Montney Fracturing-Fluid Considerations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The Montney gas reservoir has become a critically important component of current western Canadian gas supply and offers exciting future potential. However, this reservoir often presents variable and unique stimulation challenges. Unlike reservoirs that display little water sensitivity, such as the U.S. Barnett Shale and possibly the Muskwa in the N.E. B.C. Horn River Basin, recovery of water-based fluids in the Montney can be a key consideration in achieving economic production rates. The use of water-based fracturing fluids in low-permeability reservoirs can result in loss of effective frac half-length caused by phase trapping associated with the retention 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 increased water saturation in the pore system after the injection of water-based completion fluids can restrict the flow of produced gaseous hydrocarbons, such as methane. Capillary pressures of 10 to 20 MPa, or much higher, can be present in low-permeability formations at low water-saturation levels. Inability to generate sufficient capillary-drawdown force using the natural reservoir-drawdown pressure can result in extended fluid-recovery times or permanent loss of effective fracture half-length. Furthermore, use of water in subnormally saturated reservoirs, where much of the connate water has been removed by long-term evaporation effects associated with gas migration, might 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 Montney is found to be a dry-gas reservoir in some areas, transitioning to an oil reservoir in other areas. Because of this, it would not be surprising to encounter retrograde condensate production through the transition areas. In such a case, if sufficient drawdown pressure is applied to reduce reservoir pressure below the dew point, liquid hydrocarbons might condense from the produced gas phase, resulting in two-phase flow and potential trapping of the hydrocarbon liquid phase. Also, some areas of the upper Montney exhibit reservoir pressures in the 30-MPa range, whereas other areas exhibit lower pressures in the 17- to 21-MPa range. The same drawdown on a lower-pressured reservoir could therefore result in condensate condensing from the gas phase, where it would not have in the higher-pressured reservoir. If a third aqueous fracturing fluid is introduced, three-phase flow might occur. The resulting reduced relative permeability to gas might drastically reduce production rates. Also, emulsion-formation potential exists, which could present an additional reduction in fluid flow and recovery. Choice of fracturing fluid must be carefully determined for each area of the Montney, balancing economics with production. It is important to always keep in mind that key reservoir properties can vary dramatically in the Montney, both as a function of geographic location and depth. This paper presents lab test results of regained methane permeability versus drawdown pressure and contact time with Montney core under representative reservoir conditions. Water, foamed water, and hydrocarbon-based fracturing fluid systems are evaluated.
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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,005 | 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 ».