4.5 Article

Numerical investigating the effect of nonuniform proppant distribution and unpropped fractures on well performance in a tight reservoir

期刊

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 634-649

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.02.086

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51774056]
  2. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China [51625401]
  3. Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology [CSTC2017JCYJB0252]
  4. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT_17R112]
  5. Edanz Group China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Distribution of the propped and unpropped fracture is an important factor affecting well performance that is necessary to study. This paper presents new numerical proppant and rock fracture conductivity models. The models are based on the results of physical experiments conducted for this study and the models consider proppant deformation, embedding, and loading paths. The models were implemented in a 3D hydromechanical coupled numerical simulator to model well production. A 3D hydraulic fracturing simulator was used to generate an artificial fracture with nonuniform proppant distribution using reservoir and operational parameters from a tight oil reservoir in northwestern China. The fracture generated by the model was further used to investigate the influence of the nonuniform propped fracture on well performance. According to the study, proppant distribution can significantly affect well performance, a decreased aperture distribution from the well to the fracture front is preferred when using certain amounts of proppant. A parameter sensitivity study was carried out during which the influence of proppant deformation, proppant embedment, proppant permeability, proppant volume, reservoir damage, in-situ stress, and the loading path effect were investigated. Based on the results, suggestions were given to improve the well performance.

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