Commentary on Four New DFIT Papers: (a) In-Situ Measurements from EGS Collab; (b) Comparison of Techniques at the Bedretto Project; (c) Statistical Review of 62 DFITs; and (d) An Article Advocating the Tangent Method

TL;DR

This commentary reviews four recent papers on diagnostic fracture injection testing (DFIT), covering in-situ measurements, stress measurement techniques, statistical analysis of DFIT data, and advocacy for the tangent method.

Contribution

It provides a comparative overview of recent advancements and debates in DFIT methodologies and interpretation techniques.

Findings

In-situ deformation measurements reveal fracture dynamics during DFIT.

Comparison of stress measurement techniques highlights their respective accuracies.

Statistical review of 62 DFITs offers insights into shale formation behaviors.

Abstract

This post provides commentary on recent four papers on diagnostic fracture injection testing (DFIT). The first paper uses in-situ deformation measurements to directly observe fractures opening and closing during fracture injection-falloff tests (Guglielmi et al., 2022). The second compares various stress measurement techniques in a series of fracture/injection tests from the Bedretto project (Broker and Ma, 2022). The third statistically reviews results from applying the interpretation procedure from McClure et al. (2019) to 62 DFITs across nine different shale plays (McClure et al., 2022). The fourth is an op-ed written in JPT (Journal of Petroleum Technology) by an advocate of the tangent method for estimating DFIT closure stress (Buijs, 2021; 2022).