Guidelines for Step Rate Testing
This document has been reviewed by Sponsors, revised and is considered to be final. If
future additions or modifications are made, all parties will be notified.
Introduction
A step rate injectivity test is normally used to estimate the transition from matrix (or pseudo-matrix - a
fracture may already be present but the bulk of the flow is radial) flow to fracture-dominated injection,
according to a change in slope of a plot of pressure versus rate. Step rate testing allows for
determination of when a new hydraulic fracture occurs and/or when a pre-existing fracture
opens/propagates.
Step rate testing allows for determining when a fracture will propagate and when a pre-existing fracture
will reopen. It can be run after a conventional falloff or a final falloff segment can be used in the test.
Repeated falloff testing can also be used to assess if a reservoir has been altered by thermal changes in
in-situ stresses or changes in kh associated with thermal effects.
Injection is carried out at a number of rates below fracturing pressure. At each rate injection continues
until stabilization appears to occur. The injection operations are continued after indications of fracture
opening/propagation. The opening pressure is inferred from a significant change in slope of a plot of
bottomhole pressure versus injection rate. Figure 1 is an example.
Figure 1. Step rate test on Magnus C7.
Generic Procedures
1. If possible, have a reasonable conception of what the in-situ stresses are so that the step rate
test can be appropriately designed. Be certain that there will be adequate data points before
breakdown or reopening of the fracture.
2. Under any circumstances, have an approximation of the conversion between surface and
bottomhole treating pressure. In addition to determining in-situ stress levels, this can be useful
for evaluating the completion efficiency.
3. Under certain, restricted circumstances onshore, dead string calibration may be possible if the
backside has enough integrity.
4. If reasonable, obtain bottomhole pressure measurements. If bottomhole data are being acquired,
tandem gauges are a reasonable option. Have continuous surface readout under any
circumstances. This is a particular issue if some of the injection is on vacuum. Some operators will
not opt for tandem gauges if the supplier is reliable, if past history shows few failures and if the
cost of failure is minimal.
5. Check and calibrate all rate meters prior to testing.
6. Be certain there is enough water on location.
7. Use uniform rates and time steps! This will be demonstrated in the section on multi-rate analysis.
Record pressure and time and provide the analyst with this information.
8. Ensure that there is appropriate equipment available to fracture the well initially. If breakdown is
required, mud or cement pumps are often used. Be reasonably certain of what will happen during
the fracturing operation or use the test to make an inference of this. Can the injection interval
accept the required rates? If not, out-of-zone fracture growth can occur.
9. It has been recommended that each time step is one hour long to ensure that the radius of
investigation is large enough. Obviously, this may not always be practical. Either shorter times are
called for because of economic or operational limitations or substantially longer times are required
to allow for thermal stabilization. At a minimum, consider these issues before the test. Earlougher
states that "in relatively low permeability formations (k < 5 md), each injection should last for
one hour; 30-minute injection times are adequate for formations with permeability exceeding 10
md."
10. Attempt to obtain at least three readings above and three readings below the "parting" pressure.
11. Ensure that the pressure and rate gauges are calibrated and will accommodate the largest
anticipated pressures.
12. Fracture gradient can be dependent on the average reservoir pressure. Is there an independent
measurement of the reservoir pressure (temporal) or can a measurement be made in conjunction
with the test?
13. After the rate increasing segment, two approaches are possible. The first is to back down on the
rates to assess if the cement has been damaged. Alternatively, some specialists prefer a long
falloff after the last rate because it can be analyzed to get fracture properties (dimensions).
Deterioration of the cement bond can be a cause of altered step rate signatures or a risk to the
injection process if there are multiple zones and/or aquifers.
14. Compile all data to determine if there is a consistent relationship between apparent in-situ stress
and reservoir pressure.
15. Where possible, combine falloff testing with the measurements, as described in item 13, above.
Where Possible, Falloff Should Be An Integral Part Of Step Rate Testing.
How Can You Be Fooled?
The signature on the pressure-rate curve can be anomalous if there are reservoir variations or
mechanical failure occurs during the testing. For example:
Different fluid loss. If the fracture grows out of zone into a different fluid loss regime, the slope of the
post fracturing curve can vary and may not be constant. If step rate data from different tests are being
compared, recognize that the slopes can be different if the water quality is different. This is shown in
Figure 2. Some people only show the fracturing behavior changing (not behavior during radial flow -
matrix injection). Strictly, this is not true. Slight changes can also be seen in the portion of the curve
before fracture opening/reopening. Recognize that slope changes can be associated with different fluid
characteristics.
Figure 2. A schematic variation (conceptual data) of how pressure signatures can vary for
different water qualities (after Murray). The slopes, after fracturing occurs, is dependent on
the fluid loss. With decreasing water quality, there is reduced fluid loss, but there is
additional fracture growth.
Different fracture geometry. As a note of caution, this behavior is contingent on a fracture that is
contained within one zone. Much more complex behavior can occur if out-of-zone growth occurs. If the
fracture grows out-of-zone dramatically, the excess pressure may decrease because of the growth more
than the change in pressure due to friction in the fracture. A negative slope may appear in the post-
fracturing regime. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 3. The negative slope can be related to
growth into a higher permeability zone, rapid out-of-zone growth, etc. Eventually, depending on the
degree of particle plugging at the tip and on the surface of the fracture, the post-fracturing slope may
change strictly due to changes in efficiency.
Possibly different perforation friction and completion efficiency. If at all possible, bottomhole
pressures should be used. For example, in a layered situation, one zone may fracture and the
conformance can be changed completely. Or, the pressure drop through the perforations may be
different than what you have anticipated (refer to Friction).
Damaged cement bond. The inflection point can indicate failure of the cement sheath. It has been
speculated that it may be possible to diagnose this if rates are reduced during the test (step-down after
the highest rate of injection). Injectivity will apparently remain high (along the second slope) even at
rates below the original inflection point. The argument against this philosophy is that if the original
perforations covered the entire height, there should not be additional injectivity once a fracture closes.
If the test was through a partial set of perforations, the stepdown should be on a slope that corresponds
to a new kh. Considering these arguments, another reason for the increased injectivity below the
original inflection point (during stepdown - reduction in rate) may be residual fracture conductivity.
Falloff behavior - it may be a toss up between doing a stepdown and a falloff test. Falloff could be
important. It is very off dominated by the reservoir (short fracture closure time and gives data about
stress-dependent permeability and residual permeability enhancement.
A good compromise, if possible, may be to combine both techniques - step up in rates, followed by a
step down cycle (the step down procedure may provide indications of whether or not there has been
fracture growth out-of-zone, etc.), followed by stepping back up and a falloff. This may be the premium
procedure and modifications may be required because of operational constraints and available time.
Packer bypass. Determining the potential for exceeding the differential pressure limits of isolation
devices (if any) depends on the configuration. It may be possible to monitor backside pressure or have
a bomb below the lower packer (if used in a straddle configuration).
Open/pre-existing fracture. Ideally, the pressure time plot for a step-rate test would look like that
shown in Figure 4. However, if there is a pre-existing fracture, it will always have conductivity, even at
pressures below the reopening pressure. This is particularly true if it is self-propped (jammed open) or
if we are testing a converted production well that has been conventionally stimulated. Under these
circumstances, inflection may not be seen or there may be a slight curvature followed by a straight line
linear or bilinear flow regime. To detect linear and bilinear flow regimes, log-log pressure-time plotting
may be helpful. Examples of behavior for a pre-existing, closed and a pre-existing, self-propped fracture
are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Settari and Warren (Eurorock, 1994) schematically summarized the influence of a pre-existing fracture
(or at the opposite extreme, positive skin) on the step rate test signature. This is shown in Figure 7.
Transient Effects. Depending on the volumes injected, thermal effects can come into play, either due
to viscosity changes or in-situ stress changes. In conjunction with this, it is extremely important to
incorporate any changes in reservoir pressure if you are comparing SRT data taken at different times in
the injection life cycle.
Different Stress Levels. In comparing consecutive step-rate test programs, be certain that you are
aware of any stress field alterations that have occurred due to poroelastic and/or thermoelastic effects.
Measured differences can in fact be diagnostic of the stress changes associated with temperature
fluctuations. Figure 8 is an example. It is not a step rate test per se. Rather it is a compilation of rate
versus injection data for an actual field situation.
Figure 3. A schematic (conceptual data) indicating how pressure and rate may be affected
by out-of-zone growth.
Figure 4. An idealized, readily-interpretable step-rate test. This is conceptual data.
Figure 5. An idealization of a closed (but still conductive) pre-existing hydraulic fracture.
Figure 6. An idealization (conceptual data) of a self-propped, pre-existing hydraulic fracture.
Figure 7. An idealization of the influence of fracture conductivity on step rate test
signatures (presuming propped, unpropped and damaged fractures).
Figure 8. This figure shows step rates for Forties Alpha FA5-3. The PW points lie on a
steeper line than the SW points. If water quality effects were small then mobility effects
would be expected to make the PW line shallower. A Prudhoe Bay performance plot shows
the reverse trend to Forties. It therefore appears that the high oil and solids content in
Forties PW reduces injectivity dramatically. The effect appears to be larger than in Prudhoe
Bay and this may be the result of higher contaminant concentrations and larger particle
sizes.
Martins et al., 1994, discussed thermoelastic effects at Prudhoe Bay:
"The pressure required to open an induced fracture depends both on the initial stresses in the rock and
on stress changes induced by injection at different temperature and pressure. It has been known since
early step-rate tests that produced water has a higher fracture gradient (0.57 - 0.60 psi/ft) than
seawater (0.53 - 0.54 psi/ft) [gradient values are for Prudhoe Bay]. This was linked to the higher well-
head temperature of produced water (150°F versus 80°F). Most Prudhoe Bay injectors have alternated
periods of seawater and produced water injection over the subsequent 10 years. It is found almost
without exception that injectivity is poorer for produced water than for seawater, typically by 30-50%."
"[Injection data for Well H-09I are available on a day-to-day basis.] The well has switched 6 times
between SWI and PWRI over a 7 year period. The points corresponding to SWI lie approximately on a
straight line which intersects the pressure axis at about 100 psi WHP. The intersection of the straight
line with the pressure axis is a good measure of the fracture-opening pressure, since step-rate tests
indicate very low rates (typically less than 1000 bbl/day) beneath fracture pressure. The points
corresponding to produced water injection lie on a different straight line, intersecting the pressure axis
at about 900 psi. Produced water typically requires 500 psi greater pressure than seawater, in order to
inject at the same rate."
"These general features are reflected in data collected from across the field. There are variations of up
to a few hundred psi in the values of fracture pressure (and substantial variations in rate, depending on
permeability, intervals of perforation and other factors), but the comparison between seawater and
produced water follows a common pattern."
"The factors which can cause a difference in performance are water temperature (70°F warmer for
produced water), viscosity (about a factor of 2 lower for produced water, which would therefore double
the rate if all other factors were equal) and water quality. The dominant factor we believe to be
temperature, because of thermoelastic stress. It appears that fractures are often likely to be shorter in
length for produced water injection, in spite of the higher pressure."
There is a substantial amount of other data available that indicates the influence of temperature on the
injection pressure. One particularly good example is from the Eider pilot program (Figures 9 and 10).
Figure 9 plot raises certain unanswered issues. These include is there a methodology for fitting both
sections of the curve. If measurements are accurately performed, the value of each point is significant
and reflects specific occurrences in the reservoir. If friction is reliably considered, the curves should be
forced through the origin on a plot of this nature where the y-axis is the bottomhole pressure
(measured in this case) minus the reservoir pressure. This is one of the difficulties of the plot shown in
Figure 1. Ideally, pressure differential plots should pass through the origin if the reservoir pressure and
friction are known appropriately.
For more information on changes in stress due to thermal and pore pressure changes:
Thermo-and Poroelastic Effects
Finally, Figure 11 demonstrates that the concepts of step rate testing can be used for evaluating long-
term injection data (day by day plots of pressure versus rate) to evaluate changes in stress levels and
conformance.
Figure 9. These data, from a well-controlled and monitored pilot in the Shell Eider field,
show the variation of measured stress levels with temperature. The lines are all
approximately parallel, indicating consistency in the quality of the injected water (or
insensitivity). The inferred local in-situ total stresses, as a function of temperature, are
shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Excess pressure at the inflection for each temperature regime shown in Figure 9.
This clearly shows the thermoelastic elevation in the local total in-situ stress as a function of
temperature.
Figure 11. Long-term variation of wellhead pressure and injection rate, showing the
influence of temperature and quality. These are actual field data.
Data Analysis
1. The simplest, and least desirable, method of analysis is to plot surface pressures at the end of
each step versus injection rate (Figures 12 and 13). Figure 13 highlights the difficulties in ready
interpretation of surface data alone.
2. It is preferable to use measured or inferred bottomhole pressure data in these plots (Figure 14).
The bottomhole pressure in Figure 14 was calculated. Presuming that the calculations are
reasonable, delineation of the fracture opening/reopening pressure is improved. Measured
bottomhole pressure and temperature are even more desirable, depending on the particular
situation (operational and economic considerations).
3. It is also desirable to consider this as a multi-rate test and to process the data accordingly. The
procedures for this are described below.
Multi-Rate Testing Analysis
1. Figure 15 shows a generic representation of flow and time behavior during a step rate test.
2. A step-wise approximation is used.
Figure 12. Plot of surface pressure versus rate for an actual step rate test. The bottomhole
pressure was estimated, accounting for the hydrostatic head and frictional effects.
Figure 13. Plot of surface pressure versus rate for an actual step rate test, emphasizing the
difficulties in picking inflection points, or multiple mechanisms occurring (such as reopening
a pre-existing fracture, more than one fracture opening, etc.).
Figure 14. Plot of inferred bottomhole pressure versus rate for an actual step rate test.
Some of the difficulties in picking an inflection point may be overcome by these methods. The
difficulty (as evident from the one outlier) is the assumptions used for calculating frictional
pressure drops.
The premise is that multiple-rate transient data should appear as a straight line when plotted as:
These plots will not be done properly unless the analyst understands the meaning of the variables. The
rate corresponding to each plotted pressure point is qn. This is the last rate when that pressure point
was measured. As time increases, the number of rates may increase and the last rate may change; but
each pressure point is identified with the rate occurring when that pressure was measured. There may
be several pressure points associated with a given rate. This technique can help clarify inflection points.
Furthermore, skin and permeability can be estimated. To understand the importance of using this
technique, it can be envisioned that it accounts for changes in pressure conditions due to the injection
that has preceded any particular stage.
The units in all of the equations used for these analyses are:
k absolute permeability (md),
B formation volume factor (RB/STB),
m viscosity (cP),
m' slope of multi-rate plot (psi/STBPD/cycle),
h formation thickness (feet),
b' intercept of multi-rate plot (psi/STBD),
f p porosity (fractional),
-1
ct total system compressibility (psi ), and,
rw wellbore radius (feet).
Figure 15. A schematic representation of a step-rate test. The nomenclature indicates the
parameters to be used in multi-rate test analyses.
Examples
Figure 16 shows an example data set. There is an inflection point at a surface pressure of 1,000 psi. For
illustrative purposes, assuming no friction, a depth of 7260 feet and a fluid pressure gradient of 0.433
psi/ft, 1000 psi gives an estimated fracture opening/reopening pressure gradient of 0.57 psi/ft. The
data can be further analysed for formation properties using multi-rate analysis methods. This is shown
in Figure 17. The first four points fall on one curve, indicating pseudo-radial flow.
In Figure 17, the higher rate points do not fall on a straight line because the assumptions of radial,
infinite acting flow are no longer satisfied, since fracturing has occurred.
Figure 16. An example step-rate analysis (reported in Earlougher, 1977, and originally from
Felsenthal, 1974). The multi-rate plot for these data is shown in Figure 17.
An Excel file (for the foregoing example) is attached (click button below), indicating how multi-rate
analyses are carried out.
Click Here for Multi-Rate Analysis
Figure 17. Multi-rate analysis for the data set shown in Figure 16.
Figures 18 and 19 show rate and processed step-rate data from PCP Rosemary 16-07-22-16W4. Only
surface data were used in this evaluation. No information was available on the times for each injection
stage. A parametric variation in times was implemented. Three cases are shown. The first is for
arbitrary equal times. There is no consistent or interpretable behavior. The pressure data are not
clarified at all and it is still difficult to infer a fracture opening pressure. This may have been the real
situation and there could have been a gradual transition from radial to linear or bilinear (fractured)
behavior. Or, possibly the time steps became shorter for each subsequent injection stage. An arbitrary
example is shown by the red circles in Figure 19. Two straight lines can be delineated, indicating a
surface fracture opening pressure of 6.03 MPa. Finally, another situation is arbitrarily assumed. The first
three stages were taken to be at relatively long injection times and all following stages were short. This
gives a dramatically different signature that is relatively meaningless. If injection times were available,
some of the uncertainty in this data set could be removed (i.e., in Figure 18, can a discreet fracture
opening/reopening pressure be determined by processing the data and accounting for previous
response in the reservoir?). Figure 19 shows that, incorporating time effects and being consistent in the
performance of each injection cycle could make a significant difference in interpretation of the data.
Time information is not available for this case, so no improved interpretation is possible. The example is
shown strictly to indicate the importance of accounting for duration of each injection stage.
This is not an academic exercise. It is intended to demonstrate:
1. It is desirable to use equal injection time periods.
2. If this is not done, at least record the time at which pressure stabilization occurred and preferably
record, pressure-time data (at the very least at the surface) in detail.
3. Otherwise, meaningful and quality-controlled interpretation may not be possible.
Figure 18. Raw, surface step-rate data from PCP Rosemary 16-07-22-16W4. It is difficult to
determine a distinct reopening pressure - either because of frictional effects, variable
injection time effects, reopening of a conductive fracture or even more complicated fracture
growth behavior. Multi-rate analysis can help to remove some of the uncertainty.
Figure 19. Arbitrary processing of surface step-rate data from PCP Rosemary 16-07-22-
16W4, showing the influence of different injection stage times. The recommendation is that
uniform time steps should be used and that multi-rate evaluations are important for
discriminating behavior.
More Rigorous Evaluation of SRTs
SRT data actually contains much more information than what is used in the techniques described above,
both about reservoir and fracture properties. However, to access this information it is necessary to:
1. Record data continuously at a reasonably high frequency,
2. Include a long falloff after the last stage, and,
3. Analyze the data by simulation rather than by graphical means.
Analysis Below Fracture Opening Pressure
Each step below the fracture initiation/opening/reopening pressure is a transient event. There is a large
slope initially and a small slope at the end of a constant rate. Only the end point is used in graphical
analyses. Simulation of the early stages can be carried out with conventional models and early and late
slopes can be matched. These matches will yield both kh and system compressibility. The simulation
can incorporate any known wellbore skin components.
When the simulation starts to deviate from the data, this is an indication of induced fracturing, or
increasing conductivity of a pre-existing fracture. At this point, the conventional model cannot give any
more detailed information, beyond indicating the approximate position of departure.
Analysis Above Fracturing Pressure
Coupled fracture-reservoir modeling is required at this point. These can be models using fracture
mechanics principles, partially coupled (e.g., GEOSIM, with fracture coupling) or fully coupled (BP's
model, after Clifford, et al.). The process can be also modeled as re-opening of joints or creating a high
permeability channel (Visage, or GEOSIM with stress-dependent fracture representation).
Simultaneous matching of the rate steps and the falloff (while keeping the reservoir properties from the
match below fracturing pressure) allows estimation of:
1. fracture growth (geometry) with time,
2. fracture conductivity (adjustments to theoretical predictions),
3. rock mechanics parameters (controlling net propagation pressure),
4. the initial minimum stress, and,
5. possibly thermoporoelastic effects.
The estimate of the undisturbed minimum stress will generally differ from the graphical method result
and can be lower for a multitude of reasons.
The pre-existing fracture can be incorporated in the simulation analysis and will generally result in more
gradual change of the slope, as seen on the Rosemary example.
In general, simulation analysis can give clear answers in some complex cases that cannot be interpreted
by the graphical methods. However, this is achieved at a considerably higher effort.
The first step is to look at basic radial flow relationships and see if radial flow at the low rates makes
sense. The first step is graphical.
The second is to match the low and high rate ends with analytical models to look at the two limiting
situations, with and without a fracture. If there is a deviation from low rate prediction and the actual
data (in the right direction) it indicates a good test.
The final step, if warranted, is numerical analysis to make all parts fit together.
It is important to take into account pre-existing fractures. For matching pressures below pfoc, (closure
pressure) determine the reservoir permeability and the fracture conductivity and forecast to higher
rates. The point of departure between this theoretical curve and the measured data is an independent
measure of the value of pfoc. Above pfoc, it is necessary to iterate with a fracture model to match the
measured data.
Some operators evaluate SRT with spreadsheet models that have a radial flow and a fracture flow
component.