Areas of Expertise

  • 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

CONSULTING SERVICES

  • Fracture diagnostics

CONSULTING SERVICES

Back
  • 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