.

6iihli .,,
m
,

.
-~

i%seie~~f Petroleum --------

Enghrwm
-

SPE 50671

Interpretation of FaHoff Tests on Fractured Wells of the Barsukov Oil Field in Western
Siberia
A.N.P. Dros, SPE, Hagoort & Associates, A.M. Kuznetsov, Purneftegas, J. Hagoort, SPE, Hagoort & Associates

Copyright 1998, Society or Petroleum Engineefi Inc.

underlain by bottom water throughout the reservoir. A gas cap
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference occupies about one sixth of the reservoir volume.
held in The Hague, The Netherfanda, 20-22 October 1998.
The field is being waterflooded by a line-drive pattern with
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(a). Contents of the paper, as a well distance of 250 m. There are some 700 production wells
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineeffi and are subject to
and over 100 injection wells. The wells are completed by
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, dms not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineera, its officers, or members. Papers presented at cemented casing, perforated opposite productive sand layers.
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineera. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper In most of the injection wells water is being injected above
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers ia
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
the formation parting pressure, and as a consequence
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous waterflood hydraulic fractures extend from the wells into the
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. reservoir. Therrnometry surveys indicated that in over 50 per
cent of the injection wells cold injection water is injected into
Abstract non-perforated zones. The source of injection water is ffesh
The Barsukov field is a large oil field in Western Siberia that water from a nearby river along with produced water. The
is being developed by waterflooding. The field has some 700 water is mechanically filtered with a 6 mm mesh size. No
production wells and over 100 injection wells. In most of the major infectivity problems have been reported.
injection wells water is being injected above the formation The injectors are regularly tested by means of pressure
parting pressure, and as a consequence water flood hydraulic falloff tests. We have interpreted the tests to evaluate fracture
fractures extend from the wells into the reservoir. dimensions, height growth, leakage and the development of
The injectors are regularly tested by means of fall-off tests. the fractures as a function of time. In total we have evaluated
We have interpreted about 250 falloff tests in 80 different 258 tests on 80 different wells. Of these tests over 240 could
wells using the conventional graphical analysis methods for be sensibly interpreted.
transient pressure tests, i.e. pressure-derivative analysis for In this paper we fiist describe the methods that we have
flow regime identification, analysis of early-time fracture applied to interpret the falloff tests, with emphasis on the
storage flow, and analysis of the linear and radial flow estimation of fracture dimensions. Next, we present an
regimes. overview of the results and discuss the different methods for
A large number of the tests show pronounced storage fracture size estimation. Finally, we present an example of the
effects, which can be attributed to fracture closing. Fracture development of a waterflood induced hydraulic fracture over
size estimated from the storage period correlates well with the time.
fracture size derived from the linear and radial flow regimes.
Falloff tests are excellent tools for estimating the size of Test procedure and analysis
waterflood induced fractures. The falloff tests in the Barsukov field consist of a shut-in
period of up to 2 days. Prior to the tests, the wells have been
Introduction injecting for at least several months so that steady-state
The Barsukov field is a large oil field in Western Siberia that conditions prevail at the start of the falloff. During the test the
is being developed by waterflooding. The reservoir is a wellhead pressures are measured using a mechanical pressure
classical anticline at a depth of about 1600 m subsea. It gauge. The pressures are recorded continuously on a
comprises a geologically complex sequence of alternating cylindrical metal chart. The pressure data points used for the
sands and shales, deposited in a deltaic to coastal plain analysis are sampled from the chart with an initial time
environment. Absolute perrneabilities range from 25 to 500 interval of 4 minutes increasing to half an hour after 2.5
mD. The oil zone has a thickness of about 40 m and is hours. The interpretation of the data is carried out in terms of
botiomhole pressures. To this end the wellhead pressures are

363
2 A.N.P. DROS, A.M. KUZNETSOV, J. HAGOORT SPE 50671

converted to bottomhole pressures by adding the hydrostatic

pressure drop in the wellbore to the observed wellhead
qB
pi. p=T -JQ ..........................................(4)
pressures. r nctk~
We have interpreted the falloff data using conventional
graphical analysis methods. First, we prepared a diagnostic Equation (4) allows the estimation of the fracture size from the
log-log plot showing the pressure and pressure derivative as a slope of the plot of the pressure as a fimction of the square
fimction of time. From the log-log plot we identified a period root of time. As for the fracture geometry we have considered
two extreme cases: a confined rectangular fracture where Af =
dominated by storage, a linear flow period and a radial flow
2hLf and a penny-shaped fracture where Af = nr~. Because the
period. We then analyzed each period separately using a
Cartesian plot for the storage period, a square-root time plot area which dominates linear flow is close to the fracture we
for the linear flow period and a semilog-plot for the radial have assumed the water viscosity to be equal to the cold
injection water viscosity of 1.3 10-3Pa.s. The permeability is
flow period.
taken from the interpretation of the radial flow period.
Storage. Many tests show significant storage effects,
Radial flow. The infinite radial flow regime is indicated by
recognized by a unit slope on the log-log plot with storage
the horizontal part of the pressure derivative plot (see Fig. 1
coefficients of up to 2 10-2m3ikJ?a. Fig. 1 shows a typical
and Fig. 2). We have analyzed radial flow using the semi-log
example. The storage coefficients are an order of magnitude
analysis method of Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson (MDH)S. The
larger than the wellbore storage coefficients of about 3 10-
pressure drop for radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir is
5m31kPa and can be attributed to fracture closure. The early
given by:
part of the fracture closure pressure response is described by
3.

dp q (ln[4;r:]+2S] ......................5)
= ..............7n .................. ..x..u ....................... (1) i p = 4nkh
dt Cf
The pressure plots as a straight line on a semi-log plot. The
where CJ is the fracture storage coefficient. For a confiied slope of the line is given by the fluid mobility; the level is
rectangular fracture, the fracture storage coefficient is given determined by the skin factor. We have assumed radial flow in
by: the water zone that is still at the initial reservok temperature of
55 C. The water viscosity at this temperature is 0.55 10-3Pa.s.
~ = (1 - v2)27dzL; Hydraulic fractures connected to the wellbore show up as
f
............................................... (2) negative skin factors that depend on fracture size. For small
E
confined rectangular fractures the skin is related to the fracture
For penny-shaped fractures the fracture storage coefficient is:

+
half-length by:

8(1 V2)r;

)_
Cf= c; ............................................... (3) Lf
E S=ln ..........................................................(2)
[ rw
where C = 0.661.
The fi-acture size can be derived from the observed fracture Instantaneous shut-in pressure. The injection pressure (1P)
storage coefficient, provided the Poisson ratio and Youngs prior to shut-in includes ftiction losses from wellbore to the
modulus are known. Examples of the application of the hydraulic fracture. The friction losses are indicated by a rapid
technique are given in References 4 and 5. pressure drop just after shut-in. The injection pressure without
The Barsukov reservoir rock is a high porosity, the friction losses is commonly referred to as the instantaneous
consolidated and friable sandstone. No rock mechanical shut-in pressure (ISIP). The ISIP is the pressure within the
measurements are available. We have used a value of 0.25 for fracture just before shut-in, which is required for the log-log
the Poissons ratio. Youngs modulus for this rock type ranges plot and for the MDH analysis. Because of the coarse pressure
between 2 and 7 10%.Pa. sampling, the ISIP cannot be read off directly from the
pressure data. We therefore have determined the ISIP by
Linear flow. Traditionally infinitely conductive hydraulic extrapolation of the linear and/or the square root pressure
fractures are identified and analyzed from a period with linear trend observed during storage and linear flow back to time
flow. It is recognized by train track half slope behavior on a zero.
log-log plot. Fig. 2 shows an example of a typical Barsukov
test response showing the linear flow behavior on the log-log
plot. The pressure response during the linear flow period is
given by:

364
 SPE 50671 INTERPRETATION OF FALLOFF TESTS ON FRACTURED
Results
Friction losses. Fig.6 shows the friction losses in the near
wellbore region (IP-ISIP) as a function of the ISIP. The
friction losses can be as much as 60 102kPa with an average of
about 15 102kPa. Inspection of Fig.6 shows two clusters: a
cluster with relatively small friction losses of up to 6 102kPa,
and a cluster with relatively large friction losses. The fust
cluster represents cases with a good hydraulic communication
between the wellbore and the fracture. The friction losses in
the second cluster correlate with the ISIP (correlation
coefficient R2=0.40). The larger the ISIP the smaller the
friction. This trend can be explained by the fact that the width
of small tortuous fractures that connect the wellbore and the
main fracture increases with pressure, resulting in a reduction
of the friction losses.
The near-wellbore friction may account for a major part of
the pressure drop between the wellbore and the reservoir. This
is depicted in Fig. 7 showing a plot of the friction losses
against the difference between ISIP and reservoir pressure. In
some instances 50 to 80 per cent of the total pressure drop
occurs in the near-wellbore region.
Fracture storage. About one quarter to one third of the tests
show pronounced storage effects. The coarse pressure
sampling did not allow for storage determination in the other
tests. The maximum pressure drop during the storage period
can be as much as 30 102kPa and the average pressure drop is
about 15 102kPa.
Fracture size depends on the fracture geometry and
Youngs modulus. In the case of rectangular fractures and a
Youngs modulus of 2 10%Pa the fracture half-length ranges
from 4 to 65 m with an average of 13 m. For a Youngs
modulus of 7 10@a, the values are about 1.9 times larger.
In the case of penny-shaped fractures the radii vary
between 7 and 55 m with an average of 17 m for a Youngs
modulus of 2 10%Pa. For a Youngs modulus of 7 10%Pa, the
values are about 1.5 times larger.
Linear flow. Half of the wells show linear flow response. In
another fifth of the wells linear flow is suspected, but not
clearly visible. The latter results from the small pressure
sampling density and possible interaction of multiple zones.
Assuming confined rectangular fractures, the estimated
fracture half-lengths mainly range from 3 to 120 m, with the
average in the order of 30 m. For penny-shaped fractures, the
estimated fracture half-lengths range from 4 to 30 m, with an
average of 13 m. The observed linear flow indicates that the
fractures become propped in the course of time and do not
completely close anymore.
Radial flow. Of the total number of tests, 70 per cent shows a
clear radial flow regime. Using the ISIP as the initial flowing
pressure, almost 80 per cent of the interpreted tests show
negative skins of up to -5 with an average of-2. Taking the IP
WELLS OF THE BARSUKOV OIL FIELD IN WEST SIBERIA 3
as the injection pressure the skins increase on average by 2
skin units. This stands to reason as the near wellbore pressure
drop by friction is now part of the skin factor.
Comparison of methods.
Fig. 3 shows a cross-plot of the fracture length based on the
skin factor and the fracture length based on interpretation of
the linear flow period. The linear flow fracture length has been
calculated for a confined rectangular fracture. The fracture
half-length derived from the skin factor and from the linear
flow correlate. The estimated fracture half-length from the
skin factor is about two thirds of the half-length based on
linear flow.
Fig. 4 shows a cross-plot of the fracture half-length based
on linear flow and on fracture storage assuming confined
rectangular fractures. For tests with only storage or only linear
flow we have compared the fracture length estimates with tests
that were performed within three months and with a similar
infectivity. The two fracture half-lengths compare fairly well.
For the tests in which both storage and linear flow are present
we fmd an especially good correlation (correlation coefficient
R*= 0.67). For a Youngs modulus of 17 10%Pa the estimated
fracture sizes are equal for both methods.
Assuming penny-shaped fractures, we find an even better
correlation between the fracture size based on the two
methods (see Fig. 5). For the tests in which both storage and
linear flow are present the correlation coefficient R2 = 0.81.
For a Youngs modulus of 1 10%Pa the estimated fracture size
are equal for both methods.
The calculated fracture heights are in general larger than
the thicknesses of the perforated sand layers. This indicates
that the fractures are not confined by the shale layers at the top
and bottom of the sand layers. This conclusions is in line with
the observed injection in non-perforated zones by
therrnometry surveys, and rock mechanics considerations.
Owing to the rocks low Youngs modulus and relatively
small temperature difference, thermo-elastic effects do not
dominate over poro-elastic effects. Hence, the fractures are not
contained in the flooded cooled-down perforated zones.
Example of fracture development
For a number of wells several tests are available at different
times. We will demonstrate the development of a fracture for
one of the injection wells.
History. Well A started injection in 1991. During 1990, prior
to injection, the well was completed as a production well. Fig.
8 shows the reported injection rates and pressures from 1991
to 1997. The perforated net sand interval is about 11 m. As the
well was believed be to injecting into non-perforated zones,
cement or polymer have been injected into the well, several
times. The operation dates are indicated in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. A
thermometry survey was performed in May 1994. The survey
showed that an interval above the perforations responded
4 A.N.P. DROS, A.M. KUZNETSOV, J. HAGOORT SPE 50671

directly to the injection of cold water. Falloff tests are half-lengthhadius to be in the order of 80 m. The infectivity
available for the years 1993 to 1996. One day prior to the test has also significantly increased.
a choke was removed and the test rates are larger than the In 1997 a step rate test was performed on well A (Fig. 10
monthly injection rate. Furthermore a step rate infectivity test (e)). Different choke sizes were installed, starting with the
is available for 1997. With the reservoir pressure obtained smallest. After 8 hours the injection rate and pressure were
from the fall-off tests and injection pressure we have measured. The absolute pressure level compared to the falloff
calculated the infectivity index based on the injection history. tests is uncertain. The data clearly show a change in the
Fig. 9 shows the infectivity and reservoir pressure over time. ,injectivity when the fracture opens and propagates.
Nearby production wells produce mostly from an interval
of about 14 m just above the perforated zone of well A. The Development. Based on voidage replacement of produced
zones are separated by a shale layer. Fig. 8 shows the sum of water and oil, it seems likely that well A injected into non-
the oil and water production rates. The two nearest wells at a perforated zones in the period 1991 to 1993. It is uncertain if
distance of 250 m showed production water breakthrough in the leakage is caused by fracturing or simply by leakage
1993. through the cement column. No data are available on what
happened in January 1993, but the leakage seems to have
Test analysis. Fig. 10 (a) to (e) show the log-log plot of the stopped.
pressure response for 1993 to 1996. Fig. 10 (f) shows the From 1993 to 1996 we see an increase of the fracture size.
1997 step rate test response. Table 1 gives the test parameters We estimate that the fracture has increased from a half-length
and evaluation results. The ranges in fracture size are based on of 20 m in 1993 to 80 m in 1996. The increase in size
larger reservoir thicknesses (and consequently lower coincides with an increase in reservoir pressure. Possibly the
permeabilities). actual voidage replacement is just above one, causing fracture
Clear radial flow is observed in the 1993 tests and we growth. We see that ISIP remains more or less constant.
calculate an effective permeability thickness of 350 mD.m Afler the polymerlcement injection operations in 1996 the
(see Fig. 10 (a)). No linear flow is observed in the 1993 test. fracture seems to be stable. The reservoir pressure and
The skin factor based on the injection pressure indicates a injection pressures are also lower. The step-rate test shows that
possible fracture. When we use an ISIP in the same order of the fracture is still present.
magnitude as the ISIP of the 1994 tests, we see that train-track
behavior can be matched. Conclusions
The 1994 tests shows, however, clear linear flow (Fig. 10 1. We have successfully estimated fracture size from falloff
(b)). To obtain a train-track of pressure and pressure tests, using fiactnre storage, linear flow and radial flow.
derivative an ISIP of 230 102kPa, much lower than the 1P is 2. A large number of tests show pronounced storage effects
used. No clear radial flow is observed. The line shown in Fig. due to fracture closing. Fractures size derived from
10 (b) is the same permeability thickness as obtained from the fracture storage correlate fairly well with fracture sizes
1993 test. We calculate a fracture half-lengthlradius of the derived from linear flow.
order of 20 m.
3. Many tests show linear transient flow, indicating that the
Both storage and linear flow can be observed in the August
induced fractures become propped over time.
1995 test response (Fig. 10 (c)). A falloff test in July gave a
similar response. We see that the ISIP gives both an overlap of 4. Fracture sizes derived from radial flow skin factors are on
the pressure and pressure derivative for the storage period and average smaller than ffacture sizes derived from fracture
a train-track for the period with linear flow. The infectivity of storage and linear flow.
the well has significantly increased compared to 1994. The 5. Fractured water injection wells may exhibit significant
permeability-thickness is estimated at 800 rnll,m. We estimate near wellbore friction losses.
a fracture length/radius of about 30 m. The September 1995
falloff test (Fig. 10 (d)) showed a much higher permeability- Nomenclature
thickness, indicating injection into a larger zone. Linear flow v= Poisson ratio of rock
is clearly observed. With the same permeabilities as for the
o= stress, Pa
1993/94 tests, we calculated a doubling of the fracture size.
~= thermo-elastic expansion coefficient, C-
The pressure derivative of the 1996 test response shows a
unit slope behavior for almost the entire test (Fig. 10 (e)). To ct~ = Biots constant
fit the pressure onto the unit slope line, we obtain an ISIP C~= fracture storage coefficient, mffa
similar to the previous tests. The wellbore storage coefficient c = compressibility, Pa
is huge: 14 m3/102kPa (exceptionally high compared to the E = Youngs modulus, Pa
FS = fracture storage
other wells). For a confined fracture we estimate the fracture
h = reservoir height, m

366
SPE 50671 INTERPRETATION OF FALLOFF TESTS ON FRACTURED WELLS OF THE BARSUKOV OIL FIELD IN WEST SIBERIA 5

ZIIP= infectivity index based on injection pressure, Oil and Gas Rehabilitation Project of the European Bank for
m3/slPa Reconstruction and Development for the Rosneft-Purneftegas
ISIP = instantaneous shut-in pressure, Pa Oil Production Association. The program is supported by the
1P= injection pressure, Pa Dutch government.
k = effective permeability, mz
L,= fracture half-length or fracture radius, m References
LF = linear flow 1. Hagoort J., Waterflood-Induced Hydraulic fracturing, PhD
p = pressure, Pa Thesis, Delft University of Technology (April 1981).
q = injection rate, m3/s 2. Perkins, T.K., Gonzalez, J.A.: Changes in Earth Stresses
around a Wellbore Caused by Radially Symmetrical Pressure
r = radius, m
and Temperature Gradients, Sot. Pet. Eng. J., AIME (April
S = skin factor
1984).
T= temperature, C 3. Koning, E.J.L. and Niko, H., Fractured Water-Injection Wells:
t=time, s A Pressure Falloff Test for Determining Fracture Dimensions,
paper SPE 14458 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical
Subscripts Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, Sep 22-25.
i = initial 4. Koning, E,J.L. and Niko, H., Application of a Special Falloff
r = reservoir Test Method in a Fractured North Sea Water Injector,
t = total unsolicited paper SPE 16392 (June 1985).
5. Prado, L.R., et al, Falloff Testing a Waterflood-Induced
w = wellbore
Fractured Well in Western Venezuela, paper SPE 18142
e = effective presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Ott 2-5.
Acknowledgments 6. Earlougher JR, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE
The authors would like to thank Rosneft-Purneftegas for Monograph VOI5, 1977.
permission to publish this paper. The work and analysis
described in this paper has been carried out in the context of
the Technical Cooperation Program as part of the West Siberia

TABLE 1-FALLOFF TEST PARAMETERS AND EVALUATION RESULTS, WELL A

Date 1P ISIP c kh s,, s,~,p Il,p rf (LF/FS) L, (LF/FS)
(rn!d) (102kPa) (102kPa) (l O?Pa) (m/IOkPa) (mD.m) () () (mId/ (m) (m)
102kPa) penny-shaped confined-rect.

Aug 93 420 250.6 227.0 179.8 350 -2.1 -3.5 5.9 11-16/ 24-33 I
Aug 94 370 254.7 230.0 190.4 350 -2.9 -3.6 5.7 14-19/ 30-43 I
Aug 95 670 273.8 236.0 203.4 1.8 800 0.5 -4.4 9.5 17-25128-43 46-93122-44
Sep 95 460 262.8 242.0 225.9 - ? 3000 41.2 ().1 12.4 14-75 I 24-126 I
Ju[ 96 770 253.6 232.0 c211.7 14.0 - - - 18.4 -155-85 - / 65-120

109

I , ,1
1 . wdkest Mezsure derivacwe ./
I
.!
~ ----fiy-yt-
+ w West pwssure3
-1+ .Weutestpres,u,e
0.1, I I It. t - 1,,,,,, -- _r_,J
0,1 I I 1 1 Itll 1 I I I 1 [1
100 1004 lcooo W300c
104 1002 10WO lom30
Time after shut-in (see)
Time after shut.in (see)

Fig. 1-Example of observed fracture storage l%g. 2-Example of observed linear flow behavior

367
 6 A.N.P. DROS, A.M. KUZNETSOV, J. HAGOORT SPE 50671

r
_ - _________ ._ . . ------.. . .
..., -
m .

50

40

Sa

20 -:-

10

0
I 0 10 20 30 40 50 0+7 70 w eo 100 110 120 130 140
o 20 40 60 00 100 120 140 i
Fracture half-length based on linear flow (m)
Fracture half-length based on linear flow (m)

Fig. 3-Comparison of fracture size estimates based on linear ...DW Fig. Comparison of fracture sizes estimates based on linear flow
and skin- factor. The fracture size based on the skin factor is and fracture storage, assuming confined rectangular fractures. The
underestimated. two approaches compare well, especially for the tests in which both
linear flow and fracture storage are observed. The fit between the
sizes requires a Youngs modulus of 17 10ckPa.
30. +
70 . . . . . . . ........................r
,.,,,,...,,,,,,.....,
.*q
I
.
25. $
a A . L.l--LLll--...l . . . ..l ~
*
in a A z
~ 1.1,;
5f. .* -+--4-.
-....I . -. ~
20. .._..& s
,0
--
~
~ 40.
g
1 I .-. ;.. .. . ,
:~
10. . g

g 20.
.
z
5. Afl . n %
~ tests cbee in time
L 10.
.
. In onete.st
.
I
Oq I I o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 170 tw 210 23o 2511 270 290 310
Fracture half-length based on linear flow (m) ISIP (100 kl%)
- ~-
Fig. 5-Comparison of fracture size estimates based on linear flow Fig. 6 >omparison of the obsewed friction losses with the
and fracture storage, assuming penny shaped fractures. The two instantaneous shut-in pressure. Two groups can be distinguished:
approaches show a good correlation. The fit between the sizes (1) one with low friction losses, and (2) a group with friction losses
requires a (low) Youngs modulus of 1 106kPa. showing a decreasing trend_with increasing ISIP,

SQ TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..r . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ..T.
.
j/j .
70.
.-
. .
ea -.l.-+
.
5. . I .* .*
* .*
q ** . .
40.

*
30. _.:*

20.
. .
10.. _* ~
.

0 102333405060 70S9

! 15.1P. r.s.rvolr pr.ssur. (100 kpa)

Fig. 7-Comparison of pressure losses occurring in the near wellbore

zone and the reservoir. Even for the fractured wells, a significant part
of the total pressure losses occur in the near wellbore zone.

368
 SPE 50671 INTERPRETATION OF FALLOFF TESTS ON FRACTURED WELLS OF THE BARSUKOV OIL FIELD IN WEST SIBERIA 7

.
140 1400 25

120 1200

20 2Q0

0 o
0

CL?simammer(cemsnt hjedm kljectivtiy

i.--G!!Yure =~fl~~~te=ywd
. test Mdiiitv . . . . re2wo# cressure

~ I .. ....
Fig. 8-injection rate and pressure vs. time for well A ig. 9-lnjectivity index and-reservoir pressure vs. time for well-A&

- f-;-jr;!ltl~ : .Wd,es,pwsres
100 10II lccc - Im ,CQ Im Icao Icoxa
II 0,1t
lca
: 1
lm
h ,
1KW3
- -?-J...:
lcccm
Time aft.r shut-l. (1..) Tim. after shut+ (S.C) Tim. altar shut-l [s.c)

(a) August 1993: Falloff test (b) August 1994 Falloff test (c) August 1995: Falloff test
f, I , - ------ --

I + +tJyp+i
0?
*w.Mwswres
I lKI 0 10Q2C02C@ 4W5C06CQ71Xl WOW
lCCO lCWI
I
Iccm lWY$M
103 Icowl Iwo
TkII. fter .hut.in (...) Inbction rat. (mXd)
Tim. aft.r shut-l. (s..)
I 11
(d) September 1995: ~al~off=st (e) July 19~6: Falloff test ) May 1997: St;p~~n~ec~vity test -
Fig. 10-Successive falloff tests overtime for well A show the fracture development

369