Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas

Flow From Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells

Stt!phen A. Holditch, SPE-AIME, Texas A&M U.

Introduction
To optimize profit from low-permeability gas
reservoirs, well stimulation normally is required. In a
majority of the cases, a long hydraulic fracture will
provide the most efficient and economic means of
stimulation. To create long hydraulic fractures, a
large volume of fluid, mixed with additives and
granular propping agents, must be pumped into the
formation. Such treatments can be expensive and
require extensive engineering effort.
The fluid injected during the fracturing treatment
will leak off into the formation and will reduce the
relative permeability to gas in the invaded region.
Near the fracture, the permeability to gas will be
reduced to zero. After injection has ceased, imbibition will begin to alter the fluid distribution, and
when production begins, the fracturing fluid will
flow from the formation into the fracture. As the
fracturing fluid is produced, the relative permeability
to gas in the invaded zone will increase and gas will
begin to flow into the fracture. In some cases, the
injected fracturing fluid may reduce the formation
permeability in the invaded zone. Such damage can
be caused by clay swelling, precipitation of solids, or
migration of released fines.
In reality, all fracturing fluids, no matter how
expensive, do some damage to the reservoir adjacent
to the fracture. Using clean fracturing fluids that are
04192136179100127561$00.25
1979 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

compatible with the formation rock and the reservoir

fluid helps minimize such damage. However, in some
reservoirs, the injected fracturing fluid does not
readily clean up and several months of production
may be required before the maximum gas flow rate is
achieved. In the most extreme cases, a complete
water block to gas flow can occur.
To effectively design a fracture treatment for a
water-sensitive reservoir, it is essential to understand
the basic reservoir mechanisms that govern flow
between the fracture and the formation. Gas and
water relative permeability, relative permeability
hysteresis, capillary pressure, and reservoir damage
all tend to complicate the analysis of reservoir flow in
fractured formations. By considering the combined
effects of the above parameters, it is possible to
analyze a given reservoir and determine the cause of
slow cleanup and reduced gas productivity.

Model Description
The best method to analyze such a complicated
problem is by numerical simulation. To investigate
the effects of reservoir permeability damage
surrounding the fracture, a single-phase, twodimensional, finite-difference model was used. This
model has been described previously.l To investigate
the effects of relative permeability and capillary
pressure upon the performance of fractured reservoirs, a two-phase, two-dimensional, fully implicit,
finite-difference model was developed. The two-

This paper demonstrates the combined effects of formation permeability damage and
relative permeability damage in the invaded zone of a hydraulically fractured gas well.
Study results indicate that the damaged zone permeability must be reduced by several
orders of magnitude and the capillary pressure altered before a serious water block to
gas flow will occur.
DECEMBER 1979

1515

TABLE 1-INPUT DATA FOR FORMATION DAMAGE RUNS,

SINGLEPHASE MODEL

Reservoir permeability, md
Net gas pay, ft (m)
Gas porosity, %
Reservoir pressure, psia (kPa)
Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia (kPa)
Reservoir temperature, 0 F (oq
Gas gravity
Well spacing, acres (m2)
Fracture length, ft (m)

0.1
25(7.6)

8
7,500 (51750)
2,000 (13 800)
300(149)
0.65
160 (647 499)
660(200)

phase model, GASWAT, simulates the flow of gas

and water in both the reservoir and the fracture.
The GASWAT model is based on a simultaneous
solution of saturations and pressures from the finitedifference approximations of the gas and water flow
equations. To maintain stability when solving difficult problems such as two-phase flow in fractures,
the equations were formulated to be fully implicit.
To reduce computing time and storage requirements,
an alternating diagonal, matrix inversion solution
technique is used in GASW AT.
The grid system in the model is set up to simulate
only one-quarter of a square drainage pattern. The
wellbore is located in Cell 1,1 and the fracture extends an equal distance on both sides of the wellbore
and fully penetrates the vertical extent of the formation. The reservoir is assumed to be horizontal,
homogeneous, and isotropic. A grid pattern consisting of 121 cells (11 x 11) was used for a majority
of the computer runs. Time-step sizes were controlled
to insure accuracy during transient flow; however,
because the model is fully implicit, large time-step
sizes, ranging from 90 to 365 days, can be used
during semisteady-state flow without causing
stability problems. A typical run will require 3 to 5
minutes on an IBM 360-65 computer. The model was
verified for a number of conditions. Runs were made

FRACTURE~

,=GED

&1'))(I ((I'
(S3SSi
II J) pI))

Fig. 1 - Plan view of fractured reservoir.

1516

to compare the calculated results of the two-phase

model, at irreducible water saturation, with the
results from the single-phase model. Runs were also
made to verify the two-phase flow model with
Buckley-Leverette theory.

Reservoir Damage - Single-Phase Flow

Before considering the two-phase flow problem, it is
useful to isolate the effects of reservoir permeability
damage in a single-phase flow system. This problem
was studied by van Poollen 2 in 1957. Van Poollen
used an electrical analog model and presented results
for steady-state flow of an incompressible fluid.
In this study, a two-dimensional, single-phase,
finite-difference model has been used. The input data
for this investigation are presented in Table I.
Computer runs were made to simulate the effects of
damage around the fracture on the semi steady-state
productivity index.
Fig. I illustrates the area of possible damage. Such
damage could be caused by swelling clays, movement
of fines, precipitates, or any number of physical or
chemical reactions between injected and in-situ
materials. Computer runs were made for varying
degrees and depths of damage in the invaded zone.
The input values for fracture conductivity and for
depth and degree of damage were chosen after
reviewing the examples presented by van PooIlen. 2
Fig. 2 illustrates the effects of damage 1 in. (25.4
mm) into the formation along the fracture. TheJ/Jo
values at 0.1 md represent the productivity index
ratio for the undamaged case. Notice that very little
change in J / J 0 occurs until the formation has been
damaged to 0.1 0J0 of the original permeability. Fig. 3
is a similar graph for a damage depth of 5 in. (127
mm). As expected, for a given degree of damage, the
J / J ratios are reduced more than those for the I-in.
da~aged zone. Table 2 presents the ratios of
J damaged / J undamaged for the examples presented in
Figs. 2 and 3. The ratios in Table 2 represent the
normalized effects of damage around a fracture for
the cases simulated in this study. Notice that for the
most severe case, the productivity index increase is
reduced by only 50070.
These results show that moderate permeability
damage around a fracture will have only minor
effects on the well productivity index. To curtail gas
production severely, the reservoir damage must be
several inches deep and reduce the formation permeability by a factor of 1,000 or more.
The reason moderate damage does not affect
productivity can be explained easily. In most tight
gas reservoirs, a total pressure drop (jJ-Pwj) of
several thousand pounds can be expected. In the 6-in.
zone surrounding the fracture, the pressure drop may
be only 0.1 psi (.69 kPa). Therefore, even if the
permeability is damaged by a factor of 100, the
pressure drop will be only 10 psi (69 kPa), which is
still insignificant compared to the total pressure drop
in the reservoir. However, if the depth or degree of
damage increases to where the pressure drop in the
damaged zone becomes several hundred pounds per
square inch (kPa), the productivity index then will be
reduced significantly.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 2 - SINGLEPHASE RESULTS FROM FIGS. 2 AND 3

1 in. (25 mm) Damage

5 in. (127 mm) Damage

% Permeability Left in

% Permeability Left in

Damaged Zone

C,

Cf
(mdm)

(mdft)

3x10 7
1.5 x 108
1.2 x 10 9

100
500
4,000

Damaged Zone

100

10

0.1

100

10

100
100
100

99.8
99.7
99.7

98.4
97.8
97.6

87.7
84.8
82.8

100
100
100

99.2
99.0
98.9

Cleanup Without Reservoir Damage

0.1
93.0
91.3
90.2

61.6
54.2
50.8

of water mobility in the reservoir is not considered.

By ignoring the effects of capillary pressure and
water mobility, the Tannich paper's conclusion that
"permanent productivity damage is not likely if the
fracture conductivity is high relative to formation
permeability" is not valid for all reservoirs. This
conclusion is valid only in reservoirs where the
pressure drawdown during cleanup is much greater
than the capillary pressure in the invaded zone.
To further explain the total problem, consider that
the damaged zone in Fig. 1 is the zone which has been
invaded by fracturing fluid. For this discussion, it is
assumed that only relative permeability damage has
occurred (i.e. the rock permeability and the capillary
pressure in the invaded zone have not been altered).
It also is assumed that the capillary pressure in the
fracture is zero for all saturations. After injection has
ceased, the reservoir immediately adjacent to the
fracture will not be at capillary equilibrium. Because
of the permeability discontinuity between the
fracture and the reservoir and because of the high
fluid saturation in the invaded zone, imbibition will
begin to alter the fluid distribution in the reservoir. If
the capillary pressure is large enough and sufficient

Even when the reservoir rock permeability is not

reduced next to the fracture, the relative permeability
to gas is reduced as injected fracturing fluid leaks off
into the reservoir. Tannich 3 presented a study in
which numerical simulation and field data were used
to illustrate the cleanup problem. The model that
Tannich developed was actually four different
models linked together. These models were: (1) a
two-phase, one-dimensional tubing model, (2) a
model which calculated the fluid behavior in the
fracture, (3) a two-phase model which solved the
Buckley-Leverette equations for fluid flow in the
invaded zone, and (4) a single-phase model for
calculating the flow of gas in the reservoir. The work
presented by Tannich was informative and has
helped to explain fracture cleanup behavior in most
reservoirs. However, in some gas reservoirs, the
Tannich model may not predict well behavior during
cleanup accurately.
There are two simplifying assumptions in the
Tannich model which limit its application. The most
critical limitation is that capillary forces in the
reservoir are assumed to be zero. Secondly, the effect
10
9

FRACTURE CONDUCT! VITY

(md-ft)

(mdm)

1.2 x 10 9

4000
500

100

DEPTH OF DAt'lAGE " 1 l nch (25 mm)

FORMATION PERMEABILITY" .1 md

l/r e =0.5

:0 L---------------------~I~---------------------~I---------------------.~OOOI
.1

.01

(md)
PERMEABILITY OF

.001
~.:.MAGED

ZONE

Fig. 2 - Effect of damage 1 in. (25 mm) around fracture.

DECEMBER 1979

1517

TABlE3- INPUT DATA FOR TWOPHASE RUNS WITH NO DAMAGE

Parameter
Reservoir pressure, psi (kPa)
Net gas pay, ft (m)
Total porosity, %
Fracture length, ft (m)
loitial fracture conductivity, md-ft (md m)
Reservoir temperature, of (0C)
Gas gravity
Well spacing, acres (m2)

water mobility exists in the reservoir, the fluid bank

around the fracture quickly will imbibe into the
reservoir and gas production will begin immediately
after the well is opened to cleanup. If the water
mobility in the reservoir is very low, complete imbibition may require months or years and the fluid
bank around the fracture will be, for practical
purposes, stationary. For this case, when the well is
opened to the tanks for clean up, fracturing fluid will
be produced only if the pressure drawdown in the
invaded zone is large enough to overcome the
capillary end effect between the fracture and the
formation. This part of the cleanup problem depends
upon the magnitude of (1) reservoir pressure, (2)
flowing pressure in the fracture, (3) capillary pressure
function, and (4) relative permeability to gas in the
invaded zone. Therefore, regardless of the water
mobility in the reservoir, a well will clean up rapidly
if the total pressure drawdown is much higher than
the capillary pressure end effect.
To evaluate the above concepts, numerous
computer runs were made using the two-phase
reservoir model. Two reservoir cases will be
discussed: a high-pressure case, and a low-pressure
case. The input data for these examples are given in
Table 3. The relative permeability and capillary

9
8

..,0

..,.....

High-Pressure Case

Low-Pressure Case

7,500(51750)
100 (30.5)
20
660(200)
2,000 (6 x 108 )
300(149)
0.65
160 (647 499)

2,325 (16 042)

100(30.5)
12
660(200)
2,000 (6 x 108 )
150(65)
0.7
160 (647 499)

pressure functions used during these investigations

are presented in Figs. 4 through 6.
To determine the effects of the injected fracturing
fluids, two computer runs were made for each case
investigated. One run simulated the water injection, a
short shut-in time, and a I-year production period.
Approximately 1,200 bbl (190 m 3 ) of water were
injected for these runs. These simulations represent
the actual process as it occurs in the field. To
facilitate discussion of the results, the runs described
above will be called injection runs.
The second run made for each case did not include
the injection of the fracturing fluids. The well was
put on production under the ideal, but unrealistic,
condition that no water had been injected. In the
discussion to follow, these' runs will be called
production runs.
The original fracture conductivity was the same for
all runs. As the well was produced, the fracture
conductivity was corrected for the effects of fracture
closure and non-Darcy flow .. These fracture con~
ductivity corrections were included in the model to
simulate more realistically the actual reservoir
conditions. By varying the reservoir permeability, the
effects of relative conductivity upon fracture fluid
cleanup also were investigated.

FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY

(md'm)

(md-ft)

l. 2 10 9

4000

8
l. 5 x 10

500

3 x 10 7

100

4
3

DEPTH OF DAMAGE = 5 inches (127 rrnn)

FORMATION PERMEABILITY = 0.1 md
Lire = 0.5

OL-____________________~~____________________~______________________~
.1

.01

(md)
PERMEABILITY OF DAt-lAGEO ZONE

.001

.0001

Fig. 3 - Effect of damage 5 in. (127 mm) around fracture.

IS18

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

High-Pressure Reservoirs
Figs. 7 and 8 present the results for the high-pressure
case, using the capillary pressure curves in Fig. 5.
These two graphs illustrate that when the pressure
drawdown is much greater than the capillary end
effect, the injected water will not affect gas flow rate
and that virtual1y all of the fracturing fluid will be
recovered within 1 year.
Computer runs also were made to investigate the
effects of capillary pressure and initial water
saturation upon well performance for the case when
the total pressure drawdown is much greater than the
capillary pressure end effect. The results from these
runs indicated that minor changes in the value of the
capillary pressure will not affect gas production but
will affect the amount of water produced. As the
value of capillary pressure is decreased, more water
will be produced from the reservoir.
To examine the effects of initial water saturation,
several runs were made using an initial water
saturation of 35070 in the reservoir. For the injection
run, only 630 bbl (100 m 3 ) water were produced
during the first year (about 50070 of total amount
injected); however, the remaining volume did not
affect the gas production rate. Because total pressure
drawdown was much greater than capillary pressure,
enough water was produced to establish sufficient
gas permeability in the invaded zone.
In summary, for high-pressure reservoirs where
capillary pressure end effect between the reservoir
and fracture can be overcome by drawdown, the
value of capillary pressure will control only water
production, with no significant effect on the reservoir's gas flow rate.

zno

1380

190
180
170
OJ md

160
1035

ISO
140

'"

130

0:

:>

<II

''"8:-;"

120
110

>0":;;

.;. 690

o:.e
j

100

-'I

Ii:
<
U

90
80
70
60

345

50
40
30

20
10

.1

.Z

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1.0

WATER SATI1RA nON

Fig. 5 - Capillary pressure curves used for highpressure

cases.

Low-Pressure Reservoirs
In low-pressure, low-permeability gas reservoirs, the,
cleanup problem becomes somewhat more complicated. In tight reservoirs, the capillary pressure
6900

1000

5520

800

1.0 _----_~---------""""'I

FIELD DATA FOR K =0.0017 MD

.8

<'
v;

>-

..J

4140

co

;5

.6

UJ

0-

O!

'">-

LJ.J
0LJ.J

:::.4
I-

:::>

III
III

...

::;;:

:::1600

0-

2760

'"

:5400
..J

ii:

..J

-<

UJ

O!

.2

1330

200

0~~40~-----6~0~----~8~O------~I00
WATER SATURATION (%)

WATER SATURATION

Fig. 4 - Relative permeability curves used in two-phase

model.

DECEMBER 1979

Fig. 6 - Capillary pressure curves used for low-pressure

cases.

1519

TABLE 4 - LOWPRESSURE RESERVOIR - 2,325 psi

(16042 kPa), NO FORMATION DAMAGE

Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

.3

_R_e_m_a_r_ks_
Production run
Injection run
Production run
Injection run
Production run
Injection run
Production run
Injection run

10

Flowing
Water
Bottomhole
Permeability Saturation Pressure
(md)
(%)
(psi) (kPa)
0.17
60
2,000 13800
0.17
60
2,000 13800
0.17
60
1,000 6900
0.17
60
1,000 6900
0.0017
60
2,000 13800
0.0017
60
2,000 13800
0.0017
60
1,000 6900
0.0017
60
1,000 6900

~-------------------------------,

ORIGINAl Sw 0,6

o a A

PRODUCTION RUNS

INJECTION RUNS

.00
100

300

200

400

TIME (days)

Fig. 7 - Cumulative gas produced

cases.

15900

100

for high-pressure

r--------------------------,--.
1.0 mel

1590

10

GRIGIMAL Sw -0.6

o c l:i PRODUCfIOtf RUNS

....

ItwECTION RUNS

15.9

100

200
TIME

300

400

c..,,)

Fig. 8 - Cumulative water produced for high-pressure

cases.
1520

can be several hundred or more pounds per square

inch. Fig. 6 presents a capillary pressure curve that
was measured from a sandstone core of 0.0017 md
permeability. The curve was chosen as "representative" of a low-permeability reservoir. after
reviewing capillary pressure data from approximately
100 different core samples representing a wide variety
of formations.
Computer runs were made using the capillary
pressure data in Fig. 6, relative permeability data in
Fig. 4, and reservoir data in Table 3. Again, both
production and injection runs were made so that the
effect of the injected fracture water could be isolated.
The specific combinations of input data for each run
are presented in Table 4.
Comp.uter runs were made using a initial water
saturation of 60070. At 60% saturation, the relative
permeability to water was approximately 0.05;
therefore, the formation water was mobile.
"fo investigate the relationship between pressure
drawdown and capillary pressure, two flowing
bottomhole pressures were used in these runs. When
the flowing pressure was 1,000 psi (6900 kPa), the
total pressure draw down in the reservoir was 1,325
psi (9142 kPa). which is much greater than the
capillary pressure at 60% water saturation. For the
cases when the flowing pressure was 2,000 psi (13 800
kPa), the pressure drop in the reservoir was only 325
psi (2242 kPa), which is less than the value of
capillary pressure at 60% water saturation.
Therefore, when Pwf was equal to 2,000 psi, it was
impossible for the formation water to migrate toward
the fracture.
Cases 1 through 4 in Table 4 represent a fairly
permeable formation containing mobile formation
water. The cumulative gas produced for these four
cases is given in Fig. 9 and 10. For this reservoir
permeability (0.17 md), the fracture water imbibed
into the reservoir during the shut-in period following
injection and the cumulative gas produced was not
affected.
Figs. 11 and 12 present gas production data for a
0.0017 md reservoir at 60% water saturation (Cases 5
through 9 in Table 4). For this reservoir permeability,
the water mobility in the reservoir was so low that the
injected fracture water could not imbibe into the
reservoir in a short period of time. Eventually, if the
well were shut in long enough, this water would
imbibe but the time required would be much longer
than for the 0.17 md reservoir.
Figs. 11 and 12 show that the injected water
surrounding the fracture did suppress gas production. For the case where the total pressure drop was
less than the value of capillary pressure in the formation (Fig. 11), the production at the end of the
first year was reduced by 15%. For this low
drawdown, there was very little water produced
during either run. It also required about 30 days
before significant gas breakthrough was observed in
the injection run (Case 6).
In Fig. 12, where the pressure drawdown was much
greater than the capillary pressure in the formation,
gas breakthrough was almost immediate. For the
production run (Case 7), no water was produced
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

during the I-year production period. Before water

can be produced, the water saturation must be
essentially 100070 at the fracture face. In Case 7, the
formation water was mobile' but the formation
permeability was so low that the water movement in
the reservoir was extremely small.
For the injection run in Fig. 12, only 70% of the
injected water was produced during the first year.
The water remaining around the fracture decreased
the cumulative gas produced by 25070.
In reviewing the data in Figs. 9 through 12, it is
important to note that the value of relative conductivity actually had no effect on the results. The
degree to which water injection will affect gas
production appears to be determined only by the
values of water mobility in the formation, the total

pressure drawdown, and the capillary pressure end

effect. Therefore, in certain formations, a partial
water block can form, even when the fracture
conductivity is essentially infinite.

Cleanup With Reservoir Damage

J-Function
Based on the results discussed so far in this paper, it
is apparent that (1) formation damage alone will
restrict gas production only if the damage is several
inches deep and reduces the formation permeability
by a factor of 1,000 or more, and (2) relative permeability damage alone will restrict gas production
only when the injected fluid cannot be removed easily
from the invaded zone. An important consideration,
therefore, is to determine the combined effects of

Pi =2325 PSIA (16,042 kPa)

K =O.17MD
5 =60%
P;@60%=345PSIA (2380 kPa)
Pw f=2000PSIA (13,800 kPa)

lOS

Pi = 2325PSIA (16.042 kPa)

K =0.0017 MD
Sw = 60%

~~~=~~O~ ~~~:Sl~ 3:~~~O k~:

Cr

w::

Cr = 5.67

= 567

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 5 0

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 6 14 BBLS (2.2. 3 )

ti

=>
o

iil

~ 104

..:

";::
>
UJ

..:

-'

=>
=>

:E
U

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 1 = 0

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 2 = 0

28xl0

104 ~-----::~-------l:-.:,-----....,..---

100

ZOO

300

300

TIME (DAYS)

Fig. 11-Cumulative gas produced for Cases 5 and 6 in

Table 4.

TIME (DAYS)

Fig. 9 - Cumulative gas produced for Cases 1 and 2 in

Table 4.

Pi = 2325 PSIA (16,042 kPa)

K=0.17MD
S =60%
P;@6O%=345 PSIA (2380 kPa)
Pwf= 1000 PSIA (6900 kPa)

Cr

28xl04

P; =2325 PSIA (16.042 kPa)

K = 0.0017 MD

S =60%

P;@6O% =345 PSIA (2380 kPa)

Pw f=1000PSIA (6900 kPa)
Cr = 567

= 5.67

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 3= 0

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 4 24 BBlS

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 7 a 0

WATER PRODUCTION FOR CASE 8 = 777 BBlS (123 m3)

(3.8. 3 )

1~O~----~100~----~~----~3OO~-
TIME (DAYS)

Fig. 10-Cumulative gas produced for Cases 3 and 4 in

Table 4.

DECEMBER 1979

10' '--_ _ _-'-_ _ _ _J...-_ _ _ _- - ' - , _

100

300

TIME (DAYS)

Fig. 12 - Cumulative gas produced for Cases 7 and 8 in

Table 4.

1521

formation permeability damage and relative permeability damage on the performance of fractured,
low-permeability gas wells.
To study this problem, the effects of damage upon
capillary pressure become critical. In a fractured,
damaged reservoir, three distinct zones of permeability can be identified: the reservoir, the fracture, and the damaged zone. Based upon the Jfunction, 4 capillary pressure can be correlated with
permeability and porosity for a given formation, as
follows:
Pc Ik
J-function = - ...j -:;-.
(J
cb
The J-function has been proved to be a reliable
method for correlating capillary pressure data in a
given reservoir. 4 The J-function implies that at a
given level of water saturation, the value of capillary
pressure is inversely proportional to the square root
of permeability. For large values of permeability,
such as a fracture, the level of capillary pressure is
very small, essentially zero. If the permeability in the
invaded zone is reduced, the capillary pressure
should be increased in this damaged zone.
A literature search was performed, and one paper
was found, Baptist et al., 5 which presents data

CAPILLARY PRESSURE

CURVES
TENSLEEP SAMPLES
FROM REF. 6

_6
~
~

=>

34.5

~
~

>

"-

.1

.2

0-

Undamaged

0-

Damagj!d

.3

.4.

.6

"- "-

.7

,~

----

.8

.9

1.0

Sw
Fig. 13 - Effect of damage on the capillary pressure
function.

1522

concerning the effects of damage upon capillary

pressure. In that paper, capillary pressure curves
from Frontier and Tensleep sandstone cores were
measured. When water was injected into cores
containing water-sensitive clays, reservoir permeability damage was observed and a change in the
capillary pressure was measured.
To develop additional data, capillary pressure
measurements were made at Texas A&M U. using
Berea and Tensleep cores. 6 Fig. 13 presents the
results of this investigation for the Tensleep cores.
The capillary pressure was increased as a result of
reservoir damage. Therefore, based on these limited
results plus the results presented by Baptist et al., it
was concluded that the concept of the J-function
could be applied to the damaged zone in a reservoir.
Damaged Reservoirs
To determine the combined effects of reservoir
damage, relative permeability damage, and capillary
pressure damage, computer runs were made using the
two-phase model for the conditions given in Table 5.
To compare the results of those runs to the "ideal"
case, 12 runs were made using the single-phase
model. Table 6 presents the results from the singlephase model, which represents only the effects of
rock permeability damage.
The results presented in Tables 7 through 9 were
generated using the two-phase model for a variety of
conditions. These tables indicate the combined effects of formation permeability damage, relative
permeability damage, and increased capillary
pressure in the damaged zone. Notice that for no
damage (1000/0 permeability left in damaged zone),
the gas productivity, for practical purposes, is not a
function of capillary pressure. This observation is
consistent with data discussed earlier in this paper
concerning high-pressure reservoirs. However, as the
degree of damage increases, capillary pressure has a
dramatic effect on the gas productivity index.
In Tables 8 and 9, a complete water block to gas
flow occurred when the damaged zone permeability
was reduced to 0.1 % of the undamaged reservoir
permeability. For these six cases, the wells produced
about 4,000 bbl (636 m 3 ) of water and essentially
zero gas during the first year. The formation water
was mobile, and the damaged zone remained 100%
saturated with water.
After examining the results in Tables 6 through 9,
it is obvious that the combined effects of damage,
relative gas permeability reduction, and an increase
in capillary pressure in the damaged zone can cause
severe reduction in gas productivity.
It has long been known in the petroleum industry
that when water is pumped into a low-pressure,
water-sensitive reservoir, severe damage is likely to
occur. However, based on the results of this study,
the only explanations of a complete water block to
gas flow are: (1) when swelling clays, precipitates,
emulsions, etc., reduce the formation permeability
completely to zero, or (2) when the formation is
damaged, a capillary pressure discontinuity is created
which cannot be overcome by drawdown. It is my
opinion that the latter case is more realistic.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 5- RESERVOIR INPUT DATA

FOR TWOPHASE RUNS WITH DAMAGE

Data Held Constant

Net gas pay, ft (m)
Original pressure, psia (kPa)
Flowing bottom hole pressure, psi (kPa)
Total porosity, %
Water saturation (original), %

Formation permeability, md
Gas permeability (original), md
Well spacing, acres (m2)
Fracture length, ft (m)
Depth of damage, in. (mm)
Original water saturation, %
Data Which Were Varied
Damage ratio, %
Capillary pressure
Fracture conductivity, mdft (md m)

Conclusions

100(30.5)
2,325 (16 042)
1,000 (6900)
12
100 in fracture
and in first 6 in.
(152 mm)of
reservoir
0.28571
0.1
160 (647 499)
660(200)
6 (152)
60

10,100, and 1,000

See Fig. 14
100(3x 107 )
500 (1.5 x 108 )
4,000 (1.2 x 109)

TABLES

(Jdamaged IJ undamaged)

100

6 in. (152 mm) Damage

% Permeability Left
in Damage Zone

Single Phase

C,
(mdm)
3x107
1.5 x 108
1.2 X 109

(mdft)
100
500
4,000

100
100
100
100

10
99.1
98.8
98.7

0.1
56.4
48.3
45.0

91.9
89.6
88.1

This paper has presented results which were

generated and analyzed over a 2-year period. Several
hundred computer runs were made during this
project, and an extensive amount of rock property
data was reviewed to ensure that these data were
representative of tight gas reservoirs. The following
conclusions reflect the combined information which
was generated during the study.
1. The reservoir properties such as capillary
pressure, change of capillary pressure in damaged
zones, and relative permeability in low-permeability
gas reservoirs are extremely important. These
properties are primary factors in determining the
behavior of a fractured well during cleanup.
2. If the reservoir rock permeability is not
damaged by fracture fluid invasion, no serious water
block to gas flow will occur when the pressure
drawdown is much greater than the capillary pressure
in the formation or when the capillary pressure and
water mobility are large enough to rapidly imbibe the
fracture water into the formation.
3. If reservoir rock permeability is not damaged
by fracture fluid invasion, a complete water block to
gas flow cannot occur; however, gas production can
be severely curtailed if pressure drawdown does not
exceed the formation capillary pressure and the water
mobility is so low that the fracture water remains
immobile next to the fracture face.
4. If the reservoir rock permeability is damaged by
fracture fluid invasion and the capillary pressure in

200

1380

180

TABLE 7

160

(J damaged JJ undamaged) X 100

140

6 in. (152 mm) Damage

% Permeability Left
in Damage Zone

Capillary Pressure
Curve A in Fig. 14

120

C,
(mdm)
3x107
1.5x1OS
1.2x109

(mdft)
100

SOO
4,000

10
81.6
82.1
81.8

100
90.2
87.6
85.2

1
64.4
64.7
64.1

0.1
20.6
19.0
18.0

!.
100

690

80

60

TABLES
40

6 in. (152 mm) Damage

% Permeability Left
in Damage Zone

Capillary Pressure
Curve B in Fig. 14
(mdm)

3x107
1.5x108
1.2x109

20

C,
(mdft)
100
500
4,000

DECEMBER 1979

100
88.9
87.3
85.2

10
75.3
75.7
78.7

46.6
47.6
47.6

0.1
0.0002
0.006
0.006

50

60

~ (I)

70

80

90

100

Fig. 14 - Capillary pressure curves used for the two-phase

damaged reservoir investi(jations.
.

1523

TABLE 9

1, Jundamaged

(Jdar:nagedIJundamaged) X

100

6 in. (152 mm) Damage

% Permeability Left
in Damage Zone

Capillary Pressure
Curve C in Fig. 14

c,
(mdm)
3x10 7
1.5 X 108

(md-ft)
100

500
4,000

1.2x 109

100

88.9
87.3
85.2

10
70.1
70.7
70.6

1
33.0
33.5
33.5

0.1

o
o
o

the damaged zone is increased, the water pressure in

the damaged zone then acts as a water pressure sink
drawing water toward the damaged zone. Unless the
pressure drawdown is large enough to overcome the
capillary end effect of the damaged zone, the water is
trapped and a complete block of gas flow will occur.
Even when the pressure drawdown is large enough to
overcome the capillary end effect of the damaged
zone, severe reduction in gas production will occur
when the degree of damage or the level of capillary
pressure is increased.
5. If the reservoir rock permeability next to the
fracture is not damaged by fracture fluid invasion
and the pressure drawdown greatly exceeds the
capillary end effect, the cumulative gas produced is
independent of capillary pressure.
6. The cleanup process following a fracture
treatment cannot be related directly to fracture
conductivity. It can, however, be related directly to
the water mobility in the formation.
7. Laboratory investigations using fresh cores
from low-permeability, water-sensitive reservoirs
must be made to determine the accuracy of the Jfunction in damaged zones.

Nomenclature

= fracture conductivity, md-ft (md m)

C r = dimensionless fracture conductivity
(wkfhrkLf )
J damaged = productivity index of damaged,
fractured
well,
bbl/psi D
(m 3 /kPad)
J 0 = productivity index of undamaged,
unfractured well, bbl/psi D
(m 3 /kPad)
Cf

1524

= productivity index of undamaged,

fractured
well,
bbl/psi D
(m 3 /kPad)
k = permeability, md
krg = gas relative permeability
k rw = water relative permeability
L f = fracture half length, ft (m)
P = average reservoir pressure, psi (kPa)
Pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi (kPa)
PWf= flowing bottomhole pressure, psi
(kPa)
Pc = capillary pressure, psi (kPa)
r d = drainage radius, ft (m)
Sw = water saturation
w = fracture width, ft (m)
u= interfacial tension, dynes I cm
(mN/m)

4> = porosity

Acknowledgments
I thank the following companies for their support of
the research project at Texas A&M U.: Conoco Inc.,
Enserch Exploration Inc., Halliburton Services, and
Shell Development Co.
References
1. Holditch, S.A. and Morse, R.A.: "The Effects of Non-Darcy
Flow on the Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1976) 1169-1179.
2. van Poollen, H.K.: "Do Fracture Fluids Damage Productivity? ," Oil and Gas J. (May 1957).
3. Tannich, J.D.: "Liquid Removal from Hydraulically Fractured
Gas Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1975) 1309-1317.
4. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York City
(1960).
5. Baptist, Oren C. and White, Eliot J.: "Clay Content and
Capillary Behavior of Wyoming Reservoir Sands," Trans.,
AIME (1957) 210, 414-416.
6. Robinson, Bradley M.: "Laboratory Analysis of the Effects of
Damage on Permeability and Capillary Pressure and
Correlation of the Results With the J-Function," SPE student
paper presented at TexasA&M U., April 1976.

JPI

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July

20, 1978. Paper accepted for publication March 9, 1979. Revised manuscript
received Sept. 7, 1979. Paper (SPE 7561) first presented at the SPEAIME 53rd
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Houston, Oct. 13,
1978.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY