Prefrac Injection Tests – Why, How, What?

Mark Machala
Team Lead-Unconventionals
Global Technical Solutions
 Testing in Low Permeability Reservoirs

 Due to the low permeability; reaching

pseudo-radial flow takes a long time
 Low permeability reservoirs are very
sensitive to damage. Making these difficult
to test, especially if the well is not flowing.
 Alternatives do exist that allow testing of
these wells.
– Measure Reservoir Pressure and Permeability
– Measure operational variables that affect the
hydraulic fracture design; which will ultimately
affect the productivity of the well
 DFIT, FET (Minifrac), Step Rate.

Table from Tight Gas Sands, by Holditch S.A.

Testing in Low Permeability Reservoirs (cont.)

Test Type Benefits

 Diagnostic Fluid Injection Test (DFIT)/  Determine Reservoir Pressure and Permeability
Falloff Test  Determine Formation Breakdown Pressure
– Small perforation interval  Estimate Closure-Stress
– Small volume Injected in the formation
– Less than 24 hrs shut-in should be
enough to complete test

 FET (aka Minifrac)  Determine Closure Stress

– Small treatment pumped before main  Fluid Leakoff
treatment
 Fluid Efficiency
– Utilizes the same fluid type, and rate as
 Fracture Gradient
the main treatment
 Fracture Height (if temperature log is used)
– Well is shut-in before main treatment

 Step Rate Test

– Fluid is pumped into he formation at
different rates
– Rates are held for a specific amount of
time
 Determine Near Wellbore friction (Perf or
Tortuosity)
 Fracture Extension Pressure
 Communication between the well and the
reservoir
What is a DFIT?

 A Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test (a.k.a. G-function

test) is a small volume, low rate injection followed by an
extended shut-in period.

 It is a relatively inexpensive method used to determine

critical design parameters to optimize well completions
in low permeability sands.
– Pore pressure
– Permeability to Mobile Reservoir Fluid
– Closure pressure estimate and leakoff type
Why is permeability important?

 Primary influence in fracture models

(FRACPRO, GOHFER)
 Necessary for reservoir simulations
 Used in predicting well performance
 Affects economic calculations
Methods for Estimating Permeability
 Core Analysis
– Expensive, sample size limitations, high variability
 Pressure Transient Testing (Formation testers, DST)
– Time consuming
 Production History Matching
– Non-unique solution
 MRIL
– Needs data for correlation; Only run open hole;
Temperature limitations
 DFIT
– Inexpensive and expeditious
DFIT Key Assumptions

 Homogeneous Reservoir

 Constant Fracture Area During Closure

 Constant Permeable Area During

Closure
How is a DFIT Performed?
 Test zone is shot with minimal perf length
 Injection rate established at ~3-7 bpm
 Rate maintained constant for 1000-2000 gal with 2%-
7% KCL water
 Pressure is monitored for 4-24 hours (or more)
 Pressure should be recorded at 1 sec intervals using
an Electronic Memory Recorder (EMR)
– EMR can be run BH or Surface (SPIDR Gauge)
G Function Derivative Analysis
G Function Derivative Analysis

 Normal Leakoff
– Constant Fracture Area
– Homogeneous Rock Matrix
– Constant derivative line
– Super G is a straight line through the origin
– Closure when Super G deviates down from straight
line
G Function Derivative Analysis
G Function Derivative Analysis

 Pressure Dependent Leak-Off

– Fractures/Fissures are opened during injection
– Variable Leakoff during closure and may indicate dual porosity
reservoir
– Characteristic hump in Super G above the extrapolated straight
line
– Fissure Opening Pressure is where the hump meets the
extrapolated straight line
– Usually a period of normal leakoff observed before fracture
closure
– Closure when Super G deviates down from straight line
G Function Derivative Analysis
G Function Derivative Analysis

 Fracture Height Recession

– Fracture grows into surrounding higher stress layers
which close first
– Changing fracture area during leakoff
– Super G is below the straight line through the normal
leak-off data
– Concave down pressure curve
– Increasing Derivative
– Closure when Super G deviates down from straight
line
G Function Derivative Analysis
G Function Derivative Analysis

 Fracture Tip Extension

– Fracture continues to grow after shut-in
– Changing fracture area during leakoff
– Super G data extrapolates a straight line that
intersects above the origin
 Conclusions
 Production response to stimulation can be unpredictable

 Stimulation costs can be a large percentage of well costs

 DFIT’s provide estimates of perm and reservoir pressure

 Analysis can estimate closure and identify leak-off behavior

 This information can be used to optimize treatment design