SPE 167698

Imbibition and Water Blockage in Unconventional Reservoirs: Well

Management Implications During Flowback and Early Production
A. Bertoncello, J. Wallace, Hess Corp.; C. Blyton, U. of Texas at Austin; M. Honarpour and C.S. Kabir, Hess Corp.
Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Conference and Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria, 2527 February 2014.
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
Driven by field logistics in an unconventional setting, a well may undergo weeks to months of shut-in following hydraulicfracture stimulation. In unconventional reservoirs, field experiences indicate that such shut-in episodes may improve well
productivity significantly while reducing water production. Multiphase flow mechanisms were found to explain this behavior.
Aided by laboratory relative-permeability, capillary pressure data, and their dependency to stress in a shale-gas reservoir, the
flow-simulation model was able to reproduce the suspected water blocking behavior. Results demonstrate that a well resting
period improves early productivity while reducing water production. The results also indicate that minimizing water invasion
in the formation is crucial to avoid significant water blockage.
Introduction
The industry has long recognized water blocking as a cause of reduction in productivity in tight gas sands. For example,
Holditch (1979) used a numerical model to identify near-wellbore damage and capillary forces as controlling factors regarding
the cleanup process. Several laboratory investigations (Bennion et al. 1994, 1999) cite phase trapping as one of the
mechanisms for fluid retention when a water-based fluid imbibes into an oil-wet formation with sub-irreducible water
saturation. By definition, the subirredicible saturation was thought to be less than the capillary irreducible water saturation for
a given pore geometry, wettability, and capillarity.
Subsequently, Kamath and Laroche (2003) showed that water blocking is a transient phenomenon, whose duration depends
on rock properties, amount and type of fluid loss, gas flow rate, and pressure gradient in the reservoir. They also found that
many earlier laboratory studies had overestimated the loss in gas deliverability because an insufficient flow period resulted in
nonattainment of a mass transfer, during which the waterblock is dissipated. This finding was later confirmed by Mahadevan
and Sharma (2005). In addition, laboratory studies and mathematical modeling (Mahadevan et al. 2007a, 2007b) also
suggested that capillary-driven liquid films speed up evaporation rates, and consequently, water removal from conventional
core samples. Formation cleanup is tied to reservoir permeability, imposed drawdown, reservoir temperature, and liquid
volatility, with higher values promoting faster cleanup. Settari et al. (2002) raised the issue of permeability reduction during
drawdown and how it affects cleanup rate. A recent study by Wang et al. (2010) stressed that the breakdown of fracture fluid
itself is essential in ensuring that the formation has cleaned up.
Increased liquid saturation near the fracture/formation interface in a tight gas reservoir profoundly impedes gas flow. For
instance, the studies of Chowdiah (1987) and Shanley et al. (2004) suggest that gas production suffers dramatically when
water saturation exceeds 40 to 50%. A recent study involving pore-level modeling by Le et al. (2012) suggested that
displacement triggers rapid recovery of the gas-relative permeability because capillarity plays a minor role. Beyond the studies
done at the pore level, analytical modeling has been attempted to understand the flowback data; the studies of Ilk et al. (2010)
and Clarkson (2012) are cases in point. More recently, Fakcharoenphol et al. (2013) incorporated the osmotic forces in a shale
reservoir model and showed how well shut-in can improve early well production.
When considering application to shale gas reservoirs, the scope of the previous investigation present two main limitations.
Firstly, the studies focus mainly on tight sand. The extremely low permeability and mixed to oil-wet characteristics of shale
gas reservoirs are not examined. Secondly, gross well behavior during early production periods and not the nuances of flowback he are not the focal points.
The main purpose of this study is to understand the causes of waterblocks in shale reservoirs by incorporating laboratoryderived relative-permeability and capillary-pressure curves into numerical flow simulations to match well performance. The

SPE 167698

ultimate objective includes seeking pragmatic solutions to the waterblock problem en route to developing guidelines for
flowback and shut-in periods following hydraulic-fracture stimulation treatment of long-horizontal wells.
Waterblock Identification
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the water-block problem is through analysis of production data involving both pressure and
rate immediately after completion treatment. Experiences show that gas production accompanies a very low (< 10%) recovery
of completion fluids in unconventional formations. When production data analysis of very early-time data is attempted,
boundary-dominated flow regime surfaces with a very small in-place volume is observed. This apparent small volume is tied
to waterblocks. Figs. 1a and 1b illuminate this problem for a stimulated well, which produces for about 670 hr at nearconstant flowing-bottomhole pressure. The unit-slope response on the diagnostic log-log graph clearly illustrates this issue. An
unrealistically low in-place volume of 0.43 Bscf is suggested when very early-time flowback data are analyzed. As discussed
later, this type of behavior can be replicated with appropriate simulated data.

Figs. 1a and 1bNear-constant bottomhole-pressure production immediately after completion (a), and water-blockage evident from
rate-transient analysis (b).

In the following sections, we focus on matching the production performance of an unconventional gas well. Its production
history is defined by two periods of shut-in: one of 30 days, just after stimulation and a second one of 90 days, implemented
after a month of production. The flow behavior after the second shut-in shows a dramatic reduction in water production while
a production of 4,000 Mscf/D is maintained without a significant drop in the bottomhole pressure (BHP).
Waterblock Description and Remediation
Multiphase-Flow Mechanisms. Scanning electron microscopy analysis of a core sample shows that two types of pores
coexist in shale reservoirs: large pores located in the organic matrix (kerogen) and small pores located in the inorganic clay
matrix, as shown in Fig. 2. . The large organic pores are connected and are the main contributor to the total shale porosity.
Their geometry is characterized by large bodies and small pore throats. The organic pores are oil wet, meaning that gas and
water are nonwetting phases and have no affinities for the pore surfaces. An inverse affinity exists in the small water-wet
pores, with water coating the walls. Because of this duality in the surface affinity, shale-gas reservoirs have a combination of
oil-wet and water-wet wettability characteristics.
During hydraulic fracturing, high-pressure water leaks off from the hydraulic and natural fractures into the matrix, invading
the large, connected oil-wet pores. Because the large pores are oil-wet with small pore throats, a portion of the water follows a
snap-off type displacement. A consequence of this snap-off displacement is that the water does not form a continuous path
through the network. Instead, the water becomes isolated in the form of droplets filling the pores. This discontinuity makes the
water difficult to remobilize when pressure gradient is applied during production. This flow behavior is illustrated in Fig. 3.

SPE 167698

Fig. 2Scanning electron image showing organic matter (OM) in a Utica shale sample. The diameter of the large pores is around
200 nm. Clay pallets surround the organic matter. Due to their hydrophilic nature, the clay pore system attracts the water from the
larger organic pores.

Fig. 3Water is displaced by two different processes. First, water is forced into the oil-wet pore network by pressure differential
during hydraulic fracturing. Second, once in the oil-wet pore network, the water naturally imbibes into the water-wet pores network by
capillary action. Early cleanup minimizes the amount of water invading the oil-wet pores. Shutting-in the well facilitates imbibition of
the trapped water from the oil-wet pores to the water-wet pores.

Coreflood Experiments. Water was injected for 51 days into an unconventional core saturated with gas. After 51 days, the
water injection stopped, and gas was then injected at the outlet of the core. This procedure was an attempt to mimic flowback
during production. Water displacement was monitored during the 90-day flow experiment by measuring X-ray attenuation, as
shown in Fig. 4. The results showed that water invasion is not a spontaneous process; rather it is driven by a pressure
differential, indicating a formation with low permeability. The gas injection experiment shows that none of the injected water
is recovered during flowback. The water remains trapped in the pores, decreasing the cores permeability to gas. The
experiment affirmed the existence of a waterblock in shale reservoirs.

SPE 167698

Fig. 4Flooding experiments in an unconventional core. The results show that none of the injected water is recovered during
flowback; it remains blocked in the core.

Effects of Stress. The dependency of permeability on stress intensifies water blocking because of a decrease in the formation
pore pressure around the fracture during drawdown. The decreased pore pressure results in an increased net confining stress
(NCS) and a loss of permeability. Therefore, large drawdown pressures do not help remove the invaded water, but actually
accentuate the trapping mechanism.

Waterblock Remediation. This trapping mechanism, referred to as a waterblock, is a transient phenomenon, shown in
Fig. 5. The small water-wet pores will indeed naturally imbibe trapped water deeper into the reservoir, as Fig. 3 illustrates, and
decrease the water saturation along the fracture face and in the oil-wet pore network. The duration of the imbibition process
depends on the fluid and rock characteristics. In the context of low-permeability shale reservoirs, this process can last several
months. It is, therefore, critical to prevent and minimize the effect of such waterblock.
Two solutions are proposed in this study: immediate cleanup after fracturing and well shut-in after cleanup. Immediate well
cleanup aims at minimizing the depth of water invasion in a formation, thereby minimizing the depth of the highwater-saturation damaged zone. In this approach, the invaded water gets an opportunity to dissipate in a short time period.
Displacement of water from oil-wet to water-wet pores by imbibition decreases the water saturation in the matrix near the
fracture face and frees the oil-wet pore network of water. However, imbibition can be a time-intensive process, depending on
the mineralogy, porosity distribution, or organic matter content. Imbibition can be sped up by resting the well after hydraulic
fracturing. Indeed, during the well resting period, capillary forces are not counteracted by opposing viscous forces, and the
higher pore pressure enhances the formations permeability in the vicinity of the fracture.

SPE 167698

Fig. 5Step 1: Water invades the oil-wet pores during hydraulic fracturing. Step 2: The invasion creates an area of high water
saturation and low gas permeability near the fracture. Step 3: The waterblock around the fracture limits gas flow. Increase in NCS
during drawdown further decreases formation permeability and slows down the imbibition of water from oil-wet to water-wet
pores. Step 4: Cleaning up the well early minimizes invasion. Resting the well after cleanup speeds-up the imbibition process
because viscous forces do not counteract capillary forces and because the pressure buildup decreases NCS, which, in turn,
enhances the formation permeability. Step 5: After well shut-in, most of the water has imbibed from the oil-wet to the water-wet pores.
Gas can then freely flow through the large interconnected oil-wet pores, improving the wells deliverability.

Waterblock Simulation and History-Matching Well Performance

Gridding and Model Setup. The unconventional well was completed with 15 stages and 4 perforations per stage. We
assumed that a single fracture was induced from each perforation (60 fractures created in total). Based on the completion
report, creating one fracture required injecting 2,200 bbl of water at 10,000 psi. The fracture half-length was estimated at 500
ft. Fig. 6 displays the numerical grids used for flow simulations involving a single fracture intersecting the wellbore. The
results can be scaled-up to the well level by multiplying the results by 60 (assuming infinite conductivity fracs and wellbore).
The grid was refined around the fracture to accurately simulate and monitor water invasion.
An earlier version of the model grid, which included 68,000 cells, had a large variation of cell aspect ratios. The standard
deviation of cell aspect ratios was about 120 ft2. This original model took about half an hour to solve on an intel Xeon CPU
with 3.0GHz processors and 128GB of RAM memory. A model reduction effort was then performed, whereby, the grid was
reduced to 270 cells with an aspect ratio standard deviation of 80 ft2. As a result, the runtime was reduced to about 1 minute
on the same computer. This gridding approach enabled more efficient history matching without sacrificing model accuracy.

SPE 167698

Fig. 6Gridding for numerical modeling. The induced fracture intersects the wellbore at the grids center.

Table 1 summarizes the initial reservoir properties measured on a number of gasshale core samples. Matrix relative
permeabilities are estimated by using the Lattice-Boltzman method to simulate particles flowing in the pore network imaged
by FIB-SEM (focus ion beam scanning electron microscope). The results are calibrated with some coreflood measurements.
Relative permeability curves are plotted in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 shows the capillary pressures that are based on mercury injection
data. The effect of stress on reservoir permeability is presented in Fig. 9.

Table 1Initial reservoir properties at 7,500 psia.

Properties

Hydraulic Fracture

Reservoir Matrix

Initial reservoir pressure (psia)

7,500

7,500

Porosity (%)

10

Absolute permeability, (md)

20,000

0.0002

Water saturation (%)

12

12

Capillary pressure (psia)

1.0

3,800

Fig. 7Matrix relative permeability curves. Semi-log plots of the curves on the left.

SPE 167698

Fig. 8Capillary pressures measured by mercury injection.

Fig. 9Logarithmic decline in absolute permeability with increasing net confining stress.

History Match Setup. The focus is on simulating a BHP that matches the one measured in the unconventional gas well by
modeling the flow into a single fracture, as shown in Fig. 6. Assuming both infinite conductivity fracs and wellbore, the gas
flow rates observed in the well were divided by 60 to represent the average rate per fracture. These rates were then used to
control gas production during simulation. The quality of the match is based on the direct comparison of the simulated BHP
with those measured.
An important consequence of this approach is that the reservoir productivity cannot be assessed from flow rates. Instead,
productivity is determined by comparing BHP. At a given rate, a relatively high BHP means high reservoir productivity. In
contrast, a lower BHP implies a decrease in reservoir productivity because sustaining the same flow rate requires a higher
pressure differential across the well/reservoir interface.
History Match Results. Fig. 10 displays both the simulated and measured BHP. In both cases, sustaining the high gas rate
during early production necessitates decreasing the BHP to 2,500 psig. At the end of the shut-in period, both simulated and
measured BHP are at approximately 6,500 psig and remain stable at 5,500 psig during the late production period. By
successfully reproducing the BHP measured in the well, the flow simulation agreed with the reservoir properties and model.
Effect of Water Injection. To quantify the effect of water invasion on production, a no-injection baseline case is simulated.
This provided a scenario in which the effect of water is absent. Fig. 11, showing the absence of water invasion, suggested that
the BHP stayed above 6,000 psig, even during early production where gas production rate was high. This case confirmed that

SPE 167698

the water leakoff during fracturing was responsible for reducing gas flow and reservoir deliverability. In the next segment, we
define strategies to minimize the effect of water blocking.

Fig. 10Matching BHP data with the numerical model. For each fracture, 2,200 bbl of water were injected at 10,000 psia.

Fig. 11Comparison of measured BHP in the well (red), simulated BHP with water injected during fracturing (black), and simulated
BHP with gas injection during fracturing (green). Water injection significantly reduces reservoir deliverability.

To gauge production performance before and after resting the well, we interpreted the combined rate/pressure data with
rate-transient analysis, similar to the one shown earlier in Fig. 1. As Fig. 12 suggests, the early-time data before the rest period
suggested a very small volume of about 0.009 Bscf owing to waterblock. Note that the data noise is a direct manifestation of
translating WHP into BHP during coproduction of completion fluids, which lacked measurement precision. The figure on the
right reflecting the post-rest period is generated with the history-matched numerical model because of lack of sampling
frequency. Stated differently, production rates of only daily frequency were available, prompting us to work with the simulated
data. Clearly, the estimated SRV of 8 Bscf suggests that the early-time data are unsuitable for meaningful performance
analysis and should be avoided.

SPE 167698

Fig. 12Early-time production data suggests a very low-SRV of 0.009 Bscf owing to water blockage (left), whereas the post-restperiod data indicate a more reasonable SRV of 8 Bscf (right).

Fluid Invasion and Early Cleanup Benefits

At the end of stimulation treatment, one can choose between flowing back the well and leaving it shut-in for an extended
period of time. If the well is flowed back immediately, some of the fracture fluid left in the fracture is recovered at the surface.
If the well is left shut-in, the fluid resident in the fracture will partially invade the reservoir. The reservoir pressure, rock-fluid
properties, and duration of exposure collectively control the amount of water leaking off in the reservoir.

Illustration with the Unconventional Gas Well. In the history-match scenario, production starts 14 days after hydraulic
fracturing with no cleanup after stimulation. Fig. 13 compares this scenario with two others in which production starts one day
and seven days after the stimulation treatment; the objective was to understand the implication of water invasion. After one
day of exposure to water, a BHP of 5,000 psig can sustain a production of 8,000 Mscf/D. After 14 days of exposure, however,
producing 8,000 Mscf/D necessitates a BHP as low as 2,300 psig. Based on these results, it can be inferred that the reservoir
deliverability improves significantly with immediate well cleanup.
Long-Term Effect of Fluid Invasion. The long-term effect of fluid invasion was evaluated based on three flow-simulation
cases. With that idea in mind, water was injected into the reservoir model until the depth of invasion of 0.3, 0.6, and 1 ft
occurred. Those invasion depths are significantly higher than the ones observed in the core flooding experiments. At reservoir
conditions, the confining stress is lower than the one applied during the core experiments. This translates in an enhance
formation permeability and deeper fluid invasion.
In all three cases, the well produced at a constant BHP of 4,000 psig for 500 days. Fig. 14 displays the simulated gas flow
rates, which show significant differences during early production performance. When the invasion depth is limited to 0.3 ft,
the early flow rate reaches 1,380 Mscf/D. As expected, flow rates decrease with increased depth of water invasion; for
instance, at 0.6-ft invasion the rate reduces to 1,100 Mscf/D, and to 800 Mscf/D for 1-ft invasion. However, in all three cases,
the flow rates converge to a value of about 250 Mscf/D after 500 days of production. These results suggested that the impact of
water invasion on long-term production is limited, despite early-time production performance being severely affected by water
invasion.

10

SPE 167698

Fig. 13Simulated BHP with delayed production of 1, 7, and 14 days. Increasing the duration of formation exposure to water reduces
reservoir deliverability because of invasion.

Fig. 14Three simulations cases for different depths of water invasion. Lower flow rates occur during early production, but
consequences on late-time production are limited.

Well Shut-in (Resting) Benefitting Early Production Performance. If early flowback becomes infeasible for operational
reasons, significant amounts of water may leak off into the reservoir. As explained in the previous section, water does not have
a significant effect on late production. However, the short term impact during the first few months of production can be
appreciable. A solution that minimizes the effect of water blocking is shutting in (resting) the well after initial flowback. In the
next section, we quantify the effect of well resting on well production and determine the optimum shut-in time after well
cleanup.
Illustration with the Unconventional Well. After 20 days of production, the well is shut-in for 1.5 months. When production
resumes, the BHP stays above 5,000 psia. As Fig. 15 indicates, in a flow-simulation scenario in which the well was not shutin, the targeted flow rates were maintained at a lower BHP. In other words, for similar rates of production, a period of resting
allowed the well to sustain the late-time production with a higher BHP. These results demonstrated that well resting enhances
well deliverability. The difference between the two BHP profiles decreases with time as the effect of the waterblock dissipates.
When comparing water saturation in the closest block to the fracture, as shown in Fig. 16, we observed that without shutin, the water saturation (Sw) stabilized slowly at 0.7 after 100 days, corresponding to a gas relative permeability of 0.0001.
When the well was shut-in, the Sw kept decreasing faster and reached 0.58 in 50 days, corresponding to a gas-relative
permeability of 0.005. Shutting in the well may, therefore, improve the effective permeability to the gas phase by an order of
magnitude.

SPE 167698

11

Impact of Shut-in Time on Early Water and Gas Cumulative Production Performance. Based on the reservoir models
discussed previously, water injection occurred at 10,000 psia and cleaned up a week after fracture stimulation. Following four
days of flowback, the well was shut-in for durations ranging from 1300 days. Once the resting period was over, the well was
produced at a BHP of 4,000 psia. The shut-in effects were evaluated based on 90 days of gas and water cumulative
productions, as shown in Fig. 17. The improvement in cumulative oil production turned out to be a logarithmic function of
shut-in time. For instance, a production increase of 15% is reached after 60 days of shut-in, and 20% after 300 days. The
corresponding decrease in water production also behaves logarithmically with shut-in time; for example, water production
decreased by more than 50% after 60 days of shut-in, and by 80% after 300 days of shut-in.
The exact relation between production improvements vis-a-vis shut-in time depends on reservoir properties, depth of fluid
invasion, and drawdown pressure. The results will, therefore, be well specific. However, because the relation follows a
logarithmic time scale, the shut-in time provides a significant benefit after a relatively short resting period of a couple of
months.

Fig. 15History matching based on the well production data. Resting the well allows sustaining late-time production without BHP
decrease.

Fig. 16Comparison of water saturation in the closest block to the fracture. Resting the well speeds up imbibition and significantly
improves well deliverability.

12

SPE 167698

Fig. 17Effects of shut-in time on gas and water cumulative productions after 90 days of production.

Discussion
This study was initiated to gain insights into the suspected waterblock issue, thereby seeking guidance in interpreting ratetransient data. Fig. 1 illuminated this point in a microdarcy system, wherein a very small SRV was estimated for a well without
any rest period, meaning the well cleanup and production periods were contiguous. The lessons learned in this and other field
cases guided us to pursue both cleanup and rest periods in a systematic way. In fact, Fig. 12 showing analyses of rate transients
in this nanodarcy formation suggested about 900-fold increase in SRV following the cleanup and rest periods. In other words,
the early-time data analysis cannot provide realistic information on SRV.
During hydraulic fracturing, water leaks off through fracture surfaces and invades parts of the formation under the
influence of viscous forces and imbibition capillary pressure, thereby creating a zone of high-water saturation around the
fracture faces. The presence of water impedes gas flow by reducing gas relative permeability. Well shut-in permits the
imbibition process to evolve, allowing water to move deeper into the water-wet/clay-rich formation, resulting in lower water
saturation and a corresponding higher gas relative permeability near the fracture surface. Eventually, the waterblock dissipates
and allows gas to flow from the matrix into the fractures. In contrast, if the well is not shut-in, natural capillary forces are
balanced by viscous forces, thereby trapping water at much higher saturations around the fractures and reducing the gas flow
significantly.
While this study attempted to capture some of the major elements of fluid/rock interactions in the reservoir, issues
pertaining to the fracture itself were not studied explicitly. For instance, liquid loading within the fracture itself can play a very
important role in the context of cleanup, as shown by Agarwal and Sharma (2013). Specifically, their modeling suggested that
low drawdown, high-fracture conductivity, and low-matrix permeability tend to increase liquid loading, thereby impacting
well performance.
This work assumed a homogeneous matrix and a single planar fracture. Complex fracture geometry and the presence of
heterogeneities in the matrix may affect flow behavior in the reservoir. Incorporation of osmotic and adsorption effects may be
important to improve flow simulation accuracy. Lastly, determining the optimal shut-in time would require a study in which
the productivity enhancement is discounted by the deferred production (NPV).
Conclusions
1. Relative permeability, capillary pressure, and stress effect are critical for modeling shut-in and flowback periods.
2. Guidelines for well shut-in and water flowback have been developed following history matching of a field response
with a high resolution numerical flow-simulation model. The well flowback should occur as early as possible,
followed by a well shut-in period of a couple of months.
3. The early-time production data are unsuitable for rate-transient analysis because water blockage leads to an
artificially reduced SRV. Synthetic examples verified and field examples validated the notion presented in this study.
4. Well management guidelines based on rock and fluid properties are necessary to minimize waterblocks and maximize
gas production under economically feasible shut-in time.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Hess Management for their support, as well as Connie Gilbert and Seth Rudolph for their
encouragement.

Nomenclature
krg
=
krw
=
pc
=
qg
=
qw
=

relative-permeability to gas phase, dimensionless

relative-permeability to water phase, dimensionless
capillary pressure, psia
gas rate, Mscf/D
water rate, STB/D

SPE 167698

Sw
tMB

=
=

13

water saturation, fraction

material-balance time, hr

References
Agarwal, S. and Sharma, M.M. 2013. Impact of Liquid Loading in Hydraulic Fractures on Well Productivity. Paper SPE 163837
presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 4-6 February.
Bennion, D.B., Bietz, R.F., Thomas, F.B., and Cimolai, M.P. 1994. Reductions in the Productivity of Oil and Low Permeability Gas
Reservoirs Due to Aqueous Phase Trapping. J. Can Pet Tech. 33 (9): 4554. DOI 10.2118/94-09-05.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F., and Bennion, D.W. 1999. Remediation of Water and Hydrocarbon Phase Trapping Problems in
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs. J. Can Pet Tech. 38 (8): 3948. DOI 10.2118/94-09-05.
Chowdiah, P. 1987. Laboratory Measurements Relevant to Two-Phase Flow in a Tight Gas Sand Matrix. Paper SPE 16945 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2730 September.
Clarkson, C.R. 2012. Modeling Two-Phase Flowback of Multi-Fractured Horizontal Wells Completed in Shale. Paper SPE 162593
presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 OctoberNovember 1.
Fakcharoenphol, P., Torcuk, M., Bertoncello, A., et al. 2013. Managing Shut-in Time to Enhance Gas Flow Rate in Hydraulic Fractured
Shale Reservoirs: a Simulation Study. Paper SPE 166098 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 30 September 2 October.
Holditch, S.A. 1979. Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas Flow From Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells.
J. Pet Technol 31
(12): 15151524. DOI 10.2118/94-09-05.
Ilk, D. et al. 2010. A Comprehensive Workflow for Early Analysis and Interpretation of Flowback Data From Wells in Tight Gas/Shale
Reservoir Systems. Paper SPE 135607 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 1922
September.
Kamath, J. and Laroche, C. 2003. Laboratory-Based Evaluation of Gas Well Deliverability Loss Caused by Water Blocking. SPE J. 8 (1):
7180. DOI 10.2118/117353-MS.
Le, D.H., Hoang, H.N., and Mahadevan, J. 2012. Gas Recovery From Tight Sands: Impact of Capillarity. SPE J. 17 (4): 981991. DOI
10.2118/94215-PA.
Mahadevan, J., Sharma, M.M., and Yortsos, Y.C. 2007a. Evaporative Cleanup of Water Blocks in Gas Wells. SPE J. 12 (2): 209216.
DOI 10.2118/94-09-05.
Mahadevan, J., Sharma, M.M., and Yortsos, Y.C. 2007b. Capillary Wicking in Gas Wells. SPE J. 12 (4): 429437. DOI 10.2118/103229PA.
Mahadevan, J. and Sharma, M.M. 2005. Factors Affecting Cleanup of Water Blocks: A Laboratory Investigation. SPE J. 10 (3): 238246.
DOI 10.2118/84216-PA.
Settari, A., Sullivan, R.B., and Bachman, R.C. 2002. The Modeling of the Effect of Water Blockage and Geomechanics in Waterfracs.
Paper SPE 77600 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 29 September2
October.
Shanley, K.W., Cluff, R.M., and Robinson, J.W. 2004. Factors Controlling Prolific Gas Production From Low-Permeability Sandstone
Reservoirs: Implications for Resource Assessment, Prospect Development, and Risk Analysis. AAPG Bull. 88 (8): 38.
Tannich, J.D. 1975. Liquid Removal From Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells. J. Pet Technol 27 (11): 13091317. DOI 10.2118/94-0905.
Wang, J. Y., Holditch, S.A., and McVay, D.A. 2010. Modeling Fracture-Fluid Cleanup in Tight-Gas Wells. SPE J. 15 (3): 783793. DOI
10.2118/119624-MS.