Application of After-Closure Analysis
to a Dual-Porosity Formation, to CBM, and
to a Fractured Horizontal Well
M.Y. Soliman, Carlos Miranda, and Hong Max Wang*, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services
Summary
Published techniques for after-closure analysis of fracturing data
usually assume the presence of a vertical fracture intersecting
a vertical well. In addition, these published techniques usually
assume that the formation is homogeneous. When the formation is
naturally fractured or the well is horizontally intersecting a trans-
verse vertical fracture, those assumptions are obviously violated
and the published analysis techniques might not be applicable.
Through the use of analytical and numerical solutions and applica-
tion to actual field data, this paper investigates the analysis of after-
closure data for heterogeneous formations, a naturally fractured
formation, a CBM, and a fractured horizontal well.
This paper briefly reviews the various available techniques for
after-closure analysis, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses
of each. An analytical solution for an injection-falloff test for a
naturally fractured formation has been developed and is presented.
This solution might be used to analyze data for a minifrac test
in a naturally fractured formation where the fracture has healed.
Numerical simulation validated the developed solution for a frac-
ture that has healed. The same numerical simulator was used to
expand the solution to a situation where the fracture maintains
residual conductivity.
The solution for a minifrac test in the case of a transverse frac-
ture is also presented and discussed. Using a numerical simulator,
minifrac tests are simulated and analyzed for both heterogeneous
formations and fractured horizontal wells. Guidelines for the
analysis of such data have been developed and presented.
Field data are also presented. One case presents a minifrac test
for a heterogeneous formation. A case for a transverse fracture
intersecting a horizontal well is also presented and analyzed.
A third case for CBM is discussed.
Brief Review of After-Closure Analysis
Because the frequency of performing buildup tests has declined
because of costs associated with performing them, fracturing tests
have gained popularity. This is especially true in tight formations
where classical buildup tests take a long time and analysis may
not be unique. The majority of those tight formations, especially
gas reservoirs, will have to be fractured any way to produce those
tight reservoirs economically. A fracturing test will have to be run
to gain insight into the best procedure, technique, and fluids to
create a hydraulic fracture. Developing techniques to analyze those
tests to gain further information on reservoir properties, especially
permeability, eliminates the necessity for running a buildup test.
The early development of fracture-diagnostic techniques (Nolte
1979, 1986, 1990; Tan et al. 1990) aimed at determining fracture-
closure pressure and leakoff coefficient. Later developments (May-
erhofer et al. 1995; Valkó and Economides 1999) concentrated
on the transient analysis of the before-closure data, leading to
the calculation of reservoir properties such as initial pressure and
*Now with Sharp-Rock Technologies.
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 124135) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received 2 March 2009. Revised manuscript received
10 June 2010. Paper peer approved 20 July 10.
472
permeability. One major weakness in the before-closure-analysis
techniques is the strong dependence on the assumed fracture-
propagation model. In addition, the change of model dimensions
(fracture length and width) during the test makes a unique analysis
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
difficult to achieve. Analysis of after-closure data would, to some
extent, eliminate this problem. Two basic approaches have been
developed for analysis of after-closure data.
Gu et al. (1993), Abousleiman et al. (1994), Nolte et al. (1997),
and Soliman et al. (2005) presented techniques to analyze the
after-closure data. Those analysis techniques represent two basic
approaches for analysis of data. Both approaches rely on the well-
testing technology.
The first approach for after-closure analysis was developed
by Nolte et al. (1997). In this approach, the after-closure-analysis
model was developed by assuming a constant injection pressure
followed by shut-in. The solution of this problem can be found
in the classical description of heat flow in solids. Manipulating
the solution to account for closure time, the falloff equation was
developed. The basic weakness of this approach is that one has to
assume the prevailing flow regime during the after-closure period.
On the basis of this approach, two models were developed for
pseudoradial- or pseudolinear-flow conditions.
The second approach was developed by Soliman et al. (2005)
and is grounded in well-test-analysis technology. It is similar to an
approach that had been developed earlier for analysis of well-test
data when the producing time is short (Soliman et al. 2004). Rather
than considering the test as a constant-pressure injection, as in the
first approach, the test is considered to be a constant-rate test. This
is actually a more-realistic approach because most injection tests
are conducted at a constant rate. Even if the rate is not exactly
constant, Soliman et al. (2004) have shown that the effect of a
somewhat varying rate on the final analysis is relatively minor.
If the fracture-efficiency test (FET) is considered to be a pump-
in/shut-in test with analogy to the standard injection-falloff test,
techniques developed for well testing can be used to analyze the
falloff data. The fact that injection time is considerably shorter than
the shut-in time has to be considered. Strictly speaking, the FET
test is not a conventional well test because of the propagation of
the fracture during the pumping period and the decline in fracture
width during the shut-in period preceding closure. However, the
pumping period of an FET test is usually short. Theory, simulation,
and practical experience have shown that specialized well-testing
techniques can be applied to the falloff period after the closure of
the fracture with a high degree of accuracy. In other words, the
effect of fracture propagation during the pumping period on the
falloff period can be small enough that ignoring it will not result
in significant error in the calculation.
Because the falloff period is usually much longer than the pump-
ing period, the technique developed by Soliman et al. (2004, 2005)
can be used to analyze the falloff data, beyond the closure time, to
determine reservoir and fracture properties. Using that technique, it
is possible to identify one of several flow regimes, depending on the
reservoir, fracture, and perforation schemes. The flow regime can
be linear, pseudoradial, bilinear, or spherical flow. The most simple
and most common flow regime that has been observed is pseudora-
dial flow. Other flow regimes have been observed, such as bilinear
and spherical flow. The methodology of analysis used for various
flow regimes is discussed in detail by Soliman et al. (2005).
November 2010 SPE Production & Operations
 Chipperfield (2006) and Uribe et al. (2007) published exten-
sions of the after-closure-analysis methodology. Chipperfield
expanded on work published by Houze et al. (1988). In both
approaches, it was assumed that either the created fracture will
completely close during the shut-in period or the shut-in time will
be long enough that a pseudoradial-flow regime will dominate the
well behavior. In the simulated example discussed by Uribe, the
shut-in period was almost 500 days. The field example presented
by Chipperfield showed the start of radial flow, indicating that the
hydraulic fracture was closed.
This paper examines the application of after-closure analysis to
a naturally fractured formation (dual-porosity system), a coalbed-
methane (CBM) reservoir, and a fractured horizontal well. Our
treatment of the naturally fractured reservoirs is different from
previous studies. In Houze’s work, the fracture was assumed to be
of uniform flux. The infinite-conductivity solution was calculated
from the uniform-flux solution. In this paper, we examine the case
for a finite-conductivity fracture. We also examine dual situations
for when the hydraulic fracture closes and when it stays open during
the shut-in period (falloff). Our analysis is based on a well-testing
approach that makes no assumption regarding the flow regime.
Furthermore, all previously published techniques implicitly
assume that the injected-fracturing-fluid properties are identical to
formation-fluid properties. The effect of fluid properties has been
examined by Chen et al. (2006), who reported that under the radial-
flow regime, well analysis is controlled mainly by the injected fluid.
Soliman et al. (2010) showed that in the fractured-well case, the situ-
ation may be more complex and well behavior will also depend on
the mobility ratio. The worst-case scenario for these analyses exists
when the injected fluid is less mobile than the reservoir fluid.
FETs in a Dual-Porosity System
It is almost customary to treat the shut-in periods (buildup and
falloff) in much the same fashion as the flow (production/injection)
period is treated. It should be recognized that analysis of the shut-in
period may be very different from analysis of the flow period. This
is especially true in the case of heterogeneous reservoirs such as
the dual-porosity systems discussed. It may be stated that what is
not fully detected during the flow period cannot be fully detected
during the shut-in period. This can be easily visualized in a test
where more than one flow regime may be encountered during a
flow/injection period such as effect of boundaries, dual-porosity
systems, and fractured reservoirs. For example, if the flow period
is too short to fully observe the effect of a boundary, the shut-in
period will not be able to accurately show the effect of the bound-
ary either. Thus, the shut-in period, in this case, should not be used
Fig. 1—Effect of production/injection time on shut-in period.
November 2010 SPE Production & Operations
to calculate the distance to the boundary regardless of how long
the shut-in period might be. Earlougher and Kazemi (1980) stated
that the radius of investigation during a drawdown period should
be at least four times the distance to a sealing fault to observe a
doubling of the slope during a buildup period.
Another example illustrating this can be seen in a falloff/
buildup test performed on a dual-porosity system. In a dual-poros-
ity system, one would observe the wellbore-storage effect followed
by the effect of the fracture system, a transition period, and eventu-
ally the total system, including the matrix contribution to flow. For
the shut-in period to reflect this total system, the flow period has
to be long enough to observe the total-system effect. The use of
superposition does not eliminate the need for a long flow period.
Fig. 1, presented in Soliman et al. (1996), shows the buildup
response for various producing times, as well as the response from
a long flow period (or a shut-in period with an infinitely long flow
period). Fig. 1 indicates that as the flow time gets longer, the behavior
of the shut-in period approaches that of a flow period. It is also clear
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
that the shut-in period would not reveal a flow regime that had not
been fully investigated by the preceding flow period. For example, if
the flow period is terminated before the matrix system is fully investi-
gated, the shut-in period might not reveal reliable information on that
portion of the reservoir (matrix), as in the examples just discussed.
The analytical solution developed by Serra et al. (1983) was
used to create Figs. 2 and 3, showing falloff (or buildup) tests
where the flow period is fairly short. The data are plotted in the
format that will be used in the analysis of the after-closure tests.
Because of the short injection (or producing) time, the early-time
straight line (radial flow) that usually characterizes the dual-
porosity system is not apparent. The dip in the derivative curve
that indicates the presence of heterogeneity is apparent; this is
followed by a straight-line slope of –1, indicating the presence
of the long-term radial-flow regime. The graphs also show that it
might take several cycles for the later-time straight line to show.
The data, when plotted using conventional methods, yielded less-
characteristic behavior.
The storativity () and transmisivity () values may be calcu-
lated from the dip in data, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The equations
used in the calculations were presented by Bourdet and Gringarten
(1980) and Bourdet et al. (1983) and were summarized very well
by Chipperfield (2006).
Because the late-time data indicate a radial-flow regime, the
analysis of the data follows the standard methodology for radial
flow. Eqs. 1 through 3 give long-term expressions that can be used
to analyze these data. The analysis technique is discussed in detail
by Soliman et al. (2005).
473
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
Fig. 2—Shut-in period response for a dual-porosity system, CD=0, ␻ = 0.01, ␭ = 1.0E − 5.

1694.4Vinj  ⎛ 1 ⎞ residual conductivity. In such a case, the long-term data may not
p fo − pi = ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) follow the radial-flow pattern unless the fracture is very short, the
kh t
permeability is high, and/or the shut-in time is unreasonably long.
A commercially available numerical simulator was used to model
⎛ 1694.4Vinj  ⎞ such cases and will be investigated next.
( )
log p fo − pi = log ⎜
⎝ kh ⎟⎠ − log ( t ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Fig. 4 shows the response from the numerical simulator when
the fracture closes completely after injection. The simulation
shows that it can be expected that the data will eventually indicate
⎛ p ⎞ ⎛ 1,694.4Vinj  ⎞ radial-flow behavior during the falloff period. The graph shows
log ⎜ − t fo ⎟ = log ⎜ ⎟⎠ − log(t ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) that, as the injection time declines, the derivative graph changes
⎝ t ⎠ ⎝ kh
shape. Shorter time shows a derivative-positive slope. This behav-
ior is caused by the transition to matrix-dominated behavior and
In this paper, the after-closure analysis for a heterogeneous can be observed only in a dual-porosity system. This behavior
reservoir (dual-porosity system) is investigated under two main occurs because of the extremely high contrast in transmissibility
scenarios. In the first scenario, the fracture is assumed to heal between the fracture and matrix systems.
completely and have no residual fracture conductivity. Figs. 2 As the flow period gets shorter, the difference between the
and 3 showed the expected behavior of the first scenario. In the investigated areas in the fracture and the matrix systems gets larger.
second scenario, it is assumed that the fracture maintains some Figs. 5 and 6 show the pressure distribution inside the reservoir

Fig. 3—Shut-in period response for a dual-porosity system, CD =100, ␻ = 0.01, ␭ = 1.0E − 5.

474 November 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 10000
16-hr Derivative
8-hr Derivative
4-hr Derivative
Change in Pressure and Derivative, psi
1000
100
10
10
Fig. 4—Falloff period following an injection period.
after 4 and 16 hours of production, respectively, indicating that
after long flowing time, the investigated areas of the matrix and
the fracture become comparable. This change in the characteristic
of the diagnostic derivative plot is given in Fig. 4.
When the fracture maintains some or much of its conductiv-
ity during the falloff period, the shape of the derivative gives a
very clear indication of the presence of the dual-porosity system.
Numerical simulation may be the best method to study well per-
formance under such conditions where the fracture is usually of
finite dimensionless conductivity.
Figs. 7 through 9 show the various effects on pressure behav-
ior. Fig. 7 shows the identical case, for two fracture lengths. The
derivative does not approach any of the previously recognized
slopes, making the analysis of the closure data unfeasible at this
time, except through matching with an analytical or numerical
simulator. Fig. 8 shows the effect of the storativity factor ( ) on
pressure response, while Fig. 9 shows the effect the transmissivity
( ) on the pressure behavior.
Fig. 5—Pressure distributions inside fracture and matrix systems following 4 hours of production, ␻ = 0.01, ␭ = 1.0E − 5.
November 2010 SPE Production & Operations
16-hr dp
8-hr dp
4-hr dp
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
100 1000 10000
Time, min
In all cases, the falloff data in the pressure and derivative
plots both approach a straight line that appears to have a slope
of approximately 2⁄3. Further research is necessary to develop an
analysis model similar to Eqs. 1 through 3 for evaluation of this
straight line.
Because of the heterogeneity of the naturally fractured forma-
tion, it is important that the flow period reach a stabilized matrix
flow (beyond the dip in the pressure derivative plot). The shut-in
period will have to be several times that time duration. Bourdet
et al. (1983) and Houze et al. (1988) give guidelines for the time
necessary to run a buildup test. Similar guidelines would apply to
the cases discussed in this paper.
Example 1—Dual-Porosity Model
Fig. 10 is the job chart for an FET that was performed on a natu-
rally fractured formation. Unfortunately, only surface data were
recorded, with lower gauge resolution than is necessary to analyze
a complex case, such as this FET in a dual-porosity reservoir.
475
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
Fig. 6—Pressure distributions inside fracture and matrix systems following 16 hours of production, ␻ = 0.01, ␭ = 1.0E − 5.

The use of a relatively low-resolution gauge is responsible for
the significant scattering of data that is clearly apparent in the
derivative plot, shown in Fig. 11. However, the general shape of
the derivative plot appears to mimic the simulated data reported in
Figs. 7 through 9 including the presence of the dip in the deriva-
tive. The shape of the data indicates the presence of a hydraulic
fracture intersecting the wellbore and indicates that the reservoir
is naturally fractured. Unfortunately, the test was also too short
to analyze further. The use of a surface gauge with relatively low
resolution contributed to the inability to produce quantitatively
analyzable data. It is definitely advised to use high-resolution
gauges when running FETs in all cases, and especially in tight and
naturally fractured formations.
FETs in CBM Reservoirs
CBM represent a very special case of gas reservoirs. Most CBM
reservoirs are wet systems where there is no free gas. All gas is
adsorbed on the grains of coal in micropores. The cleat system
(macropores) is initially occupied with water. To start producing
the adsorbed gas, the reservoir will first have to be dewatered. Fluid
flowing in the cleat system follows the Darcy equation, while on
the other hand, gas desorption follows diffusion equations. For gas

10000
Dp 50-ft fracture

Dp 100- ft fracture

Derivative 50- ft fracture

Derivative 100- ft fracture

1000
Pressure Drop and Derivative

100

10

1
10 100 1000 10000
Time, min

Fig. 7—Effect of fracture length on the falloff period, ␻ = 0.01, ␭ = 1.0E − 5.

476 November 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 10000 Dp Omega=0.1
Dp Omega=0.03
Dp Omega=0.01
Derivative Omega=0.1
Derivative Omega=0.03
Derivative Omega=0.01
1000

Pressure and Derivative, psi

100

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021

10

1
10 100 1000 10000
Time, min

Fig. 8—Effect of reservoir storativity on the falloff period, ␭ = 1.0E − 5.

to desorb, water in the cleat system will have to be removed first
in order to reduce pressure, a process that is usually referred to as
dewatering. Once the pressure inside the cleat system drops below
the critical pressure, gas will desorb from the surface of the coal
grains and will start flowing to the cleats and through the cleat
system to the wellbore.
Thus, tests performed on a CBM system before dewatering can
be analyzed in conventional fashion, assuming a homogeneous sys-
tem and ignoring the adsorbed gas. After dewatering, the fluid flow
is affected by both the diffusion process of the adsorbed gas and
the Darcy flow in the cleat system, making an FET virtually impos-
sible to analyze, except when employing a matching technique

10000
Dp Lambda=1.0E-4
Dp Lambda=1.0E-5
Dp Lambda=1.0E-6
Derivative Lambda=1.0E-4
1000 Derivative Lambda=1.0E-5
Derivative Lambda=1.0E-6
Pressure and Derivative, psi

100

10

0.1
10 100 1000 10000
Time, min

Fig. 9—Effect of reservoir transmissivity on the falloff period, ␻ = 0.01.

November 2010 SPE Production & Operations 477

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
Fig. 10—Pressure vs. time for an FET in a naturally fractured formation (Example 1).

using a numerical simulator. It would be difficult to achieve a
unique match because of the complex processes that control res-
ervoir behavior.
Testing CBM Reservoirs After Dewatering
Several tests were performed after the dewatering process. In all
cases, the data were unanalyzable. This might be a result of the very
complex behavior expected because of the nature of adsorption/
desorption of the gas on and from the surface of the coal grains.
In many cases, the pressure during the shut-in period was
actually increasing, rendering the data unanalyzable. The increase
in pressure might be a result of increased fluid temperature if at
the same time the leakoff is very small. This phenomenon usu-
ally occurs in a very tight, hot reservoir where the expansion of
fluid inside the wellbore and the fracture caused by heating of
the fracturing fluid is larger than the leakoff rate. Correcting for
temperature effect is possible, as shown by Soliman (1986). How-
ever, this increase in pressure usually indicates that the fracture
has not closed yet. As a result, after-closure analysis might not
be applicable.
Example 2—CBM Testing Before Dewatering
In this section, an FET is analyzed that was performed on a CBM
reservoir before dewatering occurred. The FET was performed by
injecting 2% KCl brine.
Fig. 12 shows the diagnostic derivative plot of this example.
The graph clearly shows that the data eventually follow a straight
line with slope of –¾, indicating that the bilinear-flow regime
dominates the after-closure behavior. Eqs. 4 and 5 are expressions
used for analyzing this flow regime. It should be noted that because
the end of the bilinear-flow regime has not been observed yet,
fracture length cannot be calculated. In addition, the calculated

100
Pressure Derivave, psi

10
100 1000 10000

Total Test Time, sec

Fig. 11—Diagnostic derivative plot for dual-porosity formation (Example 1).

478 November 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
Fig. 12—Diagnostic derivative of CBM example of FET performed before dewatering (Example 2).

permeability is that of the cleat system. The formation permeability Vinj  1

k = 264.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
is calculated using Eq. 5 and using the last point on the bilinear-
( )
0.25
h br 2.637 t
flow regime. In this case, the bilinear-flow regime dominated the ebf

whole test. Consequently, the last point in the test was used as tebf
in Eq. 5. In this case, the calculated value represents the upper The initial reservoir pressure was calculated using the Cartesian
bound on reservoir permeability. plot, as shown in Fig. 13. As indicated therein, the initial reservoir
pressure is the intercept on the y-axis. This initial reservoir pressure
0.25
⎛ 1 ⎞ 0.75 is used to create the log-log plot of pressure decline vs. time. This is
Vinj 1 ⎛ 1⎞
p fo − pi = 264.6 ( ) 0.75
⎜ c k⎟ ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ , shown in Fig. 14, which indicates a slope of 3⁄4, confirming that the
h ⎝ t ⎠ kf wf t bilinear-flow regime dominates the after-closure period. Using the
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) slope of the straight line in Fig. 13 (3,594 psi/hr0.75) or the intercept

Fig. 13—Cartesian plot for CBM example (Example 2).

November 2010 SPE Production & Operations 479


Fig. 14—Log-log plot for CBM example (Example 2).
of the straight line at 1 hr in Fig. 14 (3,598 psi/hr0.75), the formation
height-permeability product is calculated. The difference between
the two possible values is only 0.1%, further strengthening confi-
dence in the validity of the analysis.
Fractured Horizontal Well
Fracturing a horizontal well represents a very special case that is
still relatively uncommon. A fracture intersecting a wellbore can
be longitudinal or transverse, depending on the orientation of the
wellbore with respect to the in-situ stress.
If the well is drilled in the direction of the maximum stress, the
created fracture would be longitudinal. The observed data from an
FET should be fairly similar to what would be observed in case of
an FET on a vertical well. In other words, it would be possible to
observe linear-, bilinear-, and radial-flow regimes.
If the well is drilled in the direction of minimum stress to create
a transverse fracture at the well, the perforated interval is usually
no longer than four times the diameter of the wellbore. In this case,
the created fracture is transverse to the wellbore and the behavior
of an FET would be fairly complex. Linear/radial flow can be
observed if the fracture is large and has some residual conductivity.
This flow period is equivalent to the bilinear-flow period in the
Fig. 15—Job chart for FET on a horizontal well (Example 3).
480
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
vertical-well case. It should also be possible to observe a spherical
flow, perhaps followed by a long-term pseudoradial-flow regime.
Soliman et al. (2005) presented models for predicting the
behavior of a fracturing test performed on a horizontal well drilled
in the direction of minimum stress, when the created fracture is
transverse to the wellbore. In the next section, we present a field
case that was performed on a horizontal well. To the knowledge of
the authors, no field case has been presented until now.
Example 3—Fractured Horizontal Well
The FET was performed by pumping 11,700 gal of gelled fluid at 35
bbl/min. The job chart is given in Fig. 15. The diagnostic derivative
plot (Fig. 16) shows a slope of –1.5, indicating that the spherical-
flow regime dominates the reservoir. The presence of a spherical-
flow regime implies that after closure, the fracture might not have
significant residual conductivity. The schematic in Fig. 17 shows
why spherical flow is likely to be seen in this case. To run the FET,
approximately 3 ft of the casing was perforated and a transverse
fracture was created. The fluid flow is likely to be influenced by
this limited perforated interval. In addition, Fig. 15 indicates that
the fracture has most probably closed very quickly. The expressions
used in analysis of a spherical-flow regime are given as:
November 2010 SPE Production & Operations
 10000

Pressure Derivave, PSI

1000

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021

100
100 1,000 10,000
Total Test Time, sec

Fig. 16—Diagnostic derivative plot for testing on a horizontal well (Example 3).

1.5
⎛ ⎞ should be converted to the correct units. In case of spherical flow,
( ) 1
0.5
p fo − pi = 29434 Vinj  ct ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) this is done by dividing those values by (3,600)1.5, which will yield
k t 1.5
a slope (on Fig. 18) or intercept (at time = 1 hour in Fig. 19) of
78.96 psi/hr1.5.
⎛ ∂p fo ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞
1.5

( )
0.5
log ⎜ − t = log ⎜ 4, 414.5 Vinj  ct
⎝ ∂t ⎟⎠ ⎝ k
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
The test data were further plotted, as in Figs. 18 and 19, follow-
ing the procedure developed herein by Soliman et al. (2005). The
initial reservoir pressure at the wellhead condition is the intercept
in Fig. 18. Hydrostatic pressure will have to be added to this value
to calculate reservoir pressure at downhole conditions.
Entering fluid and reservoir parameters into Eq. 7, the reservoir
permeability was calculated. The formation permeability calcu-
lated herein was within 8% of the formation permeability calcu-
lated using drillstem tests performed on offset vertical wells.
It should be noted that time in Eqs. 6 and 7 is in time units of
hours, while the slope and intercept in Figs. 18 and 19 are based
on time in seconds. Thus, before using Eqs. 6 or 7, those values
⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ ⎟ − 1.5 log ( t ).
Conclusions
⎠
• Models for a naturally fractured reservoir (dual porosity) have
been developed.
• Because of reservoir heterogeneity, a long shut-in period after
fracture closure might be necessary for analysis.
• What is not investigated during the flow period will probably
not be investigated during the shut-in period. This observation is
important during analysis of heterogeneous reservoirs. This will
mean that both the injection and shut-in periods will have to be
fairly long when testing a naturally fractured formation.
• Further research is necessary to develop a quantitative analysis
for after-closure analysis when the fracture retains significant
residual conductivity.
• At this time, only qualitative analysis is possible.
• To improve the chances of obtaining reliable analysis, it is rec-
ommended that downhole shut-in be employed. It is also recom-
mended that a high-resolution gauge be used.
• CBM reservoirs should be tested before dewatering. A successful
field test has been presented.
• A successful field case was presented for an FET on a horizontal
well.
• Three field cases have been presented discussing unconventional
application of after-closure analysis.

Nomenclature
ct = total formation compressibility, psi–1
CD = dimensionless wellbore storage
h = formation height, ft
k = formation permeability, md
kfwf = fracture conductivity, md-ft
Pfo = pressure during the falloff period, psi
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi
PD = dimensionless pressure
rw = wellbore radius, ft
t = total time, hours
Fig. 17—Schematic of fluid flows around a short fracture inter- tD = dimensionless time
secting a horizontal well. tebf = time at end of bilinear flow

November 2010 SPE Production & Operations 481

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
Fig. 18—Cartesian plot for fractured horizontal well (Example 3).

Fig. 19—Log-log plot for fractured horizontal well (Example 3).

Vinj = injected volume into the chamber, bbl Chen, S., Li, G., and Reynolds A.C. 2006. Analytical Solution for Injec-
 = viscosity, cp tion-Falloff-Production Tests. Paper SPE 103271 presented at the SPE
 = porosity Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
 = storativity, dimensionless USA, 24–27 September. doi: 10.2118/103271-MS.
Chipperfield, S. 2006. After-Closure Analysis to Identify Naturally Frac-
 = transmissivity, dimensionless
tured Reservoirs. SPE Form Eval 9 (1): 50–60. SPE-90002-PA. doi:
10.2118/90002-PA.
Acknowledgments Earlougher, R.C. Jr. and Kazemi, H. 1980. Practicalities of Detecting Faults
The authors of this paper thank Halliburton for allowing this work From Buildup Testing. J Pet Technol 32 (1): 18–20. SPE- 8781-PA.
to be published. doi: 10.2118/8781-PA.
Gu, H., Elbel, J.L., Nolte, K.G., Cheng, A.H-D., and Abousleiman, Y.
References 1993. Formation Permeability Determination Using Impulse-Fracture
Abousleiman, Y., Cheng, A.H-D., and Gu, H. 1994. Formation Permeabil- Injection. Paper SPE 25425 presented at the SPE Production Opera-
ity Determination by Micro or Mini-Hydraulic Fracturing. Journal of tions Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 21–23 March. doi:
Energy Resources Technology 116 (2): 104–114. 10.2118/25425-MS.
Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A.C. 1980. Determination of Fissure Volume Houze, O.P., Horne, R.N., and Ramey, H.J. Jr. 1988. Pressure-Transient
and Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve Analysis. Paper Response of an Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture in a Reservoir
SPE 9293 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi- with Double-Porosity Behavior. SPE Form Eval 3 (3): 510–518; Trans.,
bition, Dallas, 21–24 September. doi: 10.2118/9293-MS. AIME, 285. SPE- 12778-PA. doi: 10.2118/12778-PA.
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J., Whittle, T.M., Pirad, Y-M., and Kniazeff, V. 1983. Mayerhofer, M.J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Economides, M.J. 1995.
Interpreting Well Tests in Fractured Reservoirs. World Oil 72 (Octo- Pressure-Transient Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests. J Pet Technol
ber): 77–87. 47 (3): 229–234. SPE- 26527-PA. doi: 10.2118/26527-PA.

482 November 2010 SPE Production & Operations

Nolte, K.G. 1979. Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing
Pressure Decline. Paper SPE 8341 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 23–26 Septem-
ber. doi: 10.2118/8341-MS.
Nolte, K.G. 1986. General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline with
Application to Three Models. SPE Form Eval 1 (6): 571–583. SPE-
12941-PA. doi: 10.2118/12941-PA.
Nolte, K.G. 1990. Fracturing-Pressure Analysis: Deviations from Ideal
Assumptions. Paper SPE 20704 prepared for presentation at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23–27
September.
Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., and Owens, K.A. 1997. After-Closure Analysis
of Fracture Calibration Tests. Paper SPE 38676 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 5–8 October. doi: 10.2118/38676-MS.
Serra, K., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R. 1983. New pressure Transient
Analysis Methods for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. J Pet Technol 35
(12): 2271–2283. SPE- 10780-PA. doi: 10.2118/10780-PA.
Soliman, M.Y. 1986. Technique for Considering Fluid Compressibility
and Temperature Changes in Mini-Frac Analysis. Paper SPE 15370
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, 5–8. October. doi: 10.2118/15370-MS.
Soliman, M.Y., Azari, M., Ansah, J., and Kabir, C.S. 2004. Design, Inter-
pretation, and Assessment of Short-Term Pressure-Transient Tests.
Paper SPE 90837 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, 26–29 September. doi: 10.2118/90837-MS.
Soliman, M.Y., Craig, D., Bartko, K., Rahim, Z., Ansah, J., and Adams,
D. 2005. New Method for Determination of Formation Permeability,
Reservoir Pressure, and Fracture Properties from a Minifrac Test. Paper
ARMA/USRMS 05-658 presented at the 40th US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics (USRMS), Anchorage, 25–29 June.
Soliman, M.Y., Hunt, J.L, Rezk, M., and Puthigai, S. 1996. Considerations
in Modern Analysis of Well Test Data. Paper SPE 36123 presented at
the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Port of Spain, Trinidad, 26–29 April.
Soliman, M.Y., Miranda, C., Wang, H.M., and Thornton, K. 2010. Inves-
tigation of Effect of Fracturing Fluid on After-Closure Analysis in
Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 128016 presented at the North Africa
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, 14–17 February. doi:
10.2118/128016-MS.
November 2010 SPE Production & Operations
Tan, H.C., McGowen, J.M., and Soliman, M.Y. 1990. Field Application of
Minifracture Analysis to Improve Fracturing Treatment Design. SPE
Prod Eng 5 (2): 125–132. SPE- 17463-PA. doi: 10.2118/17463-PA.
Uribe, O., Tiab, D., Restrepo, D., and Chipperfield, S. 2007. Advances in
After-Closure Analysis for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Paper SPE
107257 presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 15–18 April. doi: 10.2118/
107257-MS.
Valkó, P.P. and Economides, M.J. 1999. Fluid-Leakoff Delineation in
High-Permeability Fracturing. SPE Prod & Fac 14 (2): 110–116. SPE-
56135-PA. doi: 10.2118/56135-PA.
M.Y. Soliman is the chief reservoir engineer with Halliburton
Energy. He is also an adjunct professor of petroleum engineering
at the University of Houston. His areas of interest include well-
test analysis, diagnostic testing, fracturing and numerical simula-
tion. Soliman holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering from
Cairo University. He holds MS and PhD degrees from Stanford
University. He is a distinguished member of SPE and a licensed
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PO/article-pdf/25/04/472/2119367/spe-124135-pa.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
professional engineer by the State of Texas. He has authored
or co-authored more than 150 technical papers and holds 17
patents. Carlos G. Miranda is a senior consultant for the Global
Petroleum Engineering Division of Halliburton Consulting and
Project Management. He’s held several positions with Halliburton
worldwide since 1995. He has been extensively dedicated to the
research and implementation of reservoir simulation and pro-
duction optimization techniques for shale gas formations and
to the analysis of injection tests to determine reservoir proper-
ties for unconventional reservoirs. He holds a BS degree in petro-
leum engineering from Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria,
Peru. Hong (Max) Wang is a licensed petroleum engineer reg-
istered in Texas. He currently works for Sharp-Rock Technologies,
Inc. in Houston. Prior to his work for Sharp-Rock, he worked for
PetroChina, Schlumberger, and Halliburton. During his 20 years in
the industry, Wang has acquired extensive experience in drilling
fluids, cementing, rock mechanics, and hydraulic fracturing. He
has conducted extensive studies on lost circulation prevention
and control and wellbore strengthening/stabilization. His current
interests are on new technologies that reduce non-productive
time, enhance ROP, and improve borehole quality. He holds an
MS degree in chemical engineering from South China University
of Technology and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering
from University of Wyoming.
483