Estimation of Effective-Fracture Volume

Using Water-Flowback and Production

Data for Shale-Gas Wells
Ahmad Alkouh*, Texas A&M University, Steven McKetta, Southwestern Energy, and
Robert A. Wattenbarger, Texas A&M University

Summary
Primarily, gas-production data are the main tool used to analyze
shale-gas reservoirs. Water production is not usually included in
the analysis. In this paper, post-fracturing water flowback and
long-term water production are added to the analysis. The water
data are usually available but are analyzed separately and not
combined with long-term gas-production data. In this paper, procedures and examples are presented, including water-flowback
and water-production data, in the analysis of shale-gas wells using
rate transient analysis.
A number of simulation cases were run. Various physical
assumptions were used for the saturations and properties that exist
in the fracture/matrix system after hydraulic fracturing. Water
flowback and long-term production periods were then simulated.
The results of these simulations were compared with data
from actual wells by use of diagnostic and specialized plots.
These comparisons led to certain conclusions which describe
well/reservoir conditions after hydraulic fracturing and during
production.
This paper shows the benefits of a new method for combining
water-flowback and long-term water-production data in shale-gas
analysis. Water-production analysis can provide effective-fracture
volume which was confirmed by the cumulative produced water.
This can help when evaluating fracture-stimulation jobs. It also
shows some pitfalls of ignoring flowback data. In some cases, the
time shift on diagnostic plots changes the apparent flow-regime
identification of the early gas-production data as well as waterproduction data. This leads to different models of the fracture/
matrix system. The presented work shows the importance of
including water-flowback data in the long-term production
analysis.

Introduction
Water production is usually ignored when analyzing and forecasting shale-gas-well performance. The process involves pumping
thousands of barrels of water with proppant and additives into the
rock at high pressure. Numerous operators along with Wattenbarger and Alkouh (2013) have indicated that the percent of
injected fluid recovered (load recovery) in shale-gas wells ranges
from 10 to 40%. Flowback is the early data (water/gas rate and
pressure) gathered after fracture stimulation of the well, which
might be followed by a shut-in. The flow sequence of the usual
shale well is presented in Fig. 1 where there is a shut-in period
between flowback and production because delays in the pipeline
connection. Most operators ignore flowback data and do not combine it with production data.
The paper has four main parts: (1) a review of the literature
related to flow-regime identification and the diffusivity equation,
(2) verification of the new method with a simulated model, (3)
* Currently with College of Technological Studies.
C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Copyright V

This paper (SPE 166279) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September2 October 2013, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 30 September 2013. Revised manuscript
received for review 23 July 2014. Paper peer approved 20 August 2014.

290

examples of a single well and five-well pad illustrating the new

method, and (4) discussion and conclusions. The intent of this
paper is to present a new method that can be applied to water data
from both flowback and production periods combined.
Literature Review
There is little literature dealing with quantitative analysis of
water-flowback and production data to calculate fracture properties. Flowback usually deals with the first 1 to 4 days of the data
and is often removed from the long-term production data, especially if followed by a shut-in. In an attempt to analyze
flowback data, Crafton and Gunderson (2007) presented a method
to calculate hydraulic-fracture conductivity using early flowback data. In a personal contact, Crafton confirmed there has been
no work performed to calculate fracture volume by use of
water data without the knowledge of other parameters (e.g.,
permeability).
Abbasi et al. (2012) presented an attempt to analyze water data
from a flowback period. The author divided the production profile
shown in Fig. 1 into three regions based on the type of fluid flowing. In the first region, water production dominates, and in the second, water production is in decline and gas production increases.
The third region is when gas production dominates. The authors
observed a linear-flow relationship between rate-normalized pressure (RNP) and material-balance time (tMB) for all regions. The
proposed model was for the first region, but the data used are
from each of the three regions. In the model, gas compressibility
was not accounted for although it was the dominant compressibility in the second and third regions. Hydraulic-fracture permeability was needed to find fracture volume and vice versa, which adds
uncertainty to the calculation.
The study by Clarkson and Williams-Kovacs (2013) calculates
fracture volume with water data, with the assumption of singlephase water flow. The authors use flowing material balance to calculate fracture volume. Water data presented in our paper showed
boundary-dominated flow (BDF) while gas is flowing in the fracture (two-phase flow), which is not the case in the paper by Clarkson and Williams-Kovacs (2013). This study presents a method
for calculating fracture properties using water data (flowback and
production) for two-phase flow.
Wattenbarger and Alkouh (2013) concluded using gas/water
numerical modelling that the majority of the injected water is in
both hydraulically induced and natural fractures and that imbibition is not a major factor. This work led to the current topic
of using water-flowback and -production data to calculate fracture properties because the fracture was occupied by fracturing
water.
On the other hand, long-term production data (gas/water) have
been the interest of a significant amount of research and publications. In production-data analysis (PDA), gas production (production period only) is analyzed using analytical solutionsignoring
the flowback period if there is a shut-inand ignoring water data.
To the authors knowledge, there is no publication that has studied
the effect of combining flowback data with production data if separated by a shut-in period.
Simulation is another tool used to analyze production data and
can help in verifying assumed models. Unfortunately, shale-gas
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Flowback
Frac Job

Days: 1

Shut-in

Production

25

3,000

Flowback

Production

Water Rate

Gas Rate

Fig. 1The flow sequence of a typical shale well starts with a fracturing job followed by a flowback period with high water rates. Then,
significant gas production starts after 2 to 5 days. Some wells are shut in because of a connection delay. Then, production starts.

researchers have not compared simulation models with analytical

solutions (Alkouh et al. 2012). In this work, simulation is used to
verify the new method of analyzing water data using PDA. This
method is developed by looking at the condition of gas dominating the diffusivity equation as described in the next section.

If those conditions are met, then the real-gas-diffusivity equation can be used to analyze gas-production data, using the real-gas
pseudopressure.

Diffusivity Equation. Another method to divide the wells production profile is based on dividing the profile into two time
regions. A water-dominating region is where the compressibility
of water is dominating, and is short. Then, a gas-dominating
region is the main region, and it starts at early times. In production-data analysis, it is assumed that the dominant phase is gas,
which makes the analyst ignore the previous period because gas
dominates the diffusivity equation.
The system under investigation is the fracture system, which is
initially saturated with fracturing water but has gas flowing from
the matrix to the fracture. These fractures have a high conductivity, and capillarity is neglected. Eq. 1 shows the diffusivity equation for a two-phase system (water and gas) in the fracture
system.

The satisfaction of (mobility) Condition 1 depends on the

relative permeability of the gas, which is dependent on water
saturation. To test Mobility Condition 1 in the hydraulic fracture, a gravity-segregated (straight lines) relative permeability is
assumed. On the basis of Table 1, water saturation below 70% is
dominated by gas. With the initial high gas rates in shale-gas
wells, this saturation level can be reached at early times.
The satisfaction of the (compressibility) Condition 2 also
depends on water saturation. As in Table 2, the volumetric gas
compressibility (Sg cg) contribution is 97% of the total compressibility at Sw 0.7. In general, if the water saturation is below 0.7,
then gas is dominating the diffusivity equation (mobility and compressibility conditions).
High water rates in the flowback period tend to unload the
fracture water quickly, allowing the gas to flow from the matrix to
the fracture system. The more fracturing water is flowing back,
the faster the system is dominated by gas at early times. With this
in mind, gas compressibility cannot be ignored in the water analysis. This concept is the main driver for this research. Even though
the analyzed fluid is water, gas compressibility should be used,
which was verified using a simulation model.

r  kt rp 1 ct

@p
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
@t

where the total mobility is defined as

" 
 
 
  #
k
kr
kr
kr
kt
k
k

; . . . . . . . 2
l t
l t
l g
l w
where the total compressibility is defined as
ct cf Sw cw Sg cg : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
When significant gas flow starts, two conditions are satisfied to
make gas the dominating phase in the fracture system.
 
kr
Condition 1 is kt  k
, and Condition 2 is ct  Sg cg .
l g
Sw
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

krw
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

krg
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

(kr /u)w
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6

(kr /u)g
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15

(kr /u)t
50
45
40
36
31
26
21
17

% Gas
Domination
100
99
99
98
97
96
93
90

0.8
0.9
1

0.8
0.9
1

0.2
0.1
0

1.9
2.1
2.3

10
5
0

12
7
2

84
70
0

Table 1Mobility condition in the hydraulic fracture.

September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

r2 mp

1 l ct @mp
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
@t
k

Gas-Flow Regimes. In gas-production data of shale wells, several slopes can be observed on log-log plots of rate vs. time or material-balance time (tMB). Transient linear flow dominates the
early part of the gas-production profile and can last for a year in
usual cases. This linear flow can be from hydraulic fracture or a
stimulated matrix (higher than original matrix permeability). Gas
transient linear flow would be shown as a half slope on the loglog plot (t and tMB) and a straight line on the square-root-of-time
plot.

Sw
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Sg
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Ct
4
3.0110
4
2.7110
4
2.4210
4
2.1210
4
1.8210
4
1.5310
4
1.2310
5
9.3110
5
6.3410
5
3.3710
6
4.0010

Sg c g
4
3.0010
4
2.7010
4
2.4010
4
2.1010
4
1.8010
4
1.5010
4
1.2010
4
9.0010
4
6.0010
4
3.0010
0

% Gas Domination
100
100
99
99
99
98
98
97
95
89
0

Table 2Total compressibility condition.

291

Description
After the injection of fracturing
water, fractures are created, which
can be conductive (allow gas flow
to the wellbore), such as the area in
light blue (called effective fracture
volume). The other fracture volume
is not conductive and is the dark
blue area and it is disconnected
from the conductive fracture
network (lost fracturing water).
Imbibition is ignored because of
low
permeability
reservoir
(Wattenbarger and Alkouh 2013).

2. Early
Flowback

Single-phase flow of water in the

high-permeability effective-fracture
volume, which can be of any
shape. The flow is still transient,
but does not have a clear
signature because each fracturing
stage starts flowing back at
different timesmaking it hard to
see the transient flow in water
data because one stage is in
transient flow and the other is in
BDF.

Water RNP Plot

1106
1105
1104
1103
1102
1101
110
110 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106

Water Material-Balance Time, tmBw

Multiphase flow of gas and water

during fracture depletion. With the
pressure transient reaching the
boundary of the effective-fracture
volume, a unit-slope line in the
water RNP plot can be observed.
This line can indicate the size of
the effective-fracture volume. This
line is present in the water data
regardless of the type of gas flow
in the matrix (bilinear, linear, or
BDF).

1106
1105
1104

RNPw

3. Production

Illustration

RNPw

Period
1. Injection

1103
1102
1101
110
110 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106

Water Material-Balance Time, tmBw

Table 3Sequence of periods for water and gas flow in the fracture network.

If two transient linear systems are flowing at the same time, a

signature of transient bilinear flow will be observed. This can be
interpreted as linear flow both in the matrix and natural fracture.
A transient bilinear flow would be shown as a quarter-slope line
in the log-log plot (t and tMB). When the transient period ends, the
boundary of the well is reached. This period is called BDF, which
has a different signature on time and material-balance-time plots.
BDF has an exponential signature on log-log plot of t and a unitslope line on a log-log plot of tMB.
Water-Flow Regimes. The periods and flow regimes present in
the water-production data are presented in Table 3. After the
injection of fracturing water, two types of fracture networks are
created: conductive or nonconductive. The conductive-fracture
network (light blue in Table 3) represents high-permeability fractures that allow the gas from the matrix to flow to the wellbore
and is called effective-fracture volume. The effective-fracture volume can have any shape as long as it is connected to the wellbore
with high-permeability flow. This is unlike previous methods,
which have an assumption for the fracture shape. The effectivefracture volume is related directly to the amount of water produced because water will not be trapped in the highly conductive
and widely open fractures (Wattenbarger and Alkouh (2013).
The nonconductive fracture (dark blue in Table 3) is the isolated fracture that fully traps fracturing water, is not connected to
the wellbore, and will not contribute to the gas flow. Imbibition is
ignored in these low-permeability reservoirs (Wattenbarger and
292

Alkouh 2013) because it is a slow process and a small amount of

water is lost. This method is not applicable if there is an active aquifer that will force the well to produce water more than the
injected fracturing volume.
Water-production data usually do not show the transient period
and in some cases BDF is present. The reason for the masked transient data is that each fracturing stage is unplugged at a different
time, which makes one stage in transient flow and another in
BDF. On the other hand, a clear trend of BDF is present in most
analyzed wells. Using this BDF to calculate water in place will be
almost equal to the effective-fracture volume, as will be shown in
the simulation model.
Simulation Cases
A 3D gas/water simulator is used to simulate a single fracture
filled with water and gas in the matrix. The simulation properties
are shown in Table 4. The relative permeability in the fracture is
gravity segregated, as shown in Fig. 2. Capillary pressure is
ignored in the fracture. Fig. 3 shows the two simulation cases. In
the single-phase case, only water flows in the fracture. In the twophase case, gas flows from the matrix into the water-filled fracture
and along the fracture. Water volume in both cases in the fracture
is constant. The concept behind the cases is to build linear flow of
the fracture filled with water and compare it with the effect of gas
flowing from the matrix, which provides an extra compressibility
to the water flow. In both cases, water flow is analyzed to calculate different parameters.
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Initial pressure, pi (psi)

Flowing bottomhole pressure, pwf (psi)
Specific gravity, SGg
Reservoir temperature, T (F)
Fracture porosity, F (fraction)
Water volume in the fracture, Vw (STB)
Water formation volume factor, Bw (RB/STB)
1
Gas compressibility, cg (psi )

Matrix porosity, m (fraction)

Reservoir thickness, h (ft)
Matrix permeability, km (md)
Hydraulic-fracture conductivity, CHF (md-ft)
Fracture spacing, LF (ft)
Fracture half-length, xf (ft)
1
Formation compressibility, cf (psi )
1
Water compressibility, cw (psi )

3,000
500
0.65
160
1
6,995
1.01
4
3.910

0.06
300
4
1.510
4
500
550
6
110
6
2.910

Table 4Shale-gas-simulation properties.

Relative Permeability

1
0.8
0.6
0.4

Krg

0.2

Krw

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water Saturation
Fig. 2The gravity-segregated relative permeability curve of
the fracture.

The result of the two cases is presented in Fig. 4, with water

rates plotted vs. time for a single fracture. The single-phase case
represents linear flow in a fracture with the signature half slope,
which then declines exponentially. This curve can be reproduced
using an analytical solution. In the two-phase case, with gas flowing from the matrix and along the fracture, the half slope is offset
from the single-phase case. The second linear-flow line is not informative because it depends on several unknown parameters; this
type of flow is early and probably not observed in field water
data. The water rate declines in a different manner if compared
with the single-phase case.
In Fig. 5, both cases are plotted using material-balance time to
observe the boundary-dominated-flow (BDF) regime as a unitslope line. In both cases, water volumes in the fracture are similar

Two-Phase Flow Case

Single-Phase Flow Case

Hydraulic Fracture
Water in
Fracture

Xf = 550 ft

Horizontal well

Gas flow
from matrix
into fracture

Perforation
No flow from
matrix into
fracture
LF = 500 ft

Fig. 3The two simulated cases. In the single-phase case, only water is flowing in the fracture. In the two-phase case, gas flows
from the matrix into fracture and flows in the fracture with the water.

1104

Water Rate (B/D)

1103
1102
1101
110
1101
1102

Single Phase

Two Phase
1103
1104 1103 1102 1101 110 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105
Time (Days)
Fig. 4Water-flow rate of a single fracture with/without gas flow from matrix, with linear flow (half slope) dominating early time in
the single phase and then declining exponentially; higher flow rates and longer times in the case with gas flow from matrix into
the water-filled fracture increase total compressibility.
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

293

1104
1103

Water Rate (B/D)

1102
1101
110
1101
1102
1103

Single Phase

Two Phase
1104
1104 1103 1102 1101 110 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106
Water Material-Balance Time
Fig. 5Water-flow rate vs. water material-balance time showing two different unit-slope lines, indicating two different volumes
when the same volume is used for both cases. This difference is caused by gas compressibility.

but the results indicate that the volumes are different because the
unit-slope lines are not overlying each other. Because gas is flowing into the fracture, it will tend to increase the total compressibility, which will affect water-volume calculations, as shown in the
previous Diffusivity Equation subsection.
Eqs. 5 and 6 will be used to calculate water volume, which is
the effective-fracture volume (no trapped water). The derivation
of the equations is shown in Appendix A. Water rate normalized
by pressure (RNPw) is plotted for both cases, as shown in Fig. 6.
RNPw is used to correct for variable bottomhole pressure ( pwf), as
in the case of an actual well (the simulated cases are constant pwf).
Eq. 5 is used to calculate water volume in STB where mpss is the
slope of the Cartesian plot in the period of unit-slope line, as
shown in Fig. 6 where the line or RNPw is over RNPw0 (derivative)
line. mpss can also be calculated using Eq. 6 with the data in the
unit-slope period of Fig. 6.
Vw

Bw
.............................
ct mpss

mpss

RNPw
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
tmBw

From Figs. 5 and 6, BDF is present in water data for the twophase case at approximately 30 days. Fig. 7 shows water satura-

1108

RNPw and RNP'w (psi/B/D)

1107
1106

tion and pressure in the fracture and matrix to confirm the

assumption of gas dominating the system. Water saturation in the
fracture ranges between 55 to 80% (near tip), from the Diffusivity
Equation subsection. This is a condition for gas to dominate compressibility and mobility. Pressure distribution in the fracture is
ranging between 500 to 2,800 psi (near tip) and the matrix is still
at the initial pressure. Most of the gas flowing to the well is at a
pressure rate near initial pressure.
To calculate effective-fracture volume, total compressibility is
modified to account for the gas present in the fracture. Total compressibility in the single phase is water and formation compressibility, but it is different in the two-phase case. The two-phase case
compressibility is first dominated by water. Then, gas dominates
because of the gas-saturation increase in the fracture. An approximation is used by equating total compressibility to gas
compressibility.
The results of both cases are presented in Table 5, where the
simulated water volume is back calculated. In the single-phase
case, the total compressibility (water and formation) is used. But,
gas compressibility is used to calculate water volume in the fracture. This method is used in field data for further confirmation.
Pressure-Dependent Properties. The proposed method was
tested for pressure-dependent permeability and porosity. Reyes
and Osisanya (2000) showed an empirical correlation for

RNP'w; Two Phase

RNPw; Two Phase
RNP'w; Single Phase
RNPw; Single Phase

1105
1104
1103
1102
1101
110

1101
1104 1103 1102 1101 110 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106
Water Material-Balance Time
Fig. 6Water rate-normalized pressure and derivative vs. water material-balance time showing two different unit-slope lines, indicating two different volumes when the same volume is used for both cases. This difference is caused by gas compressibility.
294

September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

200

300

400

400

(b)

400

1.00

3,000

0.90

2,750

0.80

2,501

0.70

2,251

0.60

2,001
500

500

0.50

500

400

(a)

300

1,752

0.40

1,502

0.30

1,253

0.20

1,003

0.10

753
504

0.00
200

500

200

200

300

300

Fig. 7Water and pressure distribution at time of 30 days (when BDF is present in water) for the two-phase case. (a) Water saturation in the fracture with values between 55 and 80% (near tip), confirming that gas dominates compressibility and mobility. (b)
Pressure distribution in the fracture and matrix showing that fracture pressure ranges between 500 to 2,800 psi (near tip).

Single-Phase Case

Two-Phase Case

mpss

37

0.37

ct, psi1

3.9106

3.9104

Input Vw, STB

6,955

6,955

Calculated Vw, STB

6,999

6,930

Table 5Calculated results of simulation cases.

pressure-dependent permeability and porosity. Eq. 7 shows the

empirical correlation for both permeability and porosity. Because
fracturing water is trapped in the fracture, the pressure-dependent
permeability and porosity are used in the fracture, as shown in
Fig. 8 for the two-phase case. The pressure-dependent properties
were not used in the matrix because water results were not
affected by gradual change in gas flow.
As shown in Fig. 9 for the two-phase case, the pressure-dependent permeability and porosity only delayed the unit-slope signature. The calculated effective-fracture volume for both cases
was the same. It is clear from this simulation test that this method
can be used with fractures that have permeability and porosity
decreasing with pressure decrease.
kp ki eck p and 1p 1i ecp p :

. . . . . . . . 7

1.00
(a)

0.10

Field Examples
The examples are from the Fayetteville and Barnett formations
with two single wells and two pads with multiple wells. Well FF1 was studied thoroughly to show the details of calculating effective-water volume along with the effect of flowback period on
flow-regime identification. Well B-151 was an example of how to
apply the method if flowback data are not available. A four-wellpad example illustrated the use of effective-fracture volume as a
monitoring and tracking method for the effect of nearby fracturing
jobs. Finally, a five-well-pad configuration showed how the fracturing sequence and placement of the well can affect the effective-fracture volume and its relationship with gas production.
Well FF-1. This well is in the Fayetteville formation and has the
properties shown in Table 6. The well follows the trend shown in
1

Fracture Permeability Ratio

Proposed Methodology. This is a step-by-step procedure for calculating effective-fracture volume using water data for both flowback and production periods. The steps are

1. Collect water-production data (including flowback period).

2. Collect and convert surfacepressure to bottomhole
 pressure.
pi  pwf
RNPw
vs. tmBw
3. Plot
log-log RNPw

qw
Qw
tmBw
.
qw
4. Draw a unit-slope line on the log-log plot where RNPw
overlays RNPw0 (derivative).
RNPw
5. Calculate mpss
on the unit-slope line.
tmBw
6. Calculate ct cg at initial pressure (assuming Sg 1).
Bw
7. Calculate effective-fracture volume: Vw
.
ct mpss

(b)

0.99

0.98

0.01
3,000

2,000

1,000

Pressure (psi)

Fracture Porosity Ratio

Parameters

0.97
3,000

2,000
1,000
Pressure (psi)

Fig. 8Pressure-dependent properties used for the two-phase case. (a) Fracture permeability is decreasing with the decrease in
pressure. (b) Fracture porosity is decreasing with the decrease in pressure.
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

295

1106

RNPw and RNP'w (psi/B/D)

1105

RNP'w; Base Case

RNPw; Base Case
RNP'w; Pressure-Dependent
RNPw; Pressure-Dependent

1104
1103
1102
1101
110
1101
1105 1104 1103 1102 1101 110 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107

Water Material-Balance Time

Fig. 9Water rate-normalized pressure and derivative vs. water material-balance time showing, for the two-phase case with two
different unit-slope lines, two different volumes when the same volume is used for both cases. This difference is caused by gas
compressibility.

Initial pressure, pi (psi)

1,736

Matrix porosity, (fraction)

Specific gravity, SGg

0.58

Reservoir thickness, h (ft)

293

Reservoir temperature, T (F)

118

Injector water, Vinj (STB)

72,600

Number of hydraulic fractures, nF

24

0.04

Table 6Properties of Well FF-1.

1103

1104

Water Rate (B/Day)

qw - Flowback
qg - Flowback
1104

1103
(a)
1102
110

Gas Rate (Mcf/D)

1105
Gas Rate (Mcf/D)

shut-in period. In Fig. 12, we combined flowback data with production and noticed a significant difference in the gas-rate signature of
the well. The bilinear flow disappeared and was replaced by a longer linear flow with a spike at the beginning, which is normal. The
gas rate typically started flowing at higher rates after a month of
shut-in. Including the flowback period with the shut-in time shifted
the production data in time to give the correct signature of longer
linear flow. Taking the first point of the production data to be at 1
day instead of 45 days (adding flowback and shut-in) made the early
linear flow look bilinear. Although it is not shown, gas material-balance time can be affected if the flowback period is ignored because
of the high gas rates during this period, and a smaller oil and gas in
place would be calculated. Any previous gas flow should be
included in the analysis even if it is separated by a shut-in period.
Combining flowback and production data affected the material-balance plot of water-normalized rate. In Fig. 13a, the
pressure-normalized rate is plotted for the production period
(dark blue) and a unit-slope line (1) is indicated at the end of

qg - Production
qw - Production
1103

1102

1102

1101

(b)
1101
Time (Flowback) (days)

1102

1101
110

1101

1102

1103

Water Rate (B/Day)

Fig. 1, with 12 days of flowback, a shut-in of 30 days, and finally

a production of 4 years. The well was injected with 72,600 STB
of slickwater. Fig. 10a shows water and gas data for the flowback
period. The shut-in is after the start of gas production because of
delays in pipe connection. Production-period data are shown in
Fig. 10b, which indicates a bilinear flow for 100 days, followed
by linear flow. This signature indicates the possibility of linear
flow in natural fractures while the matrix is also flowing linearly,
which implies that natural fractures greatly dominate the system.
Gas rate normalized by pressure difference vs. time for production period is presented in Fig. 11a to remove the effect of
bottomhole pressure and the bilinear flow is present. Instead of
plotting time, material-balance time is plotted for the production
period in Fig. 11b along with the bilinear/linear flow signature.
All the presented diagnostic plots indicate that this well has a long
period of bilinear flow.
Although it is the practice in some companies, there is no reason
to remove flowback data from production if they are separated by a

1100
1104

Time (Production) (days)

Fig. 10(a) Flowback period with gas starting to flow before shut-in. (b) Production period with gas data showing bilinear flow up
to 100 days followed by linear flow. Water data do not have a clear signature.
296

September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

1104
qg/ [m(pi)m(pwf)], Mcf/D/psi2/cp

qg/ [m(pi)m(pwf)], Mcf/D/psi2/cp

1104

PNRg - Production
1105

1106
(a)
1107

1101

110

1102

1103

PNRg - Production

1105

1106
(b)
1107

1104

1101

110

Time (Production) (days)

1102

1103

1104

Gas Material-Balance Time (Production) (days)

1105

1104

1104

1103

1103

1102

1102

1101

qg - Production
qg - Flowback
qw - Flowback
qw - Production

1101
110

Water Rate (B/D)

Gas Rate (Mcf/D)

Fig. 11(a) Rate normalized by pressure vs. production time indicates the bilinear flow followed by linear flow. (b) The same as in
(a), but with material-balance time.

1101

1102
Time (Combined) (days)

110
1104

1103

Fig. 12Combining flowback and production data made the bilinear flow in gas disappear and be replaced by a longer linear flow
with a spike at the beginning caused by a shut-in period of 1 month.

the data. These data are missing approximately 10 points of

high rates from the flowback period, which will shift production data because the material-balance-time value will be
higher caused by higher cumulative. In the same plot, the
flowback period (grey) is plotted with the production period
(aqua). It is noticed that the production period falls on the

same unit-slope line (2) that started in the flowback period.

The unit slope (1) from this production period would give
smaller effective-water volume compared with the combineddata unit slope (2). Ignoring the water-flowback period might
indicate a smaller effective-water volume if the flowback period is long with high rates.

1101

1104

110

PNRw vs. tMBw (Production)

[pi pwf] / qw (psi/STB/D)

qw / [pi pwf] (STB/D/psi)

PNRw vs. tMBw (Combined)

PNRw vs. tMBW (Flowback)

1101

1102
1103
(a)
1104
110

1101

1102

1103

1104

Water Material-Balance Time (days)

1105

1103
1102
1101
110

RNPw - Flowback and Production

(b)
1101
110

1101

RNP'w - Flowback and Production

1102

1103

1104

1105

Water Material-Balance Time (Combined) (days)

Fig. 13(a) The lower points (dark) represent the production rates and time. The upper curve (light) is created by adding flowback
rates and time. The time shift results in a larger effective-water volume. (b) Unit-slope line is used to calculate slope of the boundary-dominated-flow period to estimate effective-water volume.
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

297

Slope of boundary-dominated-flow period, mpss

1

Gas compressibility, cg (psi )

Calculated water volume, Vw (STB)

Water formation volume factor, Bw

(RB/STB)
Cumulative produced water, (STB)

0.158
4

6.1510
10,400

1
10,177

Table 7Effective-water volume calculations for Well FF-1.

Well B-151. This well is in the Barnett formation and was analyzed in several papers. It was chosen to show how to include the
flowback period even if data are not available. As in Fig. 14a,
the well has bilinear flow for 150 days followed by linear flow.
The completion data show there is a period of 15 days between
the fracturing of the well and the time of production. If this delay
period is included in the production data, the gas rate will be as
shown in Fig. 14b, which is a longer linear flow. If we compare
water decline in Figs. 14a and 14b, we notice that in the former,
the data are stretched with a slope of unity or less but in the latter
the slope shows the normal decline of slopes higher than unity.
Even if the flowback data are not available, the delay time should
be included to avoid stretching the data and giving the incorrect
reservoir signature.

Gas and Water Rate (Mcf/D and B/D)

Well FF-18 in a Four-Well Pad. This well is the oldest compared with the other three wells drilled next to it. The flow
sequence of this well is studied over three periods, each period
separated by newly drilled wells, as shown in Fig. 15. The effective volume increases because of newly drilled wells, and water
and gas production increases accordingly. This increase in effective-fracture volume is a sign that fracturing water from each new
well interfered with the older well (FF-18), creating more effective-fracture volume, which can be indicated and quantified.
The injected-water volume of 132,586 STB is shown in Period
1 of Table 8. After 515 days of production, the cumulative is 6%
of the injected volume and water production is approximately 5
STB/D, as shown in Fig. 16. Using Fig. 17, effective-fracture volume for this well can be calculated, which is reported in Table 8
as 8% of the injected volume, and 77% of this effective-water volume is already produced.

1104

1105

1106

Gas Rate
Water Rate
1107
110

1101

(a)
1102
1103
Time (days)

1104

Well FF-13 was fractured, which increased water production

in FF-18, but the effective-water volume did not change significantly. This can be observed in Fig. 17, where Periods 1 and 2 are
almost on the same unit-slope line. This indicates that the fracturing water from FF-13 did not interfere with FF-18 because the
unit slope did not change. This is not the case in Period 3 where
the slope is shifted to the right, indicating an increase in effectivewater volume caused by fracture Wells FF-19 and FF-20. This
increase in water volume affected gas rates, which also increased.
The interference between Well FF-18 and the newly fracturing
FF-19 and FF-20 was indicated. This interference effect can be
quantified using the two unit-slope lines. The effective-fracture
volume of Well FF-18 was increased by 20% of its original volume because of the fracturing water of FF-19 and FF-20. This
method can be a means of tracking and quantifying the interference effect of newly drilled wells on effective-fracture volume.
A Five-Well Pad. The pad in Fig. 18 was analyzed by Harpel
et al. (2012) in order to find the optimum fracturing job. Three
wells have similar properties and fracturing e job treatments (FF21, FF-22, and FF-24). One well had the same properties, but the
fracturing job injected volume was decreased to 60% (FF-23).
Another well had a larger well length and the same fracturing job
as the three wells (FF-25). This pad offered a great opportunity to
test the proposed methodology because the properties are the
same and only the fracturing job injected volume is different.
Table 9 shows the well data, and it is important to notice the
sequence of fracturing, which might have an effect over the created water volume. Because FF-25 has a longer well length, it
was removed from the comparison analysis. The cumulative water
produced and calculated water volumes are shown in Table 10.
Fig. 19 shows that the water values vary between the wells,
although the same fracture volume was used for most of them.
The result shows that FF-21 has the highest cumulative water
and calculated volume. Although FF-22 used the same fracturingfluid volume, it produced less water and the calculated water volume was less if compared with FF-21. The difference between
FF-21 and FF-22 might be caused by the sequence of fracturing
because FF-21 was fractured before FF-22. We notice the same

Gas and Water Rate (Mcf/D and B/D)

Fig. 13b shows combined data with the derivative to find the
slope mpss which is the slope of the Cartesian plot in the period of
unit-slope line where the line or RNPw is over the RNPw0 (derivative)
line. The solutions are shown in Table 7, with the calculated effective-water volume as 14% of the injected-water volume. Approximately 96% of the calculated effective-water volume is produced,
which is in agreement with the low water rates of 2 STB/D.

1104

1103

1102

Gas Rate - Shifted

Water Rate - Shifted
1101
110

1101

1102
1103
Shifted Time (days)

(b)
1104

Fig. 14(a) Bilinear flow for 150 days followed by linear flow in gas rate. Water has a low slope of approximately unity. (b) Shifting
the data 15 days because of a delay caused the bilinear flow to disappear; a long linear flow and water were created instead
although they have the normal slope of greater than unity.
298

September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

12894000

12894000

12894000

12893000

12893000

12893000

12892000

12892000

12891000

12891000

12891000

12891000

12890000

12890000

12890000

12890000

12889000

12889000

12889000

Period 1

12893000

Period 2

12892000

12889000

12892000

12894000

FF-13

FF-18

12888000

12888000

12888000

12887000

12887000

12887000

12887000

12886000

12886000

12886000

12886000

12885000

12885000

12885000

12884000

12884000

12888000

12884000

515 days

12883000
12883000
1779600 1779800 1780000 1780200 1780400 1780600 17808001781000 1781200 1781400 1781600 17818001782000
X

FF-18

12885000

1216 days

12884000

12883000
12883000
1779600 1779800 1780000 1780200 1780400 1780600 17808001781000 1781200 1781400 1781600 17818001782000
X

12894000

12894000

FF-13

12893000

12893000

Period 3

12892000

12892000

12891000

12891000

12890000

12890000

FF-19
FF-20

12889000

12889000
12888000

FF-18

12888000

12887000

12887000

12886000

12886000

12885000

12885000

1466 days

12884000

12884000

12883000
12883000
1779600 1779800 1780000 17802001780400 1780600 1780800 1781000 1781200 1781400178160017818001782000
X

Fig. 15A map of all wells in the four-well pad. The production of Well FF-18 is divided into three periods, where Period 1 precedes
Well FF-13 being fractured, Period 2 precedes Wells FF-19 and FF-20 being fractured, and Period 3 continues to the end of the
data.

Water Volume, STB

Period 1

Period 3

Injected (fracturing job)

132,586

132,586

Cumulative produced

8,799

12,992

Calculated

11,351

13,695

Table 8Water data for Well FF-18.

trend between FF-24, FF-21, and FF-22, which might be caused

by fracturing sequence.
On the other hand, Well FF-23 used 60% of the originally
injected volume, but the water recovered from the well was 107%
of the calculated effective-fracture volume. This well was fractured last and placed in the middle of the four wells. This suggests
that the well was in communication with the other wells effective-fracture volume. The total cumulative produced water is 91%

of the total calculated water volume, which might suggest that the
wells were in communication.
Gas-production data for the pad are presented in Figs. 20a and
b. Well FF-23 was the best producer in terms
pof gas rates (also cumulative) and in terms of the product keff Acm . The product is
calculated from the slope of Fig. 20b, where keff is effective permeability and Acm is the cross-sectional area. Although the fracturing job volume was reduced to 60%, the well had the best
performance, which might be caused by the placement in the middle of the five wells, and by its being the last one to be fractured.
It is worth mentioning that this well produced the highest gas cumulative and the lowest cumulative water, which is in agreement
with reported results in Wattenbarger and Alkouh (2013).
On the other hand, Well FF-21 was the lowest gas producer
(also cumulative) with the highest cumulative water. This might
be caused by it being fractured first with the left side of the well
1103

1104

qg

FF-19 & FF-20

1103

1102

1102

1101

1101

300

600

900

1,200

Water Rate (B/D)

Gas Rate (Mcf/D)

FF-13

qw

110
1,500

Time (Combined) (days)

Fig. 16Water and gas production of the combined period (flowback and production) for Well FF-18 with the other wells affected
(FF-19 and FF-20), which increased gas and water production.
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

299

1104
1103

(pi pwf) / qw, psi/STB/D

1103

Period 1
Period 2
Period 3

Period 1
Period 2
Period 3

1102
1102
1101
110
1101
1102

1101
110

1101

1102

1103

1104

1103

1104

1105

Water Material-Balance Time (Combined)

Fig. 17Water rate-normalized production showing the three periods with a unit slope indicating boundary-dominated flow. In Period 3, the increase in effective-water volume (unit slope moves to the right) related to the fracturing of Wells FF-19 and FF-20.

Fig. 18A map of the five-well pad with Well FF-23 in the middle with the fracture volume reduced to 60% of the originally injected
volume in the other wells.

Well

Well Length (ft)

Number of Fractures

Injected Fluid (bbl)

Fracturing Sequence

FF-21

4,542

60

93,221

FF-22

4,722

60

91,085

FF-23

4,722

60

62,052

FF-24

4,722

60

91,215

FF-25

5,137

66

97,659

Table 9Data for the five individual pad wells.

Well

Cumulative Water (bbl)

Recovered Injected (%)

Calculated Water Volume (bbl)

Calculated-Recovered Water
Volume (%)

FF-21

11,000

12

12,900

85

FF-22

9,300

10

10,500

88

FF-23

4,500

4,200

107

FF-24

6,400

6,700

95

FF-25

7,300

7,600

80

Total

38,500

41,900

91

Table 10Water data for five individual pad wells.

300

September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

110

110

FF-21

FF-21

FF-22

FF-23

FF-24

1101

FF-23

qw / (pi pwf) (STB/D/psi)

qw / (pi pwf) (STB/D/psi)

1101

1102

1103

1102

1103
(b)

(a)
1104
1101
1102
1103
Water Material-Balance Time (Combined)

110

1104

1104
110

1101
1102
1103
1104
Water Material-Balance Time (Combined)

Fig. 19(a) Water pressure-normalized rate showing a unit slope that indicates boundary-dominated flow in all wells, with the
smallest volume in FF-23 and the largest in FF-21. (b) The start of boundary-dominated flow is fast in FF-23 compared with FF-21,
which is delayed, and with the larger water volume, the start is delayed as observed in Arrows 1 and 2.

less stimulated because there is no well on this side. The result of

this pad suggests that the wells in the middle of the pad can be
fractured with low fracturing water volume and will produce
more gas and less water if compared with the rest of the wells in
the pad.
Discussion
It is general practice to ignore flowback data in production-data
analysis (PDA), especially if the flowback and production periods
are separated by a shut-in, as shown in Fig. 1. The flowback period
is analyzed as separate data in most literature, and PDA ignores the
flowback period. This paper showed the pitfalls of ignoring flowback data because it can lead to misidentifying flow regimes.
A new method to calculate effective-fracture volume on the
basis of combined (flowback and production) data was developed.
This method is based on modifying total compressibility to take
into account gas compressibility, which is dominating the diffusivity equation because of domination of mobility and compressibility. In general, the gas phase will dominate the diffusivity
equation if the water saturation is below 0.7 at any location in the
fracture.

A simulation model was developed to test this theory and back

calculate water volume in the fracture. Using the proposed correction, water volume was calculated. This method was tested on several field examples. In Well FF-1, the cumulative produced water
was 96% of the calculated effective-fracture volume and water
rates were approximately 2 STB/D. The effective-fracture volume
was 14% of the injected fracturing volume. Adding the flowback
period in this well made it simple to identify the boundary-dominated-flow (BDF) regime. The indicated fracture volume was larger
than the fracture volume without the flowback period. Including
the flowback period gave the correct fracture volume calculation.
In Well FF-1, gas data from the production period alone
(excluding flowback period) indicated that the well had a bilinear
signature followed by linear flow, as shown in Fig. 11. This meant
that the reservoir had natural fractures that have a major linear flow
plus the matrix linear flow for 100 days. This bilinear flow was
explored on several diagnostic plots of time and material-balance
time. After adding the flowback-period data, the flow-regime signature changed to longer linear flow, which had the expected rate
spike after shut-in, as shown in Fig. 12. Including the flowback period would help in avoiding misinterpretation of the flow regime.

1104

[m(pi)m(pwf)] / qg, psi2 /cp/Mcf/D

Gas Rate (Mcf/D)

200,000

FF-22
1103

FF-23
FF-24

FF-22

FF-21

(a)
1102
110

FF-21
FF-22
FF-24
FF-23

150,000

FF-22

100,000

50,000
(b)

0
1101
1102
Time (Combined) (days)

1103

5
10
15
20
Time (Combined)0.5 (Days0.5)

25

Fig. 20(a) Gas rate showing linear flow in all wells, with well FF-23 having the highest gas rates although
it was fractured with
p
60% of other wells.
(b) Straight line indicating linear flow in all wells, with Well FF-23 having the highest keff Acm and Well FF-21
p
having the lowest keff Acm , although it was fractured with the highest volume.
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

301

In some cases, the flowback period is not available as in Well

B-151. Using diagnostic plots, production data indicated that the
well had a bilinear-flow regime. The days of the gap between the
start of flowback and the start of production can be tracked using
the wells official data. Including those days in the production
data would shift the production data to a longer linear flow on a
time plot, as shown in Fig. 12. Material-balance-time plots should
be used with care because the well is missing data from the flowback period that might affect gas and water results.
This method also helps in assessing the effect of fracturing
new wells on an existing well, as in the four-well pad. Well FF-18
was the oldest well in the four-well pad. Three wells were fractured in two periods. The location and the direction of the newly
fractured wells determined whether the calculated fracture volume
was changed. In the first period, the effective-fracture volume did
not change. In the second period, the effective-fracture volume
increased and in turn increased gas production. This method is a
tool to know if the well was affected by the fracturing of new
wells.
Our final example is the five-well pad, which was helpful in
showing the effect of the fracturing sequence and the location of
the well in a pad. Four of the wells have the same well properties,
and one of them had a 60% reduction in fracturing load. In the
case of Well FF-24, the well produced more gas and less water
because it was between FF-21 and FF-22 and was fractured after
them. Well FF-23 had a fracturing -load reduction of 60% and
was fractured last with a middle placement. Although the fracturing load was reduced, the location and the fracturing sequence
helped the well to produce more gas and less water compared
with the rest. In this pad, the wells with the highest effective-fracture volume had the lowest cumulative gas.
Including flowback data has an effect on both time and material-balance- time diagnostic plots. In the time plot, it will shift
the data, giving possibly a different signature than the original. In
the material-balance-time plot, the data are shifted because of
adding extrahigh rates in the flowback period to give the correct
BDF in water data. If this well was analyzed without flowback
data and compared with production, the difference might be
large. In some wells, including or excluding flowback data would
not make a difference in the production-data analysis. To avoid
misinterpretation, flowback data should be included in the
analysis.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the presented
work:
Gas dominates the diffusivity equation in the water/gas system
if mobility and compressibility conditions are met.
A new method was developed to calculate effective-fracture volume using a water-rate-normalized pressure by modifying the
total-compressibility calculation to include gas compressibility.
This method can be a means of tracking the interference effect
of newly drilled wells on effective-fracture volume of the existing wells.
Ignoring flowback period with high water rates might indicate a
smaller effective-fracture volume.
In production-data analysis, ignoring flowback data can lead to
misinterpretation in flow-regime identification and any early
gas/water data should be included in the analysis even if separated by a shut-in period.
Even if the flowback data are not available, the delay time
should be included to avoid the stretching of data and giving
the wrong reservoir signature.
Some well performance suggested that less fracturing water is
needed for the wells in the middle of a multiwell pad.
Nomenclature
Acm total matrix surface area draining into fracture system,
ft2
Bw water formation volume factor, RB/STB
cf formation compressibility, psi1
302

cg
CHF
ck
cp
ct
cw
h
k
keff
km
kr
LF
m( p)
mpss
nF
pi
PNRg
PNRw
pwf
qw
Qw
RNPg
RNPw
Sg
SG
Sgirr
Sw
t
T
tMB
Vinj
Vw
xf
k
l
u

gas compressibility, psi1

hydraulic-fracture conductivity, md-ft
permeability proportionality constant, psi1
average pore compressibility, psi1
total compressibility, psi1
water compressibility, psi1
reservoir thickness, ft
permeability, md
effective permeability, md
matrix permeability, md
relative permeability, fraction
hydraulic-fracture spacing, ft
p p
dp psi2/cp
real-gas pseudopressure (gas) 2, po
Zl
slope of boundary-dominated flow period in a Cartesian
plot, psi/bbl
number of hydraulic fractures
initial reservoir pressure, psi
pressure-normalized rate for gas, Mcf/D/psi
pressure-normalized rate for water, B/D/psi
wellbore flowing pressure, psi
produced-water rate, B/D
cumulative produced water, bbl
rate-normalized pressure for gas, psi/Mcf/D
rate-normalized pressure for water, psi/bbl/D
gas saturation, fraction
specific gravity, fraction
irreducible gas saturation, fraction
water saturation, fraction
time, days
temperature,  F
material-balance time, days
injected fracturing volume, bbl
effective-water volume, bbl
hydraulic-fracture half-length, ft
mobility, md/cp
viscosity, cp
porosity, fraction

Subscripts
eff effective
F hydraulic fracture
i initial
m matrix
w water
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the sponsors of the Computer
Modeling Consortium at Texas A&M University for their support
and Computer Modelling Group for the use of their simulation
software.
References
Abbasi, M., Dehghanpour, H., and Hawkes, R.V. 2012. Flowback Analysis for Fracture Characterization. Paper presented at the SPE Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30
October1 November. SPE-162661-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
162661-MS.
Alkouh, A.B., Patel, K., Schechter, D. et al. 2012. Practical Use of Simulators for Characterization of Shale Reservoirs. Paper presented at the
SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 30 October1 November. SPE-162645-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/162645-MS.
Clarkson, C.R. and Williams-Kovacs, J.D. 2013. A New Method for Modeling Multi-Phase Flowback of Multi-Fractured Horizontal Tight Oil
Wells to Determine Hydraulic Fracture Properties. Paper presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, 30 September2 October. SPE-166214-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/166214-MS.
September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Crafton, J.W. and Gunderson, D.W. 2007. Stimulation Flowback ManagementKeeping a Good Completion Good. Paper presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California,
USA, 1114 November. SPE-110851-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
110851-MS.
Harpel, J.M., Barker, L.B., Fontenot, J.M. et al. 2012. Case History of the
Fayetteville Shale Completions. Paper presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 68
February. SPE-152621-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/152621-MS.
Reyes, L. and Osisanya, S.O. 2000. Empirical Correlation of Effective
Stress Dependent Shale Rock Properties. Paper presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
48 June. PETSOC-2000-038. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2000-038.
Wattenbarger, R.A. and Alkouh, A.B. 2013. New Advances in Shale Reservoir Analysis Using Flowback Data. Paper presented at the SPE
Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2022 August. SPE-165721-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/165721-MS.

Appendix ADerivation of Water-Volume

Equation
Assuming the fracture is filled initially with fracturing water, then
it reached boundary-dominated flow (BDF), t > tpss.
The material-balance equation will be
pi  p

Wp Bw
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
WBwi ct

The BDF equation is

p  pwf J qw : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
The difference between the bottomhole pressure and flowing
bottomhole pressure can be written as
pi  pwf pi  p p  pwf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
Substituting the material-balance equation gives
pi  pwf

Wp Bw

J qw :
W Bwi ct

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

The water material-balance time is

tmBw

Wp
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
qw

September 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Substituting Eq. A-5 into Eq. A-4 gives

qw

pi  pwf

1
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
Bw
tmBw J
W Bwi ct

At larger times,
qw
W Bwi ct 1

tmBw : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
pi  pwf
Bw
qw t
vs. tmBW will have a slope of 1
A log-log graph of
pi  pwf t
and the water volume in the fracture will be
Bw
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
ct mpss
qw t
vs. tmBW in the Cartesian
where 1/mpss is the slope of
p

pwf t
i
plot.
Vp

Ahmad B. Alkouh is an assistant professor at the College of

Technological Studies in Kuwait. Previously, he worked at the
Kuwait Oil Company as a production engineer. Alkouhs current research interests include shale-oil and -gas reservoirs. He
holds BS and MS degrees from New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology, and a PhD degree from Texas A&M University, all in petroleum engineering.
Steve McKetta is a technology director at Southwestern
Energy. Previously, he worked for more than 30 years in the oil
and gas industry working for Halliburton, Columbia Gas Systems, Mitchell Energy, PennPoint, Landmark Graphics, and
Southwestern Energy. McKettas past experience includes
research, production operations, reservoir engineering, pipeline engineering, acquisition evaluation, technical-software
development, and management. He holds a bachelors
degree in Earth and mineral sciences from Pennsylvania State
University with an emphasis on petroleum engineering and
geosciences.
Robert A. Wattenbarger has been a professor of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University since 1983. Previously, he
worked for Mobile Research and Sinclair Oil companies from
1958 to 1969. From 1969 to 1979, Wattenbarger was vice president and director of Scientific Software-Intercom Incorporated. Since 1979, he has consulted through Wattenbarger
and Associates. Wattenbarger holds BS and MS degrees from
the University of Tulsa, and a PhD degree from Stanford University, all in petroleum engineering.

303