首页> 外文会议>SPE International Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition >Hydraulic Fracture Height Growth: Pseudo-3D vs.Full 3D Modeling
【24h】

Hydraulic Fracture Height Growth: Pseudo-3D vs.Full 3D Modeling

机译:液压骨折高度增长:Pseudo-3d vs.full 3D建模

获取原文

摘要

Advances in fracture mapping and full 3D modeling have yielded new insights into hydraulic fracture geometry,but it is still impossible to predict height growth.Fracture mapping data collected from a large number of treatments in different basins yield a rule-of-thumb for expected fracture height over fracture length(aspect ratio),but in specific cases fracture design optimization requires a more accurate forecast for height growth.Calibrated models with full 3D fracture geometry will give the best results,but in many projects the available data to calibrate such a model is severely limited.Knowing this,the question this paper attempts to answer is: "Will using a full 3D model give more reliable predictions of fracture geometry(maybe height growth)compared with pseudo-3D models?".Using data from an instrumented field test and routine fracture treatments,the results of the different fracture models are tested.Even when detailed knowledge of stress and geomechanical properties are available,it is impossible to match observed fracture geometry using only conventional hydraulic fracture physics.So,even a full 3D model does not provide a true prediction of fracture geometry.Both pseudo3D and full 3D fracture models can match observed fracture geometry,but only by introducing additional parameters beyond conventional fracture propagation physics,such as formation lamination or fracture tip pore pressure.A full 3D model with default input parameters and conventional fracture physics yields a prediction of strong containment,even for modest stress difference between pay and overburden.This agrees in general with average observed geometry,but in specific cases,fracture height growth still occurs,showing that in these cases the model was inadequate and needs to be calibrated.Pseudo-3D models tend to overestimate height growth for default inputs,but that can also be modified to match the stronger containment often seen in practice.Therefore,no benefit is obtained from fully gridded simulation models in routine cases where critical inputs and calibration data are unavailable.
机译:骨折测绘和完整3D建模的进展使得新的洞察力进入液压骨折几何形状,但仍然无法预测高度生长。从不同盆地中的大量治疗中收集的分流映射数据产生预期骨折的拇指规则骨折长度(纵横比),但在特定情况下,骨折设计优化需要更准确的高度增长的预测。具有完整的3D骨折几何的alibrated模型将提供最佳结果,但在许多项目中可以校准此类模型的可用数据被严重有限。这篇文章,本文试图回答的问题是:“与伪3D模型相比,将使用完整的3D模型提供更可靠的裂缝几何形状(可能高度增长)的预测吗?”。使用来自仪表字段的数据试验和常规骨折处理,测试不同骨折模型的结果。即使对压力和地质力学的详细知识有用只需使用常规的液压骨折物理匹配观察到的骨折几何形状。所以即使是全3D模型也不提供裂缝几何形状的真正预测。伪透视和全3D断裂模型可以匹配观察到的骨折几何形状,但只能匹配引入额外的参数超出常规骨折传播物理学,如形成层压或断裂尖孔孔压力。具有默认输入参数的全3D模型和常规骨折物理学产生强大的遏制的预测,即使对于支付和覆盖层之间的适度应力差异也是如此。这一致通常,平均观察到的几何形状,但在特定情况下,骨折高度生长仍然出现,表明在这些情况下,模型不充分,需要校准.Pseudo-3D模型往往估计默认输入的高度增长,但也可以被修改以匹配经常在实践中看到的更强大的遏制。因此,没有从完全遗传资源中获得任何好处IDDED仿真模型在常规情况下,关键输入和校准数据不可用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号