SPE-172530-MS

Far Mobility Evaluation Using Minifrac Analysis in a Deep Sandstone

Formation: Case Histories
Zillur Rahim, Hamoud Al-Anazi, Dwi Waspada, and Adnan Al-Kannan, Saudi Aramco; Eduardo Pacheco,
Halliburton

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 8 –11 March 2015.

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

Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing treatment is one of the major contributors to increase oil and gas production. In most
areas, fracturing has remarkable impacts on gas potential and sustainability. Proper design and imple-
mentation of fracturing technology and calibration of fracturing parameters provide significant technical
and economic advantages. The minifrac treatment conducted before the main hydraulic fracturing, is a
tool often used to conduct some essential evaluations of the treatment properties and optimizes the design
before the main treatment. Minifrac treatments are also used to understand the reservoir parameters such
as well transmissibility that allow making final modifications to the actual fracture design.
The minifrac operation is part of the hydraulic fracturing process that consists of creating and
propagating a small fracture using the same fluid that would be used in the main fracturing treatment to
observe and measure pressure behavior and calculate hydraulic fracture parameters such as the instanta-
neous shut-in pressure (ISIP), fracture closure pressure, critical fracture initiation rate, fluid loss coeffi-
cient, and the rate and pressure necessary to extend and propagate the induced fracture. Minifracs are also
widely used to assess formation properties, such as reservoir permeability and leakoff characteristics.
These properties are important for characterizing the reservoir, conducting approximate assessments to
evaluate well potential, and optimizing the main fracture treatment design.
This paper describes how minifrac data is used to compute the Nolte G time function (NGTF) and
assess fracture pressure decline behavior and evaluate closure pressure and reservoir permeability. The
calculated permeability from the minifrac is then compared to the well test pressure data analyses results.
Calibration is performed to match the results with well test analyses, which is considered to provide the
most precise information about the reservoir. Once a good match is obtained, the process is extended to
subsequent wells that allow computing reservoir permeability values using minifrac only, thereby
optimizing hydraulic fracture design and predicting production performance.

Introduction
The oil industry continues to exploit the vast reserves of tight gas trapped in low-permeability formations
where the formation properties are very challenging to calculate. Calculating the well productivity index
requires steady pressure decline and a stable flow rate as well as knowledge of well configurations, fluid
2 SPE-172530-MS

properties, and reservoir permeability. A minifrac analysis can help determine some of these properties to
make a good estimate of the well’s potential. A well-designed minifrac treatment is therefore needed and
carefully conducted to gather essential flow and pressure behavior of a well. The data are then analyzed
to obtain reservoir and fracture properties. Those properties can then be used in reservoir models to predict
well performance.
This paper presents different techniques available to evaluate minifrac tests, thereby estimating tight
gas permeability and far field mobility. The results are reviewed and compared with those calculated from
petrophysical data such as open-hole logs and post-frac pressure transient tests.
Accurate estimates of reservoir permeability, fracture closure pressure, and reservoir pressure are
critical and help in the proper design and optimization of fracturing treatments to obtain high, sustained
production rate.

Reservoir Evaluation Methods

The estimation of formation permeability in low-permeability formations has improved with the appli-
cation of full waveform and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Most reservoirs are heterogeneous and
contain multiple layers with varying thickness, porosity and permeability. To model layered reservoirs and
forecast well performance, the permeability of each layer must be accurately estimated. In general,
permeability can be estimated using three approaches: core tests, open-hole log analysis, and well test
evaluation. Core analysis measures data using a very small portion of the reservoir, few cubic inches in
volume, and may not always be representative of the reservoir. The well test analysis provides permea-
bility information from a sample size of thousands of cubic feet of rock surrounding the well. The well
log signals can only penetrate a few inches inside the formation and therefore can investigate only a small
sample, the size of which is on the order of a few cubic feet of rock along with the wellbore. Because of
the difference in scale among the three methods, one should not expect the permeability values obtained
from cores, logs, and well tests to be identical, rather all data are important and should complement each
other. Also, data obtained using any one method should correlate with the data obtained using the other
methods (Yao and Holditch 1993).
Permeability correlation from logs can help with the initial selection of stimulation candidates and
intervals for fracturing. Later, the minifrac pressure decline data can be used to provide an estimate of the
average permeability of selected intervals to be fractured. The reservoir pressure can also be determined
once a minifrac treatment is stopped, gradual decline of pressure occurs and pseudo-steady flow regime
is reached.

Well Testing in Low-Permeability Formations

The minifrac data can be used as an alternate to well testing in low-permeability formations. The minifrac
is generally performed and data analyzed as part of the hydraulic fracturing practices. This technique
involves analyzing pressure and rate behavior during injection and formation breakdown and pressure
decline or falloff data when injection is terminated and the fracture is closed, also known as after closure
analysis (ACA). Operators use minifrac testing in tight gas and unconventional formations to calculate
pseudo-linear and pseudo-radial flow regimes, essential to evaluate formation properties.
Nolte (1988; 1979; 1986) introduced the concept of constant leakoff evaluation for permeability
estimation. Mayerhofer and Economides (1996) presented the pseudo-linear flow solution with different
skins in the fracture face. Soliman et al. (2009) reviewed the tests available for ACA techniques and
commented on the strengths and weaknesses of those techniques; he also presented a method to evaluate
the fluid efficiency test that corrected common assumptions concerning homogeneous formations and
vertical wells, considering that injected fracturing fluid is similar to formation fluid. Barree et al. (2009)
presented a consistent method of analysis for the G-function, its derivatives, and its relationship to other
SPE-172530-MS 3

diagnostic techniques. They also developed an empirical correlation to estimate formation permeability
from G-function closure time when ACA is not available.

Case History 1 (Well-A)

Well-A was drilled as a vertical wellbore across the sandstone, which has a thickness of 250 ft and an
average porosity of 10%. Figure 1 illustrates open-hole logs for Well-A. Table 1 provides information
obtained from the open-hole logs.

Figure 1—Well-A open hole logs.

Table 1—Diagnostic properties

Perforating Interval (ft) Porosity (%) Permeability (md) Sw (%) Sg (%) Bottom-hole Temp (°F) Bottom-hole Pressure (psi)

20 8.6 0.99 32 68 318 8,950

Minifrac for Well-A

A minifrac was conducted on Well-A by pumping treated water as injection fluid for 0.55 hr, and shutting
in the well for monitoring pressure falloff for a period of 3.45 hrs. Figure 2 illustrates the observed
pressure vs. time. A negative 1 slope illustrating pseudo-radial flow for this period can be observed in the
log-log diagnostic plot, Fig. 3.
4 SPE-172530-MS

Figure 2—Minifrac for Well-A.

Figure 3—Log-log diagnostic plot for Well-A.

Minifrac Evaluation Using Proprietary Software for Well-A Based on work by Craig and Blasingame
(2006), the diagnostic plot in Fig. 4 was derived.

Figure 4 —Diagnostic plot with data from Well-A.

ACA for Well-A

Reservoir pressure is identified as the extrapolation of the radial Cartesian plot; the permeability thickness
product, kh, was then determined using the match parameters along with the reservoir pressure: 34.4 md-ft
and 9,244-psi formation pressure, Fig. 5.
SPE-172530-MS 5

Figure 5—Horner plot.

ACA Results from Proprietary Software for Well-A Using the method provided by Craig and Blasin-
game (2006), a formation pressure of 9,240 psi and a far-field mobility of 15.5 md/cp were determined,
Fig. 6.

Figure 6 —ACA analysis for Well-A.

Soliman Method for Well-A

Considering that pumping time is usually significantly shorter than the fall-off time, the created fracture
during an injection test is usually very short, although pseudo-radial flow regime may occur due to long
shut-in time. Using the method provided by Soliman et al. (2009), pseudo-radial flow was determined,
Fig. 7. The presence of pseudo-radial flow is an indication that the fracture has completely closed. If the
pseudo-radial flow regime is identified, then the viscosity used in the equation is the far-field mobile fluid
viscosity (Soliman et al. 2005; Barre et al. 2007). Pressure calculations are shown in Fig. 8 representing
pseudo-radial Cartesian plot of after closure data. Permeability for Well-A was calculated and is shown
in Fig. 9, which is a log-log plot of post-closure data. Additional permeability evaluation data is shown
in Table 2.
6 SPE-172530-MS

Figure 7—Log plot after closure data showing pseudo-radial flow.

Figure 8 —Semi-log plot for pressure calculation; pseudo-radial Cartesian plot of after closure data.

Figure 9 —Permeability calculation; log plot of post-closure data.

Table 2—Permeability evaluation for Well-A

Vol Pumped (gal) H (ft) ␮g (cp) Slope Pressure (psi) kh (md-ft)

10,332 87 0.035 519.45 9,194 28.07

SPE-172530-MS 7

Far Field Mobility Evaluation for Well-A

The correlation is based on the observed G-function time at the fracture closure (Barree et al. 2007). The
rate of the fluid loss from the fracture before closure is dominated by the mobility of the injected fluid
instead of the far-field fluid viscosity. The data are provided in Table 3.

Table 3—Well-A data

ISIP (psi) Closure Pressure (psi) Pz (psi) Por (%) ␮f (cp) Ct (1/psi) Gc Young’s Modulus (psi) Permeability (md)

12,557 11,914 643 8.6 0.18 6.92 E-6 0.39 5.03 E6 0.321

(1)

Where ␮f is the viscosity of pumping fluid, cp, pz is the net fracture extension pressure, psi, Gc is
observed as G-function time, E is the elastic modulus of rock, psi, ⌽ is the formation porosity, fraction,
ct is the total compressibility 1/psi, and rp is the storage ratio.
Pressure Buildup
A post-frac extended rate flow test was conducted in this well to evaluate gas potential, followed by 840
hrs of buildup. The following results are shown in Fig. 10 and Tables 4 and 5.

Figure 10 —Well testing results.

Table 4 —Well testing results

P* (psia) Skin C (bbl/psi) kh (md-ft) kg (md)

9070 at GAUGE ⫺5 0.0232 75.1 0.305

Table 5—Summary of results of all analysis methods for Well-A

Method Pressure (psi) Far Field Mobility kh (md-ft) Permeability(md) Comments

From Open-Hole Logs 8,950 at middle of perforations — — 0.990 —

Craig Method 9,245 at middle of perforations 15.5 — 0.540 —
Soliman Method 9,195 at middle of perforations — 28.07 0.350 —
Barree Method — — — 0.321 if E⫽ 5.03 E6 psi
Barree Method — — — 1.340 if E⫽ 7.80 E6 psi
PBU 9,070 at gauge depth — 75.1 0.305 —
8 SPE-172530-MS

Finally, Table 5 summarizes the results of the different methods and compares the results.

Case History 2 (Well-B)

Well-B is a vertical well with moderate Jauf development with a net contact of 200 ft and an average
porosity of 8.6%. Figure 11 and Table 6 present the open-hole log information.

Figure 11—Open-hole log of Jauf interval in Well-B.

Table 6 —Well-B Jauf interval properties from logs

Perforated Interval (ft) Porosity (%) Permeability (md) Sw (%) Sg (%) Bottom-hole Temp (°F) Bottom-hole Pressure (psi)

30 8.6 1.5 53 47 321 7,200 at TVD sub sea

Minifrac for Well-B

Minifrac Evaluation Using Proprietary Software
Using methods from Craig and Blasingame (2006), a diagnostic plot was created, Fig. 12, based on
additional derivatives. A clear indication of pseudo-radial flow is observed, thereby the ACA could be
performed using this model.

Figure 12—Diagnostic log-log plot for Well-B.

SPE-172530-MS 9

ACA Results from Software for Well-B

Using the method provided by Craig and Blasingame (2006), a formation pressure of 6,600 psi and a
far-field mobility of 7.65 md/cp were determined, Fig. 13.

Figure 13—After closure analysis plot for Well-B.

Soliman Method for Well-B

Figure 14 illustrates a diagnostic plot of pseudo-radial flow, while Fig. 15 shows pressure calculations
using a pseudo-radial Cartesian plot of after closure data for Well-B. Permeability for Well-B was
calculated and is shown in Fig. 16 and Table 7.

Figure 14 —Diagnostic plot showing pseudo-radial flow log plot of after closure data.
10 SPE-172530-MS

Figure 15—Pressure calculation; pseudo-radial Cartesian plot after closure data.

Figure 16 —Permeability calculation: log plot of post-closure data.

Table 7—Log-log plot results

Vol Pumped (gal) H (ft) ␮g CP Slope P* PSI kh (md-ft) kg (md)

7,926 67 0.035 1,382 6,380 8.1 0.121

Far Mobility Evaluation for Well-B

Table 8 shows the far mobility evaluation for Well-B.

Table 8 —Data for use: Far mobility calculation

ISIP (psi) Closure Pressure (psi) Pz (psi) Por (%) ␮f cp Ct 1/psi Gc Young’s Modulus psi Permeability (md)

9,169 8,327.27 842 8.6 0.28 6.92E-6 0.39 5.03 E06 0.130

Pressure Buildup for Well-B

A post-frac extended flow rate test was conducted in this well to evaluate gas potential, followed by 840
hr of buildup. Results are shown in Fig. 17 and Tables 9 and 10.
SPE-172530-MS 11

Figure 17—Evaluation of gas potential.

Table 9 —Buildup test results

P* (psia) Skin C (bbl/psi) kh (md-ft) kg (md)

5,747 at gauge ⫺3.58 0.0623 22.3 0.115

Table 10 —Summary of results of all analysis methods for Well-B

Method P* (psia) Far Field Mobility kh (md-ft) Permeability(md) Comments

From Open-Hole Logs — — — 1.50 —

Craig Method 6,600 at MP 7.65 — 0.260 —
Soliman Method 6,380 at MP — 8.1 0.120 —
Barree Method — — — 0.130 if E⫽ 5.03 E6 psi
Barree Method — — — 0.035 if E ⫽ 7.8 E6 psi
PBU 5,747 at gauge — 22.23 0.115 —

Conclusions
1. Comparison of the different ACA techniques for estimating formation permeability is consistent
when pseudo-radial flow regime is reached and identified as observed from the well testing
evaluation results.
2. If pseudo-radial flow regime is not identified, empirical correlation based on G-function can be
used; however, a good knowledge of the elastic modulus should be known to avoid erroneous
results.
3. Permeability correlation from logs used in this area should be calibrated to make it consistent with
the actual results derived from pressure buildup and ACA of the injection tests.
4. A longer time period for the fall-off interval is recommended to obtain the reservoirs parameters
instead of waiting for the time it takes to attain fracture closure, which is the current practice in
this area.

Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper would like to express their thanks to Saudi Aramco and Halliburton for allowing
this work to be published.
12 SPE-172530-MS

References
Barree, R.D., Barree, V.L. and Craig, D.P. 2007. Holistic Fracture Diagnostics. Presented at the Rocky
Mountain Oil and Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 16 –18 April. SPE-107877-
MS.
Barree, R.D., Barree, V.L. and Craig, D.P. 2009. Holistic Fracture Diagnostics: Consistent Interpre-
tation of Prefrac Injection Tests Using Multiple Analysis Methods. SPE Production and Opera-
tions. 24 (3): 396 –406. SPE-107877-PA.
Craig, D.P. and Blasingame, T.A. 2006. Application of a New Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model
Accounting for Propagating, Dilated and Closing Hydraulic Fractures. Presented at the SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15–17 May. SPE-100578-MS.
Mayerhofer, M.J. and Economides, M.J. 1996. Field Cases for Permeability Determination from
Minifracs. SPE Advanced Technology Series. 4 (1): 111–117. SPE 26999-PA.
Nolte, K.G. 1979. Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracture Pressure Decline. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 23–26 September.
SPE-8341-MS.
Nolte, K.G. 1988. Principles for Fracture Design Based on Pressure Analysis. SPE Production
Engineering. 3 (1): 22–30. SPE 10911-PA.
Nolte, K.G. 1986. A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline With Application to Three
Models. SPE Formation Evaluation. 1 (6): 571–583. SPE 12941-PA.
Schipperijn, P., Thavarajah, R., Simonato, A., et al. 2009. Automated, “By Exception” Well Surveil-
lance: A Key to Maximizing Oil Production. Presented at the SPE Digital Energy Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 7– 8 April. SPE-123145-MS.
Soliman, M.Y., Craig, D., Bartko, K., et al. 2005. After Closure Analysis to Determine Formation
Permeability, Reservoir Pressure and Residual Fractures Properties. Presented at the SPE Middle
East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 12–15 March. SPE-93419-MS.
Soliman, M.Y., Miranda, C., and Wang, H.M. 2009. After Closure Analysis for Unconventional
Reservoirs and Completion. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 4 –7 October. SPE-124135-MS.
Yao, C.Y. and Holditch, S.A. 1993. Estimating Permeability Profiles Using Core and Log Data.
Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2– 4 November.
SPE-26921-MS.