Determining Fracture Closure Pressure in

Soft Formations Using Post-Closure

Pulse Testing
E.R. Upchurch, SPE, Arco Alaska Inc.

Summary
This paper discusses the theory and application of a pressure-pulse
testing technique to determine the fracture closure pressure (Pc) in
soft formations. This technique is intended for use only after a data
fracture has been pumped and is closed. Implementing the pulse
technique post-closure rather than while the fracture is still open
allows it to be used as an independent determination of Pc without
diminishing the accuracy of the fluid leakoff coefficient (CL) determined from the data-fracture. Previous pulse-testing techniques1
require pumping into a fracture while it is still open. This practice
reduces the accuracy of CL by altering the time necessary for the
fracture to close (tc). Furthermore, previous pulse-testing techniques yield only a possible range for Pc, whereas the post-closure
pulse technique yields a better-defined, singular value of Pc.
The accuracy of post-closure pulse testing is validated with
several field examples from a soft formation on Alaskas North
Slope by comparing a definitive Pc determined using pressure
decline analysis with Pc determined from post-closure pulse testing.

pulse testing is attempted. Consequently, the smaller-volume pulse

is pumped into a pre-existing fracture of greater dimensions than
the pulse volume would normally generate on its own. Because the
pulse fluid travels along the pre-existing fracture, this scenario is
equivalent to creating a fracture in which, at the pulses tip, the
rock toughness (KIc) and tensile strength (To) are both equal to
zero. Thus, the fracture resistance at the pulses tip is negligible,
and its small fluid volume can disperse down the pre-existing
fracture length more rapidly than would otherwise be possible.
This results in the fracture width being minimized, which, in combination with a low plane-strain modulus (E) of the rock, results
in a negligible Pnet.
Applied in this manner, post-closure pulse testing yields consistently accurate determinations of Pc in soft, North Slope formations. Applying this technique to soft-rock fracturing applications
elsewhere would assist in increasing the accuracy of Pc estimates,
resulting in better TSO fracture-stimulation designs.

Introduction
Determining an accurate Pc is central to the correct design and
execution of a fracture stimulation. This is especially true in highpermeability, soft rock applications in which obtaining a tip
screenout (TSO) is necessary to generate sufficient fracture width
and to maximize fracture conductivity. Obtaining a TSO at the
correct time is heavily dependent on an accurate estimate of CL,
which, in turn, is based on an accurate determination of Pc. Several
techniques are available for determining an onsite Pc before executing a fracture job. The most common are constant-rate flowback testing, pressure decline analysis, and pulse testing. Pulse
testing, as described by Wright et al.,1 is commonly used in conjunction with other methods to determine Pc. In Wrights method,
pulse testing is used only as a means of bracketing a range of
possible fracture closure pressures. Other methods must then be
relied upon to determine the actual value of Pc within that range.
This paper goes beyond Wrights initial concept to demonstrate
that post-closure pulse testing can be used in soft formations to
actually determine a singular value for Pc (not just a range of
possibilities), resulting in a more accurate determination of CL.
Post-closure pulse testing entails nothing more than pumping a
small (1 to 2 bbl) volume of low-viscosity fluid (water or linear
gel) into a closed, pre-existing fracture at a relatively low rate (5
BPM). The pressure at shutdown is then evaluated to determine Pc.
It is argued that pumping into a rock and evaluating the pressures
at shutdown provides nothing more than an initial shut-in pressure
(ISIP), in which the ISIP is simply the sum of the net pressure in
the fracture (Pnet) and Pc. Thus, Pc is indeterminate from such a
test. However, if the test is performed under conditions such that
Pnet is very small, the ISIP becomes a very close estimate of Pc.
This is the basis for the post-closure pulse-testing technique presented herein.
Post-closure pulse testing requires that a moderate size datafracture (usually 100 bbl) be pumped into the formation before

Theory
Overview. The first key to successfully applying post-closure
pulse testing is to generate an initial fracture with larger dimensions than would be possible with just the small volume of a single
pulse. This is done on the North Slope by pumping a 100- to
200-bbl data-fracture. Generating such a large fracture before
pumping pulses accomplishes several things. First, the pulse fluid
is able to rapidly disperse by traveling along the pre-existing fracture network. Traveling down a pre-existing fracture allows the
pulse fluid to move unimpeded by tip effects, such as fracture
toughness (KIc) and rock tensile strength (To). Because To and KIc
are equal to zero under such conditions, the pulse fluid disperses
down the pre-existing fracture length more rapidly than would
otherwise be possible. Second, dispersing the pulse fluid in a larger
area reduces the average fracture width ( wf), which, in turn, minimizes Pnet. Third, dispersing the pulse fluid in a larger area increases fracture compliance (c), which also minimizes Pnet. Finally, because there are no tip effects (To and KIc) for a fluid pulse
traveling down an existing fracture, linear deformation equations
can be used to describe the Pnet of the fluid pulse accurately.
The second key to successfully applying post-closure pulse
testing is to minimize both near-wellbore fracture tortuosity and
multiple fractures. Fracture tortuosity and multiple fracture generation cause a significant pressure drop at the wellbore, resulting
in erratic pulse ISIPs. This has been the case with every postclosure pulse test tried without first taking corrective action to
minimize these two problems. In each case, once these problems
were addressed and near-wellbore friction pressure was reduced,
post-closure pulses yielded very consistent ISIPs.
Fracture tortuosity and multiple fracture generation are both
minimized by pumping slugs of low-density proppant slurry into
the perforations that eventually are to be fracture stimulated. This
technique was first presented by Cleary et al.2 The rationale for
using low-density proppant slugs is two-fold. First, the proppant
abrades tight, tortuous paths, resulting in reduced friction pressure.
Second, the proppant slugs help minimize the generation of multiple fractures by plugging off smaller fractures. In doing so, fluid
flow to more dominant fractures is enhanced, thereby resulting in
fewer, wider fractures and, consequently, reduced friction pressure.
The third key to successfully applying post-closure pulse testing is to use water or a low-viscosity linear polymer gel as a pulse

Copyright 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 87087) was revised for publication from paper SPE 56723, first presented
at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 36 October.
Original manuscript received for review 2 February 2000. Revised manuscript received 1
July 2003. Paper peer approved 19 August 2003.

230

November 2003 SPE Production & Facilities

www.petroman.ir

fluid. Linear guar gels with polymer loadings as high as 70 lb/

1,000 gal water have been used successfully. The use of such
fluids enhances dispersion of the fluid into the pre-existing fracture
to minimize width.
The final key to applying post-closure pulse testing successfully is to limit the size of each pulse to 2 bbl. Our experience
indicates that 1- to 2-bbl pulse volumes are large enough to ensure
that the fracture has been reopened but small enough to minimize
fracture width. Pulses are pumped at a maximum rate of 5 BPM.
Analysis of Radial Geometry. The Alaska North Slope formations in which this technique has been used usually exhibit fracture
geometries most similar to a radial model.3 We will, therefore,
analyze the equations4 governing Pnet in radial fractures to determine the conditions that are theoretically necessary to result in a
significantly small Pnet response to a 1- to 2-bbl pulse.
In a fracture in which no pressure gradients are present, the
net-pressure that is uniformly applied to the fracture faces (Pnet)
can be expressed in terms of average fracture width ( wf) and
fracture compliance (c) by
wf
^
Pnet =
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
12c
in which the fracture compliance for a radial fracture is defined as
c=

16rf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
3E

However, the pressure gradient along a fracture is not zero. Therefore, the net-pressure varies from some minimum at the fracture tip
to a maximum at the wellbore (Pnet). Pnet and Pnet are related by
^
Pnet
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
s

Pnet =

in which s a multiplying parameter defined at pump shutdown.5 For radial and Geertsma-de Klerk (GdK) geometries, this
multiplying parameter is

s 0.9 0.95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

The plane-strain modulus (E) of the North Slope formations in
which post-closure pulse testing has been applied is
E 300,000 psi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
If this value of E and the average value of s are used and Eqs. 1
and 2 are substituted into Eq. 3, the resulting expression for netpressure at the wellbore is
wf
Pnet = 15,920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
rf
Next, if a pulse of fluid volume Vpulse is introduced into a radial
fracture, the following is true.
Vpulse = rf2

wf
1 bbl
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
12 5.615 ft3

which reduces to
Vpulse =

rf2 wf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
21.45

Solving Eq. 8 for rf and wf and substituting both results into Eq. 6
finally yields the equations linking radial fracture geometry to Pnet
and Vpulse.

wf =

PnetV 2pulse

and rf =

3,438.6

2/3

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)

341,489.2Vpulse
Pnet

1/3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)

We have found that post-closure pulse testing for the conditions

described previously yields Pc estimates that are within 5 psi of the

true Pc determined with pressure decline analysis. Therefore, if a

value of 5 psi is assumed for Pnet, and Vpulse is assumed to range
from 1 to 2 bbl, Eqs. 9 and 10 yield the following results.
1. rf ranges from 40.9 to 51.5 ft.
2. wf ranges from 0.013 to 0.016 in.
The data fractures used in the North Slope formations discussed
previously normally generate fractures with radii of no less than 45
ft. This compares well with the minimum rf range, shown previously, necessary for Pnet to not exceed 5 psi. This also provides
some validation of the idea that pulses will rapidly disperse along
pre-existing fracture networks, because a Pnet greater than 5 psi has
not been observed in any of the post-closure pulse tests performed
thus far.
The previous results validate the use of post-closure pulse testing only for the specific conditions under which it was applied on
Alaskas North Slope. To determine a more general guideline for
the successful application of post-closure pulse testing, we must
restate Eq. 10 in a slightly different form. Assuming Pnet5 psi,
Vpulse2 bbl, and E is variable, Eq. 10 becomes
rf = 0.769E1/3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
Eq. 11 provides a reasonable guideline for the minimum fracture
radius that a data-fracture fluid volume must create so that a 2-bbl
pulse will generate a Pnet of no greater than 5 psi. It should be
noted that Eq. 11 assumes that no leakoff of the pulse occurs as it
moves along the fracture generated by the data-fracture. This conservative assumption ensures that Eq. 11 yields a fracture geometry large enough so that Pnet < 5 psi if any portion of the fluid
pulse leaks off to the formation.
Derivations of similar guidelines for Perkins-Kern-Nordgren
(PKN) and GdK fracture geometries are shown in the Appendix.
Field Application
Technique. The field application of post-closure pulse testing is
relatively simple and requires little time beyond that spent on the
data-fracture process itself. Despite its simplicity, however, postclosure pulse testing does have its own set of pitfalls to be avoided.
Here, we step through the entire data-fracture process as it applies
to soft formations on Alaskas North Slope. The areas found to be
problematic will be highlighted and discussed.
The basic North Slope data-fracture process consists of the
following steps.
1. Water Breakdown. Pump a small volume of water to breakdown perforations and ensure that adequate injection rates can
be obtained.
2. Proppant Scour Stage. Pump low-density proppant slugs to
scour out tortuous fracture paths and help plug multiple fractures.
The following is a representative design.
a. 50 bbl linear gel
b. 30 bbl, 1 ppa (lb proppant/gal carrying fluid) slurry
c. 30 bbl, 2 ppa slurry
d. 20 bbl linear gel
e. flush to perforations + 50 bbl
3. Pulse Testing (with fracture both opened and closed). Perform pulse testing to obtain a preliminary estimate of Pc. At this
point, we are not interested in determining CL for the fluid pumped
in Step 2 because dissimilar fluids were pumped into the fracture.
Therefore, there is no harm in pumping pulses while the fracture is
still open. A 1- to 2-bbl pulse is pumped for every 75-psi pressure
drop less than the ISIP. Comparing the characteristic shape of the
pulses by Wrights1 technique can help determine whether the
fracture is open or closed. After the fracture is certainly closed,
post-closure pulses are pumped for a more accurate determination
of Pc.
4. Data Fracture. Pump a 100- to 200-bbl data fracture and wait
for it to close.
5. Post-Closure Pulse Testing. Once the pressure is comfortably
less than the Pc determined in Step 3, perform post-closure pulse
testing to obtain a final estimate of Pc. Normally, this Pc will be
slightly higher than the one determined in Step 3 because of increasing reservoir pressure in the localized area around the fracture
owing to previous pump-ins.

November 2003 SPE Production & Facilities

231

www.petroman.ir

Fig. 1Characteristic pressure response to a post-closure

pulse.

6. CL and tc Determination. If pressure decline techniques do

not clearly indicate a Pc, use the Pc from the post-closure pulse
testing to determine the fracture closure time (tc), which is, in turn,
used to determine CL.
Accurately determining an ISIP for each pulse is more a matter
of using the correct equipment rather than engineering skill. One
example is the transducer used to measure pressure. We have
found that a transducer accurate to within 3 psi is necessary to
better visualize the pressure information at the point of pump
shutdown. At this point, there are subtle pressure fluctuations that
must be identified to determine the ISIP. Using a less-accurate
pressure transducer reduces the visual definition of the pressure
data, making identification of these critical pressure fluctuations
more difficult.
Another concern related to identifying these critical pressure
fluctuations is the rate of data collection. When pumping a fracture
stimulation, it is customary to record pressure data in 3- or 5-second
intervals. This rate of data collection suffices for monitoring the main
fracture stimulation but is wholly inadequate for post-closure pulse
testing. Pressure data should be recorded in 1-second intervals during
pulse testing to ensure adequate definition of pressure fluctuations at
the point of pump shutdown. If pressure data is recorded any
slower than every second, the pressure fluctuations that identify
the ISIP can be masked easily by the coarseness of the data.
Actually picking an ISIP for a pulse requires looking at the
pressure data on a much smaller time scale than is customary. The
time scale generally used to present pressure data is usually on the
order of minutes. The ISIP for a pulse, however, can be determined
accurately only if the pressure data is presented using a time scale
on the order of seconds. Fig. 1 presents a characteristic pressure
response to a post-closure pulse. Because the pulse is only 1 to 2
bbl pumped at 5 BPM, the time required to pump a pulse is only
approximately 20 seconds. At the point of pump shutdown, there
is a pressure fluctuation caused by the water-hammer effect. As
mentioned previously, viewing this pressure fluctuation is key to
accurately determining the pulse ISIP. If Fig. 1 were viewed with

Fig. 2Pressure and pump rate curves for data fracture and
pulse.

a larger time scale, the pressure fluctuation at pump shutdown

would not be easily identifiable.
The actual ISIP of the pulse is the average of the first full cycle
of the pressure fluctuation at pump shutdown (see Fig. 1). Picking
the ISIP at this point is analogous to determining the steady-state
position of a weight suspended by a spring. The position of the
weight under static conditions is equal to the midpoint of the
weights path if it oscillates up and down on the end of the spring.
Picking the pulse ISIP as the average of only the first full cycle is
necessary because the pressure declines rapidly owing to fluid
leakoff of the water pulse.
Example 1 (Pc From Pulses vs. Decline Curve Analysis). In this
example, Pc determined from post-closure pulses is compared to
Pc determined from decline curve analysis. Fig. 2 presents the
pressure and pump-rate data for a 100-bbl data fracture and one
post-closure pulse. In this case, the data fracture was pumped at 15
BPM and the pulse at 5 BPM.
Fig. 3 presents a square root of time (SRT) pressure decline
curve, which indicates that Pc 2,628 psi. A closer look at the
curve also indicates that Pc could be as low as 2,621 psi.
Fig. 4 presents the post-closure pulse pumped after the data
fracture, from which it is determined that Pc 2,623 psi. This
result indicates from the pressure decline curve that Pc 2,621 psi
and may be the best estimate of the fracture closure pressure.
Example 2 (Pulse Repeatability). In this example, we present the
results of multiple post-closure pulse tests that follow both the
proppant scour stage and data fracture for a single well in an
attempt to illustrate the techniques repeatability and sensitivity to
changing in-situ conditions. Fig. 5 presents the pressure and pump
rate data for a proppant scour stage and two post-closure pulses.
Fig. 6 presents an SRT pressure decline curve, indicating that
Pc 2,691 psi.
Figs. 7 and 8 present the post-closure pulses pumped after the
proppant scour stage. Both pulses yield identical results (Pc
2,690 psi) and corroborate the Pc determined from the pressure
decline curve in Fig. 6.

Fig. 3Pressure vs. t plot.

Fig. 4Zoomed-in view of pulse.

232

November 2003 SPE Production & Facilities

www.petroman.ir

Fig. 5Pressure and pump rate curves for scour stage and
pulses.
Fig. 6Pressure vs. t plot.

Next, a 100-bbl data fracture was pumped and followed with

two more post-closure pulses (see Fig. 9).
The SRT pressure decline curve shown in Fig. 10 indicates that
Pc 2,708 psi. This represents a 17- to 18-psi increase in Pc
relative to that determined after the proppant scour stage. The
increase is caused by an increase in local pore pressure from fluid
injected during the proppant scour stage.
Figs. 11 and 12 present the post-closure pulses pumped after
the data fracture. Both pulses yield results (Pc 2,706 and 2,703)
significantly close to the Pc determined from the pressure decline
curve (Fig. 10). Similar to Fig. 10, the pulses reflect the effect
increasing pore pressure has on Pc.
Example 3 (Using Pulses to Find Pc on Decline Curve). This last
example is intended to show the use of post-closure pulse testing
to assist in determining Pc and tc when pressure-decline-analysis
techniques do not show any clear indication of fracture closure.
Fig. 13 presents the pressure and pump rate data for a 100-bbl data
fracture and two post-closure pulses.
The SRT pressure decline curve shown in Fig. 14 indicates that
Pc could be either 2,800 or 2,745 psi. With no other data available,
a reasonable person could easily be convinced that Pc 2,745 psi
because the section of the pressure decline curve less than 2,745
psi is linear. Furthermore, this logical construct can be bolstered by
analyzing the section of the curve greater than 2,800 psi, which is
nonlinear and could easily be rationalized as being the effect of
fracture extension after pump shutdown.
The pulses shown in Figs. 15 and 16, however, lead to a
contrary conclusion. The pulses positively indicate that Pc
2,800 rather than 2,745 psi.
Conclusions
1. Post-closure pulse testing can yield very accurate estimates of
Pc (within a few psi) in soft formations, whereas previous pulse
techniques1 under such conditions are only accurate within a
few tens of psi.
2. The accuracy of the technique has been proven in soft formations with E 300,000 psi on Alaskas North Slope.

Fig. 7Zoomed-in view of first pulse.

3. This real-time diagnostic and analysis technique is quick and

inexpensive, and it requires no extra equipment.
4. The success of soft-rock TSO fracturing designs is directly related to the accuracy of CL estimates. Because accurately determining CL is directly dependent on accurately determining Pc,
using post-closure pulse testing to determine Pc can assist in developing better, more refined TSO fracture-stimulation designs.
Nomenclature
a exponent for variation in K
c fracture compliance, ft/psi
CL fluid leakoff coefficient, ft/min0.5
E rock plane-strain modulus, psi
hf fracture height (PKN or GdK geometry), ft
K coefficient for power-law fluid
KIc rock toughness, psi/in0.5
Lf fracture length (PKN or GdK geometry), ft
n power-law fluid exponent
Pc fracture closure pressure, psi
Pnet fracture net pressure at wellbore, psi
P net fracture net pressure uniformly applied to fracture face,
psi
rf fracture radius (radial geometry), ft
tc fracture closure time after pump shutdown, minutes
To rock tensile strength, psi
Vpulse pulse volume, bbl
wf average fracture width, in.
s P net/Pnet
t time since pump shutdown
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Arco Alaska Inc. for its support of this work.
Thanks are also given to Cliff Crabtree of Arco Alaska (now
with Conoco-Phillips) for his insightful comments and suggestions
during the development of the ideas presented here.

Fig. 8Zoomed-in view of second pulse.

November 2003 SPE Production & Facilities

233

www.petroman.ir

Fig. 9Pressure and pump rate curves for data fracture and
pulses.
Fig. 10Pressure vs. t plot.

References
1. Wright, C.A. et al.: Robust Technique for Real-Time Closure Stress
Determination, SPEPF (August 1996) 150.
2. Cleary, M.P. et al.: Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs To Avoid
Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate Proppant
Concentration, paper SPE 25892 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
1214 April.
3. Upchurch, E.R.: Flexible, Real-Time Tip-Screenout Fracturing Techniques as Applied in California and Alaska, paper SPE 54629 presented
at the 1999 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 2628 May.
4. Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, J.L. Gidley et al. (eds.),
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas (1989) 300303.
5. Nolte, K.G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters From Fracturing Pressure Decline, paper SPE 8341 presented at the 1979 SPE
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,
2326 September.

AppendixDerivation of Guidelines for Applying

Post-Closure Pulse Testing to PKN and
GdK Geometries
Analysis of PKN Geometry. Similar to the derivation shown for
radial fracture geometry in the main body of this paper, a guideline
can be derived for applying post-closure pulse testing when PKN
fracture geometry is expected.
The compliance of a PKN fracture is

hf
c=
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A1)
2E
Substituting Eqs. 1 and A-1 into Eq. 3 yields
Pnet =

wfE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
6shf

In PKN fractures, s is defined by

s =

2n + 2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
2n + 3 + a

Fig. 11Zoomed-in view of first pulse.

in which n the power-law fluid exponent, and a the exponent

for variation in the power-law fluid coefficient (K). Because water
is normally used as the pulse fluid, we then can assume n 1 and
a 0, which results in

s = 0.8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
If a pulse of fluid volume Vpulse is introduced into a PKN fracture,
Vpulse = hf2Lf

wf
1 bbl
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
12 5.615 ft3

which reduces to
wf =

33.69Vpulse
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A6)
hf Lf

Substituting Eqs. A-6 and A-4 into Eq. A-2 yields

Pnet =

2.234VpulseE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A7)
hf2Lf

If we now assume Pnet5 psi and Vpulse2 bbl, Eq. A-7 can be
restated as
hf2Lf = 0.894E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8)
Eq. A-8 provides a reasonable guideline for the minimum PKN
fracture dimensions a data-fracture volume must create so that a
2-bbl pulse will generate a Pnet no greater than 5 psi.
Analysis of GdK Geometry. A guideline for applying post-closure
pulse testing when GdK fracture geometry is expected is as follows.
The compliance of a GdK fracture is
c=

Lf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-9)
2E

Fig. 12Zoomed-in view of second pulse.

234

November 2003 SPE Production & Facilities

www.petroman.ir

Fig. 13Pressure and pump rate curves for data fracture and
pulses.

Fig. 16Zoomed-in view of second pulse.

Fig. 15Zoomed-in view of first pulse.

Substituting Eqs. 1 and A-9 into Eq. 3 yields

Pnet =

Fig. 14Pressure vs. t plot.

wf E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-10)
6s Lf

Like radial fractures, s for GdK fractures is

s 0.9 0.95. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-11)

Substituting Eq. A-6 and the average of Eq. A-11 into A-10 and
assuming Pnet 5 psi and Vpulse 2 bbl results in
hf L f2 = 0.773E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A12)
Eq. A-12 provides a reasonable guideline for the minimum GdK
fracture dimensions a data-fracture volume must create so that a
2-bbl pulse will generate a Pnet no greater than 5 psi.
In an area where confined fracture height growth is expected
and fracture geometry is uncertain (i.e., either PKN or GdK), it is
prudent to use Eq. A-8, along with the expected values of E and
hf, to define the necessary minimum value of Lf. Eq. A-8 yields
larger values of Lf for a given E and hf than Eq. A-12 and is,
therefore, more conservative.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl 1.589 991
E01 m3
F (F32)/1.8
C
ft 3.048*
E01 m
gal 3.785 412
E03 m3
in. 2.54*
E+00 cm
lbm 4.535 924
E01 kg
psi 6.894 757
E+00 kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.

Eric Upchurch is a senior engineering adviser with Thums Long

Beach Co. (a past subsidiary of Arco) in Long Beach, California, with 18 years experience in drilling, completion, and production engineering in the Gulf of Mexico, California, and
Alaska. e-mail: eric_r_upchurch@yahoo.com. Upchurch holds a
BS degree in petroleum engineering from the U. of Tulsa, an MS
degree in mechanical engineering from California State U., Long
Beach, and is currently a PhD candidate in aerospace engineering (specializing in computational fluid dynamics) at the U. of
Southern California. He has served on the SPE Editorial Review
Committee for SPE Production Engineering and as a member of
the committee for the SPE Western Regional Meeting.

November 2003 SPE Production & Facilities

235

www.petroman.ir