Quantitative analyses of pressure dependent fracture compliance and conductivity
Better estimation of initial pore pressure, reservoir transmissivity and permeability
Coherent history match from shut-in to the end of after-closure linear flow
Superposition principle allows for fast modeling of fracture closure behavior
Time-convolution solution allows for fast modeling of pressure transient behavior
Leak-off is pressure dependent
Non-local fracture closure behavior
Variable fracture compliance and stiffness
Wellbore storage effect
After closure flow regime analysis
Estimation of unpropped fracture conductivity
Water hammer
What are the induced fracture dimensions including length, height, and width?
What are the fracture dimensions when multiple fractures are growing in a stage?
How does the stimulated reservoir volume change in each stage from toe to heel?
How do other fracture diagnostic data compare with water hammer analysis? (Microseismic, long-term production, DTS/DAS, and so on)
How does fracture treatment design impact water hammer signature and predicted fracture dimensions?
How do ISIP, net pressure and near-well pressure drop change over stages simulated and field-observed surface pressures for each stage (water hammer signature).
Pressure drops caused by near-well and wellbore friction, net fracturing pressures, ISIP
Fracture dimensions for single “effective” fracture and multiple fractures in a stage
Sensitivity study results for the optimization of pressure match
