Pre‐Frac Injection Tests

R.D. Barree
 In this session …
• Discuss DFIT requirements and procedures
– Look at SRT Analysis
– Pressure loss at Perfs
– Near‐Wellbore Pressure Loss
– Look at Post Shut‐In Analysis
– discuss G‐function analysis in detail
• Importance of correct determination of closure
• Pore pressure and permeability
• Efficiency and Leakoff
• Discuss the effects of Variable Storage and Tip 
Extension © 2009
 Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test:
DFIT
Requirements: Procedure:
• Data Acquisition • Bring rate to max
– 0.01‐0.1 psi resolution  • Pump for 2‐5 minutes
surface gauge
• Rapid step‐down to get 
– Record all rates and 
pressures at 1/sec 
WHP at each rate
sampling rate  • Isolate wellhead
– Injection schedule must  • Shut‐down for 90 
be precisely recorded minutes (minimum) or 
• Use Newtonian, non‐ up to 48 hrs
wall building fluid 
(water, oil, or N2). © 2009
 Pre‐Frac Injection/Falloff Tests
Why pre‐frac test? Types:
• obtain specific data • Step‐rate injections
– Characterize the  – pipe and near‐well 
reservoir and completion friction
• every pump‐in carries risk  – # of effective perfs open
of damage – frac extension pressure
– testing procedure must  • Pressure falloff after shut‐in
be designed to minimize  – frac closure pressure
damage – fluid efficiency and 
leakoff coefficient
– fracture closure 
mechanism
© 2009
 Application of Pre‐Frac Tests
• Calibration of logs: • Leakoff
– Total closure stress  – Pad volume 
• Mechanical  requirements
properties – Maximum sand 
• Tectonic strain and  concentration
stress • Overall design
• Net fracture extension  – Expected pack 
pressure concentration
– Frac width – Final fracture 
– Height containment conductivity
– Created fracture length  – Necessary frac length for 
and width optimum stimulation
If you’re going to do this,
you’d better do it right! © 2009
Pre‐Frac Step‐Rate Injection Test

© 2009
Traditional Step Rate Test
(SRT) Analysis

© 2009
System Friction Analysis from SRT Data
• Step‐down data preferred
– pressure response to rate changes should 
be related to frictional components
• Requires accurate pipe friction estimate
• Additional rate‐dependent pressure drop 
caused by
– perforation
• Square of the rate
– near‐well flow restriction
• Square root of rate © 2009
© 2009
 Resolving Components of Friction
• Pipe friction
– Generally varies with rate^2 in turbulent flow
– Must know the pipe friction to separate it from BH and 
near‐well friction
• Perf friction
– Varies with rate^2
– Changes with sand injection
• CD change and perf rounding
• Diameter change and perf erosion
• Tortuosity
– Varies with rate^0.5 (or some other factor)
– Some restriction that dissipates with injection rate
© 2009
Pipe Friction Estimates
Water
Slick-water (FR)
20# Linear gel
40# gel
Gelled Oil
70Q N2 Foam

Data calculated for

2-7/8” tubing

© 2009
 Perforation Restriction Causes  
Large Pressure Drop
• Correct number & size of perfs can be estimated
• Pressure drop should be at least 100‐200 psi 
more than the confining stress between zones
• Also depends on coefficient of discharge (CD)
– Jet perfs: 0.754; Bullets: 0.822
– higher value indicates more efficient perf
1.975q ρ f 2

Ppf = 2 2 4
; psi
C N d
D p p
© 2009
 Tortuosity:
Near‐Wellbore Pressure Loss
• Stress halo around perf
• Flow around cement 
micro‐annulus
• Perforation interference
• Narrow fracture width
• Fracture turning and 
branching (multiples)
• Off‐vertical fractures
• Pulverized cement debris
• Charge debris
• Leakoff into drilling and 
perf induced fracs
© 2009
Current SRT Spreadsheet

© 2009
 Post Shut‐In:
What is G‐function Analysis?
• Post shut‐in pressure decline analysis using 
dimensionless function
• Extends the analysis through use of the first 
derivative and semi‐log derivative of BHP (dP/dG 
and GdP/dG)
• Also uses the characteristic shapes of derivative 
curves to locate specific modes of pressure 
decline
• Extension to After‐Closure Analysis (ACA) to 
define reservoir linear and pseudo‐radial flow
© 2009
 G‐function Analysis in
Pre‐Completion Decision Making
• Estimate pore pressure
– Is the zone depleted, normally pressured or over‐
pressured
– Impacts reserve estimates and cleanup
• Detection of natural fractures
– Significance to fracture placement
– Do they impact flow performance?
• Estimation of permeability
• Determine leakoff mechanism and magnitude
• Combine reservoir and fracture data to make realistic 
estimates of post‐frac rate
© 2009
Algebraic Definition of the G‐Function
G-function is a dimensionless function of shut-in
time normalized to pumping time:
4
G (ΔtD ) = (g (ΔtD ) − g0 )
π

ΔtD = (t − t p ) t p

© 2009
G‐Function: Two limiting cases
•Low Leakoff, high efficiency
•Fracture area open varies approximately linear w/time
(α = 1.0 )
4
(
g (ΔtD ) = (1 + ΔtD ) − ΔtD
3
1.5 1.5
)
•High leakoff, low efficiency
•Fracture area varies w/ square‐root of time
(α = 0.5)

g (ΔtD ) = (1 + ΔtD )sin −1

((1 + Δt D )
−0.5
) + Δt D
0.5

© 2009
 Falloff Analysis Methods
• Observed shut‐in  After Closure analyses to 
pressure versus square‐ define reservoir 
root of shut‐in time  properties:
(Sqrt(t) Plot)
– Use of diagnostic 
derivatives on Sqrt(t) plot – Flow regime 
identification
• G‐Function and its 
diagnostic derivatives – Horner analysis
– Talley‐Nolte method
• Log‐Log plot of pressure 
change after shut‐in 
versus time after shut‐in

© 2009
 Evaluated Pressure Falloff Cases
1. Fracture extension after shut‐in
2. Constant leakoff in a well‐confined 
fracture with tip recession during closure
3. Pressure dependent leakoff
4. Pressure dependent leakoff and modulus 
5. Leakoff with variable storage or fracture 
compliance (transverse storage)

© 2009
 Ambiguous Closure 
Using Sqrt(t) Analysis
2

Which one is closure?

3
1
Pressure

Sqrt(Shut-in Time) © 2009

Normal Leakoff G‐Function

© 2009
 Sqrt(t) Plot for Normal Leakoff
Pressure

Derivatives
Time © 2009
 Log‐Log Plot for Normal Leakoff
4

BH ISIP = 9998 psi

3
1
2

1000 9
Delta-Pressure and Derivative

8
7
6
(m = 0.632)
5

(m = -1)
100 9
8
7
6
5

10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (0 = 8.15)

© 2009
Summary of Characteristic Slopes 
on Log‐Log Plot

© 2009
Fracture and Reservoir Transient 
Flow Regimes
Fracture Linear Flow Bi-Linear Flow (Before closure, ¼ slope
(Tip-Extension, ½ slope) After closure, -3/4 slope)

Formation Linear Flow Pseudo-Radial Flow

(After closure, -1 slope)
(Before closure, ½ slope
After closure, -½ slope)

© 2009
 After‐Closure Flow Regime Plot
10000 9
8
7
6
5
4
ΔP vs. FL2
3

2 ΔP=(pw-pr)
Delta-Pressure and Derivative

1000 9
8
7
6
Start of Radial Flow
5
4

100 9 (m = 1)
8
7
6
5
FL2 dΔP/dFL2 vs. FL2
4

10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Square Linear Flow (FL^2)
© 2009
 After‐Closure Analysis
Vi: bbls
k: md
⎡ Vi ⎤ tc: min
kh
= 251,000 ⎢ ⎥ MR: psi-1
μ ⎣ M R tc ⎦ h: ft
μ: cp
Pressure

RESULTS:
Reservoir Pressure = 7475.68 psi
Transmissibility, kh/μ =298.94991 md*ft/cp
kh=7.94014 md*ft
Permeability, k = 0.0968
Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 2.15 hours

Radial flow time function © 2009

 Horner Analysis: 
Only Valid in Pseudo‐Radial Flow
9750
1
9500

9250
q: bpm
9000
k: md
kh 162.6(1440 )q mH: psi-1
8750 =
8500
μ mH h: ft
μ: cp
8250

8000 P*=7476 psi

7750 (m = 14411) kh/μ=298 md-ft/cp
kh=7.9 md-ft
7500
(Reservoir = 7476) k=0.097 md
7250 2 3
1
Horner Time

© 2009
 Permeability Estimation from 
G at Closure (Gc)
• Good estimate when after‐closure radial‐flow 
data not available
0.0086μ 0.01 Pz
k= 1.96
⎛ Gc E rp ⎞
φ ct ⎜ ⎟
0.038 ⎠
⎝
Where:
k = effective perm, md ct = total compressibility, 1/psi
μ = viscosity, cp E = Young’s Modulus, MMpsi
Pz = process zone stress rp = leakoff height to gross frac
or net pressure height ratio
φ = porosity, fraction © 2009
 Permeability Estimate from 
G‐at‐Closure ‐ Illustrated
Estimated Permeability = 0.0974 md
Permeability, md

Gc
© 2009
 Computation of 
Efficiency and Leakoff Coefficient
• Efficiency is given by:
Gc
η=
2 + Gc
• Leak‐off is given by:
2h dP
CL =
π rp E t p dG

These equations are only valid with no

pressure dependent behavior during closure.
© 2009
 Typical PDL Behavior 
of G‐Function Derivatives
P vs. G

Fracture Closure

Derivatives
Pressure

GdP/dG vs. G

End PDL

dP/dG vs. G

© 2009
 Log‐Log Plot for PDL Example
2

BH ISIP = 10000 psi

1

10009
8 ΔP vs. Δt Linear Flow
Pressure Difference and Derivative

7
6
5

4 (m = -0.5)

3
(m = 0.5)
Radial Flow
2

1009
8
Fracture closure (m = -1)
7
6
ΔtdΔP/dΔt vs. Δt
5

10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (0 = 9.133333) © 2009
 Sqrt(t) Plot for PDL Example
10250 500
False Closure 1

10000

P vs. √t 400
9750
Fracture Closure

9500
300

Derivatives
Pressure

9250 √tdP/d√t vs. √t

9000 200

8750
100
dP/d√t vs. √t
8500

8250
0
00:20 00:40 01:00 01:20 01:40 02:00
1/24/2007 1/24/2007
Time © 2009
Estimation of PDL Coefficient 
from Falloff Data
Leakoff coefficient can be estimated
from the ratio of dP/dG before and 
after fissure closure 
Cp ⎛ dP ⎞ ⎛ dP ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Co ⎝ dG ⎠ P > P fo
⎝ dG ⎠ P < P fo

or
⎛C ⎞
ln ⎜ p ⎟ = C d p Δ P Cdp
⎝ Co ⎠

© 2009
 Determination of PDL Coefficient 
6
ln(Cp/Co)

4
Ln(Leakoff Ratio)

1
(PDL Coefficient = 0.0019)

0 (Fissure Opening Pressure = 9311)

-1
9300 9400 9500 9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 10100 10200 10300
Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) © 2009
 Natural Fracture System 
in Hard‐Rock

σΗmin

σΗmax

© 2009
Fissures Opened By Tensile Stress Field

( )
2
df 1 ⎡ Pf − Sh ⎤
≤
xf 2 ⎢⎢ ( T + Sh )⎥⎥
⎣ ⎦

Sh
df

Typical leakoff volume: SH

0.05 ft3/ft2 each face
3” depth in 20% φ rock
10’ depth in 1/2% φ fractures
© 2009
Width of Fracture Zone for Various Half‐Lengths 
(Sh=5000 psi, Tn=1000 psi)

Fracture
Half-Length

© 2009
Estimated Efficiency with PDL
Using best straight-line
0.75*(ISIP-Pclosure)
extrapolation to closure:
Computed efficiency = 0.48
Actual efficiency (simulator) = 0.28

Using 75% rule:

Computed efficiency = 0.35

Gc
η=
2 + Gc

© 2009
 G‐Function Analysis for Leakoff 
with Variable Storage

Derivatives
Pressure

© 2009
 Sqrt(t) Plot for Leakoff with 
Variable Storage

Derivatives
Pressure

Time © 2009
 Variable Storage Signature on the 
Log‐Log Plot
Delta-Pressure and Derivative

© 2009
 Fracture Height Recession and 
Transverse Storage
Leakoff through a thin permeable layer: Expulsion of fluid from transverse 
fractures:
Decreasing storage relative to leakoff rate 
accelerates pressure decay Maintains pressure in fracture until 
fissures close

© 2009
 Closure‐Time Correction for 
Variable Storage
Pressure Derivative

© 2009
Permeability Estimate with Storage 
Correction
Mini-Frac Permeability = 0.0617 md

Data Input
rp 0.85
φ 0.08 V/V
-1
ct 6.00E-05 psi
E 5 Mpsi
μ 1 cp
Gc 3
Pz 944.0 psi

© 2009
 Tip‐Extension G‐Function Analysis

Derivatives
Pressure

© 2009
 Sqrt(t) Plot for Tip‐Extension
Pressure

Derivatives
© 2009
 Log‐Log Plot for Tip‐Extension
Delta-Pressure and Derivative

© 2009
 Potential Problems in Pressure 
Diagnostics
• Bad ISIP
– Extreme perf restriction
– Wellbore fluid expansion
• Zero surface pressure during falloff
– Falling fluid level
– Non‐zero sandface rate
– Partial vacuum above fluid column
• Gas entry to closed wellbore
– Phase segregation 
• Use of gelled (wall‐building) fluid
– Disruption of after‐closure pressure gradients
– Masking of reservoir flow capacity
© 2009
Example of Ambiguous ISIP Caused by 
Near‐Well Restriction
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Job Data
Minifrac Events
Time BHP SR
1 Start 00:05:45 78547 0.990
2 Shut In 00:10:31 57469 0.000
Bottom Hole Pressure (kPa) A 3 Stop 04:37:46 45868 0.000
A Slurry Rate (m³/min) B B
90000 1.2
1 2
ISIP=80000
80000 1.0

70000 0.8

60000 0.6
(ISIP = 56975)

50000 0.4

40000 0.2

30000 0.0
00:00 00:05 00:10 00:15 © 2009 00:20
3/20/2007 3/20/2007
Time
 BHP G‐function for Early ISIP Shows 
Apparent “PDL”
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - G Function
Bottom Hole Pressure (kPa) A
Smoothed Pressure (kPa) A Time BHP SP DP FE
1st Derivative (kPa) D 1 End of Test 20.29 45908 45907 25457 91.53
A G*dP/dG (kPa) D D
80000 15000
1

75000
12500

70000
10000

65000
7500
60000 (20.05, 6681)

5000
55000
(m = 333.3)
2500
50000

45000 (0.002,
(Y = 0) 0) 0
5 10 15 20
G(Time) © 2009
Late ISIP G‐Function Suppresses “PDL 
Hump”
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - G Function
Bottom Hole Pressure (kPa) A Time BHP SP DP FE
1st Derivative (kPa) D 1 Closure 19.43 45928 45924 11047 91.19
A G*dP/dG (kPa) D D
58000 20000
1
18000
56000
16000

54000 14000

12000
52000
10000
50000
8000

48000 6000
(19.65, 5933

4000
46000 (m = 302)
2000

44000 (0.002,
(Y = 0) 0) 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
© 2009
G(Time)
 Early ISIP Log‐Log Plot Shows Increased 
Separation and Long Negative Derivative Slope
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - Log Log
Delta Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (kPa) A
Delta Smoothed Pressure (kPa) A Time DBHCP DSP FE
Smoothed Adaptive 1st Derivative (kPa/min) B 1 End of Test 264.72 25457 25458 91.53
A Adaptive DTdDP/dDT (kPa) A B
3 14000
BH ISIP = 71366 kPa
2 (3.255, 21772) 1
12000
10000 9 (m = 0.506)
8
7
7x Separation 10000
6 (0.29, 6408)
5
4

3
(Y = 3734) (Y = 3134) 8000
(250.5, 3079)
(m = 0.254)
2 (82.06, 2319)
6000

1000 9
8 4000
7
6
5
4
(Y = 421.8) 2000
3

2 0

100 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2
-2000
0.1 1 10 100
Time (0 = 9.283333) © 2009
Late ISIP Log‐Log Plot Gives Consistent 
Separation
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - Log Log
Delta Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (kPa)
Delta Smoothed Pressure (kPa) Time DBHCP DSP FE
Smoothed Adaptive 1st Derivative (kPa/min) 1 Closure 260.51 11037 11037 91.17
Adaptive DTdDP/dDT (kPa)
2
BH ISIP = 56975 kPa
1
10000 9
8
7
6
5
4 4x (Y = 2956)
3
(254
2 (m = 0.25)
(41.34, 1853)

1000 9
8
7
6
5
4
(Y = 410.3)
3

100 9
8
7
6
5
4
3

10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2
0.1 1 10 © 2009 100
Time (0 = 10.5)
 BHP Gauge Data with Falling Fluid 
Level
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Job Data
Time BGP SR
1 Start 10/2/2006 19:19:03 6393 6.100
2 Shut In 10/2/2006 19:35:34 4368 0.000
BH Gauge Pressure (psi) A 3 Stop 10/2/2006 23:23:40 3027 0.000
A Slurry Rate (bpm) B B
6500 7
1 2 3
6000 6

5500
5
5000
4
4500 (ISIP = 4366)
3
4000
2
3500

3000 1

2500 0
19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00© 2009 03:00
10/2/2006 10/3/2006 10/3/2006
Time
 Long‐Term Falloff with BHP Gauges 
and Falling Fluid Level 
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Job Data
Minifrac Events
Time BGP SR
1 Start 10/2/2006 19:19:03 6393 6.100
2 Shut In 10/2/2006 19:35:34 4368 0.000
BH Gauge Pressure (psi) A 3 Stop 10/2/2006 23:23:39 3027 0.000
A Slurry Rate (bpm) B B
6500 7
1 3
6000 2 6

5500
5
5000
4
4500 (ISIP = 4367)
3
4000
2
3500

3000 1

2500 0
10/3/2006 10/4/2006 10/5/2006 10/6/2006 © 2009
10/7/2006
Time
 Effect of Falling Fluid Level on G‐
Function Derivative Plot
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - G Function
BH Gauge Pressure (psi) A Time BGP SP DP FE
Smoothed Adaptive 1st Derivative (psi) D 1 Closure 5.36 3423 3439 913.5 73.99
A Smoothed Adaptive G*dP/dG (psi) D D
4400 2000
1
4200 1800

1600
4000 (7.373, 1558)

1400
3800
1200
3600
1000
3400
800
(m = 211.4)
3200
600
3000
400

2800 200

2600 (0.002,
(Y = 0) 0) 0
10 20 30 40© 2009
G(Time)
Effect of Falling Fluid Level on Log‐Log 
Diagnostic Plot
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - Log Log
Delta Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (psi) Time DBHCP DSP FE
Smoothed Adaptive 1st Derivative (psi/min) 1 Closure 123.46 929.1 912.6 73.99
Adaptive DTdDP/dDT (psi)
2
BH ISIP = 4352 psi
1

1000 9 (168.5, 1099)

8
7
6
5
(m = 0.912)
4

(32.69, 246.3)
2

100 9
8
7
6
5

10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6
0.1 1 10 100 1000
© 2009
Time (0 = 1175.566667)
Effect of Falling Fluid Level on ACA Log‐
Log Linear Plot
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
ACA - Log Log Linear
Results
Start of Pseudo Linear Time = 71.87 min
(p-pi) (psi) End of Pseudo Linear Time = 98.57 min
Moving Avg Of Slope (psi) Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 110.06 hours
10000 9
8
7
6
Analysis Events
5
4
SLF BGP Slope (p-pi)
3 3 Start of Pseudoradial Flow 0.01 2777 0.000 478.0
2 2 End of Pseudolinear Flow 0.32 3028 0.000 728.3
1 Start of Pseudolinear Flow 0.37 3093 0.000 793.1
1000 9
8
7
6 (m = 0.5)
5
4
3
(m = 1)
2

100 9
8
7
6
5
4
3

2
3 2 1
10 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.01 0.1 © 2009 1
Square Linear Flow (FL^2)
 Effect of Falling Fluid Level on ACA 
Linear Flow Plot
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
ACA - Cartesian Pseudolinear
Analysis Events
LFTF BGP
2 End of Pseudolinear Flow 0.56 3028
1 Start of Pseudolinear Flow 0.61 3093
BH Gauge Pressure (psi)
3500

3400

3300

3200

3100 (m = 1297.8)

3000

2900
Results
Reservoir Pressure = 2296.52 psi
2800 Start of Pseudo Linear Time = 71.87 min
2 1 End of Pseudo Linear Time = 98.57 min
2700
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
© 2009 0.9 1.0
Linear Flow Time Function
Pressure Increase Caused by Gas Entry 
and Phase Segregation
A Wellhead Pressure (psi) A Slurry Rate (bpm) B B
6000 3.5

3.0
5000

2.5
4000

2.0

3000

1.5

2000
1.0

1000
0.5

0 0.0
22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00© 200916:00 18:00
3/22/2003 3/23/2003 3/23/2003
Time
 Pressure Increase from Rising Gas 
Bubbles
zNRT
P2 = P1 =
V

Phead=0.45 psi/ft

zNRT
P1 = Phead =
V
© 2009
 Early‐Time WHP G‐function Analysis
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - G Function
Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (psi) A
Smoothed Pressure (psi) A Time BHCP SP DP FE
1st Derivative (psi) D 1 Closure 1.00 7192 7202 1182 34.54
A G*dP/dG (psi) D D
8500 2000
1
1800
8000
(1.316, 1600) 1600
7500 1400

1200
7000
1000
6500
(m = 1218) 800

6000 600

400
5500
200

5000 (0.002,
(Y = 0) 0) 0
1 2 3 4 5 © 2009 6
G(Time)
 Effect of Gas Entry and Phase 
Segregation on G‐Function
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - G Function
Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (psi) A
Smoothed Pressure (psi) A Time BHCP SP DP FE
1st Derivative (psi) D 1 Closure 1.00 7192 7212 1190 34.54
A G*dP/dG (psi) D D
8500 2000
1
1800
8000
(1.316, 1600) 1600
7500 1400

1200
7000
1000
6500
(m = 1218) 800

6000 600

400
5500
200

5000 (0.002,
(Y = 0) 0) 0
5 10 15 20 © 200925
G(Time)
 Effect of Gas Entry and Phase 
Segregation on Log‐Log Plot
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
Minifrac - Log Log
Delta Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (psi)
Delta Smoothed Pressure (psi) Time DBHCP DSP FE
1st Derivative (psi/min) 1 Closure 5.31 1185 1175 34.54
DTdDP/dDT (psi)
4

3 BH ISIP = 8377 psi

1
2

1000 9 (11.41, 922.9)

8
7
6 (m = -0.5)
5
4 (77.1, 355)
3

100 9 (Y = 96.55)
8
7
6
5
4

10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.1 1 10 100 © 2009 1000
Time (0 = 12.666667)
 Effect of Gas Entry and Phase 
Segregation on ACA Log‐Log Plot
ACA - Log Log Linear
Analysis Events
SLF BHCP Slope (p-pi)
3 Start of Pseudoradial Flow 0.01 5280 297.5 999.9
Results
2 End of Pseudolinear
StartFlow 0.14Linear
of Pseudo 5617
Time 652.2 1337
= 11.88 min
Slope (psi) 1 End of Pseudo
Start of Pseudolinear Flow 0.27 Linear Time = 28.70
6103 913.1 1823min
(p-pi) (psi) Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 17.37 hours
10000 9
8
7
6
5
4
(m = 1)
3

1000 9
8
7
6
5
4 (m = 0.5)
3

100 9
8
7
6
5
4
3

2
3 2 1
10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.001 0.01 0.1 © 2009 1
Square Linear Flow (FL^2)
 Effect of Gas Entry and Phase 
Segregation on ACA Linear Plot
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
ACA - Cartesian Pseudolinear
Analysis Events
LFTF BHCP
2 End of Pseudolinear Flow 0.38 5617
1 Start of Pseudolinear Flow 0.52 6103
Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (psi)
7250

7000

6750

6500

6250

6000
(m = 3541.8)

5750

5500
Results
Reservoir Pressure = 4279.89 psi
5250 Start of Pseudo Linear Time = 11.88 min
2 1 End of Pseudo Linear Time = 28.70 min
5000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
© 2009 0.9 1.0
Linear Flow Time Function
 Effect of Gas Entry and Phase 
Segregation on ACA Radial Plot
GohWin Pumping Diagnostic Analysis Toolkit
ACA - Cartesian Pseudoradial
Analysis Events
RFTF BHCP
1 Start of Pseudoradial Flow 0.01 5280
Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (psi)
7250

7000

6750

6500

6250

6000

5750

5500
Results
(m = 5638.5) Reservoir Pressure = 4894.94 psi
5250 Transmissibility, kh/µ = 87.73613 md*ft/cp
kh = 2.07706 md*ft
5000 Permeability, k = 0.0495 md
1 Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 17.37 hours
4750
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 © 2009 1.6 1.8
Radial Flow Time Function
 Pressure Decay without Filter‐Cake: 
One‐Dimensional Transient Flow

Pfrac

Ppore
Distance from frac face

© 2009
Impact of Resistances in Series
ΔP3=L3/k3 + ΔP2=L2/k2 + ΔP1=L1/k1 = ΔPT

10 2 0.5

K=100 K=1 K=0.001

Kavg=Lt/(L1/k1+ L2/k2+ L3/k3)=0.025

© 2009
 Frac Fluid Loss: Discontinuous Pressure 
Gradient with Filtercake
With filtercake pressure gradient is discontinuous
and far-field gradient is not related to leakoff rate
through reservoir permeability
Pfrac

Ppore
Distance from frac face
© 2009
 Recall: Complete Stress Equation
ν
Pc = [Pob − α v Pp ] + α h Pp + ε x E + σ t
(1 − ν )
• Pc = closure pressure, psi
• ν = Poisson’s Ratio
• Pob = Overburden
Pressure
• αv = vertical Biot’s
poroelastic constant
• αh = horizontal Biot’s
poroelastic constant
• Pp = Pore Pressure
• εx = regional horizontal
strain, microstrains
• E = Young’s Modulus,
million psi
• σt = regional horizontal
tectonic stress
© 2009
 Estimation of 
Pore Pressure & Flow Capacity 
• Horner plot is only valid in pseudo‐radial flow
• Short‐term after‐closure data can be misleading
• In linear flow, ½ slope and 2x factor between DP 
and DP’ is diagnostic
• Pore pressure can be obtained from the linear 
flow period
• Reservoir kh can be determined when radial flow 
is identified
• Pore pressure is related to closure stress
© 2009
 Conclusions:
• G‐function response in low perm, hard rock is 
definitive and relatively easily interpreted
• Closure pressure and leakoff mechanism can be 
defined
• Natural fractures and their stress state can be 
determined
• Closure pressure is related to reservoir pore 
pressure
• Correlations between Gc and production can be 
developed for clean fluid (acid and/or water) 
injection tests
• Extended falloff data can be used for pseudo 
radial flow analysis of perm
© 2009