URTeC: 2903105

Evaluating Fracture Volume Loss during Flowback and its

Relationship to Choke Size: Fastback versus Slowback
Yingkun Fu*, Hassan Dehghanpour, University of Alberta; Siyavash Motealleh, Carlos
Manuel Lopez, BP America; Robert Hawkes, Trican Well Service Limited.

Copyright 2018, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2018-2903105

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25 July 2018.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper by anyone other than the author without the written consent of URTeC
is prohibited.

Abstract

The study estimates initial effective fracture pore-volume (Vfi) and fracture volume loss (dVef) for 20 wells
completed in the Montney and Eagle Ford Formations. Also, it evaluates the relationship between dVef and choke-
size strategy. We conduct this study through the following 3 key steps. First, we apply rate-decline analysis on water
flowback data from these Montney and Eagle Ford wells to estimate the ultimate water recovery volume,
approximated as Vfi; Second, we estimate dVef using a fracture compressibility relationship to evaluate the fracture
volume loss of Eagle Ford wells; Third, we investigate the effect of choke size on dVef for the Eagle Ford wells with
fastback and slowback strategies.

Semi-log plots of flowback water rate versus cumulative water volume for the Montney and Eagle Ford wells show
straight-line trends which represent harmonic decline. The estimated Vfi accounts for about 84% and 26% of the total
injected water volume in the Montney and Eagleford wells, respectively. The results show that about 10% of the
fracture volume can be lost during flowback. This loss in fracture volume mainly happens during early flowback
period and becomes minimal during late flowback period. Comparative analysis shows a relatively higher dVef for
fastback wells compared with that for slowback well, indicating that slowback may slow down the loss in fracture
volume. This paper proposes a method to estimate initial fracture volume and investigate the loss in fracture volume
during flowback processes. Field data analyses lead to an improved understanding of the factors controlling water
flowback and effective fracture volume.

Introduction

The analysis of flowback rate and pressure data is used to characterize fracture networks in unconventional
reservoirs. As such, several flowback models have been proposed and applied on early flowback data to estimate
effective fracture pore-volume (Vef) for shale and tight gas/oil wells (Abbasi et al. 2012, 2014; Xu et al. 2015, 2016,
2017; Ezulike et al. 2016; Fu et al. 2017). However, input parameters such as fracture compressibility are generally
unknown or hard to measure. This can lead to high uncertainty in estimates of output parameters like Vef.

Adefidipe et al. (2014) and Xu et al. (2016) proposed two-phase flowing material balance equations for estimating
Vef using early flowback data. They calculated Vef using the linear relationship between rate-normalized pseudo-
pressure and pseudo-time. However, since initial gas saturation in fractures and fracture compressibility are
unknown in their models, there is high uncertainty in the resulting output parameters.

Abbasi et al. (2012, 2014) and Abbasi (2013) developed a flowing material balance model (a linear relationship
between rate-normalized pressure and material balance time) to estimate fracture volume using early time single-
URTeC 2903105 2

phase water flowback data. Fu et al. (2017) applied this model to estimate Vef for tight oil and gas wells completed in
the Woodford.

Previous flowback studies on data from the Horn River Basin (Xu et al. 2015; Ezulike et al. 2016) and Woodford
wells (Fu et al. 2017) indicate that fracture closure is a key drive mechanism during flowback. This raises a key
question about fracture volume change: How much fracture volume is lost with time?

Recent studies have demonstrated that choke size can impact long-term well performance. Fastback (flowback
process with relatively large choke sizes) may damage fracture conductivity while slowback (flowback process with
relatively small choke sizes) may delay the economic breakeven point (Deen et al. 2015; Tompkins et al. 2016).
Another question is how choke-size strategy impacts loss in fracture volume during flowback.

Therefore, this paper intends to: (1) apply rate-decline analysis on water flowback rate to estimate initial effective
fracture pore-volume for 20 wells completed in the Montney and Eagle Ford Formations; (2) evaluate the loss in
fracture volume during flowback; and (3) investigate the relationship between loss in fracture volume and choke-
size strategy.

Methodology

This study is conducted using these 5 key steps: (1) Analyze the rates and pressure data measured during flowback
and post-flowback processes of target wells completed in the Montney and Eagle Ford Formations; (2) Quantify and
compare the drive mechanisms during early flowback using the method proposed by Ezulike et al. (2016); (3)
Estimate the initial effective fracture pore-volume (Vfi) through rate-decline analysis on water flowback data for
target wells; (4) Evaluate fracture volume loss (dVef) using a fracture compressibility relationship; and 5) investigate
the effect of choke size variations on dVef for wells with fastback and slowback strategies.

Quantification of the Drive Mechanisms

The key drive mechanisms during early flowback include fracture closure, gas expansion, and water expansion.
They are quantified in this study as compaction-drive index (CDI), hydrocarbon-drive index (HDI), and water-drive
index (WDI) respectively. For a gas well, CDI, HDI, and WDI are defined as follows

Cf
CDI = (1)
Ct

S g Cg
HDI = (2)
Ct

S wCw
WDI = (3)
Ct

where, Ct is the total compressibility, psi-1; Cg is the gas compressibility, psi-1; Cw is the water compressibility, psi-1;
Cf is the fracture compressibility, psi-1. In this study, we estimate Cf by applying Fu et al. (2017)’s method on
flowback data. Sg is the average gas saturation in effective fractures. We estimate Sg as follows:

S g = 1 − Sw (4)

According to Ezulike et al. (2014), the average water saturation in effective fractures (Sw) can be evaluated using:
URTeC 2903105 3

Wp
S=
w S wi − (5)
Vef

where, initial water saturation in fractures (Swi) can be treated as 1 for the case of single-phase flowback and Wp
represents the cumulative water volume, stb.

Evaluation of Fracture Volume Loss

Eq. 6 describes the relationship between the fracture compressibility and effective fracture pore-volume:

1 dVef
Cf = (6)
V fi dPf

where, Pf is the average fracture pressure in psi. Similar to a previous study (Xu and Dehghanpour 2017), we
approximate Pf as the flowing bottomhole pressure (Pwf). We use Eq. 7 to calculate the dVef:

dVef = V fi C f dPf (7)

The transient effective fracture pore-volume can then be estimated as follows

Vef =V fi − dVef =V fi − V fi C f dPf (8)

We define the fracture volume-loss ratio (Rf) due to fracture closure during flowback as follows

dVef
Rf = (9)
V fi

Case Studies

The case studies in this paper include 6 wells completed in the Montney Formation and 14 wells completed in the
Eagle Ford Formation. We briefly review the reservoir, well and completion data before presenting the flowback
rate and pressure data from representative wells in both field cases. We evaluate the flowback drive mechanisms and
estimate Vfi for these 20 wells. The flowback data of Pwf and choke size are not available for evaluating dVef for the
Montney wells. We thus only apply the method of evaluating dVef on Eagle Ford wells to evaluate fracture volume
loss and choke-size strategy.

Reservoir, Well, and Completion Information

Table 1 summarizes the reservoir, well, and completion data including reservoir and rock types, completion stages,
total injected water volume (TIV), and extended shut-in time for the target wells.

In Case-1, we analyzed 6 multi-fractured horizontal wells completed in Lower, Middle, and Upper zones of
Montney Formation. These are gas condensate, siltstone reservoirs (Quintero et al. 2018). After hydraulic fracturing,
the wells were quickly put on flowback without extended shut-in. The rates and pressure data were hourly recorded
during the flowback process.

In Case-2, we analyzed 14 multi-fractured horizontal wells completed in lower part of the Eagle Ford Shale
Formation. This is a dry gas, shale reservoir. Two of these wells had 2-3 days of shut-in before flowback while the
URTeC 2903105 4

other wells have 9 to 78 days of shut-in before flowback. During the flowback process, the rate and pressure data
were recorded hourly.

Table 1: Summary of basic reservoir and well-completion data for the 2 field cases
Information Case-1: Montney Case-2: Eagle Ford
Number of target wells 6 14
Fluid type Gas condensate Dry gas
Rock type Siltstone Shale
Extended shut-in days - 2-78
Number of completion stages 15-22 17-38
Total injected water volume, 104 stb 6.3 to 11.3 17.2 to 50.5

Flowback and Post-flowback Pressure and Rate Data Analysis

Here, we present flowback rate and pressure data from 2 representative multi-fractured horizontal wells completed
in the Montney and Eagle Ford Formations respectively. We also construct diagnostic plots to analyze their water-
rate decline trends during flowback.

Case-1: Montney well. Fig. 1a shows water rate (qw), gas-rate (qg), condensate-rate (qcond), and casing pressure (Pca)
for a target well. In Fig. 1a, we observe 3 regions: (1) Region-1 showing single-phase water flowback with a
significant decrease in pressure. Region-1 lasts for about 66 hours; (2) Region-2 showing two-phase gas and water
production, which lasts for 20 hours. The casing pressure increases with time in Region-2; (3) Region-3 showing
three-phase flow of water, gas, and condensate flowback, with a significant decrease in water rate once after the
condensate production.

Fig. 1b compares the semi-log plot of qw, qg, and qcond versus Wp during flowback periods. We observe that qw
generally remains constant during single-phase flowback. We can fit two straight-lines to the data of Regions 2 and
3. The straight-line in Region-3 is relatively steeper compared with that in Region-2.

Region-1 Region-2 Region-3

Straight-line in
Region-2

Straight-line in
Gas breakthrough Region-3
Gas breakthrough Water rate

Condensate rate

(a) (b)
Fig. 1: Plots of flowback rate and pressure data for a gas-condensate well completed in the Montney Formation: (a) Flowback data
generally shows 3 regions: Region-1 showing single-phase water production with significant pressure drop; Region-2 showing two-phase
gas and water flowback with increasing casing pressure; Region-3 shows three-phase flow of gas, water, and condensate; (b) Semi-log
plot of flow rates versus cumulative water shows straight-lines in Regions-2 and 3. The straight-line in Region-3 is much steeper than that
in Region-2.

Case-2: Eagle Ford well. Fig. 2a shows the qw, qg, and Pca for a shale gas well completed in the Eagle Ford
Formation. We observe three regions: (1) Region-1 showing single-phase water production, which lasts for several
hours; (2) Region-2 showing an increasing Pca and a relatively-sharp increase in qg; (3) Region 3 showing a
gradually-decreasing Pca and increasing qg.
URTeC 2903105 5

Fig. 2b shows a straight-line decline in the semi-log plot of qw versus Wp. We observe a relatively-good match
between qw measured during post-flowback period and the extrapolated straight-line fit to the flowback data of qw.

8000 16 10000
Region-1 Flowback Post-flowback
Casing pressure, psi; Water

Region-2 Gas Rate

Gas Rate, 103 Mscfd

6000 12 1000

Water Rate, stbd

Region-3
Rate, stbd;

Casing Pressure
4000 8 100

2000 Choke size is 24/64 4 10 Harmonic-decline in

water rate
Water Rate R2=0.94
0 0 1
0200 100300 400 0 20 40 60 80
Flowback Time, hours Cumulative Water Volume, 1000 stb
(a) (b)
Fig. 2: (a) Plot of rate and pressure data for a shale gas well completed in the Eagle Ford Formation: (a) Flowback data generally show
three regions: Region-1 showing several hours of single-phase water production; Region-2 showing an increasing casing pressure and a
relatively-sharp increase in gas rate; and Region-3 showing a gradually-decreasing casing pressure and an increasing gas rate. (b) The
semi-log plot of water rate versus cumulative water volume shows a straight-line during flowback. There is a good match between the
extrapolated straight-line and the measured water-rate during post-flowback period.

Quantification and Comparison of Drive Mechanisms

Montney well. Fig. 3a and 3b shows the log-log plot of rate-normalized pressure (RNP) versus material balance time
(tMB) during single-phase water flowback for a Montney well. We used Pca to calculate RNP by assuming that it
approximates Pwf during single-phase water flowback. We observe a unit-slope in the RNP plot which represents
pseudo-steady flow in fractures. The dominant drive mechanism for water flowback during this pseudo-steady flow
is fracture closure (Ezulike et al. 2016; Fu et al. 2017).

Casing pressure

Unit-slope

Fig. 3: Log-log plot of rate-normalized pressure of water versus material balance time for a Montney well shows a unit-slope during
single-phase flowback. The unit-slope shows that the fracture network behaves as a closed tank during single-phase flowback.

Eagle Ford well. Fig. 4 compares CDI, HDI, and WDI for an Eagle Ford well. CDI, HDI, and WDI are calculated
using Eq. 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Fig. 4 shows that fracture closure is the dominant drive mechanism during the
flowback of the target well. We also observe that the difference between CDI and HDI decreases with time during
flowback. One reason for this is that effect of gas expansion is expected to dominate over fracture closure when
there is sufficient gas influx from matrix into fractures (Ezulike et al. 2016).
URTeC 2903105 6

1.0
CDI: Compaction-drive index
0.8

Drive Index, fraction

0.6

0.4 HDI: Hydrocarbon-drive index

0.2
WDI: Water-drive index

0.0
100 0 200 300
Flowback Time, hours
Fig. 4: CDI, HDI and WDI profile for a target Eagle Ford well. It shows a higher compaction-drive index than hydrocarbon index and
water-drive index during flowback.

Estimation of Initial Effective Fracture Pore-volume

Figs. 5a and b show a straight-line trend in the semi-log plots of qw versus Wp for 6 Montney and 14 Eagle Ford
wells respectively. This straight-line trend represents harmonic decline (Arps 1945). Bai et al. (2013) reported
similar harmonic-decline trends in wells completed in the Wattenberg field. In this study, we estimate the ultimate
water recovery volume (Wulti) for these 20 wells by extrapolating the harmonic decline trend. We then approximate
Vfi to be Wulti by assuming that the production water is mainly recovered from effective fractures.

1000 10000

1000
100
Water Rate, stbd
Water Rate, stbd

Ultimate water recovery volume

Ultimate water recovery volume 100

10
10

1 1
50 0 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Cumulative Water Volume, 1000 stb Cumulative Water Volume, 1000 stb
(a) (b)
Fig. 5: Semi-log plots of water rate versus cumulative water volume show straight-line trends in (a) 6 Montney wells and (b) 14 Eagle
Ford wells. The ultimate water recovery volume is estimated by extrapolating the straight-line trend to the water rate at 1stbd.

Figs. 6a and b compare the estimated Vfi with TIV for 6 Montney wells and 14 Eagle Ford wells respectively. We
observe positive correlations between Vfi and TIV, indicating that injecting more water generally creates larger
effective fracture volumes. The slopes of the linear correlations in Fig. 6a and b suggest that on average 84% of TIV
contributes to the creation of effective fractures in Montney wells, and that about 26% of TIV is used to create
effective fracture pore-volume for Eagle Ford wells.
URTeC 2903105 7

12 16
y = 0.84x + 9330
R² = 0.84
Pore-volume, 104stb
12 y = 0.26x - 20100
Effective Fracture

Pore-volume, 104stb
Effective Fracture
8 R² = 0.85

4
4

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 0 20 40 60
Total Injected Water Volume, 104 stb Total Injected Water Volume, 104 stb
(a) (b)
Fig. 6: There are general positive correlations between the estimated effective fracture pore-volume and total injected water volume for
(a) 6 Montney wells and (b) 14 Eagle Ford wells.

Evaluation of Fracture Volume Loss

Fig. 7 shows the Vef profile during flowback for an Eagle Ford well. The choke size for this well generally remains
at 24/64. In Fig. 7, we observe that the estimated Vef decreases with time during flowback. About 10% of Vfi is lost
during the first 300 hours of flowback, and fracture volume generally remains constant during late flowback periods.
This indicates that the loss in fracture volume mainly happens during early flowback. The effect of fracture closure
is expected to reduce during late flowback when gas influx from matrix into fractures provides increasing pressure
support.

12.5 25
Choke size: 24/64
Effective Fracture Volume, 104 stb

12.0 Initial Fracture Volume: 1.19×105 stb 20

Choke size, 1/64

11.5 Fracture Volume Loss: 1.18×104 stb 15

11.0 10

10.5 5

10.0 0
0 100 200 300 400
Flowback Time, hours
Fig. 7: Effective fracture pore-volume profile for an Eagle Ford well shows that fracture volume decreases during early flowback, and
generally flattens during late flowback.

Investigation of Choke-size Strategy on Fracture Volume Loss

Fig. 8 compares Rf between 3 fastback wells and 2 slowback wells completed in the Eagle Ford Formation. Here, the
choke-size strategy for the 3 fastback wells is constant 24/64 (large size), and that of the 2 slowback wells is
constant 22/64 (small size). We compare Rf for only 5 Eagle Ford wells with constant choke size because the other 9
wells were flowed using variable choke sizes.

In Fig. 8, we observe a relatively higher Rf for fastback wells compared with that for slowback wells. About 8% and
5% of fracture volume is lost for fastback and slowback wells respectively after 200 hours of flowback. This
indicates that fastback strategy may cause more fracture-volume loss in wells compared with slowback strategy.

Fig. 8 shows that the fracture volume of fastback wells is mainly lost in the early 100 hours of flowback and reaches
to a plateau at late flowback periods after 300 hours. Similarly, Rf of slowback wells generally reaches to a plateau
after 200 hours of flowback. This plateau is expected to extend to long-term production periods when sufficient gas
influx from matrix into fractures should minimize fracture volume loss due to fracture closure. Therefore, enlarging
choke size during this plateau period might cause insignificant loss in fracture volume.
URTeC 2903105 8

12
3 Fastback Wells (Choke size at 24/64)

Fracture Volume Loss Ratio, %

Plateau
10

6 Plateau

2
2 Slowback Wells (Choke size at 22/64)
0
0 100 200 300 400
Flowback Time, hours
Fig. 8: Comparing fracture volume loss ratio with choke size shows a more fracture volume loss in fastback wells than that the slowback
wells.

Summary and Conclusions

We observed a harmonic decline trend during water flowback for the Montney and Eagle Ford wells. Comparative
analysis indicates that the harmonic-decline trend during flowback can be extended to post-flowback period. We
estimated the initial effective fracture pore-volume by extrapolating the harmonic decline trend for 20 Montney and
Eagle Ford wells. The results show a general positive correlation between the estimated initial effective fracture
pore-volume and the total injected water volume.

We investigated the effects of key drive mechanisms including fracture closure, gas expansion and water depletion
on flowback of the Montney and Eagle Ford wells. The results indicate that fracture closure is the dominant drive
mechanism compared to fluid expansion during early flowback period. However, the effect of gas expansion is
expected to dominate over fracture closure when there is sufficient gas influx from matrix into fractures.

We evaluated the change of effective fracture pore-volume during flowback for several Eagle Ford wells. The
results show that the effective fracture pore-volume decreases during early flowback period, and generally remains
constant during late flowback period. Comparative analysis shows a relatively higher fracture volume loss for
fastback wells compared with that for slowback well, indicating that slowback may lead to less loss in fracture
volume compared with fastback. However, due to the limited number of wells operated at constant choke sizes, the
relationship between fracture volume loss and choke-size strategy may need further validation in other plays where
more wells with suitable flowback data are available. Also, it is interesting to investigate how changing choke size
during flowback impacts the fracture volume loss in future studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to BP America, Trican Well Service, Nexen Energy ULC, Natural Sciences and
Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC), and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) for supporting this study.

Nomenclature

Symbols

C Compressibility, 𝐿𝑡 2 𝑀−1 , 𝑎𝑡𝑚−1 , [𝑃𝑎−1 , 𝑝𝑠𝑖 −1 ].

𝑃 Pressure of fluid, 𝑀𝐿−1 𝑡 −2, 𝑃𝑎, [𝑝𝑠𝑖].
q Rate, 𝐿3 𝑡 −1 , 𝑚3 ∙ 𝑠 −1 , [𝑅𝐵/𝐷].
R Ratio, dimensionless
URTeC 2903105 9

RNP Rate normalized pressure, 𝑀𝐿−4 𝑡 −1 , 𝑃𝑎 ∙ 𝑚−3 ∙ 𝑠1 , [𝑝𝑠𝑖/𝑅𝐵 ∙ 𝐷].

𝑡 Time, 𝑡, 𝑠, [ ℎ𝑟, 𝑑𝑎𝑦].
𝑉 Volume, 𝐿3 , 𝑚3 , [𝑓𝑡 3 ].
W Cumulative Production, 𝐿3 , 𝑚3 , [𝑓𝑡 3 ].

Subscripts

𝑐𝑠 Casing.
cond Condensate.
𝑒 Equivalent or effective.
𝑓 Fracture.
g Gas.
i Initial.
mb Material balance.
𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖 Ultimate.
𝑤 Water.
wf Bottom flowing.
t Total.

References

Abbasi, M., Dehghanpour, H., and Hawkes, R.V. 2012. Flowback Analysis for Fracture Characterization. Presented
at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October - 1 November.
SPE-162661-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/162661-MS.

Abbasi M. A. 2013. A comparative study of flowback rate and pressure transient behavior in multi-fractured
horizontal wells. Msc Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Abbasi, M. A., Ezulike, D. O., Dehghanpour, H. et al. 2014. A Comparative Study of Flowback Rate and Pressure
Transient Behavior in Multifractured Horizontal Wells Completed in Tight Gas and Oil Reservoirs. Journal of
Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 17, 82-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2013.12.007.

Arps, J.J. 1945. Analysis of Decline Curves. Trans., AIME 1945 160, 228-247.

Adefidipe, O. A., Dehghanpour, H. and Virues, C. J. 2014. Immediate Gas Production from Shale Gas Wells: A
Two-Phase Flowback Model. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, The Woodlands, Texas,
USA, 1-3 April. SPE-168982-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168982-MS.

Bing Bai, Stephen Goodwin, Ken Carlson. 2013. Modeling of frac flowback and produced water volume from
Wattenberg oil and gas field, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 108, 383-392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.05.003.

Deen, T., J. Daal, and J. Tucker. 2015. Maximizing Well Deliverability in the Eagle Ford Shale through Flowback
Operations. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 28-30
September. SPE174831. https://doi.org/10.2118/174831-MS.

Ezulike, D. O. and Dehghanpour, H. 2014. Modelling flowback as a transient two-phase depletion process, Journal
of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 19, 258-278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.05.004.

Ezulike, D. O. and Dehghanpour, H. 2015. A Complementary Approach for Uncertainty Reduction in Post-flowback
Production Data Analysis. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 27, 1074-1091.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.059.
URTeC 2903105 10

Ezulike, O., Dehghanpour, H., Virues, C. et al. 2016. Flowback Fracture Closure: A Key Factor for Estimating
Effective Pore Volume. SPE Res Eval & Eng 19 (4): 567–582. SPE-175143-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/175143-PA.

Fu, Y., Ezulike, D. O., Dehghanpour, H., & Steven Jones, R. 2017. Estimating Effective Fracture Pore Volume from
Flowback Data and Evaluating Its Relationship to Design Parameters of Multistage-Fracture Completion. SPE Prod
& Oper 32(4): 423-439. SPE-175892-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/175892-PA.

Quintero, H., Mattucci, M., Hawkes, R., Zhang, K., & O’Neil, B. 2018. Nano-Particle Surfactant in Hydraulic
Fracturing Fluids for Enhanced Post Frac Oil Recovery. Presented at the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources
Conference, 13-14 March, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE-189780-MS. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2118/189780-MS.

Tompkins, D., Sieker, R., Koseluk, D., & Cartaya, H. 2016. Managed Pressure Flowback in Unconventional
Reservoirs: A Permian Basin Case Study. Presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 1-3 August. URTEC-2461207-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2016-
2461207.

Xu, Y., Adefidipe, O. A. and Dehghanpour, H. 2015. Estimating Fracture Volume Using Flowback Data from the
Horn River Basin: A Material Balance Approach. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 25, 253-270.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.036.

Xu, Y., Adefidipe, O. A. and Dehghanpour, H. 2016. A flowing material balance equation for two-phase flowback
analysis. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 142, 170-185.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.018.

Yanmin Xu, Hassan Dehghanpour, Obinna Ezulike, Claudio Virues, 2017. Effectiveness and time variation of
induced fracture volume: Lessons from water flowback analysis, Fuel, 210, 844-858.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.027.