Minifrac Analysis

1 SPE Calgary, Sept 6, 2012
Common Pitfalls of Mini-frac Analysis

Robert Hawkes,
Director of Completion Technologies

Pure Energy Services

What They Didnt Tell You About
G-function and log-log plots

Bachman
G-function
Reappraisal of the G Time Concept in Mini-Frac Analysis
(SPE 160169, Bachman et al)
Thank you Google Images

Pre-Frac Diagnostics.
.are we wasting our time?
Most of our Pitfalls are coming from
conventional thinking.

Closure Pressure
Still needs a holistic approach ........and more work!

Leak-off Behaviour
Pressure diagnostics is interpretive and heavily
influenced by your discipline.

After Closure Analysis
Be careful how you impose a flow regime on the data.

Diagnostic Approach
o Step-up or Step-down (neither)
o Low Rate or Treatment Rate?
What's the objective
o Interpretation Pitfalls
ISIP
Closure Identification
Think again
Flow Regime Identification
Not as easy as it seems
Specialized Plots
o Completion Considerations
Hz wellbore (toe), Open Hole, Cemented Liner, Packer Leaks, Fluid Choice.....

Source of Maybe Some Common Pitfalls
YES !!
Maybe not
No
Maybe not
Maybe not
sure

Fracture Flow Regimes from Cinco-Ley (1978)
(Static)

-
0

h
Fluid Loss
Velocity

The idea behind Carter's 1D leakoff
coefficient

if a filter-cake wall is building up it will
allow less fluid to pass through a unit
area in unit time

the reservoir itself can take less and
less fluid if it has been exposed to
inflow

Both of these phenomena can be
roughly approximated as "square-root
time behavior"
Carter Leak-off Model
(Dynamic)

Who Has Seen This Shape of G-Function Plot??




Who Has Seen This Behaviour on the Log-log Plot??

SPE 140136 (2011)
Paper identifies 3/2 slope feature and gives some theory
_______.

So What Does the Welltesting Community Have to Offer
to Mini-frac analysis?

First Mini-frac Derivative Plot, ~1990, Dr. Ted. Leshchyshyn

Well Test Analysis Log-Log Derivative Term
(Agarwal Equivalent Time)
Uses radial equivalent time t
er
for derivative
This is NOT the same as Dt

Versatile even when radial flow not present
This is why it is a universal approach to all well test problems
t t
t t
t Derivative Log
dt
P d
t
p
p
er
er
er
D
D

D
_
) (

Nolte G-Function Analysis
Using the Nolte G Function construct the various
plots

Assume no closure and the G Function Solution
runs on forever..

What do things look like?
-
0

h
Fluid
Loss
Velocity

Nolte G
Function

Classic Nolte
behavior with
no closure
P vs G
GdP/dG vs G
dP/dG vs G
Nolte G
Function

Square root-t plot
shows a character
change from early
time to late time
with a constant flow
regime.
Nolte G
Function

Nolte G
Function
Early Time Slope = 1

Late Time Slope = 0.5
Derivative is the logarithmic
derivative of t

conventional approach.
Late Time slope = 0.5 is Carter leak-off,
not the conventional linear flow.

Early Time Slope = 1

Late Time Slope = 1.5*
*as identified in paper 140136
Derivative is the logarithmic
derivative of Agarwal
equivalent (radial) time or

standard well test derivative.
NO linear flow slope, not
picked up in paper 140136.
m = 1.0
m = 1.5
Nolte G
Function

Classic Linear Flow Solution
Infinite acting linear flow
Injection period - classic linear flow
Shut-in period - classic linear flow
Use superposition to compute fall-off response

Linear
Flow

The G-function plot does
not give meaningful
results as the character
changes from early time
to late time with the same
flow regime.
No closure - infinite acting linear flow

Linear
Flow

Square root-t plot also
has a character change
from early time to late
time with the same
flow regime.

Linear
Flow

Intercept is not closure for
the special case 0.5 to -0.5
slope but is instead an
artifact of the plot.


Early Slope = 0.5
Late Slope = -0.5

Linear
Flow
Delta Time

Agarwal Equivalent Time
Early Time Slope = 0.5
Late Time Slope = 0.5

Linear
Flow

Well Test Analysis Approach
The welltest log-log pressure derivative is the best
flow regime indicator in our arsenal
Theory is very well established in traditional PTA
Cinco-ley and Samaniego, 1981
You need to dust off those old and forgotten welltesters in
your closet and exploit them in the mini-frac world.
Welltest Log-log derivative:
the time function is NOT dt of the flow period
the time function is with respect to Agarwal equivalent time
te = tp*dt/(tp+dt)
The Log-log derivatives in Barrees paper SPE 107877
are all with respect to dt as far as we can tell.

Observations and Comments:
1. We need to do flow regime identification before picking closure
pressures
Standard well test log-log derivative plot is key
Flow regime dependent plots
2. Do we need replacements for the Combination G Function plot?
3. We need to calculate the correct derivatives
4. Do we even need ACA plots ?
Why not use standard well test plots to calculate properties ?

Classic Barree Case
Jean Marie oil well example



Conventional Approach

Barree log-log dt plot
Pfoc = 8300 kPa

Pfoc = 8400 kPa
PDL ??

Pfoc = 8400 kPa

Proposed Approach

1. Early Time Linear Flow (0.5)

2. Middle Time Carter Flow (1.5)

3. Late Time Linear Flow (after closure)
Agarwal Equivalent Time
Pfoc = 8400 kPa

Carter Equivalent Time
1. Early Time Linear Flow (0.5)

2. Middle Time Carter Flow (1.0)

3. Late Time Linear Flow (0*)
*zero slope SPE 160169

Over the time range for
which Carter leak-off
has been identified, the
slope does not need to
go through the origin.

Is a Positive Y-intercept
an indictor of PDL,
..not sure.

PPD Curve
1. Late Time Linear Flow (after closure: +0.5)

2. PPD: Late Time Linear Flow (-1.5)

Agarwal Equivalent Time Function and their Slopes
Derivative Early Time Carter Late Time Carter
te 1.0 1.5
PPD 0 -0.5
Early Time Linear Late Time Linear
te 0.5 0.5
PPD 0 -1.5
Early Time Radial Late Time Radial
te 0 0
PPD -1 -2
SPE 160169

CRDM Example

CRDM Example
Establish breakdown and pump 5.0
m3 of fresh water @ 0.45 m3/min
Recorders set @ 1780m KB MD

CRDM Example
Establish breakdown and
pump 5.0 m3 of fresh
water @ 0.45 m3/min
See Log-log plot for ISIP
determination.

CRDM Example

CRDM Example

p = EOJ - Pw
CRDM Example
Conventional Delta Time

Adjusted Agarwal Time
m =1.5
Welltest Log-log
CRDM Example

m =3/2
Delta-Time
m =1/2
m =-1/2
Overlay Log-log Diagnostic Plot
CRDM Example

CRDM Example
PPD

Observations and Conclusions:
1. The starting point for ANY mini-frac analysis should be the standard
welltest Agarwal equivalent time log-log plot.
You must do flow regime identification before picking closure pressure.
The PPD curve has been shown to contain flow regime identification
properties a bonus diagnostic curve to the welltest community.
The industry should discontinue using the delta-time log-log derivative
plot.
2. The G-Function and square root-time plots have been shown to be
poor flow regime (and closure) identification plots?
3. PDL (pressure dependent leakoff) diagnostics using the G-Function
plot needs a holistic approach with the Agarwal equivalent time and
PPD log-log plot.
Needs more study

Observations and Conclusions:
4. Traditional welltest after-closure analysis techniques can be used for
reservoir property determination.
5. Mini-frac analysis should no longer be viewed as an independent
discipline.
6. Talk to your software vendor.
7. and finally..say Flow Regime at least once day when in the office.

Fracture Closure
T
e
s
t

M
e
t
h
o
d

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

M
e
t
h
o
d

Rate
Low High
Shut-in
Surface BHP Both
DFIT/MiniFrac/MDT/XLOT Flowback
G(t) Sqrt(t)
Pressure vs
Returned
Volume
Constant
Rate
Volume
Increments
Stabilized Press.
vs Returned
Volume
Other log(t)
T
i
m
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

Banff SPE Workshop,
April 2012

End of Reception
Banff SPE Workshop,
April 2012

End of April 24
Banff SPE Workshop,
April 2012

Minifrac Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minifrac Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 SPE Calgary, Sept 6, 2012

Common Pitfalls of Mini-frac Analysis

You might also like