MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2491613601 · doi:10.2118/181819-ms

Analytical Model for Multi-Fractured Horizontal Wells in Tight Sand Reservoir with Threshold Pressure Gradient

2016· article· en· W2491613601 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Zeng, Xiangzeng Wang, Jianchun Guo, Fanhua Zeng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNational Science Fund for Distinguished Young ScholarsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeologyFlow (mathematics)Pressure gradientMechanicsFracture (geology)Geotechnical engineeringPressure dropVolumetric flow ratePetroleum engineeringPetrologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multi-stage fracturing is currently the most effective method to exploit tight sand reservoirs. Various analytical models have been proposed to fast and accurately investigate post-fracturing pressure- and rate-transient behaviors, and hence, estimate key parameters that affect well performance. However, these models mainly consider 2D flow, neglecting fluids flow from upper/lower reservoir when vertical fractures partially penetrate the reservoir. Although for linear flow model, Olarewaju et al. (1989) and Azari et al. (1990, 1991) have studied the effects of fracture height, they merely used a skin factor. Moreover, reservoir heterogeneity is seldom included. This paper presents an analytical model for multi-stage fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs) in tight sand reservoirs, accounting for upper/lower reservoir contributions, reservoir heterogeneity and threshold-pressure gradient (TPG). The model is extended from "five flow region" model and subdivides the reservoir into seven parts including two upper/lower flow regions, two outer flow regions, two inner flow regions and hydraulic fracture flow region. Reservoir heterogeneity along the horizontal wellbore is considered, thus, the fracture distribution can be various, and fracture pattern optimization strategies are documented. Fracture interference is simulated by locating a no-flow boundary between two adjacent fractures. The exact locations of no-flow boundaries are determined based on boundary's pressure which is a function of time and space. Thus, the no-flow boundary has minimum pressure difference between its two sides during the well production, making the no-flow assumption reasonable. The experimentally observed TPG and pressure drop within the horizontal wellbore are included. Modeling results are compared with those from well-testing software KAPPA Ecrin, obtaining a good match in most flow regimes. Specifically, the effects of upper/lower reservoir contributions and TPG are studied under constant-rate and constant-pressure conditions respectively. Log-log dimensionless pressure, pressure-derivative and production type curves are generated. Results suggest that fracture penetration ratio dominates the early-middle time pressure response. The start time of boundary-dominate flow are significantly influenced by penetration ratio. The larger the penetration ratio is, the earlier boundary-dominate flow regime will arrive. As for production response, with penetration ratio increases, the early dimensionless rate becomes larger, indicating higher flow rate, however, the late-time (tD>10) production becomes smaller, that is, the production declines quicker when penetration ratio is large. When TPG is considered, differences in both pressure and production response mainly appear in middle-late time. Greater TPG results in higher pressure drop and accelerates production decline. But this influence is marginal when TPG is small (TPG<0.4psi/ft). Effects of other relative parameters, such as formation permeability, heterogeneity, fracture length, conductivity, and wellbore storage are systematically investigated. Besides, field data are analyzed and compared graphically, using type curve matching, and reliable results are obtained. Low CPU demands and minimal data requirement of this model enable the operators to predict well testing results under different fracture patterns in a simple but effective way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207