MINI FRAC TEST

DRILLING POSTGRADUATE STUDIES 2013

ROCK MECHANICS
Introduction
Well testing has been used for decades to determine essential formation
properties and to assess wellbore condition. However, under certain
conditions, traditional test methods are not feasible for various reasons.
This is especially true for very low permeability formations that require
massive stimulation to obtain economic production. For these formations, it
is extremely important to establish the formation pressure and permeability
prior to the main stimulation. One test that has proved to be convenient for
this purpose is commonly referred to as a Minifrac test.
A minifrac test is an injection-falloff diagnostic test performed without
proppant before a main fracture stimulation treatment. The intent is to
break down the formation to create a short fracture during the injection
period, and then to observe closure of the fracture system during the
ensuing falloff period. Historically, these tests were performed immediately
prior to the main fracture treatment to obtain design parameters i.e.:
- fracture closure pressure,
- fracture gradient,
- fluid leakoff coefficient,
- fluid efficiency,
- formation permeability and
- reservoir pressure.

The created fracture can cut through near-wellbore damage and
and near-wellbore stress concentrations and connects wellbore to
a significant portion of the reservoir layer thickness, enabling a
representative investigation of reservoir fluid flow properties by
methods shown below.

Figure1: Idealized View of Induced Fracture
Typical pressure behavior of Minifrac Tests:
Figure 2: Total Test Overview Plot
Figure 3: Typical flow regimes
Key Results From Minifrac Tests:

Following a brief injection period, the wellhead valve is closed, and the
pressure falloff is recorded (at the wellhead or downhole) for a few hours to
several days, depending on how permeable the formation is. The pressure
falloff data are then analyzed using specialized techniques to yield the
following information:
Fracture closure pressure (p
c
)
Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP)
ISIP = Final Flow Pressure - Final Flow Friction
Final Flow Friction is the friction component of the bottomhole calculation.
Fracture gradient
Fracture Gradient = ISIP / Formation Depth
Net Fracture Pressure (p
net
)
Net fracture pressure is the additional pressure within the frac above the
pressure required to keep the fracture open. It is an indication of the energy
available to propagate the fracture.
p
net
= ISIP - Closure Pressure




Fluid efficiency
Fluid efficiency is the ratio of the stored volume within the fracture to
the total fluid injected. A high fluid efficiency means low leakoff and
indicates the energy used to inject the fluid was efficiently utilized in
creating and growing the fracture. Unfortunately, low leakoff is also
an indication of low permeability. For minifrac after-closure analysis,
high fluid efficiency is coupled with long closure durations and even
longer identifiable flow regime trends.

Formation leakoff characteristics and fluid loss coefficients.
Formation permeability (k)
Reservoir pressure (p
i
)

Before Closure Theory
Valko and Economides (1995; 1999) presented a methodology for analysis
and simulation of before-closure fracture pressure fall off, based on
Carters leak-off model, Noltes assumption on fracture surface growth, and
elastic behavior of the closing fracture walls under the formation in-situ
stress. While tip-extension effects may occur in tight formations, we
assume that immediately after the shut-in the fracture ceases to propagate.
The pressure falloff is governed by the gradual loss of hydraulic fracture
width w
p
w
= p
c
+ S
f
w (1)

where p
w
is wellbore pressure,
p
c
is the fracture closure pressure and
S
f
is the fracture stiffness, measured in psi/ft and representing the
relationship between fracture net pressure and fracture width according to
the linear elasticity theory.
Different analytical expressions have been presented for all based on the
assumption that There is no lateral flow in the fracture and the pressure is
constant along the fracture at any given shut-in time.

Table 1: Fracture stiffness and a values for 2D fracture geometry models

Table 1 presents expressions for S
f
for the vertical plane strain
assumption (2D PKN-geometry, Perkins and Kern, 1961; Nordgren,
1972), for the horizontal plane strain assumption (2D KGD-geometry,
Geertsma and De Klerk, 1969) and for the simplest radial geometry.
Table 1 Proportionality constant, S
f
and suggested o for basic fracture geometries
PKN KGD Radial
o
4/5 2/3 8/9
S
f
2E
h
f
'
t

E
x
f
'
t

3
16
tE
R
f
'


Figure 4. Basic notation for PKN and KGD geometries. h
p
= permeable height,
h
f
= fracture height and q
L
= rate of fluid loss.
Figure 5. Basic notation for radial geometry
The injection time, t
e
, computed in an analogous way to the material
balance time, is used in the dimensionless shut-in time given by
(2)


and the two-variable function: introduced by Nolte
Valko and Economides (1995; 1999) expressed the fracture width at a
given time At after shut-in from a material balance scheme accounting
for leak-off in the formation and fracture propagation of the total injected
fluid, resulting in

(3)
Combining Eqs. 1 and 3 provides the final before-closure fracture
pressure falloff model

(4)
where:
V
i
is the volume of fluid injected in one wing of the fracture (i.e. half of
the total injected fluid volume),

A
e
is the equivalent surface area of one face of one wing,

S
p
is the spurt loss that indicates the fraction of fluid loss in formation
at the very early stages of the leak-off process,

C
L
is the leak-off coefficient.

Valko and Economides (1995) provided an analytical expression for the
dimensionless g-function, g(t,) introduced by Nolte (1979) for this
power law fracture surface growth assumption. This analytical
expression is based on a complicated mathematical function called
Hypergeometric function, available in form of tables (Abramowitz and
Stegun, 1972) and computing algorithms (Wolfram, 1991). A rigorous
calculation of the necessary g-function values requires also using the
proper power law exponent , whose values for the familiar 2D fracture
geometry models are presented in Table 1.

Equation 4 suggests that the bottomhole pressure decreases linearly
with the g-function until the fracture finally closes, after which the
pressure falloff will depart from this linear trend. The linear nature of
this model is better visualized when Eq. 4 is expressed as equation of a
straight line of intercept b
N
and slope m
N






(5)

Where (6)

and (7)

if plotted against the g-function (i.e., transformed time). The g-function
values should be generated with the exponent, o, considered valid for
the given model. The slope of the straight line, m
N
, is related to the
unknown leak-off coefficient by:

(8)
Valko and Economides (1995; 1999) presented an exhaustive set of
equations for the familiar 2D fracture geometry models, based on the
Shlyapobersky et al. (1998) assumption of negligible spurt loss, to
calculate leak-off coefficient, fracture extent, hydraulic average width (at
end of pumping) and fracture fluid efficiency. All these equations are
presented in Table 2, and we can notice that b
N
and m
N
are necessary
input parameters. This technique requires the graph of the recorded
wellbore pressure falloff data versus the values of the g-function shown
on the graph on the in Fig. 6.
Figure 6








Table 2: Fracture-injection/falloff analysis model based on the Shlyapobersky et al.
(1998) assumption
Table 2 Minifrac Analysis by the Nolte-Shlyapobersky method
PKN KGD Radial
Leakoff
coefficient,
C
L

( )
N
e
f
m
E t
h

' 4
t

( )
N
e
f
m
E t
x

' 2
t

( )
N
e
f
m
E t
R

' 3
8
t

Fracture
Extent
( )
C N f
i
f
p b h
V E
x

'
=
2
2
t

( )
C N f
i
f
p b h
V E
x

'
=
t

( )
3
8
3
C N
i
f
p b
V E
R

'
=
Fracture
Width
e L
f f
i
e
t C
h x
V
w
830 . 2
=

e L
f f
i
e
t C
h x
V
w
956 . 2
=

e L
f
i
e
t C
R
V
w
754 . 2
2
2

=
t

Fluid
Efficiency
i
f f e
e
V
h x w
= q
i
f f e
e
V
h x w
= q
i
f e
e
V
R w
2
2
t
q =

This table shows that for the PKN geometry the estimated leakoff coefficient does
not depend on unknown quantities since the pumping time, fracture height, and
plain-strain modulus are assumed to be known.

For the other two geometries considered, the procedure results in an estimate of the
leakoff coefficient which is strongly dependent on the fracture extent (x
f
or R
f
).
From Equation (4) we see that the effect of the spurt loss is concentrated in the
intercept of the straight-line with the g = 0 axis:
(9)
Equation (9) can be used to obtain the unknown fracture extent, if we assume
there is no spurt loss (by Shlyapobersky et al. 1988).

Table 2. shows the estimated fracture extent for the three basic models. Note
that the no-spurt loss assumption results in the estimate of the fracture length
also for the PKN geometry, but this value is not used for obtaining the leakoff
coefficient. For the other two models, the fracture extent is obtained first, and
then the value is used in interpreting the slope.

Once the fracture extent and the leakoff coefficient are known, the lost width
at the end of pumping can be easily obtained from
(10)
and the fracture width for the two rectangular models from
(11)
and for the radial model:
Often the fluid efficiency is also determined
Please note that neither the fracture extent nor the efficiency are model
parameters. Rather, they are state variables and hence, will have different values in
the minifrac and the main treatment. The only parameter that is transferable is the
leakoff coefficient itself, but some caution is needed in its interpretation. The bulk
leakoff coefficient determined from the method above is apparent with respect to
the fracture area. If we have information on the permeable height h
p
, and it
indicates that only part of the fracture area falls into the permeable layer, the
apparent leakoff coefficient should be converted into a "true value" with respect to
the permeable area only. This is done simply by dividing the apparent value by r
p
(ratio of permeable area to total fracture area)
(12)
(13)
While adequate for many low permeability treatments, the outlined procedure
might be misleading for higher permeability reservoirs. The conventional mini-
frac interpretation determines a single effective fluid-loss coefficient, which
usually slightly overestimates the fluid loss when extrapolated to the full job
volume
Figure 7. Fluid Leakoff Extrapolated to Full Job Volume, Low
Permeability (after Dusterhoft et al.,1995)
This overestimation typically provides an extra factor of safety in low-permeability
formations to prevent screenout. However, when this same technique is applied in
high-permeability or high-differential pressure between the fracture and the
formation, it significantly overestimates the fluid loss for wall-building fluids if
extrapolated to the full job volume (Dusterhoft et al., 1995). Figure 8. illustrates the
overestimation of fluid loss which might be detrimental in high-permeability
formations where the objective often is to achieve a tip screenout.
Figure 8.Overestimation of Fluid Leakoff Extrapolated to Full Job
Volume, High Permeability (after Dusterhoft et al., 1995)
Filter-cake plus reservoir pressure drop leakoff model (according to
Mayerhofer et al., 1993) describes the leakoff rate using two parameters
that are physically more discernible than the leakoff coefficient to the
petroleum engineer:
- R
0
the reference resistance of the filter cake at a reference time t
0
and
- k
r
the reservoir permeability.

To obtain these parameters from an injection test,;
- the reservoir pressure,
- reservoir fluid viscosity,
- formation porosity and
- total compressibility must be known

Figure 5-8. is a schematic of the Mayerhofer et al. model in which the total
pressure difference between the inside of a created fracture and a far
point in the reservoir is shown with its components. Thus, the total
pressure drop is

p(t) = p
face
(t) + p
r
(t) (14)

p
face
- pressure drop across the fracture face dominated by the filter
cake,
p
r
- the pressure drop in the reservoir
Figure 9. .Filter-cake plus reservoir pressure drop in the Mayerhofer et al.(1993)
model.
Using the Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic model for description of the flow through
a continuously depositing fracture filter cake, Mayerhofer et al. (1993) gave
the filter-cake pressure term as
where R
0
is the characteristic resistance of the filter cake, which is reached
during reference time t
0
. The flow rate q
L
is the leakoff rate from one wing of
the fracture. In Eq. 21-14, it is divided by 2, because only one-half of it flows
through area A.
The pressure drop in the reservoir can be tracked readily by employing a
pressure transient model for injection into a porous medium from an infinite-
con-ductivity fracture. For this purpose, known solutions such as the one by
Gringarten et al. (1974) can be used. The only additional problem is that the
surface area increases during fracture propagation. Therefore, every time
instant has a different fracture
length, which, in turn, affects the computation of dimensionless time. The
transient pressure drop in the reservoir is
(14)
(15)
The Mayerhofer et al.method is based on the fact that it equation
can be written in straight-line form as
(16)
(17)
The coefficients c
1
and c
2
are geometry dependent. Once the x and y
coordinates are known, the (x,y) pairs can be plotted. The corresponding
plot is referred to as the Mayerhofer plot.

A straight line determined from the Mayerhofer plot results in the estimate
of the two parameters b
M
and m
M
. Those parameters are then interpreted in
terms of the reservoir permeability and the reference filter-cake resistance.
(18)
(19)
Table 4. reservoir and well information
Example interpretation of fracture injection test
Table 3. pressure decline data
The closure pressure p
c
determined independently is 5850 psi.

Figure 10. is a plot of the data in Cartesian coordinates and also shows
the closure pressure.
Figure 10. Example of bottomhole pressure versus shut-in time.
Figure 11. Example Mayerhofer plot with radial
geometry.
The g-function plot in Fig. 11 is created using = 8 9, which is considered
characteristic for the radial model.

From the intercept of the straight line is obtained the radial fracture radius Rf
= 27.5 ft. (The straight-line fit also provides the bulk leakoff coefficient C
L
=
0.033 ft/min
1/2
and fluid efficiency = 17.9%.)
The ratio of permeable to total area is r
p
= 0.76.

Figure 12 is the Mayerhofer plot. From the slope of the straight line (m
M
=
9.30 10
7
) is obtained the apparent reservoir permeability kr
,app
= 8.2 md and
the true reservoir permeability k
r
= 14.2 md.

The resistance of the filter cake at the end of pumping (t
e
= 21.2 min) is
calculated from the intercept (b
M
= 2.5 10
2
) as the apparent resistance
R
0,app
= 1.8 10
4
psi/(ft/min) and the true resistance R
0
= 1.4 10
4
psi/(ft/min)
Figure 12. Example g-function plot
Literature
1. SPE 144028 Global Model for Fracture Falloff Analysis M. Marongiu-Porcu, C. A. Ehlig-
Economides / Texas A&M University, and M. J. Economides / University of Houston
2. Petroleum Well Construction Halliburton. Editors: Michael J. Economides, Texas
A&M University, Larry T. Watters, Halliburton Energy Services, Shari Dunn-Norman,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Duncan, Oklahoma July 2, 1997
3. SPE 152019 A Method to Perform Multiple Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests
Simultaneously in a Single Wellbore A.R. Martin, SPE, D.D. Cramer, SPE, O. Nunez, SPE,
and N.R. Roberts, SPE, ConocoPhillips
4. Mini Frac Spread Sheet Dr Peter P. Valk, visiting associate professor. Harold Vance
Department Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University. April 2000
5. Reservoir Stimulation Third Edition Michael J. Economides Kenneth G. Nolte June, 2000
6. . Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline", Nolte, K. G.,
Paper SPE 8341, Presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
NV, Sept. 23-26, 1979