Best Practices in DFIT Interpretation - Comparative Analysis of 83 DFITs in the Canadian Duvernay Shale Play
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In September 2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) through a new pressure and deliverability testing directive issued new guidance for minifrac tests, also known as diagnostic fracture injection tests, to align with the current practice for conducting these tests. This paper statistically summarizes results from 83 of these DFITs, submitted by many operators from the Canadian Duvernay shale play. The main parameters analyzed were closure, reservoir pressure and permeability. This newly updated directive sets out requirements for pressure and deliverability tests. In the development of tight or unconventional reservoirs, industry moved towards horizontal wells with multistage fracture treatments using a minifrac (also referred to as DFIT or diagnostic fracture injection test), which became the more common well test in determining closure, initial reservoir pressure and permeability. In this paper, a comparison of holistic vs compliance methods descriptions for closure pressure are provided. Complete governing equations for after closure analysis methods are described in detail to permit readers to replicate all results on reservoir pressure and permeability. For closure pressure, the compliance model is compared to the holistic model that is published or commercially available. Comparisons are also provided for After Closure Analysis (ACA) models including the Soliman and Nolte methods as far as reservoir pressure and permeability are concerned. 83 field case studies are presented for horizontal wells in an unconventional shale play. The most significant findings are 1) a compliance closure pressure signature is not apparent in the analyzed DFITs, 2) closure pressure estimates, and outcomes are similar for the compliance and holistic methods 3) reservoir pressure determination differentiation using either linear or radial flow 4) PVT impact on interpretation and 5) order of magnitude difference for permeability determination on After Closure Analysis methods. The findings have direct practical implications for operators in the Canadian Duvernay shale play and analogous shale plays in USA and elsewhere. Accurate permeability estimates are needed for calculating effective fracture length and for optimizing well spacing and fracture design. Accurate closure pressure is fundamental to hydraulic fracture design and other geomechanics applications. Accurate initial reservoir pressure is important because it could be used for input for Rate Transient Analysis (RTA) for resources / reserves assessments in similar unconventional plays. The novelty of the comparative analysis is in the ability to show in unconventional shale plays how closure pressure methods compared, and the implications of using different after closure analysis methods which could be of significant benefit to a practicing engineer or well testing interpreter
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 | 0,008 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 ».