A Review of Preliminary Out-Of-Sequence Pinpoint Fracturing Field Trials in North America
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Out-Of-Sequence (OOS) Fracturing can potentially maximize reservoir contact and fracture conductivity/connectivity by creating fracture complexity via reducing the stress anisotropy. It is initiated by fracturing two "book-end" frac stages (Outside Fracs), followed by a ‘middle" stage (Centre Frac) between them. The Center Frac is theorized to utilize the reduced stress anisotropy to activate pre-existing failure surfaces oriented at various azimuths and dip angles, thereby connecting bi-wing fractures to planes of weakness (natural fractures/fissures/faults/joints/cleats) and resulting in a complex fracture network that enhances connectivity and fracture area within the Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV). OOS Fracturing can mitigate possible issues in treatments aiming at creating fracture complexity, including zipper frac (fracture tip interference and blunting inhibiting fracture extension), modified zipper frac (risks of well bashing and fractures growing asymmetrically opposite of the induced stress from prior stage in the adjacent well), simultaneous frac (middle clusters experiencing larger stress interference inhibiting their growth), and high-rate fracturing (risk of cluster erosion reducing the limited entry effect and premature screenout due to inconsistent diversions inside fractures). Since its inception in early 2010s, OOS Fracturing has not gained considerable attention due to previously-existing operational limitations in fracturing out-of-sequence. It is reported to have been field tested in Western Siberia in 2014 with claimed well performance success. Operational limitations of the system employed in that trial is believed to have prevented its commercial development at that time. With the advent of Multicycle Sleeves and Shift-Frac-Close operation with a single Bottom-Hole Assembly to open and close sleeves, previous operational limitations of OOS Fracturing have been resolved. OOS Fracturing has since been trialed in three formations in Western Canada (2017/2018). This work analyzes the fracture treatment pressures and well performance of these trials. Five OOS Fracturing trials in these three formations reveal that normalized 15-month/18-month production from out-of-sequence-fractured wells outperform that of sequentially-fractured offsets, with similar formation properties and treatment designs. Instantaneous Shut-In Pressures (ISIP) of Centre Frac are generally higher than that of either Outside Fracs. Breakdown pressures for Centre Fracs exhibit a mixed trend, confirming that reducing stress anisotropy could lower the breakdown gradient (based on Kirsch Equation) if rock fabric permits. Well performance and treatment pressures appear to be more sensitive to Centre Frac proppant tonnage/fluid volumes and uneven sleeve spacing. This is the first attempt in analyzing the five OOS Fracturing trials, with encouraging well performance and operational execution in conventional reservoirs where it was deployed. Despite uneven sleeve spacing, depletion due to offset production, and less favorable geomechanical properties (high Poisson’s Ratio and low Young’s Modulus), field trials produced favorable results. True potential of non-sequential fracturing is potentially more promising in unconventional reservoirs with formation properties more conducive to complex fracture generation.
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 | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 ».