Permeability, Pore Pressure, and Leakoff-Type Distributions in Rocky Mountain Basins
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Permeability, Pore Pressure, and Leakoff-Type Distributions in Rocky Mountain Basins David P. Craig; David P. Craig Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Mike J. Eberhard; Mike J. Eberhard Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Chad E. Odegard; Chad E. Odegard Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Muthukumarappan Ramurthy; Muthukumarappan Ramurthy Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Rebekah Mullen Rebekah Mullen Colorado School of Mines Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2002. Paper Number: SPE-75717-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/75717-MS Published: April 30 2002 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Craig, David P., Eberhard, Mike J., Odegard, Chad E., Ramurthy, Muthukumarappan, and Rebekah Mullen. "Permeability, Pore Pressure, and Leakoff-Type Distributions in Rocky Mountain Basins." Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/75717-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Unconventional Resources Conference / Gas Technology Symposium Search Advanced Search AbstractThe permeability, pore pressure, and leakoff-type interpreted from more than 1,200 diagnostic fracture-injection/falloff tests were collected in a database and statistically evaluated for four Rocky Mountain basins. The statistical analysis includes the range of observed permeability and pore pressure and the fracture leakoff-type distribution.Specially designed "mini-frac" or diagnostic fracture-injection/falloff tests were routinely implemented throughout Rocky Mountain basins beginning in late 1998 for the sole purpose of estimating reservoir-engineering parameters. Using three recently developed analysis methodologies, more than 1,200 tests have been analyzed to determine permeability, pore pressure, and leakoff type.The analysis reveals that pressure-dependent leakoff, fracture-tip extension during shut-in, and fracture height-recession during shut-in are the most common leakoff types. Overall, pressure-dependent leakoff, which can be indicative of highly productive fractured reservoirs, is the most common leakoff type in all Rocky Mountain basins. The analysis also shows order-of-magnitude variation in gas permeability within all basins with observed gas permeability ranging from less than 0.001 md to greater than 0.10 md.IntroductionEstimating pore pressure and permeability in multilayered low-permeability gas reservoirs can be time consuming and, in a few cases, cost prohibitive. Because of the incremental costs and time required to implement a testing program, very few conventional well tests are completed in multilayered low-permeability gas reservoirs, even though optimizing completions requires knowledge of permeability and pore pressure.1As an alternative to conventional well testing, Craig and Brown2 suggested that conventional breakdown treatments in multilayered formations could be used to estimate permeability and pore pressure. Their procedure required isolating each reservoir, performing a small-volume injection, and recording the pressure decline during a shut-in period.2 In low-permeability reservoirs, a small-volume, low-rate injection will propagate a hydraulic fracture, and during the shut-in period, the pressure decline can be analyzed to estimate pore pressure and permeability. Craig and Brown2 advocated conventional leakoff analysis for estimating gas permeability, but before-closure pressure-transient analysis3 and after-closure analysis4 provide more realistic estimates of gas permeability.Craig, Eberhard, and Barree5 recently described the use of G-function derivative analysis and modified Mayerhofer permeability analysis for estimating pore pressure and permeability from the before-closure pressure decline following a fracture-injection test. The authors concluded that, when used in conjunction, the two techniques provide "reasonable" pore pressure and permeability estimates that are consistent with well performance based on reservoir simulation.5 Reservoir simulation in other multilayered low-permeability gas reservoirs also confirms that reasonable estimates of pore pressure and permeability are often obtained from before-closure analysis.6,7 Keywords: leakoff-type distribution, upstream oil & gas, reservoir, flow in porous media, fracture-injection falloff test, fracture closure, closure, gas permeability rad, gas permeability gdk, hydraulic fracturing Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Formation Evaluation & Management, Flow in porous media, Drillstem/well testing This content is only available via PDF. 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».