation (such as fluid leakoff ( C l ) and
closure pressure Pc) but also reservoir properties critical for
design ( k, kh ).
The authors used a method of instantaneous line sources to
describe the pressure behaviour of a propagating hydraulic
fracture. They assumed the fracture propagated with matrix
(Carter) leak off and that the fluid pressure generated from
fracture propagation dissipated into a single porosity,
homogeneous system. A visual description of the model is
presented in Figure 1.
Gu et al8 showed that in late time, the pressure disturbance
reaches pseudo-radial flow where the pressure decline was
proportional to the insitu permeability thickness of the
reservoir. The authors also showed that the same behaviour
was evident even if the injected fluid had a different mobility

SPE 90002

than the reservoir (ie. water injected into a gas reservoir). A

later paper by Abouslieman et al12 reviewed theoretical
aspects of ACA and presented details of both post-closure
flow regimes (pseudo-radial and the preceding pseudo-linear
flow). Nolte13 and Nolte et al9 then provided an integration of
ACA with conventional pre-closure analysis and classical
reservoir engineering, by comparing the fracture propagation
and post-closure periods to the uniform flux and infinite
conductivity fixed length fracture models14. Nolte showed that
during the injection period, for a fluid efficiency (e)
approaching zero, the flux distribution along the fracture
length is very similar to the flux distribution of the fixed
length, infinite conductivity solution15. He also showed that
the resultant, elliptical fluid distribution (Figure 1) causes the
post closure decline to follow the uniform flux case with an
apparent fixed length (described in more detail below)15.
Another assumption that was used in the historical works and
is used as part of this paper is the impulse test assumption.
This assumption is honoured when the injection time is short
compared to the pressure decline. In this case the pressure
difference (ie. P-Pi) follows the derivative of the classical
dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless time curves16.
Thus the dimensionless expressions during linear and radial
flow for the impulse test are as follows
d PD

=
d TD 2 TD

(1)

d PD
1
=
d TD 2TD

(2)

The term T D is defined as

TD =

kt
c t X 2
f

(3)

and P D is
PD =

kh (P P i)
qw

(4)

where k is the formation permeability, is the fluid viscosity,

Pi is the initial pressure (or reservoir pressure), P is the current
pressure, Ct is the formation compressibility, Xf is the fracture
half length, qw is the fluid injection rate, h is the formation
thickness and the porosity.
Equations (1) and (2) indicate that radial and linear flow will
have a 1 slope and 1/2 slope respectively on a logarithmic
plot of PD or Pressure difference versus TD. This contrasts to
the slope response and the semi-log straight-line behaviour
exhibited by the classical PD versus TD functions17.

SPE 90002

Theory of Dual Porosity Reservoirs

In matrix reservoirs, once the hydraulic fracture has closed
after a mini-frac, pressure diffuses through a matrix,
homogenous reservoir. In a naturally fractured reservoir
however, fluid diffuses through a dual porosity system
(fractures and matrix).
This diffusion process in dual porosity systems has been
analysed in literature and often found in the field to honour the
Barranblatt or Warren and Root form18. The Baranblatt model
assumes that the fractures and matrix are two overlapping
masses that are uniformly distributed and that flow from the
matrix to the fractures is pseudo-steady state. The authors
assumed that the fractures were the only delivery system to the
wellbore. By performing a mass balance and assuming
Darcys Law, Warren and Root described two important
reservoir parameters for naturally fractured reservoirs. These
two parameters are the storativity ratio () and the interporosity co-efficient (). These parameters are defined
below18,19
=

c f f

cf f + c m m

km 2
f =
X
kf f

where Tf is kh/ for the fractures and the diffusivity, f , is a

function of time and is defined as
f =

Tf

t
Sf + S ma (1 e )

(10)

where S is the storativity (ct) of the matrix (ma) and the

fractures (f). By analysing the work of Najurieta, the
relationship between and f can be shown to be
f

4 c t X 2
f
k

(11)

(5)

(6)

P dp =
4 k f

where f and m denote the fractures and matrix respectively.

The term is a factor that depends on the geometry of the
interporosity flow between the matrix and fractures. Re is the
wellbore radius.
Several analytical solutions have been derived for naturally
fractured reservoirs. Najurieta20 solved de-Swanns un-steady
state matrix flow problem analytically for the slab and block
case by defining the terms (as defined above) and as
defined below
h2
ma
4 ma

(9)

Using Equations (9) and (10) an analytical instantaneous line

source solution for a dual porosity reservoir can be defined
(Appendix A) as

The f can be compared to the typically used in nonstimulated cases as follows

X f2
(7)
=

f
r e2

q Bo
2
Ei( r )
P = w
4 T f
4 f t

A7

Several authors have looked at the behaviour of hydraulically

fractured reservoirs in dual porosity conditions19,22. The case
of interest for this paper is the uniform flux case as presented
by Houze et al19. The unique well test character this model
creates can be defined in three parts (as observed in Figure 3).
Firstly the left-most portion is the part of the build-up
dominated by the fissured system. The middle portion is the
transition, which appears as a dip on the derivative curve.
The final portion, radial flow, reflects the total system. Several
other key points are highlighted below.

Under the period where the fissured system

dominates, the flow regimes are sped up by a factor
of 1/ as compared to the total system behaviour, or
typical matrix behaviour.

In the case where the transition is late (small ) it is

foreseeable that the linear and radial flow regimes
will occur before the transition period (as depicted in
Figure 3). As a result the end of linear flow and the
start of radial flow will occur a factor of 1/ faster
than conventional reservoirs.

For the uniform flux case shown in literature19, and

can be calculated from critical dimensionless time
markers on the pressure derivative plot. These time
markers are the commencement of the dip (P1 on
Figure 2), the base of the dip (P2) and the end of the
dip (P3). The analytical expressions denoting the
dimensionless time of these markers are provided
below and shown graphically in Figure 3 23,24:

(8)

The term hma is the thickness of the individual blocks or slabs.

ma is the diffusivity of the matrix and is Eulers constant.
Using the same two expressions to describe the fracture
system and , Aguilera21 determined an analytical
continuous line source solution for the Warren and Root
problem to be:

1 f S ma t r 2

e e 4 t
f
T f
t

SPE 90002

[T D]bod = 0.01(1 ) /

[T D]db = ln 1

[T D]de = 4

t bod
t db

(13) The dip base

(14) The dip end

(12) Beginning of the dip (P1)

(P2)

(P3)

Another useful equation is obtained by dividing (12)

by (13). This represents a ratio of dimensional times
(or clock times) dependent only on :
=

0.01(1 )
1
ln( )

(15)

After-Closure Analysis Approach

Several papers have been written to determine the best
methods of field implementation and the most efficient
analysis approach11,25,26,27. The method used in this paper is the
Nolte Diagnotic Plot (NDP)15 and the Dimensionless Nolte
Diagnostic Plot (DNDP).
The Nolte Diagnostic Plot (NDP), presents the post closure
pressure decline data in terms of the normalized pressure (PiPres) versus the inverse squared Nolte time function (1/Fl2).
The logarithmic derivative is also plotted for reference
(1/Fl2d(P-Pres)/d(1/Fl2). Fl is defined as follows:
F l = sin 1

t
tc

(16)

where tc is the closure time. The NDP is presented in Figure 4.

This time function was chosen by Nolte such that all flow
regimes could be identifiable from the one plot. The linear
slope evident in early time both in the normalized pressure and
pressure derivative is indicative of pseudo-linear flow. It is
from this flow regime that the spurt loss can be determined. In
late time the pseudo radial flow period is represented by a
slope of unity which overlays the logarithmic derivative.
When using noisy field data it is useful to be constrained with
the actual reservoir pressure11,25. During pseudo-radial flow
the pressure can be described as follows5 where Mr is a
constant:
P = M r F 2
l

(17)

The permeability can also be calculated from the pseudo-radial

flow period via the following equation9
kh
Vi
= 250,000

Mrtc

By using the Equations (17) and (18) above, it can be shown

that the intercept of the unit slope line on a Nolte Diagnostic
Plot with the Y-axis (at 1/F2l = 1) can also be used to
determine permeability with a modified form of (18)

(18)

kh
Vi
= 250,000

P
tc
P i ]@ 1 =1
F l2

(19)

The second plot discussed is the dimensionless form of the

DNDP presented in Figure 5. This is a plot of normalized
pressure versus dimensionless time and the logarithmic
derivative with respect to dimensionless time is TDd(PPres)/dT. This derivative behaves similarly to the logarithmic
derivative based on Fl2. For the case of matrix, Carter leakoff
and a homogeneous reservoir, it has been shown by previous
authors that there are several key time markers on this plot14.
These dimensionless time markers can be approximated for
the end of linear flow

[T elf ]dim

4 2
fa
50 2

(20)

and the time to the beginning of radial flow

[T brf ]dim 802 f a2

(21)

The term f a defines the equivalent fixed, uniform flux

fracture length that would create the same fluid distribution as
the propagating case10. The term f a is defined as follows for
negligible spurt
fa =

4(1 e)

tp
tc

(22)

where tp is the pump time and e is the fluid efficiency. Two

conclusions are now drawn from the two previous theory
sections. Firstly, given that the after closure response follows
the fixed length, uniform flux case15 in a dual porosity
reservoir it must behave similarly to the dual porosity
hydraulically fractured uniform flux case presented by Houze
et al19. Secondly, since we are assuming a short injection in
comparison with the pressure decline the impulse assumption
holds. This means that the pressure difference (P-Pi) must
follow the derivative of the classical PD and TD shown by
Houze et al19 (ie. display a characteristic dip). It also follows
that if the linear and radial flow portions occur before the
transition or dip they should occur a factor of 1/ faster than
conventional reservoirs. That is Equations (20) and (21) above
become:

[T elf ]dim
and

4 2
fa
50 2

(23)

SPE 90002

[T brf ]dim 802 f a2

(24)

Simulator Development
Both a matrix reservoir and a dual porosity after closure
simulator have been developed and the results discussed
below.
Matrix Reservoirs
The matrix reservoir model assumes that the fracture
propagates in a homogeneous matrix reservoir. Abouslieman
et al12 equated the fracture to a sequence of small linear
sources of energy that turn on when the fracture propagates
to that given element and turn off when the fracture element
closes. During the time the fracture element is open (the
exposure time - t ' ) the fracture emits a signal the strength of
the fluid loss. This energy then diffuses through the reservoir.
The equation defining this after closure pressure response was
given as 12
P ( x , y, t ) =

Lm t d
q ( x ' , t ' )P( t t ' )dt ' dx '
4k Lm t a l

(B1)

where the function P is defined by Equation A5. Equation

(B1) can be envisaged in two parts; the first part being the
leakoff strength ql at a given displacement x and the second
part being the reservoir diffusional speed or e exponent. The
leakoff strength ql is defined by the Carter leakoff equation.
The After-Closure pressure decline is thus the interaction of
the pressure wave at each individual fracture segment over the
entire fracture length (hence the double integral) when
measured at the wellbore.
By inspection it can be observed that in late time the
exponential term of Equation (B1) approaches unity and the
pressure response becomes inversely proportional to the
permeability thickness12.
The assumptions used in this formulation are that the injected
fluid is short with respect to the decline period and the fluid
acts as an infinitesimally small skin.
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
In the case of naturally fractured reservoirs the leakoff
strength and distribution remains the same (Carter leakoff)
however the reservoir diffusional speed is affected by the dual
porosity nature of the reservoir. This of course assumes that
the fractures do not dilate significantly during injection (ie.
PDL is minimized). As derived in Appendix B, Equation (B1)
can be modified to include an analytical form of the
instantaneous point source solution for naturally fractured
reservoirs such that
Xf t d
P( x, t ) = q l ( x, t ' ) P dp ( t t ' )dt ' dx '
Xf t a
where:

(B3)

P dp =
4 k f

1 f S ma t r 2

e e 4 t
f
T f
t

(A7)

By inspection it can be observed that in late time the

exponential term (t) approaches unity and the pressure
response approaches the homogeneous case. In the same
manner as described previously, the pressure response
becomes proportional to 1/kh12. By using Equation (B3), (A7)
and (10) one can see that for the early time case (t0) where
the transition occurs relatively late in the pressure decline
(), Equation (A7) collapses to the homogeneous case but
with a diffusivity that approaches Tf/cth. This indicates that
the diffusional speed of the flow regimes will initially increase
by the factor 1/ in a similar manner to the conventional cases
presented by Houze et al19.
In addition, since this model follows the impulse assumption
(short injection and long pressure decline), it is anticipated that
the pressure response will follow the derivative of the classical
PD and TD functions and thus display a dip character (Figure
3).
It is likely that this model will fail under high levels of
Pressure Dependent Leakoff (PDL) since the elliptical shape
of the specific loss volume (Figure 1) is critical for the
uniform flux analogy to be made and similarities to
conventional well testing drawn. In the presence of high PDL
this fluid distribution will be significantly altered. As a result,
the after closure model presented only holds in the case where
either intentionally or otherwise PDL is minimized.
Simulator Results
Case 1 : Matrix Reservoirs
The simulation results are presented for a homogeneous
reservoir with matrix Carter leakoff. The reservoir is 2m (6.5
ft) thick with a permeability of 0.0015 mD. Net pressure
analysis determines the fracture length to be 2m (6.5ft) long
and the efficiency to be low (approaching zero). The term fa
was calculated using Equation (22) to be /4.
Nolte Diagnostic Plot
(Figure 6)
The NDP was constructed. The plot shows linear flow
occurring immediately after shut-in (-1/2 slope) and pseudoradial flow in late time (-1 slope). The intercept of the 1 slope
line with the Y-axis is 5e9 Pa (725,000 psi). The calculated
permeability using Equation (19) is 0.0016 mD, which is an
accurate representation of the input.
Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot
(Figure 7)
The DNDP was constructed using the known fracture length
(net pressure analysis) and the now known permeability (from
the NDP). The plot shows that pseudo-radial flow occurs at a
dimensionless time of approximately 5. The end of linear flow
occurs at a dimensionless time of 0.005. The knee time15
occurs at a dimensionless time of 0.2.

Case 2: Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Large Contrast between fracture and formation permeability
The simulation results are presented for a naturally fractured
reservoir with a of 2.5e8 ( is 3.8e-3) and an of 0.09. The
reservoir thickness is 2 metres (6.5 ft) with a permeability of
0.0015 mD. The fracture length is 2 metres (6.5 ft) from preclosure analysis. The term fa determined from mini-frac
decline and Equation (22) is determined to be /4 (assuming a
low efficiency fracture).
Nolte Diagnostic Plot
(Figure 8)
The NDP shows a late time -1 slope, which crosses the Y-axis
at 5e9 Pa (725,000 psi). By using Equation (17) this calculates
an apparent permeability of 0.0016 mD in good agreement
with the simulation input. The presence of a characteristic
dip and crossing of the derivative and pressure difference
curves is the characteristic of natural fractures. The absolute
time taken to reach the first radial flow portion is 22 hours.
Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot
(Figure 9)
The DNDP was constructed using the known fracture length
and the known permeability. The DNDP shows the end of
linear flow at TD of 4e-4. Using Equation (23) this equates to
an of 0.08, in close agreement with the simulation results.
The time of radial flow occurs at 0.25. Using Equation (24)
this also equates to an of 0.05. The value of can be
determined from the beginning of the dip, which appears to
commence almost immediately after reaching radial flow at a
TD of 0.25. Using Equation (12) this calculates to be 3e-3,
which is in close agreement with the input. It should be noted
that in this case the first sign of natural fractures (the end of
linear flow) is seen 16 minutes after closure. The first sign of
(the start of the dip) is observed in 110 hours.
Case 3: Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Small contrast between fracture and fomation permeability
The simulation results are presented for a naturally fractured
reservoir with matrix Carter leakoff. The reservoir is 2m (6.5
ft) thick with a permeability of 0.15 mD. The fracture length is
10m (33 ft). The term is 3.7e5 ( is 0.8) and is 0.09. The fa
term determined from mini-frac decline is /4.
Nolte Diagnostic Plot
(Figure 10)
The NDP shows pseudo-radial flow in late time. The intercept
of the 1 slope with the Y-axis is 5e7 Pa (7250 psi). The back
calculated permeability using Equation (7) is 0.16 mD which
is in agreement with the input. The first sign of the natural
fracture response can be observed at a time of 4.4 hours when
the derivative and actual pressure difference appear to cross. It
can be calculated that the time taken to radial flow is very long
(3.2 days). However the approach detailed below can be used
to obtain a unique match much faster.
Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot
(Figure 11)
In the advent that all the flow regimes are not captured, an
accurate reservoir characterisation can still be obtained once
the base of the dip has been observed. Using Equation (15)
the ratio of the dimensional (clock) time to the start of the
dip divided by the dimensional time to the base of the dip

SPE 90002

can be used to determine . The start of the dip requires some

experience to identify but can be observed at a 1/Fl2 of
approximately 11 (t=6.6 mins) and the dip base at a 1/Fl2 of
3100 (t=1.4 days). Using Equation (15) this calculates to be
0.09, which represents the simulator input. With an estimate of
one can determine the dimensionless time to the end of
linear flow as 4.5e-4 by using Equation (23). This equation can
also be solved to determine a k of 0.15 mD which is in close
agreement with the input. For completeness, the DNDP was
created using the known fracture length and the known
permeability.
Conclusions
Dual Porosity After-Closure Analysis Simulator developed
The instantaneous line source for a naturally fractured
reservoir was analytically derived.
A simulator was developed on the basis of
instantaneous line sources accounting for dual
porosity behaviour.
Field Implementation Methodology
Conduct a mini-frac or pre-frac injection test to
intentionally stay below the critical fissure dilation
pressure.
Determine the effective uniform flux fracture halflength by determining the ultimate fracture half
length (Xf) and fa from net pressure analysis.
Construct the Nolte Diagnostic Plot (NDP) to
determine the permeability of the reservoir and
indicate the presence of natural fractures.
Construct the Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot
(DNDP) to determine the normalised speed of the
flow regimes. This plot helps quantify the natural
fractures in terms of and by identifying critical
time markers. These time markers include the end of
linear flow, the beginning of radial flow, the
beginning of the dual porosity dip, the end of the
dip and the base of the dip. A minimum of two of
these points can uniquely define the fracture
geometry.
Methodology Strengths
Reservoir quality (kh) and the presence of natural
fractures can be uniquely determined. This test
provides confirmation that the fractures are material
to production. This can provide valuable insight into
the reservoir characterisation as well as input into the
proposed stimulation design.
By identifying dimensionless time markers, ACA can
quantify the fracture character (in terms of and ).
Unlike previous approaches, ACA can identify
fractured reservoirs that do not dilate during
injection.
Methodology Limitations
Impulse Injection: The assumption is that the
injection time is small compared to the pressure
decline for the impulse injection assumption to hold.

SPE 90002

Furthermore, unless the fluid bank is small, the AfterClosure flow regimes may be masked or delayed due
to skin effects.
Dependence on Fracture Length: While the reservoir
quality and presence of natural fractures can be
independently determined, the quantification of
natural fractures in terms of and requires an
estimate of the created fracture length.
Fissure Dilation: The accuracy of this approach relies
on the presence of Carter leakoff. If significant
fracture dilation occurs during pumping this will
affect the areal fluid loss distribution and corrupt the
analysis. In this case, an additional, lower rate
injection test may be required for this analysis.
Shut-In Period: The shut-in period required to
describe the formation capacity and natural fractures
can be lengthy. However the analysis approach above
shows that good approximations can of fracture and
formation parameters can be made without observing
all the flow regimes.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my wife and son for being so patient
with me. I would also like to thank Shell and the following
experts; Ken Nolte, Thomas Blasingame, and David Craig.

9.
10.

11.

12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.

References
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Cippolla C., Branagan, P.T., Lee, S.J.;Fracture Design

Considerations in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs SPE
17607 presented at the International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering Tianjin, China, Nov 1-4 , 1988
Personal communication with Bob Barree, Barree and
Associates
Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M.J.; Permeability
Estimation from Fracture Calibration Treatments SPE
26527 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Ancorage, Alaska 26-28th May, 1993
Ispas, I.N., Britt, L.K, Valko, P. and Economides, M.J.;
Methodology of Fluid Leakoff Analysis in High
Permeability Fracturing, SPE 39476 presented at the SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-19 Feb, 1998
Barree R.D., Mukherjee H.; Determination of Pressure
Dependent Leakoff and its effect on Fracture Geometry,
SPE 36424 presented at the SPE ATCE, Denver, Colorado
Oct 6-9, 1996
Craig D. P., Eberhard M.J., Barree R.D.;Adapting High
Permeability Leakoff Analysis to Low Permeability Sands
for Estimating Reservoir Engineering Parameters SPE
60291 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional /
Low permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver,
Colorado Mar 12-15, 2000
Barree, R.D.Application of Pre-Frac Injection/Falloff
Tests in Fissured Reservoirs Field Examples SPE 39932
presented at the SPE, Rocky Mountains Regional Meeting,
Denver, Colorado 5-8th April, 1998
Gu H, Elbel, J.L, Nolte K.G, Cheng A,H-D, Abouslieman
Y.; Formation Permeability Determination Using Impulse
Mini-Frac Injection SPE 25425 presented at the
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City March
21-23, 1993

18.
19.

20.

21.
22.

23.

24.
25.

26.

Nolte K.G., Maniere J.L. and Owens K.A.; After-Closure

Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests SPE 38676
presented at the ATCE San Antonio, TX, Oct 5-8, 1997
Ramurthy, M., Marjerisson, D.M., Davies, S.B.;
Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test in Coals to Determine
Pore Pressure and Permeability SPE 75701 presented at
the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 30 April 2 May, 2002
Chipperfield S.T., Britt L, K; Application of After-Closure
Analysis for Improved Fracture Treatment Optimisation: A
Cooper Basin Case Study SPE 60316 presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional / Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium Denver, Colorado March 12-15, 2000
Abouslieman Y, Cheng A. H-D, Gu, H; Formation
Permeability Determination by Micro or Mini-Hydraulic
Fracturing J. Ener. Res. Tech (Jun 1994) 104
Nolte, K.G; Background for After Closure Analysis of
Calibration Tests, SPE 39407 unsolicited paper (July
1997).
Gringarten A., Ramey H., Raghavan R.,Unsteady State
Pressure Distributions Created by a Well with a Single
Infinite Conductivity Vertical Fracture SPE 4051
presented at the Annual Technical Conference, San
Antonio, Texas, 1972
Reservoir Stimulation Chapter 9 editors Nolte K.G,
Economides M, published 2000 by John Wiley and Sons
Ayoub J.A., Bourdet F.P. and Chauvel Y.L.:Impulse
Testing, SPEFE (Sept 1988) 534
Agarwal R., Carter, R.D., Pollock, C.B.;Evaluation and
Performance Prediction of Low Permeability Gas Wells
Stimulates by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, JPT 1979
Warren J.E., Root, P.J.,;The Behaviour of Naturally
Fractures Reservoirs SPEJ (Sept 1963_ 245-55; Trans,
AIME, 228
Houze O.R, Horne R.N., Ramey Jr, H.J.;Pressure
Transient Response of an Infinite-Conductivity Vertical
Fracture in a Reservoir with Double-Porosity Behaviour
SPE 12778, SPE Formation Evaluation, Sept 1988
Najurieta, H.;A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs SPE 6017 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans
1976
Aguilera R.;Well Test Analysis of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs SPE Formation Evaluation Sept 1987
Aguilera R, Ng M.D.;Decline Curve Analysis of
Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Dual Porosity Reservoirs
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas Texas, 1991
Stewart G., Ascharsobbi F.;Well Test Interpretation for
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs SPE 18173 presented at
the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, 1988
Boudet D., Ayoub J., Whittle T.M., Pirard Y-M., and
Kniazeff, V; Interpreting Well Tests in Fractured
Reservoirs, World Oil (Oct 1983), 72-87
Gulrajani S.N., Vasudevan S., Ganguly U.; Enhanced
Calibration Treatment Analysis for Optimising Fracture
Performance: Validation and Field Examples SPE 50611
presented at the European Petroleum Conference, The
Hague, The Netherlands, Oct 20-22, 1998
Talley G.R., Swindell T.M., Waters G.A., Nolte K.G.;
Field Application of After-Closure Analysis of Fracture
Calibration Tests: SPE 52220 presented at Mid Continent
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 28-31
Mar, 1999

SPE 90002

27. Benelkaldi S.;Reservoir Permeability Determination Using

After-Closure Radial Flow Analysis of Calibration Tests
Thesis for Master of Science University of Oklahoma
2001
28. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering Dake, L.P.
published 1991 by Elsevier Science
29. Nordgren, R.P.;Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic
Fracture 1972 SPEJ

SPE 90002

Appendix A: Instantaneous Line Source Solutions

The homogenous continuous line source solution is defined as
follows28
q Bo
P = w
Ei( x )
A1
4 T f
Using the definition of Ei( x ) , assuming an incompressible
fluid and an injection rate (ie. q w ) the expression becomes
r2
- q w x e 4t
ds
P =

4 T f r 2
4t

A2

where the term s is known as Boltzmanns constant and is

defined as:
s=

The propagating and receding fracture existing during the

mini-frac is represented by a series of line sources (or
elements) that extend from the wellbore to the ultimate
fracture length Xf. These line sources switch on when the
propagating fracture reaches that element and turn off when
the fracture recedes from that element. The leakoff velocity
dictates the strength of the signal at each element. The
influence of the sources along the fracture length as measured
from the wellbore can be obtained by applying Duhamels
principal of superposition for a time t tc

A3

kt

and x = s(t). When expressed in terms of t, A2 becomes

2

r
q w t e 4 t
dt
Pm =

4 Tf 0 t

A4

The instantaneous matrix (m) line source solution is within the

integral and is presented as follows for a unit of production per
unit height12
r2
)
exp( 4 co t
P =
t
4 k f

A5

Tf

t
Sf + S ma (1 e )

A6

Using a similar approach to that described above in A2-A5, an

approximation for the instantaneous line source solution for a
dual porosity (dp) reservoir can be calculated as follows for a
unit strength disturbance

4 k f

1 S ma t r 2

e e 4 t
f

t T f

A7

Lm t d
q ( x ' , t ' )P( t t ' )dt ' dx '
4k Lm t a l

B1

where for the case of a dual porosity reservoir P dp is

expressed by A7. The terms t a and t d correspond to the
fracture arrival and departure time from a particular fracture
element. The term t ' is the leakoff exposure time of the fracture
element and t is the time since the arrival of the fracture. For
the case where there is minimal Pressure Dependent Leakoff
(PDL), Carter fluid loss is assumed and thus the leakoff
strength is only a function of t ' and can be expressed as
follows
q l (t' ) =

The approximate analytical continuous line source solution for

a Warren and Root dual porosity reservoir is defined similarly
to A1, however with a time dependent storativity represented
as follows21

P dp =

Appendix B: After-Closure Pressure versus Time

P ( x , y, t ) =

r e2 c t

f =

The term is defined in Equation (8). By observation

Equation A7 approaches the homogeneous case (A2) in late
time. In the case of early time and small (large ) Equation
A7 approaches the homogeneous case with a diffusivity of
hkf/ct.

2 Cl

B2

t'

where Cl is the fluid leak-off coefficient. Assuming symmetry

around the wellbore, the expression becomes
P ( x , y, t ) =

Lm t d C l
P dp ( t t ' )dt ' dx '

k 0
ta t'

B3

The speed of fracture propagation can be determined from

simulation or alternatively calculated from analytical
expressions such as that presented by Nordgren for a low
efficiency29 ( e 0 )
hx C l

td =
q w

B4

where x is the tip displacement of the fracture from the

wellbore. Equation (B3) can then be solved using Gaussian
quadrature to determine the pressure decline after closure for a
fracture in a dual porosity reservoir.

10

SPE 90002

Specific Volume lost

Wellbore
Flux Rates

Hydraulic Fracture
Dual Porosity Reservoir
Figure 1 Fracture griding system for After-Closure models showing flux rates from one side of the fracture and the specific
fluid loss volume. The specific volume distribution has been shown to approximate the uniform flux case for a fracture
equivalent to faXf15.

Figure 2 - Naturally Fractured Reservoir (Reality-left) versus Idealisation (right - after Warren and Root18)

SPE 90002

11

P3
P1

Fissure dominated

P2

Transition

Total System

Figure 3 Well test showing dimensionless pressure and logarithmic derivative as a function of dimensionless time for a
hydraulic fracture in a dual porosity reservoir (after Houze et al19). It shows linear flow and radial flow during the fissuredominated portion of the well test followed by transition flow and finally radial flow for the total system

1.E+11
1.E+10

Pressure Difference (Pa)

1.E+09

Pressure difference (Pa)

1.E+08

Pressure derivative

1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1/Fl2

Figure 4 - Nolte Diagnostic Plot (NDP) for a matrix reservoir

12

SPE 90002

1.E+08

Pressure Difference (psi)

1.E+07

Pressure Difference (Pa)

Pressure Derivative (psi)

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02
1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

Td

Figure 5 - Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot (DNDP) for a matrix reservoir

1.E+11
1.E+10

Pressure Difference (Pa)

1.E+09

Pressure difference (Pa)

1.E+08

Pressure derivative

1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1/Fl2

Figure 6 - Nolte Diagnostic Plot (Case 1) Matrix Reservoir

SPE 90002

13

1.E+08

Knee Time of 0.2

Pressure Difference (psi)
1.E+07

Pressure Difference (Pa)

Pressure Derivative (psi)

1.E+06

1.E+05

Time to end of
pseudo-linear flow
of 0.005
Time to beginning of
pseudo-radial flow
of 5

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02
1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

Td

Figure 7 - Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot - (Case 1) Matrix Reservoir

1.E+11
1.E+10
Pressure difference
1.E+09

Pressure Difference (Pa)

Pressure derivative
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

1/Fl2

Figure 8 - Nolte Diagnostic Plot - (Case 2) Naturally Fractured Reservoir

14

SPE 90002

1.E+09

1.E+08

Pressure Difference (psi)

Pressure Derivative (psi)

Pressure Difference (Pa)

1.E+07

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

Td

Figure 9 - Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot - (Case 2) Naturally Fractured Reservoir. This plot indicates with marker
boxes the end of linear flow, the commencement of radial flow and the start of the dip (which appear as the same marker) and
the dip base

1.E+11
1.E+10

Pressure Difference

1.E+09

Pressure Derivative

Pressure Difference (Pa)

1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

1/Fl2

Figure 10 - Nolte Diagnostic Plot - (Case 3) Naturally Fractured Reservoir

SPE 90002

15

1.E+07

Pressure Difference (psi)

1.E+06

Pressure Derivative (psi)

Pressure Difference (Pa)

1.E+05

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00

1.E-01
1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

Td

Figure 11 - Dimensionless Nolte Diagnostic Plot - (Case 3) Naturally Fractured Reservoir. This plot displays with marker
boxes the end of linear flow, the start of the dip and the dip base