Fracture Calibration Treatment

The information obtained from a minifrac calibration treatment includes the

closure pressure, pc, the leakoff coefficient and possibly the condition of the
perforations and the near-wellbore region. The strategic locations registered on a
typical pressure response curve during a calibration treatment are shown in
Figure 1 (Fracture-related pressure points: (1)

Figure 1

breakdown pressure; (2) fracture propagation pressure; (3) instantaneous shutin pressure; (4) closure pressure; (5) fracture reopening pressure; (6) closure
pressure from flow-back; (7) asymptotic reservoir pressure; (8) rebound
pressure). The falloff part of the pressure curve is used to obtain the leakoff
coefficient for a given fracture geometry. The original concept of pressure decline
analysis (Nolte, 1979) is based on the observation that during the closure
process, the rate of pressure falloff provides useful information on the intensity of
the leakoff process. By contrast, during the pumping period, the pressure is
affected by many other factors, and hence the influence of leakoff is masked.
If we assume that the fracture area has evolved with a constant exponent and
remains constant after the pumps are stopped, at time (te+t) the volume of the
fracture is given by

(1)

where Ae = fracture face area (one wing, one face), SP = spurt loss coefficient, CL = leakoff
coefficient, the dimensionless shut-in time is defined as
(2)

and the two-variable function:

introduced by Nolte is the generalization of the

opening time distribution factor. For computational purposes, we can use the following
approximations of the g-function for various exponents (d=tD):

Dividing Equation 1 by the surface area of one face, the fracture width at time t
after the end of pumping is given by

(3)

The first term on the right-hand-side is the would-be width. To obtain the actual width, we
subtract the spurt width and the leakoff width from the would-be width. The leakoff width
increases even after the pumps are stopped, and the g function is the mathematical
description of this process. As seen, the time variation of the width is determined by the g (t

D,)

function, the length of the injection period and the leak-off coefficient, but is not affected by

the fracture area.

Unfortunately, the decrease of average width cannot be observed directly; but
according to linear elasticity theory, the net pressure during closure is directly
proportional to the average width:

(4)

The coefficient Sf is the fracture stiffness, expressed in Pa/m (psi/ft). Its inverse, 1/Sf, is
sometimes called the fracture compliance. Table 1 gives expressions of the fracture stiffness
for the PKN, KGD and Radial fracture geometries.

PKN

KGD

Radial

4/5

2/3

8/9

Table 1: Proportionality constant, Sf and suggested for basic fracture geometries

Combining Equations 3 and 4 yields:

(5)

Equation 5, first derived by Nolte, shows that the pressure fall-off in the shut-in period will
follow a straight-line trend
(6)

if plotted against the g-function (i.e., transformed time). The g-function values should be
generated with the exponent, , considered valid for the given model. The slope of the straight
line, mN, is related to the unknown leak-off coefficient by:
(7)

Substituting the relevant expression for the fracture stiffness, we can estimate the leakoff
coefficient can shown below:
Minifrac Analysis by the Nolte-Shlyapobersky method
Leakoff coefficient, CL:
PKN geometry:

KGD geometry:

Radial geometry:

Fracture extent:
PKN geometry:

KGD geometry:

Radial geometry:

Fracture width, we:

PKN geometry: (Vi/xfhf) 2.830CL(te)1/2
KGD geometry: (Vi/xfhf) 2.830CL(te)1/2
Radial geometry: [Vi/(Rf2/2)] 2.754CL(te)1/2

Fluid efficiency:
PKN geometry:

KGD geometry:

Radial geometry:

Note that the estimated leakoff coefficient for the PKN geometry does not depend on
unknown quantities, since the pumping time, fracture height and plane strain modulus are
assumed to be known. For the other two geometries, the procedure results in an estimate of
the leakoff coefficient that is strongly dependent on the fracture extent (xf or Rf).
The effect of the spurt loss is concentrated in the intercept of the straight-line
with the g = 0 axis, therefore:
(8)

Unfortunately, we do not know the would-be width (Vi/Ae) because the fracture extent is not
known. As suggested by Shlyapobersky (1987), Equation 8 can be used in a reverse manner
to obtain the unknown fracture extent if we assume that the spurt loss is negligible. Refer to
the "estimated fracture extent" relationships shown above for the three basic models. Note
that the no-spurt loss assumption also results in an estimate of the fracture length for the PKN
geometry, but this value is not used for obtaining the leakoff coefficient. For the other two
models, the fracture extent is obtained first and then the value is used in interpreting the
slope.
Once the fracture extent and the leakoff coefficient are known, the average width
and the fluid efficiency are easily calculated, as shown above.
It is not acceptable to take the fluid efficiency from a minifrac treatment and use
it as an input variable for designing the main treatment, because the fluid
efficiencies in the minifrac and main treatment are different. The only parameter
that is transferable is the leakoff coefficient itself, but we need to use caution in
interpreting it. The bulk leakoff coefficient determined from the above method is
apparent with respect to the whole fracture area. If we have information on the
permeable height hp, and it indicates that only part of the fracture area falls into
the permeable layer, then we should convert the apparent leakoff coefficient into
a "true value" with respect to the permeable area only. We can do this simply
dividing the apparent value by rp , which is given in Table 2 .

PKN

KGD

Radial ( Figure 1, Ratio of permeable to fracture area:

radial geometry)

Table 2: Ratio of permeable to total surface, rp

The conventional minifrac interpretation determines a single overall leakoff
coefficient. If the quality of data permits, more complex models and more than
one leakoff related parameters might be determined from a minifrac analysis. The
discussion of such procedures is out the scope of this treatise. The interested
reader may consult the special literature.