SPE 98171

New Frac-Pack Design Technique Leads to More Accurate Estimation of Tip

Screenout Post-FET
W.J. Edwards, SPE, and S.R. Gauthier, Halliburton Energy Services Group, and B.A. Clarkson, SPE, Amerada Hess Corp.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, LA, 1517 February 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
When the first frac pack was performed in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) over a decade ago, very little was known about the
effects this form of sand control would have on the intended
formation. Even less was known about how to optimize the
treatment to get the most benefit for the formation. Since that
time, the sand control community has learned a great deal
about the effects and benefits of frac packing various
unconsolidated formations throughout the world. However,
most of the knowledge and design criteria have been housed
within the minds of individuals and cannot be looked at as a
whole to find trends and fine tune the design methods
currently being used. Another complicating factor is the
number of frac models being used within the industry with
varying degrees of complexity. Therefore, even though
thousands of frac packs have been performed globally, fracpack redesign methods are still subjective and differ from
individual to individual and model to model.
The recent creation of a database that houses selected
formation evaluation test (FET) and frac data, along with
model-specific parameters, allows full-scale analysis of a large
number of jobs pumped in the Gulf of Mexico. With a
consistent analysis procedure in place, the database, populated
with numerous treatments by engineers working throughout
the GOM, can be analyzed objectively. The data contained in
this database include rock mechanics, net pressures, pumping
trend data, tip screenout (TSO) times, etc.
This paper explains the methodology and discusses the
results of the database analysis, using case studies to
determine the best method for analysis of the jobs. Crossplots
show the correlation between TSO prediction and actual
events and suggests recommendations for more successful
future design work. This paper is meant to give up-to-date
guidelines to help design better frac packs.

Introduction
Within the sand control community, the ability of an engineer
to redesign a frac pack from data generated during the
minifrac can sometimes be considered more art than science.
Often the engineer whose job it is to formulate the frac pack
treatment will use several different methods to arrive at a
solution deemed most correct. Many hours are dedicated to
determining the proper design for a frac-pack treatment. While
often the results cannot be argued, it is unwise and possibly a
waste of time to reinvent the wheel for every job. Rather, it
should be the goal of the sand control and frac-pack
communities to develop a design method that can determine
the most important parameters necessary to complete the job.
This method would be easily repeatable and could be used
throughout the GOM and possibly in other high-permeability,
unconsolidated regions of the world.
The purpose of this paper is to solve the problem
previously described. The goal of the project was to accurately
predict the TSO event such that the fracture geometry could be
better understood. In fracture theory, the TSO1 is the point at
which there is no longer any propagation of the fracture
length. Most fracture models treat this as the time at which the
first grain of sand is exposed to the tip of the fracture, ceasing
any further growth and allowing net pressure to accumulate
and build width throughout the length of the fracture.
The creation of a standard reliable method for predicting
the onset of the TSO event would enable engineers involved in
designing frac-pack operations to become more aligned in
their procedures, as well as provide more accurate results.
Knowing which knobs within the fracture model should be
manipulated in order to get the most accurate results would be
invaluable. This would allow for much quicker analysis of the
data accumulated from the minifrac thereby saving expensive
rig time. In addition, should multiple engineers be analyzing
the data, a single reliable method would allow a much more
concrete determination of any issues because everyone should
see very similar results. There have been many efforts to do
this in the past.2 This paper presents the methodology behind
developing a database system to track frac-pack treatment
data, what data was deemed necessary to a reliable model, and
the procedure for procuring that information from various
fracture treatments. Then, case studies are presented that prove
that the model, populated following the recommended
procedure, accurately predicts the TSO event in various
situations.

SPE 98171

Procedure
In fracture mechanics there are many variables that the
engineer can control, such as fluid viscosity, fluid density,
injection rates, volumes, and concentrations. However, there
are even more variables over which engineers have absolutely
no control, such as depth, stresses, formation modulus,
pressure, porosity, permeability, and fluid loss characteristics.3
It is the second set of variablesthose that engineers cannot
controlthat have plagued the sand control community. It is
essential when utilizing the most accurate models (3-D
models) to have a handle on the variables involved. To do this,
a database was set up to record all essential parameters,
recorded from minifracs and frac-pack treatments. However,
due to the large number of unknowns, it was necessary to
determine certain variables based on previously known
information. For this task, equations were developed for
certain parameters, namely Youngs Modulus, in each of the
varying rock layers:

E=

compressive stress
linear strain

Also, stress gradients were calculated for a variety of possible

rock layers to give a starting point for any kind of redesign.
Table 1 shows an example output of these calculations.
Table 1 Rock Properties Example Output for
Initial Design
Stress
(psi)

Gradient
(psi/ft)

Young's
Modulus (psi)

Shale

0.637

2.19E+05

Shaley

0.631

2.04E+05

Sandy

0.625

1.87E+05

Sand

7651

0.619

1.71E+05

Formation
Type

The Youngs Modulus numbers were derived using an

equation that varied by location (longitude and latitude) within
the GOM. This equation has been checked against both log
and core data and was found to be sufficiently accurate (<10%
error) for wells used for analyzed verification. Basically, as
you move south and east and deeper in the GOM, the Youngs
Modulus trends toward a softer, less-consolidated rock. The
stress equation is a variant of Eatons equation and was
checked against both deepwater and shelf wells to verify its
accuracy for this project. The Youngs Modulus stress
equation also proved accurate when compared against
Youngs Modulus and stress profiles generated by logs. The
sand control design data sheet (SCDDS), shown in Fig. 1,
shows Youngs Modulus output and formation stresses and
allows easy access to many important parameters.
Given the equations allow an estimation of certain
parameters, a procedure was put together to begin analysis of
individual minifrac and frac-pack treatments. The procedure
was created in a way that allows a variety of information to be
gathered, which was deemed essential to attaining the best
analysis and coming up with a clear procedure. Through trial
and error, this procedure has been developed to provide
accurate estimations of the TSO event. The procedure that

follows was given to a variety of sand control engineers to

obtain results from a large area of the GOM. The software
model used in this procedure was FracProPT using FLIC
(fluid leakoff with invasion and crossflow) fluid loss model,
but the procedure can be applied to other software models as
desired.
The procedure below is a guideline by which data should
be reevaluated. The division of work is at the discretion of the
engineering team (ET), but the procedure should be followed
exactly to maintain consistency.
1. Determine Rules and Considerations
a. Use the most current version of the DB SCDDS
spreadsheet to get constant values for the various
parameters needed to evaluate the FET and fracture
treatment. Prior to the evaluation of any job,
complete the DB SCDDS and install parameters
(Youngs Modulus, initial stress layers, etc.) into the
modeling software.
b. To maintain uniformity throughout the analysis,
consider having all participants use the same
modeling and analysis software. This will allow
investigation using a single theory. A base model will
be built and circulated throughout the engineering
community for use in this project. Save the base file
as DBFPOriginal. Initiate all reanalyzed jobs from
this input file.
c. For the FET analysis, observe the following
guidelines:
BH gauge pressure is the best choice of data.
If BHG data is not present, live annulus
pressure should be used for FET analysis
Tubing pressure should only be used if BHG
data or live annulus pressure is not
available. However, tubing pressure should
always be used to qualify the live annulus
pressure decline responseif the live
annulus and tubing decline responses vary,
use the tubing pressure for the analysis.
In high-permeability reservoirs, use the
following rules:
Set Smoothing at 2% (pressure decline
data).
Use the square root of Time plot to pick
the closure time
Always pick the closure time at the lowest
point on the derivative curve
Capture the following parameters:
Closure pressure
Closure gradient
Fluid efficiency
Net pressure (Delta P)
Trend of BHTP during minifrac
injection
2. Match Net Pressure and Observed Net Pressure
Match the net pressure and observed net pressure in the
frac design software according to the following rules
(observed net should only be matched if BHG data or
live annulus pressure is available).

SPE 98171

a.

3.

Verify that the ISIP of the net pressure and ISIP of

the observed net pressure curves is the same value as
the net pressure (Delta P) identified in the modeling
software analysis. This indicates that the ISIP was
selected at the proper position.
b. Change stress to match ISIP. There should only be
two layer types (sand and shale).
There should be no different sand or shale layers,
i.e. shaley, sandy, sand2, etc.
Sand layers should be broken up into two
separate layers but given the same stress gradient
to allow fracture initiation at the top of the
formation.
The difference in shale/sand stress should be set
at the same difference stated on the initial DB
SCDDS and should only be changed if the BHTP
increases during the injection phase of the
minifrac.
c. If stresses do not correctly match the ISIP, use
composite layering effect (CLE) to get a correct
match. The sand and shale should be changed by the
same amount.
d. Adjust the leakoff, changing the CT (adjust Cw and
Perm of the sand). Spurt loss will remain zero at all
times and filtrate viscosity will remain at 1cp. Shale
permeability should be 0.0001 md.
e. Save the minifrac match input file as
WellNameMiniMatch.inp.
f. Capture the following parameters:
Composite layering
Net pressure change due to CLE
Sand stress
Sand stress gradient
Shale stress
Shale stress gradient
CTmini
Run a Forward Predicting Calculation Model
a. Following the matching of the minifrac, run a
forward model using the schedule used for the actual
job and save again using WellNameForward.inp as
the input filename. To attain the proper TSO time,
complete the following steps:
i. Use Data Converter to create a *.csv file from
the annulus or BHG pressure vs. time data.
ii. Import this data into an Excel spreadsheet and
create a Nolte Smith Plot4 (log of time vs. log of
pressure).
iii. Look for a slope of 0.7 or greater after proppant
has hit the formation to indicate the TSO event.
b. Record the time of model TSO in minutes from the
start of pump-in and the time of actual TSO in
minutes from the start of pump-in.
i. If tubing pressure was used during the FET
match, switch to annulus pressure now. If BHG
data was used, stay with BHG data. Verify the
net pressure seen on the PDAT
ii. If there is no live annulus pressure or BHG
data, run the forward model but do not attempt to

4.

match the post-job. Leave any blanks that rely on

the post-job match empty.
iii. With annulus data or BHG, data-match the TSO
event using CT (again by adjusting Cw and
Perm) and the pressure increase by adjusting the
proppant drag coefficient.
iv. Do not change any other parameters.
v. Save this file as WellNameJobMatch.inp
vi. Capture CTfrac and the proppant drag coefficient.
vii. Aside from the proppant drag coefficient, do not
use any behind-the-scenes buttons. The
buttons will be set beforehand and should not be
changed. The use of the multiple fractures option
is not acceptable for this project.
Save New Files and Update Entries
Following the matching of the minifrac data and the postjob data, enter all data into a new PE database. Save the
DB SCDDS (WellNameDB SCDDS.xls) and the new
FracPro files. New entrys include:
Minifrac match composite layering
Net pressure change due to CLE
Minifrac match sand stress
Minifrac match sand stress gradient
Minifrac match shale stress
Minifrac match sand stress gradient
Composite layering effect
Net pressure loss due to CLE manipulation
Minifrac match CTmini
Trend of BHTP during minifrac injection
Fluid pumped after minifrac
Minifrac match forward model tip event (min)
Actual tip event (min)
Post job match CTfrac
Proppant drag coefficient to match net increase
Net pressure gain due to PDC manipulation
Each Engineer should maintain a progress report to keep a
record of the progress being made, as well as to ensure no
duplication of efforts.

Analysis of Data
The data from each frac-pack treatment was run through the
previously discussed procedure and the outputs described in
Part 4 of the procedure were entered into a Microsoft
Access database for ease of manipulation. Table 2 shows an
example of an input table used by the sand control engineers
for populating the database.
Table 2Re-Analysis Project Input Sheet
Job #
Input filename:
WellNameMiniMatch.inp
MiniMatch Stress Sand
MiniMatch Stress
Gradient Sand
MiniMatch Stress Shale
MiniMatch Stress
Gradient Shale
MiniMatch Composite
Layering Effect
Net Pressure Change

psi
psi/ft
psi
psi/ft

SPE 98171

Table 3Predicted and Actual TSO Times from

Frac-Pack Treatment (minutes)

Job #
Due to CLE
manipulation
MiniMatch Ct (Ctmini)
Trend of BHTP during
Minifrac Injection
MiniMatch DeltaP
MiniMatch Fluid Eff
Fluid Pumped after
MiniFrac

psi
1/2

ft/min
psi
%

Input filename:
WellNameForwardModel.inp
Forward Model Tip
Event
Actual Model Tip Event

min
min
Input filename:
WellNameJobMatch.inp

FracMatch Ct (Ctfrac)
FracMatch
PropDragCoefficient
(PDC)
Net Pressure Change
due to PDC
manipulation

1/2

ft/min

psi

The first section of the input sheet focuses on the minifrac

data, the second section addresses the forward model, and the
last section focuses on the post-job analysis. In theory, after
the minifrac analysis is complete, no other changes should be
made to get the frac-pack treatment pressures to match
correctly. This creates a much more realistic picture of the
fracture geometry since changing certain parameters in the
model can cause unwanted effects with respect to TSO time
primarily moving it too far out and calculating larger fractures
than are actually present or moving it too far in and showing a
much smaller fracture than what has actually been created.
The initial analysis of the data was conducted on the
forward modeling section to determine how accurate the
procedure was in predicting the TSO event. Table 3 shows the
anticipated time that the models predict to see the TSO, as
well as the actual TSO time attained from the frac-pack
treatment. The data has been sorted by least-to-greatest
forward model tip event for ease of reading.

Forward Model Tip Event

Actual Model Tip Event

4.35

5.24

5.5

7.133

7.43

8.21

9.65

10.2

8.7

10.8

11.1

11.5

11

13.5

10

14

15.75

16

16.7

17

15

17

34

17

30

22

28.6

30

26.5

Graphing the data from the first column against the data
from the second column shows how close the times are to
being an exact match. Given the fact that fracturing in reality
is an inexact science, the graph in Fig. 2 shows a very close
match for each point.
The orange line in Fig. 2 represents a true 1:1 slope and
would require a perfect match for the points to align exactly.
As is evident from the graph, the majority of data falls on or
very near the orange line, but there are a couple of points that
are not as closely aligned.
Fig. 3 shows the same graph with the unaligned points
highlighted. The reason these points are not as closely
matched as the rest of the data can be determined from some
of the other data points found in the database. One of these
points is a record of whether any fluid was displaced into the
formation following the minifrac. Table 2 shows a data point
labeled Fluid Pumped After Minifrac. This input was
included to determine if there were any benefits to displacing
fluid other than crosslinked fluid into the formation to attempt
a regain of the original leakoff characterization5 permeability.
Obviously, crosslinked gels cause, at the very least, minor
damage to the formation and therefore alter the leakoff from
the minifrac to the frac-pack treatment. The two points in
question were the only ones that did not have any fluid
displaced into the formation following the pumping of the
minifrac. All of the minifrac displacement fluid was reversed
out prior to pumping the frac-pack treatment. The data from
Fig. 3 indicates some sort of correlation between cleaning
the formation and being able to determine at what time the
TSO event is going to occur.

SPE 98171

Case Studies
This section provides a closer look at the minifrac analysis, the
forward modeling, and the post-job analysis of three wells
following the procedure detailed in the previous section. A
variety of information is presented, including the pressure
matches, the forward modeling charts, and the fracture cross-

sections. The first two cases show how effective the procedure
can be when used correctly and the third case is an example of
how not using a formation flush following the minifrac results
in less than adequate pressure responses. The properties for
the three wells used in the case studies are given in Table 4.

Table 4Properties of the Three Case Study Wells

Depths (MD)

Perf Interval
(ft)

Closure
Pressure
(psi/ft)

BHP (psi)

Young's
Modulus (psi)

Permeability
(md)

13,106

14,378

40

0.72

8,085

367,000

275

16,115

21,434

138

0.63

6,700

202,500

500

12,036

12,994

156

0.75

8,042

236,000

100

Case
Study

True Vertical Depth

(ft)

Case Study 1
The first case study concentrates on a well found in the
deepwater GOM. The water depth for this particular well was
5,373 ft with a total depth of 14,378 ft MD. The frac-pack
treatment for this well was pumped using state-of-the-art
pumping equipment from a stimulation vessel. Using the
procedure described at the beginning of this paper, Youngs
Modulus was calculated to be 367,000 psi. This number was
left constant throughout the analysis of the treatment. The
minifrac test consisted of 12,600 gal of crosslinked fluid
pumped at a rate of 30 bbl/min. Fig. 4 shows the leakoff of the
test after being matched with the computer model using the
described procedure. Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) and
closure pressure (PC) match extremely well.
Following the match of the net pressures generated during
the minifrac test, the proposed job was redesigned. This new
treatment, consisting of the schedule shown in Table 5, was
pumped into the formation at a rate of 30 bbl/min until
screenout occurred.
Table 5Pumping Procedure for Case Study 1

Stage

Rate
(bbl/min)

Beginning
Proppant
Conc.
(ppg)

Ending
Proppant
Conc.
(ppg)

Clean
Volume
(gal)

Main frac pad

30

30,471

Main frac slurry

30

0.5

0.5

4,089

Main frac slurry

30

4,024

Main frac slurry

30

4,634

Main frac slurry

30

3,730

Main frac slurry

30

4,210

Main frac slurry

30

3,367

Main frac slurry

30

Main frac slurry

30

computer model was then run, and the TSO event generated
by the computer matched almost identically to the actual job.
Fig. 5 shows the job net pressure vs. the net pressure
generated by the model. The scaling has been adjusted to show
how close the two different TSO events mimicked one
another.
Case Study 2
The second case study demonstrates how the procedure works
on a shallow water shelf well in the GOM. The water depth for
this particular well was 350 ft with a total depth of 21,434 ft
MD. The sand control/stimulation treatment was also pumped
off a stimulation vessel. The Youngs Modulus from the
previously described spreadsheet was calculated at 202,500
psi. This formation was less consolidated than the previous
case, causing the prediction of the TSO event to be more
difficult. The minifrac test for Case Study 2 consisted of 7,560
gal of crosslinked fluid pumped at a rate of 18 bbl/min. Fig. 6
shows the leak-off of the test after being matched with the
computer model using the described procedure. The two main
match points (ISIP and PC) again match extremely well.
Following the match of the net pressures generated during
the minifrac test, the proposed job was redesigned. The
redesigned treatment consisted of the schedule shown in
Table 6. This amount of fluid and proppant was pumped into
the formation at a rate of 18 bbl/min until screenout occurred.
Table 6Pumping Procedure for Case Study 2

Stage

Rate
(bbl/min)

Beginning
Proppant
Conc.
(ppg)

Ending
Proppant
Conc.
(ppg)

Clean
Volume
(gal)

Main frac pad

18

10,769

3,325

Main frac slurry

18

0.5

1,375

1,555

Main frac slurry

18

1,196

18

10

2,509

Main frac slurry

30

1,539

Main frac slurry

Main frac flush

30

11,447

Main frac slurry

18

10

10

3,862

Main frac flush

18

12,850

No parameters were changed following the minifrac test,

and linear fluid was displaced into the formation in the form of
a step-rate test prior to pumping the frac-pack treatment. A
TSO event was seen 39 min into the actual job, and 500 psi of
net pressure was generated from that point forward. The

Again, there were no formation input data changes made

following the minifrac test, and linear fluid was displaced into
the formation in the form of a step-rate test prior to pumping

SPE 98171

the frac-pack treatment. This time a TSO event was seen 20

min into the actual job, and 175 psi of net pressure was
generated from that point forward. The computer model was
run, and the TSO event generated by the computer model
began at 20 minutes into the job. Fig. 7 shows the job net
pressure vs. the net pressure generated by the model. The
scaling has been adjusted to show how close the different TSO
events mimicked one another.
Case Study 3
The third case study is different from the first two cases in that
it shows how the method did not work. This well was a
deepwater GOM well with a water depth of 4,344 ft and a total
depth of 13,000 ft MD. The manner by which the treatment
was administered to the well is identical to the first two cases,
in which a stimulation vessel pumped the jobs. The Youngs
Modulus was calculated to be a soft 236,000 psi, which is
between the first and second case. The minifrac test for Case
Study 3 consisted of 5,872 gal of crosslinked fluid pumped at
a rate of 20 bbl/min. Fig. 8 shows the leakoff of the test after
being matched with the computer model using the described
procedure. The two main match points (ISIP and PC) again
match extremely well. In fact, this is probably the best match
of all three cases.
After the model net and the minifrac net pressures were
matched, the proposed job was redesigned. The redesigned
treatment consisted of the schedule shown in Table 7. This
amount of fluid and proppant was pumped into the formation
at a rate of 20 bbl/min until screenout occurred.
Table 7Pumping Procedure for Case Study 3

Stage

Rate
(bbl/min)

Beginning
Proppant
Conc.
(ppg)

Ending
Proppant
Conc.
(ppg)

Clean
Volume
(gal)

Main frac pad

20

3,973

Main frac slurry

20

0.5

2,096

Main frac slurry

20

3,016

Main frac slurry

20

5,864

Main frac slurry

20

4,994

Main frac slurry

20

4,003

Main frac slurry

20

5,405

Main frac slurry

20

10

10

8,496

Main frac flush

20

11,368

Again, there were no changes made to any of the

parameters in the model prior to matching the net pressures;
however, with this case, there was one significant difference
from the first two cases: no linear fluid was displaced into the
formation following the minifrac. This is significant because
in each of the cases that did not conform to the 45 line seen in
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, no linear fluid had been displaced into the
formation. Fig. 9 shows the model net pressure attaining a
TSO event much sooner than the actual job net pressure
shows, indicating an increase in fluid efficiency from the
minifrac. In this instance, the model net Pressure shows a TSO
event at approximately 17 min and the job net pressure shows
a TSO event at approximately 30 min.

Conclusions
Several conclusions were made from the study of the case
histories uploaded into the database and documented in this
paper.
1. The availability of a database, which encompasses a large
cross-section of the GOM, is invaluable when attempting
to generalize about frac-pack treatments.
2. The equations used to estimate rock properties prove
sufficient when there is a need to standardize across a
large cross section.
3. The data indicates that use of a displacement linear fluid
pumped into the formation following the minifrac allows
the formation to return to a more natural state, thereby
making the information attained from the model more
relevant to the frac-pack treatment.
4. Stimulation models do not necessarily rely on the
information entered as much as the users ability to use
the data the simulator outputs. In other words, the same
data entered can give different answers that can vary
according to the experiences of the user.
5. The procedures detailed in the paper take away much of
the subjectivity of designing a frac pack treatment and
point toward a single answer, thereby removing much
confusion from the process.
References
1. Ellis, R.C.: An Overview of Frac Packs: A Technical
Revolution (Evolution) Process, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (Jan. 1998) 66-68.
2. Dusterhoft, R. et al: Improved Minifrac Analysis
Technique in High Permeability Formations, paper SPE
30103 presented at the SPE European Damage
Symposium, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 15-16,
1995.
3. Barree, R.D. et al: Use of Frac-Pack Pressure Data to
Determine Breakdown Conditions and Reservoir
Properties, paper SPE 36423 presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
CO, October.
4. Smith, M.B. et al: Multiple Frac Height Measurements:
A Case History, paper SPE 19092 presented at the Gas
Technology Symposium, Dallas, TX, June 1989.
5. Vitthal, S. et al: How Minifrac Alters Leak-off and
Ways to Counteract It, paper SPE 58767 presented at the
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, LA, February 2000.

SPE 98171

Fig. 1Control design data sheet for database input.

40

35

30

Actual (min)

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

Forward Model (min)

Fig. 2Forward model TSO prediction vs. actual TSO event.

25

30

35

SPE 98171

40

35

Outlying Points

30

Actual (min)

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Forward Model (min)

Fig. 3Graphical representation of outlying points due to lack of displacement.

Fig. 4Minifrac Analysis Match using the described procedure. Model net pressure and the observed net
match nicely at the ISIP and the closure point.

35

SPE 98171

Fig. 5Case Study 1 post-job match. Notice how the model net pressure (white) and the job net pressure (yellow)
match at the point of TSO.

Fig. 6Case Study 2 Minifrac Analysis Match where the model net pressure and the job net pressure match.

10

Fig. 7Case Study 2 post-job match. The TSO event of both the model net pressure and the actual net pressure
match very closely.

Fig. 8Case Study 3 Minifrac Analysis Match where the model net pressure and job net pressure match.

SPE 98171

SPE 98171

Fig. 9Case Study 3 post-job match. The TSO event of the model net pressure occurs much earlier than the actual
net pressure.

11