Formation Failure Analysis for Longitudinally Fractured Horizontal Wells Completed by Multistage Fracturing Sleeves
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract This study reviewed the formation failure analysis of horizontal wells completed with both cemented and uncemented multistage fracturing sleeves to evaluate the risk of sand production and formation failure in a sandstone and mudstone interbedded reservoir. Consequently, the effects of increased confining stresses caused by fracture creation and proppant placement inside a hydraulically created longitudinal fracture were investigated. In addition, a parametric study was performed for different types of fracturing sleeves to determine the optimum flow port designs for reducing the formation failure potential. A 3D elastoplastic finite element method (FEM) model was developed for horizontal wells completed using fracturing sleeves. Reservoir rock constitutive model was obtained through several triaxial compression tests performed on the reservoir cores. The FEM model considered various loading steps, including in-situ stress, overbalanced drilling, fracture creation, reservoir depletion, and drawdown during production. Moreover, the onset of formation failure was judged based on the critical plastic strain determined from the triaxial compression test data and compared for different fracture and sleeve designs. The formation failure potential of a horizontal borehole with various completion designs was evaluated through a case study. A significant reduction in potential of formation failure for cased hole completions was observed, and the maximum allowed reservoir pressure depletion before formation failure depended on the rock strength, direction of reservoir inflow, drawdown pressure, and other factors. Similar to the oriented perforation design, the flow port location significantly affected the stability of the formation in the vicinity of the sleeve. The flow ports located in the upward and downward directions delayed the onset of formation failure, while closely spaced flow ports covering the entire circumference of the wellbore substantially increased the formation failure potential. Further, excessive stress increases caused by fracturing and proppant placement resulted in large shear stress and resultant plastic strain development at the connection between the longitudinal fracture and borehole. Openhole completions where the fracture is misaligned with the wellbore have the same risk of formation failure at the flow port as that of the cemented sleeve completions. Moreover, there is an additional risk of formation failure of the uncemented wellbore. In the idealistic case, wherein the fracture is completely aligned with the wellbore, large plastic strains develop at the sidewalls of the horizontal openhole wellbore. The difference in the formation failure tendency between the cased hole and openhole completions may affect post-failure well productivity, depending on the type of debris after failure and its size relative to the sleeve port size. The results presented in this work demonstrate that the onset of formation failure is mainly determined by rock strength, reservoir pressure support, drawdown pressure, completion design and other factors. Cemented frac sleeve completion is necessary when the wellbore is widely exposed to weak, water-sensitive formations, which tend to fail during the early flowback period. Further, in openhole completions, the weak intervals must be mechanically isolated such that the failed rock debris in the annulus between the open hole and production liner does not plug the sleeve ports. In addition, the formation failure potential was elevated owing to the longitudinal fracture creation along the wellbore. The findings from this study provide critical inputs for optimizing lower-completion designs and achieving long-term solid-free production in fractured horizontal wells in moderately consolidated sandstone reservoirs.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».