Advertisement

Analysis of hydraulic fracturing techniques: hybrid fuzzy approaches

  • Afshin DavarpanahEmail author
  • Reza Shirmohammadi
  • Behnam Mirshekari
  • Alireza Aslani
Original Paper

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing technologies revolutionize the way petroleum industries drill the conventional and unconventional formations by the purpose for oil recovery enhancement. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are always considered as the preferable techniques in organizational and industrial operational performances that some of them are being widely administered for numerous purposes. The objective of this comprehensive study is to conduct an investigation about the considerable influence of five important criteria on the hydraulic fracturing techniques and select the best technology regarding enhancing oil recovery factor. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS) analyses are applied to compare each criterion. Consequently, among the five fundamental criteria for selecting and operating hydraulic fracturing, in situ stress-strain with the score weight of 0.421 is the most important selectivity criteria. Furthermore, after analyzing the results derived from FAHP and FTOPSIS methods, hydra-jet fracturing and zipper fracturing techniques with the normalized weights of 0.186 and 0.194, and relative closeness coefficients of 0.69 with a 0.66 are considered respectively as the best and optimum techniques of hydraulic fracturing. Last but not least, the cavitation hydro-vibration fracturing and explosive fracturing are the least preferable methods among hydraulic fracturing techniques.

Keywords

Hydraulic fracturing FAHP FTOPSIS Enhanced oil recovery MCDM 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12517_2019_4567_MOESM1_ESM.docx (167 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 137 kb)

References

  1. Al-Nakhli AR, Abass HH, Al-Ajwad HA, Kwak HT, Al-Harith AM, & Al-Otaibi A (2013). Unconventional gas stimulation by creating synthetic sweetspot. Paper presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference and ExhibitionGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin SS, & Rajhans MN (2016). Application of integrated AHP and TOPSIS method for prioritization and selection of suppliers: case study in automotive industryGoogle Scholar
  3. Amini M, Chang S, & Malmir B (2016). A fuzzy MADM method for uncertain attributes using ranking distribution. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Industrial and Systems Engineering Research ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. Aslani A, Aslani F (2012) Application of fuzzy AHP approach to selection of organizational structure with consideration to contextual dimensions. Organizacija 45(5):246–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandara K, Ranjith P, Rathnaweera T, Perera M, Kumari W (2018) Thermally-induced mechanical behaviour of a single proppant under compression: insights into the long-term integrity of hydraulic fracturing in geothermal reservoirs. Measurement 120:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheremisinoff NP, & Davletshin A (2015). Hydraulic fracturing operations: handbook of environmental management practices: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  7. Daneshy AA (2009). Factors controlling the vertical growth of hydraulic fractures. Paper presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  8. Davarpanah A (2018a) Feasible analysis of reusing flowback produced water in the operational performances of oil reservoirs. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(35):35387–35395Google Scholar
  9. Davarpanah A (2018b) A feasible visual investigation for associative foam >⧹ polymer injectivity performances in the oil recovery enhancement European Polymer Journal 105:405–411.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2018.06.017
  10. Davarpanah A (2018c) The feasible visual laboratory investigation of formate fluids on the rheological properties of a shale formation International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1877-6
  11. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B, Jafari Behbahani T, Hemmati M (2018) Integrated production logging tools approach for convenient experimental individual layer permeability measurements in a multi-layered fractured reservoir Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology 8:743–751.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0422-3
  12. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2019) Mathematical modeling of injectivity damage with oil droplets in the waste produced water re-injection of the linear flow Eur Phys J Plus 134(4):180.  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12546-9
  13. Dustin, M. K., Bargar, J. R., Jew, A. D., Harrison, A. L., Joe-Wong, C., Thomas, D. L., ..., Maher, K. (2018). Shale kerogen: hydraulic fracturing fluid interactions and contaminant release. Energy Fuel, 32(9), 8966–8977Google Scholar
  14. East Jr LE, Grieser W, McDaniel B, Johnson B, Jackson R, & Fisher K (2004). Successful application of hydrajet fracturing on horizontal wells completed in a thick shale reservoir. Paper presented at the SPE Eastern Regional MeetingGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebadati, A., Davarpanah, A., Shahhoseini, A., & Ahmadi, P. (2019a). An experimental study to measure the required fresh water and treated water for drilling an unconventional shale reservoir. Int J Environ Sci Technol, 1–8Google Scholar
  16. Ebadati, A., Akbari, E., & Davarpanah, A. (2019b). An experimental study of alternative hot water alternating gas injection in a fractured model. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 37(3), 945–959.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598718815247
  17. Edwards RW, Doster F, Celia MA, Bandilla KW (2017) Numerical modeling of gas and water flow in shale gas formations with a focus on the fate of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Environ Sci Technol 51(23):13779–13787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gokdemir OM, Liu Y, Qu H, Cheng K, & Cheng Z (2013). New technique: multistage hydra-jet fracturing technology for effective stimulation on the first U-shape well in Chinese coal bed methane and case study. Paper presented at the Offshore Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagström EL, Adams JM (2012) Hydraulic fracturing: identifying and managing the risks. Environ Claims J 24(2):93–115.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2012.674414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsu C-H, Chang A-Y, Luo W (2017) Identifying key performance factors for sustainability development of SMEs–integrating QFD and fuzzy MADM methods. J Clean Prod 161:629–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khanaposhtani HF, Nikabadi MS, Eftekhari H, Aslani A (2016) A new decision making model based on factor analysis (FA), F-ANP, and F-ARAS for selecting and ranking maintenance strategies. Int J Bus Anal (IJBAN) 3(4):41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. King GE, & Durham D (2017). Chemicals in drilling, stimulation, and production Advances in Chemical Pollution, Environmental Management and Protection (Vol. 1, pp. 47–61): ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiran R, Teodoriu C, Dadmohammadi Y, Nygaard R, Wood D, Mokhtari M, Salehi S (2017) Identification and evaluation of well integrity and causes of failure of well integrity barriers (a review). J Nat Gas Sci Eng 45:511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirane K, Gosavi S, Ning J, & Sanz P (2017). Numerical modeling of the step rate test using fully coupled hydraulic fracturing capabilities. Paper presented at the 51st US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  25. Klejment P, Foltyn N, Kosmala A, & Dębski W (2018). Discrete element method as the numerical tool for the hydraulic fracturing modeling. Interdisciplinary approaches for sustainable development goals (pp. 217–235): Springer,Google Scholar
  26. Krietsch H, Gischig V, Evans K, Doetsch J, Dutler NO, Valley B, Amann F (2018) Stress measurements for an in situ stimulation experiment in crystalline rock: integration of induced seismicity, stress relief and hydraulic methods. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52:517–542 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laureiro-Martínez D, Brusoni S (2018) Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision-making: evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strateg Manag J 39(4):1031–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lei Q, Latham J-P, Tsang C-F (2017) The use of discrete fracture networks for modelling coupled geomechanical and hydrological behaviour of fractured rocks. Comput Geotech 85:151–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li Q, Xing H, Liu J, Liu X (2015) A review on hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoir. Petroleum 1(1):8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ma X, Ruggiero P (2018) Practical aspects of suspension plasma spray for thermal barrier coatings on potential gas turbine components. J Therm Spray Technol 27(4):591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDaniel BW, & Surjaatmadja JB (2009). Hydrajetting applications in horizontal completions to improve hydraulic fracturing stimulations and improve ROI. Paper presented at the SPE Eastern Regional MeetingGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer BR, & Bazan LW (2011). A discrete fracture network model for hydraulically induced fractures-theory, parametric and case studies. Paper presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  33. Nazari MA, Aslani A, Ghasempour R (2018) Analysis of solar farm site selection based on TOPSIS approach. Int J Social Ecol Sustain Dev (IJSESD) 9(1):12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pak A, Chan D (2008) Numerical modeling of hydraulic fracturing in oil sands. Scientia Iranica 15(5):516–535Google Scholar
  35. Panahpoori D, Dehdari B, Riazi M, & Parsaei R (2018). Visualization experiments on the impact of surfactant and nanoparticle on EOR potential of foam injection. Paper presented at the Saint Petersburg 2018Google Scholar
  36. Qin J, Liu X, Pedrycz W (2017) A multiple attribute interval type-2 fuzzy group decision making and its application to supplier selection with extended LINMAP method. Soft Comput 21(12):3207–3226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rafiee M, Soliman MY, & Pirayesh E (2012). Hydraulic fracturing design and optimization: a modification to zipper frac. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionGoogle Scholar
  38. Shahbazi K, Abdideh M, Hadipoor M (2017) Modelling hydraulic fracturing process in one of the Iranian southwest oil reservoirs. Appl Earth Sci 126(3):108–117.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03717453.2017.1322395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sumner AJ, Plata DL (2018) Halogenation chemistry of hydraulic fracturing additives under highly saline simulated subsurface conditions. Environ Sci Technol 52(16):9097–9107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sutra E, Spada M, Burgherr P (2017) Chemicals usage in stimulation processes for shale gas and deep geothermal systems: a comprehensive review and comparison. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas, L., Tang, H., Kalyon, D. M., Aktas, S., Arthur, J. D., Blotevogel, J., ..., Young, M. H. (2019). Toward better hydraulic fracturing fluids and their application in energy production: a review of sustainable technologies and reduction of potential environmental impacts. J Pet Sci Eng, 173, 793–803. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.09.056
  42. Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N., Evensen, D., Partridge, T., Hasell, A., Enders, C., ..., Bradshaw, M. (2017). Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang, 8(3):e450Google Scholar
  43. Toth W, Vacik H (2018) A comprehensive uncertainty analysis of the analytic hierarchy process methodology applied in the context of environmental decision making. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 25(5–6):142–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study (pp. 5–21): SpringerGoogle Scholar
  45. Vengosh A, Kondash A, Harkness J, Lauer N, Warner N, Darrah TH (2017) The geochemistry of hydraulic fracturing fluids. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 17:21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wangen M (2017) A 2D volume conservative numerical model of hydraulic fracturing. Comput Struct 182:448–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK, Ignatius J, Abad MD (2016) Sensitivity analysis in MADM methods: application of material selection. Eng Econ 27(4):382–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yin S, Xie R, Wu Z, Liu J, Ding W (2019) In situ stress heterogeneity in a highly developed strike-slip fault zone and its effect on the distribution of tight gases: a 3D finite element simulation study. Mar Pet Geol 99:75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu W, Sepehrnoori K (2013) Optimization of multiple hydraulically fractured horizontal wells in unconventional gas reservoirs. J Pet Eng 2013:1–16Google Scholar
  50. Zhang Q, Huang W, Hu Z, Zhou H, Lu X, Lin K, Xia X (2017) Study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing at different dip angles for the development of coalbed methane: a case study in the southeast part of Qinshui Basin, China. Int J Oil Gas Coal Technol 14(1–2):186–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhong Z, Deng R, Lv L, Fu X, Yu J (2018) Fracture mechanism of naturally cracked rock around an inverted U-shaped opening in a biaxial compression test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 103:242–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhu C, Takaya J, Iwasawa N (2015) Use of formate salts as a hydride and a CO2 source in PGeP-palladium complex-catalyzed hydrocarboxylation of allenes. Org Lett 17(7):1814–1817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhu Q, He W, Zhu J, Zhou Y, Chen L (2018) Investigation on interfacial fracture toughness of plasma-sprayed TBCs using a three-point bending method. Surf Coat Technol 353:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Afshin Davarpanah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reza Shirmohammadi
    • 2
  • Behnam Mirshekari
    • 1
  • Alireza Aslani
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Petroleum Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Renewable Energies and Environment, Faculty of New Sciences & TechnologiesUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations