Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 77:778 | Cite as

Development of efficiently coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical model to predict hydraulic fracture morphology in heavy oil reservoirs

  • Yongquan Hu
  • Qiang Wang
  • Jinzhou Zhao
  • Ziyi Guo
  • Yong Zhang
  • Chun Mao
Original Article
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the study involves examining the effect of heavy oil viscosity on fracture geometry in detail by establishing a heavy oil fracturing model and conventional fracturing model based on thermal–hydraulic–mechanical (THM) coupled theory, Walther viscosity model, and K–D–R temperature model. We consider viscosity and density within the heavy oil fracturing model as functions of pressure and temperature while that as constants within the conventional fracturing model. A heavy oil production well is set as an example to analyze the differences between the two models to account for the thermo-poro-elastic effect. The results show that temperature exhibits the most significant influence on the heavy oil viscosity while the influence of pressure is the least. In addition, a cooling area with a width of 0–1 m and varied length is generated near the fracture. The heavy oil viscosity increases sharply in this area, thereby indicating an area of viscosity increment. The heavy oil viscosity increases faster and is closer to wellbore, and a high viscosity increment reduces the mobility of the heavy oil and prevents the fracturing fluid from entering into the reservoir. The special viscosity distribution results in significant differences in pore pressure, oil saturation, and changing trends between these two models. In the heavy oil reservoir fracturing model, the thermal effect completely exceeds the influence of pore elasticity, and the values of the fracture length, width, and static pressure exceed those calculated in the conventional fracturing model. Thus, a comparison of the measured values indicates that the results obtained by considering viscosity as a function of temperature and pressure are more accurate. Therefore, the results of this study are expected to provide good guidelines for the design of heavy oil fracturing.

Keywords

Viscous oil fracturing Thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling Viscosity Fracture morphology Conventional fracturing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a major program of the China National Petroleum Corporation (2016E-01).

References

  1. Ben-Naceur K, Stephenson P (1985) Models of heat transfer in hydraulic fracturing. In: SPE 13865 presented at the Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bian XB, Zhang SC, Zhang JC, WangF (2012) A new method to optimize the fracture geometry of a frac-packed well in unconsolidated sandstone heavy oil reservoirs. Sci China Tech Sci 55:1725–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blot MA, Masse L, Medlin WL (1987) Temperature analysis in hydraulic fracturing. SPE J 39(11):1389–1397Google Scholar
  4. Charlez PA (1997) Rock mechanics: petroleum application. Editions Technip, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen HY, Teufel LW, Lee RL (1995) Coupled fluid flow and Geomechanics in reservoir study-I, theory and governing equations. In: SPE 30752 presented at the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Cipolla CL, Warpinski NR, Mayerhofer MJ (2010) The relationship between fracture complexity, reservoir properties, and fracture treatment design. In: SPE 115769 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. England AH, Green AE (1963) Some two-dimensional punch and crack problems in classical elasticity. Math Proc Camb Philos Soc 59:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feng W, Patrick W, Li M, Hou Z, Zhou L (2016) Numerical study on hydraulic fracturing in tight gas formation in consideration of thermal effects and THM coupled processes. J Petrol Sci Eng 146:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ganesh C (1997) Heavy oil reservoir management. In: SPE 39233 presented at the American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro, RrazilGoogle Scholar
  10. Geertsma J, de Klerk F (1969) A rapid method of predicting width and extent of hydraulically induced fractures. J Pet Technol 21:1571–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gou Y, Zhou L, Zhao X, Hou MZ, Were P (2015) Numerical study on hydraulic fracturing in different types of georeservoirs with consideration of H2M-coupled leak-off effects. Environ Earth Sci 73(10):6019–6034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guo J, Liu Y (2014a) Opening of natural fracture and its effect on leakoff behavior in fractured gas reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 18:324–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo J, Liu Y (2014b) A comprehensive model for simulating fracturing fluid leakoff in natural fractures. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 21:977–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu L, Winterfeld PH, Fakcharoenphol P, Wu YS (2013) A novel fully-coupled flow and geomechanics model in enhanced geothermal reservoirs. J Petrol Sci Eng 107:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelkar S, Lewis K, Karra S, Zyvoloski G, Rapaka S, Viswanathan H, Mishra P, Chu S, Coblentz D, Pawar R (2014) A simulator for modeling coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical processes in subsurface geological media. Int J Rock Mech Min 70:569e580Google Scholar
  16. Lamb H (1932) Hydrodynamics. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Li SB, Li X, Zhang DX (2016) A fully coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical,three-dimensional model for hydraulic stimulation treatments. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 34:64–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luo YY, Cheng LS, Huang SJ (2011) Mathematical model for transient flow of non-newtonian heavy oil with dynamic radius and variable viscosity. Chin J Comput Phys 28(6):869–874Google Scholar
  19. Noorishad J, Tsang CF, Witherspoon PA (1984) Coupled thermal-hydraulic-mechanical phenomena in saturated fractured porous rocks. Numer Approach J Geophys Res Solid Earth (1978–2012) 89(B12):10365–10373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nordgren RP (1972) Propagation of a vertical hydraulic fracture. Soc Pet Eng J 12(4):306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nygren A, Ghassemi A (2006) Poroelastic and Thermoelastic Efficts of Injection into a Geothermal Reservoir. ARMA/USRMS 06-1053 presented at the U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Golden, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Pak A, Chan DH (2004) A fulled implicit single phase T–H–M fracture model for modelling hydraulic fracturing in oil sands. J Can Pet Technol 43(6):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perkins TK, Kern LR (1961) Width of Hydraulic Fractures. JPetTechnol 13(9):937–949Google Scholar
  24. Ramos-Pallares F, Lin H, Yarranton HW, Taylor SD (2017) Prediction of the liquid viscosity of characterized crude oils by use of the generalized Walther. modelSPE J 22(5):1487–1505Google Scholar
  25. Ran Q, Li S (1997) Study on dynamic models of reservoir parameters in the coupled simulation of multiphase flow and reservoir deformation. Petrol Explor Dev 24(3):61–65Google Scholar
  26. Ren L, Ran L, Zhao J, Wu L (2017) Cluster spacing optimal design for staged fracturing in horizontal shale gas wells based on optimal SRV. Nat Gas Ind 37(4):69–79Google Scholar
  27. Settari A, Michael P (1986) Development and testing of a pseudo-three-dimensional model hydraulic fracture geometry. In: SPE 10505 presented at the Reservoir Simulation Symposium, New Orleans, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas W, Gurpreet S, Wheeler MF (2014) Pressurized-fracture propagation using a phase-field approach coupled to a reservoir simulator. In: SPE 168597 presented at the Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Walther C (1931) The evaluation of viscosity data. Erdol Teer 7:382–384Google Scholar
  30. Wang Z, Li Z, Lei W, Li Y (2004) Inverting dynamic parameters of fractures by fracturing pressure. Nat Gas Ind 24(1):77–79Google Scholar
  31. Weng X, Kresse O, Cohen CE, Wu R, Gu H (2011) Modeling of hydraulic-fracture-network propagation in a naturally fractured formation. SPE Prod Oper 26(4):368–380Google Scholar
  32. Wheeler JA (1962) Analytical calculations of heat transfer from fractures. In: SPE 2494 presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Whitsitt NF, Dysart GH (1970) The effect of temperature on stimulation design. JPT 4:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang L, Shen DH, Wang XD, Zhao LM (2003) The effect of temperature on the relative permeability and residual oil saturation. Petrol Explor Dev 30(2):97–99Google Scholar
  35. Yarranton HW, Van Dorp J, Veerlaan M (2013) Wanted dead or live:crude-cocktail viscosity—a Pseudocomponent method to predict the viscosity of dead oils, live oils, and mixtures. J Can Pet Technol 52(3):176–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yu L (2001) The distribution of heavy oil resources in the world and the current situation and prospect of exploitation technology. Spec Oil Gas Reserv 8(2):98–103Google Scholar
  37. Zhao N, Mclennan JD, Deo MD (2011) Morphology and growth of fractures in unconventional reservoirs. In: SPE 147509 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou L, Hou Z (2013) A new numerical 3D-model for simulation of hydraulic fracturing in consideration of hydro-mechanical coupling effects. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhou L, Hou Z, Gou Y, Li M (2014) Numerical investigation of a low-efficient hydraulic fracturing operation in a tight gas reservoir in the North German Basin. J Pet Sci Eng 120:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhou L, Gou Y, Hou MZ, Were P (2015) Numerical modeling of fracture propa- gation with arbitrary orientation through fluid injection in tight gas reservoirs with combined XFEM and FVM. Environ Earth Sci 73:5801–5813CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yongquan Hu
    • 1
  • Qiang Wang
    • 1
  • Jinzhou Zhao
    • 1
  • Ziyi Guo
    • 2
  • Yong Zhang
    • 2
  • Chun Mao
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Oil-Gas Reservoir Geology and ExploitationSouthwest Petroleum UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Engineering Technology Research Institute of Qinghai Oilfield CompanyDun HuangChina

Personalised recommendations