MiniFrac Analysis theory

Theory and Descriptions

What is a Pad and Why Do We Need It?
Any typical hydraulic-fracturing design process involves determining the proppant schedule. The
fluid injected at the beginning of the job without proppant is called the pad. It opens up the fracture,
generating fracture length and width. Most of the pad leaks off into the formation. Typically, 30 to
60% of the fluid pumped during a treatment leaks off into the formation during pumping, and the
pad provides most of this necessary extra fluid. Too little pad results in shorter fracture lengths,
while too much pad results in too much fracture length and height growth, and a final propped width
that is too narrow. Even if fluid loss were zero, a minimum pad volume would be required to open
the fracture width sufficiently and allow proppant into the fracture. Generally, a fracture width three
times the proppant diameter is necessary for avoiding bridging. Selecting the proper pad volume is a
key factor for avoiding screenout, which is the premature bridging of proppant that leads to a sudden
increase of injection pressure. Bridging of the proppant blocks additional proppant from entering the
fracture, and the treating pressure rises above the technical limit or the wellbore fills with sand. Too
much pad volume, however, can decrease the final propped width, especially in the target layer near
the wellbore. When the pad is pumped, the proppant concentration of the injected slurry is elevated
until the maximum possible value is reached.
Interpreting Plots
Modern well-test pressure-transient analysis techniques are the most commonly used methods for
analyzing pressure-decline data after a minifrac and/or frac job. The engineer identifies the flow
regime from an infinitely conductive fracture during the pressure-decline period. The end of this
flow regime represents a closed fracture. The pressure at which the flow regime ends represents the
minimum in-situ stress.
Modern well-test pressure analysis indicates that the shut-in pressure decline for a fracture exhibiting
infinite conductivity should vary as follows:

Eq. 1 applies to drawdown or injection. This equation indicates that a plot of bottomhole pressure vs.
the square root of time should result in an early time straight-line portion with a y-intercept equal to
the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP). If this is true, the exponential relationship between
pressure change and time for a fracture experiencing infinite conductivity flow will yield a straight
line with a one-half slope on a log-log plot. This approach will hold true if an early time period of
infinite fracture conductivity exists with no significant fracture-equilibrium effects.
Fracture-equilibrium effects include the following:
• fracture extension
• height growth into high-stress confining layers
• pressure-dependent leakoff
The classical interpretation assumes that a single fracture of infinite conductivity is in good
communication with the wellbore and has constant area. However, data from cased hole minifracs
suggest that fracture-equilibrium effects tend to influence the early-time pressure decline. This
influence is indicated by a high ISIP value followed by a rapid pressure decline. This rapid pressure
decline does not indicate the leakoff response expected from low-permeability formations. Another
indication of fracture equilibrium effects may be the appearance of a reversed S-shaped pressure
decline. During this period, the pressure falls slowly at first followed by an increase and then a
decrease in decline rate.
Classical pressure-transient analysis techniques may erroneously indicate the time at which fracture
closure occurs if fracture-equilibrium effects exist during the test. When these equilibrium effects
exist, the correct straight line will not intercept the ISIP when it is extrapolated back to the initial
shut-in time. Depending on the fracture-equilibrium effect, the extrapolated line will intersect above
or below the ISIP. Thus, the slope of the infinite conductivity flow period on a log-log plot will be
greater than or less than one-half depending on the equilibrium effect. A slope of one half will still
occur on the log-log plot, but it will not represent the end of the infinite conductivity flow period.
Therefore, the closure time and pressure will be incorrect. The log-log plot, therefore, is used simply
as a check and not as a definite determination of closure pressure.
Selecting Start, Shut-in, and End Times
To begin the interpretation process, select the start, shut-in, and end times. Selecting the times
incorrectly will cause errors in the fluid efficiency calculation and the log(ISIP - pressure) plot.
Start Flag. The start flag marks the beginning of pumping into an initiated fracture. It is used to
calculate the fluid efficiency and the G-function of time. Because both calculations require that you
enter the time at which fluid started leaving the wellbore and entering the fracture, do not include
any rate before the formation was fractured. Typically, this flag is set with the pressure channel
instead of the rate channel.
Shut-in Flag. The shut-in flag marks the ending of pumping time and the beginning of shut-in time.
The PDAT program uses the shut-in flag to calculate the average rate from which it can calculate the
average volume pumped. If the shut-in flag is selected too far to the right, the closure time decreases
while the pumping time increases. The fluid efficiency is therefore lowered since the PDAT program
indicates that the fracture closed faster than it actually did. If the shut-in flag is selected too far to the
left, the closure time increases while pump time decreases. Fluid efficiency will increase since the
PDAT program indicates that the fracture stayed open longer for a shorter pump time.

Figure 27—Selecting start, shut-in, and end times

The shut-in flag marks when the pressure decline in the fracture is strictly caused by matrix leakoff
across the fracture faces. Therefore, the rate leaving the wellbore and entering the formation is zero.
The shut-in flag should be selected at the intersection of the first rise in the water hammer, and a
straight line should be drawn back through the remainder of the water hammer at a tangent to the
first portion of the pressure decline. This point should coincide as closely as possible to a rate value
of zero. (A good guideline would be less than 5% of the original rate.) This flag is typically set with
respect to the pressure channel. The rate channel is used as reference only.

Figure 28—Selecting shut-in

End Flag. The end flag tells the PDAT program the amount of data to analyze. Some plots perform
mathematical calculations that may require more data than you are currently analyzing. Therefore, you
should always bring in enough data to avoid “edge effects.”

Note—Do not place the end flag beyond the data to avoid creating flat spots on the
curves that may lea to an incorrect analysis. However, too much data will compress the
events you are trying to analyze, making them difficult to analyze. Select the end time
flag so that closure pressure occurs near the middle of the page.

Closure Determination
Closure time and pressure can be determined by examining several different plots. The interpretation of
each plot is different and each may indicate a different closure. Engineering judgment is then required
to determine the correct one or to take some sort of an average value. The first step is to bound the
closure pressure. The closure pressure ( Pc ) has upper bounds of fracture extension pressure ( Pf ) and
instantaneous shut-in pressure ( Ps ) and a lower bound of the reservoir pressure ( Pr ) such that

Pf > Ps > Pc > Pr

Note: Another point to remember is that net pressures (delta pressure = ISIP - closure
pressure) of over 1000 psi are rare.
Bounding the Closure Pressure
The first step for determining closure pressure is determining where closure pressure should occur. We
will refer to this determination as “bounding the closure pressure.”
We can calculate an expected closure-pressure value from Eq. 3:

Upper Boundary
The upper boundary of closure pressure is the fracture-extension pressure, which is the pressure
required to extend an existing fracture. This pressure is generally greater than the closure pressure
and depends on the size of the fracture and specifics of the treatment. The fracture-extension
pressure can be determined with a step-up rate test. Another upper boundary of closure pressure is
the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP), which is the pressure inside the hydraulic fracture
immediately after shut-in. This pressure can vary from several psi to several hundred psi above
closure pressure, depending on the treatment and the formation. A large pressure drop can be a result
of several factors, including a loss of pressure drop across perforations or other flow entrance
restrictions and partial loss of the fracture’s viscous pressure drop in the near-wellbore region. The
ISIP is generally greater than the closure stress, but it can be less than the closure stress if the
treatments are small, injection rates are low, and/or the leakoff is high.
Lower Boundary
The lower boundary for closure pressure is the reservoir pore pressure. Under the right
circumstances, the Linear Pressure vs. Horner Time plot can be used to determine reservoir pressure.
Temperature and Compressibility Effects
The effects of fluid compressibility and thermal expansion were originally neglected in minifrac
analysis. In a shallow well in which the bottomhole static temperature (BHST) is less than 150°F this
assumption is reasonable. In a deep well in which the BHST may exceed 400°F, however,
temperature in the fracture may increase rapidly during shut-in. In SPE 58767, Soliman shows that
errors resulting from this assumption tend to predict overly optimistic (lower) values for fluid-loss
coefficients, and higher fluid efficiencies. Consequently, treatments designed with uncorrected
values will often screen out prematurely in wells with high BHSTs. Errors in the fluid-loss
coefficient (caused by assuming isothermal conditions) are more severe if the conventional minifrac
analysis technique is used. If the effects of fluid compressibility and temperature changes are
corrected, fluid-loss coefficients predicted by the energy balance equation will more closely match
values simulated with fracturing design programs. The close agreement between the two values
implies that the compressibility and temperature effects have been minimized.
Linear Pressure vs. Horner Time
The Horner plot is a semilog plot of pressure against the logarithm of (tp+Dt)/Dt where (tp+Dt)/Dt is
referred to as Horner time. Because of the definition of Horner time, actual time increases to the left
in the following graph. As the shut-in time Dt tends to infinity, the Horner time (tp+Dt)/Dt
approaches 1. The Horner plot is used for selecting a lower boundary for closure. When the fracture
is closed, leak off and the leakoff regime are in the pseudo-radial leakoff state. This leak off should
be in a constant rate of decline until it reaches reservoir pressure. Placing the flag at the beginning of
the last straight-line section is the lower boundary of closure. The smart line will extrapolate to the
Y-axis to give a P* value of reservoir pressure. In the Gulf Coast region, engineers use the lower
boundary if the P* value is within 50 psi of the actual reservoir pressure. This plot is not generally
used for low-permeability areas because of the time it takes for the pressure decline to reach a state
of pseudo-radial flow. The following figure shows the result of choosing the lower boundary for
closure and estimating reservoir pressure from the smart line.

Figure 29—Horner plot

Linear Pressure vs. Square Root of Time

Closure pressure can be determined from pressure-decline data by plotting shut-in pressure vs. the
square root of time. It is assumed that, during shut-in, the pressure decline approaches a linear
relation with the square root of time from shut-in. The inflections or change of slope from the linear
decline may indicate closure. After closure, the curve can be concave or convex depending on the
properties of the fracture and the reservoir. The major difficulty with this technique, however, is
identifying the correct straight line.
Figure 30—Pressure vs. square root of time

Use of Derivatives
Derivatives are used as an aid in determining the straight line segments of the decline curve. The first
derivative gives the slope of the decline curve. The slope is constant, yields a straight line. The constant
slope is another way of saying that the first derivative has reached a local minimum or maximum. Look
directly up from the first derivative curve to the decline curve and note that the local minimums or
maximums correspond to the straight-line portions of the decline curve. The second derivative gives the
curvature of the decline curve, and its closeness to the zero line tells how small the curvature is and
correspondingly how straight the decline curve is. The point where it crosses its zero line (i.e., has a
value of zero) corresponds to the center of the straight-line section of the decline curve. The figure
above shows a typical decline curve. Note that closure usually occurs somewhere in the first large rise
of the first derivative.

Log (ISIP - Pressure) vs. Log of Time

Portions of the log-log plot have slopes that correspond to different theoretical welltest derivations.
These theoretical derivations are extrapolations of well-testing techniques for hydraulically fractured
wells. Various flow-transient regimes will be encountered when a hydraulic fracture begins
producing. These flow regimes include, in order of occurrence, fracture linear flow, bilinear flow,
formation linear flow, and pseudo-radial flow. For a minifrac analysis, we use the definitions of each
flow regime to identify when fracture closure occurs. If a fracture of infinite conductivity controls
the well response, linear flow from the reservoir is developed, and a log-log plot of pressure and
pressure derivative vs. time yields a straight line with a slope equal to one-half. If a fracture of finite
conductivity controls the well response, bilinear flow will be dominant. During this time, a log-log
plot of pressure vs. time will form a straight line with a slope equal to one-fourth. In minifrac
analysis, we use the log of ISIP minus pressure vs. time. Fracture conductivity is defined as fracture
permeability multiplied by fracture width. The permeability of an open fracture is infinite; therefore,
the conductivity of an open fracture is infinite. A closed fracture has a conductivity of a finite value.
Thus, during the minifrac pressure decline the fracture closes when it changes from infinite
conductivity to finite conductivity. A slope change from one-half to one-fourth on a log-log plot
represents this change. The following definitions are taken from well testing of hydraulically
fractured wells. The only flow regimes needed for minifrac analysis are wellbore storage, formation
linear flow, and bilinear flow. The others are included for reference.
Wellbore Storage
Wellbore storage effects are caused by fluid expansion.

Figure 31—Wellbore storage (slope = 1)

Fracture Linear Flow

Fracture linear flow occurs at extremely small values of dimensionless time and is dominated by
fracture storage. Most of the fluid flow entering the wellbore comes from expansion of the fluid
along the fracture. Therefore, the flow is essentially linear. A log-log plot of pressure vs. time yields
a straight line with a slope equal to one-half. This period is so short that it is of no practical value.
Formation Linear Flow
Formation linear flow occurs when the dominant flow paths from the formation are normal to the
fracture plane. During this time, the pressure gradients within the fracture are negligible, indicating a
fracture with infinite conductivity. A log-log plot of pressure vs. time yields a straight line with a
slope equal to one-half; this effect occurs only in fractures with very high conductivity. However,
this concept is extremely useful when conducting minifracs. Before the fracture closes it will exhibit
infinite conductivity. Therefore, its slope on a log-log plot will be one-half. When the fracture
closes, it will have a finite conductivity and the slope will change to one-fourth. Since the fracture’s
conductivity is infinite with respect to the formation, the pressure drop down the fracture is
negligible with respect to the pressure drop from the fracture into the formation. An infinite
conductivity fracture response is characterized by a truly linear flow response, during which the
pressure drop is given as in Eq. 4:

..............................................................................................(4)
Such a response results in a straight-line slope of 0.5 on a log-log plot.
Bilinear Flow
Bilinear flow represents fluid flowing down the fracture from the wellbore and then linearly along
flow paths normal to the fracture face. This flow period can last for a substantial amount of time as
represented by Eq. 5:

...............................................................................................(5)
Where Cr is the dimensionless fracture conductivity. During this time, a log-log plot of pressure vs.
time will yield a straight line with a slope of one-fourth as given by Eq. 6:

.......................................................................................(6)
where the dimensionless fracture permeability and width are

This indicates a fracture with finite conductivity. Also, the wellhead flowing pressure, pwf, is a
linear function of time to the ¼, t1/4, on a Cartesian coordinate paper with the slope equal to the
fracture conductivity, kfw.
Pseudo-Radial Flow
Pseudo-radial flow occurs with all fractures regardless of the conductivity. In this regime, the effects
of the fracture are not felt, and the well resembles standard radialflow geometry. The pseudo-radial
flow time is characterized by the start of a straight line on a plot of wellhead flowing pressure, pwf,
vs. log t. During this time, the well/fracture system can be approximated as a larger effective
wellbore or a well with negative skin. This flow regime persists until a boundary is reached.
Pseudo-Steady State Flow
Pseudo-steady state flow occurs when the pressure transient reaches the reservoir boundary. The
stimulated well productivity is a multiple of the unstimulated well productivity. Folds of increase
calculations are valid under these conditions.
Linear Pressure vs. G-Function of Time
The G-function is a dimensionless time function relating shut-in time (t) to total pumping time (tp)
(at an assumed constant rate). The G-function is calculated by Eqs.
9 and 10:

The computation of the G-function depends on the fluid efficiency during the job. The two limiting
cases for the G-function are for high and low efficiency. For high efficiency (a=1), the fracture area
open after shut-in varies approximately linearly with time. For low efficiency (a=0.5), the fracture
area varies with the square root of time after shut-in.
The G-function is a basic time-volume superposition function that relates the fracture volume to
design parameters such as injection rate, leakoff rate, and volume. The assumptions used for the G-
function analysis include constant fracture height, constant rate, time correlation basis (not volume),
fracture propagation stops when pumping stops, and pressure decline during the shut-in period
represents leakoff during pumping.
The superposition curve is dp/dG * G.

Fracture Length Extension After Shut-In

The following figure shows the pressure response observed for fracture extension after shut-in. Early
time pressure decline is rapid because the excess energy in the fracture fluid is expended on
extension of the fracture length. As pressure declines, the rate of fracture extension decreases and
matrix leakoff begins to dominate the rate of pressure decline. Three curves are presented on the plot
shown: pressure, the derivative of pressure with respect to G-function (dP/dG), and the superposition
derivative (GdP/dG). By Nolte’s analysis the derivative of pressure with respect to G-function
(dP/dG) value is proportional to the total leakoff coefficient (Cvc). Therefore, variation in dP/dG
indicates an apparent change in Cvc. The dP/dG curve never flattens, indicating that the apparent
leakoff continues to change throughout closure.

Figure 32—Fracture length extension after shut in

The superposition derivative (GdP/dG) approaches a straight line after a brief shut-in time. This
constant slope provides a better indication of constant Cvc, since the magnitude of this slope is
proportional to total leakoff. At early times, the GdP/dG curve falls below the extrapolation of the
straight line, differentiat in leakoff into an extending planar fracture from true pressure-dependent
leakoff. One ambiguity exists, however; this type of signature can be difficult to differentiate from
extension of a preexisting natural fracture that is opened by injection and intersects the wellbore.
Normal Leakoff Behavior with Tip Recession during Closure
“Normal” constant leakoff behavior is illustrated by the following figure, in which the fracture tip
begins recessing after shut-in. The pressure vs. G-function curve shows some early-time curvature,
but it is linear throughout most of the falloff, at least until closure.

Figure 33—Normal leakoff behavior with tip recession during closure

The dP/dG plot similarly indicates a nearly constant value most of the time, but it indicates
substantial variation in apparent leakoff at early time. The curvature immediately after shut-in is
caused by rapid transient flow in the fracture. At shut-in, high pressure gradients exist in the fracture,
especially in the near-wellbore region. The wellbore pressure falls more quickly than expected from
leakoff calculations as the near-wellbore pressure gradients are dissipated. These transient effects,
which are present in all cases, can cause ambiguities in interpretation. Transient effects are also
caused by expansion of wellbore fluid and “afterflow” from the well to the fracture. These effects
are not shown in this case but have been investigated separately. It is interesting to note that the early
time nonlinearity is much less apparent in the superposition derivative. This curve is linear from very
early time. Transient effects may cause its intercept to be displaced from the origin, but the linear
behavior of this plot is a true indication of constant Cvc during closure.
Height Recession from High-Stress Confining Zones
In many cases the fracture height is not constant, and height growth into high-stress bounding layers
occurs. As fracture closure proceeds, the fracture tips, which extend into the high-stress boundaries,
are forced to close first. This results in height recession, changing fracture compliance, and a change
in total fracture surface area relative to the leakoff (permeable) area. This behavior results in several
obvious signatures on the pressure and derivative plots.

Figure 34—Height recession from high-stress confining zones

The pressure vs. G-function curve shows a distinct downward bend as height recession progresses.
This is illustrated by the increasing magnitude of dP/dG. The numerical data shown here are
obscured by bumps or steps caused the numerical model. Real field data show smooth curves with
pressure concave down and dP/dG and GdP/dG both concave up.
Both the increasing slope of the superposition curve and the increasing magnitude of the derivative
indicate an apparent increasing leakoff coefficient. This is consistent with the total fracture surface
area approaching the permeable (leakoff) area, and the decreasing fracture compliance associated
with the receding height.

Pressure-Dependent Leakoff with Constant Compliance

This section describes a hypothetical case of moderate pressure-dependent leakoff. The total main-
fracture closure stress is 4,000 psi, with a fissure-opening pressure of 4,400 psi. The fissure opening
pressure is clearly indicated by the sharp break in the pressure-derivative curve. This break
corresponds to the end of a “hump” on the superposition curve, after which the pressure becomes
linear with the G-function.
This early-time hump above the extrapolated straight-line on the superposition curve, along with the
sharply curving pressure derivative, is a clear signature for pressuredependent leakoff. After fissure
closure (below 4,400 psi), the pressure derivative is constant, and the superposition curve is linear
(constant slope), both indicating a constant leakoff coefficient. The pressure data alone do not clearly
indicate the end of pressure-dependent leakoff. The critical net pressure (the pressure below which
the fissure will remain closed) is 400 psi. If the net pressure exceeds this value, the fissures will open
and leakoff will increase proportionally to their width cubed. The leakoff coefficient can be
estimated from the ratio of dP/dG before and after fissure closure. During the pressure-dependent
leakoff phase of closure, the observed magnitude of the pressure derivative (dP/dG) indicates the
relationship between leakoff coefficient and pressure. When the fissure opening pressure (Pfo) is
determined from the end of pressure-dependent behavior, a constant leakoff after fissure closure
(Co) can be made as a function of pressure or the pressure differential above Pfo. If these data are
plotted on semi-log coordinates (log Cp/Co vs. dP), the slope of the line gives the coefficient for
pressure-dependent leakoff.
For constant leakoff with no pressure dependence, efficiency can be estimated for the value of the G-
function at closure (usually an extrapolation of a straight-line portion of the pressure-falloff curve).
Also, for constant fracture height, constant modulus, and constant leakoff, the overall leakoff
coefficient can be estimated from Eq. 11.