SPE 107013
Practical Interpretation of Pressure Tests of Hydraulically Fractured Wells in a Naturally
Fractured Reservoir
Djebbar Tiab, SPE, U. of Oklahoma, and Youcef Bettam, SPE, Sonatrach
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15–18 April 2007.
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, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The main objective of this paper is to present a practical
interpretation of the pressure behavior of a hydraulically
fractured vertical well located in a naturally fractured
reservoir. The interpretation is based on analytical equations
derived to determine permeability, fracture storage capacity
ratio, interporosity flow coefficient, skin and wellbore storage
from the pressure derivative plot without using type-curve
matching technique.
These parameters are obtained by making use of the
characteristic lines and points found on the log-log plot of
pressure and pressure derivative. The point of intersection of
the straight lines corresponding to the different flow regimes
are very useful in checking the parameters obtained from the
slopes, when the pressure derivative curve is not smooth.
The method of analysis is applicable to both drawdown and
buildup tests in uniform flux, infinite conductivity or finite
conductivity hydraulic fracture. A step-by-step procedure and
Examples are included to illustrate the proposed technique.
Introduction
It has been shown1 that wells intercepted by finite
conductivity vertical fracture in a homogeneous reservoir can
exhibit three main flow regimes. They are bilinear, linear and
radial flow regimes. Each of these flow regimes has specific
method of interpretation. Cinco-Ley and Meng2 presented a
detailed analytical method of interpreting these flow regimes
in a finite conductivity vertical fractures in double porosity
reservoirs.
Pressure type curves1, 3 have been presented to identify
type of flow regime. Pressure and pressure derivative4, 5 type
curves have also presented for the same purpose. Houze et al6
presented type curves of pressure and pressure derivative
based on analytical solution obtained for infinite-conductivity
vertical fractured in a reservoir with double porosity. Their
solution shows early time linear flow followed by transition
and late time radial flow regimes. The type curves presented
can be used to estimate ω, λf, xf and the formation
permeability thickness kh.
Lancaster et al7 presented a practical method of using type
curve to evaluate formation properties in a vertical fractured
well in a naturally fractured reservoir. They used the type
developed by Houze et al6. Ben-Naceur et al8 use numerical
method to evaluate pressure behavior and quantify cumulative
production in both finite and infinite conductivity vertical
fractures in naturally fracture reservoirs. The early time linear
flow in finite conductivity case is bilinear while that of infinite
conductivity is linear.
In this study, the interpretation is carried by making use of
log-log plots of pressure and pressure derivative without using
type curve matching. The unique characteristic behaviors in
each flow regime are used directly to compute the formation
properties.
TDS technique
The purpose of this section is to apply the TDS technique
to vertically fractured wells in naturally fractured reservoirs.
This technique does not require a prior knowledge of the
fracture nature (uniform flux, infinite-conductivity, or finite
conductivity). It gives direct estimates of fracture and
reservoir characteristics without type curve matching. A log-
log plot of pressure and pressure derivative versus test time for
a fractured well in a naturally fractured system may reveal the
presence of several straight lines corresponding to different
flow regimes; bilinear flow, linear flow, infinite-acting radial
flow, and transition period. The slopes and points of
intersection of these straight lines are unique and therefore can
be used to calculate several well, reservoir and fracture
parameters: permeability, storage coefficient ratio, ω,
interporosity flow parameter, λf, fracture conductivity, and
fracture half-length. It is found that equations corresponding to
the points of intersection are very useful in checking the
parameters obtained from the slopes, when the pressure
derivative curve is not smooth.
Cinco-ley and Meng2 presented a fully analytical model
that assumes a linear reservoir; thus the pseudo radial flow
does not take place. Figure 1 shows the deviation of their
model from the case of infinite reservoir. Their model can be
used to analyze early time pressure data; i.e., the bilinear and
2 SPE 107013

the linear flow periods. In a naturally fractured reservoir the Taking the logarithm of both sides of the above equation
flow into the wellbore, regardless of the wellbore conditions, gives:
can be divided into three main periods: (1) natural-fissures
1 ⎡1 ⎤
dominated flow, (2) transition period, and (3) total system log(t × ΔP' w ) = log(t ) + log ⎢ m BL ⎥ (9)
dominated flow. 4 ⎣4 ⎦
This expression also shows that a log-log plot of
Natural-Fracture Dominated Flow
Bilinear Flow Period
(t × ΔP' W )versus time will yield a straight line of slope 1/4 if
During the bilinear flow regime, the dimensionless well the bilinear flow is dominant. Let (t × ΔP' W )BL1 be the value
pressure behavior is given by2: of (t × ΔP' W ) at time t = 1 hour on the bilinear flow straight
1/4 line (extrapolated if necessary), then the Equation 8 becomes:
2.451 ⎛⎜ t Dx f ⎞
⎟
PwD = (1)
C fD ⎜⎝ ω ⎟
⎠ (t × ΔP' w )BL1 = 1 m BL (10)
4
Substituting for the dimensionless terms yields: Comparing Equations 5 and 10 gives at time t = 1 hr:

ΔPW = m BL t1/4 (2) (t × ΔP' w )BL1 = 1 (ΔPW )BL (11)

4
Where
The conductivity of the finite conductivity fracture from
44.13 ⎛ qBμ ⎞ the pressure derivative line is obtained by replacing (ΔPW )BL1
m BL = ⎜ ⎟ (3)
(ωμ(φc t )t k )1/4 ⎜h k b ⎟ in Equation 6 with 4(t × ΔP' wD )BL1 , thus
⎝ f f ⎠
2
For drawdown tests ΔPW = Pi-PWf and for buildup tests 121.74 ⎛ qB μ ⎞
ΔPW=Ps-PWf (Δt=0). Taking the logarithm of both sides of kf bf = ⎜ ⎟ (12)
ωμ (φ c t )t k ⎝ h (t × ΔP' W
⎜ )BL1 ⎟
⎠
Equation 2 yields:
1 Equations 6 and 12 are only valid if the mechanical damage
log(ΔPw ) = log(t ) + log[m BL ] (4) skin factor is zero. However, for all practical purposes, the
4
mechanical damage skin in hydraulic fracture should be zero.
This expression indicates that a plot of ΔPW versus time on
a log-log graph will yield a straight line portion of slope 0.25, Linear Flow Period
if the bilinear flow regime is dominant such as in finite If the formation linear flow regime is observed after the
conductivity fractures with small dimensionless conductivity, bilinear flow line, such as for CfD >300, then from Equation 5
i.e. CfD < 300. Let (ΔPW )BL1 be the value of ΔPW at time t = 1
hour on the bilinear flow straight line (extrapolated if ΔPW = m L t1/2 (13)
necessary), then Equation 2 becomes:
Taking the derivative of the above equation yields:
(ΔPW )BL1 = m BL (5)
1
t × ΔP' w = m L ⋅ (t )1/2 (14)
Combining Equations 3 and 5 and solving for the fracture 2
conductivity, i.e. kfbf, results: Taking the logarithm of this equation gives:
2
1947.46 ⎛ qB μ ⎞ 1 ⎡1 ⎤
kf bf = ⎜ ⎟ (6) log(t × ΔP' w ) = log(t ) + log ⎢ m L ⎥ (15)
⎜
ωμ (φ c t )t k ⎝ h (ΔP W )BL1
⎟
⎠ 2 ⎣ 2 ⎦

where bf is the fracture width. Fracture conductivity also Where

can be determined from the pressure derivative straight line ⎛ qB ⎞ μ
corresponding to the bilinear flow regime. m L = 4.064⎜⎜ ⎟ (16)
The derivative of the dimensionless well pressure during ⎝h ω⎠
⎟ (φc t )t kx f
this regime (Eq. 1) is:
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Equation 13 and
1/4 solve for the fracture half-length, xf, at time t = 1 hour yields:
0.6127 ⎛⎜ t Dx f ⎞
⎟
t Dx f × P' wD = (7)
C fD ⎜⎝ ω ⎟
⎠ ⎛ qB ⎞ μ
x f = 4.064⎜ ⎟ (17)
Substituting for the dimensionless parameters and solving
⎜ (ΔP ) h ω ⎟
⎝ W L1 ⎠ (φc t )t k
for the derivative of well pressure, we obtain
Where (ΔPW )L1 is the value of (ΔPW )L at time t = 1 hour
1
t × ΔP' w = m BL (t )1/4 (8) on the straight line of slope 1/2 (extrapolated if necessary).
4 The half-fracture length can be determined from the derivative
SPE 107013 3

curve by replacing (ΔPW )L1 in Equation 17 with 2(t ⋅ ΔP' w )L1 . ⎛ ⎞

2
121.74 ⎜ qB μ ⎟
At time t = 1 hour kf bf = (22)
μ (φ c t )t k ⎝ h (t × ΔP' W
⎜ )2BL1 ⎟
⎠
(t × ΔP' w )L1 = 1 (ΔPW )L (18) The subscript 2BL1 stands for the bilinear flow period at the
2
total system dominated flow. A very useful equation can be
Thus, obtained if the two straight lines are present:
⎛ ⎞ 4
x f = 2.032⎜
qB ⎟ μ
(19) ⎡ (t × ΔP' W )2BL1 ⎤
⎜ (t × ΔP' ) h ω ⎟ (φc t )t k ω=⎢ ⎥ (23)
⎝ W L1 ⎠ ⎣⎢ (t × ΔP' W )BL1 ⎦⎥
Pseudo-radial Flow Period This equation is obtained by dividing Equation 22 by
The infinite-acting radial flow portion of the pressure Equation 12 and can be used to estimate the parameter ω.
derivative is a horizontal straight line. Figure 2 illustrates the Figures 2 and 4 illustrate the above discussion. These figures
pressure derivative response in vertically fractured reservoir show the effect of ω and λf on the pressure and pressure
with natural fissures. The equation for the pressure derivative derivative responses in a vertically fractured reservoir with
during this flow period is: pseudo steady state interporosity flow where the transition
1 occurs during the bilinear flow period.
t D × P' wD = (20.a) The intersection point between the unite slope line with the
2
infinite-acting line gives:
Substituting the dimensionless pressure and the
⎡ (φc t )t μ ⎤
4/3
dimensionless time in the above equation yields:
λ f = 51410 (kx f ) (k f b f )
2 2/3
⎢ 3 ⎥ (24)
⎣ k t RUSi ⎦
(t × ΔP' w )R = 70.6q B μ (20.b)
kh The subscript RUSi stands for the intersection point of the
The subscript R stands for radial flow line. The skin factor unit slope line and the infinite-acting line. The above equation
can be obtained using the following equation10: is independent of the dimensionless storage coefficient, ω. The
equation can be arranged in the following form:
⎡ (ΔP ) ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
kt R
− ln⎜⎜ ⎟ + 7.43⎥
W R
S = 0.5⎢
3/ 4
(21) λf k t RUSi
⎢ (t × ΔP' W )R ⎜ (φc t ) μrw 2 ω ⎟⎟
2
⎥ xf = (24a)
⎣ ⎝ t ⎠ ⎦ 3414.17 C fD
1/2
(φc t )t μ
Where tR is any convenient time during the infinite-acting
radial flow line and (ΔPW )R is the value of (ΔPW )R The intersection point of the unit slope line and the fissure
corresponding to tR. storage dominated period bilinear flow line gives:

1 ⎡ (φc t )t μ (kx f ) ⎤
2
The Transition Period λ f = 4323.1 ⎢ ⎥ (25)
The transition period may occur, depending on λ, either during ω1/3 ⎣⎢ k 3 t BLUSi ⎦⎥
the bilinear flow period, during the linear flow period or
during the pseudo radial flow period. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate Where the subscript BLUSi stands for intersection point of
the unit slope line and the fissure storage dominated period
the effect of interporosity flow parameter, λf, and
bilinear flow line.
dimensionless storage coefficient, ω, on the pressure and
pressure derivative responses in an infinite naturally fractured A plot of (t D × P' wD ) C fD1/2 λ f 1/4 versus λ f t Dxf yields a
reservoir intersected by a hydraulic fracture. These figures unique curve for any value of CfD and λf. The only parameter
show the transition takes place during the bilinear and pseudo- that affects this curve is the storage coefficient, ω. Figure 4
radial flow periods. In a case when the transition occurs during shows such plot for different values of ω. The relationship
the pseudo-radial flow period, the coefficient λf, and ω can be between ω and the minimum dimensionless pressure
estimated by several methods previously developed by derivative of the "trough" is:
Engler9.
⎛ 1 ω ⎞
Bilinear Flow Period
If the fracture conductivity is low the transition may occur
(t Dx f
× P' wD )
⎜ ⎟
C 1/2 λ f 1/4 = 0.606⎜1 + ω 1− ω − ω 1− ω ⎟
min fD
⎜ ⎟
during the bilinear flow. In this case, there are two parallel ⎝ ⎠
lines of slope equal to 1/4. The first line is due to the (26)
expansion of the fracture network. This flow period is called Another feature of this figure is:
‘‘fracture storage dominated period’’ and is governed by
Equation 7. The second line is the total system dominated flow (t Dx f
× P' wD )max C fD1/2 λ f 1/4 = 0.3387 (27)
period. For this flow, ω is equal to unity. Therefore, Equation
12 reduces to:
4 SPE 107013

(
where t Dxf ⋅ P' wD )
max
is the maximum value on the hump pseudo steady state interporosity flow where the transition
occurs during the linear flow period. The first line is due to the
during the transition period. Substituting for the dimensionless
expansion of the fracture network. This flow period is called
parameters in Equations 26 and 27 gives:
‘‘natural-fracture storage dominated period’’ and is governed
1/2 ⎛ 1 ω ⎞ by Equation 5. The second line is the total system dominated
⎛ k f bf ⎞ 1/4 85.567 qBμ ⎜ ⎟ flow period. For this flow, ω is equal to unity. Therefore,
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (λ f ) = ⎜1 + ω 1 − ω − ω 1 − ω ⎟
⎝ kx f ⎠ (t × ΔP' W ) min k h ⎜ ⎟ Equation 19 reduces to:
⎝ ⎠
(28) ⎛ qB ⎞ μ
x f = 2.032⎜ ⎟ (35)
⎜ (t × ΔP' W ) ⎟ (φc t )t k
and ⎝ 2L1 h ⎠
1/2 The subscript 2L1 stands for the linear flow period at the total
⎛ k f bf ⎞ 47.825 qBμ
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (λ f )1/4 = (29) system dominated flow. A very useful equation can be
⎝ kx f ⎠ k h (t × ΔP' W ) max obtained if the two straight lines are present:
Combining Equations 26 and 27 and solving for the storage 2
⎡ (t × ΔP' W )2L1 ⎤
coefficient, ω, yields: ω=⎢ ⎥ (36)
2 ⎢⎣ (t × ΔP' W )1L1 ⎥⎦
⎧⎪ (t × ΔP' W )min ⎫⎪ ⎧⎪ (t × ΔP' W )min ⎫⎪
ω = 0.08868⎨ ⎬ + 0.1707 ⎨ ⎬ This equation is obtained by dividing Equation 35 by
⎪⎩ (t × ΔP' W )max ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ (t × ΔP' W )max ⎪⎭ Equation 19.
(30)
From Figure 7, the minimum coordinate (λftDxf)min was
Figure 5 is a plot of (t × ΔP' wD )C fD1/2 λ f 1/4 versus estimated for various values of ω. The estimated values agreed
λ f t Dx f /ω with Equation 36. Also shown in Figure 7 is the pseudo steady
; the coordinate of the maximum pressure derivative state unit slope line during the transition period. The analytical
is constant: equation for this unit slope line during the late transition time
⎛ λ f t Dxf ⎞ is:
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 0.2545
[ ]
(31)
⎝ ω ⎛π ⎞
⎠ max ln λ f 1/2 (t D × P' wD )US = ln⎜ t Dx f λ f ⎟ (37)
⎝4 ⎠
The storage coefficient ω can be estimated by:
The subscript US stands for unite slope derivative line. The
late transition period unit slope is a unique method for
⎛ t ⎞ determining interporosity flow parameter, λf. the intersection
ω = exp⎜⎜ − 0.229 min ⎟⎟ (32)
⎝ t max ⎠ point between the unite slope with the infinite-acting line
gives:
Another useful equation to calculate the interporosity flow
(φc t )t μx 2f ⎤
2
coefficient, λf, if the transition occurs during the bilinear flow ⎡2
λf = ⎢ ⎥ (38)
period, can be derived from the following equation: ⎢⎣ π 0.0002637kt RUSi ⎥⎦
1/2 1/4 π The subscript RUSi stands for the intersection point of the unit
PwDpss C fD λ f = (33)
2 slope line and the infinite-acting line. The above equation is
independent of the dimensionless storage coefficient, ω.
PwDpss is the value of the pressure at the horizontal line during The intersection point of the unit slope line with the fissure
the pseudo-steady state transition period. This is illustrated in storage dominated period linear flow line gives:
Figure 4. Substituting for the dimensionless variable in
Equation 33 yields: 4 (φc t )t μx 2f
λf = (39)
k f b f 1/4 qBμ πω 0.0002637kt 1LUSi
λ f = 313.6675 (34)
xf k k h (ΔPW ) PSS The subscript 1LUSi stands for intersection point of the unit
slope line and the fissure storage dominated period linear flow
(ΔPW)PSS is the value of (ΔPW) during the pseudo-steady state line. This equation is obtained by combining Equation 14 and
transition period. Equation 37.
The intersection point of the unit slope line and the total
Linear Flow Period system dominated period linear flow line where ω= 1, gives:
If the fracture conductivity is high the transition may occur
during the linear flow. In this case, there are two parallel lines 4 (φc t )t μ x 2f
of slope equal to ½ as shown in Figures 6 and 7. These figures λf = (40)
π 0.0002637 k t 2LUSi
show the effect of ω and λf on the pressure and pressure
derivative responses in a vertically fractured reservoir with
SPE 107013 5

The subscript 2LUSi stands for intersection point of the unit 1/2 π
slope line and the total system dominated period linear flow PwDpss λ f = (48)
2
line.
A very useful equation can be derived if the two bilinear PwDpss is the value of the pressure horizontal line during the
straight lines are present. The parameter ω can be estimated by pseudo-steady state transition period. Substituting for the
dividing Equation 39 by Equation 40: dimensionless variable in Equation 48 gives:

(t × ΔP' W )2LUSi λf
1/2
= 221.8
qBμ
(49)
ω= (41) k h (ΔPW ) PSS
(t × ΔP' W )1LUSi
(ΔPW)PSS is the value of (ΔPW) during the pseudo-steady state
An alternative method to determine ω is to use the transition period.
minimum pressure derivative during the transition period. A If neither the fissure storage dominated linear flow nor the
plot of (t × P' wD ) λ f 1/2 versus λ f t Dx f yields a unique curve total system dominated linear flow period are present, the
for any value of λf. The only parameter that affects this curve fracture half length can be obtained form the equation
developed by Tiab10,
is the storage coefficient, ω. Figure 7 shows the above plot for
different values of ω. The relationship between ω and the 1.92173
xf = (50)
minimum dimensionless pressure derivative of the trough is: e S 3.31739k
−
⎛ 1 ω ⎞ rw bf k f
( t Dx f × P' wD
min
)
λf 1/2 ⎜ ⎟
≈ 0.91⎜1 + ω 1− ω − ω 1− ω ⎟ (42)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
PROCEDURES
Another feature of this figure is: The following step-by-step procedure will demonstrate the

(t Dx f
× P' wD )max λ f 1/2 ≈ 0.382 (43)
applicability of the TDS technique.

(t )
Case 1: The Transition Occurs during the Bilinear Flow
Dx f ⋅ P' wD max
is the maximum value on the hump during the Period
transition period. Substituting for the dimensionless For low values of fracture conductivity and large value of
parameters in Equations 42 and 43 give interporosity flow parameter, λf, the transition zone may occur
during the bilinear flow period. In this case, the value of the
⎛ 1 ω ⎞ storage coefficient, ω, may mask the total system bilinear and
1/2 128.5 qBμ ⎜ ⎟
k (λ f ) = ⎜1 + ω 1 − ω −ω ω
1 − ⎟ (44) linear flow periods. To analyze this kind of tests the following
(t × ΔP' W ) min h ⎜ ⎟ step-by-step procedure is presented.
⎝ ⎠
Step 1: Plot the pressure change ΔPW and pressure
and derivative (txΔP’W) values versus test time.
Step 2: Identify and draw the straight lines corresponding
54 qBμ
k (λ f )1/2 = (45) to the natural-fissure dominated bilinear flow (slope = 0.25),
h (t × ΔP' W ) max total system dominated bilinear flow (if present of slope =
Combining Equations 42 and 43 and solving for the storage 0.25), and infinite acting radial flow (horizontal line).
Step 3: Calculate the formation permeability (k) from the
coefficient, ω, gives:
infinite acting radial flow line on the pressure derivative
2 curve, using Equation 20 b.
⎧⎪ (t × ΔP' W )min ⎫⎪ ⎧⎪ (t × ΔP' W )min ⎫⎪
ω = 0.0666⎨ ⎬ + 0.0963⎨ ⎬ Step 4: Calculate the dimensionless fissure storage
⎪⎩ (t × ΔP' W )max ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ (t × ΔP' W )max ⎪⎭ parameter, ω. Use Equation 23 if the two bilinear flow
regimes are present. If not, use Equation 30, or Equation 32.
(46) Step 5: Read the value of ΔPW and (txΔP’W) at time t=1 hr
from the fissure-storage bilinear flow line (extrapolated if
( )
Figure 8 is a plot of t Dx f × P' wD λ f 1/2 versus λ f t Dx f /ω ; necessary), and calculate the fracture conductivity (kfbf) from
the coordinate of the maximum pressure derivative is constant: Equations 6 and 12. If the early time values of the pressure
derivative values are distorted with noise, then use Equation
⎛ λ f t Dx f ⎞ 11 to “locate” the quarter slope line on the (txΔP’W) curve.
⎜ ⎟ ≈ 0.5 (47)
⎜ ω ⎟ Equations 6 and 12 must yield the same value of (kfbf).
⎝ ⎠ max
If the total system dominated bilinear flow is present,
calculate (kfbf) from Equation 22. Equation 12 must yield the
same value of (kfbf).
The inter-porosity flow coefficient λf can be calculated if
Step 6: Calculate the skin factor from Equation 21 if ΔPW
the transition occurs during the linear flow period. Thus,
at 1 hr is obtained from fissure dominated flow.
6 SPE 107013

Step 7: Calculate the half-fracture length, xf from Equation Step 2: Identify and draw the straight lines corresponding
50. to the pseudo-steady state unit-slope line, and infinite acting
Step 8: Read the value of (txΔP’W)min and (txΔP’W)max . radial flow line (horizontal line).
Step 9: calculate the interporosity flow coefficient, λf, Step 3: Calculate the formation permeability (k) from the
from Equation 28 or Equation 29. infinite acting radial flow line on the pressure derivative
curve, using Equation 20 b.
Case 2: The Transition Occurs during the linear Flow Step 4: Calculate the skin factor from Equation 21
Period Step 5: Calculate the dimensionless fracture conductivity
For high values of fracture conductivity and large value of CfD .
interporosity flow parameter, λf, the transition zone may occur If CfD is small,
during the linear flow period. In this case, the value of the Step 6: Use Equation 30 or Equation 32 to calculate ω
storage coefficient, ω, may mask the total system dominated Step 7: Read the value of the pressure, (ΔPW)PSS,
linear flow period. To analyze this kind of tests the following corresponding to minimum pressure derivative during the
step-by-step procedure is presented. transition period
Step 1: Plot the pressure change ΔPW and pressure Step 8: Use Equation 34 to calculate λf.
derivative (txΔP’W) values versus test time. Step 9: Calculate fracture half-length, xf, from Equation
Step 2: Identify and draw the straight lines corresponding 24a
to the natural-fissure dominated linear flow (slope = 0.5), total If CfD is large,
system dominated linear flow (if present of slope = 0.5), and Step 6: Use Equation 46 to calculate ω.
infinite acting radial flow (horizontal line). Step 7: Read the value of the pressure, (ΔPW)PSS,
Step 3: Calculate the formation permeability (k) from the corresponding to minimum pressure derivative during the
infinite acting radial flow line on the pressure derivative transition period
curve, using Equation 20 b. Step 8: Use Equation 49 to calculate λf.
Step 4: Calculate the dimensionless fissure storage Step 9: Calculate fracture half-length, xf, from Equation
parameter, ω. Use Equation 36 or Equation 41, if the two 35.
linear flow regimes are observed. If not, use Equation 46.
Step 5: Read the value of ΔPW and (txΔP’W) at time t=1 hr EXAMPLES
from the fissure-dominated linear flow line (extrapolated if Example 1: Finite Conductivity Fracture
necessary), and calculate the fracture half-length, xf, from This drawdown test is obtained using Eclipse simulator.
Equations 19 and 17. If the early time values of the pressure The different well, fracture and reservoir data are shown in
derivative values are distorted with noise, then use Equation Table 1. The objective is to determine reservoir permeability,
18 to “locate” the quarter slope line on the (txΔP’W) curve. k, storativity ratio coefficient, interporosity flow parameter, λ,
Equations 19 and 17 must yield the same value of xf. fracture half-length, xf, and conductivity, kfbf.
If the total system dominated linear flow is present,
calculate xf from Equation 35. Solution:
Step 6: Calculate the skin factor from Equation 21 if ΔPW The results are determined using the following step-by-
at 1 hr is obtained from fissure dominated flow. step procedure:
Step 7: Read the value of (txΔP’W)min and (txΔP’W)max . Step 1: Figure 9 shows a plot of ΔPW and txΔP’W values
Step 8: calculate the interporosity flow coefficient, λf, versus test time.
from any of the following equations, Equations 38, 39, 44, or Step 2: The fissure storage bilinear flow (slope 0.25),
45. pseudo-steady state unit slope and radial (horizontal) straight
lines were identified.
Case 3: Both the Bilinear and Linear Flow Periods are Step 3: From pressure derivative curve, (txΔP’W)R = 12.05
Absent psi. Permeability is calculated from Equation 20 b:
In this case we assume that the pressure derivative exhibits
a maximum then its minimum, the pseudo-steady state 70.6q B μ (70.6)(1000)(1.05)(0.65)
k = = = 39.98 mD
transition and the infinite acting line. In this case, we do not h (t × ΔP' w )R (100)( 12.05)
know whether the transition occurs during the bilinear or
Step 4: From pressure derivative curve read the coordinate
during the linear flow period.
of the minimum and maximum points:
If the maximum point on the pressure derivative, before
the transition, is less then the infinite acting line, we can (txΔP’W)min = 1.793 psi tmin = 0.102 hr
conclude that the transition has occurred either during the (txΔP’W)max = 5.253 psi tmax = 0.0078 hr
linear flow period or during the bilinear flow period, but not The storativity ratio coefficient is obtained from Equation
during pseudo-radial flow period. The interpretation of such a 30 and Equation 32:
2
test is simplified in the following step-by-step procedure. ⎧ 0.102 ⎫ ⎧ 0.102 ⎫
ω = 0.08868⎨ ⎬ + 0.1707⎨ ⎬ ≈ 0.05
Step 1: Plot the pressure change ΔPW and pressure ⎩ 5.253 ⎭ ⎩ 5.253 ⎭
derivative (txΔP’W) values versus test time. and
SPE 107013 7

⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ 1.793 ⎞ Step 1: Figure 11 shows a plot of ΔPW and txΔP’W values

ω = exp⎜⎜ − 0.229 min ⎟⎟ = exp⎜ − 0.229 ⎟ = 0.05 versus test time.
⎝ t max ⎠ ⎝ 0.0078 ⎠ Step 2: The fissure storage bilinear flow (slope 0.25),
Step 5:From Figure 9, the value of (txΔP’W) at t =1 hf pseudo-steady state unit slope line, and radial (horizontal)
from the fissure storage bilinear flow derivative line is straight lines were identified.
(txΔP’W)1BL1 = 26 psi. The fracture conductivity is calculated Step 3: From pressure derivative curve, (txΔP’W)R = 55.6
from Equation 12: psi. Permeability is calculated from Equation 20b:
2
121.74 ⎛ (1000) (1.05) (0.65) ⎞ 70.6q B μ (70.6)(220)(1.24)(0.76)
kf bf = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ k = = = 10.1 mD
(100)(26) h (t × ΔP' w )R (26)( 55.6)
(0.65) (0.05) (8 × 10 ) ⎝
-7
⎠
Step 4: From pressure derivative curve read the coordinate
k f b f = 8227.1 mD - ft
of the minimum and maximum points:
(txΔP’W)min = 16.7
Step 6: let tR = 50.16 hrs be the selected time during (txΔP’W)R = 55.6 psi
infinite acting radial portion of the pressure and pressure
(txΔP’W)max = 53.3 psi
derivative curves. The corresponding values (ΔPW) and Since the total system radial flow pressure derivative line
(txΔP’W) are: is almost equal to the (txΔP’W)max, equation stated below11 can
(ΔPW)R = 88.12 psi be used to estimate the storativity ratio.
(txΔP’W)R = 12.05 psi 2
⎧⎪ (t × ΔP ' ) ⎫ ⎧ ' ⎫
then from Equation 21 with ω=1, the skin factor is:
ω = 0.15866⎨ w min ⎪ + 0.54653⎪ (t × ΔPw ) min ⎪
⎬ ⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩ (t × ΔPw' ) R ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ (t × ΔPw' ) R ⎪⎭
⎡ 88.12 ⎛ (39.98) (50.16) ⎞ ⎤
S = 0.5⎢ − ln⎜⎜ ⎟ + 7.43⎥ = - 5.05
2 ⎟ ⎧16.7 ⎫ ⎧16.7 ⎫
2
⎝ 8 × 10 0.65 (0.25) ⎠
-7
⎣⎢ 12.05 ⎦⎥ ω = 0.15866⎨ ⎬ + 0.54653⎨ ⎬ = 0.1
Step 7: the fracture half-length is obtained form Equation ⎩ 55.6 ⎭ ⎩ 55.6 ⎭
50:
1.92173 Step 5:From Figure 11, (txΔP’W)BL1 = 42.3 psi.. Calculate
x f = -5.05 = 203 ft the fracture half-length from Equation 12:
e 3.31739 × 39.98 121.74
−
0.25 8227.1 kf bf = ×
thus the dimensionless conductivity is: (0.1) (0.76) (0.09 × 2.4 × 10 - 5 )
8227.1 2
C fD = = 1.015 ⎛ (220) (1.24) (0.76) ⎞
39.89 × 203 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1 0678 md - ft
Step 8: The interporosity flow parameter is calculated ⎝ (26)(42.3) ⎠
from Equations 24 and 25 the following results were found:
Step 6: Calculate skin factor S from Equation 21.
From Equation 24: tRUSi = 0.9 hr,
4/3 (ΔPW)R = 287 psi
⎡ 8 × 10 -7 ⎤
λ f = 51410 (39.98 × 203) (8227.1) (ΔtxΔP’W)R = 55.6 psi
2 2/3
⎢ ⎥ = 2.6
3
⎣ 39.98 0.9 ⎦ ΔtR = 20 hr
From Equation 25, tBLUSi = 2.4 hrs ⎡ 287 ⎛ (10.1) (20) ⎞ ⎤
S = 0.5⎢ − ln⎜ ⎟ + 7.43⎥
1 ⎡ 8 × 10 -7 (0.65) 2032 ⎤ ⎢ 55.6 ⎜ 0.09 × 2.4 × 10 - 5 0.76 (0.4) 2 ⎟ ⎥
λ f = 4323.1 ⎢ ⎥=4 ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
0.051/3 ⎣ 39.98 2.4 ⎦ = - 3.9
Step 7: Calculate the fracture half length using Equation
Example2: Drawdown Test for a finite Conductivity 50.
Fracture
1.92173
This is a field buildup test; reservoir and well data are xf = = 40 ft
- 3.9
presented in Table 3. The objective is to determine reservoir e 3.31739 × 10.1
−
permeability, k, storativity ratio coefficient, interporosity flow 0.4 10678
parameter, λ, fracture half-length, xf. Figure 10 shows the 8609
C fD = = 26.4
semi-log plot. The storativity ratio cannot be estimated from 1 0 .1 × 4 0
the semi-log plot because the two semi-log straight lines are Step 8: The interporosity flow parameter is calculated
not parallel. from Equation 24.

Solution
The results are determined using the following step-by-step
procedure:
8 SPE 107013

References
4
2
⎡ 0.09 × 2.4 × 10 - 5 × 0.76 ⎤ 3 1. Heber Cinco L., F. Samaniego V. and N. Dominquez A.:
λ f = 51410(10.1 × 41)2 × 10678 3 ⎢ ⎥ “Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-
⎢ 3 ⎥
⎣ 10.1 × 9.5 ⎦ Conductivity Vertical Fracture”, SPE 6014, 1978.
2. H. Cinco-Ley and H.-Z. Meng.: “Pressure Transient
= 0.38 Analysis of Wells With Finite Conductivity Vertical
Fractures in Double Porosity Reservoirs”, SPE 18172,
Conclusions 1988.
1. The TDS technique is more practical than type curve 3. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V. F.: “Transient Pressure
matching when interpreting a post-frac pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells”, J. Pet. Tech. (Sept 1981)
transient test. 1749-66.
2. Several equations are derived for calculating the half- 4. Wong, D. W., Harrington, A. G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:
fracture length from various characteristics of the “Application of the Pressure Derivative Function in the
Pressure Transient Testing of Fractured Wells”, SPEFE
pressure derivative curve.
(Oct. 1986) 470-480.
3. New equations are introduced for calculating the 5. Alagoa, A., Bourdet, D. and Ayoub, J. A.: How to Simplify
storage capacity ratio and the interporosity flow the Analysis of Fractured Well Tests”, World oil (Oct.
coefficient. 1985) 97-102.
6. Oliver P. Houze, Roland N. Horne and Henry J. Ramey Jr.:
“Pressure-Transient Response of an Infinite-Conductivity
Nomenclature Vertical Fracture in a reservoir with Double-Porosity
Behavior”, SPEJ SPE 12778, 1988.
B oil volumetric factor, rb/STB 7. D. E. Lancaster and J. M. Gatens III.: “Practical Well Test
Analysis Methods for Hydraulically Fractured Wells in
C system compressibility, psi-1
Dual-Porosity Reservoirs”, SPE 15964, 1986.
h formation thickness, ft 8. Ben-Naceur, K. and Economides, M. J.: “Production from
HT Horner time, dimensionless Naturally Fissured Reservoirs Intercepted by a Vertical
k permeability, md Hydraulic Frcature”, SPE 17425, 1988.
m semilog slope, psi/log cycle 9. Engler, T. and Tiab, D.: “Analysis of Pressure and Pressure
P static pressure, psi Derivative without Type Curve Matching, 2. Naturally
Pwf well-flowing pressure, psi Fractured Reservoirs”, Journal of Petr. Sci. and Eng. 15
q oil flow rate, BPD (1996):127-138.
rw wellbore radius, ft 10. Tiab, D.: “Advances in Pressure Transient Analysis”,
UPTEC Training Manual, Norman, OK (May, 2001).
s skin factor
11. Engler, T. and Tiab, D.: “Analysis of Pressure and Pressure
tp producing time before shut-in, hrs Derivative without Type Curve Matching, 5. Horizontal
∂P vertical distance between the two semilog straight Well Tests in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs”, Journal of
lines, psi Petr. Sci. and Eng. 15 (1996):139-151.
12. Smith, M.B., Holman, G.B., Fast, C.R., Covlin, R.J.: “The
Azimuth of Deep, Penetrating Fractures in The Wattenberg
Greek
Field”. Paper SPE 6092 P-A 1978.
13. Komar, C.A., Frohne, K.H.: “Factors Controlling Fracture
α geometry parameter, 1/L2 Orientation in Sandstone”, SPE 4567 MS 1973.
φ porosity, dimensionless 14. Blanton, Thomas.: “An Experimental Study of Interaction
Δt shut-in time, hrs between Hydraulically Induced and Pre-Existing
λ interporosity flow parameter, dimensionless Fractures”, SPE 10847 MS. 1982.
μ viscosity, cp
ω storage capacity ratio, dimensionless
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Suffix
o oil bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
D dimensionless cp x 1.0 E-03 = Pa-s
f fracture, fissure ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
m matrix ft2 x 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
inf inflection point psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
min minimum
SPE 107013 9

Appendix A. Tables Appendix B. Figures

Table 1. Simulation input data for example 1. 1.E+01 10

Wellbore radius, rw 0.25 ft

Initial pressure, Pi 3000 psi
Reservoir thickness, h 100 ft 1.E+00 1

Reservoir Permeability, k 40 mD

PWD and tD.P'WD

Total storativity, (φct)t 8E-7 psi-1
1.E-01 0
Coefficient of storativity ratio, ω 0.05
Fracture half-length, xf 200 ft
Interporosity flow parameter, λ 5E-6 1.E-02 0

λf 3.2
infinite reservoir
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, 1 Linear reservoir

CFD 1.E-03 0

Flow rate, q 1000 STB/D 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02

tDxf
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01

Oil viscosity, μ 0.65 cp

Volume factor, B 1.05 Figure 1. Pressure and pressure derivative behavior of a single
fracture in a linear infinite reservoir and laterally infinite
reservoir.
Table 2. Summary of results for example 1.
1.E+02 100
Parameter Calculated Input
k, mD 39.98 40
xf, ft 203 200 1.E+01 Fissure-storage dominated total system dominated 10

CfD, 1.015 1 period bilinear flow ( 1BL) bilinear flow period (2BL)
S -5.05
PwD and tDxf.P'wD

ω, 0.05 0.05 1.E+00 pseudo-radial flow period 1

λ f, 4.2 3.2

1.E-01 0

Table 3. Reservoir and well data for example 2.

Parameters values
Flow rate stb/d 220 1.E-02
λf = 1.0E+3, 1.0E+2 1.0E+1, 1.0, 1.0E-1, 1.0E-2, 1.0E-3, 1.0E-4
0

Flow period tp hr 5562 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01

tDxf
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04

Formation volume factor B rb/stb 1.24

Oil viscosity μ 0.76 Figure 2. Effect of the interporosity flow parameter, λf, on the
Total porosity φt fraction 0.09 pressure and pressure derivative behavior ω= 0.01.
Total compressibility ct psia-1 2.4E-5
1.E+01
Wellbore radius ft 0.4
10

Flow bottom hole pressure Pwf psia 2925

1.E+00 ω = 0.1, 0.05, 0.01, 0.005, 1

Table 4. Summary of results for example 2.

Parameter Calculated
PwD and tDxf.P'wD

k, mD 10.1 1.E-01 total system pseudo- 0

xf, ft 40 Fissure-storage
dominated period
radial flow period

S -3.9 bilinear flow

ω, 0.1 1.E-02 0

λ f, 0.38
Pseudo-steady state
transition period
1.E-03 0

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
tDxf

Figure 3. Effect of ω on the pressure and pressure derivative

behavior during the radial flow period.
10 SPE 107013

1.0E+01 1.E+00 1
-3 -2 -1
ω = 10 , 10 , 10 , 1
PwD PSS

1.0E+00 1.E-01 ω = 5 E-4, 1E-3, 5 E-3, 1 E-2, 5 E-2, 1 E-1

[PwD and tDxf.P'wD](Cfd)1/2 λf1/4

0
ω=1 PwD PSS

1/2
tdP'dmax

[PwD and tDxf.P'wD]λf

-1
1.0E-01 ω = 10
1.E-02 0
ω = 0.1

-2 ω = 0.05
ω = 10
ω = 0.01
1.0E-02 unit slope line (US)
1.E-03 0
ω = 10
-3 ω = 0.005
(tmin, tdP'dmin)
ω = 0.001
ω = 0.0005
1.0E-03
1.E-04 0
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01
λf*tDxf
λ*tDxf
Figure 4. Effect of ω on the pressure and pressure derivative
behavior during bilinear flow. Figure 7. Effect of ω on the pressure and pressure derivative
during linear flow period.
1.E+02 100
1.0E+03 1

1.E+01 10 1.0E+02 1
1/4
λf
1/2

tDxf.P'wD] λ f1/2
1.0E+01
[PwD and tDxf.P'wD](CfD)

1
1.E+00 1 ω=1

(tdP'wD)ma
1.0E+00 1
ω = 0.1
[PwD and

1.E-01 0
td*P'wD

ω = 0.01
1.0E-01 1
ω = 0.05

1.E-02 0 ω = 0.005
ω = 5.E-4, 1.E-3, 5.E-3, 1.E-2, 1.E-1, 1 1.0E-02 1
ω = 0.001
(tdmin,td*P'wD min)
ω = 0.0005
1.E-03 0 1.0E-03 1
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
λf*tDxf /ω λ*tDxf /ω

Figure 5. Correlation of the maximum and minimum pressure Figure 8. Correlation of the maximum and minimum pressure
derivative coordinates during bilinear flow period. derivative coordinates during linear flow period.

1.E+01 1.0E+03

total system dominated

linear flow period (2L)
1/2

1.E+00 1.0E+02
[PwD and tDxf.P'wD] λ

Fissure-storage dominated
ΔP W and t*ΔP'W , psi

linear flow period (1L) ΔPWpss = 37.14 psi

tBLUSi = 2.4
tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.ΔP'W)R =12.05 psi

1.E-01 1.0E+01
tRUSi = 0.9

tmax = 0.0078 hrs

λf = 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01 tmin = 0.102 hrs
(t.ΔP'W)max = 5.253 psi
(t.ΔP'W)min = 1.793 psi
1.0E+00
1.E-02
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
elapsed time, Δt, hrs
tDxf

Figure 6. Effect of the interporosity flow parameter on the Figure 9. Pressure and pressure derivative for example 1
pressure derivative during the linear flow, ω = 0.01.
SPE 107013 11

3250

3200 P ws = 3592-137.1log{(t p +Δt )/Δt }

3150
Pws , psia

3100

3050
P ws = 3521.6-126.4log{(t p +Δt )/Δt }
3000

2950

2900
100 1000 10000 100000
(t p +Δt )/Δt

Figure 10: Semi-log plot of Example 2.

1000
ΔP wR =282psi
Δt R =20hr Bilinear 1/4
Unit slope line
Δ P 'w & (Δ t x Δ P 'w ), psia

slope
ΔP BL1 =160psi

t RSUi =9.5hr
100
(Δt xΔP 'w)BL1 =42.3psi t BLUSi =15hr

(t xΔP )max =53.3psi Δt R =20hr

(t xΔP )min =16.7psi (tx ΔP 'w )R =55.6psi
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Shut in time Δt , hr

Figure 11. Pressure and pressure derivative for example 2