MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164031946 · doi:10.2118/204191-ms

Pressure Depletion Mapping Using Multi-Well DFITs and its Applications in Hydraulic Fracture Characterization and Permeability Estimation: Examples from Montney Formation

2021· article· en· W3164031946 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Behjat Haghshenas, Farhad Qanbari

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Petroleum engineeringFracture (geology)DrillingHydraulic conductivityGeotechnical engineeringHydraulic fracturingTransient analysisReservoir modelingPressure measurementPore water pressurePetrologySoil scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recovery factor for multi-fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs) at development spacing in tight reservoirs is closely related to the effective horizontal and vertical extents of the hydraulic fractures. Direct measurement of pressure depletion away from the existing producers can be used to estimate the extent of the hydraulic fractures. Monitoring wells equipped with downhole gauges, DFITs from multiple new wells close to an existing (parent) well, and calculation of formation pressure from drilling data are among the methods used for pressure depletion mapping. This study focuses on acquisition of pressure depletion data using multi-well diagnostic fracture injection tests (DFITs), analysis of the results using reservoir simulation, and integration of the results with production data analysis of the parent well using rate-transient analysis (RTA) and reservoir simulation. In this method, DFITs are run on all the new wells close to an existing (parent) well and the data is analyzed to estimate reservoir pressure at each DFIT location. A combination of the DFIT results provides a map of pressure depletion around the existing well, while production data analysis of the parent well provides fracture conductivity and surface area and formation permeability. Furthermore, reservoir simulation is tuned such that it can also match the pressure depletion map by adjusting the system permeability and fracture geometry of the parent well. The workflow of this study was applied to two field case from Montney formation in Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. In Field Case 1, DFIT results from nine new wells were used to map the pressure depletion away from the toe fracture of a parent well (four wells toeing toward the parent well and five wells in the same direction as the parent). RTA and reservoir simulation are used to analyze the production data of the parent well qualitatively and quantitatively. The reservoir model is then used to match the pressure depletion map and the production data of the parent well and the outputs of the model includes hydraulic fracture half-lengths on both sides of the parent well, formation permeability, fracture surface area and fracture conductivity. In Field Case 2, the production data from an existing well and DFIT result from a new well toeing toward the existing wells were incorporated into a reservoir simulation model. The model outputs include system permeability and fracture surface area. It is recommended to try the method for more cases in a specific reservoir area to get a statistical understanding of the system permeability and fracture geometry for different completion designs. This study provides a practical and cost-effective approach for pressure depletion mapping using multi-well DFITs and the analysis of the resulting data using reservoir simulation and RTA. The study also encourages the practitioners to take every opportunity to run DFITs and gather pressure data from as many well as possible with focus on child wells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207