A Practical and Economical Fracturing Solution For Low Permeability Shallow Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Fluid cost saving is critical for fracturing operations in low permeability reservoirs where the production revenues are low but the job size is relatively large and the fluid cost is high. Cross-linked fluids (CLF) are usually the first option. However, they may cause significant damage to both propped fractures and formations, and are not the cheapest option. Polymer-free fluids, on the other hand, cause much less damage but they are expensive and fluid costs may impair the economic results of fracturing. Waterfrac would be a compromise solution for low permeability reservoirs since its fluids are cheap and fluid damage is low. The success of waterfrac with low slurry concentrations is, however, difficult to predict. This paper presents a new fluid system that was formulated to maximize the economic return of fracturing wells in low permeability shallow oil reservoirs. It is a solid-free, linear, synthetic polymer-based system with a very low formation damage characteristic. The new fluid system can meet a variety of fracturing requirements, including slurry concentrations of conventional field levels. Moreover, it is much cheaper than cross-linked guar gel (CLGG). The method for designing fluid components and the procedure for preparing the fluid to achieve minimum formation damage and minimize the cost are described. A comparison of the production performances from the same well or adjacent reference wells fractured with the new fluids and CLGG is made. The reservoir geology, fluid type, and operation data of fracturing, and well performances from more than 300 successful wells in three different low permeability shallow oil reservoirs (800 ∼ 1,500 m depth) are also presented in detail. Introduction Hydraulic fracturing is a necessary technique to develop low permeability reservoirs. Fracturing fluid takes a paramount role in fracturing treatments. In most cases, cross-linked fluids (CLF) can meet the treatment requirements. However, severe formation damage frequently occurred when cross-linked guar gel (CLGG) was used. The core flow tests by Devine et al.(1) showed that the permeability reduction by CLGG was 56% ∼ 71% for cores of 100 ∼ 200 mD, and 12% ∼ 35% for cores of less than 1 mD. The fluid damage to the tight sand was less severe than that of a permeable formation(1, 2). The experiment study by Almond(3) at 120 ° F with 20/40 mesh sand packs (simulating fractures) showed that the flow reduction by CLGG damage could be as high as 100%. Without doubt, damage of this order of magnitude will greatly decrease the productivity of fractured wells, whether the damage happens in formations or in propped fractures. Therefore, fluid impairment by CLGG could be a significant problem adversely influencing the success of fracturing operations. Fluid cost is another critical factor of fracturing, especially in low permeability and tight reservoirs where the job size is large and the fluid cost is high, but the well productivity is low and declines faster than that of fractured wells in conventional reservoirs. Fluid cost saving is a key factor to economically develop these reservoirs, in particular when they are marginal reservoirs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».