It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Mahu oilfield is currently the largest tight conglomerate reservoir in the world, where Ma-131 and Ma-18 plays are the first two commercially developed reservoirs. In order to reduce the cost and explore the best fracturing parameters, field experiments have been conducted in these two plays since 2017. Types of proppant and fracturing fluid, the slickwater ratio, and the fracture spacing are mainly changed for comparison, and fracturing effects are evaluated to establish a reference for developing neighboring plays in the Mahu oilfield. This paper summarizes the fracturing parameters and production histories of 74 wells in Ma-131 and Ma-18 plays during four years of field operations. Firstly, results indicate that silica sands perform similar to ceramics in the Ma-131 play where the reservoir depth is smaller than 3300 m; however, in the Ma-18 play where the reservoir is deeper than 3500 m, increasing the sand volume by 1.1–1.2 times still cannot reach the production in wells using ceramics. Secondly, when the fracture spacing is reduced, both oil production and water flowback become even smaller in wells using sands than those using ceramics; this is due to the increase of closure pressure and decrease of fluid volume per cluster respectively. Thirdly, when the crosslinked guar is replaced by the slickwater, no obvious change in oil production is noticed even though the volume of fracturing fluid is almost doubled; limited lengths of propped fractures due to the poor proppant-carrying ability of slickwater likely offset the production enhancement from the decrease of formation damage by slickwater. This paper summarizes learnings from the field experiments during the four-year development of the Mahu oilfield, and help guide the optimization of hydraulic fracturing parameters for future wells.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 CNPC Xinjiang Oilfield Company, Karamay, China
2 China University of Petroleum at Beijing, State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Resources and Prospecting, Beijing, China (GRID:grid.411519.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0644 5174)
3 CNPC Xinjiang Oilfield Company, Karamay, China (GRID:grid.411519.9)