SPE 60291
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
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, CO, 1215 March 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
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, fracture-
height 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, pressure-
dependent 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.
2 D. P. CRAIG, M. J. EBERHARD, AND R. D. BARREE
G-Function Derivative Analysis
Recently, Barree and Mukherjee4 presented G-function
derivative analysis for identifying the leakoff mechanism
following a diagnostic fracture injection test. G-function
derivative analysis requires a graph of bottomhole pressure,
the derivative of pressure (dP/dG), and the superposition
derivative (GdP/dG) versus the G-function. The leakoff type
is identified using the characteristic shape of the derivative
and superposition derivative curves. Fig. 1 contains the
G-function derivative graphs for the four common leakoff
types observed in low permeability hard rock sandstones.
Normal leakoff behavior occurs when fracture area is
constant during shut-in and leakoff is through a homogeneous
rock matrix. With G-function derivative analysis, normal
leakoff is indicated by a constant derivative, and when the
superposition derivative lies on a straight line through the
origin. Fracture closure is identified when the superposition
derivative data deviate downward from the straight line.
Pressure-dependent leakoff from dilated fractures/fissures
is indicated by a characteristic hump in the superposition
derivative that lies above an extrapolated straight line through
the normal leakoff data. The fissure opening pressure is
indentified at the end of the hump when the superposition
derivative data meet the extrapolated straight line. A period of
normal leakoff behavior is generally observed before fracture
closure is identified when the superposition derivative data
deviate downward from the extrapolated straight line.
Fracture-height recession during shut-in is indicated by
G-function derivative analysis when the superposition
derivative data fall below a straight line extrapolated through
the normal leakoff data. Fracture height recession is also
indicated by a concave down pressure curve and an increasing
pressure derivative. As previously noted, hydraulic fracture
closure is identified when the superposition derivative data
deviate downward from the straight line.
Fracture-tip extension, which occurs when a fracture
continues to grow after injection is stopped, is indicated when
the superposition derivative data lie along a straight line that
extrapolates above the origin.
The objective of the G-function derivative analysis is to
identify the leakoff type and fracture closure stress. In most
cases, the superposition derivative provides a definitive
indication of hydraulic fracture closure when the data deviate
downward from an extrapolated straight line through the
period of normal leakoff.
Modified Mayerhofer Permeability Analysis
Modified Mayerhofer permeability analysis is a method
proposed by Valk and Economides1 for analyzing the
pressure falloff following a diagnostic fracture injection test,
but the Mayerhofer method differs significantly from
conventional leakoff analysis. Instead of formulating the
leakoff model in conventional terms, i.e., leakoff coefficient
and spurt loss, the Mayerhofer, et al.2 model is formulated in
terms of fracture-face resistance and reservoir permeability.
SPE 60291
As a result, the modified Mayerhofer method can be used to
determine fracture-face resistance from, for example, a filter
cake and the permeability to the reservoir fluid.
The original method of Mayerhofer, et al.2 uses an
estimate of permeability and fracture-face resistance from a
specialized plot and requires a history match of pressure drop
(P) and pressure derivative [d(P)/dln(t)] versus time
during the shut-in period. The history match algorithm
requires varying permeability, fracture face resistance, and
fracture area until the pressure decline and pressure derivative
can be satisfactorily simulated.
The modified Mayerhofer method is different in that
fracture geometry is assumed; e.g., confined height or radial
and fracture extent (area) is determined from Nolte-
Shlyapobersky analysis of the pressure falloff data.1 As a
result, a history match of the pressure falloff is not required to
determine fracture area, and the estimated permeability and
fracture face resistance are representative, provided the
fracture dimensions are realistic.
The justification for using Nolte-Shlyapobersky analysis
and 2D fracture geometry is based on fracture imaging
experiments in low-permeability sands. The experiments have
demonstrated that small volume, low rate water injections are
typically confined to the sand body or perforated interval.5
Application of the modified Mayerhofer method to the
pressure falloff data results in a specialized plot. From the
specialized plot, fracture-face damage is proportional to the
intercept of a straight line through the data (fracture-face
damage increases as the intercept increases), and permeability
is proportional to the reciprocal of the slope.
Key assumptions for application of modified Mayerhofer
analysis include the following.
Homogeneous reservoir
Constant fracture area during closure
Constant permeable area during closure
Constant compliance during closure
Valk and Economides1 note that the method of
Mayerhofer, et al. is sensitive to deviations from its
assumptions. Thus, a means of identifying reservoir
heterogeniety, changing fracture area, or variable fracture
compliance would be beneficial when attempting modified
Mayerhofer analysis.
G-function derivative analysis provides a means for
identifying heterogeneous (fractured/fissured) reservoirs,
changes in fracture area during shut-in, or variable fracture
compliance during shut-in. G-function derivative analysis,
therefore, is recommended for identifying when the
assumptions implicit in the Mayerhofer, et al. method are
violated during pressure falloff.
Combining G-Function Derivative and Modified
Mayerhofer Analysis
The leakoff types or closure mechanisms identified from
G-function derivative analysis all result in distinctive,
specialized Mayerhofer plots. As described by Valk and
 ADAPTING HIGH-PERMEABILITY LEAKOFF ANALYSIS TO LOW-PERMEABILITY
SPE 60291 SANDS FOR ESTIMATING RESERVOIR ENGINEERING PARAMETERS
Economides1, the data on a specialized Mayerhofer graph
should lie along a straight line with an intercept greater than or
equal to zero and with a positive slope. When the pressure-
falloff data deviate from the assumptions of the Mayerhofer
method, the data do not fall along a straight line.
The following examples illustrate the effects of normal
leakoff, pressure-dependent leakoff, fracture-height recession,
and fracture-tip extension on the specialized Mayerhofer plot.
After analyzing more than 1,500 diagnostic fracture injection
tests, no examples of changing compliance during shut-in have
been observed in hard rock low permeability sandstones.
The recommended analysis procedure for the modified
Mayerhofer method and G-function derivative analysis can be
found in Refs. 1 and 4, respectively. All diagnostic fracture
injection tests shown used KCl treated water (1% to 4% KCl
depending on the formation), and as a result, no fracture face
damage is indicated in any of the specialized Mayerhofer plots
(damage intercept 0).
Normal Leakoff
The G-function derivative analysis for an example of normal
leakoff is shown in Fig. 2 with the specialized Mayerhofer
plot shown in Fig. 3. During normal leakoff, the fracture area
is constant, and the reservoir rock appears homogeneous. The
superposition derivative (GdP/dG), therefore, is linear until
fracture closure, and the pressure-falloff data in the specialized
Mayerhofer plot lie along a straight line.
Field Case. The normal leakoff field case is from a well in
southwest Wyoming that produces gas from a single sandstone
perforated between 12,729- and 12,738-ft (16-ft gross
thickness). The diagnostic fracture injection test consisted of
2,500-gal of 2% KCl water pumped at 6.20-bpm, and
hydraulic fracture closure was observed after 5.60 minutes of
shut-in. Fig. 4 contains the G-function derivative analysis and
demonstrates that the superposition derivative is linear until
closure. A very early period of pressure-dependent leakoff
might be interpreted from the derivative and superposition
derivative, but the majority (80%) of the pressure decline
represents normal leakoff behavior.
Fig. 5 contains the specialized Mayerhofer plot and
demonstrates that the falloff data lie on a straight line with an
intercept at the origin. The permeability estimate is calculated
from the slope of the straight line and the fracture half-length,
which is calculated from Nolte-Shylapobersky analysis
assuming GDK fracture geometry. The estimated fracture
half-length is 116 ft; the estimated permeability is 0.227 md;
and the pore pressure, which was determined from after-
closure analysis, is 8,850 psi.
The sandstone was subsequently fracture stimulated with
115,000-lb, intermediate-strength proppant, and a history
match of pressure with a fully 3D fracture model6 suggested
approximately 420-ft of conductive fracture half-length.
Fig. 6 contains a comparison of observed gas production
and simulated gas production using results of the diagnostic
fracture injection test and the hydraulic fracture model. The
flowing bottomhole pressure input into the reservoir simulator
3
was calculated based on reported surface pressure and gas
rates. Fig. 6 shows excellent agreement between simulated
and observed gas production rates and cumulative production.
Since normal leakoff was observed, the permeability
estimate from the modified Mayerhofer method should be
reasonable, provided the fracture dimensions from the
injection test were correct. The simulation results shown in
Fig. 6 validate the permeability estimates for this example of
normal leakoff.
Pressure-dependent Leakoff
Fig. 7 contains the G-function derivative analysis for a
diagnostic fracture injection test that exhibits pressure-
dependent leakoff. Pressure-dependent leakoff is indicated by
the large hump in the superposition derivative that lies
above a line through the normal leakoff data prior to hydraulic
fracture closure.
Pressure-dependent leakoff is the result of
fractures/fissures that were dilated by the injection test. As the
pressure declines during the falloff, the fractures/fissures
constrict until closure at the fissure opening pressure. The
result of the dilation/constriction sequence is variable leakoff
during closure, and can be an indication of a heterogeneous
dual-porosity reservoir.
Ehlig-Economides, Fan, and Economides7 extended the
theoretical development of the Mayerhofer method to
naturally fractured reservoirs and found that application of the
Mayerhofer method in dual-porosity reservoirs will provide an
estimate of kfb (the product of bulk permeability of the
natural fracture system and fracture storativity ratio).
Unfortunately, dual-porosity behavior results in a non-linear
specialized Mayerhofer plot.
Fig. 8 contains the specialized Mayerhofer plot for the
pressure falloff data shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 demonstrates that
the data are non-linear and sweep across the plot. As a
result, kfb varies from 0.010-md with a line through the
early-time data, and 0.002-md with a line through the late-time
data. In other words, the specialized Mayerhofer plot suggests
permeability is decreasing with time during fracture closure,
which is consistent with a dilated fracture systems
constricting during closure.
Ehlig-Economides, et al.7 also note that reasonable
estimates of kfb and fracture face resistance are possible if a
portion of the specialized plot is straight. The straight portion
of the data correspond to the normal leakoff data from the
G-function derivative analysis; thus, the G-function plot can
be used to locate the straight line on the specialized
Mayerhofer plot. For example, the straight line through the
late-time data in Fig. 8 (kfb = 0.002-md), represent the
normal leakoff data shown in Fig. 7 between fissure opening
and fracture closure pressure.
Field Case. The pressure-dependent leakoff field case is
from a well producing dry gas from a single sandstone
perforated between 5,819 and 5,855 ft (35-ft gross thickness).
The diagnostic fracture-injection test consisted of 1,092-gal of
4 D. P. CRAIG, M. J. EBERHARD, AND R. D. BARREE
2% KCl water pumped at 5.30-bpm. Hydraulic fracture
closure was observed after only 1.50 minutes of shut-in, which
qualitatively suggests relatively high permeability. Fig. 9
contains the G-function derivative analysis and shows a period
of pressure-dependent leakoff during the first half of the
before-closure data. As the pressure declines below the fissure
opening pressure (3,294-psi), the superposition derivative is
linear until hydraulic fracture closure at 3,246-psi.
Since hydraulic fracture closure occurred rapidly, only a
few data points are plotted on the specialized Mayerhofer plot
shown in Fig. 10. The effects of pressure-dependent leakoff
are subtle compared to Fig. 8, but some curvature is evident,
and the correct straight line is drawn through the normal
leakoff data identified with Fig. 9.
The fracture half-length calculated from Nolte-
Shylapobersky analysis assuming GDK fracture geometry is
92-ft, and pore pressure is 2,380-psi from after-closure
analysis. Assuming a homogeneous reservoir, the
permeability estimated from the modified Mayerhofer method
is 0.0062-md.
The sandstone was subsequently fracture stimulated, and a
history match of pressure with a fully 3D fracture model6
suggested approximately 362-ft of conductive (1,000 md-ft)
fracture half-length.
Fig. 11 contains two comparisons of observed gas
production and simulated gas production using results of the
diagnostic fracture injection test and the hydraulic fracture
model. As previously noted, the flowing bottomhole pressure
input into the reservoir simulator was calculated from the
reported surface pressure and gas rates. Fig. 11 shows very
poor agreement between observed gas production rates and
simulated production rates assuming a single porosity
0.0062-md reservoir. If, however, a dual porosity reservoir is
modeled assuming kfb = 0.0062-md, a very good match is
obtained with kfb = 0.826-md and = 0.0075 ( = 9.210-7).
As noted by Ehlig-Economides, et al.,7 the storativity ratio,
, cannot be determined from a diagnostic fracture injection
test; thus, an additional well test is required to accurately
predict production. A diagnostic injection remains valuable,
however, by providing the opportunity to identify fractured
reservoirs with G-function derivative analysis and the ability
to determine the product kfb with Mayerhofer analysis.
Fracture-Tip Extension
Fracture-tip extension after shut-in is the result of extremely
low leakoff. Physically, fracture-tip extension occurs when
the energy from the injection test cannot be released through
leakoff and is dissipated through fracture growth. Fracture-tip
extension typically occurs in very low permeability reservoirs
and has been shown to correlate with poor production.8,9
Fig. 12 contains the G-function derivative analysis, and
Fig. 13 contains the specialized Mayerhofer plot for a zone
exhibiting fracture-tip extension after shut-in. Similar to the
pressure-dependent leakoff example, the data on the
specialized Mayerhofer plot are non-linear and sweep across
the graph. Using only the specialized Mayerhofer plot, it
SPE 60291
would be virtually impossible to distinquish between pressure-
dependent 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 late-
time 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 pressure-
dependent 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 Nolte-
Shylapobersky 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 half-
length 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
 ADAPTING HIGH-PERMEABILITY LEAKOFF ANALYSIS TO LOW-PERMEABILITY
SPE 60291 SANDS FOR ESTIMATING RESERVOIR ENGINEERING PARAMETERS
flowing bottomhole pressure calculated from reported surface
pressure and production rates. Please note that the observed
data points during the gas metering error were thought by
the well operator to be 500 Mscf/D too high.
Fig. 16 shows the observed rates are slightly lower than
the simulated producing rates, which indicates that the
permeability may be overestimated by the modified
Mayerhofer analysis. Overall, however, the permeability
obtained from the before-closure data provides a reasonable
estimate of the productivity of the sand.
Fracture Height Recession
Fracture height recession occurs when the fracture grows into
high-stress, relatively impermeable layer(s) adjacent to the
permeable layer. During the shut-in, the fracture begins to
close in the impermeable layer(s) first, followed by closure in
the permeable layer. Fig. 17 contains the G-function
derivative analysis, and Fig. 18 contains the specialized
Mayerhofer plot for an example that exhibits fracture height
recession during shut-in.
Fig. 17 shows a very short period of normal leakoff
behavior followed by a period of fracture height recession and
finally another period of normal leakoff. Initially, the leakoff
rate is constant but relatively low because the leakoff in the
entire fracture volume is only through the permeable layer. As
the fracture closes in the impermeable layers during height
recession, the leakoff rate increases (shown by increasing
derivative). Finally, the total fracture area approaches the
permeable fracture area, and the leakoff rate is constant at a
rate higher than the initial period of normal leakoff.
The effects on the specialized Mayerhofer plot are shown
in Fig. 18. From the early-time data that correspond to the
first period of normal leakoff behavior, the permeability
estimate is 0.0007 md, and from the late-time data that
correspond to the second period of normal leakoff behavior,
the permeability estimate is 0.0017 md. Since the fracture
area is decreasing during closure, the constant fracture area
assumption of the modified Mayerhofer is violated, thus both
permeability estimates may be erroneous.
Discussion
Understanding the closure mechanism cannot be overstated
when using before-closure pressure falloff analysis for
determining permeability. In low permeability hard rock
sandstones, normal leakoff behavior is seldom observed. In a
recent paper by Craig, et al.9 normal leakoff behavior was
observed in only 17 of 190 (8.9%) diagnostic fracture
injection tests in Piceance Basin Mesaverde sandstones. The
most common leakoff types were pressure-dependent leakoff
(50.5%) and fracture-tip extension (34.7%).
Although normal leakoff behavior is uncommon in low
permeability sandstones, reservoir simulation results from this
paper and Craig, et al.9 show very good production history
matches are possible using the permeability derived from
before-closure pressure-decline analysis. It is important,
however, to recognize that permeability can be under- or
5
overestimated depending on the closure mechanism observed.
For example, permeability is overestimated with fracture-tip
extension after shut-in.
Generalizations about sands exhibiting pressure-dependent
leakoff are not possible. In some cases, observed production
can exceed simulated production if a single porosity reservoir
is modeled. In the pressure-dependent leakoff field case, for
example, the single porosity simulation underestimated
production by 72 MMscf during the first 233 days of
production. In other cases, the simulated production from
sands with pressure-dependent leakoff is accurate.
Although a diagnostic injection test can determine the
product kfb, additional testing is required to specify the
interporosity flow coefficient and fracture storativity for
accurate simulation. Unfortunately, additional pressure
transient testing is economically impractical in most low-
permeability wells, thus the correct permeability will
seldom be determined prior to stimulation and sustained
production.
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.
6 D. P. CRAIG, M. J. EBERHARD, AND R. D. BARREE SPE 60291

3. Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., and Owens, K.A.: After-Closure 7. Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Fan, Y., and Economides, M.J.:
Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests, paper SPE 38676 Interpretation Model for Fracture Calibration Tests in
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 28690 presented
Exhibition held in San Antonio, TX, 5-8 October 1997. at the 1994 SPE International Petroleum Conference &
4. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: Determination of Pressure- Exhibition of Mexico, Veracruz, Mexico,
dependent Leakoff and Its Effects on Fracture Geometry, 10-13 October 1994.
paper SPE 36424 presented at the 1996 Annual Technical 8. Rollins, K. and Hyden, R.E.: Pressure-Dependent Leakoff in
Conference and Exhibtion, Denver, 6-9 October 1996. FracturingField Examples from the Haynesville Sand,
5. Warpinski, N.R., et al.: An Interpretation of M-Site paper SPE 39953 presented at the 1998 SPE Rocky Mountain
Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Results, paper SPE 39950 Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
presented at the 1998 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low- 5-8 April 1998.
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, 9. Craig, D.P., et al.: Case History: Observations From
CO, 5-8 April 1998. Diagnostic Injection Tests in Multiple Pay Sands of the
6. Barree, R.D.: A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three Mamm Creek Field, Piceance Basin, Colorado, paper
Dimensional Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Media, SPE 60321 presented at the 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain
paper SPE 12273 presented at the 1983 SPE Symposium on Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
Reservoir Simulation, San Francisco, CA, Colorado, 12-15 March 2000.
15-18 November 1983.

Normal Leakoff Pressure Dependent Leakoff (Fissure Opening)

3500 1000 3500 500

Pressure
dP/dG or GdP/dG

dP/dG or GdP/dG
Pressure (psi)

Pressure (psi)

Pressure

2650 500 3100 250

Fracture Closure GdP/dG Fissure Opening Fracture Closure

GdP/dG

dP/dG dP/dG

1800 0 2700 0
0 3 6 0 2.5 5
G-function G-function

Fracture Height Recession During Shut-in Fracture Tip Extension

7000 1500 3600 500

Fracture Closure

Pressure dP/dG or GdP/dG

Pressure (psi)

Pressure
5000 750 3400 250
GdP/dG

GdP/dG

dP/dG dP/dG

3000 0 3200 0
0 6 12 0 1.75 3.5
G-function G-function

Figure 1. G-Function Derivative AnalysisLeakoff Mechanisms.

 ADAPTING HIGH-PERMEABILITY LEAKOFF ANALYSIS TO LOW-PERMEABILITY
SPE 60291 SANDS FOR ESTIMATING RESERVOIR ENGINEERING PARAMETERS 7

Normal Leakoff Type

Normal Leakoff Modified Mayerhofer, et. al. Technique; GdK Geometry
3500 1000
20
kr,M = 0.2266-md

Pressure

Y(n)
2650 500 10
Fracture Closure GdP/dG

dP/dG

1800 0 0
0.0E+00 3.0E-09 6.0E-09
0 3 6
X(n)
G-function

Figure 2. Normal Leakoff TypeG-Function Figure 5. Normal Leakoff TypeModified

Derivative Analysis. Mayerhofer Analysis.

Normal Leakoff Normal Leakoff Type - Production History Match

Modified Mayerhofer, et. al. Technique; GdK Geometry
8000 600
Model Parameters
30 kg = .2266-mD
kr,m = 0.050-md Pr = 8850-psi
Lf = 421-ft

6000 450

15 4000 300

2000 150

Simulator Results Actual Production

0
Simulated Cumulative Actual Cumulative
0.0E+00 2.0E-09 4.0E-09 0 0
X(n) 0 50 100 150
Producing Days

Figure 3. Normal Leakoff TypeSpecialized Figure 6. Normal Leakoff TypeProduction History

Mayerhofer Plot. Match.

Normal Leakoff Type Pressure Dependent Leakoff

1 Second G-function Derivative Analysis G-Function Plot
11000 1000 12000 1000

Fracture Closure
dP/dG or GdP/dG

Pressure
Pressure (psi)

Fracture Closure
9000 500 10500 Pressure 500
GdP/dG
Fissure Opening
GdP/dG

dP/dG

dP/dG
7000 0 9000 0
0 2.5 5 0 9 18
G-function G -function

Figure 4. Normal Leakoff TypeG-Function Figure 7. Pressure Dependent LeakoffG-Function

Derivative Analysis. Derivative Analysis.
8 D. P. CRAIG, M. J. EBERHARD, AND R. D. BARREE SPE 60291

Pressure Dependent Leakoff Pressure Dependent Leakoff

Modified Mayerhofer, et. al. Technique; GdK Geometry
3000
Production (mcf)
90
Dual Porosity Simulation
kr,M = 0.00212-md
Single Porosity Simulation

k fb = 0.826 md = 0.0075

2000

kr,M = 0.01032-md
45

1000

0 k = 0 .0 0 62 m d
0
0.0E+00 1.3E-09 2.5E-09
0 125 250
X(n)
Time (days)

Figure 8. Pressure Dependent LeakoffModified Figure 11. Pressure Dependent LeakoffDual Porosity
Mayerhofer Analysis. Reservoir ExampleProduction.

Pressure Dependent Leakoff-Dual Porosity Reservoir Example Fracture Tip Extension

1 Second G-function Plot 1 Second G-function Plot
3500 1000 14000 2000

Fracture Closure

dP/dG or GdP/dG
Fracture Closure
Pressure (psi)

11000 1000
3200 500
Pressure
Pressure

GdP/dG

GdP/dG
dP/dG

dP/dG 8000 0
2900 0 0 6 12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
G-function G-function

Figure 9. Pressure Dependent LeakoffDual Porosity Figure 12. Fracture Tip ExtensionG-Function
Reservoir ExampleG-Function Derivative Analysis. Derivative Analysis.

Pressure Dependent Leakoff--Dual Porosity Reservoir Fracture Tip Extension

Modified Mayerhofer, et. al. Technique; GdK Geometry Modified Mayerhofer, et. al. Technique; GdK Geometry

6 30

kr,M = 0.0019-md
Y(n)

3 15

kr,M = 0.0090-md

0 0
0.0E+00 3.0E-10 6.0E-10 0.0E+00 2.5E-09 5.0E-09
X(n) X(n)

Figure 10. Pressure Dependent LeakoffDual Figure 13. Fracture Tip ExtensionModified
Porosity Reservoir ExampleSpecialized Mayerhofer Mayerhofer Method.
Plot.
 ADAPTING HIGH-PERMEABILITY LEAKOFF ANALYSIS TO LOW-PERMEABILITY
SPE 60291 SANDS FOR ESTIMATING RESERVOIR ENGINEERING PARAMETERS 9

Fracture Tip Extension Fracture Height Recession

1 Second G-function Plot 1 Second G-function Plot
12000 1000 8000 4000

Fracture Closure

Fracture Closure

Pressure

10000 500 4000 2000

GdP/dG

dP/dG

8000 0 0 0
0 6 12 0 4 8
G-function G -function

Figure 14. Pressure Dependent Leakoff-Fracture Tip Figure 17. Fracture Height RecessionG-Function
ExtensionG-Function Derivative Analysis. Derivative Analysis

Pressure Dependent Leakoff - Fracture Tip Extension Fracture Height Recession

Modified Mayerhofer, et. al. Technique; GdK Geometry Modified Mayerhofer, et. al. Technique; GdK Geometry

14 20
kr,M = 0.008-md

kr,M = 0.00068-md kr,M = 0.00174-md

7 10

0 0
0.0E+00 7.0E-10 1.4E-09 0.0E+00 7.0E-10 1.4E-09
X(n) X(n)

Figure 15. Pressure Dependent Leakoff-Fracture Tip Figure 18. Fracture Height RecessionModified
ExtensionModified Mayerhofer Analysis. Mayerhofer Analysis.

Fracture Tip Extension

2000
Model Parameters
kg = 0.0076-md
PR = 8,850-psi
Lf = 382-ft

1000

Gas Metering Error

Production (mcf)
Simulation (mcf)
0
0 45 90
Time (days)

Figure 16. Pressure Dependent Leakoff-Fracture Tip

ExtensionProduction History Match.