Characterizing Hydraulic Fractures in Shale Gas Reservoirs Using Transient Pressure Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling has been the technology that makes it possible to economically produce natural gas from unconventional shale gas reservoirs. Hydraulic fracturing operations, in particular, multistage fracturing treatments along horizontal wells in unconventional formations create complex fracture geometries or networks, which are difficult to characterize. The traditional analysis using a single vertical or horizontal fracture concept is no longer applicable. Knowledge of these created fracture properties, such as their spatial distribution, extension and fracture areas, is essential information to evaluate stimulation results. However, there are currently few effective approaches available for quantifying hydraulic fractures in unconventional reservoirs. This work presents an unconventional gas reservoir simulator and its application to quantify hydraulic fractures in shale gas reservoirs using transient pressure data. The numerical model incorporates most known physical processes for gas production from unconventional reservoris, including two-phase flow of liquid and gas, Klinkenberg effect, non-Darcy flow, and nonlinear adsorption. In addition, the model is able to handle various types and scales of fractures or heterogeneity using continuum, discrete or hybrid modeling approaches under different well production conditions of varying rate or pressure. Our modeling studies indicate that the most sensitive parameter of hydraulic fractures to early transient gas flow through extremely low permeability rock is actually the fracture-matrix contacting area, generated by fracturing stimulation. Based on this observation, it is possible to use transient pressure testing data to estimate the area of fractures generated from fracturing operations. We will conduct a series of modeling studies and present a methodology using typical transient pressure responses, simulated by the numerical model, to estimate fracture areas created or to quantity hydraulic fractures with traditional well testing technology. The type curves of pressure transients from this study can be used for quantify hydraulic fractures in field application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".