Investigating Near-Wellbore Diversion Methods for Refracturing Horizontal Wells
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Near-wellbore diversion of fracturing fluid and proppant is a common approach to achieving improved treatment efficiency when refracturing horizontal wells for expanding treatment coverage within the lateral. There are five broad categories of near-wellbore diversion methods: particulate diversion for bridging open fractures connected to the wellbore; perforation sealing to limit injectivity into open perforation clusters at the wellbore; filling up the drained fracture system with water for achieving more uniform pressurization (i.e., fill-up); injection rate cycling/hesitation fracturing; and mechanical isolation by installing cemented or expandable liners in the lateral followed by plug-and-perforated stimulation. These tactics can be used standalone or combined. Particulate diverting agents can be additionally categorized by particle type (e.g., granular, fibrous) and solubility characteristics. Perforation sealing agents consist of deformable and rigid/spherical subtypes, both of which can be further categorized by solubility characteristics. In this study, treatment and production data for 72 ConocoPhillips refractured wells in a North America shale play were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the various near-wellbore diversion methods and materials. An index was formulated using information on reservoir depletion to normalize changes in bottomhole fracture pressure over time. This was determined by periodically discontinuing injection to obtain instantaneous shut-in pressures (ISIPs) over the course of the treatment. The calculated indices were plotted for each type of diverting system to compare trends for gaining insight on in-situ stress buildup. Production data grouped by different diversion methods were also analyzed. The near-wellbore diversion methods included mixed-size particulates with and without fibrous materials, deformable and rigid perforation sealers, fill-up tactics in which near-wellbore diverting agents were not used, and mechanical isolation by cementing a newly installed liner in the lateral followed by plug-and-perforated stimulation. Fracture hit analysis of offset well treatments indicated that refracturing treatments using particulate diverters were heel biased with respect to reservoir repressurization. The study showed that the incremental pressure as a result of diverter landing on perforations is a poor indication of diverter efficiency. A non-normalized ISIP trend is misleading as an indicator for post-refracturing well performance. Refractured wells with either particulate diverters or perforation sealers both show initial fluid fill-up into the depleted region before the stress buildup plateaus. Wells that have liners installed and cemented inside the original wellbore and that are then restimulated with standard plug-and-perforated techniques show superior performance compared with all diversion methods used in bullhead refracturing treatments. Choice of diversion can have a significant impact on results, but not all particulate diverters or perforation sealers behave similarly. Wells refractured using only the fill-up method have long-term productivity on par with or better than wells refractured with most types of diverting agents.
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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».