Correcting Underestimation of Optimal Fracture Length by Modeling Proppant Conductivity Variations in Hydraulically Fractured Gas/Condensate Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Correcting Underestimation of Optimal Fracture Length by Modeling Proppant Conductivity Variations in Hydraulically Fractured Gas/Condensate Reservoirs A. H. Akram; A. H. Akram Schlumberger Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar A. Samad A. Samad Schlumberger Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 2006. Paper Number: SPE-100321-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/100321-MS Published: May 15 2006 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Akram, A. H., and A. Samad. "Correcting Underestimation of Optimal Fracture Length by Modeling Proppant Conductivity Variations in Hydraulically Fractured Gas/Condensate Reservoirs." Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/100321-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Unconventional Resources Conference / Gas Technology Symposium Search Advanced Search Abstract A study was carried out to forecast the productivity of a hydraulically fractured well in a retrograde gas-condensate sandstone reservoir using a numerical model. The fracture was explicitly modeled as a set of high-conductivity cells.At the gas velocities normally encountered in hydraulic fracture proppant packs, non-Darcy pressure drops dominate, and the apparent proppant permeability is one or two orders of magnitude lower than the Darcy permeability measured at single phase low-rate conditions. This is particularly true if a liquid phase is also flowing. The apparent permeability of the proppant is a function of: Gas velocity (hence: rate and flowing pressure)Ratio of free liquid rate to gas rateStress on the proppantType of proppantThus, apparent proppant permeability will vary with distance from the wellbore, increasing towards the tip of the fracture where liquid ratio and velocity are lower.This variation of permeability was explicitly modeled in the proppant pack by dividing it into segments and calculating the permeability in each segment. As a result of this modeling, the impact of increased fracture length on productivity was found to be more significant than in simpler modeling where one permeability value is used for the entire proppant pack.The variation of apparent proppant permeability along the length of the fracture and its impact on well productivity are discussed in this paper. A comparison of predicted well productivity is also made with the use of a constant permeability value for the proppant in numerical and analytic simulators. We will show that using a constant proppant permeability value results in an estimate of optimal fracture length that is too short. Keywords: hydraulic fracturing, Fluid Dynamics, variation, apparent proppant permeability, fracturing materials, fracturing fluid, fracture length, flow in porous media, Upstream Oil & Gas, permeability value Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Well & Reservoir Surveillance and Monitoring, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Formation Evaluation & Management, Unconventional and Complex Reservoirs, Fracturing materials (fluids, proppant), Production logging, Flow in porous media, Drillstem/well testing, Gas-condensate reservoirs Copyright 2006, 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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».