SPE-171175-MS

Examples of Mini-Frac Test Data Interpretation in Low-Permeability

Reservoir
N. Makhota, A. Davletbaev, and A. Fedorov, RN-UfaNIPIneft LLC; R. Asmandiyarov, RN-Yuganskneftegas LLC;
I. Afanasiev, A. Sergeychev, and I. Yamalov, Rosneft Oil Company

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia,
14 –16 October 2014.

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.

Summary
When dealing with ultra low-permeability reservoirs, one comes across a certain problem of choosing low
cost way of getting reservoir pressure data. Classical well test implies long-lasting shut down of
production wells (up to several months) due to low permeability and presence of extended hydraulic
fractures. The paper contains examples of surveys carried out using hydrodynamic logging. These tests
show significant restrictions of the method applied in low permeability resevoirs.
Well pressure based on minifrac test data was evaluated here for ultra low permeability reservoirs.
Then the data was then compared with the results of average pressure at hydrodynamic logging. Fracture
closure pressure data was used to enrich correlation dependencies for fracture closure pressure (sponta-
neous growth of fracture) in injection wells using well pressure fall-off curve interpretation methods
during minifrac test. Each minifrac test in horizontal wells with multi-stage fracturing was analysed, the
results of injection efficiency ratio were gained that are in agreement with production profile according
to PLT and allow to test the most productive well influx intervals.

Introduction
When dealing with ultra-low permeability reservoir almost all step-out wells are subjected to hydraulic
fracturing. As a rule the main frac is preceded by minifrac test which is following stop to monitor well
pressure fall-off curve [G. LeBlanc et. al., 2010; V.A. Baikov et.al., 2012]. Minifrac test data is used for
setting geomechanical models and revising program sheet for the main frac.
Large volume fracs carried out in all wells, fractures being as long as 150 meters. Classical well tests
by means of well pressure build-up curve methods are complicated by the necessity of shutting down the
wells (for more than 60 days). As a result it leads to significant production loss and large expenditures for
obtaining well data in the regions of drilling new wells. Before shutting off the performance of a well
should have a significant period of time (up to 6 months) until it has steady state flow. As a result with
the dynamic drilling in new zones being used reservoir parameters and pressure data can be received by
means of standard well tests in a significant period of time by the moment when data received is not up
to date. Thus, there is certain problem of getting low cost and up to date well pressure data in ultra
2 SPE-171175-MS

Figure 1—Dynamics of bottom hole pressure and liquid rate (a) and its logarithmic derivative of build-up cycles (b) on well XX22

low-permeability fields. The authors convinced that the necessary reservoir data should be received before
starting up the producer well.
This work contains detailed analyses of initial data for bottom hole pressure change during minifrac
test, interpretation in Ecrin, estimation of fracture closure and reservoir pressures. The gained reservoir
pressure results through minifrac test were compared with the ones gained through hydrodynamic logging.
The results compared showed satisfactory repeatability of measurement data on level of reservoir
pressure. The interpretation was carried out during minifrac test with the help of deep pressure gauges.
Minifrac tests are commonly used that is why in new or infill drilling zones the reservoir pressure can be
received without substantial costs and with sufficient precision for all wells.
Determination of reservoir pressure according to hydrodynamic logging
Determination of reservoir pressure according to hydrodynamic logging in the zones of drilling new wells
as a rule is carried out in open-hole wells by means of test tools dropped down on cable (XPT
«Schlumberger», FMT «Weatherford» packages are usually used for logging of reservoir pressure).
During the measurement with the packages in each test interval sampler container collects a small amount
of liquid (several cubic centimeters) with pressure curve recording. As a rule, there are two sampling
cycles and two pressure buildup curves are recorded. The results achieved are further compared. If the
values are more or less fit (with sufficient precision), then the sampling is of high integrity. Otherwise,
depending on the difference in pressure values the sampling is of low or satisfactory integrity.
On fig. 1 there is a diagram showing pressure change and fluid influx when testing one of the intervals
on well XX22. Due to the limit volume of sampler container the cycling time for influx is short: 17 sec
- for the first cycle, 13 sec - for the second. After sampling cycles well pressure buildup curves are
recorded: 11 min for the first, 5 min for the second. It is seen on the diagram (for both ones) that after
wellbore storage effect logarithmic derivative tend to zero (fig. 1b). This can be explained by a short
period of sampling before pressure build-up curve. The pressure on build-up cycle quickly aligns and
tends to constant. In this case the difference between the observed values is: ~1.4 atm.
When testing one well up to 30 reservoir pressure values can be achieved through different time
intervals. Experience of studying highly-compartmentalized low-permeability reservoirs shows that in the
interval of one geological object pressure values can differ (100 atm and even more). Fig. 2 shows test
report for well XX39. In object interval C formation pressure values during hydrodynamic logging are
different by the value of 190 atm, the depths of the testing intervals is as much as 14 m. The difficulty
is in data averaging for the object. Only one value should be given to an object when forming interval
pressure map, reservoir models.
Currently the engineers from “Rosneft” and “Schlumberger” use the following expressions (1) to
evaluate pressure average value. This approach takes into account the thickness of beds according to
SPE-171175-MS 3

Figure 2—Interpretation results of testing by using hydrodynamic logging (a)  pressure profile according to the depth (b) for well XX39

geophysical logging interpretation and study intervals as well as actuality of each sampling. An average
pressure for the object is expressed as follows:
(1)

Where Pr i is a reservoir pressure of i-th bed (i) in which several measurement tests can be carried out,
(k/␮)i –mobility of i-th bed. In the first expression the summing up is carried out for all thin beds L with
informative measurement test. Second and third expressions the summing up is carried out for all
measurement tests M in each i-th thin bed. It is widely accepted that weight factors take the following
values according to test reliability (wij), wij⫽1 – for measuring high integrity, wij⫽0.5 – for measuring
satisfactory integrity, wij⫽0.1 - for measuring low integrity.
Amid the deteorating filtration properties of the wells drilled there is a tendency for low integrity study
number and number of dry measuring growing. In this case the absence of influx during the test can be
explained by the limitations of the measuring instrument (the model doesn’t support obtaining influx from
ultra low permeability reservoirs). For example, when measuring well XX39 in the interval of Achimovski
reservoir (with average permeability less than 1 mD) 12 measurements were carried out - 8 of them were
dry sampling (with no influx from reservoir), 3 samplings were of low integrity and 1 with satisfactory
integrity. In other case, during XX44 well surveying for object US0 measurements were carried out in 26
intervals. All cases showed dry samplings. After hydraulic fracturing the well was put on operation. The
well is being productive for 3 years.
Thus, tests with the help of hydrodynamic logging have restrictions in low-permeability reservoirs,
measuring pressure using well pressure buildup curve interpretation method for producer after hydraulic
fracturing leads to significant oil production losses.
The examples of reservoir pressure determining according to minifrac test
data
Example 1. Measuring pressure change curve using bottomhole pressure gauge and with the help of
injection fluid flow at the stage of minfraс test during hydraulic fracture for XX45 well is shown on fig.
4 SPE-171175-MS

Figure 3—Data on bottomhole pressure and flow rate of the liquid injected (a), pressure and pressure derivative chart with G-function (b), square
linear flow pressure derivative chart FL (с), radial flow function FR (d) during minifrac test for well XX45

Figure 4 —Data on bottomhole pressure and flow rate of the liquid injected (a), pressure and pressure derivative chart with G-function (b), square
linear flow pressure derivative chart FL (с), radial flow function FR (d) during minifrac test for well XX71

3a. During the injection for 4.3 min. 12.8 m3 of fluid was injected. Well pressure fall-off curve
interpretation method was recorded after injection stop. Initial data interpretation (for the well pressure
fall-off curve interpretation method) was carried out in Ecrin (Kappa Eng). According to pressure
derivative diagram using index with G-function [Barree R. et. al., 2009] fracture closure time (~3.1 min)
and closure pressure (361.6 atm) were determined (fig.3b). By the shape of the curve GdP/dG fluid loss
type from the fracture to reservoir and closure time point were determined [Craig D. et. al., 2000].
Reservoir pressure (using minifrac test) was determined by means of pressure analyses after the
closure. Pressure derivative diagram shows flow patterns according to line flow function square (fig. 3).
SPE-171175-MS 5

Figure 5—Bottomhole pressure and fluid flow rate data (a), pressure and pressure derivative chart on G-function (b), pressure derivative chart with
square linear flow function FL (с), pressure change chart at radial flow function FR (d) at minifrac test for well XX82

So, the ½ slope corresponds to pseudolinear flow pattern, singular slope-to pseudoradial. In this case,
pseudoradial flow pattern can be observed for well XX45 in ~30 min from stopping time on well pressure
fall-off curve interpretation method that is why reservoir pressure is determined according to linear curve
approximation from the last point measured to the beginning of pseudoradial flow pattern on radial flow
function pressure diagram FR (fig.3d). After minifrac test data analyses was carried out the pressure for
well XX45 amounts to 278.9 atm.
Example 2. Pressure change curve view during minifrac test for well XX71 is shown on fig.4a. Liquid
injection was carried out for 4.2 min, 12.8 m3 were injected. At this formation fracturing pressure is 464.7
atm. However, in this case it is seen on pressure derivative diagram where pseudoradial flow pattern can
not be detected on square linear flow, that is why reservoir pressure was measured on pseudolinear flow
pattern with ½ slope. Estimated value of reservoir pressure is 294, 6 atm (fig. 4b), fracture closure pressure
– 374.4 atm. (fig. 4b).
Example 3. Minifrac test review with stop at well pressure fall-off curve interpretation method is shown
at fig. 5a. Formation fracturing pressure is 464.7 atm, fracture closure pressure – 321.1 atm (fig.5b).
Pseudoradial flow pattern is not tested as it was in the previous case (fig.5c), thus, reservoir pressure
assessment is done through pseudolinear flow pattern – 246.4 atm (fig.5d).
Before hydraulic fracturing the measurements were carried with the help of hydrodynamic logging for
observed in the examples above wells. Consequently, after averaging the pressure with expressions (1)
reservoir pressures at minifrac test and hydrodynamic logging were compared. Well XX45 at pseudoradial
flow pattern has the best congruity: reservoir pressure on minifrac test is 278.9 atm, hydrodynamical
logging pressure is 272.5 atm. In wells in which pressure estimation was carried out on pseudolinear flow
pattern pressure variation is greater: in well XX71 pressure on minifrac test is 294.6 atm. On hydrody-
namic logging - 275.0 atm. In well XX82 at minifrac test 246.4 atm, at hydradynamic logging – 262.7 atm.
Thus, when analyzing bottomhole gauge data on injection and fall-off cycles at minifrac tests one can
get estimated values of reservoir pressure. The tests carried out showed that the difference between
pressures at mininfrac test and hydrodynamic logging can reach 20 atm.
6 SPE-171175-MS

Figure 6 —The connection of fracture closure pressure with reservoir pressure for reservoirs T10, T11, T12 according to study results at steady
injection patterns and minifrac test data

Correlation relationship of fracture closure pressure vs. reservoir pressure

In the paper [Davletbaev et. al., 2010 and 2014] correlation relationship between fracture closure pressure
and reservoir pressure is given. This generalised relationship has sufficient statistics for reservoir pressure
range for more than 350 atm, for the range with less pressure testing points used are not enough. The
reason for this is that well candidates for the study in steady flow regime are chosen with substantial
injection volumes and. as a rule, waterflooding radius in these wells are comparable to welltest
investigation radius. When analyzing minifrac tests data using downhole gauge one can also get reservoir
pressure and fracture closure pressure values. Fracturing is carried out in step-out wells in undisturbed
zones with initial reservoir pressure, in infill wells in zones with pressure less than initial reservoir
pressure. Consequently, correlation relationship can be complemented with data from the range of missing
pressures for the relationship observed. Correlation relationship of fracture closure pressure with reservoir
pressure for reservoirs T10, T11, T12 according to study on steady state injection test which is added with
the results of analyses of minifrac tests with bottomhole pressure gauges for the reservoirs.
Data comparison of minifrac test and production profile of PLT for
horizontal well with multi-stage fracturing
At this time the number of horizontal wells drilled in low-permeability collectors (at multi-stage
fracturing) is growing. However, according to reports on fracturing the planned production is not
correlated to the volumes of proppant agent. The most difficult question is - which fractures in horizontal
hole provide influx for the well as the injection of the proppant agent in the fracture do not guarantee it’s
influx to the well. For these purposes in a number of wells PLT logging is carried out with production
profile record for horizontal well. This is done for determining the influx from intervals with fixed
hyradulic fractures.
Influx/production distribution to frac sleeves recoreded for production profile at PLT logging is shown
for well XX46 on fig.7 The study helped to learn that the main influx/prodcution (60%) is provided by
hydraulic fracture in the interval with frac sleeve P4, low level influx comes from other 4 fractures. In
addition to this 25% of liquid comes from nonhermetic linear coupling.
In all five cases before the main fracturing minifrac test were carried out. The results were analized as
in fig.3–5. Apart from fracture closure pressure estimation and etc. fluid injection efficiency kie was also
SPE-171175-MS 7

Figure 7—Influx profile comparison with the results of minifrac test for well XX46

received. Injection efficiency is a parameter showing the difference between the initial and maximum
fracture with the efflux absence. So is determined by efflux efficiency at hydraulic fracture and reservoir
characteriscics. The difference kie at different stages of hydraulic fracturing along horizontal well at equal
fluid properties indicates the difference between reservoir intervals. The less leakage efficiency is the
better reservoir characterisctics are and more fluid moves to reservoir at hydraulic fracturing. Injection
efficiency for 4 minifrac tests are shown on fig. 7. There is no data for the sleeve P3. The estimation is
unsuccessful. Comparison of injection efficiency at hydraulic fracturing and according to production
distribution at PLT logging shows that interval with themain influx (60%) has the lowest injection
efficiency at minifrac tests. Thus, analysis of minifrac tests can reveal the most productive intervals at
hydraulic fracturing in horizontal wells. This helps to save expenditures for proppant agent volume
injected to non-commercial intervals and reveal the most productive ones for planning of proppant agent
injection volume.
Conclusion
Recording and interpretation of minifrac test data give the possibility of estimating reservoir pressure with
sufficient precision in ultra low-permeability reservoir rocks where it is impossible to get informative
measurements with the help of hydradynamic logging and there’s no possibility to test operating wells
after reservoir fracturing due to significant production loss. It should be noted that more or less precise
reservoir pressure measurements can be received using well pressure fall-off curve interpretation method
during minifrac test at pseudoradial flow pattern. Apart from that realization of hydradynamic logging in
open well bore connected with additional technological risks and well construction time increment due to
study (average time is 60 hours). Along with that minifrac tests are usually the integral part of hydraulic
fracturing and additional expenditures will be connected with wireline gage run. Consequently, the
method applicated is cost and expenditures saving connected with reservoir pressure detection. Hydro-
dynamic logging is much more expensive.
Minifrac test analyses provide data on fracture closure pressure and can complement correlation
relationship on steady state injection test in injection wells with spontaneous growth of fracture.
Evaluation of injection efficiency during minifrac test provides an opportunity to receive the most
productive intervals in horizontal wells with multi-stage fracturing and is corresponding with the
influx/production profile on PLT logging.

Acknowledgments
The authors express thanks to the colleagues Latipov Alfred, Kazakevitch Eduard (Schlumberger) for the
participation, help, advice and realization of averaging reservoir pressure method according to hydrody-
namic logging study, to Serdyuk Alexander Nikolaevich, Valeev Sergei Valerievich (LLC “RN-
8 SPE-171175-MS

Yuganskneftegaz”), Yudin Aleksei (Schlumberger) for the help and coordination at planning the mini-frac
measurement, to Ivan Tichonov and Askar Valiullin (LLC “PKF Gis-Nefteservis”) for help and analyses
of PLT logging results for horizontal well XX46 with multi-stage fracturing.

Nomenclature
FL – linear flow time function
FR – radial flow time function
hi – bed thickness, m
k – reservoir permeability, mD
(k/␮)i – mobility of i-th bed, mD/cP
(k/␮)HL_ij – mobility of reservoir fluid according to j-th measurement with hydrodynamic logging in
i-th bed
L – number of beds with measurement results after hydrodynamic logging
M – measurement number with hydrodynamic logging in one bed
P – pressure, atm
tdP/dt – pressure derivatives, 
Pr av – average reservoir pressure, atm
Pr i – reservoir pressure for i-th bed, atm
Pr HL ij – reservoir presuure according to j-th measurement with hydrodynamic logging in i-th bed,
atm
wij – measurement accuracy at hydrodynamic logging, unit fraction
oPij – hydrostatic pressure diferential between the depth of the measurement and reservoir
pressure calculation, atm
␮ – reservoir fluid fiscosity, cP
Pi – reservoir pressure, atm
Pff – fracture closure pressure, atm
kie – injection efficiency at minifrac test
SSIT – steady state injection test

References
Baikov V.A., Burakov I.M., Latypov I.D., Yakovlev A.A., Asmandiyarov R.N. 2012. Waterflood
induced hydraulic fracturing control under reservoir pressure maintenance conditions on RN-Yugan-
skneftegas oilfields. Neftyanoe khozyaystvo – Oil Industry. No 11. P. 30 –33 (Russian)
Barree R., Mukherjee H. 1996. Determination of Pressure-dependent Leakoff and Its Effects on
Fracture Geometry. SPE 36424,
Barree R., Barree V., Craig D. 2009. Holistic Fracture Diagnostics: Consistent Interpretation of
Prefrac Injection Tests Using Multiple Analysis Methods. SPE 107877,
Craig D., Eberhard M., Barree R. 2000. Adapting High Permeability Sands for Estimating Reservoir
Engineering Parameters. SPE 60291.
Davletbaev A., Baikov V., Bikbulatova G., Asmandiyarov R., Nazargalin E., Slabetskiy A., Sergey-
chev A., Nuriev R. 2014. Field Studies of Spontaneous Growth of Induced Fractures in Injection Wells.
SPE-171232.
Davletbaev A., Baikov V., Ozkan E., Garipov T., Usmanov T., Asmandiyarov R., Slabetskiy A.,
Nazargalin E. 2010. Multi-Layer Steady-State Injection Test with Higher Bottomhole Pressure than the
Formation Fracturing Pressure. SPE 136199.
LeBlanc G., Gunasan E., Boutaud de la Combe J-L., Jaffrezic V. 2010. Reservoir Characterization
Using Injection Test After-Closure Analysis: Field Case History in a Depleted Oil Reservoir. SPE 128052.