SPE 90455

Application of Mini-Falloff Test to Determine Reservoir Parameters

and Optimize Fracture Designs in a Tight Gas Field
T.A. Harting, SPE, BP America Inc; D.L. Cox, SPE, BP America Inc; R. Murillo, SPE, BP America Inc; T.L. Young BP
America Inc; K.A. Adegbola, SPE, Schlumberger; and D. Schupp, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26 29 September 2004.
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, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper provides examples of using small injection tests on
tight gas wells in Jonah field to determine reservoir pressure
and transmissibility.
Prior to Mini-Falloff (MFO) test application in Jonah field,
reservoir pressure and permeability of each sand body were
obtained from log-derived correlations; these correlations in
the presence of depletion have been determined to be invalid.
The incorrect reservoir pressure and permeability will
generally result in wrong fracture geometry and pre-frac rate
prediction. The MFOs were designed as small injection tests
prior to fracture stimulation to correct these anomalies.
The After Closure Period following the MFO injection and
shut-in contain the reservoir pseudo-linear and pseudo-radial
flow periods. Analysis of the pseudo-radial flow period
provides reservoir transmissibility (kh/) and initial reservoir
pressure (Pr) in a manner similar to a Horner analysis. These
two-reservoir parameters play a crucial role in the
optimization of fracture design and rate prediction. For a tight
gas sand, the amount of time required to reach pseudo-radial
flow was thought to be quite large. However over sixty
percent of all the valid tests performed so far reached pseudoradial flow within a shut-in time of 24hrs.
A total of eighteen MFO tests were performed in the Jonah
field Lance formation from April to October 2003. Two of the
tests were invalid due to extremely high depletion and surface
pressure gauge malfunction. The remaining sixteen valid data
sets show various ranges of depletion in twelve sands tested
(0.36 0.52psi/ft) while the two remaining sands were overpressured (> 0.7psi/ft). Permeability results in general ranges
from 0.004 to 0.08md. The Jonah field log-derived
correlations were validated and improved with the MFO
results.

Introduction
The Jonah field is located in Sublette County, WY,
approximately 70 miles north of Rock Springs as shown in
Figure 1. The field is a large, structurally complicated wedge
shaped fault trap located in the northwestern part of the Green
River Basin. Production is primarily from over-pressured and
tight sandstones in the latest Cretaceous Lance Formation. The
Lance formation in Jonah field is composed of a stacked
sequence of fluvial channel sands inter-bedded with associated
over-bank siltstone and floodplain shale deposits as shown in
Figure 2. Gross interval thickness ranges from 2,800 ft to
more than 3,600ft. Within this interval the net-to-gross ratio
varies from 25 to 40%. Sandstone bodies occur as individual
10 to 20ft thick channels and stacked channel sequences
greater than 200ft in thickness in some cases. The main
reservoir issues are low permeability and small pay section
across a large gross interval.
One of the objectives of the Jonah field 2003 infill-drilling
program was to determine whether or not some sand bodies
were depleted. The question was addressed by the use of the
MFO technique. This technique determined the reservoir
pressure and transmissibility of individual sand bodies.
The use of MFO technique to determine reservoir pressure
and transmissibility is not a new idea. Gu et al1 and
Abousleiman et al2 comprehensively covered the after-fracture
closure application of radial flow from impulse fracture
injection. The theory and analysis of impulse fracture are
based on an instantaneous-source solution to the diffusivity
equation. The restriction is that the decline time (shut-in)
should be long enough to apply the impulse solution.
Ken Nolte3 further developed the techniques (field
application and analysis) in 1997 and it is currently known in
the industry as the Mini-Fall Off (MFO) test. The after-closure
pressure behavior is independent of the physical properties
governing fracture propagation and depends only on the
previous spatial and temporal history of the fluid loss, the
fracture length, and the reservoir parameters. The late-time
behavior becomes pseudo-radial flow and provides reservoir
transmissibility (kh/) and initial reservoir pressure (Pr) in a
manner similar to more traditional methods for a well test.
A MFO test consists of:
1. A small-volume water injection to create a short fracture
and
2. A shut-in period (decline time) afterwards to record
pressure falloff.

SPE 90455

A pressure response chronology for a constant rate fracture

injection, shut-in and pressure decline is shown in Figure 33
and described as follows:
1.

Injection period (pumping data): Used to evaluate the

nature of fracture propagation.
2. The fracture closing period: Used to quantify fluid
efficiency, fracture geometry, non-ideal events such as
post injection fracture propagation, pressure dependent
leak-off, height recession during closure and the existence
of a near well-bore choke. Though these non-ideal
fracturing characteristics can sometimes be identified
while the fracture is closing, it is unlikely given the small
fluid volumes, low viscosity fluid, and pump rate used in
these tests.
3. The after closure period (transient reservoir pressure
near well-bore) contains:
i.
Pseudo-linear flow period: Can be used to
determined closure time, spurt loss and fracture
length.
ii.
Pseudo-radial flow period: The presence of this
period depends on the allowed decline time. The late
time pseudo-radial pressure decline can be analyzed in
a manner similar to traditional well test methods to
determine transmissibility and reservoir pressure
(basis of MFO technique).
Literature Review
It is not the objective of this paper to provide a technical
review of the after-closure analysis. The reader is referred to
Gu et al1 and Nolte et al3 for such a review, however a brief
synopsis describing the basic equations associated with the
pseudo-radial flow period will be described in the following
section.
After-Closure Pseudo-Radial Flow
The late-time pressure decline evolves from the pseudolinear flow period to pseudo-radial flow allowing reservoir
pressure and transmissibility to be determined using a method
similar to a Horner analysis. After-closure radial-flow is a
function of the injected volume, reservoir pressure, formation
transmissibility, and closure time. Their relationship is
provided in the following equations using the radial-flow time
function, FR,
p(t ) p r = m R FR (t , t c )
(1)
where tc is the time to closure with time zero set as the
beginning of pumping, pr is the initial reservoir pressure, mR is
functionally equivalent to the Horner slope for conventional
testing, and
FR (t , t c ) =

t c
1
16
, =
ln 1 +
16
.
4 t tc
2

(2)

Thus, a Cartesian plot of pressure versus the radial-flow

time function yields reservoir pressure from the y-intercept
and the slope (mR) that permits determination of
transmissibility.

kh

= 251,000(

Vi
)
mR t c

(3)

with k, h, expressed in oil field units, tc in minutes and Vi is

injected volume (bbl). (Note, all other equations are either
dimensionless or in consistent units.)
Field Application
The primary objective of MFO application in Jonah field is to
assess the current level of depletion, by testing multiple sands
in a series of 20 acres infill-wells. The available open-hole and
cased-hole log correlations could not correctly predict or
determine the presence of depletion. The secondary objective
is to use the technique to determine the permeability to gas
and validate the formation evaluation neural network model
from logs. The technique is also used to estimate stress
profiles and validate the log generated stress profile for
improving fracture design.
Minimum Requirements for Field Application
The following are the minimum requirements that need to
be met for a successful application of MFO technique:
1. Static reservoir condition where reservoir pressure is
greater than hydrostatic pressure is desired. Not
applicable for wells that will not support a full column of
fluid.
2. The wellbore must be free of gas. Otherwise, incorrect
values for hydrostatic pressure and injected volume will
be utilized. After perforating, it is important to ensure that
gun movement does not pull/swab reservoir fluids into the
wellbore.
3. Single known fluid must be present in the wellbore.
4. An estimate of the reservoir pressure should be known
prior to the test for competent interpretation of pseudoradial flow regimes.
Specifying reservoir pressure
eliminates uniqueness considerations from the analysis.
5. In deep, hot reservoirs, bottomhole gauges will be
required because wellbore fluid expansion from
decreasing pressure and heating of the fluid will decrease
the hydrostatic pressure. Excessive expansion of the fluid
may also violate the no-flow condition and could require
bottomhole shut-off.
6. Large zones of varying lithology will reduce the
likelihood of successful application of the technique. The
analysis assumes equal fracture penetration and
communication over the complete interval. Therefore, it
is best suited for relatively thin, or somewhat single
homogeneous zones and not valid for multi-zone reservoir
without proper zonal isolation.
7. Volume has minimal effect on the time for development
of radial-flow (see next guideline). However, a minimum
volume of fluid should be pumped to insure accuracy of
the volume injected through the perforations because the
calculated transmissibility is proportional to volume (Eq.
#3).
8. To attain radial-flow within a reasonable time frame use
a fluid with minimal fluid loss control and adhere to the
following rate criterion:

SPE 90455

q (bpm) 5x10 6

kh

( pc pr )

(4)

If fluid loss is controlled by the reservoir, this guideline

provides a dimensionless time greater than one, i.e., beginning
of radial-flow.
The guideline will also require an estimate of reservoir
permeability for designing an injection test.
For low
permeability reservoirs this necessitates low injection rates.
Mobility greater than 5 to 10 md/cp should be considered as a
guideline to positively obtain radial-flow with a relatively
short monitoring period.
Job Procedure
All the tests performed follow the same job procedure as
follows:
1. Connect surface pressure gauge to casing valve to monitor
well pressure for the minifrac.
2. Rig up wireline. Run in hole with perf guns and frac plug
if isolation is necessary prior to injection.
3. Set frac plug at appropriate depth.
4. Perforate the target sand; perforation should cover the
entire net height.
5. Pull perf gun immediately out of the wellbore after
perforation and begin injection test.
6. Pump the minifrac at a rate of 2.5bpm to breakdown the
formation. Begin counting the fluid volume immediately
after breakdown. Step down the rate at 0.5bpm interval.
Shut down after pumping a total of 10bbl of KCl water.
Monitor decline pressure for 24hrs.
7. Gather pump rate and pressure data for analysis.
Summary of Field Applications
A total of eighteen tests were performed between April
and October 2003. Sixteen of the tests were successful. One of
the tests went on a vacuum immediately after pump-in and the
decline data was invalid, the other test had surface pressure
gauge malfunction.
Depletion was observed in twelve out of the sixteen sands
tested ranging from 0 to 2500psi below original reservoir
pressure. Two pay sands were about 1,000psi above the
expected pressure. In general permeability results ranges from
0.004 to 0.08md. The permeability values from the MFO tests
were not far from the predicted permeability from the
formation evaluation neural network model.
MFO Analysis Example
Application of the mini-falloff analysis is illustrated by
analyzing the pressure monitored following small injection
into the lower lance of one of the test wells in Jonah field. The
log cross-section of the zone of interest is shown in Figure 4.
The injection and 24hr shut-in pressure data are shown in
Figure 5. A total of 8.53bbl of water was injected into the
lower lance pay at the rate of 1.1bpm. The G-function analysis
from pressure decline is shown in Figure 6. Closure pressure
from the G-function analysis is determined to be 8215psi
(0.79psi/ft). The 17-ft zone has a porosity of 9% and contains
gas with a viscosity of 0.022cp. For these values, Eq. 3 with
the slope of the Cartesian radial-flow plot, mR and time to

closure, tc gave permeability of 0.006md and reservoir

pressure of 4913psi (0.474 psi/ft). Summary of the Horners
analysis and pseudo-radial analysis are shown in Figure 7 and
Figure 8 respectively. Figure 9 shows the summary of all the
tests data and analysis results while Figure 10 and 11
graphically illustrate the variation of log derived Reservoir
Pressure and Reservoir Permeability with the MFO results.
Fracture Placement Optimization
The main purpose of MFO application in 20 acres infilldrilling program in Jonah field is to determine the reservoir
pressure of each sand body within Lance formation and assess
the current level of depletion. Each Jonah well consists of a
stacked sequence of 20 to 50 fluvial channel sands interbedded with associated over-bank siltstone and flood plain
shale deposits; a multi-zone induced stress diversion fracture
treatment is the preferred option for cost savings and better
completion efficiency. Each fracture treatment stage consists
of between 2 to 7 sand bodies; one of these sand bodies is
perforated prior to actual fracture treatment and tested for
depletion. Due to the incomplete testing and data gathering of
all the pay sands, the desired fracture design optimization that
was to be done with the multi-layer pseudo3D fracture design
model was excluded. Also the pre-frac gas rate prediction for
all the pay sands could not be performed due to incomplete
pressure and transmissibility data.
The only design change employed by the completion team
was the use of energize fluid whenever depletion was
detected. Having confirmed a varying degrees of depletion in
more than half of the sands tested, the completion team
decided to optimize fracture placement by energizing the
fracturing fluid with Nitrogen. Foam qualities ranging from 35
to 55 were used in most cases.
Conclusions
1. The application of MFO in Jonah field is providing
critical reservoir information to improve the
understanding of reservoir performance and the potential
for infill drilling.
2. Each MFO test took 1.0 1.5 operating days. Earlier
failed techniques were more costly and time consuming.
3. MFO analysis validated Jonahs pre-frac neural network
permeability model. With the exception of one or two
cases, all MFO derived permeabilities agreed with the
permeabilities derived from OH/CH logs.
4. MFO
technology
adds
a
pre-frac
reservoir
characterization tool to the existing tool-kit to assist in the
evaluation of tight gas reservoirs.
5. Full utilization of MFO technology for rate prediction and
fracture optimization will require all the pay sands to be
tested. Future work should look into the logistics and cost
implication of getting all the zones tested effectively.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge their appreciation to our companies
for providing the opportunity to undertake and publish this
study.

SPE 90455

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

He Gu, H., Elbel, J.L., Nolte, K.G., Cheng, A.H-D. and

Abousleiman, Y.: Formation Permeability Determination
Using Impulse Fracture Injection, paper SPE 25425,
1993 Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
OK, Mar21-23.
Abousleiman, Y., Cheng, A.H-D. and Gu, H.: Formation
Permeability Determination by Micro or Mini-Hydraulic
Fracturing, J. Ener. Res. Tech. (June 1994) 104.
Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L. and Owens, K.A.: AfterClosure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests, paper
SPE 38676, 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct5-8.
Talley, G. R., Swindell, T. M., Waters, G. A., and Nolte,
K. G.: Field Application of After-Closure Analysis of
Fracture Calibration Tests, SPE 52220, 1999 Mid-Con.
Oper. Symp., Oklahoma City, OK, Mar 28-31.

Figure 2 Cross section of Jonah Lance Formation

Figure 1 Jonah Field Location Map

Figure 3 Bottom hole Fracture Pressure History (Nolte 1988)

SPE 90455

Porosity = 9%, Net Height = 17ft

Perm estimate from logs = 0.0079md

G s l o pe >>

<<P res s u re
P re s s d eriv >>

ps i

ps i

9000

Reservoir Pressure estimate = 6535psi

S p u rt % =0
P * =1 3 5 3
m 3 / 4 =1 3 5 3
m G c =6 6 0 ; fc =1 . 6 3
m G c . fc =1 0 7 5
E ffic ie n c y = 0 . 0 7
P s e u d o _ p o is s o n =0 . 3 4

ISIP

8000

1100
1000
900
800
700

Pclosure = 8215psi

600

7000

500
400
6000

300
200
100

5000
0

10

20

30

40

G fu n c tio n

Figure 6 G-function Analysis

initial reservoir pressure

Figure 4 Jonah Lance Sand Cross section for MFO Treatment

res_press

4940

match range

Rate(bpm)

Pres(psi)
4000

1.2

4920

1.0
3000
0.8
2000

0.6

4900
late-WBS diagnostic:
linearly increasing
values of "res press"
begins at ~ 1000 min
and eff stress ~ 3000 psi

4880

0.4
1000
0.2
0

0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
time (min)

Figure 5 Jonah Lance Sand Pressure Fall-off Data

4860

50

100

150

200

( t- t_c) / t_c

res_pr match

match dp_R

4913
kh /

8851
C_L / C_R

4.6

2.6

Figure 7 MFO Horners Analysis

250

SPE 90455

<<P re s s d i ff
<<P re s s d i ff(T C )
S l o p e (T C ) >>

<<P re s s d e ri v
<<P re s s d e ri v (T C )
S l o p e >>

p s i P g De riv
10000

0.9

Slope = 0.8 approaching unit

slope (radial flow)

0.8

1000

100

Tp
=0 . 0 0 7 4
M a tc h d e r = 6 1 1 0 p s i
P Cl
=8 2 1 5 p s i
P re s
=4 9 1 3 p s i
k h / m u = 4 . 6 0 m d . ft/ c p
M a tc h d e r+ P re s > IS IP !

10
1

0.7

0.6
100

10
f(t) = 1 / F l^2

Figure 8 MFO Radial Flow Analysis

Well Stage
A Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4

Log Derived
MFO Analysis
Pay Height for Volume
Pumping Decline
Continuos Sand Pumped
Rate
Time
Time
(ft)
(bbls)
(bpm)
(min)
(min) K (md) Pr (psi) K (md) Pr (psi)
17
8.53
1.1
9.4
1400 0.0079 6535
0.008
4862
21
23.4
3 - 0.75
17
1500 0.0033 5961
0.025
4778
22
8
2 - 0.5
10
1380 0.0102 5282
0.02
5040
19
10
2 - 0.05
12.5
1500 0.0106 4397
0.054
4410

Test Effective

Yes
Yes
Yes - but still in transitional flow
Yes

Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4

23
22
8
20

13.46
21
11.8
13

3 - 0.5
1 - 0.5
2.2 - 0.75
3 - 2.1

11.3
10.75
14
12

1300
1400
1400
50

0.0007
0.055
0.017
0.0351

5875
5374
5057
4873

0.006
0.049
0.082
0.057

7076
4443
4860
3025

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4

26
21
12
26

10.6
17.4
14.5
10

2.5 - 0.75
3 - 0.75
2.5 - 0.6
2.5 - 0.6

12
10
10
10

1450
1250
16
NA

0.0015
0.0144
0.0008
0.0125

6168
5612
5276
4719

0.004
0.031
-

4700
4503
-

Yes
Yes
No - too depleted for effective analysis
No - pressure gauge malfunction

Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3

22
28
17

11.7
8.3
16.4

2.5 - 0.6
2 - 0.5
3 - 0.75

10
10
10

1050
80
816

0.0071
0.0062
0.0577

6991
6377
5864

0.0066
0.00885
0.025

7104
3719
3793

Yes
Yes
Yes

Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3

22
24
14

7.4
8.8
10.8

2 - 0.5
2 - 0.5
2 - 0.5

12
12
10

1060
550
930

0.0098
0.0115
0.0288

6951
6344
5486

0.006
0.005
0.046

6430
5408
5131

Yes
Yes
Yes

Figure 9 Tests Data and Results

SPE 90455

Pressure vs Depth
0.0

All Data Normalized to top of Trap

Normal Pressure Gradient
Over Pressure Gradient 1.13

Depth below depth at Top of Trap

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0
-500.0

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

4500.0

5000.0

Pressure above hydrostatic at top of Trap

Figure 10 MFO vs Log Reservoir Pressure Variation

Permeability(MFOvsLog)
0.0900
0.0800
0.0700
0.0600
0.0500
0.0400
0.0300
0.0200
0.0100
8124
8296
8431
8959
9107
9143
9353
9772
9783
9794
10285
10372
10580
10647
11587
11647

0.0000

Klogmd

Kmfomd

Figure 11 MFO vs Log Permeability Variation

Klogmd