SPE-184866-MS

Comparison among Fracture Calibration Test Analysis Models

Christine A. Ehlig-Economides and Guoqing Liu, University of Houston

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Recent papers show new models for matching the injection falloff response to a fracture calibration test,
also known as minifrac or the diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT), one numerical and one analytical.
Both models address variable compliance, but they disagree on the value for minimum stress. The analytical
model provides a way to estimate the effective permeability from the after-closure response that can be
compared to an existing methodology for permeability estimation from the before closure behavior.
The objective of this work is to assess where the existing interpretation models agree or disagree and the
limitations on where the various approaches apply. The McClure numerical model for variable compliance
results in exactly one closure instance, after which all observed behavior is matched with after closure
variable fracture compliance. The Liu analytical decoupled fracture model identifies and matches multiple
closure events, with variable fracture compliance and/or variable fracture surface area. The Craig model
couples before and after closure behavior by treating the fracture closure as storage and matching with
against a family of type curves.
The original Mayerhofer method for before closure permeability estimation has clear potential advantage
over techniques that require the after-closure response. If before and after closure permeability estimates
are sufficiently similar, the need for acquiring after closure data is reduced to pore pressure estimation.
Field examples are used to illustrate the application of the four models. The parameter values estimated
from these analyses are essential to design of the main fracture treatment(s). Discrepancies in the value
estimates may have profound impact on the treatment design and execution.

Background
The term diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) describes injection at a constant rate with sufficient
bottomhole flowing pressure to create and propagate an unpropped hydraulic fracture followed by
cessation of pumping and recording of the transient pressure falloff behavior. While Halliburton markets a
trademarked DFIT service, the industry now accepts this as a generic term, and multiple vendors can provide
the same procedure. Some of the DFIT analysis can be applied to other fracture calibration tests, including
minifrac. However, before the focus on DFIT analysis, industry practice did not necessarily involve or
encourage collection of pressure falloff data beyond evidence of the fracture closure.
2 SPE-184866-MS

Formation permeability and pore pressure are important parameters for hydraulic fracture design and well
performance evaluation. As the industry succeeded in producing gas and then oil in very low permeability
formations, inability for natural flow to an unstimulated well made the conventional pressure buildup test
impractical. Several authors have shown that DFIT data including both before and after closure data enables
estimation of both the traditional parameters sought in minifrac tests from the before closure (BC) behavior
and formation permeability and pore pressure from the after closure (AC) behavior.
Mayerhofer and Economides 1993 originally proposed a model capable of estimating permeability during
poroelastic closure. They identified closure behavior showing the pressure falloff data on the Bourdet
diagnostic plot of pressure change and the derivative of pressure with respect to the logarithm of the
superposition time that is standard for pressure transient analysis. Their analysis only considered the BC
pressure falloff response. Much later Mohamed et al. 2011 used the same Bourdet diagnostic approach to
view both BC and AC behavior as a sequence of flow regimes each with a straight derivative trend. They
noted that normal poroelastic closure exhibits a straight derivative trend with slope 3/2 on the Bourdet plot
and indicated that the closure stress can be estimated as the pressure observed at the time when the Bourdet
derivative trend departs from the 3/2 trend to a lower slope trend. Bachman et al. 2012 and Marongiu-Porcu
et al 2014 explained mathematically why the derivative slope is 3/2 and pointed out that the closure trend
based on the Nolte 1979 g-function model for Carter 1957 leakoff starts with a unit slope derivative that
bends through a transition to the final 3/2 slope behavior. Liu and Ehlig-Economides 2016 explained that
unit derivative slope closure behavior occurs up to elapsed falloff time equal to the pumping time, tp, and
that 3/2 derivative slope behavior occurs for elapsed time greater than 10tp.
Subsequent efforts toward permeability estimation have focused on AC analysis. Xue and Ehlig-
Economides 2013 summarized existing methods for permeability estimation using specialized plots and
discussed the inherent relationship between permeability and pore pressure estimation. The term specialized
plot applies to graphs that feature behavior of only one flow regime. For example, the Horner plot for
pressure buildup test analysis features only the radial flow regime, and the G-function plot for BC DFIT
analysis features only Carter leakoff behavior characterized by the Nolte model.
Craig and Blasingame 2005 developed type curves of a model for BC and AC behavior that treated the
fracture closure behavior as variable storage and modeled AC as an effectively infinite conductivity fracture
reaching pseudoradial flow. They presented the type curves on a log-log plot with pressure change and a
nonstandard derivative given by the product of total elapsed test time te + t and the pressure difference
pwi(t)-pi.
The advantage of the Bourdet diagnostic plot is that the slope of the derivative trend associated with
each flow regime is the same as the time exponent for the associated function for the flow regime pressure
transient behavior. Bachman et al. 2012 showed various other log-log plots and provided tables indicating
slopes of their straight derivative trends for various flow regimes seen in DFITs. They recommend adding
the primary pressure derivative (PPD) introduced by Mattar and Zaoral 1992 to the Bourdet plot. The PPD
is computed simply as dp/dt, and this approach was considered and rejected by Bourdet et al. 1989 in favor
of the one used today for model diagnosis by most pressure transient analysts. Since all of the flow regimes
are visible with either derivative choice, it is debatable whether both are really needed.
Recently McClure et al. 2016 introduced a new model for DFIT behavior that models behavior after
mechanical fracture closure as variable compliance. This model describes mechanical closure as the time
when sufficient fluid leakoff has occurred for grains along a mismatched granular fracture surface to touch.
This model typically identifies a higher closure pressure than standard methods used in the industry.
This paper compares models for matching the injection falloff behavior and explains why some models
are able to provide estimates for formation permeability and pore pressure even no pseudoradial flow
appears in the AC response. We then discuss why analysts are struggling to agree on closure pressure and
why this matters. Finally, field examples illustrate behaviors that provoke discussion.
SPE-184866-MS 3

Necessary and Sufficient Behavior for Permeability and Pore Pressure

Estimation
While many specialized plots have been proposed that address behavior of a single flow regime, models that
address the multiple flow regimes encountered by coupling before and after closure are few. They include
the work by Craig and Blasingame 2005, Marongiu-Porcu et al. 2014, Liu and Ehlig-Economides 2016,
and McClure et al. 2016. All of these models have the potential to match the entire falloff response at least
in some cases. To understand what each model can and cannot do, it is worthwhile to consider parameters
in common to multiple flow regimes.
Liu, Ehlig-Economides, and Sun 2016 provided a table showing parameters of interest and flow regime
equations that include them in the BC and/or AC response(s). A key parameter commonly seen in both BC
and AC responses is the fracture half-length, xf. Specifically, leakoff area can be estimated whenever the G-
function derivative, dp/dlnG, follows a straight trend that passes through the origin (G(t) = 0 and dp/dlnG
= 0), and the Bourdet derivative is straight with slope 3/2 (for t > 10tp) or 1 (for t < tp). If multiple closures
appear, xf is estimated only for the final closure, and the xf estimation depends on the 2D model used to model
the fracture representing the closure behavior. For all models except that by McClure et al. 2016, the final
closure is followed by a decrease in the G-function and Bourdet derivative trends. Further, a straight slope
trend in the Bourdet derivative after the final closure represents the formation linear flow regime sensitive
to the product with k equal to the formation permeability. Therefore, a clear final closure trend
followed by a slope Bourdet derivative trend enables estimation of the formation permeability.
A common current practice is to use the linear flow trend to estimate the formation pore pressure. This
approach is fundamentally erroneous because it relies on the assumption that the formation linear flow can
continue as the pressure perturbation diffuses away from the fracture. However, when the pressure diffusion
reaches a distance of about 5 fracture half-lengths, pseudoradial flow dominates and must be used for the
pressure extrapolation. Nolte, Maniere, and Owens 1997 showed that the pressure extrapolation from linear
flow does not equal the one based on pseudoradial flow.
There is no need to use formation linear behavior for the pore pressure estimation. Instead, the
permeability estimated form the formation linear flow trend can be used to extrapolate the pressure change
and derivative trends to pseudoradial flow. The pseudoradial flow extrapolation enables pore pressure
estimation directly using the following equations from Liu, Ehlig-Economides, and Sun 2016:

(1)

(2)

for t, mpws or (pws) in the extrapolated pseudoradial flow, with m' the level of the extrapolated flat
Bourdet derivative trend, te the material balance time representing the injection and closure before the falloff,
pwi(tp) the pressure at the end time of end of pumping, tp, and m(pwi)(tp), the real gas pseudopressure at the
end time of pumping.
Appearance of pseudoradial flow in a DFIT is unlikely in very low permeability formations, even for
DFITs designed to create a small fracture. As Marongiu-Porcu et al 2014 indicates, there is a minimum
injection volume required to ensure a fracture is actually created. To illustrate the point, for xf = 20 ft in
a formation with 10 d permeability and porosity 0.05 with light oil viscosity of 1 cp and total formation
compressibility 106 psi1, the radial radius of investigation equation indicates that the time required for the
pressure disturbance to reach pseudoradial flow is

(3)
4 SPE-184866-MS

The likely fracture half-length will be greater than 20 ft. Nonetheless, if pseudoradial flow actually
appears in a DFIT, permeability and pore pressure estimations are straightforward. If both pseudoradial
and formation linear flow appear after closure, the fracture half-length estimate must be consistent
with the estimate from the final BC trend, and this must be used in the 2D fracture model choice.
Because it only applied to a single normal closure, the original Mayerhofer method was very limited.
Further, the method depends on independent estimation of the formation pore pressure. Today commercial
software attempts to match a closure iterating on an adaptation of the original Mayerhofer model using
pore pressure estimated by extrapolating the formation linear flow trend. Clearly this only works when
formation linear flow appears in the AC trend, and the permeability estimate based on an erroneous pore
pressure estimate will also be in error. However, the previous remarks in this paper indicate that permeability
estimation is much more straightforward and direct using AC formation linear flow and the xf estimated
from the final BC trend. When no AC formation linear flow trend appears, permeability estimation
using the Mayerhofer method is highly uncertain.
The models by Craig and Blasingame 2005 and Marongiu-Porcu, et al. 2014 should arrive at similar
permeability and pore pressure estimates whenever formation linear flow appears in the AC response
provided the same 2D fracture model is used. However, BC flow regimes seen on the Bourdet diagnostic
plot provide direct indication of the BC behavior disguised somewhat by the variable storage coefficients
in the Craig and Blasingame 2005 type curves. Further, the rework of the Craig field example shown in
this paper underscores the importance of the analysis details required to reach definitive permeability and
pore pressure estimations.
The various papers prepared by Liu since 2015 show models for abnormal closure behavior that enable
quantification of addition parameters of interest. With or without abnormal closure behavior, coupling BC
and AC behavior enables quantification of permeability and pore pressure whenever formation linear flow
appears in the AC response.
Xue and Ehlig-Economides 2011 and Bachman et al. 2012 showed field data with slope AC derivative
trends. The slope trend suggests bilinear flow, which is sensitive to , where kf is the fracture
permeability and w is the fracture width. The relationship of this trend to fracture half-length is not
straightforward. In the Xue and Ehlig-Economides 2011 paper, the slope derivative trend was followed
by a slope trend, and those data should produce viable permeability and pore pressure estimates based on
the remarks in this paper. If the slope AC derivative trend bends toward a flat pseudoradial trend, model
extrapolation yields estimates for formation permeability and pore pressure. However, the Bachman case
shown in Figure 1 ends with a slope AC derivative trend. In this case, a BC estimate for the fracture half-
length can be used to estimate a maximum value for the formation permeability that will, in turn, provide
a lower bound for pore pressure.
SPE-184866-MS 5

Figure 1DFIT example from Bachman et al. 2012 showing

evidence of finite conductivity fracture in both BC and AC response.

ISIP and Closure Stress Estimation

When applied to a DFIT executed in a horizontal well the standard method for identifying the closure
pressure from a G-function plot frequently yields a very large difference between the pumping pressure at
the end of pumping and the closure pressure. This difference should not be viewed as net pressure because
it includes pressure losses not modeled by standard 2D models for PKN, KGD, or radial fracture growth.
Part of the apparent pressure loss relates to pressure losses strictly in the well. These dissipate quickly
at the start of the falloff. The instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) represents the wellbore pressure at the
end of pumping. The difference between the ISIP and the pressure at the end of pumping can be quite large
depending on the fluid pumped and the diameter of the flow between the surface and the test location.
Frequently the difference between the closure stress and the ISIP also cannot be viewed as net pressure for
fracture design purposes because this, too, includes pressure losses not modeled by standard 2D models for
PKN, KGD, or radial fracture growth.
A fracture created from a horizontal well will likely start propagation parallel to the wellbore trajectory
in response to local stress altered during drilling and is expected to turn toward propagation in the direction
normal to the far field minimum stress within about 3 wellbore radii. Fracture propagation sufficiently
distant from the horizontal well may approximate the behavior predicted by standard 2D models. When
pressure loss in the near wellbore region is subtracted, the remaining apparent net pressure behavior will be
consistent with 2D propagation models. Putting all this together leads to the following:
(4)
where pf is the fracture pressure in the portion of the fracture under the influence of the far field stress, and
ptort is the pressure loss in the near wellbore region due to fracture tortuosity, shear bands formed during
drilling, etc., and can be measured with a step rate test that accounts for the ISIP. Very likely ptort may be
higher for a DFIT than for the actual treatment.
Fracture execution must overcome ptort, and by comparison, it may be that effectively from
the pumping perspective even when they may differ by hundreds of psi. The DFIT behavior betrays this
behavior on the G-function plot as transferred (transverse) storage and on the Bourdet diagnostic plot as
successive apparent closures with the derivative trend of the second apparent closure above that of the first.
6 SPE-184866-MS

The second field example following this discussion illustrates this behavior. Transferred storage may occur
when fluid residing in the portion of the fracture in the tortuous near wellbore region is unable to leak off
and, instead, flows into the fracture system beyond this region. The stress working to close this portion of the
fracture may be close to the maximum horizontal stress. When the behavior during this portion of the falloff
shows apparent closure behavior, this indicates that the leakoff area is constant. The upward departure from
the closure trend on either the G-function or the Bourdet derivative indicates loss of leakoff area during the
transfer of the fluid stored where it no longer has sufficient net pressure to leak off into the formation matrix.
McClure et al. 2016 take a very different approach to modeling transferred (transverse) storage. The
McClure model accepts only one fracture closure event followed by upward departure that others would
label transferred (transverse) storage. The upward departure from the early closure trend is modeled as
variable compliance as is all remaining falloff behavior. The model cannot be applied to normal closure.
Nor can it apply to apparent pressure dependent leakoff area behavior seen as two or more closures ended
by decreasing derivatives on the G-function and Bourdet plots. The latter may be an indication of multiple
secondary fracture sets in hydraulic communication with the primary fracture and initiated by shear motion
induced during propagation of the primary fracture.
An interpretation using the McClure model will arrive at closure pressure approximating pf in Eq. (4),
and this pressure may be as much as several hundred psi higher than the closure pressure associated with
minimum stress that is picked as the final closure on the G-function and Bourdet plots. While the Liu and
Ehlig-Economides 2015 model can also treat the transverse storage as variable compliance, their model will
also address cases that the McClure model cannot address. Also, the Liu and Ehlig-Economides 2015 model
will identify the final closure associated with final constant compliance and constant leakoff area after which
AC behavior can be analyzed for estimation of permeability and pore pressure in the way described in the
previous section.
Figure 45 from Nguyen and Cramer 2013 illustrates what they label mechanical closure as touching of
unmatched grains along the fracture face. This picture is in fundamental disagreement with fracture closure
as described by the Nolte 1979 g-function and requires that the created fracture experiences shear motion.
Part of the motivation for this hypothesis may be to explain why the AC response may show apparent
bilinear or linear flow, both of which would indicate a fracture that is still open to flow.
To evaluate this issue, it is instructive to estimate the conductivity of a crack. Since the permeability of a
crack is given by w2/12, conductivity of a crack will be given by w3/12, where w is the crack width. Further,
we can estimate the dimensionless conductivity of a crack with length xf and for matrix permeability k as w3/
(12kxf) For typical tight rock conditions with k = 0.001 md = 1015m2, and xf = 100 ft = 30.5 m, an effectively
infinite conductivity fracture with CfD = 50 would have width,
(5)
A finite conductivity fracture with CfD = 1.6 would have width ~80 microns. Both values are much greater
than a typical pore radius of 1 micron = 0.000001 m or less or much less in very tight rock.

Field Examples
This section will address two field cases. The first is a rework of the example prepared by Craig and
Blasingame 2006. The second illustrates a fracture with tip extension and transferred storage followed by
AC behavior that may exhibit dual porosity flow behavior.

Case 1: DFIT Showing BC Tip Extension Followed by Normal Closure and AC Formation Linear
Flow
These data were originally presented by Craig and Blasingame 2006. A total 17.69 bbl of treated 1%
KCl water was injected into formation within 5.3 minutes, and then the well was shut in for 16.1 hour.
SPE-184866-MS 7

The Bourdet derivative diagnostic plot and the composite G-function plot are shown in Figures 2 and 3,
respectively. The first trend in Figure 2 denoted with the dashed green line with unit slope is likely to be the
friction dissipation after shut-in. The ISIP value selected at the end of the unit slope trend is 3100 psi, very
close to the pressure at the end of pumping, which is 3123 psi. The G-function plot in Figure 2 shows classic
evidence of tip extension. The extrapolated straight line (red solid line) is lying above the origin, which is
the typical feature for tip extension behavior. From the perspective of the created fracture, tip extension is
analogous to a continuation of injection and should be taken as part of total injection time. As suggested by
Liu and Ehlig-Economides 2015, the end of tip extension is picked at the start of the straight trend, at around
tte = 0.071 hr or G(tteD) = 1.17. The Bourdet diagnostic plot is redrawn in Figure 3 with the pumping
time adjusted to account for the tip extension. The G-function now shows normal closure, and the Bourdet
derivative shows that the first portion of the apparent elastic closure occurs for elapsed time less than the
adjusted pumping time, tp + tte, and shows a unit slope derivative trend. The portion of the closure after
this time happens between tp and 10 tp and is in the transition from the unit (1) to 3/2 slope.

Figure 2Bourdet derivative and composite G-function diagnostic plot of Case 1

Figure 3Bourdet derivative and G-function diagnostic plot without tip extension for Case 1

Craig and Blasingame 2006 indicated that the tested sand has a gas saturation about 50% with gross
and net thickness at 14 ft and 12 ft, respectively, and the tested layer is separated from adjacent sands
with impermeable and high stress mudstone and shale. The PKN model should be used for a layer with
such a limited height. While Craig and Blasingame 2006 used the KGD model, which requires the fracture
8 SPE-184866-MS

has a much longer extension in height than in length, their estimated fracture half-length is about 122 ft,
much longer than the height. Table 1 shows the analysis results published by Craig and Blasingame 2005.
Marongiu-Porcu et al. 2011 reinterpreted the data with a PKN model assuming a fracture height of 65ft,
instead of 14ft, and got the fracture half-length at 173ft. With the normal leakoff picked in Figure 3, we
reinvestigated the data with PKN, KGD and radial fracture models, and Table 2 shows the BC interpretation
results for the fracture height, length, and width and the leakoff coefficient for each of the 3 models.

Table 1Analysis Results from Craig and Blasingame 2006

Parameters Value

Formation net height, ft 12

Formation gross height, ft 14

Gas saturation, % 50

Young's Modulus, psi 5106

Poisson ratio 0.2

Porosity 0.1

Gas gravity 0.63

Closure pressure, psi 2790

Fracture half-length with KGD, ft 122.2

Permeability with KGD, md 0.008

Fracture radius with Radial fracture model, ft 63.0

Permeability with Radial fracture model, md 0.032

Fracture half-length from type curve, ft 63.0

Permeability from type-curve match, md 0.012

Pore pressure, psi 2332

Table 2BC results for 3 possible fracture models

KGD PKN Radial

Fracture height, ft 14 14 143

Fracture half-length/radius, ft 148.7 3160 71.7

Fracture width at shut-in, inch 0.356 0.017 0.0928

Leakoff coefficient, 104 fWmin 3.36 0.61 2.89

The closure pressure seen at the departure from closure trends in the Bourdet and G-function plots is
2792 psi, which is quite close to the value 2790 psi reported by Craig and Blasingame 2006. Assuming a
radial model Craig and Blasingame 2006 reported a fracture radius of 63 ft and permeability 0.038md. An
issue with this analysis is that they also report microseismic evidence that the fracture is contained giving a
likely hf of 14 ft compared to the formation thickness of 12 ft. Use of a radial model should imply permeable
rock opposite all of the created fracture. If a radial fracture were created with much of the fracture height
outside the permeable formation, inability to leakoff in the impermeable rock above and below should
induce evidence of height recession in the pressure falloff response. Yet no such behavior is evident. A
KGD model that results in fracture half-length 10 times the fracture height should also be questioned. As
Craig and Blasingame 2006 probably also saw, use of a PKN fracture model results in unrealistic fracture
half-length exceeding 3000 ft.
SPE-184866-MS 9

Because these data show formation linear flow in the AC response, our permeability estimates should
be quite similar to those reported by Craig and Blasingame 2006, but they are not. The discrepancy in
the permeability estimates results from our use of a radial fracture model that leaks off through the entire
radial fracture area, not just through the 12 ft thickness used by Craig and Blasingame 2006. The Craig
and Blasingame 2006 approach does not require that the fracture height be consistent with a radial fracture.
Including the additional fracture area beyond the 12 ft thickness results in a much lower permeability
estimate. Branagan et al. 1996 actually report the gross B sand thickness to be 60 ft.
Figure 5 shows a match for the buildup behavior using fracture half-length and formation permeability
and pore pressure estimates for the three models and assuming that the radial flow fracture can produce
through productive formation height equal to twice the fracture radius. The other two models fail to match
because the fracture model honors rp = 12/14. It is interesting that this fracture continued to produce without
proppant. This is direct evidence that an apparently closed fracture in a tight formation remained conductive.
The fracture conductivity of 1.9 md-ft with dimensionless fracture conductivity of 155, permeability of 210
nd and fracture half-length of 56 ft corresponds to a crack width of about 20 microns based on Equation (5)).
Because these data in include AC linear flow, permeability can also be estimated from a match with the
Mayerhofer and Economides 1993 model using FracproPT. This results in estimates of permeability equal
to 0.0054 md and pore pressure 2669 psi. The FracproPT match does not allow fixing the pore pressure
to a value estimated from the AC response. While this permeability estimate is similar to that reported by
Craig and Blasingame 2006, the pore pressure is higher than recorded falloff pressures. Fundamentally, the
FracproPT for the Mayerhofer permeability estimation does not couple BC and AC responses.

Figure 4History Match using radial fracture model for the Craig and Blasingame
2016 data including tip extension and extrapolation to pseudoradial flow

Case 2: DFIT Showing BC Tip Extension and Transferred Storage and AC Dual Porosity Behavior
This case was presented in Liu, Ehlig-Economides, and Sun 2016. Figure 5 shows the model matches, and
Table 3 shows the analysis results. These results highlight the pressures mentioned in Eq. (4). The McClure
model would indicate closure pressure of 6624 psi compared to the final closure of 5732 psi, a difference
of more than 900 psi. The ISIP for this model is 8770 psi compared to the pressure at the end of pumping of
11,300 giving rate dependent friction pressure loss of more than 2500 psi. The first trend is matched by tip
extension because the net pressure during this section is relatively high. The end of tip extension is picked
at bottom of the valley in both diagnostic plots shown in Figure 6, and the pressure at this point may be
taken as the minimum propagation pressure at 6647 psi.
10 SPE-184866-MS

Figure 5Match with Craig and Blasingame 2006 buildup data

Figure 6Model matches for Case 2 from Liu, Ehlig-Economides, and Sun 2016

Table 3Interpretation results for Case 1 history match in Figure 4

pfric, psi 31.9

Rf, initial, ft 58.5

Rf, final, ft 71.8

2.89104

Pp, min, psi 2961

Pc, psi 2792

, % 71.2

Permeability, nd 134

Formation pressure, psi 2350

This interpretation avoids assigning pressure loss to pptort. Modeling ptort will be the subject of future
work.
SPE-184866-MS 11

Table 3Analysis Results for Case 2 from Liu, Ehlig-Economides, and Sun 2016

Rf, initial, ft 41.0

Rf, final, ft 62.9

pprop, min, psi 6,647

Afm, ft 2
12,410

4.16 10-4

Afn, ft2 11,882

pfc, psi 6,624

pc, psi 5,732

,% 87.9

(Storativity ratio) 0.4

(Interporosity coeff.) 40

klinear, nd 40.6

kradial, nd 130

pi, psi 4.424

Conclusions
Models by Mayerhofer and Economides1993, Craig and Blasingame 2006, and Liu, Ehlig-Economides, and
Sun 2016 should give very similar results for pore pressure and permeability whenever formation linear flow
appears in the AC response. However, large discrepancies in permeability estimates occur when consistent
fracture models are required for BC and AC responses.
Pseudoradial flow is not required for formation permeability and pore pressure. The common industry
practice of extrapolating formation linear flow to estimate pore pressure causes errors and is not necessary
because pore pressure can be estimated by extrapolating the model for formation linear flow to pseudoradial
flow.
The McClure et al. 2016 model applies only for a subset of the response patterns observed in DFIT falloff
responses and represents a major departure from accepted analysis practices. It has introduced industry wide
disagreement in closure pressure estimation that can be reconciled by a more detailed analytical modeling
approach.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Kappa Engineering for use of the Kappa Workstation. We would also like
to acknowledge Dr. David Craig for recent remarks that provided insight for this work and for including the
data in his PhD dissertation. We also thank Maria Bychina for her help in the analysis.

Nomenclature
Af = fracture surface area, L2
Afl = fracture surface area after tip-extension, L2
Afm = main fracture surface area, L2
Afn = total natural fracture surface area, L2
CfD = dimensionless fracture conductivity, dimensionless
CL = leakoff coefficient, L/t
ct = total compressibility, Lt2/m
12 SPE-184866-MS

hf = total fracture height, L

G = G-function, dimensionless
ISIP = instantaneous shut-in pressure, m/Lt2
k = permeability, L2
klinear = permeability estimate from AC formation linear flow, L2
kradial = permeability estimate from AC pseudoradial flow, L2
m(p) = real gas pseudopotential, m/Lt3
m' = derivative level during pseudoradial flow, m/Lt2
p = pressure, m/Lt2
pc = main fracture closure pressure, m/Lt2
pf = internal fracture pressure, m/Lt2
pnet = net pressure in the fracture, m/Lt2
pp, min = minimum fracture propagation pressure, m/Lt2
pw = bottomhole pressure, m/Lt2
pwi = shut-in pressure at end of injection, m/Lt2
pfric = friction pressure loss, m/Lt2
ptort = near wellbore tortuosity pressure loss, m/Lt2
rp = permeable fracture surface area ratio, dimensionless
Rf = fracture radius in radial fracture model, L
Rf initial = fracture radius at shut-in, L
Rf, final = fracture radius at the end of tip extension, L
t = time, t
tc = fracture closure time, t
tp = pumping time, t
V = volume, L3
w = fracture width, L
xf = fracture half-length, L

Greek
= difference, dimensionless
= porosity, percentage
= interporosity flow coefficient, L2
= fluid viscosity, m/Lt
= fluid efficiency, percentage
= storativity ratio, dimensionless

Subscripts
c = closure
D = dimensionless
f = fracture
w = wellbore
te = tip extension
SPE-184866-MS 13

References
Bachman, R. C., Walters, D. A., Hawkes, R., Toussaint, F. L., & Settari, T. (2012, January 1). Reappraisal of the G Time
Concept in MiniFrac Analysis. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/160169-MS
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A., & Pirard, Y. M. (1989, June 1). Use of Pressure Derivative in Well Test Interpretation. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/12777-PA
Branagan, P. T., Warpinski, N. R., Engler, B., & Wilmer, R. (1996, January 1). Measuring the Hydraulic Fracture-Induced
Deformation of Reservoirs and Adjacent Rocks Employing a Deeply Buried Inclinometer Array: GRI/DOE Multi-Site
Project. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/36451-MS
Carter, RD.: App. of: "Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture Extension," Drilling and Prod. Prac. API (1957).
Craig, D. P., & Blasingame, T. A. (2005, January 1). A New Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test Determines
Reservoir Properties and Identifies Existing Conductive or Damaged Fractures. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/96785-MS
Craig, D. P., & Blasingame, T. A. (2006, January 1). Application of a New Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting
for Propagating, Dilated, and Closing Hydraulic Fractures. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/100578-MS
Nguyen, D. H., & Cramer, D. D. (2013, February 4). Diagnostic Fracture Injection Testing Tactics in Unconventional
Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/163863-MS
Liu, G., & Ehlig-Economides, C. (2015, September 28). Comprehensive Global Model for Before-Closure Analysis of an
Injection Falloff Fracture Calibration Test. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/174906-MS
Liu, G., & Ehlig-Economides, C. (2016, February 1). Interpretation Methodology for Fracture Calibration Test Before-
Closure Analysis of Normal and Abnormal Leakoff Mechanisms. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/179176-
MS
Liu, G., Ehlig-Economides, C., & Sun, J. (2016, August 24). Comprehensive Global Fracture Calibration Model. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/181856-MS
Mattar, L., & Zaoral, K. (1992, April 1). The Primary Pressure Derivative (Ppd) A New Diagnostic Tool in Well Test
Interpretation. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/92-04-06
Mayerhofer, M. J., & Economides, M. J. (1993, January 1). Permeability Estimation from Fracture Calibration
Treatments. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/26039-MS
Marongiu-Porcu, M., Retnanto, A., Economides, M. J., & Ehlig-Economides, C. (2014, February 4). Comprehensive
Fracture Calibration Test Design. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/168634-MS
McClure, M. W., Jung, H., Cramer, D. D., & Sharma, M. M. (2016, August 1). The Fracture-Compliance Method
for Picking Closure Pressure from Diagnostic Fracture-Injection Tests. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/179725-PA
Mohamed, I. M., Azmy, R. M., Sayed, M. A. I., Marongiu-Porcu, M., & Economides, C. (2011, January 1). Evaluation
of After-Closure Analysis Techniques for Tight and Shale Gas Formations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/140136-MS
Nolte, K. G. (1979, January 1). Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/8341-MS
Nolte, K. G., Maniere, J. L., & Owens, K. A. (1997, January 1). After-Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/38676-MS
Xue, H., & Ehlig-Economides, C. (2013, August 12). Permeability Estimation from Fracture Calibration Test Analysis
in Shale and Tight Gas. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.1190/URTEC2013-023