
-
Fracture diagnostics
- DFIT analysis
- More reliable estimation of closure stress
- 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
- Tracer flowbac
- Pressure interference between wells