Prediction of Stimulated Reservoir Volume and Optimization of Fracturing in Tight Gas and Shale With a Fully Elasto-Plastic Coupled Geomechanical Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Hydraulic fracturing is essential for the economic development of tight gas reservoirs and shale-gas reservoirs. Current techniques are unable to predict the stimulated-reservoir-volume (SRV) dependence on fracturing-job and rock-mechanics parameters, which precludes any meaningful optimization. In the authors' previous work on the SRV-propagation prediction, the combined tensile/shear fracturing model applied to the fracturing of tight gas formations has shown the creation of a relatively narrow, focused SRV that resembled behavior dominated by a single fracture. In this work, the model has been significantly improved by the implementation of a rigorous full Newton elasto-plastic solution of the geomechanics of rock containing induced fractures. The results reveal interesting features of complex-fracture propagation in tight formations, which are in broad agreement with the shapes of SRVs obtained from microseismic imaging. The developed code is flexible enough to allow either tensile or shear fracturing or the occurrence of both to be examined on the basis of initial reservoir conditions. Different cases of 2D and 3D simulations will be presented that demonstrate some important features of the process. First, it is found that a wide SRV can result in cases in which initial reservoir conditions are close to the shear-fracturing point, such as in formations with microfractures, partially cemented natural fractures, and abnormally high initial pore pressure. Second, the SRV width is found to depend on the horizontal stress contrast, as expected. Third, wide SRV growth is associated with constant or increasing pumping pressure necessary for further failed-zone growth as a result of the loss of elastic coupling by off-planar failure propagation. Further, under high injection pressure, an efficient fracture elasto-plastic constitutive model developed can drive both maximal and minimal effective stresses to zero or tensile, and, therefore, the creation of tensile fracturing can be predicted simultaneously with shear fracturing. This will then provide a means of modeling proppant transport. The new model is a significant step toward the development of an integrated predictive tool for the optimization of shale-gas development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".