ARMA 18–437

Title:
Actual Hydraulic Fracture Length Determination Using a new Technique for Shale Fracturing Data Analysis
in Real Time

Wigwe, M. E.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA18/All-ARMA18/ARMA-2018-437/1190692/arma-2018-437.pdf/1 by Algerian Petroleum Inst. user on 19 February 2021

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
Soliman, M. Y.
University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Pirayesh, E.
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Copyright 2018 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 52nd US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Seattle, Washington, USA, 17–20
June 2018. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the development of a technique for the determination of actual fracture length of a hydraulic
fracture. Existing hydraulic fracture simulation software may make predictions of fracture length in shale reservoir without
considering the volume of natural fractures, which has to fill up before propagation continues. The technique discussed here is limited
to shale reservoirs but could be applied to conventional reservoirs with natural fractures. The moving reference point (MRP) technique
is used in the analysis of the first three stages of a fracture treatment. With the aid of a fracture length-time plot generated from a
hydraulic fracture simulator that matches the data, the distance from the wellbore to the natural fractures, which also translates to the
actual fracture length for the stage, could be determined. An algorithm for this technique is developed. From the results obtained,
natural fractures in the shale formation were identified and the length of the hydraulic fracture was determined. It can be seen that
after 7 mins, the actual fracture length is about 45.72 m, (150 ft.) instead of 76.20 m (250 ft.) predicted by the simulator output.

fracture and the fracture closure pressure) is plotted

1.0 INTRODUCTION against treatment time on a log-log plot.
The real-time analysis of fracturing data using the moving
reference point (MRP) technique (Pirayesh, et al, 2013) is
used to carry out the analysis of the pressure-time data
from a hydraulic fracture job of shale plays used in this
paper. Unlike conventional reservoirs, shale plays are
characterized by lots of natural fractures. Soliman, et al,
(2014) analyzed data for the Marcellus shale and the
Eagleford shale, and this paper extends that work by
analyzing two new wells on the Eagleford and making
calculations of actual fracture length. The technique can
help us determine when the hydraulic fracture intersects a
natural fracture during treatment, and can further aid us in
determining the distance from the wellbore to the natural
fractures and the volume of these natural fractures. The
technique involves the use of the time-exponent (e) to
predict the behavior of the fracture during treatment and Fig. 1: Nolte-Smith technique (1981)
can be applied to both conventional and unconventional
reservoirs that have been hydraulically fractured.
Four modes are usually identified on the plot, Modes I, II,
Nolte-Smith (1981) in his paper came up with a technique
III and IV, depending on the slope of the graph (called the
for interpreting pressure-time data from a hydraulic
time parameter, e). In Mode I (small positive slope), the
fracture job. In his technique (Fig 1), the net pressure
fracture is said to be propagating within a confined height,
(defined as the difference between the pressure inside the
constant compliance, an unrestricted extension and based
on the assumptions in the work of Perkins and Kern
(1961) which Nordgren (1972) later modified. A constant
pressure is observed in Mode II (e = 0). Nolte-Smith
(1981) interpreted this phenomenon to be caused by
height growth, increased fluid loss or compliance
depending on whether the subsequent event is a Mode III
or Mode IV scenario. In Mode III, the slope of the plot in
fig 1 is unity, implying that the net pressure increases

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA18/All-ARMA18/ARMA-2018-437/1190692/arma-2018-437.pdf/1 by Algerian Petroleum Inst. user on 19 February 2021

proportionally with time or injected fluid volume. The
interpretation given by Nolte-Smith was that this could be
due to a flow restriction in the fracture, leading to
proppant screenout or fracture ballooning (Jefrey, et al,
2009). Mode IV gives a negative slope and is interpreted
to mean a rapid height growth. A simplified plot showing
the entire process is shown in fig 2. So, this technique
assumes the fracture propagates continuously with time
from one mode to another until the fracturing job is over.

Fig. 3: Flowchart for implementation of the MRP technique

(Pirayesh et al, 2014)

1.1 Input Data and Requirements

Fig. 2: Simplified graph for fracture pressure interpretation
(Lake, 2007)
However, Pirayesh, et al (2013), in their work, have
shown that this is not usually the case in shale reservoirs,
and that rather, the fracture grows in spurts, and that is,
repeated periods of ballooning are followed by periods of
height growth or normal fracture propagation with time.
The technique could help identify possible sand out early
and has the advantage of not requiring any knowledge of
the closure pressure as required by the original Nolte-
Smith method. Also, unlike the original Nolte-Smith
technique that uses a fixed reference point (start of
injection), this new technique uses a new reference point
for every iteration following the flowchart shown in fig 3.
First, a pressure match is obtained for the bottomhole
treating pressure provided. If a good match is obtained,
the determination of the time-parameter follows, and the
results are displayed graphically.
It is strongly recommended to use bottomhole treating
pressure for this analysis (Pirayesh, et al, 2013), and for a
more accurate result, a region of approximately constant
rate will be used for the analysis. The use of bottomhole
pressure has been the practice in the industry for the
original Nolte-Smith technique, including the use of
constant rate period. The data used in this study have
variable rate periods (used during mini frac tests), but
only an approximately constant rate period was used for
the analyses. Two shale cases were analyzed, case 1 has
three stages and case two has nine stages, but the first
three stages are discussed here. Only case 1 will be
reported in this paper.
2.0 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF
RESULTS
2.1 Case 1 Analyses
Case 1 fracture treatments are made up of three stages.
The pressure-time data, with pump rates, were given and
used for analyses. For each case, the pressure-time and
rate-time plots are generated to enable us to identify the
period of main fracture treatment, which will be the focus
of subsequent analyses. The bottomhole pressure-time
data are then imported into the program and analyzed. A
match is first obtained and any errors calculated. If the
errors are within a reasonable range, the Nolte-Smith time
parameter is then calculated and used to generate the plot
for further analyses.
Fig 4 shows the plot generated from the fracturing data
given for the treating pressure and slurry rate. Since we
are interested in analyzing the main frac job, mini frac job
data (0 ≤ 𝑡𝑡 ≤ 50) will be ignored. An approximately
constant slurry rate of 0.159 m3/s (60 bpm) can be noticed
between 50 mins and 180 mins; as a result, only data
falling within this region is analyzed. The
technique/program developed in Pirayesh, et al (2013) is

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA18/All-ARMA18/ARMA-2018-437/1190692/arma-2018-437.pdf/1 by Algerian Petroleum Inst. user on 19 February 2021

very much capable of handling the slightly fluctuating
pressure within this period (this is usually difficult with
the Nolte-Smith technique). With this data, the program
generates a pressure match which is shown in fig 5. From
the figure, it is clear that a good match was generated, Fig. 6: Error analysis for BHP match case 1 Stage 1
with very small errors which mostly fall within 20 psi
(Fig. 6). Next, the time-parameter is calculated and
displayed as shown in fig. 7. The green region (where e is
between about 0.13 - 0.3) indicates the region when the
fracture propagates normally while the red region (where
e is between about 0.75 – 1.0) signifies region of
ballooning. Negative e indicates rapid height growth. So
for this stage 1 frac job, fig. 7 indicates that the fracture
grew in spurts consisting of periods of normal fracture
propagation and periods of rapid height growth during the
period analyzed.
Fig. 7: Nolte-Smith time parameter plot for case 1 Stage 1

Fig. 8 and fig. 9 show the plot of the Nolte-Smith time

parameter with time for stages 2 and 3 respectively. Like
stage one, these fracture stages show periods dominated
by normal fracture propagation (green zone) and periods
dominated by rapid height growth with some ballooning.

Fig. 4: Pressure-Time data for case 1 Stage 1

Fig.8: Nolte-Smith time parameter plot for case 1 stage 2

Fig. 5: Pressure match for case 1 Stage 1

Fig.9: Nolte-Smith time parameter plot for case 1 stage 3

The results obtained for case 1 strongly support the idea
that hydraulic fractures grow in spurts with alternating
periods of ballooning, normal growth and rapid height
growth as the fracture propagates. A closer look at the
Nolte-Smith time parameter plot for this case reveals a
similar behavior for the three stages. They all show at
least one peak getting into the red zone (indicating
ballooning of fracture - Jefrey, et al, 2009), a lot of normal
fracture. The determination of the length of the hydraulic
fracture can be done manually with the aid of fracture
length versus time graph from a fracture simulator. This
makes sense because most fracture simulators assume a
continuous growth of fracture until the end of the
treatment, but this method shows that the fracture has
periods when growth or propagation is “paused” until the
intersected natural fracture is completely filled with frac

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA18/All-ARMA18/ARMA-2018-437/1190692/arma-2018-437.pdf/1 by Algerian Petroleum Inst. user on 19 February 2021

propagation periods (green zone) and quite a number of
periods of rapid height growth (negative e). Notice that
the first two stages have similar pump rates of about 0.159
m3/s (60 bpm) whereas the third case has a lower rate of
0.132 m3/s (50 bpm), yet this similar observation is not
affected.
fluid. We will test this technique using a hypothetical
design for the purpose of illustrating this idea. To use the
simulator result, there should a pressure match with the
actual data before this analysis will be valid. Figures 13-
15 show the plots of the simulated data.

2.2 Intersection of Natural Fractures

This technique can be used to detect natural fractures
which the hydraulic fracture intersects as it grows. As the
bottomhole pressure increases, the Nolte-Smith time
parameter, e, also increases until a pressure drop is
encountered, then e begins to decrease. In the formation,
one factor that could result in a pressure drop is when a
void (or a natural fracture in this case) is intersected
(Potluri, et al, 2005). Fracture propagation stops until the
natural fracture is filled up, then, hydraulic fracture
propagation resumes, and the pressure starts increasing
again. As a result, when a natural fracture is intersected, Fig. 13: Nolte-Smith time parameter plot for simulated case
bottomhole pressure drops, and when the natural fracture
is filled by frac fluid, the pressure starts increasing again.

A look at fig 10 illustrates this idea. Point B indicates time

when a natural fracture has been intersected and starts
getting filled by frac fluid, while point A indicates time
when the natural fracture has been filled and fracture
propagation resumes. All the cases analyzed in this work
clearly show that a lot of natural fractures were intersected
during the treatment.

Fig. 1: Plot of pressure and fracture half-length with time for

simulated case

2.4 Algorithm to Determine Actual Fracture Length

Fig. 10: Nolte-Smith time parameter plot for 9590119 CPB
Unit A#1 Stage 4
2.3 Determination of distance from wellbore to
natural fracture
Using the idea outlined above for intersection of natural
fractures, we could determine distance to a natural
The algorithm can be summarized below:
1. Identify the first peak on Nolte-Smith time
parameter plot and note the time as tpi
2. Locate this time tp1 on the fracture length-time
plot and note the actual half-length as x f = x fi
3. Identify the first trough on Nolte-Smith time
parameter plot and note the time as tti
 4. Calculate the volume of the natural fracture if
needed using [ q i (t ti - t pi ) - fluid loss ]
5. Keep the actual frac half-length xfi constant till tti
because there is no propagation
6. Note the simulator frac half-length at tti as xi
7. Adjust the simulator frac half-length xf after tti
using x f = x f i + x f - x i
8. The fracture begins to propagate based on this
new xf until a second peak, tpi
9. Using tpi, locate the new xfi as adjusted in step 7.
This is the distance to the second fracture.
10. Repeat steps 3 to 9 until the last peak is accounted
for, noting that n = 1, 2, 3, 4… for the first,
second, third, fourth peaks respectively and so on.
This procedure was used for the first 9 minutes of the frac
job simulated data and is plotted in fig. 15. From this plot,
it can be observed that after 7mins, the actual fracture
length will be about 45.72 m, (150 ft.) instead of 76.20 m
(250 ft.) predicted by the simulator output. This difference
gets larger as the analysis proceeds.
Fig.15: Actual fracture length different from fracture
simulator result
3.0 CONCLUSION
• The moving reference point technique developed
by Pirayesh, et al (2013) has been used in
conjunction with a hydraulic fracture simulator to
calculate the actual length of a hydraulic fracture.
• It was also shown that it is possible to calculate
the volume of each natural fracture intersected if
the fluid loss and other parameters are known.
• The new analysis technique was applied
successfully to two different shale plays, the
Marcellus and Eagle Ford Shale (Soliman, et al,
2014), and is applied here to a new well, giving a
unique signature specific to the well/reservoir
fractured.
• The new technique is based on the concept that
fracture propagation is not a continuous and
smooth function of time, but rather occurs in an
intermittent fashion.
• The analysis of the fracturing shale data gives a
clear and repeatable pattern that indicates the time
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA18/All-ARMA18/ARMA-2018-437/1190692/arma-2018-437.pdf/1 by Algerian Petroleum Inst. user on 19 February 2021
the hydraulic fracture intersects the various
natural fractures.
REFERENCES
Jeffrey, R. G., Zhang, Xi, & Thiercelin, M. J. (2009). Hydraulic
Fracture Offsetting in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs:
Quantifying a Long-Recognized Process. Paper SPE 119351
presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 19-21 January 2009.
Lake, W. L. (2007), Production Operations Engineering, SPE
Petroleum Engineering Handbook – Volume IV. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Page 323-358.
Nolte, K.G. (1979). Determination of Fracture Parameters
from Fracturing Pressure Decline. Paper SPE 8341 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 23-26 September.
Nolte, K.G., & Smith, M. B. (1981). Interpretation of
Fracturing Pressures. JPT, 33(9): 1767-1775. SPE 8297.
Nordgren, R.P. (1972). Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic
Fracture. SPEJ, 12(4): 306-314. SPE 3009.
Perkins, T.K., & Kern, L.R. (1961). Widths of Hydraulic
Fractures. JPT 13(9): 937-949. SPE 89.
Pirayesh E, Soliman M.Y, Rafiee M. (2013): Make Decision on
the Fly: A New Method to Interpret Pressure-Time Data during
Fracturing – Application to Frac Pack, SPE 166132-MS,
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
held in New Orleans, Luisiana, 30 September – 2 October.
Pirayesh, E., Soliman, M. Y, Mehdi R. & Jamali, A. (2015). A
New Method to Interpret Fracturing Pressure – Application to
Frac Pack. SPE Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 3,
https://doi.org/10.2118/166132-PA.
Potluri N., Zhu D., and Hill A. D (2005): Effect of Natural
Fractures on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation, SPE 94568,
presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference,
held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 25-27 May, 2005.
Soliman M. Y, Wigwe, M., Alzahabi, A., Pirayesh, E., &
Stegent, N. (2014): Analyses of Fracturing Pressure Data in
Heterogeneous Shale Formations, Hydraulic Fracture Journal,
1(2): 8-13.