Semi-analytical Modeling of Multi-stage Fractured Horizontal Wells Coupled with Geomechanics: Considering Hydraulic Fracture Stress-sensitivity and Shale Anisotropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Production from multi-stage fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs) in shale reservoirs causes stress changes which further influence the conductivities of the hydraulic fractures. Moreover, many shale rocks are strongly anisotropic. The objective of this study is to develop a fast semi-analytical model for MFHWs with coupling geomechanics and fluid flow. The effects of stress-sensitive hydraulic fractures and shale anisotropy are considered. This study first uses an exponential correlation between principal stresses and pore pressure changes in anisotropic shale. Then the correlation is applied to match experimental data of fracture conductivities vs. effective stress. The fracture compressibility in the exponential equation is stress-dependent rather than constant. Next, this study discretizes each hydraulic fracture into several slab source segments. For each segment in each time step, pressure distribution is calculated with source/sink functions. Then both stress field and hydraulic fracture conductivities are updated according to the pressure distribution with the aforementioned correlations before starting next time step. Calculations of production rates with this model generate series of type curves for rate transient analysis of MFHWs with stress-sensitive hydraulic fractures. First of all, the production rate of a MFHW with stress-sensitive hydraulic fractures decreases faster than that with constant fracture conductivities at early-stage production. Secondly, the hydraulic fracture compressibility decreases with the increasing effective stress. Such change of the fracture conductivity is determined by the initial value and declining rates of fracture compressibility. Thirdly, shale anisotropy caused by kerogen leads to a larger increase of effective horizontal stresses when the reservoir pressure drops during production. Moreover, in terms of stress-sensitivity, fracture designs with improved conductivity are more resistant to the loss of fracture conductivity than large-volume designs for longer fracture length but lower conductivity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".