Total Phosphorus Recovery in Flowback Fluids After Gelled Hydrocarbon Fracturing Fluid Treatments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract A previous work(1) described refinery plugging caused by volatile phosphorus components originating from phosphate ester oil gellants. Also documented were two successful field trials of new phosphonate ester oil gellants shown to address this problem. Another paper(2) presented the results of additional field testing of phosphonate ester gellants directed at the optimization of cost and performance. A maximum of 0.5 ppm volatile phosphorus in crude specification has been proposed to address costly unplanned refinery shutdowns. This specification is based on what is considered achievable through a combination of new chemistry and typical field dilution. However, this specification is based on average concentrations of phosphorus added to the oil to gel it and assumes the oil is phosphorus free to begin with. In some flowback studies, total and resulting volatile phosphorus concentrations greatly in excess of that added have been observed. In addition, refinery plugging is more the result of total phosphorus throughput than peak concentrations at any one point. Therefore, an understanding of total phosphorus recovery in addition to peak concentrations is needed. The objectives of this paper are to study:Total percent recovery of phosphorus originally added as phosphorus based gellant;Total percent recovery of volatile phosphorus as a function of total phosphorus;Peak concentrations of total and volatile phosphorus;Phosphorus concentrations in new and reused fracturing fluids before the addition of gellants; and,Potential explanations for phosphorus concentrations significantly higher than those originally added, which include phosphorus removal resulting in a positive/negative initial mass balance and long-term phosphorus removal with respect to overall mass balance. Introduction Unconventional gas reservoirs, including tight gas, shale gas and coalbed methane, are becoming critically important components of current and future gas supply. These reservoirs often present unique stimulation challenges. The use of water-based fracturing fluids in low-permeability reservoirs may result in the loss of effective fracture half-length caused by phase trapping associated with the re-tention of the introduced water-based fluid into the formation. This problem is increased by the water-wet nature of most tight gas reservoirs (where no initial liquid hydrocarbon saturation is, or ever has been, present) because of the strong spreading coefficient of water in such a situation. The retention of this increased water saturation in the pore system can restrict the flow of produced gaseous hydrocarbons such as methane. Capillary pressures of 10 ? 20 MPa or higher per thousand can be present in low-permeability formations at low water-saturation levels. The inability to generate a sufficient capillary drawdown force using the natural reservoir drawdown pressure can result in extended fluid-recovery times or the permanent loss of effective fracture half-length. Furthermore, use of water in subnormally saturated reservoirs may also reduce permeability and associated gas flow through a permanent increase in water saturation of the reservoir. Secondary costs such as rig time for swabbing can add to the negative economic impact. The effects of fracturing fluid retention on gas flow in the fracture face can be as important a consideration as fracture conductivity when designing a treatment.
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 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 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) | 0,002 | 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 ».