Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adapting High Permeability Leakoff Analysis to Low Permeability Sands for Estimating
Reservoir Engineering Parameters
David P. Craig and Michael J. Eberhard, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Robert D. Barree, Marathon Oil Company
Abstract
The modified Mayerhofer method has been proposed for
estimating permeability from the pressure falloff data in
moderate and high permeability reservoirs before hydraulic
fracture closure following a diagnostic fracture injection test.
Applying the modified Mayerhofer method in low
permeability sands, however, requires understanding of the
closure mechanism, which is identified with G-function
derivative analysis of the before-closure pressure falloff data.
This paper demonstrates how G-function derivative analysis
and the modified Mayerhofer method are used in conjunction
to estimate reservoir permeability in low permeability
reservoirs.
Numerous applications of G-function derivative analysis
have shown the characteristic closure mechanismsnormal,
pressure-dependent leakoff from fissure opening, fractureheight recession, fracture-tip extension, and changing
complianceall result in distinctive specialized plots using
the modified Mayerhofer method. When the two methods are
used in conjunction, G-function derivative analysis provides a
means for identifying the falloff data that can be used to
estimate permeability and fracture-face resistance without
violating the assumptions of the modified Mayerhofer method.
Field cases are included to demonstrate that reasonable
estimates of reservoir permeability in low permeability
reservoirs often can be obtained from the before-closure
pressure falloff following a diagnostic fracture injection test.
Introduction
Valk and Economides1 published the modified Mayerhofer
method for estimating permeability in moderate and high
permeability reservoirs from the before-closure pressure
falloff data following a diagnostic fracture injection test. The
modified Mayerhofer method is based on the technique
proposed by Mayerhofer, et al.,2 and differs from conventional
pressure decline analysis in that the problem is formulated in
terms of permeability and fracture face resistance as opposed
to leakoff coefficient and spurt loss.
Before-closure pressure falloff analysis techniques are
beneficial for low permeability reservoirs since the shut-in
time requirements are substantially lower than the time
required for after-closure pressure falloff analysis.
Nolte, Maniere, and Owens,3 however, have noted that
fracture extension and fracture recession during closure limit
the applicability of before-closure pressure falloff analysis
techniques. Nolte, et al.,3 suggest that after-closure analysis of
pseudolinear and pseudoradial flow regimes are superior
methods for estimating reservoir parameters, but in low
permeability reservoirs, the time required to achieve
pseudolinear and pseudoradial flow following a fracture
injection test can be excessive.
G-function derivative analysis was recently proposed for
identifying the leakoff mechanismnormal, pressuredependent leakoff from fissure opening, fracture-height
recession, fracture-tip extension, and changing compliance
from the pressure falloff following a diagnostic injection test.
G-function derivative analysis also provides a method for
identifying the falloff data that can be used to estimate
permeability and fracture-face resistance without violating
assumptions of the modified Mayerhofer method.
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how
G-function derivative analysis and the modified Mayerhofer
method are used in conjunction to estimate permeability in
low-permeability reservoirs. Additionally, field cases are
included to demonstrate that reasonable estimates of reservoir
permeability can often be obtained from the before-closure
pressure falloff data in low permeability reservoirs.
SPE 60291
SPE 60291
SPE 60291
would be virtually impossible to distinquish between pressuredependent leakoff and fracture-tip extension after shut-in.
Both leakoff mechanisms can result in large pressure drops,
but the pressure falloff mechanisms are obviously very
different. For example, the pressure falloff in a fractured zone
is the result of dilated high permeability fractures while the
pressure falloff during fracture-tip extension results from
continued fracture growth.
Since the fracture continues to grow after shut-in, the
assumption of constant fracture area during closure is violated,
and the permeability will be overestimated using the modified
Mayerhofer method. Fig. 13 contains two estimates of
permeability using the early-time data (kr,M = 0.009-md) and
the late-time data (kr,M = 0.0019-md). As the shut-in time
increases, the leakoff rate and the calculated permeability
appear to decrease until fracture closure. Although the latetime data during fracture-tip extension is recommended for
estimating permeability from the specialized plot, permeability
will still be overestimated since the fracture continues to grow
during closure.
Field Case. The case history demonstrating fracture-tip
extension is actually a complex example that shows an early
period of pressure-dependent leakoff and tip extension. Since
the majority of the leakoff appears to be tip extension, the
estimated permeability should be overestimated by the
modified Mayerhofer method.
The pressure-dependent leakoff, fracture-tip extension
field case is from a well in southwest Wyoming producing dry
gas from a single sandstone perforated between 12,634- and
12,646-ft (18-ft gross thickness). The diagnostic fracture
injection test consisted of 930-gal of 2% KCl water pumped at
3.30 bpm, and hydraulic fracture closure was observed after
40.70 minutes of shut-in. Fig. 14 contains the G-function
derivative analysis and shows a very early period of pressuredependent leakoff followed by a long period of fracture-tip
extension.
Fig. 15 contains the specialized Mayerhofer plot and
demonstrates that the falloff data are scattered. Several lines
could be drawn through the data, but the straight line shown
was drawn through the points corresponding to the late time
fracture-tip extension data on the G-function derivative graph.
The fracture half-length is calculated from NolteShylapobersky analysis assuming GDK fracture geometry is
87-ft and the assumed pore pressure is 8,850 psi based on the
pressure in an offset well. Assuming that the fracture halflength calculated from Nolte-Shlyapobersky analysis is
correct, the permeability estimated from the modified
Mayerhofer method is 0.008 md.
The sandstone was subsequently fracture stimulated with
95,000-lb intermediate strength proppant, and a history match
of pressure with a fully 3D fracture model6 suggested
approximately 382-ft of conductive (1,000 md-ft) fracture
half-length.
Fig. 16 contains a comparison of observed gas production
and simulated gas production using results from the diagnostic
fracture injection test, the hydraulic fracture model, and the
SPE 60291
Conclusions
1. G-function derivative analysis is recommended for
identifying when assumptions implicit in the modified
Mayerhofer method are violated during the pressure
falloff following a diagnostic fracture injection test.
2. The straight line on the specialized Mayerhofer plot
should be drawn through the normal leakoff data
identified with G-function derivative analysis.
3. Pressure-dependent
leakoff
may
identify
a
heterogeneous dual-porosity reservoir, but productivity
will be underestimated if kfb is determined with the
Mayerhofer method, and the fracture storativity ratio,
, is less than one.
4. Permeability will be overestimated using the modified
Mayerhofer method when fracture-tip extension is
indicated by G-function derivative analysis.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Halliburton Energy Services and
Marathon Oil Company for permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
kfb = bulk permeability of the natural fracture system, md
= fracture storativity ratio, dimensionless
= interporosity flow coefficient, dimensionless
References
1. Valk, P.P. and Economides, M.J.: Fluid-Leakoff
Delineation in High Permeability Fracturing, SPE
Production & Facilities (May 1999) 117-30.
2. Mayerhofer, M.J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Economides,
M.J.: Pressure-Transient Analysis of Fracture-Calibration
Tests, JPT (March 1995) 229-234.
SPE 60291
Normal Leakoff
3500
1000
3500
500
Fracture Closure
GdP/dG
Pressure
3100
250
Fissure Opening
Fracture Closure
dP/dG or GdP/dG
500
Pressure (psi)
2650
dP/dG or GdP/dG
GdP/dG
dP/dG
dP/dG
1800
0
0
2700
0
0
G-function
2.5
G-function
1500
3600
500
Pressure
5000
750
GdP/dG
Pressure
3400
250
GdP/dG
dP/dG
dP/dG
3000
0
0
6
G-function
12
3200
0
0
1.75
G-function
3.5
dP/dG or GdP/dG
Fracture Closure
Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
Pressure
SPE 60291
Normal Leakoff
3500
1000
20
kr,M = 0.2266-md
2650
Y(n)
Pressure
500
Fracture Closure
GdP/dG
10
dP/dG
1800
0
0.0E+00
0
0
3.0E-09
kr,m = 0.050-md
15
6000
450
4000
300
2000
150
0
2.0E-09
4.0E-09
Simulator Results
Actual Production
Simulated Cumulative
Actual Cumulative
X(n)
600
Model Parameters
kg = .2266-mD
Pr = 8850-psi
Lf = 421-ft
30
0.0E+00
6.0E-09
X(n)
G-function
50
Producing Days
100
0
150
11000
1000
12000
1000
Pressure
9000
500
GdP/dG
dP/dG or GdP/dG
Pressure (psi)
Fracture Closure
Fracture Closure
10500
500
Pressure
Fissure Opening
GdP/dG
dP/dG
dP/dG
7000
0
0
2.5
G-function
9000
0
0
18
G -function
SPE 60291
Production (mcf)
Dual Porosity Simulation
Single Porosity Simulation
90
kr,M = 0.00212-md
k fb = 0.826 md
= 0.0075
2000
kr,M = 0.01032-md
45
1000
0
0.0E+00
1.3E-09
k = 0 .0 0 62 m d
2.5E-09
X(n)
125
250
Time (days)
14000
1000
2000
500
Pressure
Fracture Closure
11000
1000
Pressure
dP/dG or GdP/dG
3200
Pressure (psi)
Fracture Closure
GdP/dG
GdP/dG
dP/dG
8000
dP/dG
2900
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0
0
12
G-function
G-function
Y(n)
kr,M = 0.0019-md
15
kr,M = 0.0090-md
0
0.0E+00
3.0E-10
6.0E-10
X(n)
0
0.0E+00
2.5E-09
X(n)
5.0E-09
SPE 60291
12000
1000
8000
4000
Fracture Closure
Fracture Closure
Pressure
10000
500
4000
2000
GdP/dG
dP/dG
8000
0
0
12
G-function
G -function
kr,M = 0.008-md
kr,M = 0.00068-md
kr,M = 0.00174-md
10
0.0E+00
7.0E-10
1.4E-09
X(n)
1000
Production (mcf)
Simulation (mcf)
0
0
45
7.0E-10
X(n)
2000
0.0E+00
90
Time (days)
1.4E-09