Connecting Laboratory Conductivity Measurements with Diagnostic Fracture Injection

Abstract

Laboratory conductivity tests and diagnostic fracture injection tests interrogate different systems through different observables. The laboratory measures controlled flow through a specimen; a DFIT records a field pressure transient from which properties are inferred using a model. This note proposes a cross-scale comparison workflow that keeps stress, compliance, geometry, and fluid history explicit. Its main contribution is an identifiability checklist: agreement should be judged between compatible forward predictions, rather than by directly equating a core-scale conductivity with a field-inferred parameter.