ADVANCED WELL TEST

ANALYSIS
Ch. 4 – Hydraulically
Fractured Wells
Djebbar TIAB, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Petroleum Engineering
University of Oklahoma
dtiab@ou.edu --- uptecsh@aol.com
3709 Windover Drive
Norman, Oklahoma, 73072, USA

Copyright © 2016, Djebbar TIAB. All rights reserved.

No part of this manual maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, or transmitted in any or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the author.
 3

Content
1. Hydraulic Fracturing: (+Video)
2. Interpretation of pressure tests in hydraulically
fractured wells using pressure and derivatives,
linear plots, semi-log analysis
3. Derivative Techniques: uniform flux, infinite
conductivity fractures
4. Finite conductivity fractures
5. Average Reservoir Pressure in HF reservoirs
6. Inclined Hydraulic Fractures
7. Average Reservoir Pressure
8. MHF and Fracture Tortuosity
9. Practical Aspects of Acidizing & Acid Fracturing
(+Video)
10. Numerical Examples

INTRODUCTION
 5

1 - OBJECTIVE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

• The main objective of hydraulic fracturing for well

stimulation is to increase well productivity by
creating a highly conductive path some distance
away from the skin zone into the formation.

• The fracture creates more surface area to the

wellbore without drilling another well.

• Since more reservoir area is in direct

communication with the wellbore, a greater volume
of fluid can be produced into the wellbore per unit
time, resulting in an increased production rate.

• This basic objective has not changed since

hydraulic fracturing was introduced in the early
1950’s.

• At the beginning, hydraulic fracturing was

considered a good mean to increase
productivity of the wells completed in low-
permeability reservoirs.

• Now, it has become an integral part of most

well completions.
 7

2 - HOW IS FORMATION HYDRAULICALLY

FRACTURED?

1. A hydraulic fracturing job is generally

accomplished by pumping a suitable fluid into
the formation at a rate faster than the fluid can
leak off into the rock.

σmin

σmin

FLUID LEAK OFF

σmin
 9

2. As fluid pressure or stress at the sand-face is

built up sufficient to overcome the earth
compressive stress holding the rock material
together,
… fracturing of the formation matrix is initiated
along a plane perpendicular to the minimum
compressive (least principal) stress.

σmin

σmin

10

The wellbore fluid pressure overcomes the earth

compressive stress when it exceeds the fracturing Pressure
Pf which is equal to the pore pressure of rock + the tensile
strength of the rock + the in situ least-principal rock
stress.

At this pressure, a fracture is generated on either side of

the wellbore and will propagate some distance away from
the hole.

σmin

σmin
 11

3. After sufficient fracturing fluid pad has been injected to

open the fracture wide enough to accept proppant,
sand is typically added to the fracturing fluid and is
carried into the fracture to hold it open.

4. When sufficient sand has been injected, the pumps are

shut down, the pressure in the fracture drops, and the
earth compressive stress closes the fracture on the
proppant.
 14
5. To hold the fracture open after
initiation, the pressure in the
fracture must exceed the pore
pressure by an amount equal to
the minimum effective rock
matrix stress.

6. This pressure is called the fracture

closure pressure. The fracture
gradient is the fracture closure
pressure divided by the depth.
Proppant Type Recommendations Based on Closure Stress

16
GEOMETRY OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURES?
 17

GEL RESTRICTING WATER ENTRY INTO FRACTURE

18

3 - ORIENTATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURES

The orientation of hydraulic fractures is a function of the stress
distribution in the formation.

If the least principal (or minimum effective) matrix stress in

the formation is horizontal, which is often the case for
depths higher than 2000 or 3000 ft, then a vertical fracture
will be obtained.

If the least principal stress is vertical, as is the case at shallow

depths (2000 ft. or less), a horizontal fracture could occur.

σmin

σmin
 19
This situation is (on rare occasions) encountered in areas of
thrust faulting or where erosion has occurred after
deposition; in both cases rocks may be under greater
horizontal compressive stress than vertical overburden
stress.

If the direction of the least-principal stress changes away from

the wellbore, so will the orientation of the hydraulic fracture.

If the difference between the maximum and minimum in situ

principal stresses is low (e.g. <200 psi), rock anisotropies
(including natural fractures) can control fracture orientation.

σmin

σmin

20

4 - UNINTENDED HYDRAULIC FRACTURES

• Hydraulic fractures can sometimes be

generated in the wellbore by accident.

• Overbalanced mud systems often cause failure

by hydraulic fracture at the wellbore.

• Such fractures can propagate up-hole behind

the casing, causing substantial production
problems.

• These induced fractures follow the same

mechanics of formation as fractures generated
during stimulation.
5 – NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
Hydraulic fracturing of naturally fractured reservoirs is a
critical issue for petroleum industry, as fractures can have
complex growth patterns when propagating in systems of
natural fractures.

Hydraulic and natural fracture interaction may lead to

significant diversion of hydraulic fracture paths due to
intersection with natural fractures which causes difficulties in
proppant transport and eventually job failure.

Figure 1. Propagating hydraulic fracture crosses the natural

fracture and keep moving without any significant change
in its path: left image is a schematic view of crossing and
right image is the result of experimental study [4].

Figure 2. Hydraulic fracture turns into the natural fracture

and propagates along it: left image is a schematic view and
right image is the result of experimental study [4].

Figure 1. Figure 2.
 23

6 - POST-FRAC PRESSURE TESTS

1. Pressure analysis techniques have been published for both

the vertical and horizontal fractures.

2. Because hydraulic horizontal fractures are rarely

encountered only pressure analysis of vertical fractures is
presented here.

3. The purpose for testing fractured wells is to determine

fracture geometry, fracture conductivity, and formation
matrix properties in order to provide an assessment of the
success of the fracture treatment and predict a long-term
deliverability for the reservoir.

4. Conventional pressure analysis techniques are briefly

introduced, then modern techniques based on the use of
the pressure derivative are extensively discussed in this
lecture.

Vertical extent of fracturing and detecting lost

circulation

1. The temperature of fluids and solids injected

during a frac job is low relative to that of the
formation which causes anomalies in the
geothermal profile.

2. This effect also applies to lost circulation zones

that receive excessive amounts of drilling mud.

3. Diagnosis of these anomalies with temperature

surveys can supply quantitative data on the
fracture size and amount of mud lost.
 25

3.I -
CONVENTIONAL
TECHNIQUES

26

I – PHYSICAL MODEL & THEORY

The Figure represents an ideal vertical fracture. The usual

assumptions apply, i.e. the porous medium is isotropic, horizontal,
homogeneous, uniform in thickness, and has constant
permeability.

Also, the fracture fully penetrates the vertical extent of the

formation and is the same length on both sides of the well.

w
Well

Fracture
Thickness

Impermeable
boundaries

xf
 27

The product of fracture permeability kf and fracture width wf is

known as fracture conductivity Cf = kfwf.

Hydraulic fracturing is successful if a fracture conductivity that is

at least 100 to 10000 times larger than that of the formation
conductivity (kh) is achieved; thus:

C f = k f w f = 10000 kh (1.1)

w
Well

Fracture

Thickness
Impermeable
boundaries

xf

28

Fracturing is also deemed successful if the skin factor is

reduced to less than -3.

For a very highly conductive fracture and assuming

linear flow, the skin factor is (approximately) related to
rw' and the fracture half-length (Xf) by:
w
Well

xf −s
rw ' ≈ ≈ rw e
Fracture

(1.2)
Thickness

2
Impermeable
boundaries

xf

Eq. 1.2 is rarely used in practice.

N o -flo w B o u n d a ry

This eq. applies only for infinite- V e rtic a l fra c tu re

W e ll

conductivity fractures, xf

- it tends to underestimate Xf for xe

finite-conductivity fractures.
 29

It is important to emphasize that fracturing does not alter

the reservoir permeability in any way. Basically, fracturing
increases the effective wellbore radius, rw', by some amount.

Figure 1.2 is a plane view of a closed square system with a

vertically fractured well at its center.

Three main fracture types are commonly considered:

-- uniform-flux fracture,
-- infinite-conductivity fracture, and
-- finite-conductivity fracture.

N o-flow Bounda ry

Vertical fracture W ell

xf
xe

30

UNIFORM-FLUX FRACTURES
In some fractures, fluid enters the fracture at a uniform flow
rate per unit area of fracture face so that there is a pressure drop
in the fracture.

In this case, the fracture is referred to as “uniform-flux

fracture”.

INFINITE-CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURES
Some fractures are assumed to have infinite permeability
(conductivity) and, therefore, uniform pressure throughout.

Infinite-conductivity fractures are likely in highly propped tight

gas formations.

FINITE CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURE

The finite conductivity fracture model is applicable in most
cases, unless formation permeability is extremely low, i.e. in the
microdarcy range.
 31
Fractures with a dimensionless conductivity (CfD) over 300 could
be treated as having infinite conductivity.

k f wf
C fD = FCD = 1.3
k xf

Xf = half-fracture length
Wf = fracture width
Kf = fracture permeability
Except for highly propped and conductive fractures, it is
thought that the uniform-flux fracture better represents reality
than the infinite-conductivity fracture, especially when the
fracture-face is damaged.

The following criteria can be used to estimate the

effectiveness of a fracture treatment:
1. FCD < 10 ………….. poor fracture job
2. 10 < FCD < 50 …… good to excellent fracture job
3. FCD > 50 ………….. excellent fracture job

32

FRACTURE FLOW REGIMES

After a well has been fractured, LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE

(a) BILINEAR FLOW
five flow regimes can be observed. (b)

The main flow regimes are

depicted in Figure and are as
follows:
LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW
(c) (d)
• fracture linear flow
• bilinear flow
• formation linear flow
• elliptical or bi-radial flow
• pseudo-radial flow

PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW
(e)
 33
FRACTURE FLOW REGIMES
1E+4

BILINEAR FLOW (Finite Conductivity

Fracture) 1E+3
Radial flow

-- The occurrence of bilinear flow is

∆P, t*∆P', psi

characterized by a 1/4 slope on a log-log 1E+2
Linear flow
m = 1/2

plot.
1E+1

FORMATION LINEAR FLOW (Infinite Bilinear flow

Conductivity Fracture)
m = 1/4

1E+0

-- The occurrence of formation linear flow is 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2
t, hr
1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3

characterized by a 1/2 slope on the log-log

plot.
LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE
(a) BILINEAR FLOW
(b)

ELLIPTICAL FLOW
-- After a sufficient period of time has passed
flow begins to converge radially to the LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW

well-fracture system. This flow regime is

(c) (d)

characterized by a horizontal straight line.

PSEUDOSTEADY STATE PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW

-- Characterized by a late-time unit-slope line

(e)

25

INFINITE-
CONDUCTIVITY
&
UNIFORM-FLUX
FRACTURES
 35
BASIC MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The dimensionless pressure drop of a well located at the center of a plane
vertical fracture can be generalized as follows:

  1− x   
 + erf  1 + xD  − 0.25(1 − x )Ei (1 − xD )  − 0.25(1 + x ) Ei (1 + xD ) 
2 2
pwD = 0.5 πt Dxf erf  D
1.4
  2 t Dxf  2 t  D  4t  D  4t 
    Dxf   Dxf   Dxf 

The dimensionless well-pressure derivative for a uniform-flux fracture in

an infinite acting system is obtained from Eq. 1.4 by letting XD = 0.

 1  1  
PD = π tDxf erf   − Ei − 1  1.5
 2 t Dxf  2  4tDxf 
   

For the case of an infinite conductivity fracture, XD = 0.732.

1   0.134       
PD = πt Dxf erf   + erf  0.866  − 0.067 Ei − 0.018  − 0.433Ei − 0.75  1.6
2   t Dxf   t Dxf   t   t 
    Dxf   Dxf 
2
r 
t Dxf = tD  w  = 0.0002637 kt
1.7
x  φµct x f 2
 f 

36
A – FORMATION LINEAR FLOW IS DOMINANT
(UF Flux & Infinite Conductivity Fractures)

If tDxf < 0.1, Eqs. 1.5 and 1.6 become:

LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE
(a) BILINEAR FLOW

PD = π t Dxf
(b)

1.8
LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW
(c) (d)

Eq. 1.8 indicates that at short times flow

into the vertical fracture is linear. In real PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW

units, this equation may be written as:

(e)

∆P = Pi − Pw = mvf t 1.9

log ∆P = 0.5 log t + log mvf 1.10

− 4.064qB µ
mvf =
h kφct x 2f
 37

Eq. 1.10 indicates that a loglog plot

of dP versus time should yield an early-
time straight line portion of slope 0.5
(finger print of linear flow regime).

Xf FROM CARTESIAN PLOT

Once the linear flow regime is identified from the loglog plot, a
Cartesian plot of dP versus time (Eq. 1.9) should yield a straight line
(which goes through the origin) of slope mvf which is then used to
calculate the half-fracture length Xf:

∆P = mvf t
4.064qB µ
xf = 1.11
hmvf kφct

Where the permeability k is normally known

from a pre-frac pressure test.
If k is not known, then a semilog plot of dP
versus time is used to determine k and skin.

38

K & S FROM SEMILOG PLOT (IARF IS PRESENT)

If k is not known, then the

conventional semilog
analysis, which applies for
tDxf > 10, is used to
calculate permeability :

162.6qµB
k= (1.12)
mh
and skin:

 ∆P  k  
s = 1.1513 1hr − log 
2 
+ 3.23 (1.13)
 m  φµc r
t w  
 39

There exists an approximate

relationship between the pressure
change at the end of the linear flow m=741
period, ∆Pel, and at the start of the
semilog straight line, ∆PSSL:

∆ PSSL ≥ 2 ∆ Pel

If this relationship is not

satisfied probably either an
incorrect linear flow period or an
incorrect radial flow period was
chosen.

40
Xf FROM LOGLOG PLOT

Let ∆PL1 be the value of ∆Pw at time t = 1 hour on the linear flow
straight line (extrapolated if necessary), then the Eq. 1.10 becomes:

log ∆PL1hr = 0.5 log(1) + log mvf

OR: ( ∆P ) L1hr = mvf

Substituting for mBL and solving for the half-fracture length, i.e. Xf
(ft), we obtain from Eq. 1.11:

4.064qB µ
xf = (1.14)
h (∆P )L1hr kφct
Thus, the fracture conductivity can be ∆PL1
calculated directly from the loglog plot
as long as the 0.25 slope is well defined.
 41

EXERCISE 1

42

Pws, psi
Pressure buildup data obtained after a hydraulic ∆t, hr
fracturing treatment is given in Table. Reservoir 1170
0
characteristics are given below:
0.5 1340
q = 200 BPD rw = 0.198 ft 1 1395
h = 51 ft ct = 17.7x10-6 /psi 1.5 1452
tp = 364 hrs xe = 410 ft 2 1501
Ø=8% µ = 0.45 cp 3 1570
B = 1.507 bbl/STB tp=364 hours 4 1639
6 1748
Use the Conventional technique to 10 1899
calculate/estimate: 18 2075
1. Permeability (MDH plot)
27 2209
2. Skin
3. half fracture length 36 2304
45 2375
54 2434
63 2481
71 2521
 43

∆t, hr Pws, psia ∆P ∆t^0.5

0 1170 0
0.5 1340 170 0.71
1 1395 225 1.00
1.5 1452 282 1.22
2 1501 331 1.41
3 1570 400 1.73
4 1639 469 2.00
6 1748 578 2.45
10 1899 729 3.16
18 2075 905 4.24
27 2209 1039 5.20
36 2304 1134 6.00
45 2375 1205 6.71
54 2434 1264 7.35
63 2481 1311 7.94
71 2521 1351 8.43

44

The existence of the hydraulic fracture is confirmed by the

presence of the ½ slope on the loglog plot of ∆p vs ∆t.
 45

SOLUTION MDH
MDH & Horner plots for the data
given in Table yield a late-time IARF m=741
straight line of slope = 741 psi/cycle.

1 - Permeability is estimated from the

semilog straight-line of slope m:

qµB ( 200)(0.45)(1.507) Horner

k = 162.6 = 162.6 = 0.58 md
mh (741)(51)
m=741

2 – Skin is calculated from ∆P1hr=-100

(negative value of ∆P1hr usually occurs
only when the fracture is highly propped):

 ∆P  k  
s = 1.1513 1hr − log  + 3.223
2 
 m  φµc t rw  
 − 100  0.58 × 106  
= 1.1513 − Log  + 3.223 = −4.9
2 
 741  0.08 × 0.45 × 17.7 × 0.198  

46

3 – Half fracture length

From the Cartesian plot of ∆p vs.
t0.5 the slope is mvf = 232 psi/hr0.5,
thus:

4.064qB µ
xf =
hmvf kφct

( 200)(1.507) 0.45
x f = 4.064
(51)( 232) (0.54)(0.08)(17.7 × 10 −6 )
= 79.38 ft

Verification: From the graphs:

m=741

∆PSSL = 900 psi

∆ PSSL ≥ 2 ∆ Pel
∆Pel = 400 psi
Thus, k, s and xf are correct.
 4.064qB µ
xf =
h (∆P )L1hr kφct

48
4 - The fracture conductivity can be estimated from (Tiab, 1995):

3.31739k
wf k f = s
e 1.92173
−
rw xf

3.31739 × 0.54
w f k f == = 126.5 md − ft
e −4.88 1.92173
−
0.198 79.38
This equation will be discussed later in this chapter.

The dimensionless fracture conductivity is:

k f wf 126.5
C fD = = = 2.95
k xf 0.54 × 79.38
This value of CfD implies a low conductivity fracture.
 49
5 – Wellbore Storage Coefficient

A loglog plot of dP vs time shows there is no early-time unite-

slope line; therefore we cannot accurately determine C.

FINITE-
CONDUCTIVITY
FRACTURES
 51

B – BI-LINEAR FLOW IS DOMINANT (Finite Cond. Fracture)

The pressure behavior during the

bilinear flow period is modeled using the LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE
(a) BILINEAR FLOW
(b)

following equation:
LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW
(c) (d)

2.45 / 4
PD = 1/ 2 t 1Dxf (1.15)
C fD PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW
(e)

In oilfield units, the pressure 1.E+02

CfD
0.1
response equation is:
1.E+01
low conductivity fracture

DIMENSIONLESS WELLBORE
500
CASE I

PRESSURE DROP. PwD

1.E+00
m=1/4 C
J ONSET OF
1.E-01 B m=1/2 PSEUDO-RADIAL
FLOW

 44.13qµ B  1/ 4
I

∆P =  ∆t = mbl ∆t 1/ 4
1.E-02 CASE II
m=1/4

 h(k w )1/ 2 (φ µ c k )1/ 4 

H high conductivity fracture
A G
1.E-03 F

 
L
f f t 1.E-04
1.E-10 1.E-08 1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, tDxf

(1.16)
 44.13qµ B   44.13qµ B 
2
mbl =  
 h (k w )1 / 2 (φ µc k )1 / 4  k f w f =  
( )1/ 4 
(1.17)
 f f t  hm
 bl φ µ ct k 

52
Eq. 1.16 can be written as: (1.18)

log ∆P = 0.25 log ∆t + log mbl

slope = 0.25
The occurrence of bilinear flow is
characterized by a slope of 0.25 on a log-log
plot of ∆P vs t. Thus, the slope of 0.25 is the
finger print of a finite-conductivity fracture.

kf wf FROM CARTESIAN PLOT

When the 1/4 slope is evident on the

log-log plot, the data (corresponding to slope = mbl

this ¼ slope line) should be re-plotted

on a Cartesian graph as ∆P versus t1/4.

The slope, mbl, of a straight line drawn through the data can be
used to determine fracture conductivity as follows:
2
 44.13qµ B 
k f w f =   (1.19)
( )1/ 4 
 hmbl φ µct k 
 53
kf wf FROM LOGLOG PLOT
Let ∆PBL1 be the value of ∆Pw at time t = 1 hour on the bilinear flow
straight line (extrapolated if necessary), then Eq. 1.18 becomes:

log ∆PBL1 = 0.25 log(1) + log mBL

OR:
(∆P) BL1 = mBL  
44.13qµ B
mBL =  
Substituting for mBL and solving for  h (k w )1 / 2 (φ µc k )1 / 4 
the fracture conductivity, i.e. kfwf (md-  f f t 
ft), we obtain:
2
 44.13qµ B 
k f w f =   (1.20)
 h∆PBL1 (φ µ ct k )1/ 4 

Thus, fracture conductivity can be
calculated directly from the loglog plot
as long as the 0.25 slope is well defined.

54

When analyzing the Cartesian plot and loglog plot of data

corresponding to the bilinear flow regime, it is a good practice
to make sure that:

(∆P) BL1 = mBL (1.21)

2 2
 44.13qµ B   44.13qµ B 
k f w f =   =   (1.22)
 h∆PBL1 (φ µ ct k )1/ 4 
  BL hm (φ µ ct k )1/ 4 

 55
The conventional semilog analysis, which applies for tDxf > 10, is used
to calculate permeability and skin:

162.6qµB 2
k= 
k f wf = 

mk 0.75 

mh
 3.68∆P BL1 (φ µ ct )1/ 4 


2
 44.13qµ B 
k f w f =  
 h∆PBL1 (φ µ ct k )1/ 4 


 ∆P  k  
s = 1.1513 1hr − log 
2 
+ 3.2275
 m  φµct rw  

56

EXERCISE 2
 57

Pressure buildup data obtained after a ∆t Pws

hydraulic fracturing treatment is given in 0.4 2944.2
Table. Reservoir characteristics are given 0.6 2952.7
below: 1 2964.6
2 2983.4
Use the Conventional technique to 4 3005.9
calculate/estimate: 8 3032.5
1. Permeability (MDH plot) 10.1 3042.1
2. Skin 24.1 3094.0
3. Fracture conductivity 48 3123.0
72.1 3146.0
q 375 STB/D 97 3160.3
B 1.4 120 3171.3
visc 0.55 cp 144 3180.4
porosity 0.12 192 3194.7
h 23.5 ft 240 3205.8
rw 0.333 ft 360 3225.9
ct 1.55E-05 1/psi 480 3240.2
600 3251.3
Pwf(dt=0) 2865 psia
720 3260.4

58

∆t Pws ∆P ∆t0.25
0.4 2944.2 79.2 0.80
0.6 2952.7 87.7 0.88
1 2964.6 99.6 1.00
2 2983.4 118.4 1.19
4 3005.9 140.9 1.41
8 3032.5 167.5 1.68
10.1 3042.1 177.1 1.78
24.1 3094.0 229.0 2.22
48 3123.0 258.0 2.63
72.1 3146.0 281.0 2.91
97 3160.3 295.3 3.14
120 3171.3 306.3 3.31
144 3180.4 315.4 3.46
192 3194.7 329.7 3.72
240 3205.8 340.8 3.94
360 3225.9 360.9 4.36
480 3240.2 375.2 4.68
600 3251.3 386.3 4.95
720 3260.4 395.4 5.18
 59

The loglog Plots of dP versus time yields an early-time straight

line of slope 0.25, which corresponds to bilinear flow. Thus
fracture conductivity kfWf can be calculated.

60

The Cartesian Plot of dP versus t^0.25 yields an early-time

straight line of slope 99.6, which corresponds to bilinear flow.
Thus fracture conductivity kfWf can be calculated.
 61

The semilog Plots of dP versus time yields a late-time straight

line of slope m=114, which corresponds to IARF. Thus k and
skin can be calculated from m and dP at dt=1hr.

1 – Permeability (m=114.4)

162.6qµBo 162.6 × 375 × 0.55 × 1.4

k= = = 17.5 md
mh 114.4 × 23.5
2 – Skin Factor (dP1hr=70)

 ∆P  k  
s = 1.1513 1hr − log 
2 
+ 3. 223
 m  φµct rw  
 70  17.5  
= 1.1513 − Log  2 
+ 3.223 = −5.0
114.4  0.12 × 0.55 × 0.0000155 × 0.333  
3 – Fracture Properties (dPBL1=99.6)
2
 44.13qµB 
k f w f =  
( )1/ 4 
 h∆PBL1 φµc t k 
2
 44.13 × 375 × 0.55 × 1.4 
=   = 7012 md − ft
1/ 4 
 23.5 × 99.6(0.12 ×0.55 × 0.0000155 × 17.5 ) 
 2
 44.13qµ B 
k f w f =  
 h∆PBL1 (φ µct k ) 
1/ 4 

64

MODERN
TECHNIQUES
 65

1 – UNIFORM FLUX
FRACTURE

66

LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE

w (a) BILINEAR FLOW
Well (b)

Fracture
Thickness

Impermeable LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW

boundaries (c) (d)

xf

PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW
(e)
 67

Fig. 2.1 shows the first published (Tiab, 1982) Type Curves of the
dimensionless pressure drop and the derivative for three values of
the ratio xe /xf of a well located at the center of a plane vertical
fracture in a bounded reservoir.

100

Pseudosteady state
No-flow Boundary

10

P wD and t DA×P wD'

Vertical fracture Well f= 8
x e/ x
1
f= 4
xe/x
Radial flow
xf
xe xe/xf=1
0.1

Linear flow Uniform flux

0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

tDA

These curves have several unique characteristics, which can be used

to interpret accurately pressure transient tests in fractured wells
without using type-curve matching or regression analysis.

64

100

Pseudosteady state

10
P wD and t DA×P wD'

f= 8
xe/ x
1
f= 4
x e/ x
Radial flow

0.1 xe/xf=1

Linear flow Uniform flux

0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

tDA
 69

1 - For short producing times, fluid flow into the fracture from the
matrix is linear (i.e. formation linear flow regime).

The duration of this flow regime is a function of the penetration

ratio xe/xf. The equation corresponding to this early-time straight
line is:
100

Pseudosteady state

 
 xe  10

t DA × PD ' = 1.772   t DA (2.1)

P wD and t DA×P wD'

 xf 
f= 8
xe/x
1
f=4
xe/x
Radial flow

xe/xf=1

Where:
0.1

Linear flow Uniform flux

0.01

kh ∆P
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

0.0002637 kt
t DA =
tDA
and PD =
φ µ ct A 141.2q µ B

Taking the logarithm of both sides of the equation yields:

 π xe 
log(t DA × PD ' ) = 0.5 log t DA + log  (2.2)
 xf 
 

70

The slope of this straight line is 0.5, which is of course a unique

characteristic of the linear flow regime.

Substituting for the dimensionless terms in Eq. 2.1 and solving for the
derivative of well pressure:

t × ∆P ' = 0.5 m L t (2.3)

0..5
qB  µ 
m L = 4.064 (2.4)
h  φ ct k x 2f 

Taking the logarithm of both

sides of Eq. 2.3 gives:

log(t × ∆P' ) = 0.5 log t + log(0.5m L ) (2.5)

 71

This expression shows that a plot of

measured t×∆ ∆Pw' versus time on a log-
log graph will yield a straight line of
slope 0.5 if the linear flow regime is
dominant.

∆Pw')L1 be the value of the

Let (t×∆
product t×∆∆Pw' at time t = 1 hr on the
linear flow straight line (extrapolated,
if necessary); then combining Eqs. 2.3
and 2.4 and solving for the half-
fracture length xf we obtain:

0 .5
2.032 Bq  µ 
xf =   (2.6)
h ( t × ∆P ' ) L 1 φ c k 
 t 

Note: Use this equation only if the FORMATION linear flow regime
is observed.
It is NOT applicable to the early fracture flow regime.

72
2 - The equation of the linear flow line portion:

where ∆P = (Pi - Pwf) for drawdown tests

∆P = m L t (2.7) ∆P = (Pws - Pwf (∆∆t=0)) for buildup tests.

Thus, the loglog plot of ∆P vs. time is:

log ∆P = 0.5 log t + log mL

∆P)L1 be the value of ∆P on the straight

Let (∆
line (extrapolated if necessary) at time t = 1
hr.
Substituting for mL and solving for Xf yields: 0..5
qB  µ 
m L = 4.064
qB  µ 
0.5
h  φ ct k x 2f 
xf = 4.064   (2.8)
h ( ∆P ) L1 φc k 
 t 

At t = 1 hr , Eqs. 2.3 and 2.7 become:

(t ×∆P ' )1hr = 0 .5 m L ∆P1hr = m L Thus: (t × ∆P' ) L1 = 0.5(∆P) L1

 73
3 - Following the linear flow regime is the infinite acting radial flow
line (horizontal), as shown in the Figure.

This flow regime is dominant only if the penetration ratio xe/xf is

greater than 8.

The equation corresponding to this 2nd straight line is described by:

t DA × P' D = 0.5 (2.9)

Substituting for the dimensionless terms and solving for the

permeability yields:

70.6 qµB
k = (2.10)
h ( t ×∆P ') R

NOTE (from Chapter 2):

m = 2.303(t × ∆P ' ) R (2.11)

74
4 - The S factor is obtained from:

 
 ( ∆P ) R  k tR  
s = 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43  (2.12a)
 (t × ∆P ' ) R  φµc r 2
 t w

 

where tR is any convenient time during the

∆P)R is the
infinite acting radial flow line and (∆
value of ∆P corresponding to tR

The ∆P due to skin is: ∆Ps = 2(t × ∆P ' ) r S

The FE for a drawdown ∆Ps

test is (Pwf is pressure at FE = 1 −
the end of the DD test): Pi − Pwf

∆Ps ∆Ps
The FE for a buildup test is: FE = 1 − = 1−
P * − Pwf ( ∆t =0 ) ∆P *
Where P* is obtained from Horner plot. If P* is not available, Pavg
can be used instead.
 SEMILOG PLOT OF dP AND (t*dP’)
The S factor can also be determined from the semilog plot of dP and
(t*dP’).
Using the time of intersection (tint) of the straight line of slope m and
(t*dP’)r gives:

 kt int 
S = 4.2166 − 1.1515 log 
2 
(2.12b)
 φµc t rw 
m = 2.303(t × ∆P ' ) R

m = 2.303(t × ∆P ' ) R
 77
5 – SQUARE SYSTEM
For long producing times, the pressure derivative function yields a
straight line of slope=1.

This line which corresponds to the pseudo-steady state flow regime

starts at a tDA = 0.2 (assuming the well is at the center of a square
system).
The equation of this straight line is:
100

t DA × P' D = 2π t DA
No-flow Boundary Pseudosteady state

(2.13) 10

P wD and t DA×P wD'

Vertical fracture Well

f=8
xe/x
xf 1
f=4
xe/x
xe Radial flow

Substituting for the dimensionless 0.1 xe/xf=1

terms, Eq. 2.13 becomes: Linear flow Uniform flux

0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

tDA

 
t × ∆P ' =  t
qB 10000

(2.14)

∆Pr =1955

φ
∆PL1=710

 4 .27 ct Ah  1000 (t*∆P')r=404

t*∆P'
slope=0.5 tLRi=1.3

∆P
100 tRPi=234

 
( )
(t*∆P')L1=310
tr=54.8

log t ×∆P ' = log t + log  

qB slope=0.36

Or: 
10

 4.27φ ct Ah 
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

time, hr

78
10000
The drainage area (in ft2) is: ∆Pr=1955
∆PL1=710

1000 (t*∆P')r=404

qB  
t*∆P'

tPSS
A=  
4.27φct h  (t * ∆Pw' ) PSS 
slope=0.5 tLRi=1.3
∆P

(2.15) 100
(t*∆P')L1=310
tRPi=234

tr=54.8
slope=0.36
10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

∆Pw)pss and (t*∆

(∆ ∆Pw’)pss are obtained time, hr

at any convenient time during the

pseudo-steady state line portion of the
curves, tpss.

The shape factor CA is obtained from:

 
 ∆P 
 
2  0.000527k  pss 
 (2.16)
C = 2.2458(X /X ) exp 1 − t
A e f  φµc A  (t × ∆P')  pss
 t 
 pss 
The exponential (exp) function makes this equation extremely
unreliable, i.e. any slight error in any parameter inside the exp-
function would yield an erroneous value of CA.
 79
6 - RECTANGULAR SYSTEMS

For a rectangular system, the 100

Pseudosteady state
transition between the infinite acting
radial flow and the pseudosteady state 10

flow regimes is much longer than it is

for the square. 4:1R

t DA*P wD'
square
1
xe/xf=16
Radial flow

For a four-to-one rectangle, for xe/xf=4

instance, this transition period yields a 0.1

Linear flow

straight line of slope 0.5, as shown in Uniformflux

Figure. 0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
tDA

This straight line corresponds to the effect of the two closest

parallel boundaries or channel.

The equation of this straight line is:

t DA × P' D = 3.545 t DA (2.17)

80

Substituting for the dimensionless terms yields:

t × ∆P' = mCB t (2.18)

100
Pseudosteady state

10

log t × ∆P' = 0.5 log t + log mCB 4:1R

t DA*P wD'

square
1
xe/xf=16
Radial flow

xe/xf=4

where the subscript CB stands for 0.1

Linear flow

closest parallel boundaries, and mCB is Uniform flux

given by: 0.01

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
tDA

0 .5
qB  µ  1
m CB = 8.128   (2.19)
h  φ c kA 
 t  8

The straight line of slope 0.5 is the finger print a the two closest
parallel no-flow boundaries of the rectangular system, or channel.
 81
Let (t×∆∆P')CB1 be the value of (t×∆
∆P') at time t = 1 hr on the straight
line of slope =0.5 (extrapolated if necessary). Thus from Eq. 2.18:

(t × ∆P')CB1 = mCB
We therefore can use Eq. 2.19 to solve for the drainage area A:

  2
µ 
8.128qB 
A= 


 (2.20)
φkc h (t × ∆P ' )




t  CB1 

If, for instance, the pseudosteady state flow line is not

observed, such as in a short test, Eq. 2.20 can be used to
determine the drainage area of the channel.

1
8
If PSS has been reached then use Eq. 2.15 to calculate A.

82
7 - The linear flow line and the infinite acting radial flow line
intersect at:

 x 2f 
t LRi = 1207φµ ct   (2.17)
 k 
 

This equation should be preferably

used to verify the correctness and
accuracy of the values of k and Xf.

8 - The linear flow line and the

pseudosteady state line intersect
at:

7544 φµ ct A 2
t LPi =
kx 2f
(2.18)

where A = 4xe2
 83
9 - The radial flow line and the pseudo-steady steady state line
intersect at tRPI :

301.77φ µct A
t RPi = k
(2.19)

If A is known and PSS line is not observed (e.g. short test), then this
equation should be used to “locate” the PSS line of slope 1

10 – VERIFICATION: It can be shown that the times of intersection of

the straight lines corresponding to the three flow regimes (linear,
Radial and PSS) are related by the following relationships:
10000

2 ∆Pr=1955

t RPi   ∆PL1=710

x  1000

=  e
(t*∆P')r=404
(2.20)

t*∆P'
t LRi 
 xf 
slope=0.5 tLRi=1.3

∆P
100 tRPi=234
(t*∆P')L1=310
tr=54.8
slope=0.36

Eqs. 2.17-20 can be used for verification 10

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

purposes or during the design phase. time, hr

84

EXERCISE 3
 85

Pressure buildup data obtained after a hydraulic

fracturing treatment is given in Table. Reservoir ∆t, hrs Pws, psi
characteristics are given below: 0.0 1170
0.5 1340
q = 200 BPD rw = 0.198 ft 1.0 1395
h = 51 ft ct = 17.7x10-6 /psi 1.5 1452
tp = 364 hrs xe = 410 ft (square system) 2 1501
Ø=8% µ = 0.45 cp 3 1570
B = 1.507 bbl/STB 4 1639
6 1748
- Using the Derivative technique (TDS),
10 1899
calculate/estimate:
1. Permeability 18 2075
2. Skin 27 2209
3. half fracture length 36 2304
4. Has PSS been reached? If not, how long 45 2375
approximately the test should last in order 54 2434
to observe pseudosteady state? 63 2481
71 2521

86

∆t, hrs Pws, psi Δt, hr ΔP Δt*ΔP'

0.0 1170
0.5 170
0.5 1340 117.98
1 225
1.0 1395
1.5 282 157.98
1.5 1452
2 331 170.26
2 1501
3 400 210.93
3 1570
4 469 251.88
4 1639
6 578 280.67
6 1748
10 729 297.38
10 1899
18 2075 18 905 317.81
27 2209 27 1039 330.33
36 2304 36 1134 323.44
45 2375 45 1205 321.17
54 2434 54 1264 313.47
63 2481 63 1311 321.63
71 2521 71 1351
 87

88
1. Permeability – Using the TDS technique:

70.6 qµB
k =
h ( t×∆P ') R
70.6×200×0.45×1.507
= = 0.55 md
51×322

2. Skin

 
( ∆P )R  k tR 
s = 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43  =
 (t × ∆P ' )R  φµct rw

2
 

   
905 0.55×18×10 6
0 .5  − ln   + 7.43  = −4.8

 0.08×0.45×17.7×0.198
2
 322  
 89

m = 2.303(t × ∆P ' ) R

m=741

 kt int 
S = 4.2166 − 1.15 log 
2 
 φµ c r
t w 

 0.55 × 3.4 
= 4.2166 − 1.15 log −6 2 
= − 4 .8
 0.08 × 0.45 × 17.7 × 10 × 0.198 

90

3. FLOW EFFICIENCY

∆Ps = 2(t × ∆P ' ) r S = 2 × 322 × ( −4.8) = −3091

∆Ps − 3091
FE = 1 − = 1− = 2.35
∆P * 2280 m=741

4. Half-fracture length

0 .5
2.032 qB  µ 
xf =  
h ( t × ∆P ' ) L 1 φc k
 t 

0 .5
2.032 ×200×1.507  0.45 
=  
51×131  0.08×17 .7×10 − 6 ×0.55 

= 70 ft
 91
5. Pseudosteady state
It is obvious from the plot that pseudosteady state has not been
reached (no late-time straight line of slope=1

92

For a square drainage area is: No-flow Boundary

Vertical fracture

A = 4 X e2 = 4 × 4002 = 640000 ft 2
Well

xf
xe

PSS will approximately start at:

301.77φµct A 301.77 × 0.08 × 0.45 × 17.7 × 10−6 × 640000

tRPi = = = 228 hours
k 0.55

Verification: Using Eq. 2.20:

2
t RPi   228  400 
2
x 
=  e  = =   = 32.5
t LRi
 xf 
7  70 
 93

2 – INFINITE
CONDUCTIVITY
FRACTURE

94

w
Well
No-flow Boundary

Fracture
Thickness

Vertical fracture Well

Impermeable
boundaries xf
xe

xf

100
Pseudosteady state
LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE
(a) BILINEAR FLOW
(b)
10

=
f1
x e/x 6
wD'

1
=f 4
×PDA

x e/x Radial flow

LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW
t

(c) (d)

xe/xf=2
0.1 Bi-radial flow

Linear flow Infinite conductivity

0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW
(e)
tDA
 95
100
Pseudosteady state

Figure is a log-log plot of

dimensionless pressure and pressure 10

derivative versus tDA for an infinite 6

t DA×P wD'
f =1
xe/x
conductivity vertical fracture inside a 1
f=4
xe/x Radial flow
square system.
xe/xf=2
0.1 Bi-radial flow

This figure shows the existence of Linear flow Infinite conductivity

four straight lines:
0.01

(a) the linear flow line of slope 0.5 0.0001 0.001 0.01
tDA
0.1 1 10

(b) Elliptical flow line of slope 0.36

(c) infinite acting radial flow line
(horizontal line), and Only the characteristics of the
(d) pseudosteady-state flow line of elliptical flow regime will be
slope unity. discussed here.

For xe/xf > 8, the linear flow regime The characteristics and
is almost non-existent, and the interpretation of the other three
elliptical flow line is observed first. flow regimes (linear, radial and
pseudosteady state) are exactly
For xe/xf < 8, it is the radial flow the same as discussed for the
line which disappears. uniform-flux fracture.

96
The equation of the elliptical flow line is:

  0.72
 x 
  (2.21)
t × P ' = 0.769  e  t 0.36
DA D 
x  DA
 f 
 

In real units and for a square

drainage area is:
0.72
 
x  0.36
t × ∆P ' = 0.769C Ell  e  t (2.22)
 xf
No-flow Boundary


Vertical fracture Well

xf

  0.36   0.36 xe

qµ B  k  (t × ∆P')R  k 
C = 7.268   =   (2.23)
Ell kh  φµ c A  9.714  φµ c A 
 t   t 

Taking the logarithm of Eq. 2.22 gives: A = 4X 2

e

  x e  
0.72

log(t × ∆P' ) = 0.36 log t + log 0.7699C Ell  

 (2.24)
  x f  

 97

Thus, the elliptical flow line can be identified by its slope of 0.36.

It is important not to confuse this elliptical flow line with the linear
flow line because their slopes (0.5 and 0.36) are relatively close.

∆P')ell1 be the value of t×∆

Let (t×∆ ∆P' at
time t = 1 hr on the elliptical flow
straight line (extrapolated if
necessary), then Eq. 2.24 can be
used to calculate the half-fracture
length xf if the linear flow regime is
not observed:

0.72
x 
(t × ∆P' )Ell1 = 0.7699C Ell  e
x


(2.25)
 f 
1.388
 C Ell 
xf = 0.694 x e  
(2.26)
 ( t ×∆P ') Ell 1 

58

DRAINAGE AREA FROM ELLIPTICAL FR

The elliptical flow regime can be used to find

CEll at time t=1hr (Eq. 2.25) then the drainage
area A:

(t × ∆P')Ell1 = 0.7699C Ell

(2.27)
w
W e ll

=
(t × ∆P ')Ell1 F ra c tu re
Thickness

C Ell (2.28) Im p e rm e a b le

0.7699 b o u n d a rie s

xf

Combining Eqs. 2.23 & 2.28 gives:

1 / 0.36
k  7.268qµ B  N o-flow Bou ndary

A=
φµ c  khC 
t Ell  (2.29)
Vertical fra cture
W ell

1 / 0.36
( t × ∆P ' ) R
xf
k  
=
xe
 
φµ c
t  12.617(t × ∆P' ) ELL1 
 99
TIME OF INTERSECTION 10000

∆Pr

The time of intersection of the different 1000

∆PBR1

t*∆P'
straight lines is best used for verification t*∆P'BR1 (t*∆P')r

∆P
100 slope=0.5 tLBRi
purposes or for designing a pressure transient tr
tRBRi

test, but it can also be used to estimate 10

0.001
slope=0.36

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

reservoir parameters. time, hr

1 - The times of intersection of

x 2f
the elliptical flow line and the t Liell = 39 φµct (2.30)
linear flow line is used to k
calculate k, knowing Xf from the
linear flow regime:
x 2f
2 - The time of intersection of t IARFiell = 4587 φµct (2.31)
the elliptical flow line and the k
infinite acting radial line is:
1.125
3 - The time of intersection of 142.3φµct A  xe 
the elliptical flow line and the t PSSiell = x 
(2.32)
k
PSS state line is:  f 

100

EXERCISE 4
 101

The pressure data given in Table were taken from Ref. 18, this corresponds
to a drawdown test in a highly productive fractured well. One of the objectives
of the frac-treatment is to achieve wfkf=10kh. The pressure derivative for this
test was estimated and it is also reported in Table. Other known reservoir and
well data are:

q = 2000 STB/D φ = 0.24 µ = 0.3 cp

ct = 14.8x10-6 psi-1 B = 1.5 bbl/STB h = 50 ft
rw = 0.4 ft pi = 5200 psi A = 80 acres (square)
Well at center of square

1. Calculate:
(a) permeability,
(b) skin and
(c) Half-fracture length
(d) Fracture conductivity
(e) Dimensionless fracture conductivity. Is the fracture conductivity high
or low?
(f) Did we achieve our objective?

2. Is the pseudo steady state flow regime present? If not, how long the test
should have been run to reach it?

102

t, hrs Pwf, psi t×∆P', psi t, hrs Pwf, psi t×∆P', psi t, hrs Pwf, psi t×∆P', psi
0.010 5180.5 9.2 0.23 5114.4 36.3 5.2 4914.2 91.7
0.012 5178.6 10.5 0.28 5107.5 38.7 6.3 4897.0 93.8
0.014 5176.6 11.7 0.33 5100.1 41.4 7.6 4879.5 95.6
0.017 5174.3 12.8 0.40 5092.2 44.2 9.1 4861.7 97.2
0.021 5171.9 14.0 0.48 5083.8 47.3 11.0 4843.7 98.5
0.025 5169.2 15.3 0.58 5074.8 50.6 13.2 4825.4 99.7
0.030 5166.2 16.6 0.69 5065.2 54.1 15.8 4806.9 100.7
0.036 5163.0 18.0 0.83 5054.9 57.8 19.1 4788.3 101.5
0.044 5159.6 19.5 1.00 5043.9 61.7 22.9 4769.5 102.2
0.052 5155.8 21.1 1.20 5032.1 65.6 27.5 4750.6 102.8
0.063 5151.8 22.7 1.45 5019.7 69.5 33.1 4731.6 103.3
0.076 5147.5 24.3 1.74 5006.5 73.3 39.8 4712.5 103.8
0.091 5142.8 26.1 2.09 4992.6 77.0 47.9 4693.3 104.1
0.110 5137.9 27.9 2.51 4978.1 80.5 57.5 4674.1 104.4
0.132 5132.6 29.8 3.02 4962.9 83.7 69.2 4654.9 104.7
0.158 5126.9 31.8 3.63 4947.1 86.7 83.2 4635.5 108.8
0.191 5120.8 34.0 4.37 4930.9 89.3 100.0 4616.2 120.2
 103

104

Step 1 – The log-log plot of ∆P and

∆P') versus time reveals the existence
(t×∆
of three straight lines on the derivative
curve.

The first straight line of slope 0.5

corresponds to the linear flow regime.

The slope of the second straight line is

approximately 0.36. Thus, this highly
conductive fracture can be treated as if
it had infinite conductivity. LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE
(a) BILINEAR FLOW
(b)

The third straight line is horizontal

and corresponds to the infinite acting LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW

radial flow regime. (c) (d)

The well was not tested long enough

to observe the pseudo-steady state line. PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW
(e)
 105

Step 2 - From the infinite acting radial

∆P')R
flow (horizontal) line in the Figure: (t×∆
= 105.5 psi

Step 3 - Calculate the permeability from:

70.6qµB
k= =
h (t × ∆P ' )R
70.6( 2000)( 0.3)(1.5)
= 12 md
50(105.5)

Step 4 - From the linear flow regime line of slope 0.5 at time t = 1 hour:
∆P')L1 = 97 psi
(t×∆

Step 5 – Xf FROM LINEAR FLOW REGIME

Calculate the half-fracture length from the linear flow line:
0.5 0.5
2.032 Bq  µ  2.032(2000)(1.5)  0.3 
xf =   =   = 105 ft
h(t × ∆P ')L1  φct k  50(97) −6
 0.24(14.8 × 10 )(12) 
Note: The linear flow regime is not well defined (Too short duration).
Elliptical flow (slope=0.36) is well defined.

106

Xf FROM ELLIPTICAL FLOW REGIME (slope=0.36) N o-flow Bo u nd a ry

Calculate the half-fracture length from Eq. 2.26. Vertica l fra cture
W ell

xf
Converting the area from acres to ft2 gives: xe

A = 80x43560= 3484800 ft2

For a square system:
A=(2Xe)2 =4(Xe)2
Xe=SQRT(3484800/4)=933.4 ft

  0.36
(t × ∆P')R  k 
0.36
105.5  12 
C =   =   = 16.5669
Ell 9.714  φµ c A  9.714  0.24 × 0.3 × 14.8 × 10 −6 × 3484800 
 t 

 1.388
 C 
x = 0.694 x  Ell 
 
f e ( t × ∆P ' )
 
 Ell1 
1.388
 16.5669 
= 0.694 × 933.4 ×   = 104.4 ft
 61.7 
 107
Step 6 - Select any convenient time tR during the
infinite acting radial flow period and read the
corresponding value of ∆P:

tR = 48 hrs
∆P)R = 507 psi
(∆

Step 7 - Calculate the skin factor from:

 507  12 × 48  
s = 0.5 − ln −6
 + 7.43 = −4.85
2 
105.5  (0.24)(0.3)(14.8 ×10 )(0.4)  

Step 8 - Verification
The observed value of the time of intersection of the linear and radial
flow lines is approximately 1.2 hr. The calculated value is:

 x 2f  2
t LRi = 1207φµ ct   = 1207 × 0.24 × 0.3 × 0.0000148 105 = 1.2 hr
 k  12
 
Since the observed and calculated time of intersection are approximately
equal, we can conclude that the values of k, xf and s are correct.

108

 kt int 
S = 4.2166 − 1.15 log 
2 
 φµ c r
t w 

 12 × 1.1 
= 4.2166 − 1.15 log 2 
= − 4 .8
 0.24 × 0.3 × 14.8 × 10 × 0.4 
6
 109
Step 9 – The fracture conductivity may be accurately determined from the
bilinear flow line (which is not observed in the figure) or ESTIMATED from
the following expression:
3.31739k 3.31739 × 12
wf k f = s
= −4.85 = 31376 md − ft
e 1.92173 e 1.92173
− −
rw xf 0. 4 105

Step 10 – The dimensionless fracture conductivity is:

k f wf 31376
C fD = = = 24.9
k xf 12 × 105
The fracture achieved the intended objective since the fracture
conductivity (31376 md-ft) is much greater (more than 5 times)
than the formation capacity kh:

10kh = 10 × 12 × 50 = 6000 md − ft
k f w f > 6000 md − ft

110

(2) The drawdown test was not run

long enough to observe a well defined
pseudosteady state unit-slope line.

The time of intersection of the PSS

and IARF lines, (tRPi) can be used to
estimate the location of this unit slope
line:

301.77 Aφµct
t RPi =
k
301.77×3484800×0.24×0.30×14.8×10− 6
= = 93 hours
12.05

The pseudosteady state unit-slope line intersects the infinite-

acting radial flow line at 93 hr; which means the PSS unit-slope
line should be observed after a transition period which may last 10
to 20 hrs, or more.
Actually the figure shows that the last few points are not on the
radial flow line.
 111

3 – FINITE
CONDUCTIVITY
FRACTURE

112
w
Well
No-flow Boundary

Fracture
Thickness

Vertical fracture
Well

Impermeable
boundaries xf
xe

xf

LINEAR FLOW IN THE FRACTURE

(a) BILINEAR FLOW
(b)

LINEAR FLOW IN THE FORMATION ELLIPTICAL OR BIRADIAL FLOW

(c) (d)

PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW
(e)
 113

From these figures, we can observe

only 3 flow regimes:
(1) the bilinear flow line of slope
0.25,
(2) the linear flow line of slope 0.5
(3) the pseudo-radial linear flow line

Only the characteristics of the bi-linear flow regime will

be discussed here.

The characteristics and interpretation of the other flow

regimes (linear, radial and pseudosteady state) are
exactly the same as discussed for the uniform-flux and
infinite-conductivity fractures.

114

BILINEAR FLOW REGIME

(A) PRESSURE
During the bilinear flow regime, the dimensionless well
pressure behavior is given by:

 2.451 
PD =  t 0.25 (3.1)
 C fD  Dxf
 
In real units:

∆P = mBLt 0.25 (3.2)

44.13  qµB 
mBL = (3.3)
(φµct k )0.25  h k f w f 
 115
The subscript BL stands for bi-linear. Taking the
logarithm of both sides of Eq. 3.2 yields:

log ∆P = 0.25 log t + log mBL (3.4)

This expression indicates that a plot of ∆P versus time on a log-log

graph will yield a straight line portion of slope 0.25, if the bilinear
flow regime is dominant such as in finite conductivity fractures with
small dimensionless storage capacity, i.e. CfD < 300.

Let ∆PBL1 be the value of ∆Pw at time t = 1 hour on the

bilinear flow straight line (extrapolated if necessary), then
the Eq. 3.4 becomes:

(∆P) BL1 = mBL

Substituting for mBL and solving for the
fracture conductivity, i.e. kfwf, we obtain:
2
1  qµB 
k f w f = 1947.46   (3.5)
φµct k  h(∆P) BL1 

116
(B) DERIVATIVE
The derivative of the well pressure during the bilinear flow regime
is:

t × ∆P ' = 0.25m BL t 0.25 (3.6)

∆P')BL1 be the value of (t×∆

Let (t×∆ ∆P') at time t = 1 hr on the bilinear
flow straight line (extrapolated if necessary) then Eq. 3.6.8 becomes:
(t × ∆P' ) BL1 = 0.25mBL (3.7)
Substituting for mBL and solving
for the fracture conductivity, i.e.
kfwf, we obtain:
2
121.74  qµB 
k f wf =   (3.8)
φµct k  h(t * ∆P' ) BL1 

Note that:

(t × ∆P' ) BL1 = 0.25(∆P) BL1 (3.9)

 117
A - The time of intersection of the
bi-linear flow line and the linear
flow line on the derivative curve is:
2
 x 2f k 
t LBLi = 869.37φ µct   (3.10)
 k f wf 
 

tLBLid = time of intersection of Linear and bilinear lines on the

derivative curve
Note: Solving Eq. 3.10 for k gives:

(k f w f ) 2
k= t LBLi (3.11)
869.37φ µct x 4f

B - The time of intersection of the bi-linear flow line and the radial
flow line on the derivative curve is:

φµct
t RBLi = 1677 3
(k f wf )
2
(3.12)
k

118

Summary
 119
If all three flow regimes (bilinear,
formation linear, and radial) are
observed during the pressure test
and they are well defined on the
pressure derivative curve:

1 - From radial flow:

70.6qµB
k=
h(t × ∆P ')R

  kt R    kt int 
∆PR S = 4.2166 − 1.5 log 
S = 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43 
( )
Or 2 
 t *∆P
' 2    φµc t rw 
R  φµ ct rw 

∆Ps = 2(t × ∆P ' ) r S

∆Ps
FE = 1 −
∆P ∗

120

2 - From linear flow:

0.5
2.032 Bq  µ 
xf =  
h ( t × ∆P ' ) L 1 φ c k 
 t 

3 - From bilinear flow:

2
121.74  qµB 
k f wf =  
φµct k  h (t * ∆P ' ) BL1 

Or

2
1947.46  qµB 
k f wf =  
φµct k  h∆PBL1 

In some instances, at least one of the flow regimes is not observed

or not well defined.
 121
SPECIAL CASES
(a) Formation Linear flow is not observed

For a low conductivity fracture, the straight line corresponding to the

linear flow regime will probably not be observed. In this case Xf is
estimated from: NOTE: Eq. 3.13 is valid only if:

 e s 3.31739k 
xf = s
1.92173  − >0
e 3.31739k (3.13) r w k 
−  w f f 
rw wf k f

Where: kfwf is obtained from

70.6qµB  kt int 
bilinear flow line and k and s are k= S = 4.2166 − 1.5 log 
obtained from radial flow line: h(t × ∆P ')R 2 
 φµc t rw 

2  
121.74  qµB   ( ∆Pw )   
k f wf =   s = 0 .5  R − ln  kt R  + 7.43 
φµct k  h (t * ∆P ' ) BL1 
 ( t * ∆P ' w )R  2  
  φµ c t rw  

122
(b) Bilinear flow is not observed:

If the bilinear flow line of slope 0.25 is

not well defined or not observed due to
wellbore phenomena, then the fracture
conductivity (wfkf) is estimated from:

3.31739k
wf k f = s
NOTE: Eq. 3.14 is valid only if:
e 1.92173 (3.14)
− e s 1.92173
rw xf − >0
rw xf
Where Xf is obtained from
linear flow line and k and s are 70.6qµB  kt int 
obtained from radial flow line: k= S = 4.2166 − 1.5 log 
h(t × ∆P ')R 2 
 φµc t rw 
0.5
2.032 Bq  µ   
xf =    ( ∆Pw ) 
R − ln  kt R
 
φ c k  s = 0 .5   + 7.43 
h ( t × ∆P ' ) L 1    ( t * ∆P ' w )R  2  
 φµ c t rw
t
  
 123
(c) Radial flow line is not observed:

For a short post-frac test such as in low permeability formations,

the radial flow line might not be observed. In this case the post-frac
skin factor is estimated from:

Eq. 3.15 is valid only if:

  1.92173 3.31739k 
s = ln rw  − 
 x w k  (3.15) 1.92173 3.31739k
  f f f  − >0
xf wf k f
Where Xf is obtained from linear flow,
wfkf from bilinear flow and k is known
from a pre-frac test or core data.:

0.5
2.032 Bq  µ 
xf =  
h ( t × ∆P ' ) L 1 φ c k 
 t 
2
121.74  qµB 
k f wf =  
φµct k  h (t * ∆P ' ) BL1 

124
Note: Equations 3.13 and 3.14 are extremely sensitive to the
values of s, because of the exponential term.

They should be used only as a last resort and only to estimate the
half-fracture or the fracture conductivity.

It is important to emphasize that the following three equations are

very useful for verification purposes or for comparing the results
obtained from pressure and pressure derivative curves:

(t × ∆P' ) L1 = 0.50(∆P) L1 (3.16)

(t × ∆P' ) BL1 = 0.25(∆P) BL1 (3.17)

 125

EXERCISE 5
(Same data as Exercise 2)

126

Pressure buildup data obtained after a ∆t Pws

hydraulic fracturing treatment is given in 0.4 2944.2
Table. Reservoir characteristics are given 0.6 2952.7
below: 1 2964.6
2 2983.4
Use the TDS technique to calculate/estimate: 4 3005.9
1. Permeability 8 3032.5
2. Skin 10.1 3042.1
3. Fracture conductivity 24.1 3094.0
4. Fracture half-length 48 3123.0
72.1 3146.0
q 375 STB/D 97 3160.3
B 1.4 120 3171.3
visc 0.55 cp 144 3180.4
porosity 0.12 192 3194.7
h 23.5 ft 240 3205.8
rw 0.333 ft 360 3225.9
1.55E-05 1/psi 480 3240.2
ct
600 3251.3
Pwf(dt=0) 2865 psia
720 3260.4
 127

∆t ∆P ∆t*∆P’
∆t Pws 1 99.6 24.99
1 2964.6
2 2983.4 2 118.4 29.76
4 3005.9 4 140.9 35.39
8 3032.5 8 167.5 40.53
10.1 3042.1 10.1 177.1 45.12
24.1 3094.0 24.1 229.0 49.85
48 3123.0 48 258.0 51.17
72.1 3146.0
72.1 281.0 51.63
97 3160.3
120 3171.3 97 295.3 50.41
144 3180.4 120 306.3 50.80
192 3194.7 144 315.4 49.68
240 3205.8 192 329.7 49.68
360 3225.9 240 340.8 49.68
480 3240.2 360 360.9 49.68
600 3251.3
480 375.2 49.68
720 3260.4
600 386.3 49.68
720 395.4

128

The presence of the bilinear flow regime (slope=0.25) implies the

fracture has finite conductivity.
 129

Solution

From the bilinear flow
line:
(∆∆Pw)BL1 = 99.6 psi
∆Pw′) BL1 = 25 psi
(t*∆

The formation linear flow

regime is not observed.
• From the infinite acting
radial flow line:
tR = 480 hrs
∆Pw)R = 375.2 psi
(∆
∆Pw′)R = 49.68 psi
(t*∆
tRBLi = 16 hrs

130

1. From the infinite acting radial flow

(horizontal) line on the derivative
curve, calculate the permeability:

70.6qµB
k=
h ( t * ∆P ' ) R
(70.6)(375)(0.55)(1.4)
= = 17.5 md
( 23.5)( 49.68)

2. The skin factor is:

 ( ∆P) R  kt R  
s = 0.5 − ln  + 7.43
 (t * ∆P' )R
2 
 φµc t rw  
1  375.2  (17.5)( 480)  
=  − ln −6 2 
 + 7.43 = −5
2  49.68  (0.12)(0.55)(15.5 × 10 )(0.333 )  
 131
The skin factor can also be determined from the IARF lines on
semilog plot of dP and derivative.

The straight line of slope m intersects the horizontal line of the

derivative at tRint = 0.85 hr

 kt int 
S = 4.2166 − 1.5 log 
2 
 φµc t rw 
 17.5 × 0.85 
= 4.2166 − 1.5 log −6 2 
= −5.1
 0.12 × 0.55 × 15.5 × 10 × 0.333 

132

3. The first ten hours of the test

correspond to the bilinear flow
line (slope=0.25), which is well
defined on both the dP and
derivative curves. We therefore
can accurately calculate the
fracture conductivity (kfwf)

Using the pressure derivative curve:

2
121.74  qµ B 
k f wf =  
φµct k  h (t * ∆P ' ) BL1 

2
121.74  (375)(0.55)(1.4) 
k f wf =   = 7012 md − ft
−6
(0.12)(0.55)(15.5 × 10 )(17.5)  ( 23.5)( 25) 
 133

4. Since the linear flow regime is not observed, the half-fracture

length is can only be ESTIMATED from the correlation :

1.92173 1.92173
xf = = = 166.5 ft
e s 3.31739k e −5 3.31739 × 17.5
− −
rw wf k f 0.333 7012

wf k f 7012
C fD = = = 2. 4
xfk 166.5 × 17.5

134

VERIFICATION

Intersection time between radial and linear flow lines:

t RBLi = 1677
φµ c t
3
(k f w f )2
k
( 0 . 12 )( 0 . 55 )(15 .5 × 10 − 6 )
= 1677 3
( 7012 ) 2 = 15 . 85 hr
(17 . 5 )

Since the calculated and

observed time of
intersection match
(approximately), we can
conclude that the
interpretation is correct.
 135

Drainage Area,
Average Reservoir
Pressure, Shape Factor

136

The dimensionless equation corresponding to pseudo-

steady state in a hydraulically fractured well is:

1  2.2458 A 
PwD (t DA ) = 2π t DA + ln +S (4.1)
2  C A rw2 

For a vertically fractured well in a square system having xe as

the dimension of the half lengths, Equation 4.1 can be written as;

1  4 x 2.2458 xe2 
PwD (t DA ) = 2π t DA + ln +S (4.2)
2  C A rw2 


The skin factor for a highly (infinite) conductive fracture is

approximately related to Xf and rw as follows:

 xf 
S = − ln  (4.3)
 2rw 
 137

Equation 4.2 can then be written as;

1  35.933 xe2 

PwD (t DA ) = 2π t DA + ln (4.4)
2  C A x 2f 


Dividing Equation 4.4 with t DA × PwD ' = 2π t DA

PwD 1  35.933xe2 
= 1+ ln   (4.5)
(t DA xPwD ' ) 4πt DA  C A x 2f 

Substituting for the dimensionless terms and solving for the

drainage area and shape factor CA produces;

qB  tPSS 
A=  
4.27φct h  (t * ∆Pw' ) PSS 
  0.003314 k t pss (∆Pw ) pss  
2
x  
C A = 35.933  e  exp  1 − 
x  φµ ct A  (tx∆P ' )   (4.6)
 f     w pss   


138

Substituting 4 x e2 = A into Equation 4.6 gives

8.983A   0.003314 k t pss  (∆Pw ) pss  

CA = exp  1 − 
 (tx∆P ' )  
(4.7)
x f2   φµ ct A  w pss   

Note that Eq. 4.6 or 4.7 are only valid when the assumption in
Equation 4.3 is valid, (i.e. a very highly conductive fracture, CfD>500).

If the actual skin factor obtained from well test is not equal to the
result of Equation 4.3, then either Equation 4.8 or 4.9 should be used
to estimate the shape factor:

8.983x e2e 2S   0.003314 k t pss  (∆Pw ) pss  

CA = exp  1 − 
rw2 φµ ct A  (tx∆P ' )   4.8
   w pss   


2.2458Ae2S   0.003314 k t pss  ( ∆Pw ) pss  

CA = exp  1 − 
rw2 φµ ct A  (tx∆P ' )   4.9
   w pss   

The exponential term makes the equations for calculating CA
extremely unreliable.
 139

Another equation for CA can be derived by substituting

PD for 2πt DA
into Eq. 4.5:
  35.933  
1  xe
2
PwD 1  
=  P D + ln      4.10
2πt DA  2  x f 
(t DA xPwD ' )
    C A  

Substituting for the dimensionless terms then solving for the

average reservoir pressure gives:
  x 2
 35.933  
 0.003314k  t pss × (∆Pw ) pss  
(
P = Pi − tx∆P '
)   
- ln  e     4.11
 φµct A  (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   x f 
w R

   C A  

Replacing 4xe2 with A (assuming a square system):

 0.003314 k  t pss × (∆Pw ) pss    
(
P = Pi − tx∆Pw' R  ) 

 - ln  8.983 A  
  C A x f  
4.12
 φµct A  (tx∆Pw ' ) pss 
2

Equations 4.11 and 4.12 are only valid when the assumption in
Equation 4.2 is valid, which is rarely the case.

140
1000
The Fig. shows a typical behavior Pseudosteady state line

of pressure and derivative of a (∆Pw) pss

HF well inside a closed square
∆P', psi

100
system (see next slide). (t*∆Pw')pss
∆P and tx∆

Infinite acting line

Eq. 4.13 or 4.14 below 10 Late linear
should be used to estimate the (t*∆Pw')pps1
tRPi tpss

average reservoir pressure, Intersection point

between infinite

where CA is obtained from acting and pseudosteady

state lines
1
Table in Chapter 1. 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, hr

 0.003314k  t pss × (∆Pw ) pss   2   

P = Pi − tx∆P( '
w R ) 
φµ

 (t × ∆P ' )
 - ln  xe  8.983  − 2 S 
  2   4.13
 ct A  w pss   rw  C A  

 0.003314k  t pss × (∆Pw ) pss     

(
P = Pi − tx∆Pw' R  )   - ln  A  2.2458  − 2S 
 2  
 φµct A  (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   rw  C A   4.14
 CA is influenced by inner and outer boundaries and well location
Less than Use infinite system Less than Use infinite system
Exact for 1 % error solutions with less than Exact for
CA for tDA >
CA for tDA >
1 % error solutions with less than
Bounded for tDA > 1 % error for tDA > for tDA > 1 % error for tDA >
reservoirs

31.62 0.1 0.06 0.1 1

0.5813 2.0 0.6 0.02
2

31.6 0.1 0.06 0.1 1 0.1109 3.0 0.6 0.005

2

27.6 0.2 0.07 0.09 1 5.379 0.8 0.3 0.01

4

27.1 0.2 0.07 0.09

60°
1 2.6896 0.8 0.3 0.01
4

21.9 0.4 0.12 0.08 1 0.2318 4.0 2.0 0.03

1/3
1 4

3
4 0.098 0.9 0.6 0.015 1 0.1155 4.0 2.0 0.01
4

30.8828 0.1 0.05 0.09 1 2.3606 1.0 0.4 0.025

5 2 2
Vertical-Fractured Use (Xe/Xf) in place of A/rw
reservoirs for fractured reservoirs
12.9851 0.7 0.25 0.03 xf/xe=0.1
1
2.6541 0.175 0.08 Cannot use
1

4.5132 0.6 0.30 0.025 xf/xe=0.2

1
2.0348 0.175 0.09 Cannot use
1

xf/xe=0.3
3.3351 0.7 0.25 0.01 1 1.9986 0.175 0.09 Cannot use
1
xf/xe=0.5
1 21.8369 0.3 0.15 0.025 1
1.662 0.175 0.09 Cannot use
1
1
xf/xe=0.7
1 10.8374 0.4 0.15 0.025 1 1.3127 0.175 0.09 Cannot use
1
1

1 4.5141 1.5 0.50 0.06 xf/xe=1.0

1 0.7887 0.175 0.09 Cannot use
1
1
Water-Drive reservoirs
1 2.0769 1.7 0.5 0.02
1
19.1 -- -- --
Unknown Drive mechanism

1 3.1573 0.4 0.15 0.005

25.0 -- -- --
1

142

EXERCISE 6
 143

Pressure drawdown data obtained after a

t Pwf
hydraulic fracturing treatment is given in 0.1 2450
Table. Reservoir characteristics are given 0.25 2438
below: 0.5 2420
1 2405
Use the TDS technique to calculate: 2 2383
1. Permeability 4 2360
2. Skin 8 2328
10 2318
3. Fracture conductivity
24 2273
4. Drainage area 48 2239
71 2220
96 2205
rw = 0.225 ft 120 2194
h = 100 ft 144 2185
µo = 0.40 cp 192 2170
Bo = 1.40 240 2160
ct = 5x10-5 psi-1 360 2128
Ø = 0.10 480 2100
Swi = 0.20 600 2072
Pi = 2500 psia 720 2044
q = 250 STB/D

144
 145

t Pwf t dP t*dP'
0.1 2450 0.1 50
0.25 2438 0.25 62 20.42
0.5 2420 0.5 80 23.80
1 2405 1 95 26.69
2 2383 2 117 32.46
4 2360 4 140 39.67
8 2328 8 172 45.14
10 2318 10 182 46.15
24 2273 24 227 50.09
48 2239 48 261 48.72
71 2220 71 280 49.21
96 2205 96 295 49.48
120 2194 120 306 49.33
144 2185 144 315 50.44
192 2170 192 330 48.01
240 2160 240 340 56.92
360 2128 360 372 89.69
480 2100 480 400 113.18
600 2072 600 428 140.94
720 2044 720 456

146

SOLUTION
The loglog plot of dP and derivative yields three straight lines.

1. The early-time straight line has a slope of 0.25 (bilinear flow

regime). thus the fracture conductivity may determined. At t=1
hr, (t*dP’)BL1=26.7

2. The IARF line gives (t*dP’)R=49.4. Thus k can be calculated.

3. The late time straight line has a slope=1 (PSS). Thus A can be
calculated.
 147

1. From the infinite acting radial flow

(horizontal) line on the derivative
curve, calculate the permeability:

70.6qµB
k=
h ( t * ∆P' ) R
(70.6)( 250)(0.4)(1.4)
= = 20 md
(10)( 49.4)
rw = 0.225 ft
h = 10 ft
µo = 0.40 cp
2. The skin factor is: Bo = 1.40
ct = 5x10-5 psi-1
 ( ∆P) R  kt R   Ø = 0.10
s = 0.5 − ln  + 7.43 Swi = 0.20
 (t * ∆P' )R
2 
 φµc t rw   Pi = 2500 psia
q = 250 STB/D
1  280  ( 20)(71)  
=  − ln −5 2 
 + 7.43 = −3.6
2  49.4  ( 0.10)( 0.4 )( 5 × 10 )( 0.225 )  

148

3. The first ten hours of the test

correspond to the bilinear flow
line (slope=0.25), which is well
defined on both the dP and
derivative curves. We therefore
can accurately calculate the
fracture conductivity (kfwf)

Using the pressure derivative curve

and (t*dP’)BL1=26.7
2
121.74  qµ B 
k f wf =  
φµct k  h (t * ∆P ' ) BL1 

2
121.74  ( 250)(0.4)(1.4) 
kf wf =   = 5295 md − ft
(0.1)(0.4)(5 × 10 −5 )( 20)  (10)( 26.69) 
 149

4. Drainage area
From the PSS flow line at tpss=600, dPpss=428 and
(t*dP’)pss=140.94:

qB  t PSS 
A=  
4.27φc t h  ( t * ∆Pw ) PSS 
'

250 × 1.4  600 

= −5   = 6.9788 × 10 ft = 160 acres
6 2

4.27 × 0.1 × 5 × 10 × 10  140.94 

4x e2 = A = 6.9788 × 10 6
X e = 6.9788 × 10 6 / 4 = 1321 ft

150
5
5. Since the linear flow regime is not Vertical-Fractured
observed, the half-fracture length is can reservoirs
CA
only be ESTIMATED from the correlation : xf/xe=0.1
1
2.6541
1.92173 1

xf = s xf/xe=0.2

e 3.31739k 1
2.0348
−
rw wf kf 1

xf/xe=0.3

1.92173 1 1.9986
= −3.6
= 18.4 ft
e 3.31739 × 17.5 1
− xf/xe=0.5
0.225 5295 1
1.662
1

4x = A = 6.9788 × 10
2
e
6
1
xf/xe=0.7
1.3127
X f / X e = 18. / 1321 = 0.014 1
xf/xe=1.0
1 0.7887
CA cannot be determined from
1
the table.
 151

INCLINED
HYDRAULIC
FRACTURE
TWO UNIQUE PROBLEMS:
• Inclined Fracture
• Tortuosity

152

w
Well

Fracture
Thickness

Impermeable
boundaries

xf
 154

INTRODUCTION
 Most of the pressure transient analysis techniques to
analyze pressure responses of fractured wells are based
on the assumption that the fracture is either vertical (or
even horizontal).

 However, a hydraulic fracture could be inclined with

respect to the vertical direction.

 Field studies have shown that most hydraulic fractures

are never perfectly vertical.

 Thus, for an inclined hydraulic fracture, the vertical

orientation assumption may lead to erroneous results in
well test analysis especially when the inclination angle
is significant.
 155

 Daneshy showed through a series of experiments on different

rock types that the appearance of a vertical fracture at the
well bore is not sufficient evidence to ensure a vertical
fracture and that a fracture can change direction once it gets
sufficiently away from the well-bore according to the least
principle stress.

 Daneshy also theoretically and experimentally investigated

inclined fractures.

 In his study, he confirmed that an inclined fracture often

intersects the borehole along two diametrically opposite axial
lines, thus giving it the appearance of a vertical fracture.

 Then, its orientation changes as it extends away from the

wellbore until it becomes perpendicular to the least
compressive in-situ principle stress.

156

REORIENTATION OF FRACTURE

 Wright et al. (1995) provided some field examples where the

hydraulic fractures reoriented due to production.

 Inclined fractures reorientation lead to new

inclination angles after re-fracturing.

 There was evidence from Chevron Lost Hills

field showing the inclination angle changed
from 82 degrees to 45 degrees as
refracturing occurred.

 This was the result of the production

depletion between the two fracturing
treatments (See also Wright et al. (1994) and
Minner et al. (2002)).

 This is clear evidence that production

activities could affect the in-situ stress state
and thus change the direction of principle
stresses.
 157

 Wright et al. (1998) has also provided a

number of case studies where surface tilt-
meter arrays (Cipolla et al., April 2000 &
Oct. 2000) were used for fracture
mapping.

 Results obtained from data of over 2000

fracture treatments using tilt meters
reveal that fractures are almost never
perfectly vertical.

 Very few studies were conducted to

investigate the pressure behavior of
inclined hydraulic fracture.

 Most of the studies in the literature

assume the fracture is either vertical or
horizontal

158

 Cinco-Ley et al (1974, 1975) were the first to investigate

inclined fractures. They have solved the problem for uniform
flux and infinite conductivity inclined fracture in infinite
reservoir.

 This section presents how the pressure derivative helps

distinguish an inclined fracture from a vertical fracture.
 159
Application of Pressure Derivative to Inclined Hydraulic
Fractures

• Infinite horizontal slab reservoir

• Homogeneous & isotropic reservoir
• All fluid withdrawal is through the fracture
• The fracture is a single plane source of uniform & constant
flux.

Vertical HF Inclined HF

w
Well

Fracture
Thickness

Impermeable
boundaries

xf

159

160

Fully Penetrating Inclined Fracture

(Xf = Xe or Xf = Re)

UNIFORM FLUX INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY

1.E+01 1.E+01
Approximate Onset of Approximate Onset of
Pseudo-Radial Flow Early-Radial Flow Pseudo-Radial Flow

Early-Radial Flow

1.E+00 1.E+00
Bi-Radial Flow
P D & P 'D * t D
P D & P 'D * t D

Linear Flow
tD*P'D = 0.5 tD*P'D = 0.5
1.E-01 Linear Flow
1.E-01
0.68
tD*P'D = 0.5*(cos(θw))
tD*P'D = 0.5*cos(θw )
0.36
tD*P'D = 0.46*tD *cos(θw)

1.E-02 1.E-02
m = 0.5 m = 0.36

PD PD

PD'*tD m = 0.5 PD'*tD

1.E-03 1.E-03
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05

tD tD
 161
LINEAR FLOW REGIME
The pressure behavior of a uniform flux inclined fracture during the
linear flow regime is given by:
θw = Inclination angle of fracture
PD = cosθ w πt D 5.1 with well
50
In real units: 45
40
35
 4.064qB cos θ w µ  1/ 2 θw

∆P, psia
30

∆P =  t 25

 h xf φ ct k 
20
mLF
 15
10
5

5.2 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

sqrt(t)
Eq. 5.2 indicates that a plot of ∆P
vs. t1/2 on a Cartesian graph will
yield a straight line during linear m = 4.064qB cosθ w µ
5.3
φ ct k
LF
flow with a slope: h xf
This slope can be used to calculate Xf/cosθw knowing k.

162
Taking the logarithm of both sides of 5.2
yields: 1000

(∆P)R=916.8
(t*∆P')L1=400

 4.064qB cosθ w µ 
log(∆p )L = log(t ) + log
1 
 
∆t*∆P'

2  h xf φ ct k  100
(t*∆P')R=87
∆P

(t*∆P')ER =72

5.4
tR=800

This expression shows that a plot of 10

LINEARFLOW

measured ∆p versus time on a log-log

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

time, hr

graph will yield a straight line of slope 0.5

if the linear flow regime is dominant.

∆p)L1 be the value of the ∆p at time t = 1 hr on the linear flow

Let (∆
straight line (extrapolated, if necessary).
xf
Solving for yields:
cos θ w

xf 4.064qB µ
= 5.5
cosθ w h(∆p )L1 φ ct k
 163
From Eq. 5.2, the following equation for pressure derivative can be
derived:
1000

1  4.064qB cos θ w µ  1/ 2
(t × ∆p′)L
(∆P)R=916.8
=  t (t*∆P')L1=400
2  h xf φ ct k 

∆t*∆P'
5.6 (t*∆P')R=87
100

Following the same procedures

∆P
(t*∆P')ER =72

above and letting (t*∆ ∆p’)L1 be the

value of t*∆∆p’ at time t = 1 hr on tR=800
the linear flow straight line 10
LINEARFLOW

(extrapolated, if necessary) and 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

time, hr
solving for x f yields:
cos θ w

xf 2.032qB µ
= 5.7
cos θ w h(t × ∆p′)L1 φ ct k

Note that: ( t × ∆ p ′ ) L 1 = 0 .5 ( ∆ p ) L 1 5.8

k is calculated from the infinite acting radial flow line.

164
EARLY RADIAL FLOW REGIME
This flow regime can only be observed in the loglog plot of derivative
curve.
The equation of the early radial flow is: (t × P ' ) = 0.5 cos θ D D ER w
In real units: 5.9
 70.6qµB  1000

(t × ∆P ' ) ER =   cos θ w (∆P)R=916.8

 kh  5.10 (t*∆P')L1=400

= (t × ∆P ' ) R cos θ w
∆t*∆P'

(t*∆P')R=87
100
Solving for the angle:
∆P

(t*∆P')ER =72

(t × ∆p′) ER
cos θ w = 5.11
(t × ∆p′) R tR=800
LINEARFLOW
10

Knowing the angle and Xf/cos(θ) from 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

time, hr
Eq. 5.7, we can calculate Xf.

Xf can also be calculated without

 k  (t × ∆p' ) ER
knowing the angle from: x f =  0.02878 
 (t × ∆p' ) 5.12
 φ ct µ  L1
 165
LATE RADIAL FLOW REGIME
The interpretation of the infinite-acting radial flow regime is exactly
as discussed previously.
Permeability 1000

(∆P)R=916.8

70.6qµB
(t*∆P')L1=400

k= 5.13
h(t × ∆P ')R

∆t*∆P'
(t*∆P')R=87
100

∆P
Skin factor: 5.14 (t*∆P')ER =72

tR=800
  kt R   LINEARFLOW
∆PR
s = 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43 
( )
10


0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

 t *∆P '  φµct rw

2
 
time, hr
R

1 / 0.36
t 
Note: Θ can also be estimated
cos θ w =  LERi  5.11a
from:
 t LRi 
Where
tR = any time during the infinite acting radial flow line, and
∆PR = the value of ∆P corresponding to tR (from graph or table)
tLERi = intersection time of the linear and early-radial flow lines
tLRi = intersection time of the linear and infinite-acting radial flow lines

166

INFINITE-CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURE
1.E+01

This figure shows the existence of four Approximate Onset of

Pseudo-Radial Flow
straight lines: Early-Radial Flow

(a) the linear flow line of slope 0.5, 1.E+00

Bi-Radial Flow
(b) elliptical flow line of slope 0.36,
p D & tD * p 'D

(c) early radial flow line (horizontal tD*p'D = 0.5

Linear Flow
line), and 1.E-01
0.68
tD*p'D = 0.5*(cos(θw))
(d) infinite acting pseudo radial flow
line (horizontal line). tD*p'D = 0.46*tD
0.36
*cos(θw)
1.E-02
m = 0.36
pD
Only the characteristics of the tD*p'D
m = 0.5
elliptical and early-radial flow regimes 1.E-03

will be discussed here. 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05

tD

The characteristics and interpretation of the linear flow and infinite-acting

radial flow regimes is the same as discussed above for the uniform-flux
fracture.

Note: Inclined fractures tend to have short half-fracture length (compared to

vertical fractures) due to the heterogeneity of stress.
 167
ELLIPTICAL FLOW REGIME
The elliptical flow regime for vertical infinite conductivity fracture can
be recognized by a straight line of slope 0.36 on (tD*p’D vs. tD).

The equation for this straight line is: ( t D × p′D ) Ell = 0.46(t D0.36 ) cos θ w
In real units: 5.15
0 .36
3.34343qµµ cos θ w  kt 
(t × ∆p ′)ELL =  
kh x 0f .72  φ µ ct 
0 .36
5.16
cos θ  k 
= 0 .04737(t × ∆P')R 0 .72w   t 0.36

xf  φ µ ct 

Taking the log of both sides of Eq. 5.16:

 cos θ  k 
0.36

log(t × ∆p′) ELL = 0.36 log(t ) + log 0.04737( t × ∆P ' ) R 0.72w    5.17
 xf  φ µ ct  

Thus the straight line corresponding to the elliptical flow regime has
a slope of 0.36.

168

Eq. 5.16 can be used to solve for cos(B)/Xf^0.72 at time t = 1hr on

the bi-radial flow line (extrapolated if necessary):

( t × ∆p′) ELL1
0.36
cos θ w  φ µ ct 
=   5.18
0.72
xf 0.04737( t × ∆P ' ) R  k 

INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURE – EARLY-RADIAL

The early-radial flow line equation is: 1.E+01

Approximate Onset of
Early-Radial Flow Pseudo-Radial Flow

( t D × p′D ) ER = 0.5(cos θ w )
0.68
5.19 1.E+00
Bi-Radial Flow
P D & P 'D * t D

In real units: 1.E-01 Linear Flow

0.68
tD*P'D = 0.5

tD*P'D = 0.5*(cos(θw))

70.6qµB(cosθ w )
0.68 tD*P'D = 0.46*tD
0.36
*cos(θw)

(t × ∆p′) ER =
1.E-02
m = 0.36
PD
kh 5.20 m = 0.5 PD'*tD

= (t × ∆p′) R (cosθ w )
0.68 1.E-03
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05

tD
 169
5.20 and 5.18 can written as:

1 / 0.68
 (t × ∆p′) ER 
cosθ w =  
 (t × ∆p′) R 
5.21
It can be shown that:
0.53
t 
cos θ w =  ERELLi  5.22
 t RELLi 
Where
tERELLi = intersection time of the bi-radial and early-radial flow lines
tRELLi = intersection time of the bi-radial and infinite-acting radial flow lines

0.36
 k  (t × ∆P' )ER
x0.72
= 0.04737  5.23
(t × ∆p′)ELL1
f
 φµ ct 

170

SUMMARY (Method 1)
70.6qµB
1000

(∆P)R=916.8

k= (t*∆P')L1=400

Permeability:
h(t × ∆P ')R
∆t*∆P'

(t*∆P')R=87
100

 
∆P

∆PR  kt R 
(t*∆P')ER =72

Skin s = 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43 
(
 t *∆P ' )
R  φµ ct rw
2 
  LINEARFLOW
tR=800

10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

time, hr

Half-Fracture length Angle

 k 
0.5
(t × ∆p' ) ER (t × ∆p′) ER
x f = 0.02878  cos θ w =
Linear Flow: (t × ∆p′) R
 φ ct µ  (t × ∆p' ) L1

0.36
( t × ∆P ' ) ER
1/ 0.68
 k   (t × ∆p′) ER 
ELLIPTICAL Flow: x 0.72
= 0.04737  cosθ w =  
( t × ∆p′) ELL1  (t × ∆p′) R
f
 φ µ ct  

ΘW = fracture inclination angle with respect to vertical well

 171
SUMMARY (Method 2)
162.6qµB
1000

Permeability:
k= 900

800

mR h 700

∆t*∆P'
600
(m)R=200.4

 
500

 
Skin s = 0.5  ∆P1 hr − ln  k

∆P
400

 + 3.23 
 φµ c r 2 
300 ∆P R1hr=350
(m)ER=165.8

 m R  t w   200

100
(t*∆P')ER =72 (t*∆P')R=87

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

time, hr
Linear Flow: ( t × ∆ p ′ ) L 1 = 0 .5 ( ∆ p ) L 1
1000

(∆P)R=916.8
(t*∆P')L1=400

m ER = 2.303 ( t × ∆p ′ ) ER

∆t*∆P'
(t*∆P')R=87
100

∆P
(t*∆P')ER =72
0 .5
 k  ( m ) ER m
xf = 0 . 025   cos θ w = ER tR=800

φ µ ( ∆ p ) L1
LINEARFLOW

 c t  mR 10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

time, hr

ELLIPTICAL Flow:  k 
0.36
m 
1 / 0.68
( m) ER cosθ w =  ER 
x 0.72
= 0.057136 
( t × ∆P ' ) ELL1 = 0.36( ∆P ) ELL1 f
 φ µ ct  ( ∆p) ELL1  mR 

172

EXERCISE 7
 173

Given a pressure test data (graph) and the following information:

q = 553 STB/D 1000

φ= 0.12 (∆P)R=916.8

µ = 0.37 cp (t*∆P')L1=400

ct = 2.55x10-5 psi-1
B = 1.22 bbl/STB

∆t*∆P'
h = 14 ft 100
(t*∆P')R=87

rw = 0.25 ft

∆P
pi = 3000 psi (t*∆P')ER =72

tR=800
LINEARFLOW
Estimate 10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
• Formation permeability
time, hr
• Skin factor
• Half fracture length
• Inclination angle
173

174
SOLUTION
(t* ∆P’)r = 87 psia tr = 800 ∆Pr=916.8 psia
(t* ∆P’)L1= 400 psia ∆PL1= (t* ∆P’)ER = 72 psia

70.6qµB 70.6 × 553 × 0.37 × 1.22

k= = = 14.5 md
h(t × ∆P ' )R 14 × 87

  kt R  
∆PR
s = 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43 
(
 t *∆P ' )
R  φµct rw
2 
 

 916 .8  14 .5×800  
= 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43  = −3.93
 87  0.12× 0.37 × 2.55×10 −5 ×0.25 2  

0.5
 k  (t × ∆p' ) ER 14.5 72
x f = 0.02878  = 0.02878 = 18.5 ft
 φ ct µ 
−5
(t × ∆p' ) L1 0.12 × 2.55 ×10 × 0.25 400
2

(t × ∆p′) ER 72 ACOS (0.83) ×180 o

cos θ w = = = 0.83 ⇒ θ w = = 34 o
(t × ∆p′) R 87 π
 175

EXERCISE 8

176
Given a pressure test data (graph) and the following information:

q = 322 STB/D
φ= 0.16
µ = 0.66 cp
ct = 1.25x10-6 psi-1
B = 1.35 bbl/STB
h = 27 ft
rw = 0.33 ft
pi = 3500 psi

Estimate
1. Permeability
2. Skin factor
3. Half fracture length
4. Inclination angle

Note: Bi-
Bi-radial = Elliptical.
 177
SOLUTION
(t* ∆P’)r = 91 psia tr = 100 hr ∆Pr=736.6 psia
(t* ∆P’)ELL1= 240 psia ∆PELL1=580 (t* ∆P’)ER = 30 psia

70.6qµB 70.6 × 322 × 0.66 × 1.35

k= = = 8.24 md
h(t × ∆P ')R 27 × 91

  kt R  
∆PR
s = 0 .5  − ln   + 7.43 
(
 t × ∆P
'
)R
2
 φµ c t rw

 

 736 .6  18 .24 ×100  

= 0 .5  − ln   + 7 . 43  = − 4.62
 91  0.16×0.66×1.25×10 − 6 ×0.332  

1 / 0.72 1 / 0.72
  k 
0.36
( t × ∆p' ) ER    8.24 
0.36
30 
x f = 0.04737   = 0.04737 −6 2   = 6 ft
  φ c t µ  ( t × ∆p' ) ELL1    0.16 × 1.25 × 10 × 0.33  240 

1 / 0.68
 ( t × ∆p′) ER  ACOS (0.2) × 180 o
1 / 0.68
 30 
cos θ w =   =  = 0.20 ⇒ θ w = = 79 o
 ( t × ∆p ′ ) R   91  π

178
Using data in previous exercise and semilog plot of pressure and
derivative calculate k, S, Xf and θ.
 179
From semilog graph : mr=209.6 mer=69.1 ∆P1=310,
tERBRi =0.003 tRBRi = 0.065 ∆PBR1=694 (from loglog plot)
162.6qµB 162.6 × 322 × 0.66 ×1.35
k= = = 8.24 md
mr h 209.6 × 27

 ∆P  k  
S = 1.1513 1hr − log  + 3.2275
2 
 mr  φµct rw  
 310  8.24 ×10 6  
= 1.1513 − log  + 3.2275 = −4.66
 0.16 × 0.66 ×1.25 × 0.33 
2
 209.6   
1 / 0.72 1 / 0.72
  k 
0.36
mER    8.24  69.1
0.36

X f = 0.057136
  
  = 0.057136 2   = 6.0 ft
 φ ct µ  (∆p) BR1 
−6
   0.16 ×1.25 ×10 × 0.33  694 

1 / 0.68
ACOS (0.2) ×180 o
1 / 0.68
m   69.1 
cos θ w =  ER  =  = 0.20 ⇒ θ w = = 79 o
 mR   209.6  π
0.53
ACOS (0.2) ×180 o
0.53
t   0.003 
cos θ w =  ERRBi  =  = 0.20 ⇒ θ w = = 79o
 t RBRi   0.065  π

180

COMPLEX PATTERN OF
HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
Deep-Acidizing in NFR Multiple hydraulic fractures

Near-wellbore

Far-field
 181
MULTIPLE HYDRAULIC FRACTURES AND
TORTUOSITY

Tortuosity* is one of the biggest challenges for shale and tight gas
hydraulic fracturing treatments, leading to:
• High near-wellbore frictional pressure loss
• Premature screenouts
• Reduced treating rate
• And poor production results.

*(JPT June 2012)

182

INTRODUCTION
 Hydraulic fractures are initiated and kept open by
pressure.

 The pressure is transmitted by the pumped fluid, so as

the pumping rate increases, so does the pressure.

 Following this process, stress is induced in the rock

around the wellbore.

 If the pumping rate continues to increase, so does the

stress.
 Eventually, a stress limit will be reached at which point
the rock can no longer sustain the applied stress and it
fractures.
 183
 Over a long perforated interval or in deviated wells, fractures can
initiate anywhere, provided that the fluid pressure gradient
exceeds the fracture gradient, either to initiate fractures or to
reopen natural fractures.

 Generally, the rock will fail at its weakest point and the fracture
will initiate there.
 However, if the pressure continues to rise, additional fractures
may be formed because of changes in near-wellbore stress, as
shown in Fig. 1.

 Later, the fracture will reach its natural direction, according to the
formation’s stress orientation.

 Every perforation is a potential source of fracture initiation. Many

of these fractures will be very small, but some may be large
enough to take a significant portion of the treatment fluid.

184
 Despite the artificial-stress environment generated around
the wellbore, hydraulic-fracture treatments tend to
produce a small number of larger fractures.

 Because of increased stresses around the fracture faces,

individual fractures tend not to join together.

 The stress regime around the fracture faces can cause

fractures to repel each other.

 However, with the complex stresses around the wellbore

and perforations, fractures can join together at some point,
connecting through narrow paths, sometimes with bends
toward a main large fracture.
 185
 Therefore, the treating fluid must flow from a region containing
many small narrow fractures to a region containing a few large
fractures.

 In following this path, the fluid must move through a series of

convoluted, bending, and narrow fractures (i.e., a tortuous path).

 This tortuosity can produce a significant pressure loss, resulting in a

smaller-than-expected fracture or in early screenout.

 Such screenouts might also be caused directly by tortuosity because

these channels through the rock often are not wide enough for the
proppant to pass through, causing the proppant to bridge and
prevent further flow of proppant.

186

 Tortuosity manifests itself as a pressure drop through the near-

wellbore region.

 Poor-quality perforations or cement isolation also can result in

near-wellbore pressure loss.

 The important issue is that the loss of pressure is real and can
account for a substantial portion of the observed net pressure—
the total net energy available to propagate the fracture.

 The pressure at the surface is driven by the pressures inside the

fracture; therefore, the pressure loss caused by tortuosity
increases the bottomhole treating pressure and, hence, the
surface treating pressure.
 187
 The surface observer may have a false impression that the net
pressure is higher than the actual value inside the main fracture,
especially if the bottomhole treating pressure is calculated from
surface measurements rather than measured directly at bottom.

IDENTIFYING TORTUOSITY
 The most widely used method to identify tortuosity is the rate-
step-down test.

 This technique identifies near-wellbore problems related to

perforation-entry friction or fracture-entry friction resulting from
limited width in the near-wellbore region.

 If tortuosity is detected before the main treatment, it sometimes

can be cured by pumping proppant slugs or viscous-fluid slugs.

 In some extreme cases, because of treatment-pressure limitations

and a very narrow operational window, it is not possible to apply
these methods.

188

TRADITIONAL MITIGATION

 Tortuosity can be mitigated by changing the perforating

strategy to reduce the perforated length; to change the
distribution, orientation, and phasing; or to cluster the
perforations.

 Other techniques include the use of viscous fluids, use of

high pumping rates to initiate the fracture, use of sand-jet
perforating, pumping proppant slugs (during the analysis
stages or during the main treatment), and pumping
hydrochloric-acid (HCl) or organic-acid prepads.

 Each technique may have a degree or probability of

success, but, in some cases, the tortuosity problem persists
even after applying one or all of these remedies.
 189

 In one case in northeastern Brazil, all of the mentioned

options were attempted without removing the tortuosity.

 A single-step acidizing technology applied to sandstone

formations with no acid preflush or post-flush was
proposed.

NEW SOLUTION

 A new solution demonstrated substantial success in

overcoming particularly stubborn tortuosity problems.

 The method builds on the use of a nondamaging, single-

stage phosphonic-/hydrofluoric-acid system (SAS) for
matrix-stimulation treatments.

190

ULTIMATE COMPLEX PATTERN OF

HYDRAULIC FRACTURES

Unconventional and Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

 ACIDIZING & ACID
FRACTURING
(+Video)

 An alternative to the use of proppant to maintain

fracture conductivity is to inject hydrochloric acid
under fracture pressures.

 This method is called acid fracturing and is only

applicable to strongly reactive carbonate reservoir rock
types.

 The acid etches the faces of the fracture surfaces.

 The presence of the etched channels allows fractures

to remain permeable even after the fracture-fluid
pressure is removed and compressive rock stress
causes the fractures to close.
 Acid fracturing is sometimes preferred in carbonate
reservoirs because of the relatively high degree of
natural fractures generally present and the
difficulties of placing proppant because of fluid
leak-off into the natural fracture system.

 Acid fractures generally result in relatively short

fractures as compared with fractures secured with
proppant; therefore, it is generally more successful
in higher-permeability formations.

ACID FRACTURING

 The main difference between acid fracturing and

proppant fracturing is the way fracture conductivity
is created.

 In proppant fracturing, a propping agent is used to

prop open the fracture after the treatment is
completed.

 In acid fracturing, acid is used to “etch” channels in

the rock that comprise the walls of the fracture.
 ACID FRACTURING

 Thus, the rock has to be partially soluble in acid so

that channels can be etched in the fracture walls.

 As such, the application of acid fracturing is

confined to carbonate reservoirs and should never
be used to stimulate sandstone, shale, or coal-seam
reservoirs.

 Long etched fractures are difficult to obtain,

because of high leakoff and rapid acid reaction with
the formation.
 ACID-FRACTURING CANDIDATE SELECTION

 In general, acid fracturing is best applied in shallow, low-

temperature carbonate reservoirs.

 The best candidates are shallow, in which the reservoir

temperature is less than 200°F and the maximum effective
stress on the fracture will be less than 5,000 psi.

 Low temperature reduces the reaction rate between the acid

and the formation, which allows the acid to penetrate deeper
into the fracture before becoming spent.

 Because limestone reservoirs are ductile, a low effective stress

on the fracture is required to maintain adequate fracture
conductivity over the life of the well.

ACID-FRACTURING CANDIDATE SELECTION

 In deep limestone reservoirs, in which problems exist with high

bottomhole temperature and high effective stress on the fracture,
water-based fluids with propping agents can be used successfully
to stimulate the formation.

 In deep dolomite reservoirs that are less ductile than limestones,

acid fracturing may work satisfactorily; however, proppant
fracturing with water-based fluids may work also.

 Acid-fracture fluids with propping agents are not recommended.

 When the acid reacts with the carbonate formation, fines are
always released.

 If a propping agent is used with acid, the fines plug up the

propping agent, resulting in very low fracture conductivity.
 When deciding to stimulate many carbonate reservoirs, the costs
and benefits of an acid-fracture treatment should be compared
with a treatment that uses water-based fluids carrying a propping
agent.

 It should not be assumed that acid fracturing works best, because

the formation is a carbonate.

 There could be a few applications in which acid fracturing could be

the preferred treatment in a deep, high-temperature carbonate
reservoir.

 For example, if a high-permeability carbonate reservoir is

damaged as a result of drilling operations or non-Darcy flow
effects, then a stimulation treatment can be applied to improve
the productivity index.

 In such cases, injecting acid at fracturing rates can improve the

permeability near the wellbore, which will reduce the pressure
drop caused by skin and/or non-Darcy flow.

 In other cases, especially in deep dolomites that contain an

abundance of natural fractures, acid fracturing may work
better than proppant fracturing.

 In such reservoirs, it is common that multiple fractures are

opened when pumping begins.

 With multiple fractures, no single fracture ever gains enough

width to accept large concentrations of propping agent.

 Near-wellbore screenouts often occur as the proppant

concentration is increased to more than 2 to 3 ppg.

 In such cases, acid fracturing may work better than proppant

fracturing.
 Other considerations when selecting acid-fracturing
candidates are cost and safety.

 In deep, hot reservoirs, the cost of an acid-fracturing

treatment can exceed the costs of a proppant-fracture
treatment.

 In hot reservoirs, expensive chemicals are required to inhibit

the acid-reaction rate with the steel tubular goods and to
retard the reaction rate with the formation.

 Acid must be handled with extreme care in the field.

 When pumping large volumes of high-strength acid at high

injection rates and at high pressures, safety should be the top
concern of everyone in the field.

ACID FLUIDS USED IN FRACTURING

 The most commonly used fluid in acid fracturing is 15%

hydrochloric acid (HCl).

 To obtain more acid penetration and more etching, 28% HCl

is sometimes used as the primary acid fluid.

 On occasion, formic acid (HCOOH) or acetic acid (CH3COOH)

is used because these acids are easier to inhibit under high-
temperature conditions.

 However, acetic and formic acid cost more than HCl.

 Hydrofluoric acid (HF) should never be used during an acid

fracturing treatment in a carbonate reservoir.
 Typically, a gelled water or crosslinked gel fluid is used
as the pad fluid to fill the wellbore and break down the
formation.

 The water-based pad is then pumped to create the

desired fracture height, width, and length for the
hydraulic fracture.

 Once the desired values of created fracture dimensions

are achieved, the acid is pumped and fingers down the
fracture to etch the walls of the fracture to create
fracture conductivity.

 The acid is normally gelled, crosslinked, or emulsified to

maintain fracture width and minimize fluid leakoff.

 Because the acid is reactive with the formation, fluid

loss is a primary consideration in the fluid design.

 Large amounts of fluid-loss additives are generally

added to the acid fluid to minimize fluid leakoff.

 Fluid-loss control is most important in high

permeability and/or naturally fractured carbonate
formations; thus, long etched fractures are difficult to
obtain.
 ACID-FRACTURE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

 There are several unique considerations to be understood when

designing acid fracture treatments.

 Of primary concern is acid-penetration distance down the

fracture.

 The pad fluid is used to create the desired fracture dimensions.

 Then the acid is pumped down the fracture to etch the fracture
walls, which creates fracture conductivity.

 When the acid contacts the walls of the fracture, the reaction
between the acid and the carbonate is almost instantaneous,
especially if the temperature of the acid is 200°F or greater.

 As such, the treatment must be

designed to create a wide
fracture, with minimal leakoff,
with viscous fluids.

 Fig.1 illustrates why the design

engineer should be striving to
create a wide fracture.

 If a wide fracture is created with

a viscous acid and minimal fluid
loss, then a boundary layer of
spent acid products will reduce
the rate at which the live acid
contacts the formation at the
walls of the fracture.

Fig. 1—Acid-flow behavior in

the fracture.
 However, as the flow in
the fracture becomes
more turbulent and less
laminar, the live acid
will contact the walls of
the fracture more
easily, and the acid will
not penetrate very far
into the fracture before
becoming spent.

 Factors such as fracture width, injection rate, acid viscosity,

and reservoir temperature all affect acid penetration.

 Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate how fracture width and formation

temperature affect acid penetration in the fracture,
respectively.

 In Fig. 2, as the fracture width increases, the distance that

unspent acid will reach in the fracture also increases.

Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 The distance increases because, in a wide fracture, there is less
turbulence.

 This results in less mixing as the live acid moves down the
fracture; therefore, the viscous and leakoff properties of
the fracture fluid should be controlled to maximize fracture
width.

Fig. 2—Effect of fracture width on acid-penetration distance.

Fig. 3 contains information concerning the effects of:

 Reservoir temperature
 Acid strength
 Formation lithology

Fig. 3—Effect of temperature, lithology, and acid

concentration on acid-penetration distance
 It is clear that the use of higher-strength acid increases the
penetration distance in the fracture before the acid spending.

 Also, as temperature increases, the acid penetration distance

decreases.

 As the temperature increases, the reaction rates between the

acid and the formation increase substantially.

 In fact, the reaction rate doubles every time the temperature

increases 18°F.

 Fig. 3 also shows that

dolomite is less reactive with
HCl than limestone;
therefore, acid fracturing
may work slightly better in
reservoirs that are more
highly dolomitized.

 The problem with acid fracturing that prevents its successful

application in many reservoirs involves sustaining fracture
conductivity over time.

 When the acid etches the fracture walls, the resulting fracture
conductivity can be several orders of magnitude more
conductive than similar treatments that use water-based fluids
and propping agents.

Fig. 4—Fracture conductivity in a

carbonate reservoir as a function
of effective stress on the fracture
and embedment strength
 The embedment strength is easily measured and can be
correlated with the compressive strength of the rock.

 As the compressive strength increases, the rock embedment

strength increases.

 The data in Fig. 4 show that, when the embedment strength is

less than 100,000 psi, large fracture conductivities, on the order
of 10 to 50,000 md-ft, can be created during an acid-fracture
treatment, as long as the effective stress on the fracture is
1,000 psi or less.

 However, once the effective stress on the fracture exceeds

5,000 psi, the fracture conductivity decreases substantially.

 As such, in deep limestone reservoirs in which the maximum

effective stress on the fracture is much greater than 5,000 psi,
an acid fracture will not stay open as the well is produced.

 In such cases, water-based fluids carrying propping agents

should be considered as an alternative to acid fracturing.
 215

End of Chapter 4