Good Tests Cost Money, Bad Tests Cost More - A Critical Review of DFIT and Analysis Gone Wrong
- R. V. Hawkes (Trican Well Service Ltd.) | R. Bachman (CGG) | K. Nicholson (Perpetual Energy Inc.) | D. D. Cramer (ConocoPhillips) | S. T. Chipperfield (Santos Ltd.)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE International Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, 16-18 October, Muscat, Oman
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2018. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2 Well completion, 3 Production and Well Operations, 0.2 Wellbore Design, 0.2.2 Geomechanics, 3 Production and Well Operations
- unconvetional, best practices, Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests, case history, completion engineers
- 11 in the last 30 days
- 285 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 9.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Analysis of mini-frac or, as commonly referred to in North America, Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFITs), have traditionally been the sub-discipline of completion & hydraulic fracture stimulation engineers. Conducting such tests has direct and indirect costs resulting from the test itself and the extended time required for the pressure falloff, that delays the completion of the well. The benefits must therefore outweigh the costs if the test is to be justified. The value is evident as these tests are performed regularly around the world as it is one of only a few processes that can help quantify within the same test both geomechanical properties and reservoir performance drivers.
The authors will present examples and lessons learned from regions around the world. In addition, the availability of a large quantity of public, high-quality data from oil & gas operators in Western Canada operating in shale and ultra-tight formations enable an assessment of the successes and failures of wellbore completions, reservoir types, and operator procedures. This treasure-trove of data will help completion engineers regardless of their basin of operations to overcome one of industries challenging questions "did the test achieve its objectives."
|File Size||3 MB||Number of Pages||29|
Cramer, D. D. and Nguyen, D. H. 2013. Diagnostic Fracture Injection Testing Tactics in Unconventional Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. 4-6 February. SPE-163863-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163863-MS.
Ewens, S., Idorenyin, E., Brunner, F. and Santo, M. 2012. Executing Minifrac Tests and Interpreting After-Closure Data for Determining Reservoir Characteristics in Unconventional Reservoirs, SPE 162779, presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Conference, Calgary, Alberta 30 October to 1 November.
McClure, M. W., Jung, H., Cramer, D. D.. 2016. The Fracture-Compliance Method for Picking Closure Pressure From Diagnostic Fracture-Injection Tests. SPE Journal. 21 (04): 1,321–1,339. SPE-179725-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179725-PA.
Nicholson, A. K., Bachman, R. C., & Hawkes, R. V. (2017, July 24). How Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFITs) Show Horizontal Plane Tensile and Shear Fractures in Various Stress Settings. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. doi:10.15530/URTEC-2017-2670018.
Wang, H. Y. and Sharma, M. M. 2017. New Variable Compliance Method for Estimating Closure Stress and Fracture Compliance from DFIT data. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 9-11 Oct. SPE-187348-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/187348-MS.