Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Testing unconventional formations

M.Y. Soliman a,n, C.S. Kabir b
a
Texas Tech University, Bob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Lubbock, TX, United States
b
Hess Corporation, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Testing unconventional reservoirs, particularly hydrocarbon-bearing shale formations, presents con-
Received 5 September 2011 siderable challenges. This paper reviews those challenges and their effects on testing. Conventional
Accepted 30 April 2012 testing methods, although applicable, are often impractical because of excessive test duration.
Available online 15 May 2012
Diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) has become the preferred option for unconventional forma-
Keywords: tions. Several methods may be used for interpreting DFIT data. We examine those methods in detail and
shale explore their relative strengths while interpreting field data.
testing & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
DFIT
minifrac
fracturing
hydraulic fracturing
diagnostic testing

1. Introduction
Unlocking the potential of unconventional gas reservoirs is
changing the balance and future of the energy industry. Uncon-
ventional gas reservoirs may be tight gas, coal-bed methane
(CBM), or shale reservoirs. Unconventional shale oil reservoirs,
such as the Bakken, present another dimension to the exploitation
challenge. Economically producing any of these types of reser-
voirs requires the creation of multiple transverse fractures in a
long horizontal well. Fracturing horizontal wells necessitates
learning of rock mechanics, change of stresses around the created
fractures, and fluid flow. Therefore, testing becomes a critical part
of assessing completion design and the initial-reservoir pressure,
thereafter leading to any reservoir-engineering calculations. How-
ever, testing unconventional formations presents special chal-
lenges that needs addressing.
Testing of shale gas formations is an especially challenging
task for several reasons. First, the shale formation is typically
naturally fractured and this reservoir heterogeneity presents
interpretation challenges. Second, permeability of the matrix is
in the nanodarcy range. This ultra-low matrix permeability
changes the real time expectation from a test and puts an extra
demand on the test design and may require an unacceptably long
test, which may be infeasible in practice. In lieu of a long test,
specialized analysis techniques may have to be developed. Third,
some of the gas may be free gas while some may be adsorbed on
the grains of organic carbon that may exist in the shale formation.
The total organic carbon content may be as high as 10% of the
total formation. Thus, mechanics of production is considerably
more complex than one would expect in conventional reservoirs.
In some cases, analysis may not be even feasible.
Because the combination of challenges that the ultra-tight rocks
present, shale formations are not usually tested prior to fracturing.
To attain economic production, usually a horizontal well is drilled
and multiple transverse fractures are created. Testing in this case
may be either a drawdown/buildup test for a horizontal well
intercepting several transverse fractures, or diagnostic tests, such
as minifrac and DFIT performed before running the main fracturing
treatments. This paper will review both methods.
Although conventional well testing is not usually done on a
shale formation, actual field examples do exist. Those tests were
performed on a horizontal well with multiple fractures. This well
configuration obviously makes the interpretation more difficult
and less unique than what most analysts are accustomed to. In
this paper, we will examine both the simulated and field data.
Fracture diagnostic testing has been gaining ground as a legit-
imate technique for determining reservoir properties in uncon-
ventional formations. This paper will also investigate the effect of
gas adsorption on productivity and diagnostic testing. Both field
and simulated examples will be also presented.
2. Background of unconventional energy source

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 806 7423573. Abundant natural gas exists in unconventional reservoirs
E-mail address: Mohamed.Soliman@ttu.edu (M.Y. Soliman). in North America and many parts of the world, but they are

0920-4105/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.04.027
 M.Y. Soliman, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109 103

Nomenclature pfo falloff pressure at time of shut-in [psi]

pwD dimensionless pressure at the wellbore
Ceff leak-off coefficient [ft/(min)]0.5 pwD dimensionless pressure at the wellbore in
ct total formation compressibility [psi] Laplace space
CT total leakoff coefficient qD dimensionless flow rate
FR the radial-flow function rw wellbore radius
FL the linear-flow function Ro vitrinite reflectance [dimensionless]
G fracture G function t total test time [h]
h formation thickness [ft] tc closure time [h]
hf fracture height [ft] tinj injection time [h]
Hp leak-off height [ft] tDinj dimensionless injection time
h net-pay thickness [ft] to injection time [h]
k formation permeability [md] V injected volume into the chamber [bbl]
kfwf fracture conductivity [md-ft] bp constant
Lf fracture-half length [ft] Dt shut-in time [h]
mR slope for conventional testing l mobility ratio
p pressure [psi] m viscosity [cp]
pDf dimensionless pressure for a fractured well f porosity
pi initial reservoir pressure [psi]

technologically and economically difficult to produce. Unconven-
tional reservoirs may be divided into three types: tight gas, CBM,
and shale gas or oil. Tight gas reservoirs have permeability in the
microdarcy range. CBM has natural fractures (cleats), however,
the gas-in-place is adsorbed on the surface of the grains, and
generally the CBM reservoirs have low storage capacity. The shale
gas is naturally fractured and usually contains both the free and
adsorbed gas. The matrix permeability of a shale reservoir is
usually in the nanodarcy range.
The classical definition of shale according to Jackson (1997) is
any ‘‘laminated, indurate (consolidated) rock with 4 67% clay-
sized materials.’’ Up to 50% of all sediments are shale. The typical
shale gas source is not purely clay formation. Those formations
are usually a mix of clay-based sedimentary rock, as well as some
quartz-based rock, or even carbonate rocks. Shale gas reservoirs
usually contain 3–10% total organic carbon (TOC). Thermal
maturity of organic matter is represented by vitrinite reflectance
(Ro), which ranges from 0% Ro to 3% Ro. Ordinarily, mature gas (up
to 2% Ro) would contain thermogenic methane. Methane is
adsorbed on the organic material; thus, enhancing the amount
of gas in place. The amount of TOC and thermal maturity, coupled
with the presence of natural fractures, determines whether a
shale formation is economically attractive.
In contrast to shale gas, the shale oil reservoirs are less
thermally mature (0.6–0.8 Ro) than those producing dry gas.
Average rock properties in the Bakken dolomitic mudstone to
dolomite members are 6.2% porosity, 20% water saturation, and
0.25 microdarcy permeability. In the Middle Bakken silty and
sandy mudstone to sandstone members, the average petrophysi-
cal properties improve. In particular, the average permeability
increases to 0.1 md.
The key to economic production from unconventional reser-
voirs is to maximize the contact area within the reservoir. The
tighter the formation the higher the contact area that is necessary
to reach this economic goal. Fracturing horizontal wells has been
well established as the main technique to produce unconven-
tional wells. Consequently, we will focus on the fluid flow, rock
mechanics, and geomechanics of hydraulically fractured uncon-
ventional reservoirs.
Fracturing horizontal wells has been discussed by several authors,
such as El Rabaa (1989), Abass et al. (1992), and Soliman and Boonen
(2000), to name a few. More recently, Soliman et al. (2006) discussed
various operational aspects of fracturing horizontal wells. To enhance
the productivity of a fractured well, achieving a large stimulated
reservoir volume (SRV) with complex fractures is of paramount
importance for the economic development of shale reservoirs.
High-rate water injection enhances the opening of natural frac-
tures, thereby aiding creation of complex fractures. Alternative
techniques to achieving complex fractures have been suggested by
East et al. (2011) and Roussel and Sharma (2010).
3. Test interpretation overview
As mentioned earlier the majority of the drawdown/buildup
tests and diagnostic tests are characterized by a fairly short
drawdown or injection period relative to the shut-in period. We
first present the analysis techniques that are used to analyze such
tests, followed by example applications. These techniques were
developed specifically for cases where the producing or injection
time is significantly shorter than the corresponding buildup or
falloff periods. A summary of these techniques is discussed next.
3.1. Log–log derivative approach: short-term formulation
The short-term test technique was developed especially for
analyzing buildup tests with very short producing periods. Instead
of using the principle of superposition to derive the solution for a
buildup test, Soliman (1986) included the change in flow rate into
the boundary condition and directly solved the coupled drawdown/
buildup problem. This formulation allows observing features of the
solution that could not have been observed otherwise. Briefly, this
method entails plotting pressure derivative with respect to the total
(injection or production and shut-in) time and plotting it against
total time to discern characteristic slopes of different flow regimes
for both before- and after-closure analysis.
During the after-closure period, this formulation presupposes
that the induced fracture is fairly short with low or no conduc-
tivity. This assumption is usually acceptable when the shut-in
period is long and/or formation permeability is relatively high.
These conditions lead to the pseudoradial flow condition, which is
given by
1 t Dinj
pD ¼ ð1Þ
2 tD
104 M.Y. Soliman, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109

Eq. (1) can be rewritten in field units as 3.2. Log–log derivative approach: conventional formulation
1694:4V m 1
pf o pi ¼ ð2Þ Recent papers by Mohamed et al. (2011) and Marongiu-Porcu
kh t inj þ Dt
et al. (2011) suggested the use of the derivative of pressure with
The constant 1694:4ð  141:2  24=ð2ÞÞ results from the use of respect to the superposition time function ‘‘Horner time’’ (tp þ Dt/Dt),
time in hours and the injected volume in barrels per day. Taking as a ‘‘global technique’’ to analyze both before- and after fracture-
the logarithm on both sides of Eq. (2) leads to closure data.
  In their technique, the authors combined the before-closure
1694:4V m
logðpf o pi Þ ¼ log logðt inj þ DtÞ ð3Þ and after-closure models in a piecewise function. The before-
kh closure model relied heavily on the models presented by Valkó
By differentiating Eq. (2) with respect to the total time (tinj þ Dt), and Economides (1995, 1999). The before-closure period was
we have simulated assuming a perfectly elastic model. Combining this
    fracture closure model with a linear-flow model into the forma-
@p 1694:4V m tion yields a 3/2-slope line when the pressure derivative is taken
log ðt inj þ DtÞ w ¼ log logðt inj þ DtÞ ð4Þ
@t kh with respect to the superposition time. The following dimensionless
In Eqs. (2)–(4) tinj refers to the injection time and Dt is the shut-in wellbore pressure equation developed by Valkó and Economides
time. Although both Eqs. (3) and (4) are useful in diagnosing the (1999) was used by Marongiu-Porcu et al. (2011) to model the
flow regimes, Eq. (4) constitutes the backbone of short-term test before-closure period:
 
interpretation. For example, Eq. (3) indicates that if pseudoradial q 1 pffiffi
pwD ¼ ð1eðteD þ tcD Þ Þ D K 0 s ð8Þ
flow occurs, plotting the pressure drop (pfo  pi) versus total time s 2
on a log–log graph yields a straight line whose slope is 1.
Eq. (8) is in Laplace space and must be inverted numerically using
Similarly, Eq. (4) also indicates that a plot of the derivative function
an appropriate inversion technique, such as the Stehfest (1970)
versus total time will also yield a straight line with a slope of  1.
algorithm. The assumption of perfectly elastic behavior of the rock
Note that the slope of the straight line on the derivative plot is only
is very restrictive and may be violated in shale formations. How-
a function of observed pressure, test time, and the flow regime.
ever, that assumption is quite acceptable in higher permeability,
Because the slope is independent of the initial-reservoir pressure
hard sandstone formations.
and reservoir properties, the use of Eq. (4) is very useful in deter-
The after-closure model used an enlarged equivalent wellbore
mining the prevailing flow regime(s).
radius to provide an effectively infinite-conductivity fracture
Once the flow regime is identified, a plot of pressure versus the
behavior. During the after-closure period the radial flow into a
reciprocal of time yields a straight line in accord with Eq. (2). The
well was used to simulate the fluid flow in accord with the follow-
intercept of this straight line is the initial-reservoir pressure and
ing expression
the slope of the straight line yields formation permeability. Note pffiffi
that formation permeability may also be calculated from either K 0 ½r s
pwD ¼ 3=2 wd pffiffi ð9Þ
Eqs. (3) or (4). Note that the radial flow is by far the most s K 1 ðr wD sÞ
dominant flow regime in DFIT analysis in conventional reservoirs.
The presence of an infinite-conductivity fracture was
However, in shale or unconventional reservoirs the radial flow
accounted for by using the concept of effective wellbore radius,
period may not develop. Although this analysis technique
as discussed by Prats (1961) and is given by
requires input of the total injected volume, keeping the injection
rate fairly constant is prudent. Lf
rw
’ ¼ ð10Þ
Three other flow regimes may be observed, such as linear, 2
bilinear, and spherical: Eqs. (5)–(7) are the corresponding form of The use of Eq. (10) implies that the fracture conductivity is in-
Eq. (2), respectively. finite during shut-in and that the fracture is so short that the
!0:5  0:5 pseudoradial flow is achieved very rapidly. However, in a shale
V m 1 formation where permeability is in the nano- to micro-darcy
pi pw ¼ 31:05 ch ð5Þ
h fct kx2f t inj þ Dt range, development of radial flow appears unlikely. Because the
fracture is expected to retain some conductivity, the after-closure
 0:25  0:75
V ch 1 1 1 pressure will probably follow linear or bilinear flow regime. In
pi pw ¼ 264:6 ðmÞ0:75 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ other words, the likelihood that a fractured well in a shale re-
h fct k k w t inj þ Dt
f f
servoir reaches radial flow regime is fairly low.
m1:5  1
1:5
pi pw ¼ 2:94  104 V ch ðfct Þ0:5 ð7Þ 3.3. Constant-injection pressure approach
k t inj þ Dt
This technique for after-closure analysis was originally devel-
The identification and analysis of the various flow regimes
oped by Nolte et al. (1997). In this approach the after-closure
follow the logic discussed in the pseudoradial flow section, with
analysis model was developed assuming constant-pressure injec-
the exception that observed slope will be 0.5, 0.75, or 1.5,
tion followed by shut-in. The prevailing flow regime of pseudor-
depending on the flow regime occurring in the formation. The
adial or pseudolinear is assumed and the appropriate equation
exponent on the corresponding Cartesian plot depends on the
is used.
identified flow regime. The type and duration of flow regimes in
If the late-time pressure decline is dominated by pseudoradial
the after-closure period depends on reservoir properties, fracture
flow, the following equations are used
length, residual fracture conductivity, and the geometry of the
fracture-well intersection. In shale formations, linear and bilinear pðtÞpi ¼ mR F R ðt,t c Þ ð11Þ
flow regimes may be the most dominant. Soliman et al. (2004,
where
2005) provided a complete description of this methodology. Note  
that Soliman et al. (2004) also discussed subset of this technique, 1 wtc 16
F R ðt,t c Þ ¼ ln 1 þ , w¼ ffi 1:6 ð12Þ
such as the one presented by Ayoub et al. (1988). 4 tt c p2
 M.Y. Soliman, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109 105

 
kh Vi dimensionless times, usually 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0. The type curve
¼ 251,000 ð13Þ
m mR t c matching did not provide an explanation for deviation from the
ideal behavior. Consequently, this method did not gain popularity.
Eq. (11) indicates that a Cartesian plot of pressure versus the
Eq. (17) indicates that a plot of pressure versus the G-function
radial flow time function yields reservoir pressure from the y-
should yield a straight line passing through the origin. At fracture
intercept and the transmissibility from the slope, mR.
closure, this specialized pressure decline plot deviates from the
If the late-time pressure decline is dominated by linear flow
straight line behavior. The slope of the straight line is a direct
regime, the following equation applies:
function of the leak-off coefficient. Mukherjee et al. (1991) and
pðtÞpi ¼ mL F L ðt,t c Þ ð14Þ Barree and Mukherjee (1996) added two more specialized plots to
where identify deviation from the ideal behavior. These two plots are the
rffiffiffiffi first derivatives dp/dG and Gdp/dG versus the G-function. These
2 tc two plotting techniques, especially the latter one, offer strong
F L ðt,t c Þ ¼ sin1 ð15Þ
p t graphical advantage over the original type-curve approach or the
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pressure versus G-function plot when determining the closure time
pm
mL ¼ C T ð16Þ of the fracture. The Gdp/dG plot also offers a strong advantage in
kfct
both formation and fracture behavior characterization.
Again, a Cartesian plot of pressure versus the linear flow function
FL yields the original reservoir pressure and permeability. We note
4. Conventional testing and analysis: example applications
that the two functions may be correlated as F R  ðF L Þ2 , t=t c Z2.
The error is 3.8% at t/tc ¼2 and declines to 1.3% at t/tc ¼10.
4.1. Simulated example
The accurate knowledge of reservoir pressure is fundamental
to the application of this analysis approach. If one assumes the
A commercially available numerical reservoir simulator was
presence of radial flow and accordingly calculates the initial-
used to generate the test response. The formation is naturally
reservoir pressure from Eq. (11), the log–log plot will exhibit the
fractured in the nanodarcy permeability range. The horizontal
radial flow regime. However, experience shows that this approach
well contains 10 transverse fractures. Table 1 presents the model
is circular. If the radial flow regime truly exists, the analysis will
parameters. This case is based on a real fracture design in a shale
yield acceptable results. If, on the other hand, the flow regime is
formation. The horizontal well was perforated only where frac-
not radial, then a wrong analysis and conclusions will result. One
tures were created.
has to steer away from the trial-and-error approach to find the
The test consisted of 3 days of production, followed by 30 days
initial pressure that will yield the anticipated (or needed) slope.
of shut-in. Fig. 1 shows the job chart for the simulated test and
Accurate knowledge of closure time is also important to the
Fig. 2 presents the conventional log–log diagnosis of the buildup
analysis. The technique may be acceptable in case of high-
period. One can readily identify the wellbore storage effect with
permeability formations, where achieving radial flow regime is
the unit-slope line, but no identifiable flow regime emerged.
routine, but is unreliable in shale formations.
Accounting for the short producing time with Agrawal’s (1980)
effective time did not reveal any flow regime. However, by
3.4. The G-function method
invoking the short-term formulation discussed earlier, Fig. 3
suggests that the data follow a bilinear flow regime. The analysis
Nolte (1979) combined the fracture propagation with the leak-
yielded the input reservoir pressure and permeability.
off equation and material balance equation, creating a model
representing the dimensionless pressure decline as a function of
4.2. Conventional testing and analysis: field example
dimensionless time during the shut-in period. The dimensionless
pressure drop during the shut-in period is usually referred to as
Fig. 4 presents a plot of a test that was performed on a shale
G-function and is defined as
gas formation. This horizontal well was completed with multiple
H2 bs Dpðd, do Þ transverse fractures. Similar to Example 1, the production period
Gðd, do Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffi ð17Þ
C ef f Hp E0 t o of 181 h is short relative to the shut-in period of 1000 h.
Fig. 5 represents the conventional log–log analysis of the
The reference dimensionless time, do is given by pressure data. Bilinear flow dominates the entire test response.
t o t p
do ¼
tp
Table 1
The G-function is also a known function of time and the reference Model parameters.
time and is given by
Parameter Value
Gðd, do Þ ¼ 4=p½gðdÞgðdo Þ ð18Þ
where Gas gravity 0.6
Dual permeability (k) 1.0
3=2
gðdÞ ¼ 4=3½ð1 þ dÞ3=2 d  ð19Þ Dual porosity (l) 1.0E-06
Dual porosity (o) 0.1
for high leak-off, and the following relation applies for a low leak- Initial reservoir pressure (psi) 2235
off situation Formation thickness (ft) 53
Average porosity (%) 5.9
1=2
gðdÞ ¼ ð1 þ dÞ sin1 ð1 þ dÞ1=2 þ d ð20Þ Average kf (md) 0.0015
Fracture length (ft) 350
Eqs. (19) and (20) are the upper and lower limits of leak-off, re- Fracture conductivity (md-ft) 16.66
spectively. Usually, Eq. (19) is used and is also the basis for the Fracture height (ft) 53
conventional log–log approach, discussed in Section 3.2. The original Number of fractures 10
Horizontal well length (ft) 2300
analysis technique relied upon creating type curves of dimension- Sorption time (days) 100
less pressure versus dimensionless time for various reference
106 M.Y. Soliman, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109

2,250 must be explored. We used the methodology as outlined by

Soliman et al. (2005) to determine upper limits of formation
2,200
permeability and fracture half-length if the bilinear flow persists
Pressure, psia

2,150
5,000

Pressure, psig or Rate, Mscf/D

2,100
Pressure
2,050 4,000

2,000 3,000

1,950
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2,000
Time, days
Rate
1,000
Fig. 1. Simulated flow and buildup data, Example-1.

0
0 500 1,000 1,500
1,000 Elapsed Time, hr

Fig. 4. Pressure and rate history of field data, Example-2.

100 1.E+09
p ', psi

p I = 4,827 psig
kh = 0.00485 m d-ft

p ', psi2/cp
k = 1E-4 m d
p,

10 1.E+08 x f = 5,050 ft, F c = 2,690 m d-ft

1.E+07
p,

1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t , days
1.E+06
Fig. 2. Conventional log–log diagnosis does not reveal any flow regime, Example-1. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t , hr
1,000 Fig. 5. Conventional log–log analysis of field data, Example-2.

1.E+12
(tp + t ) dp /d(tp + t ), psi
p ', psi

1.E+11
100
1.E+10
p,

p
1.E+09 Slope = 0.75
Bilinear flow
p' 1.E+08
10
1 10 100 1.E+07
t , days 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
t p + t , hr
Fig. 3. Short-term formulation identifies bilinear flow regime, Example-1.
Fig. 6. Derivative plot using the short producing time solution, Example-2.

Overall, an acceptable match with an analytical model is at hand,

although some areas of mismatches may be identified. Although 4,600 k f w f = 0.322 md-ft
nonunique, the model parameters appear reasonable. In particu-
lar, the formation permeability of 0.0001 md is in alignment with 4,200 p i = 4,827 psig
pws, psig

expectations in this setting.

The predominance of bilinear flow is also evident in the 3,800
log–log graph considering the short-term solution. As Fig. 6 shows
the bilinear flow lasts throughout the test. The corresponding 3,400
Cartesian plot yields the reservoir initial pressure and fracture
conductivity, as Fig. 7 illustrates. Because no other discernible 3,000
flow regimes developed, obtaining a unique solution is infeasible. 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
This test perhaps illustrates the point that conventional long- 1/(t p + t )0.75, 1/hr0.75
duration tests, such as this one, cannot allow unique estima-
tion of formation permeability; other time-efficient test methods Fig. 7. Cartesian plot using the short producing time solution, Example-2.
 M.Y. Soliman, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109 107

until the end of the test. In fact, fairly accurate values of those two 1,000
parameters are obtained if deviation from the bilinear flow occurs

Pressure Derivative, psi

toward the end of the test. 1/2-slope
Before-Closure
Linear Flow
100 -1/2-slope
5. Diagnostic testing: example applications After-Closure
Linear Flow
p c = 5,958 psig
The two examples in the previous section suggest that the
complexity of the shale reservoirs and well configuration are not
10
conducive to conventional flow and shut-in tests. Diagnostic testing, 1 10 100 1,000
such as the DFIT has become a more attractive alternative to testing Shut-in Time, hr
unconventional formations. DFIT is conducted prior to running the
main fracturing treatment. In essence, DFIT is typically a signifi- Fig. 9. Test response with short-term test analysis plotting variables, Example-3.

cantly smaller fracturing treatment with no proppant. Typically, at

the end of a short injection period of about 15–30 min the well is 6,000
shut in for an extended period of time to observe the closure pres-
sure. These shut-in periods can last 7–10 days to ascertain radial 5,900
flow for permeability estimation.

Pressure, psig
The pressure falloff data so obtained from a DFIT may be 5,800

analyzed in two ways. The before-closure data may be analyzed

5,700
by the G-function plot, whereas the short-term injection test
analysis may be invoked for the after-closure data. Confluence of 5,600
results from the two independent methods lends credence to
interpretation. Three field examples illustrate the application of 5,500 p i = 5,405 psig
both methods.
5,400
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
1/t0.5, hr0.5
5.1. DFIT analysis in shale formation, Example-3
Fig. 10. Cartesian plot to estimating initial-reservoir pressure with after-closure
This DFIT example is obtained from an unconventional-gas linear-flow period, Example-3.
reservoir. Fig. 8 shows the diagnostic pressure/pressure-deriva-
tive signatures of converted bottomhole pressure data with the 600 9,000
conventional log–log approach, espoused by Marongiu-Porcu p c = 5,953 psig
et al. (2011) and Mohamed et al. (2011), among others. As this 500
8,000
data set shows the expected development of the 1.5-slope, which
dp /dG or GdP/dG, psi

is characteristic of a moderately high-permeability formation, 400

Pressure, psig
does not occur here. Our contention is that only in favorable 7,000
permeability situations one may expect development of the 1.5-
300
slope signature, which leads to the after-closure pressure. This
observation is consistent with the Nolte’s G-function formulation 6,000
200
or Eq. (20). As discussed earlier, the presumption of logarithmic
approximation of the exponential–integral function appears inap- 5,000
propriate in nanodarcy formations. 100 GdP/dG dP/dG Pressure (psi)
Fig. 9 showing the short-term test analysis variables, without
any predisposition of any flow regime, skirts the issue that sur- 0 4,000
0 50 100 150
faced in Fig. 8. Here, both the pre- and after-closure half-slope
G-Function
lines developed, which, in turn, allowed determination of the
fracture after-closure pressure, pc. The initial-reservoir pressure is Fig. 11. The G-function analysis leads to before-closure pressure, Example-3.
estimated from the after-closure linear flow period by simply
extrapolating the line to zero time, as displayed in Fig. 10. The
after-closure pressure of 5958 psig so estimated compares very favorably with 5953 psig, obtained from the G-function analysis.
Fig. 11 presents the relevant G-function derivative plot.
1.E+06

1.E+05 5.2. DFIT analysis in shale formation, Example-4

p ', psi

1.E+04 1.5-Slope This DFIT example comes from an unconventional-oil reservoir.

Fig. 12 showing the analysis of wellhead (WH) pressure data
1.E+03 identifies both the before- and after-closure trend, as signified by
p,

the half-slope lines. The fracture closure occurring at about 100 h

1.E+02 into the test suggests a closure pressure of 1715 psig. This pressure
compares favorably with that obtained from the G-function analysis,
1.E+01 as Fig. 13 testifies. Fracture height recession triggers the character-
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
t , hr
istic concave upward signature on the G-function derivative. Declin-
ing leakoff area owing to height recession is the primary reason for
Fig. 8. Test response with conventional plotting variables, Example-3. less-than-ideal behavior.
108 M.Y. Soliman, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109

1,000 10000

Pressure Derivative, psi

Pressure Derivative, psi-hr

1/2-slope Linear Flow 1000

Before Closure -1/2-slope Linear
Flow After Closure
100
1/2-Slope line
100 WH Closure Pressure = 1,715 psig
10

1
1 10 100 1000
Shut-in Time, hr
10
1 10 100 1,000 Fig. 14. Pressure-derivative signature suggests extension of fracture tip.
Shut-in Time, hr

Fig. 12. Intersecting linear flow trend before and after closure identifies fracture- 1,000 7,500
closure pressure. o G dp /dG
Δ dp /dG
800 7,000

dp /dG or G dp /dG , psi

x Pressure
1,500 4,000

Pressure, psig
1,250 3,500 600 6,500
dp /dG or G dp /dG, psi

Pressure, psig

1,000 3,000
400 6,000
750 2,500

500 2,000 200 5,500

250 WH Closure Pressure = 1,702

1,500
0 5,000
psig 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 1,000 G -Function
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
G -Function Fig. 15. The G-function plot suggests extension of fracture tip or lack of fracture
closure.
Fig. 13. G-function analysis leads to the same fracture-closure pressure.

5.3. DFIT analysis in shale formation, Example-5
In this field example a diagnostic test was performed on a
shale oil well. The well was shut-in for more than 100 h after an
injection period lasting for 20 min. Fig. 14 showing the derivative
plot exhibits a positive half-slope line. This slope is indicative of
an open fracture and fluid leaking off linearly into the formation.
Because the fracture did not close, the after-closure analysis
cannot be performed. Having an open fracture after more than
100 h of shut-in is a very strong indication of extremely low
leakoff, meaning the formation permeability is extremely low.
The G-function plot in Fig. 15 suggests the same trend. Observa-
tion of this type of signature is uncommon but it does occur in
practice. In a shale formation that does not have a significant
abundance of natural fractures, this outcome may be likely. This
test outcome suggests that the well was not drilled in an ideal
reservoir area and economical exploitation of this part of the
reservoir may be doubtful.
6. Discussion
Diagnostic Tests or DFIT yields three important pieces of informa-
tion about the reservoir, including initial-reservoir pressure, fracture-
closure pressure, and some measure of formation conductivity. The
formation conductivity and reservoir pressure are used to under-
stand the productivity of the formation, leading to optimal design of
the completion treatment. In particular, the closure pressure is used
in designing the fracture treatment and optimizing the type, size, and
concentration of the proppant used in the fracturing treatment.
Correlations exist for predicting the conductivity of any given
proppant type and size as a function of the applied stress. The
stress on the proppant is simply the difference between the
fracture closure pressure as determined from the DFIT analysis
and the reservoir flowing pressure inside the fracture. Assessing
stress can be complicated because both the flowing pressure and
rate inside the fracture is space and time dependent. In addition
embedment of proppant into the formation in soft rocks, such as
shale may lead to a narrow fracture. This embedment is a function
of the type, size, and concentration of the proppant, the stress on
the proppant, and the formation mechanical properties.
Many of the existing techniques rely on reaching the radial flow
regime to achieve a valid analysis. This objective is realistic in case
of conventional reservoirs where the formation permeability is high,
and the residual fracture conductivity is negligible compared to that
of the formation. In case of unconventional reservoirs, radial flow
regime is rarely attained. Therefore, any method predicated upon
the assumption that the radial flow regime is attainable present
serious challenges. In this setting, an analyst has to independently
determine the flow regime(s) prevailing in the system. To this end,
the short-term formulation technique as espoused here is a realistic
way of attaining this objective.
Diagnostic testing is an injection/falloff test. As such the injected
fluid is usually an aqueous fluid, whose properties are obviously
different from that in the reservoir. This reality brings in multiple
issues pertaining to displacement, mobility, fluid mixing, and the
effects of relative-permeability curves. The situation is more com-
plex when the liquid is injected into a gas reservoir. Chen et al.
(2006) compared single phase and multiphase falloff tests and
showed that although the injection period in case of a multiphase
may be different from the single-phase situation, the falloff periods
are essentially identical for single- and multiphase cases.
 M.Y. Soliman, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 92–93 (2012) 102–109
Soliman et al. (in press), however, showed that although Chen
et al.‘s observation is probably true for strictly radial-flow situa-
tions, the mobility ratio plays a crucial role in presence of a
hydraulic fracture. They found that having an unfavorable mobi-
lity ratio (the displacing fluid is more mobile than the displaced
fluid) yields a better test outcome. This observation implies that
the diagnostic test design should consider the mobility ratio of
the injected and reservoir fluids. From the standpoint of inter-
pretation, a unit mobility ratio is the best scenario. In practical
terms, injection of water into an oil-bearing formation should
yield good results. Similarly, in gas-bearing formations, injection
of some inert gas, such as nitrogen or CO2 ensures that both the
injected and reservoir fluids have comparable mobility. In all
cases, reservoir fluid properties should be used in the analysis.
The presence of the adsorbed gas is one of the important
characteristics that differentiate the shale gas reservoirs from
others. The effect of adsorbed gas can be examined using a
numerical simulator in which the formation is assumed to be
naturally fractured (dual-porosity system) with a horizontal well
containing multiple transverse fractures. The amount of adsorbed
gas given in Fig. 16 ranged from 0 to 80 scf/ton of shale. This
figure indicates that adsorbed gas will eventually and signifi-
cantly contribute to the production of shale formations; however,
the effect of adsorbed gas on total production does not become
apparent for at least a year after the start of production. The early-
time data in Fig. 16 shows that the effect of desorption on total
production is essentially negligible during the first 100 days of
production, Changing the sorption time from 100 to 20 days did
not have a significant effect on our conclusions. Although the
sorbed gas has a significant bearing on achieving a realistic
evaluation of reservoir potential, the probability of estimating
the amount of desorped gas from a diagnostic or a well test is very
slim to none unless the sorption time is the order of a few hours,
which realistically is not the case for shale formations.
7. Summary
In this paper we reviewed the modern test interpretation
tools, their relative performances, and the attendant issues in
unconventional formations. Specifically, the following summary
appears pertinent:
(1) Conventional testing in unconventional formations does not
appear practical. Even exceptionally long-duration tests may
not yield the desired reservoir parameters without ambiguity.
Those tests may on occasions offer some insights into forma-
tion permeability.
(2) The short-term formulation is a reliable tool for the after-
closure analysis. In tandem with the G-function plot for the
1,400
1,200
Cum Production, MMscf
1,000
800
600
400
80 scf/ton
200 20 scf/ton
0 (1), 47–49.
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
Producing Time, days
Fig. 16. The effect of desorbed gas on total production.
109
before-closure analysis, these two methods can cross-validate
the fracture-closure pressure. The short-term analysis leads to
the estimation of reservoir pressure and some measure of
formation conductivity.
References
Abass, H.H., Hedayati, Saeed, Meadows, D.L.L., 1992. Non-planar fracture propaga-
tion from a horizontal wellbore: experimental study. Paper SPE 24823
Presented at the Annual Technical Meeting, Washington DC, USA, October
4–7.
Agrawal, Ram, 1980. New method to account for producing time when drawdown
type curves are used to analyze pressure buildup and other test data. Paper
SPE 9289 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, 21–24 September.
Ayoub, J., Bourdet, D., Chauvel, Y., 1988. Impulse testing. SPEFE 3 (3), 534–546.
Barree, R.D., Mukherjee, H., 1996. Determination of pressure dependent leakoff
and its effects on fracture geometry. Paper SPE 36424 Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 6–9
October.
Chen, S., Li, G., Reynolds, A.C., 2006. Analytical solution for injection-falloff-
production Test. Paper SPE 103271 Presented at the Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 September.
East Jr., L., Soliman, M.Y., Augustine, J., 2011. Methods for enhancing far-field
complexity in fracturing operations. SPEPO 26 (3), 291–303.
El Rabaa, W., 1989. Experimental study of hydraulic fracture geometry initiated
from horizontal wells. Paper SPE 19720 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–11 October.
Jackson, J.A. (Ed.), 1997. Glossary of Geology, fourth edition American Geological
Institute.
Marongiu-Porcu, M., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Economides, M.J., 2011. Global model
for fracture falloff analysis. Paper SPE 144028 Presented at the North American
Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
14–16 June.
Mohamed, I.M., Nasralla, R.A., Sayed, M.A., Marongiu-Porcu, M., Ehlig-Economides,
C.A., 2011. Evaluation of after-closure analysis techniques for tight and shale
gas formations. Paper SPE 140136 Presented at the Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24–26
January.
Mukherjee, H., Larkin, S., Kordziel, W., 1991. Extension of fractured decline curve
analysis to fissured formations. Paper SPE 21872 Presented at the Low-
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, 15–17 April.
Nolte, K.G., 1979. Determination of fracture parameters from fracturing pressure
decline. Paper SPE 8341 Presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,
Nevada, USA, 23–26 September.
Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., Owens, K.A., 1997. After-closure analysis of fracture
calibration tests. Paper SPE 38676 Presented at the Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 5–9 October. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/38676-MS.
Prats, M., 1961. Effect of vertical fractures on reservoir behavior — incompressible
Fluid Case. SPEJ 1, 105–118.
Roussel, N.P., Sharma, M.M., 2010. Optimizing fracture spacing and sequencing in
horizontal well fracturing. Paper SPE 127986 Presented at the International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisi-
ana, USA, 10–12 February.
Soliman, M.Y., 1986. Analysis of buildup tests with short producing time. SPEFE 1
(4), 363–371.
Soliman, Boonen, P., 2000. Rock mechanics and stimulation aspects of horizontal
wells. J. Pet Sci. Eng. 25 (3–4), 187–204.
Soliman, M.Y., Azari, M., Ansah, J., Kabir, C.S., 2004. Design, interpretation, and
assessment of short-term pressure-transient tests. Paper SPE 90837 Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Houston, Texas, USA.,
26–29 September.
Soliman, M.Y., et al., 2005. New method for determination of formation perme-
ability, reservoir pressure, and fracture properties from a minifrac test. ARMA/
USRMS 05-658, presented at Alaska Rocks 2005, The 40th U.S. Symposium on
Rock Mechanics (USRMS); Rock mechanics for energy, mineral and infra-
structure development in the northern regions, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 25–29
June.
Soliman, M.Y., Pongratz, R., Rylance, M., Prather Dean, 2006. Fracture treatment
optimization for horizontal well completion. Paper SPE 102616 presented at
the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow,
Russia, 3–6 October.
Soliman, M.Y., Miranda Carlos, (Max) Wang Hong, Thornton Kim. Investigation of
effect of fracturing fluid on after-closure analysis in gas reservoirs. Production
40 scf/ton
No Adsorbed gas Oper. SPE J. in press.
Stehfest, H., 1970. Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Commun. ACM 13
8,000 10,000 12,000 Valkó, P.P., Economides, M.J., 1995. Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, England.
Valkó, P.P., Economides, M.J., 1999. Fluid-leakoff delineation in high-permeability
fracturing. SPEPF 14 (2), 117–130.