PO175892 DOI: 10.
2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 17
Estimating Effective Fracture Pore Volume
From Flowback Data and Evaluating Its
Relationship to Design Parameters of
Multistage-Fracture Completion
Yingkun Fu, Hassan Dehghanpour, and Dannel Obinna Ezulike, University of Alberta; and
R. Steven Jones Jr.*, Newfield Exploration Company
Summary
Flowback data from seven multifractured horizontal tight oil/gas
wells in Anadarko Basin show two separate regions during the sin-
gle-phase water production. Region 1 shows a dropping casing pres-
sure, and Region 2 shows a flattening casing pressure. This paper
investigates the flowback behavior of the two regions, and illus-
trates how flowback data can be interpreted to estimate effective
fracture pore volume, and to investigate its relationship to comple-
tion-design parameters. We construct diagnostic plots to understand
the physics of Regions 1 and 2. Region 1 represents pressure deple-
tion in fractures, and Region 2 represents the hydrocarbon break-
through into the effective fracture network. The results of our
analyses indicate that the duration of Region 1 depends on initial
reservoir pressure and hydrocarbon type. We apply a previous flow-
back model (Abbasi et al. 2012, 2014) on Region 1 to estimate
effective fracture pore volume, and also propose a procedure to esti-
mate fracture compressibility by use of diagnostic-fracturing-injec-
tion-test (DFIT) data. The results suggest that the estimated
effective fracture pore volume is very sensitive to fracture compres-
sibility, and is generally larger than the final load-recovery volume,
and less than the total injected-water volume. The results also sug-
gest that most of the effective fractures are unpropped, and host the
nonrecovered fracturing water. We investigate the relationship
between the estimated effective fracture pore volumes and comple-
tion-design parameters, including total injected-water volume,
proppant mass, gross perforated interval, and number of clusters, by
use of the Pearson correlation-coefficient method. The results show
that total injected-water volume, gross perforated interval, and the
number of clusters are among the key design parameters for an opti-
mal fracturing treatment. Higher total injected-water volume and
closer cluster spacing generally lead to a larger effective fracture
pore volume.
Introduction
Fracture characterization is necessary to evaluate fracturing opera-
tions and to forecast well performance. However, it is challenging to
quantitatively characterize the complex fracture network in uncon-
ventional reservoirs because of unknown fracture geometry and
reactivation of natural fractures. The high-frequency flowback rate
and pressure data have proved to be useful to characterize fractures
after stimulation operations. Several analytical models have been
used to calculate hydraulic-fracture half-length and conductivity by
use of early flowback data (Abbasi et al. 2012, 2014; Clarkson and
Williams-Kovacs 2013; Ezulike et al. 2013; Ezulike and Dehghan-
pour 2014a, b). Most of these models assume planar fracture geome-
try, which does not reflect the fracture complexity in unconventional
reservoirs. However, fracture volume is a geometry-independent pa-
* Now with Cimarex Energy Company
Copyright V
C 2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 175892) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional
Resources Conference, Calgary, 2022 October 2015, and revised for publication. Original
manuscript received for review 20 April 2016. Revised manuscript received for review 22
December 2016. Paper peer approved 4 January 2017.
2017 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003
rameter, which can be estimated by careful analysis of flowback
data by use of material balance and flow-regime analysis.
Adefidipe et al. (2014) and Xu et al. (2016) proposed a two-
phase flowing material-balance equation for estimating effective
fracture pore volume by use of early flowback data. They calcu-
lated effective fracture pore volume by use of the linear relation-
ship between rate-normalized pseudopressure and a pseudotime,
defined by them. They considered drive mechanisms including
gas expansion, water expansion, and fracture closure, and con-
cluded that gas expansion is the primary drive mechanism at the
onset of flowback. However, initial gas saturation in fractures is
unknown in their model, which increases the uncertainty for esti-
mating effective fracture pore volume.
Xu et al. (2015) extended the conventional material-balance
equation to analyze two-phase flowback data, and verified the pro-
posed approach by numerical simulation. The results show that the
estimated fracture volume strongly depends on initial gas satura-
tion in fractures and fracture compressibility. Similarly, in this
model, initial gas saturation in fractures is an unknown parameter.
Alkouh et al. (2014) introduced a tank model for estimating
effective fracture pore volume for shale gas wells. On the basis of
a simulation analysis, they concluded that, at water saturations
below 70%, the contribution of gas compressibility is at least 97%
of total compressibility. The effects of water expansion and frac-
ture closure were neglected in their model and thus cannot be
applied to wells with single-phase water flowback.
Abbasi et al. (2012, 2014) and Abbasi (2013) developed a flow-
ing material-balance model to estimate fracture volume by use of
early-time single-phase water-flowback data. They observed a lin-
ear relationship between rate-normalized pressure and material-
balance time. A flowing material-balance model that is based on
this linear relationship was proposed to estimate fracture parame-
ters. However, fracture compressibility is an unknown input in
their model, which increases the uncertainty of the results.
Flowback data from seven multifractured horizontal tight oil/
gas wells in Anadarko Basin show two separate regions during the
single-phase water production: Regions 1 and 2. The objectives of
this paper are to (1) understand the flow mechanisms in Regions 1
and 2, (2) interpret the flowback data to estimate the effective frac-
ture pore volume, and (3) investigate its relationship to completion-
design parameters. This work hypothesizes that the fracture system
can be treated as a tank during Region 1, and the corresponding
flowback data can be used to measure the fracture volume.
We construct diagnostic plots to understand the physics of
Regions 1 and 2, and apply a tank model on Region 1 to estimate
effective fracture pore volume of seven multifractured horizontal
wells. We also propose a procedure to estimate fracture compres-
sibility, which is a key input of the model. Finally, the estimated
effective fracture pore volume is compared with completion-
design parameters such as total injected-water volume, proppant
mass, number of stages, and average cluster spacing.
Methodology
This study is conducted in the following six steps: (1) gathering
and preparing flowback data; (2) understanding the flow behavior
1
 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17
10
Fracture
1
Wellbore
RNP
0.1
Regime 3
The slope deviates from 1
Regime 2
Regime 1 Slope = 1
Slope = 1/2
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Material-Balance Time: tMB = Wp /qw
Fig. 1Cross-sectional view of fracture and wellbore, illustrat-
ing the three possible flow regimes during early flowback: (1)
Regime 1 (transient linear flow within fractures) is represented
by half-slope in log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB; (2) Regime 2 (frac-
ture depletion) is represented by unit slope in log-log plot of
RNP vs. tMB; and (3) Regime 3 (transition between fracture
depletion and transient linear flow in matrix) is represented by
a deviation from unit slope in log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB. Blue
and red arrows represent the water and gas flow, respectively.
through diagnostic plots and flow-regime analysis of early-flow-
back data; (3) applying our model for rate normalized pressure
(RNP) vs. material-balance time (tMB) on the flowback data; (4)
estimating fracture compressibility by use of DFIT data; (5) quan-
tifying and comparing drive mechanisms during early single-
phase flowback data by use of the method proposed by Ezulike
et al. (2016); and (6) using the method of Pearson correlation
coefficient to investigate the relationship between effective frac-
ture volume (Vef) and completion-design parameters, and to find
the key parameters affecting Vef. We also develop crossplots
between key design parameters and Vef.
Flow Regimes During Early Flowback. RNP and tMB are usually
used for flow-regime identification (Song and Ehlig-Economides
2011). RNP is defined by dividing the difference between initial
pressure in fractures (Pfi) and bottomhole pressure (Pwf) by water
rate (qw). RNP represents the pressure drawdown at a constant rate
for a well producing at variable rate and variable pressure:
pfi  pwf
RNP : Cst Vef Cf Cw ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
qw
tMB is defined by dividing the cumulative water-production vol-
ume (Wp) by qw. tMB represents the equivalent time for a well pro-
ducing the same amount of fluid at a constant flow rate (Palacio
and Blasingame 1993):
Wp
tMB :
qw
Effective fractures include:
Hydraulic fractures
Reactivated natural fractures
Fig. 2Schematic of a fractured horizontal well. The effective fractures include the hydraulic and reactivated natural fractures
communicating with wellbore and contributing to the fluid recovery during flowback.
2 2017 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003
Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 17
Fig. 1 shows that three possible flow regimes may be identified
by use of log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB during early flowback.
1. Transient linear flow within fractures: This flow regime
describes the flow of water along the primary fractures to
the perforations (Crafton and Gunderson 2006; Bello 2009;
Ezulike and Dehghanpour 2014b). This flow regime can be
identified by half-slope in log-log plot of RNP and tMB.
However, the transient linear flow within fractures happens
very soon. This flow regime may be masked by wellbore
storage, which makes the early-flowback data noisy.
2. Fracture depletion: This flow regime describes water deple-
tion from the fractures that behave as a closed tank, and it
occurs when the pressure disturbance reaches the boundary
of the fractures (Ilk et al. 2010; Abbasi et al. 2012, 2014;
Clarkson and Williams-Kovacs 2013). This flow regime can
be represented by unit slope in log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB.
3. Transition between fracture depletion and transient linear
flow in the matrix: This flow regime occurs when hydrocar-
bon breakthrough occurs from matrix to fractures (Williams-
Kovacs and Clarkson 2013). It can be identified by the devia-
tion from unit slope in log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB.
Model for Estimating Effetive Fracture Pore Volume. Abbasi
et al. (2012, 2014) developed a linear relationship between RNP and
tMB for radial (Eq. 1) and linear (Eq. 2) flow in fractures, respectively:
  
Bw /f Ct lB 2 1 4A
RNP tMB re ln . . . . . . . . . 1
Cst 2Cst Kf 2 CA crw2
Bw /f Ct lB 2
RNP tMB y ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Cst 3Cst Kf e
where A is the drainage area, m2; B is the formation volume factor
(FVF), m3/m3; CA is the Dietz shape factor; Ct is the total com-
pressibility, psi1; Kf is the fracture permeability, md; re is the
equivalent radius for the fracture plane, m; rw is the wellbore ra-
dius, m; ye is the fracture half-length, m; l is the viscosity of
water, cp; c is the Eulers constant; /f is fracture porosity, frac-
tion; and Cst is the total storage coefficient, which is defined as
Cst Vef Cf Cw Vwb Cwb :
By ignoring the wellbore storage (represented by VwbCwb), the
total storage coefficient can be simplified as
where Vef is the effective fracture pore volume, m3; Cf is the fracture
compressibility, psi1; and Cw is the water compressibility, psi1.
As shown in Fig. 2, effective fractures include the hydraulic
and reactivated natural fractures communicating with wellbore
and contributing to the fluid recovery during flowback. Vef repre-
sents the pore volume of effective fractures, and is independent of
the assumed geometry. On the basis of Eqs. 1 and 2, Vef could be
estimated by
Isolated natural
fractures
Horizontal well
 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 17

1. Gather single-phase flowback Pwf and qw

2. Calculate RNP and tMB

3. Pick unit-slope region from the log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB

4. Determine the slope m between RNP and tMB (described by Eqs. 1 and 2) in Cartesian plot

5. Estimate Cf-max and Cf-min with the procedure proposed in Estimating Fracture Compressibility by Use of DFIT Data

6. Calculate Vef-max and Vef-min using Eq. 4

Fig. 3Flow chart for estimating maximum and minimum effective fracture pore volume.

Bw could be calculated by multiplying Gclosure with true vertical depth

Vef ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ct m
where m is the slope of RNP vs. tMB in the Cartesian plot and total
compressibility (Ct) is defined as
Ct Cf Cw :
Fig. 3 shows the procedure to estimate the maximum and min-
imum effective fracture pore volume (Vef-max and Vef-min) for the
cases of minimum and maximum fracture compressibility (Cf-min
and Cf-max), respectively.
Estimating Fracture Compressibility by Use of DFIT Data. In
this study, we use the Aguilera (1999) graphical method to esti-
mate fracture compressibility. Appendix A shows the empirical
correlation between Cf and two parameters: (1) net stress in frac-
tures (Pn), which is defined as the difference between minimum
principal in-situ stress (rmin) and actual pressure in fractures, and
(2) mineralization ratio, which is defined as the percentage of
minerals in fractures. First, we describe the method to estimate Pn
and mineralization ratio, and then we propose a procedure to esti-
mate fracture compressibility by use of DFIT data.
Net Stress in Fractures. We approximate the net stress in
fractures to be the effective pressure in fractures Pn:
Pn rmin Pwf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
This is under the assumption that the actual pressure in fractures
is close to bottomhole pressure (Pwf) during flowback. The differ-
ence between the actual pressure in fractures and Pwf can be consid-
ered negligible compared with rmin. Pwf can be measured through
the bottomhole gauges or can be calculated by use of a proper well
model and wellhead-pressure data. rmin represents the minimum
principal in-situ stress and is usually an unknown parameter. But
fracture-closure pressure (Pclosure) can be used to estimate rmin.
Pclosure is defined as the fluid pressure at which the fracture effec-
tively closes (Economides and Nolte 2000). It could be determined
from the interpretation of DFIT data (Nolte 1979). Here, we use
Pclosure obtained from DFIT data to estimate Pn:
Pn Pclosure Pwf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
We can apply Eq. 6 to calculate Pn directly for wells with
DFIT data. However, DFIT is usually performed on a limited num-
ber of wells in field practice. As shown in Eq. 7, we infer Pclosure
for wells without DFIT data by use of the correlation between clo-
sure pressure gradient (Gclosure) and fracture gradient (Gf). Pclosure
(TVD). Gf could be calculated by dividing instantaneous shut-in
pressure (ISIP) by TVD. On the basis of a gross approximation,
fracture-closure pressure can be linearly related to ISIP:
Gclosure a  Gf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
However, closure pressure estimated from DFIT analysis is
recommended wherever DFIT data are available. Closure pressure
gradient, Gclosure, is defined as closure pressure per TVD; fracture
gradient, Gf, is obtained by dividing ISIP at the end of each stage
by TVD, then averaging the gradient for all stages. We use the av-
erage value of Gf for all stages to account for the variation of frac-
ture gradient along the wellbore. a is the coefficient relating
Gclosure to Gf, and can be obtained from nearby wells with DFIT
data. ISIP describes the pressure at the end of pumping, when the
fracture is not closed yet, and thus, ISIP>Pclosure. The estimated
Gf at the end of pumping is then higher than Gclosure. Therefore, a
in Eq. 7 is less than unity.
After obtaining Pclosure, we can use Eq. 6 to estimate the mini-
mum and maximum net stress in fractures (Pn-min and Pn-max) to-
gether with the minimum and maximum bottomhole pressure
(Pwf-min and Pwf-max) during the flow regime of fracture depletion.
Mineralization Ratio. Another input in the Aguilera (1999)
graphical method is mineralization ratio, which represents the per-
centage of minerals in fractures. Williams-Kovacs and Clarkson
(2013) proposed that proppants in fractures could be assumed as
minerals in the Aguilera model. So, mineralization ratio can be
the percentage of proppant in fractures, and be related to fracture
porosity (/f) by
mineralization ratio 1  /f ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
where /f is an unknown parameter in Eq. 8. We consider the max-
imum fracture porosity of /f-max 100% representing unpropped
fractures and the minimum fracture porosity of /f-min 47.5%
representing fractures with cubic packing of proppants (Peters
2012). The arrangement of uncompacted grains is usually repre-
sented by cubic packing. The proppants in fractures are loosely
packed during early flowback when the fractures are not com-
pletely closed, which may result in proppant production in some
wells (Nguyen et al. 1996). In this study, we assume a uniform
size and cubic packing for proppants in fractures. Cf-min and
Cf-max correspond to the minimum and maximum porosity scenar-
ios, respectively.
Procedure To Estimate Fracture Compressibility. As illus-
trated by Fig. 4, the procedure to estimate fracture compressibility
includes the following steps:

2017 SPE Production & Operations 3

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 17

Gather Pwf, ISIP, and DFIT data

Is DFIT data Calculate Gf using average

available? treatment pressure
No

Yes

Obtain min, Gclosure, Obtain correlation

and Gf from DFIT between Gclosure and Gf

Calculate Gclosure
Obtain Pwf-max and Pwf-min Obtain min Calculate Pclosure
using Eq. 7

Calculate Pn-max and Pn-min using Eq. 5

Calculate mineralization Input f-max and f-min

ratio using Eq. 8

Read Cf-max and Cf-min from

Appendix A

Fig. 4Flow chart for estimating the maximum and minimum fracture compressibility with DFIT data.

1. Obtain Pclosure for wells with DFIT data.
2. Obtain the correlation between Gclosure and Gf, using Eq. 7,
from wells with DFIT data.
3. Calculate Pclosure for wells without DFIT data using the cor-
relation in Step 2.
4. Obtain Pwf-min and Pwf-max during the flow regime of frac-
ture depletion.
5. Calculate Pn-min and Pn-max for each well using Eq. 6.
6. Read Cf-min at the point of (Pn-max, 1 /f-max) and Cf-max at
the point of (Pn-min, 1/f-min) from the graph shown in
Appendix A.
Quantification of the Drive Mechanisms. According to Ezulike
et al. (2016), the drive mechanisms of fracture closure and water
expansion could be quantified by compaction-drive index (CDI)
and water-drive index (WDI) separately. Fracture closure repre-
sents the reduction of Vef caused by fluid withdrawal during flow-
back, proppant crushing/embedment, and compressibility of rock
grains. CDI and WDI are defined as
Cf
CDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Ct
Cw
WDI : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ct
Pearson Correlation Coefficient. The Pearson correlation coef-
ficient (r) (Pearson 1895) provides a measure of the linear correla-
tion between two series of values, and ranges from 1 to 1. The
positive and negative values of r mean positive and negative cor-
relations, respectively. The larger value of absolute r represents a
better correlation between the two parameters. Eq. 11 shows how
to calculate r for two series of data (xi and yi):
X gas wells that have a larger TVD and Pi compared with the other
xi  xyi  y
i
r r
X r
X : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
xi  x2 yi  y2
i i
Flowback Rate and Pressure Behavior
This section first provides the basic information about the reser-
voir, wells, and completion parameters. Then, we qualitatively
interpret the flowback rate and pressure data from the seven multi-
fractured horizontal wells.
Well and Completion Information. We study seven multifrac-
tured horizontal wells completed in Woodford Formation in Ana-
darko Basin (Fig. 5). Woodford is primarily a mudstone with a
porosity range of 310% and a permeability range of 10100 nd.
Before hydraulic-fracturing treatment, a small-size fracturing
is performed on the first stage at the toe to estimate the initial res-
ervoir pressure (Pi). Fifty to 200 bbl of water is pumped at the
rate of 4 to 10 bbl/min into three to four clusters in the first stage.
The first stage in these wells shows breakdown during the pump-
ing process. A gauge is then delivered to the first stage before the
well is shut in. The gauge records the bottomhole pressure during
shut-in for several days, until being pulled out for fracturing treat-
ment of the remaining stages. Pi is obtained from a pressure
buildup analysis conducted on the bottomhole pressure recorded
by the gauge. After fracturing, the plugs used for isolating each
stage are drilled out, and the wells are shut in for 12 hours to set
up the flowback equipment. Flowback for the seven wells is per-
formed through casing. The water/gas/oil rate and casing pressure
are measured hourly during flowback.
Table 1 provides a summary of completion information and
reservoir properties including fluid type, TVD, the initial bottom-
hole pressure during flowback (Pwfi), initial reservoir pressure,
and the bubblepoint pressure [Pb, which is obtained from the pres-
sure/volume/temperature (PVT) analysis performed on the oil
samples from these wells]. Wells A, B, D, and E are oil wells. Pi
for these four oil wells varies from 4,104 to 5,815 psi. Pb for these
four wells ranges from 3,016 to 4,133 psi. Wells C, F, and G are
four oil wells.
Table 1 summarizes the completion information including
number of fracture stages, number of clusters, gross perforated
interval (GPI), mass of proppant, and total injected-water volume

4 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 17

Woodford Plays

DEWEY
KINGFISHER

DLAINE LOGAN

CUSTER
Meramec Play
CANADIAN

North Area

WASHITYA
CLEVELAND
CADDO

GRADY
MCCLAIN
KIOWA

GARVIN
South Area

STEPHENS
MURR

Fig. 5Location of the Woodford Formation (from Jones et al. 2014).

(TIV) for each well. Fig. 6 schematically illustrates fracture
stages, perforation cluster, and GPI. Average stage spacing repre-
sents the average distance between stages, whereas the average
cluster spacing represents the average distance between perfora-
tion clusters. GPI is defined as the distance between the first per-
foration cluster in the first stage and the last perforation cluster in
the last stage. As listed in Table 1, these wells have 9 to 12 frac-
ture stages and 45 to 59 clusters. GPI varies from 1284 to 1490 m.
TIV ranges from 13 740 m3 to 27 620 m3.
Field Observations. Fig. 7 shows diagnostic plots of hourly
recorded flowback rate and pressure data from Wells A and G,
which produce oil and gas, respectively. Appendix B shows simi-
lar plots for Wells B, C, D, E, and F. From these diagnostic plots,
we observe three distinct regions:
1. Region 1 shows single-phase water production with declin-
ing pressure. It occurs at the early times and lasts approxi-
mately 3 to 7 days. In this region, both the casing pressure
(Pcasing) and the calculated bottomhole pressure (Pwf) are
initially high and quickly drop with time. The water-rate
plots in this region also show a peak that is followed by a
decline behavior. Abbasi et al. (2012, 2014) also reported
this similar single-phase region in flowback data from sev-
eral tight gas and oil wells.
2. Region 2 happens at the end of Region 1, and shows single-
phase water flowback with flattening pressure. Pcasing and
calculated Pwf generally flatten out before oil or gas produc-
tion at the surface. This region happens at the end of Region
1. The pressure data flatten approximately 3 to 7 days after
starting the flowback and lasts approximately 1 to 6 days.
This region disappears before the production of oil/gas at
the surface.
Wells A and B show a delay between the end of pres-
sure-flattening and the appearance of oil/gas at the surface.
This delay for the two wells is caused by shutting down the
wells, for running gas lift. As shown later in Table 4, the
initial Pi for the two wells is relatively low. Gas lift is per-
formed on Wells A and B shortly after this region.
3. Region 3 shows multiphase flowback, occurring after the
single-phase region. This region shows a short-term two-
phase water and gas production and a long-term three-phase
oil, gas, and water production. The two-phase flow lasts
approximately 1 to 5 days. In this region, water is produced
at a relatively low rate, and the casing pressure keeps
dropping.
Comparative Analysis of Flowback Data. This section inter-
prets the flattening of bottomhole and casing pressures during

Well Information Fracturing Information

Mass of
Well Number of Number of Proppant TIV
Pwfi (psi) Pi (psi) Pb (psi) 6 3 3
Name Fluid Type TVD (m) Stages Clusters GPI (m) (10 kg) (10 m )

Well A Oil 3113 5,964 4,147 4,133 12 59 1350 1.62 27.62

Well B Oil 2879 4,983 4,104 3.016 9 45 1417 1.44 22.89

Well C Gas 3734 8,415 6,438 - 9 45 1361 1.36 21.95

Well D Oil 3928 8,243 5,815 3,930 14 53 1490 1.12 16.60

Well E Oil 3870 7,865 5,670 3,857 16 51 1489 1.19 18.05

Well F Gas 4497 9,242 7,859 - 12 47 1377 1.36 13.74

Well G Gas 4542 9,962 7,772 - 11 55 1284 1.30 26.93

Table 1Basic well and fracturing information.

2017 SPE Production & Operations 5

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 17

Surface

Stage 4 Stage 3 Stage 2 Stage 1

Wellbore

Perforation cluster

Cluster spacing

Stage spacing

Gross perforation interval

Fig. 6Schematic of a multifractured horizontal well showing four stages with 12 perforation clusters. Gross perforation interval is
defined as the distance between the first perforation cluster in the first stage and the last perforation cluster in the last stage.

early flowback. Also, it investigates how initial reservoir pressure sure drop along the fracture is assumed to be negligible. This
and hydrocarbon type affect the duration of Regions 1 and 2. flattening happens when the average pressure in fractures
Flattening of Bottomhole and Casing Pressures. Fig. 7 drops below the reservoir pressure. Also, it means that this
shows a flattening in the recorded Pcasing and calculated Pwf in point is the onset of hydrocarbon breakthrough from matrix to
Region 2. Jones et al. (2014) explained this phenomenon by the fracture network.
traces of oil/gas entering the wellbore and lightening the fluid col- Pressure-flattening can be investigated further by analyzing
umn. However, this explanation appears inapplicable to the well early-flowback data. Fig. 8 shows the log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB
data in Fig. 7, because no production of oil or gas is observed in and semilog plot of the calculated Pwf vs. tMB for Wells A and G
Region 2. One possible reason for this is that the volume of pro- (see Appendix C for the corresponding plots of the remaining five
duced oil or gas is insignificant compared with the large water wells). Here, we compare the semilog plots of Pwf vs. tMB with the
volume during this period, which makes it challenging to record log-log plots of RNP vs. tMB.
hydrocarbon production. Field experience indicates that the meas- The unit-slope represents water depletion from a closed-tank
urable oil rate begins at 1 to 2 bbl/hr, and the measurable gas rate system, where the fracture network does not receive pressure sup-
begins at 200 to 2,000 Mcf/D. port from matrix. As shown in Fig. 8, the unit-slope (fracture
Pcasing is measured at the surface, and Pwf is calculated from depletion) happens during Region 1, and deviates as Pwf flattens
wellhead data by use of Fanning single-phase correlations. The out in Region 2. The deviation from unit-slope indicates the fluid
main uncertainty in calculating Pwf relates to water density and influx from matrix into fracture network. Therefore, the flattened
pipe friction. Flowback water salinity can be used to estimate pressure in Region 2 can be interpreted as fracture-matrix
water density. Pipe friction is calculated by use of Fanning fric- flow communication. In this study, we apply the tank model
tion for single-phase water flow (IHS 2014). Pwf may be overesti- described in the Model for Estimating Effetive Fracture Pore Vol-
mated if the oil-or-gas volume in the wellbore is neglected for ume subsection to estimate Vef by use of the flowback data during
calculating it with Pcasing. Region 1.
Jones et al. (2014) proposed that the flattening value of calcu- The Duration of Region 1 and Region 2. The duration of
lated Pwf could be approximated as reservoir pressure if the pres- Regions 1 and 2 is related to the water rate, which is influenced

8 10 8 10
Gas Rate (Mcf/D), Oil Rate (BOPD),

Gas Rate (Mcf/D), Oil Rate (BOPD),

Well A Well G Gas rate

Gas rate
Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

Region 1 Water rate

Water rate
Region 2 Calculated Pwf Oil rate
Oil rate 8 Calculated Pwf 8
Pressure (1,000 psi)

Pressure (1,000 psi)

Calculated Pwf Casing pressure

Casing pressure Declining Pwf
6 6
Region 3
Calculated Pwf 4
4
4 4
Declining Pwf Gas lift
2 Flattened Pcasing 2
Flattened Pcasing
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Days From Start of Flowback Days From Start of Flowback

(a) (b)

Fig. 7Hourly flowback data show three regions. Region 1 shows single-phase water production and declining pressure. Region
2 shows single-phase water production and flattening pressure. Region 3 shows multiphase production. (a) Well A is a tight oil
well; (b) Well G is a tight gas well.

6 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 17

Well A Well G
10 12 10 12

Calculated Pwf (1,000 psi)

Calculated Pwf (1,000 psi)

Region 1 Region 2 Region 1 Region 2
Region 3
Region 3
9 9
1 1

RNP

RNP
6 6

0.1 0.1
Pwf flattens as 3 Unit-slope Pwf flattens as 3
Unit-slope unit-slope deviates unit-slope deviates
0.01 0 0.01 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tMB (days) tMB (days)
(a) (b)

Fig. 8Log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB shows a clear unit-slope before the calculated bottomhole pressure flattens out (RNP is in the
unit of psi/STB/D). (a) Well A is a tight oil well; (b) Well G is a tight gas well.
Normalized Time of Region 1

Normalized Time of Region 2

300 300
Oil wells y = 0.026x + 316.4 Oil wells
R = 0.656
Gas wells Gas wells
200 200

100 100 y = 0.0534x + 467.33

R = 0.750

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Initial Reservoir Pressure (1,000 psi) Initial Reservoir Pressure (1,000 psi)
(a) (b)

Fig. 9(a) Crossplot of normalized time of Region 1 vs. Pi; (b) crossplot of normalized time of Region 2 vs. Pi. The red and green
points represent gas and oil wells, respectively.

by choke size. A larger choke size leads to a higher flow rate, and This can be explained by Darcys law: The flow rate of oil
leads further to shorter Regions 1 and 2. Therefore, we normalize increases with the drawdown, which increases with Pi.
the duration of Regions 1 and 2 with choke size to eliminate the Also, from Fig. 9, gas wells generally show shorter Regions 1
effect of variable choke size during early flowback. The normal- and 2 compared with oil wells. Wells C and F are gas wells, and
ized time for Regions 1 and 2 is defined as the product of average they have 5 days of Regions 1 and 2 in total, whereas the duration
choke size and the flowback duration for Regions 1 and of the two regions for oil wells is more than 8 days. This can be
2, respectively. explained by higher mobility of gas compared with oil when flow-
Fig. 9 shows the effect of Pi on the normalized time of Regions ing through matrix pores, fractures, and wellbore.
1 and 2, respectively. Fig. 9a shows a negative correlation between
the normalized time for Region 1 and Pi. The negative correlation Application and Discussions
in Fig. 9a can be explained by the fact that the wells with higher Pi This section is organized into the following five parts: (1) Esti-
show an earlier breakthrough. Fig. 9b shows a negative correlation mating the fracture compressibility for each well; (2) comparing
between the normalized time of Region 2 vs. Pi. The normalized drive mechanisms before breakthrough of oil or gas; (3) estimat-
time of Region 2 indicates the time of hydrocarbon transporting ing Vef and comparing it with TIV and load-recovery volume
through fractures and wellbore to the surface. The negative corre- (LRV); (4) comparing the propped and unpropped-fracture vol-
lation in Fig. 9b suggests that hydrocarbon front moves faster ume; and (5) investigating the correlations between the estimated
through fracture networks and wellbore for wells with higher Pi. Vef and LRV, and completion-design parameters.

Fracture Compressibility. Here, we estimate fracture compres-

Closure Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.8 sibility by use of the procedure proposed in the Estimating Frac-

ture Compressibility by Use of DFIT Data subsection. Fig. 10
0.6
shows the correlation between closure pressure gradient and aver-
age fracture gradient as described by Eq. 7. There are no DFIT
y = 0.8x data available for the seven wells used in this study. The correla-
0.4 R = 0.9182 tion shown in Fig. 10 is obtained from the DFIT data of three off-
set wells. The closure pressures for the seven target wells are
estimated by use of this correlation. Because this empirical corre-
0.2
lation is based on limited data, it should be used with caution in
other plays.
0 Fig. 11 compares the fracture gradient of each stage for the
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 seven wells. Fracture gradient is obtained by dividing ISIP of each
Average Fracture Gradient (Gf ) (psi/ft) stage by TVD. Fig. 11 shows that the fracture gradient does not
vary much with the sequence of stages except for Wells D and E.
Fig. 10Closure pressure gradient vs. average fracture gradi- These two wells have abnormal high fracture gradient in the early
ent from DFIT. stages caused by screenouts (a phenomenon that prevents proppant

2017 SPE Production & Operations 7

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 17

1.5 carbon breakthrough, hydrocarbon expansion, and water vaporiza-

Well A
Fracture Gradient (psi/ft) Well C
Well E
Well G
1 Region 1 generally shows two stages. Stage 1 describes the
0.5
0 5 10
Sequence of Fracture Stages
Fig. 11Fracture gradient for different fracture stages of the
target wells.
transport to deeper areas beyond the wellbore). The effect of
screenouts indicates an incomplete fracturing treatment. There-
fore, we neglect the fracture-gradient data for the early two stages,
when estimating the average fracture gradient for Wells D and E.
Well D is used as an example to show how closure pressure is
estimated by use of the correlation in Fig. 10. The average frac-
ture gradient for Well D is 0.731 psi/ft. The closure pressure gra-
dient is then calculated to be 0.5848 psi/ft by use of the
correlation y 0.8x. The value of TVD for Well D is 12,886 ft.
The closure pressure for Well D is estimated to be 7,536 psi after
multiplying closure pressure gradient by TVD.
Table 2 lists the estimated range of fracture compressibility
for the seven wells by use of the method described in Appendix
A. The results of Cf are within the ranges reported in the literature
(Jones 1975; Aguilera 1999; Williams-Kovacs and Clarkson
2013; Ezulike et al. 2016).
As shown in Table 2, Cf-min and Cf-max are different for each
well. Fracture compressibility for each well depends on Pn and /f
(Jones 1975; Aguilera 1999). In this study, the same value of /f is
used for each well. The difference in fracture compressibility
between wells is caused by the difference in Pn. As shown in Eq. 5,
Pn is a function of rmin and Pwf, which are different for each well.
The estimated fracture compressibility varies from 105 psi1
to 104 psi1, and is larger than the matrix compressibility (106
psi1). Tiab et al. (2006) reported that fracture compressibility is
10- to 100-fold higher than matrix compressibility. This can be
explained by the difference in porosity of fracture and matrix.
Drive Mechanisms Before Hydrocarbon Breakthrough. As
mentioned in the Field Observations section, Region 1 describes
the period of flowback before hydrocarbon breakthrough, when
the fractures are filled with single-phase water. Therefore, hydro-
Well B tion by flowing gas (Zhang and Ehlig-Economides 2014) are not
Well D considered as drive mechanisms in this region. The possible drive
Well F mechanisms for Region 1 include wellbore storage, water expan-
sion, and fracture closure. Fig. 12 shows the flowback pressure
and rate related to Region 1 for Well G.
early flowback when Pwf is higher than Pclosure. As shown in Fig.
12, it happens at the first few hours of flowback. In this stage, the
calculated Pwf is generally high and noisy, and the water rate is
relatively low. Pwf during this stage is higher than Pclosure, indicat-
ing that the fracture closure has not come into effect. It is
expected that wellbore storage contributes to the early water pro-
15 duction. Well G recovered approximately 130 m3 of water during
this stage, which is larger than its wellbore volume (approxi-
mately 65 m3). A larger volume of recovered water compared
with the wellbore volume suggests that the wellbore storage
comes to an end in this stage.
Stage 2 describes the period after Stage 1 when Pwf drops
below Pclosure. As shown in Fig. 12, it lasts for approximately 6
days, and the bottomhole pressure drops quickly, whereas the
water rate is relatively high. Also, the log-log plot of RNP and
tMB for Well G show that fracture depletion (unit-slope) starts
from Day 2 and ends at Day 5 of flowback. The possible drive
mechanisms during this stage include fracture closure and water
expansion. We use CDI and WDI proposed by Ezulike et al.
(2016) to quantify the drive mechanisms of fracture closure and
water expansion. As shown in Table 3, the results indicate that
CDI accounts for more than 90% of the early water production
before hydrocarbon breakthrough. Therefore, the effect of fracture
closure dominates Stage 2.
Results of Effective Fracture Pore Volume. On the basis of Eq.
4, Cf, Bw, Cw, and m are required for calculating Vef. Table 2 lists
the estimated values of Cf for the seven wells. Table 4 lists the
input values of Bw, Cw, and m. Bw and Cw under reservoir condi-
tions are estimated by use of empirical methods proposed by
McCain (1991). m is obtained through linear regression for RNP
vs. tMB data, as described in Appendix D.
Fluid efficiency (FE) is defined as the ratio of water volume
stored in effective fractures to TIV (Economides and Nolte
2000). If the fracture system is assumed to be filled with water
during fracture depletion, then Vef can be taken as the water vol-
ume stored in fractures. Because Vef is estimated by use of flow-
back data in Region 1 (see the Flattening of Bottomhole and
Casing Pressures subsection), FE in this study is for the early-
flowback periods.
Table 5 lists the calculated values of the maximum and mini-
mum effective fracture pore volume (Vef-max and Vef-min) for the
seven wells, TIV, maximum and minimum fluid efficiency (FEmax
and FEmin), and LRV. FEmax is defined as the ratio of Vef-max to

Net Stress in Fractures, Fracture Compressibility,

Pn (psi) Cf (10 psi )
4 1

Average Fracture Minimum Principal In-Situ

Well Name Gradient, Gf (psi/ft) Stress, min (psi) Pn-min Pn-max Cf-min Cf-max

Well A 0.738 5,291 371 935 1.21 5.95

Well B 0.657 4,702 278 751 1.47 7.46

Well C 0.782 7,490 554 1,052 1.09 4.37

Well D 0.731 7,536 551 1,697 0.70 4.38

Well E 0.787 7,995 379 2,116 0.58 5.85

Well F 0.838 9,886 761 1,858 0.65 3.44

Well G 0.820 9,602 1,350 1,782 0.67 2.28

Table 2Computed fracture compressibility for each well with DFIT data. Cf-min and Cf-max correspond to (Pn-max, 12 /f-max) and (Pn-min,
12/f-min), respectively. /f-min and /f-max are 47.5 and 100% for all wells.

8 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 17

Well G FE can be defined slightly differently by use of the DFIT data:

12 10

Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

the ratio of water volume stored in fractures at shut-in to TIV.

Calculated Bottomhole Pressure

Pclosure = 9,602 psi
This FE from DFIT describes the FE during shut-in, whereas FE
Stage 1 Pwf drops quickly from flowback analysis describes the FE during early-flowback
8 periods. The water in fractures may still leak into the matrix and

4 thermore, DFIT analysis from one offset well shows an FE of
Low water rate
Stage 2
0 6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Days From Start of Flowback
Fig. 12The early-flowback pressure and rate data in Region 1
for Well G generally show two stages: (1) Stage 1 shows high
pressure and relatively low water rate; (2) Stage 2 shows
quickly dropping pressure and relatively high water rate. The
Pwfi for Well G is 9,962 psi, which is higher than its Pclosure
(9,602 psi).
TIV, and FEmin is defined as the ratio of Vef-min to TIV. Vef is gen-
erally less than TIV, and Vef-max is larger than LRV. A more-
detailed analysis of Vef, TIV, and LRV is presented in the Correla-
tion Analysis subsection.
Vef-max and Vef-min correspond to the Cf-min and Cf-max, respec-
tively. Fig. 13 shows that the estimated Vef is very sensitive to Cf.
Vef decreases by more than 50% as Cf changes from Cf-min to
Cf-max. As mentioned in the Estimating Fracture Compressibility
by Use of DFIT Data subsection, estimating Cf by use of Appen-
dix A requires Pn and /f. Pn for each well is calculated by use of
Eq. 5. However, /f is an uncertain value assumed to range from
47.5 to 100% for each well. Therefore, the uncertainty of estimat-
ing Vef is mainly because of the uncertainty in fracture porosity.
(1,000 psi)
natural fractures after shut-in. However, the seven wells studied
8
in this paper started their flowback up to 1 day after shut-in. Fur-
approximately 87%. The high value of FE from DFIT analysis
implies low leakoff (Wallace et al. 2014). Therefore, FE from
flowback analysis may approximate the value of FE from DFIT.
6 7 The values of FEmax in Table 5 for Wells F and G are higher
than 100%. This may be a result of overestimating their Vef-max.
The value of FE from DFIT analysis is close to the values of FEmax
calculated from flowback analysis for the remaining five wells,
suggesting that the estimated Vef-max is more-representative than
Vef-min for the fracture network. Therefore, in this paper, Vef-max is
used as effective fracture pore volume for the sake of consistency.
Propped- and Unpropped-Fracture Volume. Fig. 14 compares
the volume of proppant, propped-fracture volume, unpropped-frac-
ture volume, and Vef-max for each well. The volume of proppant is
estimated by dividing the proppant mass by its density. The
propped-fracture volume represents the effective fracture volume
with proppants, and the unpropped-fracture volume represents the
effective fracture volume without proppants. We estimate the
propped-fracture volume by dividing the volume of proppant by
the mineralization ratio, which is defined in Eq. 8. The mineraliza-
tion ratio is approximately 52.5% when assuming cubic packings
of proppant in fractures. The unpropped-fracture volume is esti-
mated by deducting the propped fracture volume from Vef-max.
For example, the type of proppant used for Well C is Santrol
SDC, and the size of the proppant is 40/70 mesh. This type
of proppant has a density of 2.57 g/cm3. Well C pumps

Water-Drive Index (WDI, %) Compaction-Drive Index (CDI, %)

Well Name Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Well A 0.48 2.32 97.68 99.52

Well B 0.38 1.92 98.08 99.62

Well C 0.65 2.57 97.43 99.35

Well D 0.65 0.41 99.59 99.35

Well E 0.49 4.73 95.27 99.51

Well F 0.83 4.24 95.76 99.17

Well G 0.48 2.32 97.68 99.52

Table 3Comparing the drive mechanisms before hydrocarbon breakthrough (Stage 2).

Slope of RNP vs. tMB

Water-Formation Water Cmpressibility in the Cartesian plot
Factors (Bw)
6 1
Well Name (Cw, 10 psi ) (m, psi/STB)

Well A 1.02 2.84 0.0579

Well B 1.02 2.92 0.0784

Well C 1.02 2.88 0.0752

Well D 1.02 2.73 0.1254

Well E 1.02 2.90 0.2031

Well F 1.02 2.88 0.1005

Well G 1.02 2.88 0.0760

Table 4Inputs for calculating Vef by use of Eq. 4.

2017 SPE Production & Operations 9

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 17

Effective Fracture Pore

3
Volume (Vef, 1000 m ) Total Injected Fluid Efficiency (FE, 100%) Load-Recovery Load-Recovery
Well Volume Volume (LRV, Ratio
Name Vef-min Vef-max (TIV, 1000 m )
3
FEmin FEmax 3
1000 m , 3 years) (3 years)

Well A 4.64 22.85 27.62 16.8 82.7 12.86 0.47

Well B 2.73 13.94 22.89 11.9 60.9 5.74 0.25

Well C 4.86 19.49 21.95 22.1 88.8 9.66 0.44

Well D 2.29 13.87 16.60 13.8 83.6 10.53 0.75

Well E 2.19 13.08 18.05 12.1 72.5 11.91 0.72

Well F 5.24 23.71 13.74 38.1 172.6 17.75 1.29

Well G 9.13 30.26 26.93 33.9 112.4 24.64 0.92

Table 5Summary of estimated values for effective fracture pore volume and fracturing parameters.
Effective Fracture Pore Volume (103 m3)

40
20 Volume of proppant
E
Estimated maximum effective fracture pore volume
P
Propped-fracture volume
32
U
Unpropped-fracture volume

Volume (103 m3)

Total injected-water volume
Vef-max 24

10
16

8
Vef-min

Cf-min Cf-max 0
0 Well A Well B Well C Well D Well E
1105 1104 1103 1102
Fig. 14Comparing the volume of proppant, Vef-max, propped-
Fracture Compressibility (psi1) fracture volume, unpropped-fracture volume, and TIV shows
that the unpropped-fracture volume accounts for a large per-
Fig. 13Log-log plot of Vef vs. Cf by use of Eq. 4 shows that Vef centage of Vef-max and TIV (Wells F and G are not used for this
is sensitive to Cf. comparison).

approximately 1360 t of proppant. The calculated volume of prop- of the total fracture volume. It is expected that large proppants
pant for Well C is approximately 529 m3, the propped-fracture cannot reach into the unpropped fractures.
volume is approximately 1008 m3, and the unpropped-fracture Fig. 14 also compares the unpropped-fracture volume with
volume is estimated at 18 482 m3. TIV. It shows that the unpropped-fracture volume accounts for
Fig. 14 shows that the propped-fracture volume is relatively more than 60% of the TIV. As mentioned in the Comparative
small compared with Vef-max. The percentage of propped-fracture Analysis of Flowback Data subsection, we estimate Vef by use of
volume in Vef-max may be even smaller, because the proppant may the flowback data in Region 1 when the fractures are filled with
shrink, crush, and embed into the fracture walls under high-stress water. The unpropped-fracture volume can be approximated as
conditions (Warpinski 2010; Raysoni and Weaver 2013). The the volume of fracturing water in unpropped fractures. The results
result suggests that most of the fracture volume is unpropped. indicate that the unpropped fractures host most of the fracturing
McKenna (2014) modeled the proppant distribution by use of the water. Sharma and Manchanda (2015) also suggested that 90% of
discrete-fracture-network (DFN) approach. Their results also indi- fracturing water is in unpropped fractures, by a simple calculation
cate that the propped-fracture volume accounts for a small portion on the basis of the volumetric balance of the fracturing water.

Correlation Analysis. Here, we investigate the correlations

40 between Vef-max and LRV, and also the completion-design param-
eters including TIV, number of clusters, and GPI.
Well G Load-Recovery Volume and Effective Fracture Pore Volume.
Vef-max (103 m3)

30
Well A Well F As shown in Fig. 15 and Table 5, the estimated Vef-max for most
Well C
wells is larger than LRV measured after three years. The load-re-
20 covery ratio for Well F is more than unity, and this suggests that
Well B some water is produced from the formation. In general, LRV after
10 Well D Well E 3 years can be considered as final LRV, because the water-pro-
y = 0.9006x + 7.6238 duction rate is relatively low after 3 years.
R = 0.7461 Vef decreases as fracture depletion progresses (see Flow Re-
0 gime 2 in Fig. 1). Vef-max is assumed to be the upper limit of Vef at
0 10 20 30 the start of fracture depletion. As mentioned in the Results of
LRV (103 m3) Effective Fracture Pore Volume subsection, Vef is taken as the
water volume in fractures when they are filled with water during
Fig. 15Crossplot of Vef-max vs. LRV. The red and green points fracture depletion. Therefore, Vef-max can be approximated as the
represent gas and oil wells, respectively. initial water volume in fractures.

10 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 11 Total Pages: 17

Completion- Gross
Design Number of Number of Perforated Total Injected- Proppant Average
Parameters Stages Clusters Stage Length Interval Water Volume Mass Treatment Rate

Pearson
Correlation
0.395 0.557 0.007 0.857 0.828 0.405 0.204
Coefficient (r)
with Vef-max

Table 6Pearson correlation coefficient between Vef-max and completion-design parameters.

Lower values of final LRV compared with Vef-max indicate that
final LRV is still less than the initial water volume in fractures.
This indicates further that there is still some nonrecovered fractur-
ing water left in fractures, even a long time after starting produc-
tion. Experimental studies of Parmar et al. (2014) suggest that a
large volume of water can be trapped at the bottom of vertical
fractures because of gravity effect. This phenomenon is also con-
firmed by the simulation studies of Sharma and Agrawal (2013).
Furthermore, Sharma and Manchanda (2015) showed that fractur-
ing water can also be trapped in the unpropped fractures. As dis-
cussed in the Propped- and Unpropped-Fracture Volume
subsection, most of the fracture volume is unpropped, which may
host the nonrecovered fracturing water.
Effective Fracture Pore Volume and Completion-Design
Parameters. We use the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) to
evaluate the possible correlations between Vef-max and comple-
tion-design parameters and to explore the key factors controlling
the fracture pore volume. The Pearson correlation coefficients are
obtained by use of Eq. 11 and the values of Vef-max and comple-
tion-design parameters.
Correlating Vef-max with completion-design parameters may be
challenging because of the limited number of wells we have.
Also, there might be interdependency between the design parame-
ters. Besides, formation parameters such as permeability may
influence the process of leakoff, which may further affect the
effective fracture pore volume. Therefore, the correlations shown
in this section may need further verifications by use of data from
more wells completed in this play.
Table 6 shows positive values of r between Vef-max and the
number of clusters, stage length, TIV, and proppant mass, suggest-
ing that that these fracturing parameters have a positive effect on
Vef-max. It also shows negative values of r between Vef-max and num-
ber of stages, GPI, and average treatment rate, suggesting that these
fracturing parameters have a negative effect on Vef-max. Zhou et al.
(2016) showed the similar effect of number of stages, proppant
mass, and average treatment rate on the load recovery measured
within the first 3 weeks, which may be related to Vef-max.
From Table 6, we find that GPI, TIV, and number of clusters
have the highest values of coefficient compared with the other
parameters. This may suggest that TIV, GPI, and the number of
clusters are among the key design parameters for creating a
larger effective fracture pore volume. GPI and the number of
clusters may be combined into one term: average cluster spac-
ing, which is defined as GPI divided by the number of clusters.
Detailed discussion on TIV and average cluster spacing are pre-
sented next.
Total Injected-Water Volume. As shown in Fig. 16 and Table
5, Vef-max for most wells is approximately 60 to 89% of TIV.
Because Vef-max is the upper limit of Vef, one may conclude that
Vef for most wells should be less than 60 to 89% of TIV. This
means that more than 11 to 40% of the pumped water may be lost
in matrix or ineffective fractures. However, Vef-max for the two
gas wells (Wells F and G) is even larger than TIV. This suggests
the possibility of Vef-max overestimation as a result of underesti-
mating the total compressibility. There might be some initial gas
in fractures before flowback. The initial gas in fractures may
increase the total compressibility (Xu et al. 2015), which is not
considered in our calculations.
Fig. 16 shows a positive correlation between Vef-max and TIV.
This observation indicates that, in general, Vef-max increases with
increasing TIV. For wells with larger TIV, fracturing water with
more energy is pumped to fracture the formation. Therefore, a
larger TIV generally contributes to a larger effective fracture pore
volume. However, there are some wells that have a relatively
modest Vef-max even with a large TIV pumped. For example, Well
B has a larger TIV than Well C, but Vef-max for Well B is less than
that for Well C, which is a gas well. One may expect that Vef-max
for Well C is possibly overestimated. As discussed previously,
Vef-max for a gas well is possibly overestimated, caused by under-
estimating the total compressibility.
Average Cluster Spacing. Vef-max is normalized by TIV
(Vef-max/TIV) to eliminate the effect of TIV on Vef-max. As dis-
cussed previously, Vef-max is possibly overestimated for the gas
wells. In Fig. 17, we plot normalized Vef-max vs. average cluster
spacing only for the oil wells. The limited data in Fig. 17 show that,
in general, the normalized Vef-max decreases by increasing average
cluster spacing. In other words, closer cluster spacing generally
leads to a larger effective fracture pore volume. Ingram et al.
(2014) stated that the cluster spacing has a significant effect on
fracture initiation and propagation. A close cluster spacing may
cause stress interference between clusters and influence the orien-
tation of the fractures. However, a close cluster spacing also creates
more interconnected fractures, which enhances the connectivity
and effectiveness of the fracture network.

40
1
Well D
Vef-max (103 m3)

y = 0.6503x + 2.6583
30 R = 0.7035 0.8
Normalized Vef-max

Well G Well E
Well C Well A
Well F 0.6
20
Well A Well B
Well E 0.4 y = 0.0228x + 1.3866
10 Well B R = 0.6135
Well D
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 0
TIV (103 m3) 10 20 30 40
Average Cluster Spacing (m)
Fig. 16Crossplot of Vef-max vs. TIV. The red and green points
represent gas and oil wells, respectively (Wells F and G are not Fig. 17Normalized Vef-max vs. average cluster spacing for four
used for calculating correlation). oil wells shows a negative correlation.

2017 SPE Production & Operations 11

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17
Summary and Conclusions
We constructed diagnostic plots to understand the rate and pres-
sure behavior during early water flowback. We also applied a pre-
vious model to estimate effective fracture pore volume (Vef) by
use of early-flowback data, and proposed a procedure to estimate
fracture compressibility by use of the data from diagnostic frac-
ture-injection tests. We also studied the relationship between the
estimated Vef and various completion-design parameters. The con-
clusions can be summarized as follows:
1. Diagnostic plots of flowback data show several days of single-
phase water production. We observe a phenomenon of flatten-
ing casing and bottomhole pressure during single-phase flow-
back. Comparative analysis of the data indicates that the
flattening pressure can be interpreted as the hydrocarbon break-
through into the effective fracture system. The results suggest
that the time of single-phase flowback depends on initial reser-
voir pressure and hydrocarbon type. Gas wells generally show
a shorter single-phase period compared with the oil wells.
Wells with higher initial reservoir pressure generally show lon-
ger single-phase-flow period.
2. The estimated Vef is generally larger than final load-recovery
volume, and less than total injected-water volume (TIV). Com-
parative analysis of the unpropped-fracture volume, estimated
Vef, load-recovery volume, and TIV indicates that most of the
effective fractures are unpropped, and host the nonrecovered
fracturing water. The results also indicate that estimating Vef
requires reliable estimates of fracture compressibility.
3. TIV and average cluster spacing are among the key comple-
tion-design parameters for creating a larger Vef. Increasing
TIV increases Vef. This is because pumping more water stim-
ulates the formation with more energy. The limited data in
this study show that smaller average cluster spacing enhances
the connectivity of the fracture network, and generally leads
to a larger Vef. However, the relationships between Vef and
completion-design parameters presented in this study may
need further validation in other plays where more wells with
flowback data are available.
Nomenclature
A drainage area, L2 , m2 , ft2 
B FVF
C compressibility, Lt2 M1 , atm1 , Pa1 ; psi1 
G fracture gradient, ML2 t2 , Pa:m1 , psi  ft1 
K permeability, L2 , m2 , darcies
P pressure of hydrocarbon phase, ML1 t2 , Pa, [psi]
t time, t, seconds, [hours, days]
V volume, L3 , m3 , ft3 
y fracture half-length, L, m, [ft]
l viscosity, ML1 t1 , Pas, [cp]
c Eulers constant
/ porosity, dimensionless
Subscripts
wf bottomhole flowing
e equivalent or effective
f fracture
i initial
max maximum
min minimum
t total
w water
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Newfield Exploration, Nexen Energy
ULC, Natural Resources Canada, and the Natural Sciences and En-
gineering Council of Canada (NSERC) for supporting this study.
This paper benefits from insightful discussions with Robert
Hawkes, Christopher Clarkson, and Kaylen Beck in the recent past.
12
ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003
Stage: Page: 12 Total Pages: 17
References
Abbasi, M., Dehghanpour, H., and Hawkes, R. V. 2012. Flowback Analy-
sis for Fracture Characterization. Presented at the SPE Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 30 October1 No-
vember. SPE-162661-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/162661-MS.
Abbasi, M. A. 2013. A Comparative Study of Flowback Rate and Pressure
Transient Behavior in Multi Fractured Horizontal Wells. Msc thesis,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada (September 2013).
Abbasi, M. A., Ezulike, D. O., Dehghanpour, H. et al. 2014. A Compara-
tive Study of Flowback Rate and Pressure Transient Behavior in Mul-
tifractured Horizontal Wells Completed in Tight Gas and Oil
Reservoirs. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 17:
8293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2013.12.007.
Adefidipe, O. A., Dehghanpour, H., and Virues, C. J. 2014. Immediate
Gas Production From Shale Gas Wells: A Two-Phase Flowback
Model. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference,
The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 13 April. SPE-168982-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/168982-MS.
Aguilera, R. 1999. Recovery Factors and Reserves in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs. J Can Pet Technol 38 (7): 1518. PETSOC-99-07-DA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/99-07-DA.
Alkouh, A., McKetta, S., and Wattenbarger, R. A. 2014. Estimation of
Effective-Fracture Volume Using Water-Flowback and Production
Data for Shale-Gas Wells. J Can Pet Technol 53 (5): 290303. SPE-
166279-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/166279-PA.
Bello, R.O. 2009. Rate Transient Analysis in Shale Gas Reservoirs With
Transient Linear Behavior. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, Col-
lege Station, Texas (May 2009).
Clarkson, C. R. and Williams-Kovacs, J. 2013. Modeling Two-Phase
Flowback of Multifractured Horizontal Wells Completed in Shale.
SPE J. 18 (4): 795812. SPE-162593-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/
162593-PA.
Crafton, J. W. and Gunderson, D. W. 2006. Use of Extremely High Time-
Resolution Production Data to Characterize Hydraulic Fracture Prop-
erties. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, New Orleans, 2427 September. SPE-49223-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/49223-MS.
Economides, M. J. and Nolte, K. G. 2000. Reservoir Stimulation, third edi-
tion. Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ezulike, D. O., Dehghanpour, H., and Hawkes, R. V. 2013. Understanding
Flowback as a Transient 2 Phase Displacement Process: An Extension
of the Linear Dual Porosity Model. Presented at the SPE Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 57 November. SPE-
167164-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167164-MS.
Ezulike, D. O. and Dehghanpour, H. 2014a. A Workflow for Flowback
Data AnalysisCreating Value out of Chaos. Presented at the
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, 2527
August. SPE-2014-1922047-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2014-
1922047.
Ezulike, D. O. and Dehghanpour, H. 2014b. Modelling Flowback as a
Transient Two-Phase Depletion Process. Journal of Natural Gas Sci-
ence and Engineering 19: 258278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.
2014.05.004.
Ezulike, O., Dehghanpour, H., Virues, C. et al. 2016. Flowback Fracture
Closure: A Key Factor for Estimating Effective Pore Volume. SPE
Res Eval & Eng 19 (4): 567582. SPE-175143-PA. https://doi.org/
10.2118/175143-PA.
IHS Harmony Software. 2014. Pressure Loss Calculations. http://www.
fekete.com/SAN/WebHelp/Piper/WebHelp/c-te-pressure.htm (accessed
19 December 2016).
Ilk, D., Currie, S. M., Symmons, D. et al. 2010. A Comprehensive Work-
flow for Early Analysis and Interpretation of Flowback Data From
Wells in Tight Gas/Shale Reservoir Systems. Presented at the SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 1922 Sep-
tember. SPE-135607-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/135607-MS.
Ingram, S. R., Lahman, M., and Persac, S. 2014. Methods Improve Stimu-
lation Efficiency of Perforation Clusters in Completions. J Pet Technol
66 (4): 3236. SPE-0414-0032-JPT. https://doi.org/10.2118/0414-
0032-JPT.
Jones Jr., F. O. 1975. A Laboratory Study of the Effects of Confining Pres-
sure on Fracture Flow and Storage Capacity in Carbonate Rocks. J Pet
2017 SPE Production & Operations
 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 13 Total Pages: 17

Technol 27 (1): 2127. SPE-4569-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/4569-
PA.
Jones, R., Steven Jr., R., Pownall, B. et al. 2014. Estimating Reservoir
Pressure From Early Flowback Data. Presented at the Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference, Denver, 2527 August. SPE-2014-
1934785-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2014-1934785-MS.
McCain, W. D. 1991. Reservoir-Fluid Property Correlations-State of the
Art (includes associated papers 23583 and 23594). SPE J. 6 (2):
266272. SPE-18571-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/18571-PA.
McKenna, J. P. 2014. Where Did the Proppant Go? Presented at the SPE/
AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Den-
ver, 2527 August. SPE-2014-1922843-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/
urtec-2014-1922843-MS.
Nguyen, P. D., Weaver, J. D., Parker, M. A. et al. 1996. Proppant Flow-
back Control Additives. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Denver, 69 October. SPE-36689-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/36689-MS.
Nolte, K. G. 1979. Determination of Fracture Parameters From Fracturing
Pressure Decline. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2326 September. SPE-8341-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/8341-MS.
Palacio, J. C. and Blasingame, T. A. 1993. Decline-Curve Analysis With
Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well Production Data. Presented at
the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Sym-
posium, Denver, 2628 April. SPE-25909-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/25909-MS.
Parmar, J., Dehghanpour, H., and Kuru, E. 2014. Displacement of
Water by Gas in Propped Fractures: Combined Effects of Gravity,
Surface Tension, and Wettability. Journal of Unconventional Oil
and Gas Resources 5: 1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juogr.2013.
11.005.
Pearson, K. 1895. Notes on Regression and Inheritance in the Case of Two
Parents. Proc., the Royal Society of London, Vol. 58, 240242.
Peters, E. J. 2012. Advanced Petrophysics. In Geology, Porosity, Absolute
Permeability, Heterogeneity, and Geostatistics, Vol. 1. Greenlead
Book Group (Reprint).
Raysoni, N. and Weaver, J. 2013. Long-Term Hydrothermal Proppant Per-
formance. SPE Prod & Oper 28 (4): 414426. SPE-150669-PA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/150669-PA.
Sharma, M. and Agrawal, S. 2013. Impact of Liquid Loading in Hydraulic
Warpinski, N. R. 2010. Stress Amplification and Arch Dimensions in
Proppant Beds Deposited by Waterfracs. SPE Prod & Oper 25 (4):
461471. SPE-119350-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/119350-PA.
Williams-Kovacs, J. D. and Clarkson, C. R. 2013. Stochastic Modeling of
Multi-Phase Flowback From Multi-Fractured Horizontal Tight Oil
Wells. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference
Canada, Calgary, 57 November. SPE-167232-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/167232-MS.
Xu, Y., Adefidipe, O. A. and Dehghanpour, H. 2015. Estimating Fracture
Volume Using Flowback Data From the Horn River Basin: A Material
Balance Approach. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
25: 253270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.036.
Xu, Y., Adefidipe, O. A., and Dehghanpour, H. 2016. A Flowing Material
Balance Equation for Two-Phase Flowback Analysis. Journal of Pe-
troleum Science and Engineering 142: 170185. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.018.
Zhang, J., Kamenov, A., Hill, A. D. et al. 2014. Laboratory Measurement
of Hydraulic-Fracture Conductivities in the Barnett Shale. SPE Prod
& Oper 29 (3): 216227. SPE-163839-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/
163839-PA.
Zhang, Y. and Ehlig-Economides, C. 2014. Accounting for Remaining
Injected Fracturing Fluid in Shale Gas Wells. Presented at the SPE/
AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Den-
ver, 2527 August. SPE-2014-1892994-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/
urtec-2014-1892994.
Zhou, Q., Dilmore, R., Kleit, A. et al. 2016. Evaluating Fracture-Fluid
Flowback in Marcellus Using Data-Mining Technologies. SPE Prod &
Oper 31 (2): 133146. SPE-173364-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/
173364-PA.
Appendix A: Estimates of Fracture
Compressibility
Please refer to Fig. A-1.
K J I HG F E D CB A A. Miner = 0%
12,000
A. Miner = 0%
B. Miner = 10%
11,000 C. Miner = 20%
D. Miner = 30%
10,000 E. Miner = 40%
F. Miner = 50%
G. Ratio = 90%
Net Stress on Fracture (psi)

Fractures on Well Productivity. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Frac- 9,000 H. Ratio = 70%
I. Ratio = 50%
turing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 46 February. J. Ratio = 30%
8,000 K. Ratio = 20%
SPE-163837-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/163837-MS.
L. Ratio = 10%
Sharma, M. M. and Manchanda, R. 2015. The Role of Induced Un- 7,000
propped (IU) Fractures in Unconventional Oil and Gas Wells. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Hous- 6,000
ton, 2830 September. SPE-174946-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
5,000
174946-MS.
Song, B. and Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 2011. Rate-Normalized Pressure 4,000
Analysis for Determination of Shale Gas Well Performance. Presented
at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibi- 3,000
tion, The Woodlands, Texas, 1416 June. SPE-144031-MS. https://
2,000
doi.org/10.2118/144031-MS.
Tiab, D., Restrepo, D. P., and Igbokoyi, A. O. 2006. Fracture Porosity 1,000
of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Presented at the International
Oil Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Cancun, Mexico, 31 0
August2 September. SPE-104056-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/ 1106 1105 1104 1103
104056-MS.
Fracture Compressibilty (psi1)
Wallace, J., Kabir, C. S., and Cipolla, C. 2014. Multiphysics Investigation
of Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests in Unconventional Reservoirs. Fig. A-1Charts for estimating fracture compressibility. Miner
Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, is the estimated percentage of secondary mineralization in the
The Woodlands, Texas, 46 February. SPE-168620-MS. https:// natural fractures. Ratio is fracture porosity divided by the sum-
doi.org/10.2118/168620-MS. mation of fracture porosity and vug porosity (Aguilera 1999).

2017 SPE Production & Operations 13

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 14 Total Pages: 17

Appendix B: Diagnostic Plots of Flowback Rate and Pressure Data

Please refer to Fig. B-1.
Gas Rate (Mcf/D), Oil Rate (BOPD),

Gas Rate (Mcf/D), Oil Rate (BOPD),

8 9 8 9
Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

Gas rate Gas rate
Region 1 Water rate Water rate

Pressure (1,000 psi)

Pressure (1,000 psi)
Oil rate Oil rate
Region 2 Calculated Pwf
Casing pressure Calculated Pwf
6 6
Calculated Pwf Casing pressure

4 Calculated Pwf Region 3 4

Region 1 Region 3
Gas Lift 3 3
Region 2

0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Days From Start of Flowback Days From Start of Flowback
(a) Well B (b) Well C

8 9
Gas Rate (Mcf/D), Oil Rate (BOPD),

Gas Rate (Mcf/D), Oil Rate (BOPD),

8 9 Gas rate
Gas rate
Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

Water rate
Water rate
Oil rate

Pressure (1,000 psi)

Oil rate

Pressure (1,000 psi)

Calculated Pwf
Calculated Pwf Calculated Pwf Calculated Pwf Casing pressure
6 6
Casing pressure
Region 1
4 Region 2 4
Region 3
Region 1 Region 2 Region3
3 3

0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15

Days From Start of Flowback Days From Start of Flowback

(c) Well D (d) Well E

8 9
Gas Rate (Mcf/D), Oil Rate (BOPD),

Gas rate Water rate

Water Rate (thousands BWPD)

Oil rate Calculated Pwf

Casing pressure
Pressure (1,000 psi)

Calculated Pwf
Region 1
6
Region 2
4
Region 3
3

0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Days From Start of Flowback
(e) Well F

Fig. B-1Hourly flowback data show three regions. Region 1 shows single-phase of water production and declining pressure.
Region 2 shows single-phase of water production and flattening pressure. Region 3 shows multiphase production.

14 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 15 Total Pages: 17

Appendix C: Analysis for Early Single-Phase Flowback Data

Please refer to Fig. C-1.

Well B Well C
10 9 10 9

Calculated Pwf (1,000 psi)

Calculated Pwf (1,000 psi)

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 2 Region 3
Region 1

1 6 1 6
RNP

RNP
Unit-slope
0.1 3 0.1 3
Unit-slope deviates Unit-slope deviates
Unit-slope as Pwf flattens out as Pwf flattens out
0.01 0 0.01 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tMB (days) tMB (days)
(a) (b)

Well D Well E
10 9 10 9

Calculated Pwf (1,000 psi)

Calculated Pwf (1,000 psi)
Region 1 Region 2 Region 1 Region 2 Region 3
Region 3

1 6 1 6

RNP
RNP

0.1 3 0.1 3
Unit-slope Unit-slope deviates Unit-slope Unit-slope deviates
as Pwf flattens out as Pwf flattens out

0.01 0 0.01 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tMB (days) tMB (days)
(c) (d)
Well F
10 9
Region 2

Calculated Pwf (1,000 psi)

Region 3
Region 1
1 6
RNP

Unit-slope deviates
as Pwf flattens out

0.1 3

Unit-slope
0.01 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tMB (days)
(e)

Fig. C-1Log-log plot of RNP vs. tMB shows a clear unit-slope before the calculated bottomhole pressure flattens out (RNP is in
the unit of psi/STB/D).

2017 SPE Production & Operations 15

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17 Stage: Page: 16 Total Pages: 17

Appendix D: Cartesian Plot of RNP and tMB

Please refer to Fig. D-1.

1 1
Well A Well B
0.8 0.8

y = 0.0579x + 0.0421 y = 0.0784x + 0.0132

0.6 0.6
RNP

RNP
R = 0.9956 R = 0.9974

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
tMB (days) tMB (days)
(a) (b)
1 1
Well C Well D
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
RNP

y = 0.1254x + 0.0976

RNP
R = 0.9385
0.4 0.4

y = 0.0752x + 0.0032
0.2 0.2
R = 0.9918

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
tMB (days) tMB (days)
(c) (d)
1 1
Well E Well F
0.8 0.8
RNP

0.6 y = 0.2031x + 0.0203 0.6

RNP

R = 0.9853 y = 0.1005x + 0.0308

0.4 0.4 R = 0.9944

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

tMB (days) tMB (days)

(e) (f)
1
Well G
0.8

0.6
RNP

0.4
y = 0.076x + 0.0527
0.2 R = 0.9783

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
tMB (days)
(g)

Fig. D-1RNP vs. tMB in Cartesian plot and linear fit for each well.

Yingkun Fu is currently a PhD-degree student in the School of
Mining and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Alberta.
His research interests include flowback and production data
analysis in unconventional reservoirs and software develop-
ment. Fu holds BSc and MSc degrees in petroleum engineer-
ing from the China University of Geosciences, Beijing.
Hassan Dehghanpour is an assistant professor in the Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University
of Alberta. His primary research interests include measurement
and modeling of multiphase flow in porous media for applica-
tions in enhanced oil recovery and petroleum production
from shale reservoirs. Dehghanpour has authored or

16 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003

 PO175892 DOI: 10.2118/175892-PA Date: 21-March-17
coauthored more than 80 refereed-journal and conference
papers, mainly related to reservoir-engineering aspects of
unconventional reservoirs. He is the recipient of the 2014 SPE
Young Member Outstanding Service Award and the 2015 SPE
Distinguished Achievement Award for Petroleum Engineering
Faculty, both for the Canada region, and serves on the exec-
utive committee for the 2017 SPE Unconventional Resources
Conference. Dehghanpour holds two BS degrees in mechani-
cal and petroleum engineering from Sharif University of Tech-
nology, Iran, and an MS degree from the University of Alberta
and a PhD degree from the University of Texas at Austin, both
in petroleum engineering.
D. Obinna Ezulike is currently a PhD-degree candidate in the
School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering at the University of
Alberta. His research interests include modeling fluid flow in con-
ventional and unconventional reservoirs, artificial intelligence,
and software development. Ezulike has authored or coauthored
2017 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 15:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170003/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170003
Stage: Page: 17 Total Pages: 17
more than seven peer-reviewed-journal papers within the last 3
years. He is an SPE member and the First-Prize recipient (PhD
degree division) in the 2013 SPE Student Paper Contest, Canada
region. Ezulike holds BSc degrees in geology and physics from the
University of Nigeria and an MSc degree in petroleum engineer-
ing from the African University of Science and Technology.
R. Steven Jones Jr. is a reservoir-engineering adviser at
Cimarex Energy Company in Tulsa. Previously, he was with
Newfield Exploration Company (where the work on this paper
was performed) for 15 years. Jones is focused on the reservoir
aspects of appraising and optimizing unconventional
resource plays. He has authored or coauthored five technical
papers. Jones is a registered professional engineer in Okla-
homa, and is a member of SPE and the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists. He holds a BS degree from the Univer-
sity of Tulsa and an MS degree from the University of Texas at
Austin, both in petroleum engineering.
17