Optimizing Horizontal-Wellbore and Fracture Spacing With Interactive Reservoir and Fracturing Simulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 137416, ’Optimization of Horizontal Wellbore and Fracture Spacing Using an Interactive Combination of Reservoir and Fracturing Simulation,’ by R.S. Taylor, SPE, Halliburton; M.A. Glaser, SPE, J. Kim, SPE, and B. Wilson, Murphy Oil; G. Nikiforuk, V. Noble, and L. Rosenthal, WestMan Exploration; R. Aguilera, SPE, University of Calgary; O. Hoch, SPE, Hoch & Associates; K. Storozhenko, KJS & Associates; and M. Soliman, SPE, N. Riviere, T. Palidwar, SPE, and R. Romanson, SPE, Halliburton, prepared for the 2010 Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 19-21 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Horizontal drilling with multistage-fracturing technology has made shale-gas reserves available globally. More recently, these technologies have been applied to new and mature oil fields. Key for economic optimization of these assets is determining the fracture spacing to use along a horizontal wellbore. Of equal importance is the spacing to use for multilaterals and the wellbores themselves to achieve optimal drainage of the reservoir. In addition, design of the fracturing treatments must be optimized. A combination of reservoir and fracturing simulation was applied. The required input data are provided through a combination of advanced log and core analyses, diagnostic fracture-injection testing (DFIT), rate-transient analysis (RTA), and characterization of fracture geometry through microseismic monitoring. Fluid rheology is characterized with pressurized rheometers and flow loops. Introduction The goal of this study was to optimize spacing of fractures, multilaterals, and horizontal wellbores by use of a combination of reservoir and fracture simulation for both oil and gas reservoirs. The full-length paper provides detailed examples of an interactive combination of numeric reservoir simulation and hydraulic-fracture simulation. Given the heterogeneity of reservoirs as well as varying economic drivers for different operators, it is critical that specific studies be conducted for each operator, area, reservoir, and depth to make specific recommendations. Combined use of many reservoir-characterization tools can result in recommendations that provide a significant increase in the net present value (NPV) of the assets under several modeled changes. Although many complex methods were used, the quantifiable result was cumulative production vs. time as a function of fracture spacing used in the well design. These data can then be used in economic models to optimize fracture spacing, spacing between wellbores, and multilateral considerations. They can also be used to develop economic sensitivities for changes in well design by quantifying the economic benefit of the change. Operators may use this method to conduct sensitivity analyses on a range of future anticipated commodity prices and well-construction and operating costs to optimize the asset design for current conditions and future markets, or to evaluate the economics of potential new plays.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| 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 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».