Evaluation of stimulated reservoir volume in laboratory hydraulic fracturing with oil, water and liquid carbon dioxide under microscopy using the fluorescence method
- 74 Downloads
In shale gas industry, it is desired to develop new reservoir fracturing and enhanced gas recovery technologies to replace the conventional hydraulic fracturing (HF), in order to reduce water usage to guarantee the environmental sustainability and boost individual well production. As the goal of HF is to create high conductivity fracturing networks as flow paths for gas, it is necessary for HF to activate and connect existing natural fractures to generate large fractures network. The success or failure of HF often depends on the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) which is characterized by the quantity and the quality of the fractures network resulted. This study investigates the micro-fractures network resulted in laboratory HF experiments in 2-D thin polished section by using a fluorescent method supported by advanced computerized image analysis. To evaluate difference of resulted SRV due to the difference of fracturing fluid, using three cylindrical shale cores and three granite cubes having fractures induced by HF using three fluids having different viscosity; oil, water and liquid carbon dioxide (L-CO2). The observation and statistical analysis of fractures induced in HF by the three different fluid viscosities using the fluorescent method showed ability of L-CO2 injection to achieve effective stimulation. The results suggest that employing a low viscosity fluid in HF of shale reservoirs can achieve more productive network with better SRV. In addition, the observation seems to be consistent with the tendency observed in the previous researches.
KeywordsHydraulic fracturing Laboratory experiments Shale gas Granite Fluorescence microscopy SRV CO2 Viscosity Fracturing network
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Kushiro Coal Mine Co. Ltd. for providing the shale blocks that were used to prepare the cores for the hydraulic fracturing experiments in this study. The authors also acknowledge the kind support of Professor Hitoshi Mikada and Professor Yoshitaka Nara for their suggestions and comments that helped improving this study.
- Arthur J, Bohm B, Layne M (2008) Hydraulic fracturing considerations for natural gas wells of the Marcellus shale. In: Proceedings of the ground water protection council annual forum, Ohio, USA, pp 1–16Google Scholar
- Chen Y, Suzuki T, Kusuda H, Bennour Z, Tomita K, Nagaya Y, Inui S, Nara Y, Ishida T, Sekine K, Nagano Y, Chen Q, Nakayama Y (2013) Fracture observation of fractures extended by hydraulic fracturing in shale samples. In: Proceedings of the Mining and Material Processing Institute of Japan (MMIJ) Spring Meeting, Tokyo, Japan, pp 69–70Google Scholar
- Kear J, White J, Bunger AP, Jeffrey R, Hessami MA (2013) Three dimensional forms of closely-spaced hydraulic fractures, chapter 34. In: Bunger AP, McLennan JD, Jeffrey RG (eds) The international conference for effective and sustainable hydraulic fracturing, 20–22 May, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Liao S, Brunner F, Mattar L (2009) Impact of ignoring CO2 injection volumes on post-frac PTA. In: Canadian international petroleum conference, Petroleum Society of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Melzer LS (2012) Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR): factors involved in adding carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) to enhanced oil recovery. In: Proceedings of the annual CO2 flooding conference, Feb 2012 Midland, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
- NETL (2012) Carbon sequestration atlas of the United States and Canada, 4th edn. National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbonseq/refshelf/atlasIV/Atlas-IV-2012.pdf
- Nuttall BC (2010) Reassessment of CO2 sequestration capacity and enhanced gas recovery potential of middle and upper Devonian black shales in the Appalachian basin. MRCSP phase II topical report, Oct 2005–Oct 2010. Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington, KY, USAGoogle Scholar
- Nuttall BC, Drahovzal JA, Eble CF, Bustin RM (2006) CO2 Sequestration in gas shales of Kentucky. In: 5th annual conference on carbon capture and sequestration, Alexandria, Virginia, Poster No. 106Google Scholar
- Peng P, Ling K, He J, Liu Z (2015) Shale gas reservoir treatment by a CO2 based technology. In: Proceedings of 2nd Biennial CO2 for EOR as CCUS conference, Oct 4–6, Houston Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
- Sinal ML, Lancaster G (1987) Liquid CO2 fracturing: advantages and limitations. Can Pet Technol 26(5):26–30Google Scholar