4.5 Article

Stress shadow size and aperture of hydraulic fractures in unconventional shales

期刊

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
卷 124, 期 -, 页码 209-221

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.034

关键词

hydraulic fracturing; stress shadow; aperture; numerical analysis; unconventional shale

资金

  1. Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)
  2. Oklahoma Transportation Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multistage hydraulic fracturing completions together with simultaneous fracturing of parallel laterals are central to enhance productivity of horizontal wells completed in shale reservoirs with extremely low permeability. An efficient fracture network in the reservoir with the least number of deviated or collapsed fractures prevents poor connectivity with the surrounding reservoir volume, reduction in reserve estimates per well, loss in well productivity, reduced drainage areas, and higher completion costs associated with the ineffective fractures. Ignoring the local stress redistribution due to the stress shadow effect may cause fracture deviation or collapse. In this work, a comprehensive numerical study of stress shadow and aperture of three-dimensional hydraulic fractures is presented. Four different scenarios consisting of single or simultaneous hydraulic fractures, contained or not contained, are studied. Key influencing parameters are introduced, different shadow mechanisms are discussed, and a comprehensive set of equations is proposed for stress shadow and aperture prediction of hydraulic fractures. The work presented herein is likely to offer several practical benefits: firstly, it enables improved planning and placement of productive hydraulic fracture treatments; secondly, it offers the potential for considerable cost reductions in completion design and implementation; and thirdly, it allows for an optimal multistage hydraulic fracture treatment that drains larger volumes of the reservoir. (c) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据