Advertisement

Progress of the research on productivity prediction methods for stimulated reservoir volume (SRV)-fractured horizontal wells in unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs

  • Long RenEmail author
  • Yuliang Su
  • Shiyuan Zhan
  • Fankun Meng
Review Paper
  • 83 Downloads

Abstract

Further development of stimulated reservoir volume (SRV)-fracturing technologies for horizontal wells is necessary to address the current situation of decreasing energy production from conventional sources and continuous increases in the proportion of alternative energy sources (unconventional hydrocarbons). To this end, the theoretical productivity prediction methods used for SRV-fractured horizontal wells must be studied. In this article, based on a structural description of hydraulic fracture networks around horizontal wells, we summarize and evaluate various types of productivity prediction models built by researchers using analytical, semi-analytical, and numerical methods. We find that while these models are convenient and efficient, analytical models are overly ideal and differ considerably from actual fracture network patterns. We also find that semi-analytical models offer high computational accuracy but are applicable only to the prediction of single-well single-phase productivity. Furthermore, numerical models can address more complex fracture network patterns and can be used to calculate the multi-phase productivity of well patterns but involve a complex initial input process. On this basis, we summarize the problems and challenges associated with the existing productivity prediction models and specify five pertinent key techniques involved in building more accurate productivity prediction models: the techniques for describing complex fracture network structures; the technique for simulating multi-phase flows in reservoirs; the multi-scale multi-field flow coupling theory; the technique for calculating numerical solutions for complex models; and the technique for matching well type, well pattern, and fracture network systems.

Keywords

Unconventional hydrocarbons SRV fracturing Horizontal well Productivity prediction Theoretical method 

Notes

Funding information

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No. 51704235, 51874242), Young Talent fund of University Association for Science and Technology in Shaanxi, China (No. 20180417).

References

  1. Acuña JA (2018) Straightforward representative fluid flow models for complex fracture networks in unconventional reservoirs. In: SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose RJ, Clarkson CR, Youngblood JE, Adams R, Nguyen PD, Nobakht M, Biseda B (2011) Life-cycle decline curve estimation for tight/shale reservoirs. In: SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazan LW, Larkin SD, Lattibeaudiere MG, Palisch TT (2010) Improving production in the eagle ford shale with fracture modeling, increased conductivity and optimized stage and cluster spacing along the horizontal wellbore. In: Tight Gas Completions Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  4. Behmanesh H, Hamdi H, Clarkson CR, Thompson JM, Anderson DM, Chin A (2018) Transient linear flow analysis of multi-fractured horizontal wells considering three-phase flow and pressure-dependent rock properties. In: SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown M, Ozkan E, Raghavan R, Kazemi H (2009) Practical solutions for pressure transient responses of fractured horizontal wells in unconventional reservoirs. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao P, Liu J, Leong YK (2016) A fully coupled multiscale shale deformation-gas transport model for the evaluation of shale gas extraction. Fuel 178:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cipolla CL, Lolon E, Mayerhofer MJ (2009) Reservoir modeling and production evaluation in shale-gas reservoirs. In: International Petroleum Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  8. Cipolla CL, Lolon EP, Erdle JC, Rubin B (2010) Reservoir modeling in shale-gas reservoirs. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 13(4):638–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cipolla C, Motiee M, Kechemir A (2018) Integrating microseismic, geomechanics, hydraulic fracture modeling, and reservoir simulation to characterize parent well depletion and infill well performance in the bakken. In: SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. Unconventional Resources Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarkson CR (2013) Production data analysis of unconventional gas wells: review of theory and best practices. Int J Coal Geol 109(2):101–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cui GD, Wang Y, Rui ZH, Chen B, Ren SR, Zhang L (2018a) Assessing the combined influence of fluid-rock interactions on reservoir properties and injectivity during CO2 storage in saline aquifers. Energy 155:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cui GD, Ren SR, Rui ZH, Ezekiel J, Zhang L, Wang HS (2018b) The influence of complicated fluid-rock interactions on the geothermal exploitation in the CO2 plume geothermal system. Appl Energy 27:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du C, Zhang X, Zhan L, Gu HR, Hay B, Tushingham K, Ma YZ (2010) Modeling hydraulic fracturing induced fracture networks in shale gas reservoirs as a dual porosity system. In: International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher MK, Wright CA, Davidson B M, Goodwin AK, Fielder EO, Buckler WS, Steinsberger NP (2002) Integrating fracture mapping technologies to optimize stimulations in the Barnett Shale. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  15. Fung SK, Hiebert AD, Nghiem LX (1992) Reservoir simulation with a control-volume finite-element method. SPE Prod Eng 7(3):349–357Google Scholar
  16. Guo TK, Zhang SC, Ge HK, Wang XQ, Lei X, Xiao B (2015) A new method for evaluation of fracture network formation capacity of rock. Fuel 140:778–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guo TK, Rui ZH, Qu ZQ, Qi N (2018) Experimental study of directional propagation of hydraulic fracture guided by multi-radial slim holes. J Pet Sci Eng 166:592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang JI, Kim K (1993) Fracture process zone development during hydraulic fracturing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 30(7):1295–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iwere FO, Heim RN, Cherian BV (2012) Numerical simulation of enhanced oil recovery in the middle Bakken and upper three forks tight oil reservoirs of the Williston basin. In: SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  20. Jia CZ, Zheng M, Zhang YF (2012) Unconventional hydrocarbon resources in China and the prospect of exploration and development. Pet Explor Dev 39(2):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li J, Du M, Zhang X (2011) Critical evaluations of shale gas reservoir simulation approaches: single porosity and dual porosity modeling. In: SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  22. Lolon E, Cipolla C, Weijers L, Hesketh RE, Grigg MW (2009) Evaluating horizontal well placement and hydraulic fracture spacing/conductivity in the Bakken formation, North Dakota. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayerhofer MJ, Lolon EP, Youngblood JE, Heinze JR (2006) Integration of microseismic fracture mapping results with numerical fracture network production modeling in the Barnett shale. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayerhofer MJ, Lolon E, Warpinski NR, Cipolla CL, Walser DW, Rightmire CM (2010) What is stimulated reservoir volume? SPE Prod Oper 25(1):89–98Google Scholar
  25. Medeiros F, Ozkan E, Kazemi H (2008) Productivity and drainage area of fractured horizontal wells in tight gas reservoirs. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 11(5):902–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer BR, Bazan LW. (2011) A discrete fracture network model for hydraulically induced fractures: theory, parametric and case studies. In: SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer BR, Bazan LW, Jacot RH, Lattibeaudiere MG (2010) Optimization of multiple transverse hydraulic fractures in horizontal wellbores. In: SPE Unconventional Gas Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  28. Ozkan E, Brown ML, Raghavan RS, Kazemi H (2009) Comparison of fractured horizontal-well performance in conventional and unconventional reservoirs. In: SPE Western Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  29. Praditia T, Helmig R, Hajibeygi H (2018) Multiscale formulation for coupled flow-heat equations arising from single-phase flow in fractured geothermal reservoirs. Comput Geosci 22(5):1305–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ren L, Su YL, Lu MJ, Zhang YH, Cui J (2013) Optimization of reasonable fracture parameters of segmented and multi-cluster fractured horizontal wells in ultra-low permeability reservoir. J Xi'an Shiyou Univ 27:49–63 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. Ren L, Su YL, Hao YM, Zhang Q, Meng FK, Sheng GL (2015) Dynamic analysis of SRV-fractured horizontal wells in tight oil reservoirs based on stimulated patterns. Acta Pet Sin 36(10):1272–1279 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. Ren L, Su YL, Zhan SY, Hao YM, Meng FK, Sheng GL (2016) Modeling and simulation of complex fracture network propagation with SRV fracturing in unconventional shale reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 28:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ren L, Wang W, Su Y, Chen M, Jing C, Zhang N, He Y, Sun J (2018) Multiporosity and multiscale flow characteristics of a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV)-fractured horizontal well in a tight oil reservoir. Energies 11(10):2724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rui ZH, Cui KH, Wang XQ, Lu J, Chen G, Ling KG, Patil S (2018a) A quantitative framework for evaluating unconventional well development. J Pet Sci Eng 166:900–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rui ZH, Guo TK, Feng Q, Qu ZQ, Qi N, Gong FC (2018b) Influence of gravel on the propagation pattern of hydraulic fracture in the Glutenite reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 165:627–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rui ZH, Cui KH, Wang XQ, Chun JH, Li YW, Zhang ZE, Lu J, Chen G, Zhou XY, Patil S (2018c) A comprehensive investigation on performance of oil and gas development in Nigeria: technical and non-technical analyses. Energy 158:666–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salinas P, Pavlidis D, Xie Z, Pain CC, Jackson MD (2017) A double control volume finite element method with dynamic unstructured mesh optimization. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  38. Schepers KC, Gonzalez RJ, Koperna GJ, Oudinot AY (2009) Reservoir modeling in support of shale gas exploration. In: Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  39. Sennhauser ES, Wang SY, Liu XP (2011) A practical numerical model to optimize the productivity of multistage fractured horizontal wells in the cardium tight oil resource. In: Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  40. Shahamat MS, Clarkson CR (2017) Multi-well, multi-phase flowing material balance. In: SPE Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  41. Stalgorova E, Mattar L (2012) Analytical model for history matching and forecasting production in multifrac composite systems. In: SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  42. Stalgorova E, Mattar L (2013) Analytical model for unconventional multifractured composite systems. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 3(16):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Su YL, Wang WD, Sheng GL (2014) Compound flow model of volume fractured horizontal well. Acta Pet Sin 35(3):504–510 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  44. Su YL, Ren L, Meng FK, Xu C, Wang WD (2015) Theoretical analysis of the mechanism of fracture network propagation with stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) fracturing in tight oil reservoirs. PLoS One 10(5):e0125319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Su YL, Sheng GL, Wang WD, Zhan SY, Zhang Q, Lu MJ, Li YJ (2018) Characterization methods for mass transfer of multiple media in shale gas reservoirs. Sci Sin Technol 48(5):510–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sun H, Chawathe A, Hoteit H, Shi XD, Li L (2014) Understanding shale gas production mechanisms through reservoir simulation. In: SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas D, Alfred L, William D, Clifford K. (2013) Evaluating the effect of natural fractures on production from hydraulically fractured wells using discrete fracture network models. In: Unconventional Resources Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang WD, Su YL, Zhang X, Sheng GL, Ren L (2015) Analysis of the complex fracture flow in multiple fractured horizontal wells with the fractal tree-like network models. Fractals 23(2):1550014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang K, Liu H, Luo J, Chen Z (2016) A multi-continuum multi-phase parallel simulator for large-scale conventional and unconventional reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 33:483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang WD, Su YL, Yuan B, Wang K, Cao XP (2018a) Numerical simulation of fluid flow through fractal-based discrete fractured network. Energies 11(2):286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang WD, Su YL, Zhang Q, Xiang G, Cui SM (2018b) Performance-based fractal fracture model for complex fracture network simulation. Pet Sci 15:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warren JE, Root PJ (1963) The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE J 3(3):245–455Google Scholar
  53. Weng DW, Lei Q, Xu Y, Li Y, Li DQ, Wang WX (2011) Network fracturing techniques and its application in the field. Acta Pet Sin 32(2):281–284 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  54. Williams MJ, Khadhraoui B, Bradford I (2001) Quantitative interpretation of major planes from micro-seismic event locations with application in production prediction. In: SEG Annual Meeting. Society of Exploration GeophysicistsGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu Q, Xu Y, Wang XQ, Wang TF, Zhang SL (2012a) Volume fracturing technology of unconventional reservoirs: connotation, optimization design and implementation. Pet Explor Dev 39(3):352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu YS, Wang C, Li JF, Fakcharoenphol P (2012b) Transient gas flow in unconventional gas reservoir. In: SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu Q, Xu Y, Zhang SL, Wang TF, Guan BS, Wu GT, Wang XQ (2014) The core theories and key optimization designs of volume stimulation technology for unconventional reservoirs. Acta Pet Sin 35(4):706–714 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  58. Xu WY, Le Calvez J, Thiercelin MJ (2009a) Characterization of hydraulically-induced fracture network using treatment and microseismic data in a tight-gas sand formation: a geomechanical approach. In: SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  59. Xu WY, Thiercelin MJ, Walton IC (2009b) Characterization of hydraulically-induced shale fracture network using ananalytical/semi-analytical model. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  60. Xu WY, Thiercelin MJ, Ganguly U, Weng XW, Gu HR, Onda H, Sun JC, Le Calvez J (2010a) Wiremesh: a novel shale fracturing simulator. In: International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  61. Xu WY, Thiercelin MJ, Le Calvez J, Zhao RH, Ganguly U, Weng XW, Gu HR, Stokes J, Moros H (2010b) Fracture network development and proppant placement during slickwater fracturing treatment of Barnett shale laterals. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  62. Xu WY, Li J, Du M (2011) Quick estimate of initial production from stimulated reservoirs with complex hydraulic fracture network. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  63. Yao J, Yin XX, Fan DY, Sun Z (2011) Trilinear flow well test model of fractured horizontal well in low permeability reservoir. Well Test 20(5):1–5 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  64. Yao SS, Zeng FH, Liu H (2012) A semi-analytical model for multi-stage fractured horizontal wells. In: SPE Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  65. Yao SS, Liu H, Zeng FH (2013) A semi-analytical model for hydraulically fractured wells with stress-sensitive conductivities. In: SPE Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  66. Yao J, Sun H, Li AF, Yang YF, Huang ZQ, Wang YY, Zhang L, Kou JL, Xie HJ, Zhao JL, Yan X, Zhang QF, Ren XX, Han WC, Liu PY, Zhu GP, Song WH, Sui HG, An SY, Wang Z, Liu WZ, Zhang X, Li Z (2018) Modern system of multiphase flow in porous media and its development trend. Chin Sci Bull 63:425–451 (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang X, Du C, Deimbacher F, Crick M, Harikesavanallur A (2009) Sensitivity studies of horizontal wells with hydraulic fractures in shale gas reservoirs. In: International Petroleum Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhou WT, Banerjee R, Poe BD, Spath J, Thambynayagam M (2012) Semi-analytical production simulation of complex hydraulic fracture networks. In: SPE International Production and Operations Conference & Exhibition. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Petroleum EngineeringXi’an Shiyou UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Advanced Stimulation Technology for Oil & Gas ReservoirsXi’anChina
  3. 3.School of Petroleum EngineeringChina University of Petroleum (East China)QingdaoChina
  4. 4.PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & DevelopmentBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations