SPE 166439

Modeling Water Flow in Hydraulically-Fractured Shale Wells

Wojciech J. Jurus, Curtis Hays Whitson and Michael Golan, NTNU

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper provides an approach to model water injection and production performance observed in horizontal multi-fractured
wells using a commercial finite difference (FD) model. Stress dependent permeability is used to ensure that injected rates and
volumes during hydraulic fracturing are predicted by the FD model. Varying degrees of water retention observed in shale wells
is modeled using gas-water imbibition capillary pressure.
Hydraulic fracturing is used to stimulate shale and other ultra-tight reservoirs. During the treatment tens of thousands
barrels of water are injected into a single well, distributed between many (5-30+) fractures. Field experience shows that a
significant fraction of injected water never flows back, and the amount depends somewhat on how long the well is shut-in
prior to production start.
This study was conducted using a commercial black-oil reservoir simulator. A horizontal well with multiple transverse
fractures is modeled. A simple stress dependent permeability model (without hysteresis) has been found to provide sufficient
permeability increase during injection to ensure the magnitude of injected water rates and volumes achieved during actual
fracturing operations.
Inclusion of water imbibition capillary pressures helps control the amount of water retained by the rock after injection.
Capillary forces redistribute injected water further into the rock than if capillarity is ignored. When a well is shut-in prior to
flowback, imbibition draws injected water yet further into the rock, reducing water mobility and total recovery of injected
volumes when the well starts producing. We study water flowback behavior as a function of water imbibition capillary
pressure curves: their magnitude and shape (pore size distribution and wettability).
The mobility of water, as given by relative permeability curves, has an impact on water imbibition and distribution of
water in the shale formation near the fracture. It affects the rate of water flowback, but it has a limited effect on total water
recovery. We also considered situations with the shale formation initially void of water (“dry” shales), where we find that
water recovery is reduced.
Modeling the flow of water in horizontal multi-fractured wells is important to estimate water loss and recovery and the
impact on flow performance of hydrocarbons.

Introduction
Slickwater hydraulic fracturing is today the main technique used to stimulate shale gas wells. During the treatment tens of
thousands of barrels of water are injected into a single well. Field experience shows that typically only 10 to 50% of the
injected water is recovered (King 2010). Most of the water recovery occurs during the clean-up of the well and initial period of
production (several weeks). The retained water is the sum of water that imbibes into the formation and water that is trapped in
a fracture network. There is no proven explanation of which of the two mechanisms is dominant, and why so much treatment
water is retained by the reservoir.
Some authors assume that the leak-off into the formation is limited and most of the pumped water remains either in
fractures as an immobile “propping” phase, or in “non-communicating” fractures that were initiated by the treatment but which
become disconnected from the well after fracture closing (Fan 2010; Ehling-Economides 2011). This simplification can be
supported by the argument that the mobility of water in ultra-tight shale formation is too low to result in the effective leak-off
of water into the rock. In addition, because of the high content of organic material, some shales may represent partly oil-wet
systems (Andrade 2010).
Most of the literature considers shales to be water wet, and subsequently the imbibition of water into shale rock may be a
major mechanism responsible for water retention. Some interpretation of field data (King 2012) suggests that shales may even
2 SPE 166439

be “dry”, containing less water than would be expected in a connate condition, resulting in an even-greater capability to trap
water.
The real impact of retained water on production performance of shale gas wells is not fully understood. Any water that
does imbibe into the formation would reduce relative permeability to gas (or oil), thus affecting production performance. On
the other hand water trapped as “proppant” in microfracs and fissures may increase the fracture capacity of the well; in this
case, lack of water recovery may improve productivity of the well. Some recent field tests and observations show that post-
fracturing shut-in may reduce water recovery and help gain higher production rates (King 2012).
In shales the pore sizes are in a range of nanometers, thus the capillary pressure is very high, perhaps thousands of psi.
The importance of the capillary forces with respect to water retention in tight rocks has been studied by many authors
(Holditch 1979; Parekh 2004; Mahadevan 2009; Cheng 2012). Their observations show that water flow driven by capillary
forces can play a major role in water saturation distribution (and redistribution) within shale formations near a fracture, and
consequently may have a large impact on water retention.
In this paper we consider water imbibition driven by capillary forces as the dominant mechanism in retention of water in
shale gas reservoirs. We assume that the conventional reservoir simulation methods and existing conventional physical models
are sufficient to model the behavior of shale gas reservoirs. The approach that we use allows modeling of the water retention
and its impact on production performance of gas wells with conventional reservoir parameters. This approach can be used in
the history matching, and forecasting shale gas well performance.

Simulation Approach
Stress Dependent Permeability. The concept of stress dependent permeability is used to represent permeability enhancement
in the zone close to the fracture face during fracturing stimulation (water injection). A simple model describing permeability
enhancement versus changes of stress is used. In the proposed model the ratio of the current (k) to original permeability (ko) is
defined by a function of stress (s). The function is represented by a straight line plot logk/ko versus stress, with slope defined
by an exponent m (Permeability Enhancement Factor).

10 ................................................................................................................................................................... (1)

In this work the increase of net pore pressure is defined as the difference between the current pressure and original
reservoir pressure. This is used rather than the absolute stress variation. Increase of net pore pressure implies reduction of rock
effective stress increasing pore volume and connectivity, thus Eq. 1 can be rewritten as:

10 ............................................................................................................................................................. (2)

where:
k – current permeability, md
ko – original matrix permeability, md
pnet – net pressure (difference between current grid cell pressure and original reservoir pressure), psi
m – “Permeability Enhancement Factor”, psi-1 (exponent determined empirically)
s – stress, psia

The model expressed by Eq. 2 is used to create stress dependent transmissibility tables used in reservoir simulator. The
stress (s) values in the stress dependent transmissibility table are represented as follows:

s p p p ......................................................................................................................................... (3)

where pRi is the original reservoir pressure and pcell is current pressure in a given grid cell.
The table defined in such a way has stress value of zero at pRi. Negative stress values in the table represent positive net
pressure, as is the situation during fracturing process.
In this work, stress dependent changes of permeability are modeled only for positive values of net pressure, that is, for
pressure above the original reservoir pressure. For pressure below the original reservoir pressure (during production period)
the permeability is assumed constant and equal to the original value. The maximum allowed value of the multiplier for
permeability increase is 106, and model calculated values exceeding this threshold are set to the value of 106. This threshold
can help to avoid numerical problems in the reservoir simulator. Fig. 1 shows an example of permeability changes with
pressure given by the model for exponent m equal 2·10-3 psi-1 and with initial reservoir pressure of 5000 psia.

Capillary Pressure. Capillary forces may play an important role in the process of displacing one fluid by another in a porous
medium. The magnitude of the capillary pressure (Pcgw) between gas and water can be estimated by simplified Young-Laplace
equation for circular pores of small size (Adamson 1990):
SPE 166439 3

P ≅ ……………..…………… ................................................................... …………..………………………….(4)

where σ is a interfacial tension between gas and water and r is the average radius of spherical pore.
For shales pore sizes are in range of nanometers, thus the magnitude of capillary pressure is very high, in range of thousands
psia.

Capillary Pressure Curve Definition. In the reservoir simulator used in this study, the drainage (PcgwD) and imbibition (PcgwI)
capillary pressure curves are defined as functions of normalized water saturation (Swn) according to Eq. 9 and 10 for drainage
and imbibition processes respectively (Coats Engineering 2013).

P a a ∗ 1 S ............................................................................................................................... (5)

P b b ∗ 1 S b ∗S ....................................................................................................... (6)

The normalized water saturation is defined as:

S ............................................................................................................................................................ (7)

where Sw is water saturation and Swc is connate water saturation.

For all cases discussed in this paper the parameters a1 and b1 are assumed zero. Parameters a2 and a3, defining drainage
capillary pressure curve, are assumed to be equal to b2 and b3 respectively. With the above assumptions both drainage and
imbibition capillary pressure curve are defined by a set of four parameters: b2, b3, b4 and b5.
In this work, in cases where only positive part of the imbibition capillary pressure curve is present, its shape definition is
reduced to Eq. 5 (b4 and b5 =0). For cases where the negative part of the imbibition capillary pressure curve is considered, its
shape is defined by four parameters:
‐ Maximum positive capillary pressure Pc,max (at irreducible water saturation Swc)
‐ Cross-over saturation Swx (point where capillary pressure reaches zero)
‐ Slope of tangent to the capillary pressure curve (dimensionless) at cross over saturation,

M ≡ ..................................................................................................................................................................... (8)

‐ Minimum negative capillary pressure Pc,min (at critical gas saturation Sgc for water-gas system)
The above four shape-defining parameters are then converted to the corresponding set of parameters as required by Eq. 5 and 6
for input into reservoir simulator. Fig. 2 is an example of shape definition of a imbibition capillary pressure curve.
Capillary pressure can be expressed as a dimensionless function with values in range between 0 (at Pc,min) and 1 (at Pc,max).
This dimensionless capillary pressure is defined as follows:

,
P ...................................................................................................................................................... (9)
, ,

For fixed values of Pc,max and Pc,min, the imbibition capillary pressure curve will be defined by two parameters: cross-over
saturation (Swx) and slope (Mx) of the tangent to the dimensionless capillary pressure curve at the cross-over saturation.
Eq. 4 is used to estimate the magnitude of capillary pressure in pores within shale rock. In this study connate water
saturation is assumed to be associated with pore size less than 10 nm. Using typical water-gas interfacial tension equal to 60
mN/m, the capillary pressure in a pore with diameter of 10 nm, is equal to 3480 psia. This value was used as the maximum
value of capillary pressure Pc,max at residual water saturation. Minimum capillary pressure Pc,min was set to be equal to –Pc,max =
-3480 psia.

Simulation Model Description. The numerical modeling of the shale gas well in this study uses a finite-difference, black oil
simulator (Coats Engineering 2013). A horizontal well with a lateral length of 5000 ft was considered. Ten transverse fractures
with fracture half-length of 300 ft are distributed along the horizontal wellbore with a fracture spacing of 500 ft. Reservoir
thickness of 200 ft is assumed. Geometry of the well model used is shown in Fig. 3.
A 2D (xy) single planar fracture model is used with 29 grid cells in the x-direction and 40 grid cells in the y-direction. The
model simulates a symmetric reservoir segment of 500x700x200 ft. The horizontal well extends in the x-direction. A planar
4 SPE 166439

fracture, perpendicular to the wellbore penetrates the entire formation height and extends a distance equal to half-frac length in
the y-direction. The fracture is gridded with 20 grid cells. Fracture-well connections are used only at cells where perpendicular
fractures intersect the wellbore.
Each modeled segment contains one half-fracture. All fractures are identical and each fracture is symmetric on both sides
of the wellbore. Each fracture behaves independently. Taking advantage of the symmetry of the system, the simulated
reservoir volume is limited to a block containing just half of a single fracture (one side of the wellbore). To obtain well rates,
simulation results for gas and water rates for half of a fracture are then doubled and multiplied by the total number of fractures.
The model contains grid refinement for better capture of the transient flow behavior around fractures. Geometric grid
spacing where rock grid sizes increase away from the fracture face in x-direction is used. In the y-direction there is one cell
boundary exactly at fracture tip, from which sizes of cells increase toward the well and away from the well.
A numerical width of the fracture of 0.083 ft and fracture conductivity of 1000 md-ft have been used in the model. The
fracture pore volume is based on 25% rock porosity and a fracture width of 0.01 ft. To reconcile the large fracture width in the
simulator with the physical fracture width, the porosity in the model is reduced to 3% to maintain the assumed fracture
physical pore volume. Fracture permeability in the model is set to the value that honors the assumed fracture conductivity and
fracture physical width.
Model for stress dependent permeability changes is used for modeling of water leak-off from the fracture into the
formation only during hydraulic fracturing stimulation. This includes short time after stimulation required for the pressure to
drop to the original reservoir pressure. As described earlier no permeability modifications is applied below the initial reservoir
pressure (during production period).
The stress dependent transmissibility changes are applied for both fracture and matrix cells. The same permeability
enhancement factor (mm) is used for matrix cells (in x and y-directions) and for fracture cells in x-direction (across fracture
face). The fracture initiation and propagation is not modeled. The model is initialized with preexisting fracture of high
conductivity (1000 md-ft). The conductivity of the fracture (transmissibility in y-direction) increases according to a model
with different permeability enhancement factor (mf). Constant value of mf=0.65·10-3 psi-1 has been used in all discussed cases.
Thus fracture conductivity is increased to the magnitude at which it has no more effect on injectivity of the well (pressure
losses in the fracture can be neglected). Fracture conductivity during production period is constant and equal to the initial
conductivity of 1000 md-ft.
No hysteresis effect is applied to the stress dependent transmissibility models. The enhanced permeability of rock near the
fracture returns to the original value once s=0 (i.e. pcell≤pRi).
We assume traditional rock relative permeabilities are applicable to shales. Saturation exponents of 2.5 have been used in
examples presented in this paper. Linear relationship of saturation and relative permeabilities has been used for the fracture.
Fig. 4 shows relative permeability curves for the fracture and the matrix used in the model.
Dry gas with specific gravity of 0.7 is considered in the study. Hall-Yourborough model and Lee-Gonzales correlation
have been used to produce a black-oil PVT table (Whitson,2000). Table 1 summarizes reservoir and well data used in the
reservoir simulator model.
Gas desorption is ignored in this study. The relatively high FBHP in the model (1500 psia) and in practical applications is
higher than the pressure for the onset of desorption (Cipolla, 2009).
Simulation Results
The same well model is considered in all cases discussed in this study. A volume of 40000 STB of water is injected into the
well (4000 STB per fracture) during fracturing stimulation prior to production. In the base case the constant injection rate of
22.2 STB/min (per fracture) is used with maximum injection BHP of 8000 psia. After the injection period the well is produced
for 10 years with maximum production gas rate of 10 MMscf/d. During the first 10 days of production the well is controlled
with maximum water rate of 2000 STB/d. Capillary forces within shale matrix are neglected in the base case. Permeability
enhancement factor was assumed to be 1.1·10-3 and 0.65·10-3 psi-1 for matrix and fracture respectively (Fig. 5). Sensitivity
studies on impact of capillary forces on production performance and retention of water are then carried out and compared to
the base case. Table 1 and 2 summarize the data for the base case.

Water Injection. The changes taking place in the zone near to the hydraulic fracture face during fracturing stimulation are
complex and yet not fully understood. In this study the proposed model for stress dependent permeability changes does not
describe real physics of these changes. However, it allows describing the overall effect of the permeability increase with a
single parameter - Permeability Enhancement Factor (mm). With appropriate magnitude of this factor the real water injection
rates and volumes during fracturing stimulation can be consistently honored in the reservoir simulator model. Thus in this
work fracturing stimulation is modeled as a water injection process, where injectivity (rate of leak-off into the formation
through fracture face) is controlled by a single variable, Permeability Enhancement Factor. As mentioned earlier the fracture
propagation and fracturing hydraulics are omitted from the model.
The magnitude of minimum permeability enhancement factor (mm,min) required for injection of a given amount of water
with a given constant rate depends on several parameters. These are permeability, porosity and maximum changeable water
saturation (ΔSsw=1-Swc-Sgc), maximum allowed injection net pressure (maximum injection BHP - PRi), geometry of the fracture
(fracture face area) and capillary forces within the rock matrix. If the value of mm used in the model is too low (mm<mm,min),
SPE 166439 5

then the maximum injection BHP is reached before the end of the target injection time. At this point the injection rate has to be
reduced to honor the threshold for BHP. This situation is illustrated in Fig. 6 (case with mm=0.9·10-3 psi-1). For the base case
considered in this study, with parameters summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and with ignored capillary pressure, the required
mm,min was found to be 1.1·10-3 psi-1. If the mm>mm,min, then the final injection pressure at the end of the injection is lower than
the BHP threshold used in the model (case with mm=1.3·10-3 psi-1)..
Fig. 7 shows the relationship between injection rate (time) and required mm,min. As injection rate increases, higher mm,min
is needed to provide sufficient well injectivity. Fig. 8 shows the impact of the maximum changeable water saturation (mobile
water). In case of low mobile water saturation the water has to flow deeper into shale matrix. Thus again, the injectivity of the
well is lower and higher mmmin is required.

Impact of Capillary Forces. We study impact of capillary forces on gas production performance and retention of water in
shale gas wells. Four cases of imbibition capillary pressure curves shown in Fig. 9 are considered in this work. They represent
different pore sizes distributions within shale matrix. For all four cases, the maximum capillary pressure Pc,max is set to 3480
psia. The shape of the imbibition capillary pressure curve is thus controlled by the exponent b3 in Eq. 5.
At this stage of the study, the negative capillary pressure was assumed to be zero, thus all cases represent completely
water wet systems. Figs. 10 and 11 show water flowback and gas production performance for the capillary pressure curves
considered. Ten years production period was simulated.
As shown in Fig. 10, the amount of recovered water decreases with increasing magnitude of capillary pressure (lower
exponent b3). For the studied cases total water recovery varies between 20 and 60 %. Figs. 12 and 13 show changes in water
saturation distribution during production. If capillarity is ignored, the water does not imbibe beyond the original water front
reached during fracturing stimulation (Fig. 12). If the capillary forces are taken into account, the water after fracturing
stimulation imbibes deeper into shale matrix (Figs. 13 and 14). Higher capillary forces result in higher rate of water imbibition
into the rock matrix, moving water farther away from the fracture face. This results in lower water recovery.
Gas production performance is affected only during initial production period (several first weeks). The higher the
magnitude of capillary forces, the earlier the initial peak of maximum gas rate appears. However, the magnitude of capillary
forces does not have any significant impact on long term gas production.
Positive capillary presures improve injectivity of the well. For the same parameters of the water injection process, the
required minimum permeability enhancement factor mm,min decreases as the magnitude of capillary pressure increases. For the
base case (capillary forces ignored) mm,min=1.1·10-3 psi-1, while for the case with capillary forces (b3=5) mm,min=1.02·10-3 psi-1.

Impact of Negative Part of Capillary Pressure Curve. In general, gas shales are considered to be water wet. However,
obtaining of the capillary pressure curves that represent real insitu behavior of the ultra-tight shale rock is practically
impossible. Existence of shale systems with less water wet character is possible, and thus in some cases, negative capillary
pressures should be taken into account.
Two capillary pressure curves (with and without negative capillary pressurs) shown in Fig. 15 have been considered to
study the impact of negative part of the imbibition capillary pressure curve on water flowback and gas production
performance. Capillary pressure exponent b3 defining the shape of the positive part of the curve is the same for both cases
(b3=5). One of the considered curves approaches zero capillary pressure asymptotically, while the other reaches Pc=0 at
Swx=0.6 with slope Mx=0.42.
As illustrated in Figs. 16 and 17, the negative part of the imbibition capillary pressure curve does not have any significant
effect on the process of water recovery and gas production performance. However, this part of the curve has significant impact
on water injection process. Negative capillary pressure reduces effective injection pressure. Thus higher permeability increase
is required to maintain the same well injectivity. If negative part of the capillary pressure curve is present, higher value of mm
has to be used in the model, to inject the same amount of water with the same injection parameters (rate and maximum
injection BHP). For two cases with different capillary pressure profiles shown in Fig. 15, the values of mm,min are 1.02·10-3 and
1.37·10-3 psi-1 respectively.

Effect of Post-fracturing Shut-in. The effect of post-fracturing shut-in on water flowback and gas production performance
has been studied. Fig. 18 shows impact of post-fracturing shut-in on water flowback performance (case with capillary pressure
exponent b3=5). Fig. 19 illustrates effect of shut-in on gas production performance. Longer shut-in times result in lower water
flowback rates and lower total water recovery. Initial gas production rates increases with longer shut-in times; however gas
rates in later production times are not affected.
During the shut-in period water driven by the capillary forces imbibes deeper into the formation. As a result water
saturation at fracture face is reduced increasing mobility of gas. Water saturation distribution changes with time depending on
the magnitude of capillary forces. Fig. 20 shows water saturation profiles in the zone near to the fracture (case with capillary
pressure exponent b3=5). Fig. 21 shows a summary of the impact of the shut-in time and capillary pressure on water recovery.
If the capillary forces are ignored the shut-in time does not affect water recovery. The higher the magnitude of capillary forces
the higher rate of water imbibition and higher impact of shut-in on water retention.
6 SPE 166439

“Dry” Shales. Some shales may be “dry”, i.e. contain less water than would be expected in a connate condition. This ‘dry’
character of the shale rock has an impact on the retention of the fracturing water. Fig. 22 shows the simulation results for the
water flowback performance for a model with initial water saturation Swi=0<Swc. This case is compared to a case with
Swi=Swc=0.2. As expected, with the low initial water saturation (Swi<Swc), the recovery of the water is lower. Fig. 23 shows
water saturation profiles for the two compared cases. Although, in case where Swi=Swc, the water imbibes deeper into the
formation, the total amount of retained water is still higher in case where Swi=0.
Fig. 24 shows gas production performance for the two compared cases. Gas production rates and cumulative gas
production is higher for lower Swi. This is because initializing the model with lower water saturation results in higher initial
gas saturation, what gives higher initial gas-in-place in the simulated model.

Impact of Water Relative Permeability on Water Retention. The most important region for water flow is in the zone near
fractures, where microfracturing may occur. In this region the relative permeabilities may be improved compared with curves
for unstimulated shale rock. Therfore, in this study high saturation exponent (2.5) was used for relative permeability curves.
However, we are aware that assumed saturation exponent of 2.5 may be too optimistic.
We conduct sensitivity studies on the impact of water mobility (expressed by water relative permeability curves) on
retention of fracturing water. Cases with saturation exponents (nw) in range from 2 to 6 and for different capillary pressure
curves have been considered. Fig. 25 summarizes the simulation results for these cases. If the capillary forces are ignored, the
water recovery decreases with increasing nw (decreasing water relative permeability). However, if the capillary forces are
taken into account this effect is limited.
Capillary forces drive the process of water movement deeper into the formation, while fracture-formation pressure
drawdown is moving water in opposite direction (towards the fracture). Relative permeability to water has impact on the
effectiveness of both these mechanisms. Figs. 26 and 27 show water saturation profiles in the zone near to the fracture for two
different water relative permeability exponents (nw=2.5 and 5). The lower water relative permeability (higher nw), the lower
water mobility. As a result, the water imbibes into the formation slower, limiting water redistribution deeper into the
formation. On the other hand flow back of water is also restricted because of the low water mobility. If the water relative
permeability is high, the water imbibes easier (deeper into the formation), but then it also flows back easier towards the well.
Thus the water mobility affects water distribution in the area near the fracture and water flowback rates. However, as ilustarted
in Fig. 28, it has limited impact on total water recovery. Fig. 29 shows gas production performance for two considered cases
with different water mobility. In case of higher water mobility the gas rates during initial weeks of production are higher.
Long-term production performance is not affected.
Fig. 30 shows the impact of water mobility on water retention in case of post-fracturing shut-in. During the shut-in period
the water imbibes deeper into the formation, sucked by the capillary forces. This mechanism is more effective when water
mobility and capillary forces are higher. In such a case (low nw and low b3) the total water recovery is lower. This trend is
illustrated in Fig. 30.

Conclusions
The observations below are based on the results of the simulations conducted in this work. Sensititvity studies have been made
to evaluate several parameters controlling water flow in shale during and subsequent to fracture treatment, and subsequent gas
production performance. Imbibition gas-water capillary pressure curve, water relative permeability, post-fracturing shut-in,
and initial water saturation have been studied.

1. Capillary forces may have a major impact on the flowback of fracturing water. The magnitude of capillary pressures
caused by nanometer-size pores may result in significant water retention. The amount of the retained water does not
appear to have a significant impact on long-term gas production performance.
2. Positive capillary pressures improve injectivity of the well (increase water leak-off into the formation).
3. Negative capillary pressures does not have a significant impact on water retention but may affect well injectivity.
4. Post-fracturing shut-in reduces water recovery, compared with immediate flowback after fracture treatment.
5. If the shale is “dry” (i.e. water saturation is below expected connate value) the retantion of water is higher.
6. The mobility of water has an impact on water imbibition and distribution of water in pores and microfracs within
shale, affecting the rate of water flowback, but with limited effect on total water recovery.

Nomenclature
k = permeability, md or nd
ko =original matrix permeability, md
m = Permeability Enhancement Factor, psi-1
mf = fracture Permeability Enhancement Factor, psi-1
mm = matrix Permeability Enhancement Factor, psi-1
SPE 166439 7

mm,min = minimum required mm (for given injection parameters), psi-1

Mx = slope of tangent to PcD at Swx
nw = saturation (relative permeability) exponent for water.
Pc = capillary pressure, psia
PcD =dimensionless capillary pressure
pcell = grid cell pressure, psia
PcgwD = gas-water capillary pressure (drainage), psia
PcgwI = gas-water capillary pressure (imbibition), psia
Pc,max = maximum capillary pressure (at Swc), psia
Pc,min = minimum capillary pressure (at Sgc), psia
pnet = net pressure (difference between grid cell pressure and initial reservoir pressure), psi
pRi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
r = pore radius, nm
s = stress, psia
Sgc = critical gas saturation.
Swc = connate water saturation.
Swi = Initial water saturation.
Swn = normalized water saturation.
Swx = cross-over saturation (Pc=0).

σ = interfacial tension, mN/m

References
Adamson, A.W. 1990. Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, fifth edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York City.
Andrade, J, Civan F., Devagowda, D., Sigal, R. 2010. Accurte Simulation of Shale-Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 135564, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19-22 September.
Cheng, Y. 2010. Impact of Water Dynamics in Fractures on the Performance of Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Gas-Shale Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 127863, presented at SPE International Symphosium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA, 10-12 February.
Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P., Erdle, J.C., Rubin, B. 2009. Reservoir Modeling in Shale-Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 125530, presented at the
2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting in Charleston, West Virginia, USA, 23-25 September.
Coats engineering 2013. www.coatsengineering.com (SENSOR)
Ehlig-Economides, Ch., Economides, M,J. 2011. Water as propant. Paper SPE 147603, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October – 2 November.
Fan L., Thompson J.W., Robinson J.R. 2010. Understanding Gas Production Mechanism and Effectiveness of Well Stimulation in the
Haynesville Shale Through Reservoir Simulation. Paper SCUG/SPE 136696, presented at the Canadian Unconvetional Reseurces and
International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October.
King, G. E. 2010. Thirty Years of Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned? Paper SPE 133456, presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19-22 September.
King, G.E. 2012. Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor,
UnicersityResearcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in
Unconventional Gas Oil Wells. Paper SPE 152596, presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in the
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 6-9 February.
Mahadevan, J., Le, D., Hoang H. 2009. Impact on Capillary Suction on Fracture Face skin Evolution in Waterblocked Wells Paper SPE
119585, presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19-21 January.
Parekh, B., Sharma, M. 2004. Cleanup of Water Blocks in Depleted Low-Permeability Reservoirs. Paper SPE 89837, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Huston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September.
Whitson, C.H. and Brulé, M.R. 2000. Phase Behavior, Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
8 SPE 166439

TABLE 1 – PARAMETERS OF SINGLE WELL RESERVOIR SIMULATOR MODEL (BASE CASE)

Reservoir Data
Reservoir thickness 200 ft
Initial reservoir pressure 5000 psia
Rock porosity 0.1
Rock permeability 0.0002 md (200 nd)
-3 -1
Permeability enhancement factor (matrix) 1.1·10 psi
Connate water saturation 0.2
Critical gas saturation 0.2
Water rel. perm. exponent (matrix) 2.5
Gas rel. perm. exponent (matrix) 2.5
Depth to top of formation 10000 ft
Gas specific gravity 0.7
Reservoir temperature 200 F

Well Data
Horizontal length 5000 ft
Well spacing 160 acre
Fracture spacing 500 ft
Number of fractures 10
Fracture half length 300 ft
Fracture conductivity 100 md-ft
-3 -1
Permeability enhancement factor (fracture) 0.65·10 psi
Fracture porosity (physical) 0.25
Fracture porosity (model) 0.03
Fracture width (physical) 0.01 ft
Fracture width (model) 0.083 ft
Water rel. perm. exponent (fracture) 1
Gas rel. perm. exponent (fracture) 1

TABLE 2 – PARAMETERS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STIMULATION AND GAS PRODUCTION

(BASE CASE)
Hydraulic Fracturing
Volume of water injected per frac 4000 STB
Injection time 3 hr
Injection rate per frac 22.2 STB/min
Max injection BHP 8000 psia
Injected water viscosity 0.5 cP

Water flowback/Gas production

Max well water flowback rate 2000 STB/D
Minimum FBHP 1500 psia
Max gas rate 10 MMscf/d
SPE 166439 9

1.E+07

Maximum allowed value of k/ko:106

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.E+04
k/ko

1.E+03
slope m
Initial Reservoir Pressure
1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Grid Cell Pressure, psia

Fig.1 – Permeability increase versus cell pressure relationship for model (Eq.2) with pRi=5000 psia and exponent m = 2·10-3 psi-1. No
permeability changes are applied for pressures below initial reservoir pressure. Maximum allowed value for permeability increase
modifier is set to 10 .
6

4000
Pc,max
3000

2000
Capillary Pressure, psia

Swx (Pc =0)

1000

slope Mx
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1000
Tangent at Swx
-2000

-3000
Pc,min
-4000
Water Saturation
Fig.2 - Imbibition capillary pressure curve with parameters defining its shape.
10 SPE 166439

Fig. 3 – Well model for planar fracture gemetry.

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES (MATRIX) RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES (FRACTURE)

Matrix Fracture
1 1
Krg Krg
Krw Krw
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Water Saturation Water Saturation

Fig. 4 – Relative permeability curves for matrix and fracture (base case)
SPE 166439 11

10,000
Maximum injection BHP: 8000 psia

1,000
k/ko

100

pRi=5000 psia
10

1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Grid Cell Pressure, psia

Fig. 5 - Stress dependent permeability models for fracture and matrix cells for base case (mm=1.1·10-3 psi-1, mf=0.65·10-3 psi-1)

8500
Injection BHP reaches the treshold of 8000 psia -
mm = 0.9·10-3 psi-1 injection rate has to be reduced

8000

7500
Injection BHP, psia

7000

base case mm = 1.3·10-3 psi-1

6500
mm = 1.1·10-3 psi-1

6000

Target volume of injected water per fracture: 4000 STB

5500 Target constant water injection rate: 22.2 STB/min
Injection time: 3 hours
Maximum Injection BHP: 8000 psia
5000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Injection Time, hours
Fig. 6 – Injection BHP for different permeability enhancement factors (mm). Target constatnt water injection rate (per fracture) 22.2 STB/min,
target total injected water 4000 (per fracture), pRi=5000 psia, maximum injection BHP = 8000 psia.
12 SPE 166439

100 100

Constant Injection Rate (per fracture),

10 10
Injection Time, days

STB/min
base case
1 1

0.1 0.1
Water volume injected per fracture: 4000 STB
Max Injection BHP: 8000 psia

0.01 0.01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Matrix Permeability Enhancement Factor, mm x 1000, psi-1

Fig. 7 – Maximum constant injection rate (minimum injection time) for different values of the matrix permeability enhancement factor (mm),
(injected water, 4000 STB per fracture, Pc=0, PRi=5000 psia, max injection BHP=8000 psia)

1.4
∆Sw=0.4
Matrix Permeability Enhancement Factor,

1.3
base case

1.2
∆Sw=0.6
mm,min x 1000, psi-1

1.1
∆Sw=0.8
1

0.9

0.8

0.7 Water volume injected per fracture: 4000 STB

Max Injection BHP: 8000 psia
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Water Injection Rate per Fracture, STB/min

Fig. 8 – Minimum matrix permeability enhancement factor (mm.min) required for injection of 4000 STB of water (per fracture) with different
constant rates for different values of ∆Sw (Pc=0, maximum injection BHP = 8000 psi, PRi=5000 psi)
SPE 166439 13

4000

3500 Swc = 0.2

Sgc = 0.2
Capillary Pressure, psia

Pc,max at Swc = 3480 psia

3000

2500

2000

1500

b3=3
1000
b3=5
500 b3=10
b3=20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation
Fig. 9 – Imbibition capillary pressure curves for different exponents b3. Negative part of imbibition capillary pressure curve is neglected.
Drainage and imbibition capillary pressures are assumed to be equal.

10000 100

Cumulative Water Recovery , %

Water Flowback Rate, STB/D

80
1000
base case,Pc=0

60
b3=20
100
b3=10
40

b3=5
10
b3=3 20
b3=5 b3=20
b3=10 base case,Pc=0
b3=3
1 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Production Time, days

Fig. 10 – Water flowback rates and cumulative water recovery for different capillary pressure models (b3 = 3, 5, 10, 20). Comparison to the base
case (Pc = 0).
14 SPE 166439

100000 4500
base case, Pc=0
b3=20

Cumulative Gas Production, MMscf

b3=10
b3=5
b3=3
Gas Rate, Mscf/D

10000 Cum Gas, base case 3000

Cum Gas, b3=3

1000 1500

100 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Production Time, days
Fig. 11 – Gas production rates and cumulative gas production for different capillary pressure models (b3=3, 5, 10, 20) Comparison to the base
case (Pc=0).

1
Critical gas saturation: 0.2
0 days
0.9
1 day
0.8 10 days

0.7 30 days

1 year
Water Saturation

0.6
10 years
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Connate water saturation: 0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from Fracture Face, ft
Fig. 12 – Water saturation profiles in zone near to the fracture face during production (base case Pc=0, production starts immediately after
water injection, profile perpendicular to the fracture for cells closest to wellbore).
SPE 166439 15

1
Critical gas saturation: 0.2 0 days
0.9
1 day
0.8 10 days

0.7 30 days
Water Saturation

1 year
0.6
10 years
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Connate water saturation: 0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from Fracture Face, ft
Fig. 13 – Water saturation profiles in zone near to the fracture face during production (Capillary pressure exponent b3=5, production starts
immediately after water injection, profile perpendicular to the fracture for cells closest to wellbore).

1
Critical gas saturation: 0.2 0 days, base case
0.9

0.8 0 days, b3=5

0.7 30 days, base case

Water Saturation

0.6
30 days, b3=5
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Connate water saturation: 0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from Fracture Face, ft
Fig. 14 – Water saturation profiles in zone near to the fracture face after 0 and 30 days of production. Base case (Pc=0) compared to case with
capillary curve exponent b3=5. (production starts immediately after water injection, profile perpendicular to the fracture for cells closest
to wellbore)
16 SPE 166439

4000
Swc = 0.2

Pcgw > 0 enhances

Sgc = 0.2

& increases injectivity

water retention
3000
Pc,max at Swc = 3480 psia
Pc,min at Sgc = -3480 psia
Capillary Pressure, psia

2000

1000
b3=5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Pcgw < 0 reduces

-1000
Swx = 0.6

injectivity
slope Mx = 0.42
-2000

-3000

-4000
Water Saturation
Fig. 15 – Imbibition capillary pressure curves for cases with and without negative part of the curve.

10000 100

Cumulative Water Recovery, %

b3=5
Water Flowback Rate, STB/D

1000 75

100 50

Swx =0.6, slope Mx=0.42

b3=5
10 25

1 0
1 10 100
Production Time, days

Fig. 16 – Water flowback rates and water recovery for cases with capillary pressure model with (Swx=0.6, mx=0.42) and without (b3=5) negative
part of imbibition capillary pressure curve.
SPE 166439 17

100000 4500
Gas Rate, b3=5

Cumulative Gas Production, MMscf

Gas Rate, Swx=0.6, Mx=0.42
Cum Gas, b3=5
Cum Gas, Swx=0.6, Mx=0.42
Gas Rate, Mscf/D

10000 3000

1000 1500

100 0
1 10 100 1000
Production Time, days
Fig. 17 – Gas production rates and cumulative gas production for cases with capillary pressure model with (Swx=0.6, mPc=0.42) and without
(b3=5) negative part of imbibition capillary pressure curve.

10000 100
1 day
10 days
30 days

Cumulative Water Recovery, %

90 days
Water Flowback Rate, STB/D

1000 0 days 75
Cum 1 day
Cum 10 days
Cum 30days
Cum 90 days
100 Cum 0 days 50

10 25

1 0
0 50 100 150 200
Production Time, days

Fig. 18 – Water flowback rate and cumulative water recovery for different shut-in times (b3=5).
18 SPE 166439

100000 0 days
4500

Cumulative Gas Production, MMscf

1 day
10 days
30 days
90 days
Gas Rate, Mscf/D

Cum Gas, 0 days

10000 Cum Gas, 1 day 3000
Cum Gas, 10 days
Cum Gas, 30 days
Cum Gas, 90 days

1000 1500

100 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Production Time, days
Fig. 19 – Gas production performance for different shut-in times (b3=5)

1
Critical gas saturation: 0.2 0 days
0.9
1 day
0.8 10 days

0.7 30 days

90 days
Water Saturation

0.6
180 days
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Connate water saturation: 0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from Fracture Face, ft
Fig. 20 – Water saturation profiles for different shut-in times (b3=5). Profile perpendicular to the fracture for cells closest to wellbore.
SPE 166439 19

100

90

80 base case,Pc=0
Total Water Recovery, %

70

60

50
b3=20
40

30
b3=10
20

10
b3=5
b3=3
0
0 50 100 150 200
Shut-in Time, days
Fig. 21 – Summary of the effect of well shut-in on total water recovery for different capillary pressure models.

10000 100
Water Fowback Rate, STB/D

1000 75

Cumulative Water Recovery, %

Swi=0.2

Swi=0
100 50

Swi=0.2
10 25

Swi=0

1 0
1 10 100
Production Time, days

Fig. 22 – Water flowback performance for cases with initial water saturation Swinit=0 < Sw=0.2 and Swinit=Sw=0.2 (b3=5).
20 SPE 166439

100000 4500
Gas Rate, Swi=0
Gas Rate, Swi=0.2

Cumulative Gas Production, MMscf

Cum Gas, Swi=0.2
Cum Gas, Swi=0
Gas Rate, Mscf/D

10000 3000

1000 1500

100 0
1 10 100 1000
Production Time, days
Fig. 23 – Gas production performance for cases with initial water saturation Swinit=0 < Sw=0.2 and Swinit=Sw=0.2

1
Swi=0, prod 0 days
0.9 Critical gas saturation: 0.2 Swi=0, prod 3650 days
Capillary pressure exponent b3=5 Swi=0.2, prod 0 days
0.8
Swi=0.2, prod 3650 days
0.7
Water Saturation

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
Connate water saturation: 0.2
0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from Fracture Face, ft
Fig. 24- Water saturation at fracture face at the end of injection and after 10 years of production. Two cases considered: Swinit=0 < Sw=0.2 and
Swinit=Sw=0.2.
SPE 166439 21

100

90 Shut-in time=0 days

80
Water Recovery, %

70
base case,Pc=0
60
b3=20
50
b3=10
40

30 b3=5
20 b3=3

10

0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Saturation Exponent nw
Fig. 25 – Impact of water relative permeability on water recovery. Different capillary pressure models are considered. Production starts
immediately after water injection.

1
nw=2.5, prod 0 days
0.9 Critical gas saturation: 0.2
nw=2.5, prod 3650 days
Pc=0
0.8 nw=5, prod 0 days
nw=5, prod 3650 days
0.7
Water Saturation

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Connate water saturation: 0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from Fracture Face, ft
Fig. 26 – Water saturation profile for different water relative permeability exponents, nw. (Pc=0)
22 SPE 166439

1
nw=2.5, prod 0 days
0.9 Critical gas saturation: 0.2 nw=2.5, prod 3650 days
Capillary pressure exponent b3=5 nw=5, prod 0 days
0.8
nw=5, prod 3650 days
0.7
Water Saturation

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Connate water saturation: 0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from Fracture Face, ft
Fig. 27 - Water saturation profile for different water relative permeability exponents, nw. (Capillary pressure exponent b3=5)

10000 100
Water Flowback rate, nw=2.5
Water Flowback Rate, nw=5
Water Flowback Rate, STB/D

Water Recovery, nw=2.5

1000 75

Water Recovery, %
Water Recovery, nw=5

100 50

10 25

1 0
1 10 100
Production Time, days

Fig. 28 Water flowback rate and total water recovery for cases with different water saturation exponents (nw=2.5 and nw=5)
SPE 166439 23

100000 3000
Gas Rate, nw=5

Cumulative Gas Production, MMscf

Gas Rate,nw=2.5
Cum Gas, nw=5
Cum Gas, nw=2.5
Gas Rate, Mscf/D

10000 2000

1000 1000

100 0
1 10 100 1000
Production Time, days
Fig. 29 Gas productionperformance for cases with different water saturation exponents (nw=2.5 and nw=5)

100
Shut-in time: 10 days
90

80
Water Recovery, %

70
base case,Pc=0
60
b3=20
50

40 b3=10
30

20 b3=5

10 b3=3

0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Saturation Exponent nw
Fig. 30 – Impact of water mobility (relative permeability) on water recovery. Different capillary pressure models are considered. Production
starts after shut-in period of 10 days.