Abstract
Castillo1 suggested the use of the G-Function plot based on the work of Nolte2. It has been a standard practice in the fracturing community to estimate the fracture closing pressure from a tangent to the G*dp/dg plot. In this analysis technique, the assumption is that a fracture has already developed under the high-pressure fracturing fluid. Then when the pumping is relaxed, one can estimate the fracture closing pressure. In many California waterfloods, the issue of maximum allowable injection gradient has been debated. Various solutions have been proposed to calculate a safe injection gradient. One method that has been promoted is the application of the G-function plot. In this paper, we maintain that this application can be misleading using the prescribed cartesian G function plots.
We present the results of an extensive research study for analyzing pressure fall-off data using the G-Plot function. We studied a reappraisal of the G function plot using waterflood conditions where no prior fractures had formed, and no fracture closing pressure was meaningful or applicable. We show from analysis of generated data, using both numerical reservoir modeling and analytical derivations for a radial flow system, that fall-off tests analyzed using the cartesian G function can generate false indications of fracture closing where in fact, the entire injection has been based on radial flow homogeneous injection systems. We also studied systems with a pre-existing fracture before injection. We show that if such a reservoir system is subjected to injection and fall-off tests, again, one may compute a false indication of the irrelevant fracture closure pressure. We discuss how the cartesian scale used for the G function plot can be misleading for the analysis of fall-off test data.
Analysis on the source of scale-forming ions in water injection wells of No.1 structure in Nanpu Oilfield
