MINI FRAC SPREADSHEET

April 2000

Dr Peter P. Valkó
visiting associate professor
Harold Vance Department Petroleum Engineering
Texas A&M University
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 5

2 DATA REQUIREMENT........................................................................................................................ 6

3 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................ 8

4 THEORY.............................................................................................................................................. 9

5 SAMPLE RUN................................................................................................................................... 14

A NOMENCLATURE............................................................................................................................. 17
 A EXECUTIV
E SUMMARY

The MF Excel spreadsheet is a minifrac (calibration test) evaluation package. Its main purpose is to
extract the leakoff coefficient from pressure fall-off data.
Currently it contains the following worksheets:
 Analysis with PKN model, Nolte-Shlyapobersky method
 Analysis with KGD model, Nolte-Shlyapobersky method
 Analysis with Radial model, Nolte-Shlyapobersky method
 Analysis with PKN model including the estimate of the fracture propagation retardation (in form of
the Continuum Damage Parameter, Cl 2). This option uses the "overpressure" experienced during the
minifrac treatment to estimate the deviation of the fracture dimensions from the traditional PKN
model. (There is no CDM option for the KGD and Radial models.)

The basic result of the analysis is the apparent leakoff coefficient. The apparent leakoff coefficient
describes the leakoff with respect to the total created fracture area.
From this apparent leakoff coefficient then a "true" leakoff coefficient is calculated, which value is valid
only for the permeable layer, assuming that there is no leakoff outside the permeable layer.

In case of the CDM analysis, an additional parameter is determined from the overpressure. Overpressure
is defined as the additional net pressure arising during the minifrac, which cannot be explained by the
traditional PKN model. The additional parameter is the CDM parameter: Cl2, measured in ft/(psi-sec).
The obtained value may be used as an input parameter in the CDM version of the FD design spreadsheet.

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 5
 B DATA
REQUIREMENT

The following table contains the description of the input parameters.

Input Parameter Remark

Permeable (leakoff) thickness, ft It is assumed there is no leakoff outside the permeable thickness

Fracture height, ft Needed for the traditional PKN and KGD analysis and for the PKN-CDM
analysis. It is not needed for the radial analysis.

Plane strain modulus, E' (psi) Defined as Young modulus divided by one minus squared Poisson ratio.

It is almost the same as Young modulus, and it is about twice as much as the
shear modulus, because the Poisson ratio has little effect on it.

Closure pressure, psi It affects the leakoff coefficient in case of the KGD and Radial models.

It has no effect on the leakoff coefficient for the PKN case.

Also it affects the CDM parameter.

Rheology, K' (lbf/ft^2)*s^n' Power law consistency

Needed only for the CDM analysis.

Rheology, n' Power law flow behavior index

Needed only for the CDM analysis

Chapter 2 - DATA REQUIREMENT

Page 6 MF Manual
The following tabular data are needed:

t, min time elapsed from start of pumping

qi_liq, bpm liquid injection rate (for two wings, valid at the bottom at the given time)

Bottomhole pressure, psi Needed only for the shut-in period, but can be given for the injection period, too

The last value during the injection period is used for overpressure in the CDM analysis.

Indicator whether to Should be 1 if the point is in the injection period (the injected volume will be accounted for)
include the injected
Should be zero for the shut-in period
volume

Indicator, whether to Should be 1 if the point is to be included into the straight line fit (into the least squares objective
include the point into the function)
straight line fit
Notice: points after closure are not included automatically if there is a 1 in here.

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 7
 C
RESULTS

The most important result is the leakoff coefficient.

The apparent leakoff coefficient is what obtained without distinguishing between permeable and not
permeable layer.
The "true" leakoff coefficient is obtained by attributing all the leakoff to the permeable layer only.

As a by-product, we obtain the dimensions of the created fracture: xf, (or Rf) and w , that is fracture extent
and average width.

The fluid efficiency is also obtained. The efficiency is valid only for the minifrac. We do not encourage to
use it as an input to the design, because the efficiency at the real tretment will be significantly different.

The methods involved assumes that the spurt loss can be neglected.

Results:

Apparent leakoff coefficient, ft/min^0.5 Can be considered as the "average" of the leakoff coefficient in the permeable
layer and the zero coefficient outside.

Leakoff coefficient in permeable layer, ft/min^0.5 The leakoff coefficient in the permeable layer. Outside the permeable layer the
leakoff is considered zero.

Half length, ft For PKN and KGD models

Radius, ft For the radial model

Efficiency (fraction) For all models

CDM Cl^2, ft^2/(psi-sec) This combined CDM parameter (together with the closure pressure) will influence
the fracture propagation velocity. If this value is "large" ( for instance is on the
order of 1) there is no retardation of the fracture propagation and essentially the
model behaves as a traditional PKN model. If this value is less (e.g. 0.01 ft^2/
(psi-sec) then the fracture propagation is retarded. It takes more time to reach a

Chapter 2 - DATA REQUIREMENT

Page 8 MF Manual
 certain length and the width and net pressure are higher than calculated with the
traditional PKN model. This parameter is obtained from the maximum pressure
experienced during the minifrac.

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 9
 D
THEORY

The key to the material balance is fluid leakoff. Fluid leakoff is controlled by a continuous build-up of a
thin layer (filter cake) which manifests an ever increasing resistance to flow through the fracture face. In
reality, the actual leakoff is determined by a coupled system, of which the filter cake is only one element.
A fruitful approximation dating back to Carter, 1957 (Appendix to Howard and Fast, 1957), is to consider
the combined effect of the different phenomena as a material property. According to this concept, the
leakoff velocity, v L , is given by the Carter equation:
CL
vL  .................................................(1)
t
where C L is the leakoff coefficient (length/time 0.5) and t is the time elapsed since the start of the leakoff
process. The idea behind Carter's leakoff coefficient are that: 1) if a filter-cake wall is building up it will
allow less fluid to pass through a unit area in unit time; and, 2) the reservoir itself can take less and less
fluid if it has been exposed to inflow. Both of these phenomena can be roughly approximated as "square-
root time behavior". The integrated form of the Carter equation is:
V Lost
= C L 2 t + S p ............................................(2)
AL
where VLost is the fluid volume that passes through the surface AL during the time period from time zero to
time t. The first term, 2C L t can be considered as width of the fluid passing through the surface during
the main part of the leakoff process. (The factor 2 appears because the integral of 1 / t is 2 t ).

Fluid efficiency  is defines the fraction of the fluid remaining in the fracture:   V / Vi . The fracture
surface, A, is the area of one face of one wing and the average width, w , is defined by the relation:
V  Vi  Aw .
It is often assumed that the created fracture remains in a well defined lithological layer (mostly the
producing formation), and the fracture is therefore characterized by a constant height, hf.

A hydraulic fracturing operation may last from tens of minutes up to several hours. Points of the fracture
face near to the well are opened at the beginning of pumping while the points at the fracture tip are
“younger”. Application of Eq. 1.25 necessitates the tracking of the opening-time of the individual fracture
face elements. If we divide the injected volume by the surface area of one face of one wing, A, we obtain
the so called "would-be" width. The would-be width can be decomposed into average fracture width,
leakoff width and spurt loss width:

Chapter 2 - DATA REQUIREMENT

Page 10 MF Manual
 Vi
= w  2 C L  t e  2 S p .........................................(3)
A
where the factor 2 is introduced because the fluid leaks off through both faces of one wing. The
dimensionless factor, , is the opening-time distribution factor. It reflects the effect of the distribution of
the opening-time. If all the surface is opened at the beginning of the injection, then  reaches its absolute
maximum,  = 2.

In order to obtain an analytical solution for constant injection rate Carter considered a hypothetical case
when the fracture width remains constant during the fracture propagation (the width "jumps" to its final
value in the first instant of pumping.) Nolte (1986) postulated a basically similar, but mathematically
simpler assumption. He assumed that the fracture surface evolves according to a power law,
AD  t D ................................................(4)
where AD  A / Ae , t D  t / te and the exponent  remains constant during the whole injection period.
If this assumption is accepted the opening time distribution factor is easily obtained from the exponent .
Selected values are given in Table 1.2.

Table 1 Opening time distribution factor

Model PKN KGD Radial

 4/5 2/3 8/9

 1.415 1.478 1.377

The information obtained from a minifrac calibration treatment includes the closure pressure, pc, the
leakoff coefficient and possibly perforations and near-wellbore conditions.
The fall off part of the pressure curve is used to obtain the leakoff coefficient for a given fracture
geometry. The original concept of pressure decline analysis due to Nolte (1979) is based on the
observation that during the closure process the rate of pressure fall-off provides useful information on the
intensity of the leakoff process. (During the pumping period the pressure is affected by many other
factors, and hence the influence of leakoff is masked.)
If we assume that the fracture area has evolved with a constant exponent  and remains constant after the
pumps are stopped, at time (te+t) the volume of the fracture is given by
Vt e  t = Vi  2Ae S p  2Ae g t D ,   C L te ..............................(5)

where the dimensionless shut-in time is defined as

t D  t / te ,...............................................(6)
and the two-variable function: g  t D ,  introduced by Nolte is the generalization of the opening time
distribution factor.

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 11
For computational purposes the approximations in Table 2 can be used. Notice that the above two variable
functions give back the values shown in Table 1 for zero shut-in time.

Table 2 Approximation of the g-function for various exponents  (d = tD)

 4 1.41495 + 79.4125 d + 632.457 d 2 + 1293.07 d 3 + 763.19 d 4 + 94.0367 d 5

g  d ,   
 5  1. + 54.8534 d + 383.11 d 2 + 540.342 d 3 + 167.741 d 4 + 6.49129 d 5  0.0765693d 6

 2 1.47835 + 81.9445 d + 635.354 d 2 + 1251.53 d 3 + 717.71 d 4 + 86.843 d 5

g d ,    
 3  1. + 54.2865 d + 372.4 d 2 + 512.374 d 3 + 156.031 d 4 + 5.95955 d 5 - 0.0696905 d 6

 8 1.37689 + 77.8604 d + 630.24 d 2 + 1317.36 d 3 + 790.7 d 4 + 98.4497 d 5

g d ,    
 9  1. + 55.1925 d + 389.537 d 2 + 557.22 d 3 + 174.89 d 4 + 6.8188 d 5 - 0.0808317 d 6

Dividing Eq. 6 by the surface area of one face, the fracture width at time t after the end of pumping is
given by
Vi
wt e  t  - 2 S p  2CL te g t D ,  . ................................(7)
Ae
The first term on the right-hand-side is the "would-be" width. To obtain the actual width the spurt width
and the leakoff width are subtracted from the would-be width. The leakoff width increases even after the
pumps are stopped, and the g function is the mathematical description of this process. As seen, the time
variation of the width is determined by the g(t D,) function, the length of the injection period and the
leak-off coefficient, but is not affected by the fracture area.
Unfortunately the decrease of average width cannot be observed directly, but according to linear
elasticity theory the net pressure during closure is directly proportional to the average width:
pnet  S f w ..................................................(8)

The coefficient Sf is the fracture stiffness, expressed in Pa/m (psi/ft). Its inverse, 1/Sf, is sometimes called
the fracture compliance. For the basic fracture geometries, expressions of the fracture stiffness are given
in Table 3.

Chapter 2 - DATA REQUIREMENT

Page 12 MF Manual
 Table 3 Proportionality constant, Sf and suggested  for basic fracture geometries

PKN KGD Radial

 4/5 2/3 8/9

Sf 2E' E' 3E '

h f x f 16 R f

The combination of Eqs. 7 and 8 yields:

 
 
S f Vi
p   pC  - 2 S f S p  - 2 S f C L t e  g t D ,   .........................(9)
 Ae 
Equation 9, first derived by Nolte, shows that the pressure fall-off in the shut-in period will follow a
straight line trend:
p  bN - mN  g t D ,  .......................................(10)

if plotted against the g-function (i.e., transformed time). The g-function values should be generated with
the exponent, , considered valid for the given model. The slope of the straight line, mN , is related to the
unknown leak-off coefficient by:
 mN
CL  .............................................(11)
2 te S f
Substituting the relevant expression for the fracture stiffness the leakoff coefficient can be estimated as
given in Table 4.

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 13
 Table 4 Minifrac Analysis by the Nolte-Shlyapobersky method

PKN KGD Radial

Leakoff h f x f 8R f
coefficient,   mN    mN    mN 
4 te E ' 2 te E ' 3 te E '
CL

Fracture 2 E Vi E Vi 3E Vi

xf  xf  Rf  3
Extent h 2f  bN  pC  h f  bN  pC  8 bN  pC 

Fracture Vi Vi Vi
we   we   we  
Width x f hf x f hf  2
R f
 2.830C L te  2.956C L te 2
 2.754C L t e

Fluid we x f h f we x f h f 
e  e  we R 2f
Efficiency Vi Vi 2
e 
Vi

This table shows that for the PKN geometry the estimated leak-off coefficient does not depend on
unknown quantities since the pumping time, fracture height and plane strain modulus are assumed to be
known. For the other two geometries considered, the procedure results in an estimate of the leak-off
coefficient which is strongly dependent on the fracture extent (xf or Rf).
The effect of the spurt loss is concentrated in the intercept of the straight-line with the g = 0 axis,
therefore:

1  Vi b N  pC 
Sp     ........................................(12)
2  Ae S f 

Unfortunately we do not know the would-be width (Vi/Ae) because the fracture extent is not known. As
suggested by Shlyapobersky (1987), Eq. 12 can be used in a reverse manner to obtain the unknown
fracture extent, if we assume that the spurt loss is negligible. The second row of Table 4 shows the
estimated fracture extent for the three basic models using this concept. Note that the "no-spurt loss"
assumption also results in an estimate of the fracture length 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 average width and the fluid efficiency
is easily calculated as shown in the subsequent rows of Table 4.

Chapter 2 - DATA REQUIREMENT

Page 14 MF Manual
It is not acceptable to take the fluid efficiency from a minifrac treatment and use it as an input variable to
the design of the main treatment because the fluid efficiencies in the minifrac and main treatment are
different. The transferable parameter is the leakoff coefficient itself, but some caution is needed in its
interpretation. The apparent leakoff coefficient determined from the above method is obtained with
respect to the whole fracture area. If we have information on the permeable height hp, 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 dividing the
apparent value by the ratio of active area to total area.

In some cases there is a considerable discrepancy between the net pressure predicted by the traditional
models (such as the PKN model) and the value experienced during the minifrac treatment. The
overpressure" can be used to determine an additional parameter. The PKN-CDM analysis worksheet
determines the so called CDM parameter, which can be used in the fracture design as an additional
parameter, controlling the lateral fracture propagation. The smaller this parameter is, the fracture
propagation is more "retarded" that is the shorter and wider fracture will be predicted during the design.

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 15
 E
SAMPLE RUN

Traditional Radial Minifrac Analysis

Input
Permeable (leakoff) thickness, ft 42

Plane strain modulus, E' (psi) 2.00E+06

Closure Pressure, psi 5850

Tabular Input
Time, min BH Injection rate, bpm BH Pressure, psi Include into inj volume Include into g-func fit

0.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

1.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

2.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

3.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

4.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

5.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

6.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

7.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

8.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

9.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

10.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

12.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

14.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

16.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

18.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

Chapter 2 - DATA REQUIREMENT

Page 16 MF Manual
 20.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

21.0 9.9 0.0 1 0

21.5 9.9 0.0 1 0

21.8 9.9 0.0 1 0

21.95 0.0 7550.62 0 0

22.15 0.0 7330.59 0 0

22.35 0.0 7122.36 0 0

22.55 0.0 6963.21 0 1

22.75 0.0 6833.39 0 1

22.95 0.0 6711.23 0 1

23.15 0.0 6595.02 0 1

23.35 0.0 6493.47 0 1

23.55 0.0 6411.85 0 1

23.75 0.0 6347.12 0 1

23.95 0.0 6291.51 0 1

24.15 0.0 6238.43 0 1

24.35 0.0 6185.85 0 1

24.55 0.0 6135.61 0 1

24.75 0.0 6090.61 0 1

24.95 0.0 6052.06 0 1

25.15 0.0 6018.61 0 1

25.35 0.0 5987.45 0 1

25.55 0.0 5956.42 0 1

25.75 0.0 5925.45 0 1

25.95 0.0 5896.77 0 1

26.15 0.0 5873.54 0 1

26.35 0.0 5857.85 0 0

26.55 0.0 5849.29 0 0

26.75 0.0 5844.81 0 0

26.95 0.0 5839.97 0 0

27.15 0.0 5830.98 0 0

27.35 0.0 5816.3 0 0

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 17
 27.55 0.0 5797.01 0 0

27.75 0.0 5775.67 0 0

Chapter 2 - DATA REQUIREMENT

Page 18 MF Manual
 Output

Slope, psi -4417

Intercept, psi 13151

Injected volume, gallon 9044

Frac radius, ft 39.60

Average width, inch 0.49205

Fluid efficiency 0.16708

Apparent leakoff coefficient (for total area), ft/min^0.5 0.01592

Leakoff coefficient in permeable layer, ft/min^0.5 0.02479

Notice that the leakoff coefficient with respect to the permeable layer is greater than the apparent value,
because part of the 39.6 ft radius fracture falls outside the permeable area.

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

MF manual Page 19
 F NOM
ENCLATURE

hp = net pay thickness, ft

hf = fracture height, ft
E' = plain strain modulus, psi
K' = Power law consistency index , lbf/(ft2-sec)
n' = Power law flow behavior index
qi = fluid injection rate, bpm
rp = permeable to total area ratio
Rf = created fracture radius, ft
Sf = fracture stiffness, psi/ft
te = pumping time, min
Vi = injected volume, ft3
xf = fracture half length, ft
w = fracture width, ft

Chapter 5 - Sample Run

Page 20 MF Manual
 Chapter A - Nomenclature
MF manual Page 21